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.

I posted much the same thing, pointing out there's The Hobby, Your Hobby, and My Hobby etc.

Guess who glossed over those entirely in favour of yet more mind numbing bickering and name calling?

Here's a hint. They may or may not be a breed of Falcon.

I honestly don't understand why you guys keep feeding this conversation lol. Its the same endless loop thats been going on for years.

The only thing missing here is to suggest to use Power Level instead of points for extra lolz that the next 20 pages of extreme angst will produce over that subject.

auticus wrote:
I honestly don't understand why you guys keep feeding this conversation lol. Its the same endless loop thats been going on for years.

The only thing missing here is to suggest to use Power Level instead of points for extra lolz that the next 20 pages of extreme angst will produce over that subject.

kek.

Power Level is great. Discuss.

Wayniac wrote:

auticus wrote:
I honestly don't understand why you guys keep feeding this conversation lol. Its the same endless loop thats been going on for years.

The only thing missing here is to suggest to use Power Level instead of points for extra lolz that the next 20 pages of extreme angst will produce over that subject.

kek.

Power Level is great. Discuss.

I just recently (two weeks ago) played a 150-pl narrative game where my Slaaneshi Daemons were attacking a walled hab-block; the primary objectives were two large buildings behind the walls, the minor objectives were crowds of fleeing civilians who wandered 2d6+Scatter Die inches every battle round in their panic. The defender started with everything on the board, and in possession of both primary objectives, but I started with first turn.

I think he was like 152 pl and I was around 146, and we tied.

It was a refreshing change to the game - I was able to bring Zarakynel (the Slaanesh Greater Daemon who's basically a psychic Knight Gallant for 666 points) without feeling like I was gimping myself (her power level is still reasonable, even after her points got nerfed). His army was Knights and guard, and mine was Slaanesh Daemons, but because of narrative rules (e.g. duplicate psychic powers, stratagems, etc), we actually drew on primaries and I won on secondaries. I took one of the large hab blocks, but he kept the other. It was an awesome game, close up to the very last moment, and drew a large crowd as well as several pictures (which are available on request!). Was tons of fun, would do again.

Additionally, my club is playing a narrative campaign based entirely around power level. I've largely fallen out of it (because I suck, and also because I picked Adepta Sororitas as my faction and my enthusiasm for them has waned considerably since November), but the whole point of Power Level-based campaigning is that I can drop in mostly whenever I want, and there's an underdog bonus where, after the game, even if I lose, if I have 25% or more fewer PL than my opponent, I gain bonus PL for the next game. Things like that are fun, and none of it is published by GW.

Our narrative campaigns have always used power level. They've been a lot of fun. As fun as 40k can be anyhow.

I really want to get people at my FLGS interested in a narrative campaign with Power Level. But too many people are too focused on points and think narrative play means unbalanced since it's not matched.

auticus wrote:
I honestly don't understand why you guys keep feeding this conversation lol. Its the same endless loop thats been going on for years.

The only thing missing here is to suggest to use Power Level instead of points for extra lolz that the next 20 pages of extreme angst will produce over that subject.

One reason of my involvement is that I'm currently preoccupied with regrowing my leg and cannot participate in games and even painting time is limited and I'm bored as hell.

The other is that while discussing 6pts over may be an excercise in absurd argumentation and I could and did somewhat let it pass, when it comes to narrative gaming and value of dakkadakka.com as a resource in this regard, Peregrine is actively taking away possibilities of cultivating a healthy narrative oriented subcommunity here and hence diminishing my "personal fun". All while believing he actually acts in my best interest. That is simply too much to not react with at least symbolic response.

Peregrine wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Well, PL only really considers the number and types of models, and not all those tiny little upgrades that would get a person 4 points over. PL also has a tighter number grouping akin to WarmaHordes. 4 PL and WMH points go a very long way while 4 40K Matched Play points not half as much. But hey, when you have a scale of comparing 2000 points to 75 (standard WMH Steamroller list), you're looking at a rather large disparity in proportion.

On the other hand, being 1 point over is easily fixed by removing an upgrade so fewer people are going to ask to take extra points. Fixing a list that is 1 PL over requires replacing an entire unit, which is more difficult and makes it more likely that people will want to break the point limit.

Not quite factual. Name the number of 1 point upgrades. The list is extremely short and has been since purchasing grenades was dropped. 4 point upgrades, sure, there are a few, depending on the army.

