Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
50 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Reef Encounter» Forums » General

Subject: One real weakness in the game rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
William Shields
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I must say I intensely dislike the rule that if you run out of larva cubes of a particular colour, the game ends immediately with noone given an opportunity to eat a final shrimp. It doesn't crop up often but when it does, it leads to a pretty lame (and easy) victory for someone. Personally I'd like a variation to the rules: you can only swap a consumed polyp tile for a larva cube if you play it immediately. To me, that maintains the spirit of the action and the spirit of the rule. Eating 6 pink coarls and converting them all to pink cubes when theres only 6 pink cubes left is lame. Locking the last coral tile or eating the last shrimp give other players the opportunity to respond.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Kahnt
United States
Youngstown
Ohio
flag msg tools
designer
It's fun, it's healthy, it's good exercise. The kids will just love it. And we put a little sand inside to make the experience more pleasant.
badge
You know, they say there was a man who jumped from the forty-FIFTH floor? But that's another story...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm assuming you lost?

-DK
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan McLelland
United States
Draper
Utah
flag msg tools
Don't touch me!!!
badge
Hi! How are you?!?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My only thought is you let the game go WAY longer than it should of if this happens. Good play will end the game way before this is even a possibility.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Shields
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
RyanMC wrote:
My only thought is you let the game go WAY longer than it should of if this happens. Good play will end the game way before this is even a possibility.


Round 8 is "way too long"?

I've won once this way. There have been other games where I probably could've if I wanted to. To me it's like winning a game against a dud player: completely unsatisfying. Instead of a dud player, it's just a dud rule.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Davis
United States
New Concord
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I had never even considered intentionally running down the cubes of one color. Man, that's a crappy way to win. I personally would just agree beforehand that anyone who wins a game that way should be mocked unmercifully forever.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Shields
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
coolpapa wrote:
I had never even considered intentionally running down the cubes of one color. Man, that's a crappy way to win. I personally would just agree beforehand that anyone who wins a game that way should be mocked unmercifully forever.


Exactly.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
coolpapa wrote:
I had never even considered intentionally running down the cubes of one color. Man, that's a crappy way to win. I personally would just agree beforehand that anyone who wins a game that way should be mocked unmercifully forever.


It is a fine way to win and one that all players clearly know about and need to guard against. It is just one more challenge posed by the game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Rae
New Zealand
Wellington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I wonder if there are not at least two types of gamers. One type who thrive on finding every opportunity to win and one type who believe in the spirit of the design. I defintely fall into the later.

If I were to succesfully design and publish a game I would assume it is played in a particular way, the way I designed it. Implicitly within the design of a game would be skills that I want the player to use. Perhaps the best designs have levels of strategy unintended by the designer and thats what makes them brilliant? I suspect this is true. But, and this is my very personal subjective opinion, if there are unintended consequences of a rule or a design feature I would want to evaluate whether they fitted with the game.

Case in point, running down the cubes. It feels to me like this is a rule being used in an unintended way for advantage. Now for me persoanlly if I had designed the game and this was an unintended outcome of the rule (eg. I had designed this rule for some otehr purpose eg. ensuring the game did not prolong indefinitely) I would assess whether that supported or destroyed my design. I personally feel this distracts from teh base mechanism of the game and does not reward the behaviour I designed the game to work round. It is not core to the working of the game, it distracts from it. This is what I would call the 'spirit of the game'. Therefore I endorse the opinion of those posters. If it were my game, I would alter the rule.

The use of this rule reminds me very much of 'special victory conditions'. I can think of several Wallace games that include special victory conditions, eg Liberte with the white control victory. These are a deliberate part of his designs. Some people love them, some people hate them.

Where I think the spirit of the game post goes wrong is assuming that the designer did not forsee this occurance. We don't know. Afterall it is his view of spirit which counts, not ours. I would like to know what richard breeze thinks of this use of the rule.

