Allowing Customization (sneak peek)

Allowing Customization: the Philosophy Behind "Cheats" was the original title of this blog update and will perhaps be a full-length blog update I do some time down the road. For tonight, let's keep it at just three more paragraphs, shall we?

In the video game subculture, this idea is highly prevalent: "if you modify the game, then you're cheating, and that's not acceptable. You're supposed to play the game the way it was meant to be played, NO EXCUSES." People who insist otherwise are labeled as cheaters.

But isn't it remarkable that no one says the same thing when a child plays a board game differently from how the company instructed him to?

I think it's interesting that people are more likely to criticize you for fast forwarding through a movie's boring parts than they are for rewinding the film so you can re-watch the very best parts. I think it's interesting that few people try to tell you what you should read but everyone has a tip or pointer he wishes to share on how to read (e.g. "Don't read before bed, you'll be too sleepy to appreciate what you're reading" vs. "Read right before bed: it's a peaceful, quiet time which facilitates better concentration!"). Why is it that when we're establishing the rules for a game nobody minds questioning a core game mechanic but that once the game has begun people are averse to any and all but the most superficial of proposed modifications? What is it that makes the beta tester's criticism legitimate but not the paying customer's? Why is it that when a programmer on the development staff makes a tweak to the code he's "testing it out" or "improving upon it" but when a consumer does it he's cheating?