Game Design as 95% Solution...

An abiding rule in all our games is that the GM/judge/referee is free to add or change anything to suit their own campaign or playing style because we find it BENEFICIAL.  The GM, in particular, has a great sense of ownership, using rules to launch their own ideas and enjoying a special place as an adjudicator...

Creating worlds, stocking adventures, and acting the part of supporting characters is good, but nothing gets you more personally and dynamically involved than shaping things to taste, and the finest games leave this possibility open!  

But some players are PROFOUNDLY uncomfortable with this idea, preferring hard pronouncements from the rulebook and resisting when it's even suggested that they tailor these to suit the needs of their own campaigns.  We have no hard-and-fast numbers, but we've definitely encountered this particular thinking...       

And these people HAVE A POINT:

Objective, understood, and consistently applied rules are good because they minimize disagreement.  For instance, when a character dies, it's easier to accept when said mechanics are clear and universally agreed upon.  No one wants to die, but when everyone accepts in advance that traps may inflict X-amount of damage, it's hard to claim unfairness or impropriety...     

And when these mechanics come directly from the book, with no subjective interpretation from the GM, it's all the better because now everyone is subject to an outside authority.  For some, this ensures fairness.  Allowing judges to adjudicate the fates of their characters pretty much off the cuff seems arbitrary, and going by the book more fair and useful in practice.

This is better for everyone; judges, because they know how to determine everything and have a lower risk of accidentally being unfair or making mistakes, and players because they know just what their characters can do, safe in the knowledge that their GM is bound by the same rules and on a level playing field.

When we say you can add or change
anything in our games, we REALLY mean it!

But there's a flip side too... 

Something special is lost because some GMs (and players) won't necessarily LIKE all of the rules and might have a better idea, or at least one that works better for THEM.  And as game designers ourselves, we aren't REMOTELY interested in subverting this creative process or telling people what they OUGHT to do when these things inevitably happen.  We're not THAT good...

So why bother publishing rules at all?  The answer to that particular question is what we call a 95% solution.  The best rules aren't perfect.  You can't please everyone.  But when they're 95% perfect for YOUR needs and require only a FEW minor changes to suit your game, it's a keeper.  Especially when they're full of good content and inspiration to build a great campaign.

And, of course, you enjoy the benefits given above; a sense of ownership, an opportunity to be creative, and a dynamic connection to the game and its participants.  The judge is more than just someone who rolls dice for the monsters, and the players are free to negotiate, resulting in more fun at the table!

So is there a sensible balance here?  Certainly!  Good GMs will communicate objective rules, whether by the book or any house-rules specific to the campaign and apply them consistently.

And if anyone thinks they don't have what it takes to do this, consider our little test: if you dislike a rule and already have a better idea, you're GETTING IT RIGHT...

Does it really matter WHERE the objective and consistently applied rules come from?  Rules are TOOLS.  People are living, breathing personalities with the ability to evaluate situations and adjust for conditions.  They're also capable of enforcing objective rules and entering into social contracts with one another.  The best games try to FACILITATE this process and not REPLACE it completely!