But then you hit the nail on the head between PL and points (after I hit you over the head with it), scale. It is the difference between a meltabomb on one sergeant and a Tactical Unit vs Scout Unit. What's the point difference between them again? So your original comparison is not quite adequate.

Furthermore, there is a difference in attitude between Matched Play, which uses points, and Narrative Play, which uses PL. The latter is not meant to be as competitive and meant to be more like guidelines. It is closer to, but not quite, the open play of the original Age of Sigmar. Differences can be fun. Defeating an opponent at a handicap actually shows how good you are, and that is something a competitive player can appreciate, while a WAAC would not.

Peregrine wrote:

Asking for an adjustment is not breaking anything. This is a very false statement.

It is when the adjustment is "let me take an extra thing that wouldn't be legal otherwise".

When it makes that extra thing legal it is not breaking anything all, if it does please present the rule. This is at least the third, if not fourth time I've asked for it and you have refused to present the actual rule that is being broken by a renegotiation of the point limit.

And remember, the operative word here is "ask". Cheaters and WAACs would have just used the overage without any discussion at all. Do you acknowledge the difference between the two approaches?

Peregrine wrote:

And WAAC isn't just for competitive, they usually get banned from competitive events.

And yet the term "WAAC" is constantly used to refer to people who play competitively but entirely within the rules, over things like taking optimized lists that are good at winning games. But we see that the real WAAC behavior is among the "casual" or "narrative" players who have all kinds of rationalizations for why they should be allowed to bend the rules in their favor, in a way that most competitive players would never even consider.

No, WAACers are those who try to abuse the rules against other players and ignore them for themselves. The "at all costs" is the key phrase. It can be hard to recognize the difference between them at times, because competitive players tend to be rule hawks, but they are also fair in applying them.

Peregrine wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I also suspect the same dudes are entirely in favor for heavy proxying.

Just want to note that proxying more often benefits casual players, not competitive players. Hardcore tournament players are just going to buy whatever they need because they're committed to the game, if they don't already have it. It's the guy with a $50/month budget and a limited collection that benefits from being able to bring something new without having to buy new models.

Not true. I know many people who are very competitive who proxy before purchasing. They know their style may not be suited to a net list, no matter how hot someone played it.

Peregrine wrote:And you continue to ignore that the sole reason for asking for 2005 points instead of 2000 is to modify a 2000 point list to include an extra upgrade that the player wants. There is nothing special about 2005 points, it's just the total they need for that particular game. It isn't the specific number that's cheating, it's the attempt to use the point limit as a strategy to bias the game in their favor instead of a player-neutral way of setting the size of the game.

And you continue to ignore the fact that asking for an adjustment is not cheating, even if it does allow an upgrade.

nou wrote:

auticus wrote:
I honestly don't understand why you guys keep feeding this conversation lol. Its the same endless loop thats been going on for years.

The only thing missing here is to suggest to use Power Level instead of points for extra lolz that the next 20 pages of extreme angst will produce over that subject.

One reason of my involvement is that I'm currently preoccupied with regrowing my leg and cannot participate in games and even painting time is limited and I'm bored as hell.

The other is that while discussing 6pts over may be an excercise in absurd argumentation and I could and did somewhat let it pass, when it comes to narrative gaming and value of dakkadakka.com as a resource in this regard, Peregrine is actively taking away possibilities of cultivating a healthy narrative oriented subcommunity here and hence diminishing my "personal fun". All while believing he actually acts in my best interest. That is simply too much to not react with at least symbolic response.

Agreed. The atmosphere of Dakkadakka (and not just peregrine, though they're a manifestation perhaps) is eminently hostile to narrative play. Disrespect of players' personal narratives, if not outright stated, is implied, and understanding why one might take a sub-optimal choice for the purposes of narrative or aesthetics is missing (e.g. the discussion about mortars earlier on my IG, though it's fortunate that once I elucidated my reasoning, the matter was dropped).

I agree, the atmosphere of dakka dakka overall is hostile towards narrative play in general. But thats not just dakka dakka. Thats literally 100% of every facebook group and still-active forums.

Perhaps there should be a narrative gaming forum / group where people who are deadset against anything not matched play standards can feel free to not be a part of.

auticus wrote:
I agree, the atmosphere of dakka dakka overall is hostile towards narrative play in general. But thats not just dakka dakka. Thats literally 100% of every facebook group and still-active forums.

