Disposing of illegal liquor By Unknown – Vintage periods, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5119649

The Story Of Prohibition

When Prohibition became law in the US in 1920, it was expected that, albeit reluctantly, the citizenry would simply obey. This was no mere law, after all; it was an Amendment to the Constitution, the very document that defined the United States as a nation, and hence an attempt to willfully modify that definition.

This was the culmination of decades of effort by the so-called “dry” movement, combining social progressives in the Prohibition, Democrat, and Republican parties as well as a large number of Temperance groups, especially the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, all coordinated by the Anti-Saloon League. The League was based in the Southern states and rural districts of the North, especially Methodists, Baptists, Disciples, and Congregationalists and other Protestant ministers and congregations.

The League’s ethos was to concentrate on the passage of legislation, not on whether or not it had the desired effect. After all, if the laws they passed were ignored or ineffective in a few cases, it was simply a matter of sufficiently draconian enforcement and perhaps some complimentary legislation.

In a consequence foreseen and publicly predicted by the leading medical examiners of the day, illegal alcohol consumption exploded in the face of the law. Not only did you have those who actually wanted to drink, but there was considerable opposition to the laws because the use of a Constitutional Amendment was seen as both excessive and social engineering.

It faced some strident opposition, too. Civil Libertarians, Brewers, those alarmed by the rise in criminal activity and organized crime, those distressed by the mounting death toll and number of emergency admissions resulting from the consumption of Methyl or ‘Wood’ alcohol, those unhappy over the tenfold increase in arrests for Drink-driving since Prohibition, and those discommoded by the loss of the tax revenues gained from alcohol sales, all pushed hard against the law. Since several of those movements were reactionary, they only grew in strength as the unwanted effects of the legislation mounted.

The reaction of those who backed Involuntary Temperance was to ‘spike’ the chemicals that were being used in industrial alcohol to make it even more poisonous, and if one then died as a result of drinking booze with deadly additives, having consumed it in full knowledge of the risks, that was the individual’s choice and tough luck. A chemical ‘arms race’ began, in the summer of 1926, between the chemists attempting to poison the ‘wells’ and those looking for industrial processes to at least minimize the dangers in a manner that was cheap enough that the Bootleggers would institute it.

Nicholas Murray Butler, the President of Columbia University became so disenchanted with Prohibition (and all the attendant social ills) that he decided to seek the nomination of the Republican Party on an anti-Prohibition platform. Already a strident opponent of the legislation – he didn’t oppose regulating saloons, but doing so by Constitutional Amendment, he said, was overkill – it was his contention that after seven years of the ‘social experiment’, “any idiot could see that Prohibition had been an enormous mistake”, one that could only be rectified by replacing the leadership that had brought the country to this position.

Ultimately, he failed to secure the nomination – in fact, he didn’t even come close, and doesn’t even rate mention as a candidate on Wikipedia’s page on the convention – and the nomination (and ultimately the Presidency) was claimed by Herbert Hoover, who promised economic prosperity and endorsed Prohibition as an “experiment noble in purpose”.

Hoover, despite this public endorsement of the policy, was not unlike the general public in his behavior, though he did not need to stoop to visiting a speakeasy; instead, he regularly paid social calls to the Belgian Embassy, which was technically on Belgian soil and not bound by US law; as a result, he could drink legally there and be guaranteed good-quality alcohol as well.

Did Prohibition succeed? Even today, that’s arguable. It did cut overall alcohol consumption in half, and did achieve a lasting reduction of 30-40% even after the repeal of the legislation. And yet, the increase in the number of fatalities and collaterally impacted people argued that while fewer people were drinking, those who were were consuming vastly greater quantities.

Every passing year saw support for the law eroded while opposition grew; it was inevitable that it would be repealed. Ultimately, the citizens of the United States told those in power that they would define the social and cultural nature of the country, and would resist any effort to have a definition foisted upon them, however well-meaning it may have been.

RPG Relevance I – The Official Rules

And that brings me to RPGs – which is what this blog is all about, after all.

A broken rule is like Prohibition: while it won’t be ignored by everyone, there will be enough people willing to do so that the rule will be largely recognized as a failure.

There will be an overwhelming temptation to ‘repeal’ the bad rule by creating and implementing a House Rule. And, a proactive GM is likely to be out in front of the players on the issue, possibly issuing his replacement rule(s) even before the official version has appeared in the course of play.

RPG Relevance II – House Rules

The institution of a House Rule is also not dissimilar to the imposition of the Volstead Act (which was the key legislation permitting the enforcement of Prohibition).

Each such rule has two inherent broad premises: that the affected rules need to be changed, and that this house rule is the change that needs to be made, or at least a step in the right direction.

