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.

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.

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...

It appears nonsensical to me. A game has rules, follow the rules.

Game publishers are mature, responsible, reasonable, intelligent adults. They write what they mean and mean what they write because they know the player base is not composed of psychics capable of dowsing for knowledge in ambiguous text.

If it's imbalanced, unclear, or incorrectly presented they have the ability to change it and disseminate that information rapidly.

But you're depending on the readers of games to be mature, as well. Min/maxing and rules lawyering have driven more new gamers to the computer or game console than I can count. Rules are written by people, therefore there are loopholes in every ruleset. But it is a real pain to play against someone who has discovered evry one of them...

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:But you're depending on the readers of games to be mature, as well.

Why yes, I am. That is exactly what I meant when I said "A game has rules, follow the rules." It would be pretty immature to try and tell people they are bad for wanting to play the game the designers created.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Min/maxing and rules lawyering have driven more new gamers to the computer or game console than I can count.

Yes, there unfortunatly are plenty of people telling others people how they are supposed to play and deconstructing rules in a manner that belies language. I truely wish people would stop "Stop being a lawyer and just have fun." if they don't like the rules the designers made then they would be much better off being direct and informing their opponents they would like to play with altered rules.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Rules are written by people, therefore there are loopholes in every ruleset. But it is a real pain to play against someone who has discovered evry one of them...

Those people are mature, responsible, reasonable, intelligent adults if they made a mistake and felt like something was not right, e.g. different then intended/playtested then they would change it in a timely manner, in this day and age less then a month certainly. WH40K has plently of example of this, faq's come out and change what GW wants changed and leaves what they don't. Again the players have the options to state they want to play with an altered rule set.

It's all about play style really. Some folks have fun making the rules break, others don't.

Similarly some folks just are going to get annoyed every time they go "Well I...", "No. That's stupid and broken you do this instead".

It's all about having matching expectations, and making sure you're having fun.

Seems like a jerk thing to say.

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.

I feel conflicted about it.

I tend to be abusive about systems in video games. I don't so much in roleplaying games.and even 40k for the most part. I'm not sure what the difference is, other than perhaps the "direct human interaction" element keeping me from getting abusive.

I wasn't always this way either, I used to always abuse the game. I made a 3.0E bard who became the nastiest fighter in the game by dual-wielding oversized falchions with an 13-20/x4 critical one time. I also made a 3.5E artificer who used his high UMD to make items that enabled him to get a higher UMD. There was also the 3.5E wizard who could quicken-cast a certain number of spells per day and so would be able to get off some 9 delayed blast fireballs in a normal game round, but that was an epic level game.

I think that, to a certain extent, this kind of behavior depends upon the system. It also depends upon the people you are playing with. The people I played those games with were kind of jackasses and would do stuff like party kill because they thought it was funny. The group I'm with right now is nowhere near as toxic and we can actually build a solid narrative.

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.

In my old gamming group we had two people with opposite views on the vehicle pivot issue, one essentially made the claim that you can't pivot to gain distance, the other that you could, both believed the other was exploiting the rules and a rules lawyering WAAC.

So translating your analogy to the vehicle pivot issue which one is the rapist, which one the victim, and how does the rape being or not being illegal (there are nations out there with different definitions of rape after all) change the staus of either?

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.

I support this statement.

It seems pretty standard these days to rely on the players bringing talent, creativity, and good will to the table. While I think players should bring all of those things, them doing so is not an argument against writing tight, balanced rules. I appreciate the power gamers and min/maxers I've played with over the years. They have shown me how to think more critically (or at least less naively) about game design. "Breaking" a game is not being a jerk in all cases. Sometimes, it's a very astute review of a game.

While I would agree that power gaming and min/maxing certainly have elements of exploitation, you can have them without being exploitative as well.

I also don't think I would put the onus entirely on the design team, though certainly they need to do their job. A group could spend 10 years developing a system and someone would still find a way to exploit the system. In all my years of playing I haven't seen a system yet that can't be exploited in some way: every Death Star will have an exhaust port, so to speak.

I think the nature of the exploit would determine whether it should be allowed. If it causes problems with the group I can see why something might be disallowed, but it would have to be on a case by case basis.

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.

In what sense, and what game are we talking about? As a TFG, that would go for any game system out there. In other situations, it all depends on overplay, Powertripping, and WAAC types that pretty much drive people away from game systems.

Depending on the conversation, this statement could go all sorts of ways.

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.

It's honestly situational for me. For instance, there are games where theres a hole so obvious and easy to do it makes me think it was intentional and Idc if its exploited like the infinite flare guns in a zombie board game I cant remember the name of (one instant killed any kind of zombie on a 2+). While there are others like in Exalted where you need to read multiple books for hours to find a gamebreaking loophole that makes you near invincible at character creation.

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.

In a roleplaying game, I probably wouldn't allow a person with such an attitude to stay for long.
In anything else? Have a ball.

Grot 6 wrote:In what sense, and what game are we talking about?

In whatever sense you care to speak about. It was something I heard someone say and it just struck me as worth posting to see how others felt about it.

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.

If its Contra and I'm using the Konami Code? Then yes it deserves it!

If tis multiplayer, less so

When did being a complete tool and abusing a system because you can start being considered ingenious and how do these folks continue to have people to play with after the first instance of douche-baggery?

