As a gamer, how do you feel about this statement?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dripwelquest**

sarcastro01 wrote:

Strange, it's poor attitude and sportsmanship like yours that keeps me away from comp'd events. To many people like you want to spoil everyones fun by actively creating exploitable conditions and and abusable reprisals. Much to toxic an environment to just play the game the designers buildt for anyone to have fun except by those that know how to exploit the new system.

Ah. So it's okay to be a jerk but NOT okay to call someone out on it. It's NOT poor sportsmanship to break a system but it IS poor sportsmanship to point out to someone that they're particular abuse is not winning them repeat opponents. To heck with those folks that ARE there to play for fun. Pander to those that want to spoil the good time for the rest of the group. Yeah, that makes folks want to come back, play more games and buy product. I'd rather lose the one or two folks no one liked anyway than the 10-12 people that just wanted to get in some games against new people.

If people would just play the game the designers built and have fun there would be no need for some checks and balances (GW does/did this for their sanctioned tourneys already - guess they really are as terrible as everyone thinks -sportsmanship supporting monsters.). Everyone's going to get burned by some combo at some point (heck, War Machine and MTG make their bread and butter this way.) You learn from that (sometimes it's even enjoyable) and move on. Sometimes you let an abuse slide as a show of good sportsmanship. But when you argue that my 6" move + 6" fleet move +12" assault will not reach your model that is 24" away because it's physically impossible to be in my 12" deployment zone and cover the 24" and get into your 12" deployment zone when we clearly both set up right on the line? Or that my 3" template can never really completely cover your War Jack based off of surface area, or that a hole cannot actually cover a model (it can be above the model but not physically cover it since a hole has no surface area), or you declare a charge against a fleeing unit on the other side of the table that you'll never reach because the very act of declaring the charge will get them to flee; the list goes on like this (and I have heard all of these at one time or another.) This is the stuff that has no business in games and deserves to be addressed.

Ever run a Mechwarrior Solaris style game where no one who played actually took a Mech (sad but I've seen it.)? How about a War Machine tourney where not a single war machine actually was fielded (again sad but seen.)? For both of these games I've seen scenario packs that addressed the issues and as a result forced either a lot of ties or flat out losses (Mechwarrior in particular started enforcing games where if you didn't have a Mech you couldn't capture the objective.) The companies knew there was an issue and addressed it. Tourney organizers do this all the time. Sometimes they tell folks up front, sometimes they don't.

If telling folks "we want EVERYONE to have fun so play nice kids" makes for a toxic environment then get a gas mask.

Wanting to promte fun isn't toxic, how it's done and the attitude its done with is. Which is why I refered to you as engendering a toxic environemnt, almost everything reads like some WAAC/TFG getting the green light to inflicit their own view of the game and fun on to others. Comp is a perfect example, sportmanships scores are another, they are just tools that TFG's use to lower other people.

**grayshadow87**

I think it's all about intent when it comes to bending rules. If your intent is to somehow bend the rules in order to give your character/army/whatever an unfair advantage at the expense of another player or group of players, then you are simply being a jerk. If, on the other hand, it simply provides a variant of the rules as originally written without detrimentally affecting the enjoyment of other players, then I can't see a problem with it.

It's the less serious (these are games we're discussing) equivalent of breaking laws in real life. If I can find a way to rob a small community of its accumulated wealth through computer fraud simply because I want more money, then I'm doing a bad thing because I am causing the suffering and lack of enjoyment of life in others. Just because I'm supposedly ingenious (a descriptor which I've always found to reek of pretentiousness) enough to do this doesn't mean that I should.

**ProtoClone**

Rules are meant to be exploited and/or broken. GMs are meant to balance this out by showing you what happens when you exploit and/or break the rules.

I don't advocate exploiting and/or breaking of the rules amongst my players, but there are repercussions to be had if one of them does try to.

**Cheesecat**

I think a lot of you are misinterpreting the statement, I think what's being said is that you're trying to find a way of getting the most powerful bonuses in the game while still obeying the rules.

**Hellfury**

Cheesecat wrote:I think a lot of you are misinterpreting the statement, I think what's being said is that you're trying to find a way of getting the most powerful bonuses in the game while still obeying the rules.

With the absence of any context whatsoever (as in, none was given), it is up to the individual to interpret the statement and remark upon it how they understand it..

**slainex**

You guys are so funny. Do you guys really think that loopholes and min maxing in game rules are there by accident? Game designers know exactly what they are doing when they write the rules. In order to win you must exploit the rules. To exploit the rules, you most likely will have to spend a significant amount of money to re-tool your army. You win your games, the game company makes a profit. It's a win-win situation.