If both premises are accepted by the constituency – the players and GM – then the rule will be accepted and will then stand or fall on its merits. If it fails, it will eventually be supplanted by something else, hopefully addressing the failures in the House Rule – but the option of falling back to the official rule is almost certainly a last resort.

If one or both premises are not accepted, then the House Rule is on shaky ground; the best that it can hope to achieve is a sort of armed neutrality, a grudging acknowledgment that however great a failure it may be, it at least is no worse than the original rule.

Responsibility

The responsibility for ensuring that the House Rule addresses a real problem, and that the House Rule represents a genuine improvement in the situation, belongs to the GM. And part of that responsibility comes down to public relations, to the GM selling the players both his definition of the problem and the solution.

It’s actually one of the tenets of modern advertising, especially of products like cosmetics and hair care, that a successful advertisement will create the problem in the minds of the audience and then ‘sell’ them the solution. This creates the desire for the product that translates into sales.

How should the GM address that responsibility?

The Ideal Case

Let’s start by looking at the ideal case, when you have time to prepare properly. In the perfect world, there are 11 steps to the process that I use:

1. Structure
2. Allow Time
3. Justification
4. Make Your Case
5. Failure Criteria
6. Player Copies
7. First Draft
8. Test-run (optional)
9. Preserve Rules separately to Justification and Failure Criteria
10. Schedule A Review (optional)
11. Fall-back Plan
    

    1. Structure

    Always collect and document your House Rules in a structured way, to make it as easy as possible to (a) find something when you need to, and (b) explain them to a new player if you need to. I use the chapters of the core rulebook as my starting point, but I know other people who use the page numbers. If there are multiple core rulebooks it’s always Player’s book first, GM’s guide second, and supplements thereafter including an abbreviation of the name. All these serve as a prefix; the sequential rule number serves as a suffix. That all gets followed by the actual rule. In monster guides, such as the Monster Manual, each letter of the alphabet is considered a separate chapter for these purposes.

    That means that an entry might read “17-004”, which means “Chapter 17, Rule number 4.” If there are only 12 chapters in the PHB (or equivalent) for the game system, you know that this refers to the 5th chapter of the DMG. That tells you where the original rule being modified is, and follows it up with the changed rule.

    You don’t have to use this system. You might decide that an abbreviation of the rulebook name is always appropriate, for example, and the chapter number always refers to “within that rulebook” (that would make the same rule listed above, “DMG-05-004”). The important thing is to have an official repository for your house rules and to give it a structure that enhances its usefulness.

    2. Allow Time

    Never be afraid to end a game session early or start one late if that gives you time to discuss the House Rule with the players to their satisfaction. NEVER implement a permanent House Rule without such discussion if you have any other choice. The caveat is necessary because of the “non-ideal case” when a rules change is needed “on-the-fly”, which is a whole separate can of worms to be opened a little later.

    3. Justification

    House Rules are always justified in the mind of the author. The key lesson from Prohibition in this context is that this isn’t good enough. The ‘public’, i.e. the other players (and, if not the author, the GM) need to be convinced not only that there is a problem, but that this is the solution. And that justification will need to be reiterated and reviewed from time to time, so write it down.

    4. Make Your Case

    Then, once you have it in writing, make your case to the others. Discuss the problem and the proposed solution until everyone is satisfied.

    5. Failure Criteria

    It’s not always easy to do, but I always like to have some failure criteria based on the originally-defined problem that justifies the House Rule in the first place. Start with the reference number so that you always know which rule you’re talking about. For example: “DMG-05-004: This rule will be a failure if repeated Skill Checks take more than 10 seconds to resolve.” Or perhaps you’re a little more generous, and make it a 15- or 20-second limit. This example would be the appropriate sort of criteria if the original justification for the House Rule is “Skill Checks take too long to resolve” – though I would prefer a hard number rather than the somewhat vague “too long”. “Skill Checks take >1 min to resolve” is a serious justification because it enables a specific comparison, identifies a specific problem.

    It also means that if the author of the rule is incorrect in their analysis of the cause of the problem, and the house rule is misdirected as a result, it will quickly become apparent when the House Rule doesn’t improve the situation. It might be that the real problem is in the way character sheets are written, for example, and the time taken to resolve a skill check is merely a symptom.

    6. Player Copies

    Whenever possible, copies of the House Rules should always be provided to the players in their preferred format (electronic or hardcopy). In today’s digital age, drop-box can be the perfect solution, sharing a folder containing the House Rules with everyone and updating everyone’s copies instantaneously.

    7. First Draft

    House Rules should always be considered a first draft, subject to revision. It can be presumed that the official rules have undergone considerable play-testing to iron out any bugs – it doesn’t always happen, but it is to be hoped! House rules certainly don?t undergo that sort of vetting, so it’s always prudent to leave the door open to further revisions or even a complete repeal in the future.

