Your comment itself gives a counter-example, when it refers to “the sort of person who likes to argue over rules”. Generally this sort of person likes rules. The post you are responding to is another counter-example, Zach writes that “Rules are a critical social technology for helping people live and work together in peace”, which sounds like the words of someone who likes rules. Another counter-example is that I like rules. I am not a rule-maximizer, I don’t like all rules in all contexts, and I have other values, but in general I like rules more than my peers.
We see in various aspects of leisure, where people are less constrained by instrumental concerns, that some people like rules. There are “rules-heavy” and “rules-light” RPGs, and there are people who prefer each. Some forms of music and dance and other art have more rules than others. Some prefer poems that follow rules of rhyme and meter, others prefer free verse poetry. Some prefer complex sports, others prefer to play tag.
I disagree that if everybody was good and smart, we wouldn’t need rules. When good and smart people play chess with each other, they still follow the rules of chess. When good and smart people trade with each other, they still follow property rules. In a world where only good and smart people drive, they would be faster and safer if there were still rules for what side of the road to drive on, who has right of way, how to overtake, etc. In the recently viral red/blue pill hypothetical, where blue pill takers die if less than 50% of people take the blue pill, the risk of death is lower if there is a rule about what pill to take.
One reason not to have rules in the real world is the enforcement cost. In a world where everyone is good, that cost is lower, so we might have more rules. On the other hand, one reason to have rules in the real world is that people make bad decisions. In a world where everyone is smart, there are fewer bad decisions, so we might have fewer rules. And in a world where everyone is good and smart, everyone would agree with me that $SYSTEM is the best way to run the world, haha, which has $IMPLICATIONS for the number of rules. But I don’t think that means no rules.
There are “rules-heavy” and “rules-light” RPGs, and there are people who prefer each.
Hmm, I think that this is not a good example. I like “rules-heavy” RPGs (indeed, I think that designers and fans of “rules-light” RPGs are very often thoroughly confused about what the consequences of “rules-lightness” actually are). But the “rules” of an RPG and the kinds of “rules” that I think @quetzal_rainbow’s comment is talking about are not really the same thing.
The “rules” of an RPG are mostly not constraints that prevent players from doing things, but rather mechanisms that enable players to do things. (For example, the 3rd edition of D&D has rules for crafting magic items; the 5th edition of D&D has no such rules. The effect of this is not that players in 5e are more free and less constrained than players in 3e. The effect, rather, is that players in 3e can do something that players in 5e generally cannot.)
Of course there are some rules in an RPG that are mostly constraints… but, well, those are also the rules that people are least likely to like. (Although they may be necessary in order for the game as a whole to be enjoyable! In this, they mirror the sorts of rules we’re most likely to encounter in real life.)
I’m happy with the example of rules-heavy/crunchy RPGs as evidence that some people like rules, but I agree it is not a good evidence for whether people like constraints. I don’t know what @quetzal_rainbow might have meant by “nobody likes rules”, other than the surface meaning. Maybe they will clarify. I wouldn’t have replied to a statement like “nobody likes to be constrained by complex rules that are costly to follow and have no benefits”, for example, but that’s not what they said.
I completely agree that rules can be mechanisms that enable people to do things. For example, many social partner dances have rules about how the dancers move and dance together. At first glance these look like pure constraints. However, they are also enabling mechanisms for joint movements that otherwise would not work (at all, as well, as easily, etc.) in partnered freestyle. This is one of the things I like about rules.
I disagree that nobody likes rules.
Your comment itself gives a counter-example, when it refers to “the sort of person who likes to argue over rules”. Generally this sort of person likes rules. The post you are responding to is another counter-example, Zach writes that “Rules are a critical social technology for helping people live and work together in peace”, which sounds like the words of someone who likes rules. Another counter-example is that I like rules. I am not a rule-maximizer, I don’t like all rules in all contexts, and I have other values, but in general I like rules more than my peers.
We see in various aspects of leisure, where people are less constrained by instrumental concerns, that some people like rules. There are “rules-heavy” and “rules-light” RPGs, and there are people who prefer each. Some forms of music and dance and other art have more rules than others. Some prefer poems that follow rules of rhyme and meter, others prefer free verse poetry. Some prefer complex sports, others prefer to play tag.
I disagree that if everybody was good and smart, we wouldn’t need rules. When good and smart people play chess with each other, they still follow the rules of chess. When good and smart people trade with each other, they still follow property rules. In a world where only good and smart people drive, they would be faster and safer if there were still rules for what side of the road to drive on, who has right of way, how to overtake, etc. In the recently viral red/blue pill hypothetical, where blue pill takers die if less than 50% of people take the blue pill, the risk of death is lower if there is a rule about what pill to take.
One reason not to have rules in the real world is the enforcement cost. In a world where everyone is good, that cost is lower, so we might have more rules. On the other hand, one reason to have rules in the real world is that people make bad decisions. In a world where everyone is smart, there are fewer bad decisions, so we might have fewer rules. And in a world where everyone is good and smart, everyone would agree with me that $SYSTEM is the best way to run the world, haha, which has $IMPLICATIONS for the number of rules. But I don’t think that means no rules.
Hmm, I think that this is not a good example. I like “rules-heavy” RPGs (indeed, I think that designers and fans of “rules-light” RPGs are very often thoroughly confused about what the consequences of “rules-lightness” actually are). But the “rules” of an RPG and the kinds of “rules” that I think @quetzal_rainbow’s comment is talking about are not really the same thing.
The “rules” of an RPG are mostly not constraints that prevent players from doing things, but rather mechanisms that enable players to do things. (For example, the 3rd edition of D&D has rules for crafting magic items; the 5th edition of D&D has no such rules. The effect of this is not that players in 5e are more free and less constrained than players in 3e. The effect, rather, is that players in 3e can do something that players in 5e generally cannot.)
Of course there are some rules in an RPG that are mostly constraints… but, well, those are also the rules that people are least likely to like. (Although they may be necessary in order for the game as a whole to be enjoyable! In this, they mirror the sorts of rules we’re most likely to encounter in real life.)
I’m happy with the example of rules-heavy/crunchy RPGs as evidence that some people like rules, but I agree it is not a good evidence for whether people like constraints. I don’t know what @quetzal_rainbow might have meant by “nobody likes rules”, other than the surface meaning. Maybe they will clarify. I wouldn’t have replied to a statement like “nobody likes to be constrained by complex rules that are costly to follow and have no benefits”, for example, but that’s not what they said.
I completely agree that rules can be mechanisms that enable people to do things. For example, many social partner dances have rules about how the dancers move and dance together. At first glance these look like pure constraints. However, they are also enabling mechanisms for joint movements that otherwise would not work (at all, as well, as easily, etc.) in partnered freestyle. This is one of the things I like about rules.