In conclusion I too like games where the results depend on a players control of the primary mechanic, not games where you must watch out for special situations or conditions. I won a game of twilight struggle by playing a 'wargames card' which ended the game prematurely under a special condition. That detracts from a game, in my opinion. But many others disagree. And perhaps that distinction is the true one I mean to make. There are those that like a game with lots of different mechanics, special abilities, loopholes, and special conditions. There are those who like one primary mechanic, and presumably those that liek both.

So when you make it to teh big time and turn your dreams into a published reality remember this discussion and decide if "The game of greatest, second edition" will include rule changes or not. Richard Breeze, hear me now, I vote for a rule change!




 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David
New Zealand
Wellington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Seems perfectly legitimate to me - the rules (presumably) state 'immediately' and in exception to the usual 'everyone else gets one more coral-eating turn' - so it's there for a reason. If you have that many consumed polyps and can afford to turn them into cubes just to end the game, then you've probably won anyway.

Who are we to presume the way we play is the way the designer intended or not? In their absence, all we have to guide us is the rules. I see no argument here.

I have to say this has never been an issue for me, and in fact I've never seen a game end that way. I have played RE over 50 times (mostly online).



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
citylife wrote:
I wonder if there are not at least two types of gamers. One type who thrive on finding every opportunity to win and one type who believe in the spirit of the design. I defintely fall into the later.


I am clearly in the first camp. A game is a logical system. It is the player's task to solve the problem(s) created by that logical system in whatsoever way they may devise within the bounds of the logical system. Finis.

Quote:
If I were to succesfully design and publish a game I would assume it is played in a particular way, the way I designed it.


Having designed games, I assume that the players will do whatever they can possibly connive in order to win most effectively, whether I have thought of it or not, and that is exactly what I want them to do. However I specifically do not want them to play the game in only the ways I thought of. I want them to invest and create and play with the structure I built and, ideally, come up with whole new and unthought of routes to victory. Whatever ideas I may have had about how they would play are of no importance, least of all to me.

Quote:
Implicitly within the design of a game would be skills that I want the player to use.


A game presents a problem to solve and tools to solve that problem. How the players use the tools is up to them. A rifle butt can make a fine nut cracker and that's fine by me.

Quote:
But, and this is my very personal subjective opinion, if there are unintended consequences of a rule or a design feature I would want to evaluate whether they fitted with the game.


For me the game is whatever the rules say it is. The rules define the game. If you change the rules then you have a different game, that simple.

Quote:
Case in point, running down the cubes. It feels to me like this is a rule being used in an unintended way for advantage.


The rules clearly state that the game ends immediately if the cubes run out. It means exactly what it says. That's not casual language, that's a very specific statement of a specific event and the effect of that event. Such specific rules are not accidents or oversights, they are there to address the specific condition they name in the very exact way they specify.

Quote:
Now for me persoanlly if I had designed the game and this was an unintended outcome of the rule (eg. I had designed this rule for some otehr purpose eg. ensuring the game did not prolong indefinitely) I would assess whether that supported or destroyed my design.


And if it did I'd expect the rule not to be there. However it is there, so I must presume it is an intentional and logical part of the design.

Quote:
This is what I would call the 'spirit of the game'. Therefore I endorse the opinion of those posters. If it were my game, I would alter the rule.


I do not believe in game spirits. The rule is part of the game. You may dislike it, but it is part of the published game. Richard clearly left the rule in place. This may have been oversight or intentional. Given that it is in the rules we can reasonably presume that it was intentional. You may decide to play without the rule, in which case you are not playing Reef Encounter, you are playing some other game which is a bit similar to Reef Encounter.

Quote:
Afterall it is his view of spirit which counts, not ours.


I fail to see any reason why Richard's view on the spirit of the game matters. We're not playing with him. We're playing with the people before us who are presumably not Richard. Once in play this is our game, not his.

Quote:
There are those that like a game with lots of different mechanics, special abilities, loopholes, and special conditions. There are those who like one primary mechanic, and presumably those that liek both.