**Cheesecat**

Hellfury wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:I think a lot of you are misinterpreting the statement, I think what's being said is that you're trying to find a way of getting the most powerful bonuses in the game while still obeying the rules.

With the absence of any context whatsoever (as in, none was given), it is up to the individual to interpret the statement and remark upon it how they understand it..

Except the OP specifically mentions about exploiting the system, and if you're exploiting the system you're trying to make the best use of the system, and if you're using that system you're adhering to the rules and

regulations of system. I see no reason to assume the OP is talking about cheating, otherwise what's the point of having the system in the first place if you're not going to use it.

**Trondheim**

Phototoxin wrote:I can go on a murder/rape spree it doesn't mean I should.

I can exploit the rules of society by doing the above, doesn't mean I ought to.

This sums the whole tread up. Just because you CAN dont mean that you should, in fact abstain from it.

**Cheesecat**

Phototoxin wrote:I can go on a murder/rape spree it doesn't mean I should.

I can exploit the rules of society by doing the above, doesn't mean I ought to.

Except your example isn't exploiting the rules of society, it's disobeying them.

**BaronIveagh**

Ahtman wrote:If a system can be exploited, it deserves to be. If a player can exploit a system he/she should be allowed to, due to ingenuity.

Having seen just how absurd things can get in a setting where that sort of thing is allowed, I'll say 'No' because it usually leads to the game breaking and not being fun anymore. (See Goonswarm)

**English Assassin**

slainex wrote:You guys are so funny... Game designers know exactly what they are doing when they write the rules.

I think you'll find that is funnier...

**Lord Bingo**

To be honest I think here it is a balancing act between the players and the DM. I let my players try to exploit it if they wish, as long as they know that I will step in to correct it if it ruins the game. Overall I think this is the best solution, let players make interesting combos and/or exploits, however always be prepared to step in if it goes to far. The worst thing you can ever do in a role playing game is a flat no, always let them run with it and if you do have to take it away, explain why it is necessary.

**AegisGrimm**

If a system can be exploited, it deserves to be. If a player can exploit a system he/she should be allowed to, due to ingenuity.

Unless you are playing a game like Munchkin where it's supposed to be that way, it's just a cheap statement used by people to defend being a-holes when they are confronted directly as such.

Usually it's even worse because a helluva lot of cheating happens when players try their best to exploit a system to get attention, because they desperately want to see their "ingenuity" when it's not really there- but they force it.

**Morathi's Darkest Sin**

Its a nothing statement to me, if a player tries to bend the rules in their favour against the good of the game, I'll bend them back and drop something on them they cannot deal with .. simple as.

If a player is just being clever with rules, and not trying to bend the game to 'win' then I have no issue. I'll reward clever moves and tactics as much as I'll reward good roleplay.

If its positive for the game, I'm good. If it isn't, your character better start running.

**htj**

If you find something that you would consider an 'exploit' over a playstyle or tactic, then you should raise it as an issue with your gaming group or community. You may think that you're being some kind of gaming crusader by using it, but you're just exploiting a mistake made by the game designers when you should be working to rectify it. Some game systems have the benefit of being extremely well written, where there will be no game breaking exploits in there. Others will not. If you like the system despite these exploits, you should work with your community to fix them - not use them and claim immunity from judgement from your peers as you hamper their enjoyment.

**kronk**

If a person figures out an exploit, good for them. If they pull it off to win a board game or something, great.

But then what? Their gaming group now knows about it. Everyone is going to race to be the one to get the exploit first, right?

Or, you come together as a group and say "Good on you, mate! Now then, since we want to keep playing this game, how do we fix this so that it's fun for everyone?"

**Makarov**

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:It is the kinda of jackassery that has plagued quite a few gaming circles. "Rules are meant to be broken" and all the other trite forms of saying it kill my motivation to play the game.

So basically, its saying "love the game, hate the rules", right? Stop being a lawyer and just have fun. If someone can't get through a gaming session without having to win at everything all the time, he may want to find something else to do. Winning is great fun, but it isn't guaranteed. Deal with it...

That. ^

If you are just going to flat out break the game, why bother playing?

**ProtoClone**

Having come back to this thread I am reminded of when my wife and I would play Parcheesi just against each other.

In our edition, which could be dated, it does not say you can't run two of your pieces side-by-side and prevent your opponent from passing. So we exploited this loophole and at first it was funny because the other couldn't do anything. Then, real quickly, our games became a dash to see who could get this done first and block the other from winning. This was a boring, one trick that allowed you to win every time. So we stopped exploiting this loophole and found the fun and strategy in the game again. It wasn't fun to exploit this loophole, it just became dull and bothersome for both people.

To me, this is what the statement represents: A short, fleeting moment of fun.