    8. Test-run (optional)

    Where possible, it’s a good idea to schedule a test-run of the new rule for the players to try it out for themselves. This should be as simple and free of added complications as possible – the focus should be on getting players familiar with the changes to the process before they have to use the rule for real. At the very least, you want everyone to at least remember that there is a House Rule – a problem that occurs more often than people think.

    9. Preserve Rules separately to Justification and Failure Criteria

    The justification and failure criteria should always be recorded permanently for future reference, but you don’t want the rules themselves to be cluttered with that information. Nor is keeping them in a separate section of the same document a great idea, because it’s always a pain to go back-and-forth in a document; you want to be able to read them both at the same time. For me, that means that there should always be two separate documents: the rules themselves, and notes concerning the rules. Sometimes there will be a third document with one or more examples, again so that the rules and the examples can be viewed at the same time.

    It’s to permit cross-referencing between these separate documents that the structure is so important.

    10. Schedule A Review (optional)

    I always like to schedule a time for the House Rule to be reviewed, usually in 6 or 8 game sessions time – more if it’s an infrequently used rule, perhaps less if it is frequently used. This is a simple process of asking, “is the rule having the effect intended, and if not, what needs to change?”, and the follow-up question, “have there been any secondary consequences of the rules change noticed, and if so, are they beneficial or not?” The goal is to determine whether the House Rule should be confirmed as it now stands, needs further modification, or needs to be replaced completely.

    11. Fall-back Plan

    It only makes sense, when tinkering under the hood of something as complex as a set of RPG rules, that you have some sort of fallback plan in case it all goes horribly wrong. This can be as simple as “revert to the rules as written” or even “GM to make ad-hock rulings based on the procedures for resolving similar problems within the rules” – the latter being especially useful as a guideline when the problem is a game situation that the rules, as they currently stand, did not envisage.

    Another situation that needs to be covered as part of the fallback plan is how the GM intends to respond to suspected or verified cases of players rorting the rule. This doesn’t happen often, and quite often players knowing that such a contingency plan is in place is sufficient deterrent. Critical to how such situations are to be handled is that non-offending players should not be penalized for the actions of a single rogue; the easiest way to achieve this dispassion is by assuming that all such cases are actually failures of the rules and not a breach of trust by the player. It can be argued (and often is by min-maxers) that exploiting an opportunity given in the rules is only smart playing, after all, and that players are under no obligation to conform to the GM’s assumptions of the limitations of their characters’ abilities.

    In fact, it?s mostly to avoid knee-jerk overreactions that a plan should be made in advance.

    There is a broader principle here that also deserves to at least be mentioned: whenever a GM creates a House Rule, or (for that matter) reads an official rule, he should always ask himself “How can this be exploited or abused?” No GM will ever foresee every possible circumstance, but every such situation that is anticipated can be prepared for, making the GM that much better-equipped to run the game.

Rules On The Fly

A lot of the time, it will emerge in the course of play that a rule or even rules subsystem isn’t working the way it should. Assuming that this is a situation not anticipated by the contingency plans of a House Rule, it is necessary to implement an adjusted variation on the process spelt out above, incorporating some additional steps and altering others:

1. On-The-Spot Innovation
2. Write It Down Immediately
3. Schedule Time
4. Discussion – Quick Fix vs Substance
5. Formalize
6. Integrate
7. Failure Criteria
8. Introduce
9. Player Copies
10. First Draft
11. Test-run (optional)
12. Preserve Rules separate to Justification and Failure Criteria
13. Schedule A Review
14. Fall-back Plan
    

    1. On-The-Spot Innovation

    An ad-hock solution needs to be devised right now to keep the game moving.

    2. Write It Down Immediately

    You can have the best of intentions to deal with the rules problem in a more substantial way as soon as play is over for the day, but the reality is that there is always a lot to do after play. You have character intentions and actions to document, GM plans in response to those actions to record (and to mull over), and other elements of game prep for next time to plan and schedule. On top of that, it’s always easy to underestimate the degree of mental effort involved in GMing, and the exhaustion that can follow. I’ve been doing this for more than 30 years, and it’s still a shock to me after every game session just how much effort I have put into actually running the game.

    Writing the ad-hock solution down immediately serves multiple purposes. It documents the ad-hock solution for reference throughout the rest of the game session; functions as a reminder of the problem, and that the rules in question need to be revisited; and it can even signpost the ultimate rules solution, or at least, the foundations of one. Not doing so opens the door to misunderstandings and a recurrence of the problem. Should these consequences recur a number of times, the players may even lose faith in the ability of the GM to run the campaign. That’s an extreme outcome, but why risk it when there are so many benefits to not doing so?

    3. Schedule Time

    I don’t like to interrupt play to discuss the rules problem – hence the need for an immediate ad-hock solution – but am perfectly willing to end play early, or – if I need more time to consider the situation – to delay the start of the next game session, in order to do so. This signals to the players that an ad-hock solution is not considered good enough, that you want certainty both for them and for your campaign. This is one time when the GM needs to be a leader.