I don't particularly care either way. The rules define the game. Change the rules and you change the game game into a different game.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Shields
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Let me just (Hopefully) end one particular topic: this isn't a question of rules interpretation. The rules are quite clear on how it works.

I've brought up the subject of the spirit of the rule. This is of course totally subjective. It is my *opinion* that the game was not designed such that the larva cubes could get down to (say) 5 in one colour and then you could eat 5 tiles of that colour on the board, pick up that colour and end the game.

The two normal game ends (locking the last tile and eating the 4th shrimp/coral) have a couple of inherent balancing mechanisms:

1. The player triggering game end doesn't get an additional eat. This can lead to maneuvering at the end where noone wants to end it (when locking the last tile) because they miss out; and

2. The other players put the first 5 instead of 4 (6 instead of 5 in the advanced game) into the bag so theres a bit of an advantage for whoever triggered the game end.

All in all the first two conditions with the above limitations work (imho) incredibly well.

The last end condition is running out of coral tiles. This is a natural balance to a game going towards stalemate and makes perfect sense. You can see it coming and it should never happen.

I suspect (again, *opinion*) that the third condition was intended this way: to stop hoarding of larva cubes. The problems is that this is a really hard one to see coming. If I have a coral of 5-8 on the board I am in danger of being able to end the game.

What's more, unlike conditions 1 and 2, other players don't get an opportunity to eat. Not only does that strike me as unbalanced but (again, imho) it further suggests that the rule is intended to avoid stalemate and not be "abused" (my interpretation) for a "cheap" win.

It'd be really interesting to know what the game designers think of this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dick Hunt
United States
Orlando
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
hagin wrote:
Let me just (Hopefully) end one particular topic: this isn't a question of rules interpretation. The rules are quite clear on how it works.

I've brought up the subject of the spirit of the rule. This is of course totally subjective. It is my *opinion* that the game was not designed such that the larva cubes could get down to (say) 5 in one colour and then you could eat 5 tiles of that colour on the board, pick up that colour and end the game.


Normally, I consider myself more of a "spirit of the game" player, but in this case I have to side with the "letter-of-the-law" crowd. Your group didn't stumble across some loophole that isn't covered in the rules. Somebody exploited a crystal-clear rule, albeit one that probably escapes the notice of most Reef Encounter players.

I, for one, have never even heard of a game ending in this manner. That's probably because I've never seen anyone even come close to eating six(!!!) polyp tiles of the same color in one fell swoop. I'd have to guess that the winner of this game took advantage of some really suboptimal play by his opponents. Somebody must have really fallen asleep at the switch to have left six unprotected polyps for this guy to eat. Even if they were polyps he had laid down himself, everyone else must have left them alone until he could mop them up on his next turn.

In my book, the crime isn't that he traded them in all at once to suddenly end the game--the crime is that it was possible for anyone to gobble up six polyp tiles on a single turn! I'm starting to think this rule you hate so much is more of a mercy rule than anything else. It should probably say "if anyone can collect all the larva cubes of one color, let's face it, the rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Start a new game!"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Shields
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
DSHStratRat2 wrote:
I, for one, have never even heard of a game ending in this manner. That's probably because I've never seen anyone even come close to eating six(!!!) polyp tiles of the same color in one fell swoop.


Then I can only surmise your experience is limited because it's relatively easy to do. Acquiring 8 tiles behind your screen happens a lot. Add 2 cubes and in your plays of action 2 and 3 you can place 2 next to your own 6 tile coral and eat the lot.

Quote:
I'd have to guess that the winner of this game took advantage of some really suboptimal play by his opponents.


Nope.

Quote:
Somebody must have really fallen asleep at the switch to have left six unprotected polyps for this guy to eat. Even if they were polyps he had laid down himself, everyone else must have left them alone until he could mop them up on his next turn.


Nope. You can totally protect 6 tiles in many spots on the board with only one shrimp (there are several spots where you can protect 7 and even 8 with a single shrimp).

