Thems the Rules

[jamesq]

During my echat with ya_inga yesterday an interesting digression came up about following the rules. I mentioned that I didn't agree with the rules about how the crown/coronet where determined. She replied that she didn't understand how I could be willing to play a game I didn't agree with (ya_inga - feel free to jump in here if you think I'm putting words in your mouth) - as an analogy she said it would be like her coming into an archery field and insisting that she not have to use a bow.

Do you have to agree 100% with the rules to play the game? I submit that you don't. You have to abide by the rules certainly. And I'll grudgingly accept that if there were a "if you don't like it STFU" rule you should abide by that one too.

There is no STFU rule in the SCA - as anyone who's ever been to any sort of meeting can attest to. If there was such a rule, I'd pull the eject eject eject lever so hard I'd get a nose bleed.

I can play baseball without agreeing with the designated hitter rules. If I were a coach I might even simply not use any designated hitters so long as I don't object when the other side does use them. If the media asks my opinion on designated hitters I'm free to tell people I think it's a bad idea that sells out some of the soul of baseball in a misguided effort to push up the score to get people more excited about the game. If I'm on a commission to examine the official rules of baseball I can make my case and push my agenda.

I can do all that even if I think it's a lost cause. I might even do it precisely because I love baseball.

Getting back to the SCA, I personally don't agree with the rules of how we pick crowns/coronets. For you non-SCAdians - assuming any of you are still reading - the winner of an armoured tournament gets to be King or Prince for six months. They don't have to be popular, they don't have to be knowledgeable about the SCA, they don't have to have leadership abilities of any kind. They just have to be able to win a fight in a very specific martial art. It would be like having a judo match to decide who's in charge of the community association.

I still abide by the rules. When the herald says "all rise", I stand up. When everyone chants "long live Cletus and Lurline, your undoubted King and Queen", I chant along with them. I bow to them when they go by and generally pretend that they really are royalty instead of just being regular people play-acting in an elaborate LARP.

Now I have no problem with that, I just think they should spread the wealth around. Make half the crowns/coronets chosen this way but have them alternate with other SCA activities. I'd love to see one reign out of six be decided on an archery contest. There'd be a lot more interest in rapier or A&S if they occasionally generated Kings and Queens by there own hand.

I think this would make the SCA a more inclusive game. I think it would broaden the perspectives of many and it would put more of an emphasis on cross-training. I think it would keep the crown/coronet from becoming an old-boy network.

Let me respond to the most likely counter arguments here.

It's not very medieval.

Neither is picking the ruler through one-on-one double elimination tournaments. Even the personal combat model it emulates was rarely used in the real world. If realism of reenactment is your goal, pick rulers by winning war scenarios instead. Hell, more rulers came to power through assassination then personal combat, but we don't have elaborate games of killer every six months (though that would be kind of fun).

That's how we've always done it.

The SCA has evolved considerably from the shag-carpet-armour and garbage-can-lid-shield first event back in 1966. It does change it's rules constantly. As do all the major sports, which have a longer history then the SCA.

Do I realistically have a hope in hell of ever seeing this happen? Nope. I freely acknowledge that it's a lost cause, which is why I don't bring this up very often. But you know what? If people ask me "how do you think the SCA should be run", I can tell them. I've put some thought into it and I think I can support my arguments.

I don't have to STFU, nor do I have to treat the SCA as an all-or-nothing love affair that obligates me to leave something I enjoy 90% of because I disagree about the last 10%.

Comments

[conejita-diabla.livejournal.com]

*nod* Definitely some interesting thoughts, though. I'll be pondering this as well - what are some feasible ways to work in these concepts? Been thinking about the whole "period" idea - i.e. trying to mimic the way that people became rulers in the past. Yes, it was often through fighting, but usually in wars, where their ability to recruit (through whatever means) fighters to their cause was imperative, as well as the ability to lead. And not only that, but when people were born into a royal line, they were trained from an early age in the arts of leadership. What did that training entail, and how can we work something like that into the selection? Hmmm....