We implemented a game of Humans Vs. Zombies at my university my sophomore year. The first semester, we had 350 players in this live action game with a very explicit, cut and dry rulesset. Very specific boundaries were given, and as problems arose, more rules were added. The result was the game came to be more about finding loopholes in missions and in the rules, so much so that we even joked that it had become "Loophole: the Game". We lost over half our playerbase after the last mission of that first game.

The next semester, it was my turn to GM, and the first thing we did was we cut the rules from 6 pages to 2. We went from very specific, itemized language, to broader language that emphasized the POINT of the rules more than the rules themselves. Rules lawyering dropped dramatically, and gameplay and immersion saw a marked improvement. The players overall reported having more fun, and were specifically pleased with how the streamlining of the rules had lead to fewer rules arguments in the field, and thus more consistent, intense, and less confusing gameplay.

From a moderation standpoint, the administration went from receiving 20-40 cell phone calls regarding rules a day, to maybe 4 over the entire game.

Long story short, it is my experience that under vague rules, players overall will misbehave less and have more fun, and not just because the definition of misbehavior is hazier. These same principles definitely seem to apply to Carrion Fields, as well.

Splntrd