Quote:
In my book, the crime isn't that he traded them in all at once to suddenly end the game--the crime is that it was possible for anyone to gobble up six polyp tiles on a single turn!


Your view seems to be based on fairly limited experience of the game.

Quote:
I'm starting to think this rule you hate so much is more of a mercy rule than anything else.


Running out of polyp tiles is something you can see coming and avoid. Protecting yourself from someone eating 5-7 of their own completely protected polyps to end the game is something not easily defensed and fairly easily arranged.

Quote:
It should probably say "if anyone can collect all the larva cubes of one color, let's face it, the rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Start a new game!"


You need to play some more. Or play with new people.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Grundy
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hagin wrote:
Protecting yourself from someone eating 5-7 of their own completely protected polyps to end the game is something not easily defensed and fairly easily arranged.
Not that I've ever played this game, but it sounds like (a) it'd be fairly visible if they had the possibility (b) if it's "easily arranged" then anyone could do it and (c) if the end of the game involves jostling for position because nobody wants to invoke it, isn't this then something that would force players into end game plays? It which time, if you aren't in a position to win by invoking the end game then you've been outmanouvred and good luck to them, next game please.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Taraba
United States
Lake in the Hills
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Looking at the game, I see that 4 consumed tiles were traded in to exchange for cubes on the last turn. One was collected as the last action. That's 5 out of 9 cubes collected on the last turn. It's legal, but it's still cheap. It's in the same bucket and repeatedly selecting to exchange 6 tiles to deplete the bag in T&E. Sure, it's legal. But that kind of play probably won't get people to play with you over and over. As much as you're in your right to make plays like that, it's ultimately about beating other players in the game. If your play style prevents you from getting opponents, then it doesn't matter what the rules say is legal or not.

EDIT: responding to Dick

Quote:
the crime is that it was possible for anyone to gobble up six polyp tiles on a single turn!


Really? I do it most of the time when I play. They're always tiles I own, but I'll end up making plays like that in the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Gilberg
United States
Norman
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
citylife wrote:

In conclusion I too like games where the results depend on a players control of the primary mechanic, not games where you must watch out for special situations or conditions. I won a game of twilight struggle by playing a 'wargames card' which ended the game prematurely under a special condition. That detracts from a game, in my opinion.


So you want games with no depth.

Duly noted.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
hagin wrote:
It is my *opinion* that the game was not designed such that the larva cubes could get down to (say) 5 in one colour and then you could eat 5 tiles of that colour on the board, pick up that colour and end the game.


If it were not designed for that case, then the rule in question would not be present. Richard is an experienced game designer with many successful titles under his belt. It seems mildly insulting and rather more than presumptuous to think this an unintended side-effect given the very specific language used in the rules.

Quote:
The last end condition is running out of coral tiles. This is a natural balance to a game going towards stalemate and makes perfect sense. You can see it coming and it should never happen.


Players can equally easily see cube exhaustion approaching and prevent it.

Quote:
If I have a coral of 5-8 on the board I am in danger of being able to end the game.


Yep, and just like (the majority) of the tiles in your possession, this is visible to all players (only the game-starting cubes/tiles are hidden, everything else is trackable).

Quote:
What's more, unlike conditions 1 and 2, other players don't get an opportunity to eat. Not only does that strike me as unbalanced but (again, imho) it further suggests that the rule is intended to avoid stalemate and not be "abused" (my interpretation) for a "cheap" win.


To me it merely suggests that players better be doubly careful to prevent such cases by ensuring that any player in such a position would lose if they exercised the option.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Gilberg
United States
Norman
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
taraba wrote:
It's in the same bucket and repeatedly selecting to exchange 6 tiles to deplete the bag in T&E. Sure, it's legal. But that kind of play probably won't get people to play with you over and over.


Um.

What?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
taraba wrote:
ed on the last turn. It's legal, but it's still cheap. It's in the same bucket and repeatedly selecting to exchange 6 tiles to deplete the bag in T&E. Sure, it's legal. But that kind of play probably won't get people to play with you over and over. As much as you're in your right to make plays like that, it's ultimately about beating other players in the game.