    4. Discussion – Quick Fix vs Substance

    During that discussion time, the key question to be answered is “In what way is the quick fix an inadequate solution to the longer-term problem.” It almost certainly won’t be substantive enough, but it may well prove a workable foundation to a longer-term solution. I also like to ask if anyone else has any suggestions for dealing with the issue, and it can be informative to glance at the contingency plans that have been devised for any similar problems, if there are any. Above all, since the need for a House Rule has become obvious, a decision has to be made regarding what the priority for that House Rule should be. Is it more comprehensiveness? A more subtle nuance of outcome? Giving players more control over the way their choices of action will be interpreted? Faster resolution?

    To some extent, this will be made clear by the nature of the problem identified in the course of play, but it’s important to try and look beyond the obvious and identify a root cause for the problem if you can – otherwise you can end up merely treating a symptom, without addressing the real issue.

    Take Notes.

    5. Formalize

    With this guidance, you are in a strong position to draft a House Rule that achieves the objective (and may achieve one or more of the other possible objectives as a side bonus), based on the ad-hock ruling or upon a rule proposal made in the course of the discussion. This may represent a modification to the existing rule, or a refinement of the ad-hock rule, or even be something completely original. Where it derives from doesn’t matter. The main activity in this step is to formalize the thrust of the discussion into a ‘formal’ rule, with all attendant tables and rolls defined. You even have the notes as a reminder to do so – because the odds are that it will be some days (possibly even weeks) after the game play-day that you can actually turn your attention to the problem. You may have needed to look up other game systems to see how they handle the problem, for example, if those rules are to form the template for your campaign’s solution.

    6. Integrate

    It is always easier to work on a rule in isolation, without the distraction of other rules. This facilitates simple editing and sharing processes and rapid evolution of the rule. There comes a time, however, when the modified rule has to be considered in a wider context, a bigger picture.

    In particular, I always try to keep unapproved and draft House Rules separate from the ones that have actually been accepted and implemented within the campaign. Integration is when all of these processes begin – it’s the act of incorporating the rule into the list of approved House Rules, but in a format that enables it to stand out from the rest. It might be in a different color, or be in boldface or italics, or both, but the rule needs to be seen and considered surrounded by the other House Rules.

    Is it longer? Is it more complex? Does it require more explanation? Are there any unwanted interactions with existing House Rules? And, in particular, are there any unwanted consequences that require management through separate House Rules?

    A rule changing the number of hit points that a character has seems straightforward. But there are inherent assumptions built into that number regarding the average amount of damage inflicted in a combat round, the number of combat rounds that a character can survive, the effectiveness of enchantment in weapons, and so on. Even if you take all of those into account, there are also questions about the relative effectiveness of attack spells vs physical combat. That’s why having a specific purpose to be achieved by the House Rule is so important. Without it, too many such decisions are made ‘in the dark.’

    7. Failure Criteria

    We are increasingly going to find ourselves on familiar ground from this point in the process onwards. The importance of failure criteria and the setting of such criteria are unchanged, for example.

    8. Introduce

    One stage that should be a lot easier is bringing players on-board and getting them up to speed (perhaps those should be the other way around?) The House Rule has already been Justified, and consensus reached on the basic “shape” of that rule. So, unless you have completely reinvented the wheel or otherwise gone “off-script,” all that remains of the Justification stage is introducing the new Rule to the players and selling them on the notion that this is the solution to all of their problems – at least, to the ones that interrupted your last gaming session.

    9. Player Copies

    Assuming that the rule gets approval, the next step has to be getting everyone a fresh copy of the compiled House Rules – one that incorporates the new rule – as usual.

    10. First Draft

    Also, as above, the House Rule should never be considered completely finalized. House Rules are always a work in progress.

    11. Test-run (optional)

    As usual, it’s also a good idea to walk each of your players through an example or two of the new rule at this time, for three reasons: first, to make a final check for bugs or kinks; second, to familiarize everyone with the practicalities of implementing the new House Rule; and third, to imprint the presence of the new rule onto everyone’s psyche. It’s very easy, in the heat of play, to fall into doing things the same old way that you have become used to. Avoiding the complication of needing to interrupt and back-up real play, or fumbling around with the mere presence of the new rule, is worth the investment of a few minutes at the start of the game session in which they are introduced.

    12. Preserve Rules separate to Justification and Failure Criteria

    This advice is unchanged.

    13. Schedule A Review

    And ditto this advice.

    14. Fall-back Plan

    And ditto once again.

Both processes should take about the same length of time to implement, usually somewhere between 10 and 45 minutes, all told – though exceptional cases may go faster or take more time.