Perhaps there should be a narrative gaming forum / group where people who are deadset against anything not matched play standards can feel free to not be a part of.

There are facebook groups for narrative AOS and 40k, but that's all I've seen. We are drifting off the topic (although it's better than the poo flinging that was going on) but I agree, there is generally a dearth of places to discuss narrative concepts or even getting one's group interested. Everything focuses on competitive play and optimizing lists.

Wayniac wrote:

auticus wrote:
I agree, the atmosphere of dakka dakka overall is hostile towards narrative play in general. But thats not just dakka dakka. Thats literally 100% of every facebook group and still-active forums.

Perhaps there should be a narrative gaming forum / group where people who are deadset against anything not matched play standards can feel free to not be a part of.

There are facebook groups for narrative AOS and 40k, but that's all I've seen. We are drifting off the topic (although it's better than the poo flinging that was going on) but I agree, there is generally a dearth of places to discuss narrative concepts or even getting one's group interested. Everything focuses on competitive play and optimizing lists.

For a long time I have taken part in discussions here on dakka presenting a narrative viewpoint on various subjects, so that it could at least be visible to "silent observers" that rarely post but do read (and as seen in this very thread sometimes even they are fed up enough to response) and do utilize all the various ideas people come up with or that GW provides, but my energy for doing so died after CA17 came up and it was actively argued, that entire book should be free, because no content other that point values mattered at all. One can bang his head against the wall for only so long...

I think I could write a quite comprehensive list of dakkanauts who still try to discuss narratives (outside of P&M parts of dakka), most of which have already took part in this thread, and it is an ever shrinking list since I first joined this forum.

Yeah. I've been a GW participant since the 90s and I will say that people have clamoured LOUDLY for points and rules to be a free pamphlet and that the rest of a codex, rulebook, etc that have to do with art or story be what is sold... because they didn't care about art or story or anything other than rules and only rules.

Thats also why a lot of companies do provide their rules and points etc for free. To make the community happy.

I also note that those companies are much smaller than GW and they would take a sizable drop in revenue by providing free rules and points because in my experience the vast majority of everyone I have ever been in contact with in gaming for 30 or so years would gladly let the fluff and art sit on the shelf.

Narrative is a side thought. Back in the 80s things were a little different but once magic the gathering exploded into a sport on espn and tabletop games became "tsports"... the culture followed suit and narrative is largely ignored.

The Age of Sigmar experiment confirmed that. No matched play points. Tons of art and fluff and narrative ways to play.

And it was largely dead on arrival until points came out and matched play became a thing.

I largely championed narrative play for a great many years and I will say I am subdued now and beaten down from the constant arguing about its existence.

auticus wrote:
Yeah. I've been a GW participant since the 90s and I will say that people have clamoured LOUDLY for points and rules to be a free pamphlet and that the rest of a codex, rulebook, etc that have to do with art or story be what is sold... because they didn't care about art or story or anything other than rules and only rules.

Thats also why a lot of companies do provide their rules and points etc for free. To make the community happy.

I also note that those companies are much smaller than GW and they would take a sizable drop in revenue by providing free rules and points because in my experience the vast majority of everyone I have ever been in contact with in gaming for 30 or so years would gladly let the fluff and art sit on the shelf.

Narrative is a side thought. Back in the 80s things were a little different but once magic the gathering exploded into a sport on espn and tabletop games became "tsports"... the culture followed suit and narrative is largely ignored.

The Age of Sigmar experiment confirmed that. No matched play points. Tons of art and fluff and narrative ways to play.

And it was largely dead on arrival until points came out and matched play became a thing.

I largely championed narrative play for a great many years and I will say I am subdued now and beaten down from the constant arguing about its existence.

I started 40K in early 2nd ed, parallel to my involvement in RPGs and my observations are pretty much the same - MtG and Diablo were both huge turning points in the history of gaming... That said, it is still possible to start and cultivate non-competetive groups, but in much more "invitation only basement club" ways than "back in the days".