What you find unpleasant others find admirable and laudable. FWVLIW I've seen exactly that tactic used several times by players in local games of E&T. In a couple of cases it was specifically discussed by onlookers and the players and brought out as an admirable example of excellent use of a tactic for a given position.

Quote:
If your play style prevents you from getting opponents, then it doesn't matter what the rules say is legal or not.


If the other players don't wish to win the game then I'm quite happy not playing with them. If that means I don't game then so be it: it would be poor gaming and not worth my time. Happily most players are willing to play for the win using all the tools available to them within the game and thus I'm pleased to play with them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Shields
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
BoardGameGreek wrote:
Ok.. I have to say a couple of things about the game in question:

No disrespect to the other players in the game.. but I personally feel I won the game because of sub-optimal play.. in that it was Round 8 and only one player had eaten a shrimp (1 tile).. thus the players left themselves open to a player collecting larva cubes and polyp tiles. A player who needed only to eat one shrimp (couple of tiles) to outscore the other players in the game.


This thread isn't actually about you (note I didn't quote the game in particular or that it was even on SBW) but since you've decided to make it about you, your claims of "suboptimal play" should be taken with a grain of salt since you've won 12 of 27 games (44%), however 9 of those 12 were 2 player games. 10 of the 27 are 2 player games. Excluding those, your record is 3 wins out of 17 games (of 3-4 player). You're hardly an expert on the game.

Not eating until later is a completely viable option. Eating often and early isn't THE way to play the game (but it is a way to play). In reality it's a pretty boring and low-probability way of winning (the early eater tneds to win less than 15% of the games I play in).

Quote:
(rationalization snipped)


You need to play more and get better at the game and then perhaps you'll see why this is a pretty random rule that adds nothing to the game. Like others have said, arranging to eat 6 tiles of your own is not hard and theres virtually nothing you can do to defend against it. Don't make the mistake of thinking your (rare) victory justifies the rule or somehow makes you a good player. The other two players in that game are much better players than you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Gilberg
United States
Norman
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hagin wrote:

You need to play more and get better at the game and then perhaps you'll see why this is a pretty random rule that adds nothing to the game. Like others have said, arranging to eat 6 tiles of your own is not hard and theres virtually nothing you can do to defend against it. Don't make the mistake of thinking your (rare) victory justifies the rule or somehow makes you a good player. The other two players in that game are much better players than you.


Wow.

What condescending crap.
7 
 Thumb up
6.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dick Hunt
United States
Orlando
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
William may have a point. Perhaps the fact that I've never seen a game ended by this "cube-hogging strategy" simply means that I haven't played the game enough. Either that, or it means his group plays it poorly, but does so often enough for it to qualify as "experience." And let's not forget that the mere number of games one has played is NOT all that comprises meaningful experience. If I've played a thousand games of Reef Encounter and only won a hundred of them, am I really "experienced?" Well, that depends. If my thousand games are against the same opponents every time, I'm certainly experienced against those opponents--just not very good, since I should have won closer to 250 of those 1,000 games.

But I could play a thousand games of chess and still get waxed by your average Grand Master, so let's not equate "experience" with "skill" too quickly. While it's possible that I haven't seen a game of Reef Encounter ended by cube-hogging because I haven't played the game enough, it's also quite possible that William has seen several games ended that way because of lousy play by the losing players of those games.

I won't pretend to know which is true, or even whether there's some other available option here. I'd just caution against questioning someone's experience at the game simply because you've seen something that they have not. After all, you may be seeing this cube-hogging maneuver as regularly as you claim simply because you and your fellow victims of it are not very good at anticipating or preventing it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Taraba
United States
Lake in the Hills
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
clearclaw wrote:
taraba wrote:
ed on the last turn. It's legal, but it's still cheap. It's in the same bucket and repeatedly selecting to exchange 6 tiles to deplete the bag in T&E. Sure, it's legal. But that kind of play probably won't get people to play with you over and over. As much as you're in your right to make plays like that, it's ultimately about beating other players in the game.


