My Ugly Post

Where I Go Negative
I love this hobby, I really do. I am grateful for everything it has given me; hours of enjoyment, dozens of friends, and more. I started this blog to express that (and how much I like the Original Game), so I really try to stick to saying positive things about this hobby. I am breaking with this policy in this post because what I want to say seems important and perhaps may be useful to consider despite the tone (which may seem negative).
One of the reasons I like White Box so much is the choices it presents, the limits to its rules - some might say "gaps" - the result of which is to force the referee to make a number of decisions about the game being played at their table. "Rulings not rules" - this empowers the referee, but can, with a poor referee at the table, lead to a bad game, one in which the players have little fun and perhaps are even taken advantage of. It also means that there is little in the way of standardized play - something Gary Gygax noted and sought to remedy with the Advanced game rules.
Many games written post White Box strive to tighten the loose ends, cover as many possibilities as possible and give players a "complete" set of rules that require no rulings or "making stuff up" on the part of the referee. Some systems are multi-volume with many official supplements together totaling thousands of pages of rules. Often the supplemental rules are exceptions that break the core rules in some circumstances. Much of the supplemental material in some systems seems aimed at increasing PC diversity to the delight of players (and making $$ for the publisher), some of whom seem to never tire of "trying out the latest". The result can be that while the player may know just the rules as they pertain to their PC, the referee using such system either must master all the available material or run a campaign where new rule material is constantly being thrown at them by players, material that may cause the referee to adjust "on the fly" and may in fact not really be to their liking. The result can become a bit like "herding cats" for a referee who tries to accommodate such players.
Rather than let this happen and potentially spoil the fun for all, I think some thought could go into the way a campaign handles their rules. Communication between players and referee about the kind of campaign they will all enjoy together can go a long way towards solving potential issues. The game system choice available today is quite large and it is both easy to find a game system that excites you and difficult to agree on the "best" system for a group. With choice comes diversity. Compromise may be necessary.
I am all for players knowing the rules, although it is certainly possible to have an enjoyable time with a group playing a game which is only well known by the referee, who is teaching the rules by playing. It is only by knowing the rules and mastering them, that players are able to anticipate their odds of success, develop specific strategies and demonstrate skill as players. The game is ultimately a social contract between all who participate and all are entitled to a fun time. A referee who frequently changes the rules during a game can expect to lose players. A rule system that constantly changes the rules with new supplemental materials can expect to lose referees who tire of players who spring something new on them every session. I personally approach every game as if the referee has total right to make it their own... I understand that is a cornerstone of "Old School" play.
The days of everyone in the hobby playing one game are behind us. If we really think about it, even White Box was never one game as each referee ran the game differently. Today the hobby is faced with "an embarrassment of riches", a situation causing problems of its own. Ron Edwards writes an essay, which appears at the end of his game Sorcerer, titled "System Does Matter". He is correct. What matters even more may be that friends agree on what system they will play together. Shared fun is the essence of the hobby, with the emphasis on "shared".