This is also very true and the direction I have gone in. If I want to do narrative gaming I realize trying to make it a public event thing is just asking for a lot of grief.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Peregrine lives in a state of constant extremity and there is no middle ground for anything with him - even when he directly contradicts himself on a subjective topic, he's still factually correct somehow and oblivious to any sort of logic stating otherwise. And that's coming from someone who also wouldn't play a game against someone trying to throw in random points above a set value. However the attitude he's displayed in this thread is so incomprehensibly toxic that it comes as no surprise to me that he doesn't actually even play this game, it seems he'd have an awfully hard time finding a match. I just can't even begin to understand why someone would dedicate so much of their life arguing on a forum about a game they don't even play (or even grasp how it plays, as is evident every time he attempts to weigh in on balance or direction, which is unfortunately far more often than someone who doesn't even play ever should). I'd say it's a phase and to let him grow out of it, but he's been doing it for over half a decade, so god knows.

IIRC we rarely are on the same side of the fence in various discussions here on dakka, but I fully agree with this assessment.

nou wrote:

auticus wrote:
Yeah. I've been a GW participant since the 90s and I will say that people have clamoured LOUDLY for points and rules to be a free pamphlet and that the rest of a codex, rulebook, etc that have to do with art or story be what is sold... because they didn't care about art or story or anything other than rules and only rules.

Thats also why a lot of companies do provide their rules and points etc for free. To make the community happy.

I also note that those companies are much smaller than GW and they would take a sizable drop in revenue by providing free rules and points because in my experience the vast majority of everyone I have ever been in contact with in gaming for 30 or so years would gladly let the fluff and art sit on the shelf.

Narrative is a side thought. Back in the 80s things were a little different but once magic the gathering exploded into a sport on espn and tabletop games became "tsports"... the culture followed suit and narrative is largely ignored.

The Age of Sigmar experiment confirmed that. No matched play points. Tons of art and fluff and narrative ways to play.

And it was largely dead on arrival until points came out and matched play became a thing.

I largely championed narrative play for a great many years and I will say I am subdued now and beaten down from the constant arguing about its existence.

I started 40K in early 2nd ed, parallel to my involvement in RPGs and my observations are pretty much the same - MtG and Diablo were both huge turning points in the history of gaming... That said, it is still possible to start and cultivate non-competetive groups, but in much more "invitation only basement club" ways than "back in the days".

Yep. It is vitally important to PICK AND CHOOSE YOUR CREW WISELY, because just one person can easily torpedo the group.

I think this is the cause of a lot of the distrust coming from "casual" players towards competitive players: you work your ass off to keep things on track, and just one person in a group of 5-10 can ruin it.

I tried to run a Necromunda campaign a while back that got off to a promising start until someone brought their "best buddy" in to join the campaign, the only person I hadn't directly invited. Best buddy was one of those "grass is always greener" folks who believes that the game you're playing is awful and terrible and the rules suck and everything sucks but this OTHER game that they haven't read the rules for yet is going to be the best thing ever and perfectly balanced and wonderful and come oooooon guys why aren't we playing thaaaaaat game...

so, other guy wanted to play Kill Team (prior to the release of kill team) and so insisted that the group hold off playing any more games of necromunda because he wanted to play Cawdor. No, he wouldn't play with the Legacy rules, those were broken and useless and he could never win. Then when Cawdor was released, it was unfair that he didn't have his Forgeworld upgrade set released and he couldn't play with all his weapon choices! When he finally gave up on that, he decided his "gang" was two space marines proxied as Goliaths, and he would just roll off to see who got to choose the mission, if he won that roll, he'd select a mission that you could win turn 1 if you had a powerful longrange shooter, and if he lost that roll, he would instantly concede. This was totally legal in the game rules, and because it abused an in-game system that meant that underdogs would get bonus VPs if they beat a stronger gang, he won the campaign after winning 4 games in one evening.

You can only try to ignore someone so much, when someone cares so much about winning that they spam every post in the online group with complaints about the rules, complaints about the campaign, complaints about other peoples armies, other people will stop showing up and they will successfully torpedo your group.

auticus wrote:
This is also very true and the direction I have gone in. If I want to do narrative gaming I realize trying to make it a public event thing is just asking for a lot of grief.

I can't address how successful such things are, since I can rarely attend them, but my LGSs often have have tournaments with odd rules. They still use Matched Play points, but that's about as serious as it gets (what can I say, we're American).

One of the more interesting ones was a Foodhammer event where you could bring in stuff to donate to a food bank and receive tokens for them. With those tokens you could purchase rerolls and other wacky augments that would be cheating in another game.