What you find unpleasant others find admirable and laudable. FWVLIW I've seen exactly that tactic used several times by players in local games of E&T. In a couple of cases it was specifically discussed by onlookers and the players and brought out as an admirable example of excellent use of a tactic for a given position.


I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I've taken this action to deplete the bag myself. But if I take this action twice in a turn to replace 6 tiles and repeat this process over a few turns, then in some eyes I've crossed the lines of good play and gone over in to cheap play.

You can spend all day here trying to convince me, you, the OP and everyone else that it's fine and good. You might get all of us to agree with you that any means to win are good in games. But still you'll run in to someone at a game club or con that has their own moral line that cross when you make certain plays. You can either accept this or not, but it's still going to happen.

clearclaw wrote:
Quote:
If your play style prevents you from getting opponents, then it doesn't matter what the rules say is legal or not.


If the other players don't wish to win the game then I'm quite happy not playing with them. If that means I don't game then so be it: it would be poor gaming and not worth my time. Happily most players are willing to play for the win using all the tools available to them within the game and thus I'm pleased to play with them.


Why do you assume it's poor gaming? or that things others consider to be "exploiting a hole in the rules" is good gaming?

What if we're playing pit and I have one of everything. I say "I refuse to trade with anyone else until you all agree that I'm the winner." If you don't agree then the game is locked up and no one wins. I don't remember a rule that said this was illegal.

What if I have a really messed up sense of what's acceptable in games and I pull out a knife and say "If you make that move, I'll stab you!"? There aren't usually rules in the game that says I can't say that, right? I read a lot of game rules and I've never seen this point addressed. It's just meta-negotiation. But, you can be sure that I won't get more people to play with me. I'm sure that people are reading and saying "That's ridiculous. That's obviously out of line." Ok, so now we've crossed your own personal moral line.

And that's the basics of what I'm trying to say. Everyone has their own moral line that you cross with certain moves. Maybe it's selling all your properties for $1 to an opponent in Monopoly so that Joe doesn't win. Maybe it's this move that started the thread. Maybe it's flipping the game board so things go flying everywhere so that no one wins. Each person has their own line. It's still something they expect you play by. You can't change it and crossing theirs too far or too often will keep them from playing with you. If you consider that good or bad or feel that their line is too prudent or loose is your own opinion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
taraba wrote:
clearclaw wrote:
taraba wrote:
ed on the last turn. It's legal, but it's still cheap. It's in the same bucket and repeatedly selecting to exchange 6 tiles to deplete the bag in T&E. Sure, it's legal. But that kind of play probably won't get people to play with you over and over. As much as you're in your right to make plays like that, it's ultimately about beating other players in the game.


What you find unpleasant others find admirable and laudable. FWVLIW I've seen exactly that tactic used several times by players in local games of E&T. In a couple of cases it was specifically discussed by onlookers and the players and brought out as an admirable example of excellent use of a tactic for a given position.


I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I've taken this action to deplete the bag myself. But if I take this action twice in a turn to replace 6 tiles and repeat this process over a few turns, then in some eyes I've crossed the lines of good play and gone over in to cheap play.


No. My point is that I consider such a tactic good and admirable play if matched with a victory, and I've seen that done more than once successfully and I've been part of several conversations where those about the the game and in the game commented admiringly of the approach. Then again, in my book there's no such thing as cheap play. You either win or you don't.

Quote:
You can spend all day here trying to convince me, you, the OP and everyone else that it's fine and good. You might get all of us to agree with you that any means to win are good in games. But still you'll run in to someone at a game club or con that has their own moral line that cross when you make certain plays. You can either accept this or not, but it's still going to happen.


Absolutely. I'm quite comfortable with the fact that there are many people in the world I don't want to play games with.

Quote:
clearclaw wrote:
Quote:
If your play style prevents you from getting opponents, then it doesn't matter what the rules say is legal or not.