That's the same attitude the guy who hacks your new PC takes - if folks didn't want to have their private information stolen and their PC corrupted then they would have made it harder to do! Fun for me, sucks to be you.

This attitude is pretty much the reason I stopped going to any sort of tourney for most any game. Too many folks with the "that which is not explicitly denied must be allowed" attitude. I was tired of losing games on turn 1/2 because my opponent had inside information on scenarios/format and then built lists/decks/whatever specifically geared to win a game without ever even having to move a single fig, fire a shot or draw more than a starting hand Yeah, that proved you were a better player......

It is also why, when I run events there's a sportsmanship score figured into overall winner. I hope you enjoyed your zero skill, spoil the day for all your opponents win. You will not be leaving with a prize today.....

I don't support it. By min/maxing it brings a focus on to the rules, instead of focusing on the story or character. When it is about what is on the paper for an RPG instead of the story, you have already taken the enjoyment out of the game.

I would rather see poor characters who take skills/feats for story purpose over capability. That doesn't mean you can't do both, but to only go for "breaking" combinations, it takes a good chunk of the fun out.

If the party is made of sub-par or average characters, I can adapt the enemies to them. But if one character is exceptionally powerful compared to the others, it makes setting encounters more difficult.

It's all about expectations. If the group is on the same page, you can have a good and fun time either exploiting rules to the fullest, or choosing not to in order to better satisfy your collective idea of what "makes sense" and/or fits the designers' intent.

If people in the same group have different exptecations and don't communicate them clearly and maturely, that's where you get problems.

In an RPG I always go for a themed character. Within that theme, I try to make them as strong as I can. If something does not fit my theme, I don't take it.

However, I select themes based on the storyline, not a set of mechanics. If people want to play that way, that's fine. There's always an answer.

sarcastro01 wrote:It is also why, when I run events there's a sportsmanship score figured into overall winner. I hope you enjoyed your zero skill, spoil the day for all your opponents win. You will not be leaving with a prize today.....

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.

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.

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.

O.o


Its one thing to find an issue or problem.

It's quite another to be an asshat about a game and try to overplay a game to the point where you are exploiting rules and overstepping the point of playing a game in the first place. Then to want to argue the fact to death, and win by attrition.

This is why rules lawyers overstep thier bounds and are bad opponents to play against.

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.

Depends on the group, I suppose. Some people are all about working the system while others are happy to play the game in a more casual method.

I see nothing wrong with either. You just have to set the parameters before the game to eek out the most from the game.

GW's WotR is a system that is not meant to be "gamed" IMO, yet I have no problems if a person mentions that they want to min-max everything in spite of the background of the game. I just want to know before hand so we are all on an even playing field as far as expectations go.

As a longtime Shadowrun GM, my stance on this statement is that if a player makes a legal character and roleplays that character accurately, they can do whatever they want. If they decide to take the munchkin route and min/max their character up the wazoo, I have a stock of min/maxxed NPCs to unleash on them.

Generally speaking, if it's legal within the rules and it isn't exploitation of a loophole, it's fine. There are very few ways to make anything 'unbeatable' in any system, if you run into a min/maxxer at the 40k table, run scenarios he can't deal with (people who decide to take two minimized Troops choices so they can load up on other FOC slots don't usually handle objective-based games well, for instance).

Lately it seems our group has gotten to the stage where the person who comes up with the game/campaign can make the characters and everyone has a good time. it's best to leave a few of the details fuzzy so the player can make the character his without going too far off the rez.

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.

Writers should most definitely work in the expectation that players will behave so. In practice, however, I wouldn't enjoy actually playing with people who took such an attitude.

In a competitive setting you do whatever is legal to win without being a total C&#!.

But in role-playing games and board games among friends, everyone should follow the general rule of DONT BE A DICK

Starting up the Skulls and Shackles Adventure Path for Pathfinder and I found this:

The accumulation of booty, very fancy hats, ships, hideouts, wenches, grog and more wenches should be enough to motivate you to adventure. Playing a fighter/Ranger dipping into Wizard so you can hit Arcane Archer is not playing a pirate, it's not even playing a character, it's playing a list of numbers and bonuses. There are a bunch of great archetypes and prestige classes listed in the other players guide to give you tips.

In my mind it boils down to that statement and this: If you want to sit there and play a static, boring video game character, then go play a video game, because role playing games are just that. You are playing a character, it is about telling the story and combat helps move the story along.

I've been in the place where I played a min/maxed character. I played an Orc Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker, and he did tons of damage in combat, but that was about it, outside of combat I was terrible, but I tried to balance it with the fact that I acted like an Orc should, I bullied NPCs in the game, got thrown in prison a few times, was attacked on other times, and to balance the amount of stuff I killed in combat, I would attack team mates because my Will Save sucked, and my team started taking calm emotions, and knocking me out.

Granted I made that character because we were getting stomped in combat, and we needed something that could throw out some more oomph...

I've just recently dealt with that with some new players. I helped them build their first characters (a little bit min/maxed I'll admit) and from there they hit the internets, they tweaked their characters to the point that even "Epic" challenges were simple to them, and now after a series of bad rolls and poor party choices, we're starting with Skull and Shackles adventure, and they're looking at it as more of a story and a fun game rather than, "I want to deal as much damage as possible."