Back when formations were just becoming a thing, there were events where it was 1000 points, but the list requirements changed from 2 Troop minimum to 3 Elites/Heavies/Fast.

There was another where everyone was in pairs, but they shared the point limit of the tournament.

There used to be an annual "Zombie Jamboree" where everyone brought one HQ to go against Typhus and a horde of plague zombies. If your character died, he was resurrected and switched sides.

Honestly, I think those were some of the things that kept 40K alive in the latter part of 7th Edition.

Recently they had an event that was all about the mini-titans, though I only read about it on Facebook.

As I said, I can't really address how successful they were, but the mere fact that they keep running them is an indication of how much people liked such "narrative" events. Playing the same tournament format month after month can actually get quite boring, so having something to change it up can actually help cleanse the palate. Talk it over with your group and try to come up with some interesting ideas to bring to the table and have fun with it.

auticus wrote:
This is also very true and the direction I have gone in. If I want to do narrative gaming I realize trying to make it a public event thing is just asking for a lot of grief.

This is pretty sad really. During my first year in this hobby, due to money limitations, all games I had were multiplayer games (equivalents of todays Apocalypse, but with rarely even any vechicles, it was 2nd ed...) held either at public conventions or overnight in public "interest clubs". No one expected new players to come in with even a 1000 point lists at the start of their journey and I've met a lot of people teaching me various aspects of game and hobby out of pure feeling of fellowship. Last time my local FLGS put up a game like this was a "7th ed farewell game", a trully unique event in the callendar of that FLGS.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

1. The game starts basically the moment army lists are created for the mission. You deciding you want extra points for that fact is therefore cheating and done for an in-game advantage. No excuses.
2. EVERY new player I've met (and that's several) has been more prepared with their lists than the people in this thread defending cheating. In fact that's my main accommodation: I already have a list for those points. New kid brings in 1000 points? Yep I already have something to use, so let's get started.
In fact that's why I always recommend new players ask to see what point levels typically come up in particular shops so they can be prepared.
3. Research your product purchases or man up and accept your army doesn't get everything you want at specific point levels. Either one works. I mean, you think I have every model ever? Of course not. I'm still prepared though.
Also I'm not trying to say you need to netlist, but if making a list at 2000 points is so hard for you maybe you should look to them for guidance? I won't judge.
4. Tournament styles are house rules and typically means those tournaments are organized. I'd like to see you go to an ITC and ask if you can make your list real quick. Ya know, when the other bunch of people came prepared. If locals use those tournament rules, they will adhere to a same point level.
Not hard to adjust to at all.
5. Why should we make special permissions for people who can't make a list properly? Why do we need to cater to them instead of teaching them they can't always get their way?

I've got to ask, would you consider this scenario cheating per #1.

Two players agree to play a PUG at 1850 points, SM vs Orks. Both players show up and have NOT seen the other persons list. At the last moment before deployment, the SM player decides to swap out a unit in his list with a unit of terminators. Would that constitute cheating because his list isn't EXACTLY the same but is still at/under the agreed upon point limit?

We do have a lot of people that love narrative and participate. But every public narrative event that I run there is always always always at least one player, usually two to three players, that will throw an epic fit if something happens that wouldn't happen in matched play because of some narrative rule.

And really it only ever takes one person in a group of ten or so to ruin the event, which is why I feel that they should be more private events now. At least for me, the stress caused by players freaking out over little things that made them lose a narrative game is not worth my time or energy these days.

 Peregrine wrote:

nou wrote:
Please, just stop acting like some narrative savior... You have not defended narrative gaming, you have defended your misguided concept of what narrative gaming is. You have actively derailed every rare narrative thread on dakka since I'm logged in by ranting about inadequacy of any 40K edition to narrative play and name calling people who actually can have a narrative games using GW base rules fanboys or "pretend to play narrative while all you do is playing unoptimized competitive games" CAAC and you actively continue to do so even in this very thread.

Seriously, what you think you represent in your head and how other people see you through your posts are two completely different things. Try to look at yourself from an outside perspective sometimes, it might be a revelation to you...

