Halo has a distinct rhythm, a flow that acts as a hallmark of almost any match. It is a combination of movement, positioning, the act of engaging and disengaging and shooting. This flow is the core appeal of multiplayer Halo. Most players participate in this flow, this accepted method of playing. While subverting this flow can be advantageous for matches, extended divergence from this, for the most part, agreed upon game play is often to the determent of one or both parties. So, when I sit down to run a game of Halo, I am, more or less, expecting a game that holds close to that expected rhythm. I might loose or win but I expect a particular form of game. It is the breakdown of this tacit agreement that is the source of more frustration, more than a game lost or a poor play.

A good example of this agreement breaking game play is shotgun camping. For people unfamiliar with the tactic, it involves using the shotgun, a close range, one hit kill weapon, to ambush players. The distinction between camping and using the shotgun normally is that the camper will often sit in one location, usually a hall or choke point, and wait for their opponent to come to them. This behavior breaks the rhythm of the game, bringing the pace of play to a halt. While effective, it destroys the fun that all players usually derive from play. Even some of the most experienced players I know have difficulty dealing with shotgun camping or other disruptive forms of play. While it can be countered, it is often tedious and makes a particular game, even if it ends in a win, feel like a loss.

While you do run into this tactic online, it is by no means common. This works best with smaller team sizes and objective game types, whereas online play tends to be made up of slightly larger teams and straight death match modes. That being said, when participating in smaller, private events such as LANs and custom lobbies, this tactic rarely seen, if not completely absent. There is an unspoken agreement to avoid using these methods due to their tendency to remove the fun from the play for other players. Players in situations where they know their opponents modify their in game behavior to improve the experience for their opponents.

This, in effect, constitutes a house rule for the players at these small events. The players adjust their play and discard tactics that would be seen as cheap or that would degrade the play experience for others. The alternative is ostracization from the group and group play in the future. House rules are not necessarily explicit in their creation, but can result from a mutual agreement between players.

More interesting is what happened when players violate the agreements, not to the point of abuse but to their own benefits. The line between hiding in a corner for the entire match and running around is relatively clear cut, but the act of using the shotgun while moving around a corner and waiting for another player to chase could be construed as an unfair way to play. In this way, house rules are open to debate. It comes down to the moment to moment agreements between two players.

This fluidity also leaves open the ability to abuse the trust inherent in these unspoken agreements. Out of the group of players that I often run games with, I am often the most underhanded member of the group. I frequently push the bounds of what is and is not allowed. The predictability of other players in that they will almost always rush or play by certain rules and movement styles allows me to anticipate their actions and plan accordingly. Beyond that, by knowing the expected rules and styles I can subvert their expectations and win engagements.

The question that this brings to mind is one of cheating. Is bending or violating house rules, specifically the unspoken norms in a social setting, cheating or is it being creative in problem solving? At what point does bending rules and operating outside the box become destructive cheating? Is breaking house rules all together cheating at all? I would, in my biased position as one who does skirt the edge of what is socially acceptable in my play, say that the violations occur when people in the group decide to stop playing with you. There have been time that folks have quit matches in the middle of ranked tournaments because they objected to how their opponent was playing. Even in a tournament setting, all players should be having fun. In the events I participated in, there was no money on the line, no prize pool. The violations of house rules lead to the premature ending of the game. Ultimately, a house rule is decided by the players as a whole, and it is up to those same players to decide if there is a violation of the rule.