If the other players don't wish to win the game then I'm quite happy not playing with them. If that means I don't game then so be it: it would be poor gaming and not worth my time. Happily most players are willing to play for the win using all the tools available to them within the game and thus I'm pleased to play with them.


Why do you assume it's poor gaming?


Simple: They are not unrestrainedly using the tools available to them within the game to win.

Quote:
...or that things others consider to be "exploiting a hole in the rules" is good gaming?


Once in a game there's only one target: victory.

Quote:
What if we're playing pit and I have one of everything. I say "I refuse to trade with anyone else until you all agree that I'm the winner." If you don't agree then the game is locked up and no one wins. I don't remember a rule that said this was illegal.


There are only a few things a player may say in a game of Pit: The numbers from 1-9, and an affirmative. Change that and you're playing a different game. Additionally they'd also need the bull -- which means that there's at least one good they don't have.

Quote:
What if I have a really messed up sense of what's acceptable in games and I pull out a knife and say "If you make that move, I'll stab you!"?


Then you are using tools which lie outside of the game and are no longer playing the game, you're playing some other game.

Quote:
Ok, so now we've crossed your own personal moral line.


Not really. Such a player is simply playing a different game, one that includes facilities that were not defined in the game that I agreed to play. That's fine, as is my choice on whether to continue playing or not. Much as they have the choice of unilaterally changing the game rules mid-stream, I have the choice of unilaterally deciding to continue playing the game or not when they do.

Quote:
And that's the basics of what I'm trying to say. Everyone has their own moral line that you cross with certain moves.


My lines are simple:

1) Nothing enters the game except the players and their abilities.

2) Nothing leaves the game except the players and the results.

3) Win.

Each game is started tabula rasa and finishes tabula rasa. Once in the game only winning is important (within the game). Those are of course utterly arbitrary strictures and I know many don't agree with them. Their disagreement is quite wonderful for me as it clearly identifies them as people I don't want to play with.

Quote:
You can't change it and crossing theirs too far or too often will keep them from playing with you. If you consider that good or bad or feel that their line is too prudent or loose is your own opinion.


With 6 billion people in the world I'm not concerned whether a few people will or will not play games with me. All I need are the few required for the current game in question. The next game can tap the 6 billion again if needed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Rae
New Zealand
Wellington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gilby wrote:
citylife wrote:

In conclusion I too like games where the results depend on a players control of the primary mechanic, not games where you must watch out for special situations or conditions. I won a game of twilight struggle by playing a 'wargames card' which ended the game prematurely under a special condition. That detracts from a game, in my opinion.


So you want games with no depth.

Duly noted.


Now that isn't nice, it implies I am shallow and simple. Now I feel like I have to defend myself.

If I hear you right you are saying depth equals a variety of different conditions and/or mechanics that have to be managed. What I would argue though is that this is not depth it is just adding another tedious condition to watch out for. A checklist of considerations. My preference is to have depth in the primary mechanic, to not have tacked on things to distract from getting the best our of the primary. Thats just how I see games.

For give you a better understanding of how I view it let me use an excellent. If I go out on a date with my wife I can go a) without any cell phones, b) with the family cellphone, c) with the work cell or d) with both cells. I see extra conditions as distractions to the true purpose of the game, just like cellphones are a distraction to our date. I give me wife my full attention ... well a good part of it that is currently calculating a move in twilight struggle.

Thats just how I see it and what effects my preference for games. If in your view that makes me a shallow gamer, so be it. My reef encounter record is not too bad, niether was my win in a tournament earlier in the year.

By the by I haven't seen a game end this way yet. It would be good to ask a few of the guys on spielbyweb that have played more than 100 times
how often it happens. I suspect it is an infrequent occurance and that a good player does not get beat like that, afterall it requires quite an investment to be ahead after burning so many tiles and would only occur in a game where players hoard. But clearly it is done sometimes, just not in my games. I haven't seen it in tournament play either .. has anyone?






 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.