Sorry, I forgot that for some people "narrative" means "white knight everything GW does and FORGE A NARRATIVE BEER AND PRETZELS". Unfortunately the reality is that "narrative" means something more than publishing a matched play mission pack and a suggestion to use a less-accurate point system, as GW has done. A proper narrative game includes things like rules for creating and advancing your own characters, guidelines on designing army-specific scenarios that are balanced enough to be fun, etc. Hell, even previous editions of 40k used to have more narrative content. There used to be whole expansion books dedicated to narrative-style games (Cities of Death, etc), FW campaign books with piles of fluff and a whole set of campaign missions to let you play out the story of the book, etc. But the reality of 8th edition is that if you're playing a legitimate narrative game it's because you've done all the work of creating those game elements for GW, turning the generic matched play core game into something more story-focused.

The only question with 8th edition "narrative" gaming is why so many narrative players are willing to defend the garbage GW is publishing instead of being outraged and demanding better treatment. But I guess as long as they publish something that's bad for competitive play that makes it "narrative" enough...

You mean like what they did by adding custom character creation rules, battle honors, and Cities of Death rules in the latest CA?

auticus wrote:
We do have a lot of people that love narrative and participate. But every public narrative event that I run there is always always always at least one player, usually two to three players, that will throw an epic fit if something happens that wouldn't happen in matched play because of some narrative rule.

So one person who pissed in their own cheerios is a reason to not have any more... Interesting. We've had the same (I've heard the stories since I can never make it to them), and after a couple they usually find themselves disinvited from such affairs, sometimes by just being asked not to come, sometimes by not being able to get a pug with even the newbies (they were warned), or sometimes the overall sense of hostility when they enter the door.

Well its more years and years of a handful of people that differ each time throwing an epic fit, getting verbally nasty/abusive in public, causing a ton of drama that has to be dealt with that no one wants to deal with that makes it not worth doing.

Not just one person one time.

I do always find it annoying to have that one guy who goes to a campaign and immediately tries to win it as fast as possible. It's like, are you actively trying to ruin everybody's fun by shooting right to the key objective so the campaign ends in 2 weeks instead of 6? I often wonder what those people hope to gain from it. Do they care so much about winning that they don't care if it ruins everyone else's enjoyment?

What gets me more is that communities repeatedly allow these people to attend instead of shunning them after the first time they pull that kind of gak and ruin a narrative event. You would think if there are 10 people interested in a campaign, and one of those people decided to torpedo the campaign by going all out to win immediately, the other 9 would decide to continue on without them so they actually have fun.

It seems more groups need to police themselves and remove these undesirable elements however they can, even if they can't publicly do it (for instance if you run your club out of a games store, you can't actually say that Bob isn't welcome)

Or community is more like 50/50 and there aren't enough players without both factions. It's never just one guy building hard lists.

It'd be interesting if a campaign could be designed such that pissing off too many players makes them team up to make things worse for you, without making it so teaming up imparts an advantage. The technical implementation would need to be incredibly asymetric, to the point where I don't know if there is one.

If you can limit TFG's ability to impact the campaign, you might be able to handle it. But it's hard to do that and be "fair" at the same time. So you pick between a mechanical campaign that TFG will find a way to dominate on a technicality, and a narrative campaign where there's basically a DM who will obviously be biased and hose some players (intentionally or otherwise) by fiat.

Even with extreme restrictions, TFCs just find the faction with the best troops. Aka, IG and Drukhari.

Wayniac wrote:
It's like, are you actively trying to ruin everybody's fun by shooting right to the key objective so the campaign ends in 2 weeks instead of 6? I often wonder what those people hope to gain from it. Do they care so much about winning that they don't care if it ruins everyone else's enjoyment?

Yes. And many of them don't understand why you aren't trying to win it as fast as possible, and/or expect that everyone else is infact trying to win it as fast as possible, then they try to win it faster because they. SIMPLY. MUST. WIN!
The same kind of person that cannot understand that other players aren't always trying to screw them over for a win; sometimes they just want to do something different for fun, even if they lose.

Lemme be honest and say that while I definitely don't like when guys torpedo my campaigns with that mentality, I have taken a few years to really try and understand where they are coming from and I for the most part feel that I do.

They aren't doing what they do because they are trying to be TFG. They aren't doing what they do because they are trying to ruin fun.

To them, these games are puzzles, and they like solving puzzles, and the faster the better.

All they are doing is solving the puzzle as optimally as they can because thats how they enjoy the game.