ubercommando | 20 May 2016 2:59 a.m. PST |
In the last couple of years, I've played games with a few players who like to push rules to the limit in order to try and break the game; mainly to find the flaws or create an unbeatable army combinations. Fortunately, these players weren't of the "win at all costs" school of thought but their stated intention was to see how far they could push things as an "academic" exercise. Then declare the game unplayable. I find this mentality odd. Not as objectionable as winning at all costs or min-maxing but still off-putting when the rest want to have a good, entertaining game. The only reasons the game gets broken is that someone in the group wants to see how it plays without certain rules or else with existing rules changed. I understand house rule changes if a game has problems which emerge during playing but I don't get why anyone would set out to break a game, which functions fine as it is if you don't try to break it. It's difficult as it is to find a game which will appeal to all players in the group! Game-breakers make it more difficult. |
John Treadaway | 20 May 2016 4:06 a.m. PST |
All I can say is that, having attended a convention of wargamers weekend some thirty years ago (just the once, mind you) and been exposed to players of the sort you're describing over the years, my thoughts are mixed. They have their place: players with that sort of mentality can be useful if you are genuinely setting out to explore ideas in a game development stage. But (and it's a big but) , when a game is declared "finished" (by me, or anyone else) and firmly in the "let's sit down and enjoy a game of such and such" stage, then people who set out to 'break' stuff get very short shrift from me and don't get to play in my games again. So – mixed feelings but, in general, I agree with you 100% John T |
(Phil Dutre) | 20 May 2016 4:24 a.m. PST |
It's like the old practice of putting out a poster in the computer rooms (back in the day when we had multiple users per computer, not the other way around), telling all freshmen: "Yes, we know you can crash the computer. Here's how to do it: <set of instructions> So please, don't do it, because you won't impress anyone now and will only annoy the other users." |
Ottoathome | 20 May 2016 4:24 a.m. PST |
In a playtest players like what you describe are invaluable. These are the players that allow you to see where the rules break down and make changes. However they are a curse if they continue that into normal use of the rules. You are mistaken though in thinking that it is that they want different or existing rules changed. The motivation is pure spite and malice. It is a simple desire to cause embarrassment and discomfiture to all and sundry. There's an old German saying "pissing in the soup" which describes it perfectly. They are only happy when they are ruining something for others. Let me reiterate. Such gamers are wonderfully valuable in a PLAYTEST where they can root out inconstancies and contradictions when you are designing rules, but a curse in day to day gaming. The solution to this is wondrously simple. All games have an Umpire. This stops them cold. In my own case I have seen that the mere PRESENCE of an umpire or GM , however you wish to name him, has a tremendously restraining effect, and will stop such disruptive players in their tracks. The umpire can also allow certain liberties from the strict rules. My own way of doing this is to say, when someone wants to do something outlandish is "Cheesy but legal." It's a mild rebuke which allows the person a bit of leeway-- once. They usually don't do it again. Even in games where all players are playing as an interested party, one gamer chosen as the default GM usually does the job and I have found them remarkably fair, almost as if the thrusting of the office on them cures their more freebooting tendencies. There's three types of Gamers, Vamps, Tramps, and Mules. Mules are the work horses. These are the guys who paint the figures, set up the games, umpire the rules, create the scenarios, set up the battle, invite everyone over, buys the munchies and the drinks, and cleans up afterwards. Every group has to have at least one mule, if you don't you don't have a group. Tramps are the guys who come and play with your toys. They come to the game, play, eat your munchies, drink your soda and beer, and play the game. They don't ask for much and don't demand much. They rarely bring troops and might occasionally bring a bag of chips. God Bless em. Every game needs Tramps. They play the game and don't complain too much. They're just happy to be there and are looking for a good time. Vamps, short for vampires are he people you're talking about. They don't bring anything except themselves, don't contribute anything, don't bring any munchies unless it's some awful stuff no one wants. They will complain, grouse, and argue incessantly, and probably don't have armies or games and never put on a game themselves. (They say they're always trying to find the perfect rules before they commit). They really are just there to ruin other peoples fun. They will argue incessantly, complain, criticize your figures, tell you how you got it all wrong, and usually cheat outrageously. If you catch them at it they will say that it makes a better game when they cheat. What they really want is to knock the mule off his perch and be the alpha male in the group. That is they want to be the center of attention and be in charge without breaking a sweat. They want to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. It takes about four vamps to bring one mule down and chase him out of the group in disgust. The people you're talking about Ubercommando, are Vamps. Want to chase them away ( do Imagi-Nations, they hate imagi-nations-- can't argue and quibble about them. |
Ragbones | 20 May 2016 4:42 a.m. PST |
Ottoathome, I loved your description of the three types of gamers! |
MajorB | 20 May 2016 5:09 a.m. PST |
Vamps, short for vampires are he people you're talking about. They don't bring anything except themselves, don't contribute anything, don't bring any munchies unless it's some awful stuff no one wants. They will complain, grouse, and argue incessantly, and probably don't have armies or games and never put on a game themselves. I have never encountered any gamer that would fit this category. Neither at the Conference of Wargamers (CoW) weekend that I have attended for many years nor anywhere else for that matter. |
ubercommando | 20 May 2016 5:14 a.m. PST |
Here's a visual metaphor of your typical game-breaker. YouTube link The game-breakers I know aren't leeching off the group; generally they provide armies, well painted ones, they contribute all round it's just….they're SO into game mechanics, and have their favourites, that they want to try and break rules or else uncover flaws from their point of view. As said, fine for playtesting but frustrating when it comes to everyday gaming. |
15th Hussar | 20 May 2016 5:23 a.m. PST |
For PLAY TESTERS, they are absolutely essential to any designer/developer. But agreed, for casual gaming (well) after the fact, they can be a bit of a pain. |
GildasFacit | 20 May 2016 5:31 a.m. PST |
Thank goodness I don't play in Otto's group. I think most of our group are mules with possibly one or two with tramp tendencies. I'm probably the closest to a vampire but only in the sense that I criticise rules a lot where I think they fail to work. The concept of being a wargamer without painting figures and setting up games is just so foreign to me that I find it difficult to understand their motivation. |
Dynaman8789 | 20 May 2016 5:58 a.m. PST |
Totally disagree on hole finding being bad in a casual game. And if such holes are found they SHOULD be patched with errata. I think this is a difference between primarily miniatures players vs primarily boardgame players since boardgame rules are meant to be wrung out for every advantage. |
Martin Rapier | 20 May 2016 6:04 a.m. PST |
" Neither at the Conference of Wargamers (CoW) weekend that I have attended for many years nor anywhere else for that matter." Are you sure about that? Anyway, I pick who I play with carefully. Life is too short to deal with people who want to constantly argue. I get enough of that at work. |
USAFpilot | 20 May 2016 6:09 a.m. PST |
Players don't break games; poorly written games break themselves. Why would you even want to play a broken game. |
cosmicbank | 20 May 2016 7:00 a.m. PST |
The reason I don't host games anymore. Otto hit it right on the head. |
Fat Wally | 20 May 2016 7:43 a.m. PST |
|
John Treadaway | 20 May 2016 7:50 a.m. PST |
The vamps description seems harsh but, how would I know? If they tried it once in a game of mine they wouldn't get a second chance to then gang up in a "mule attack" as they wouldn't be coming back… Sure, last time I checked, COW is a great venue for trying out ideas (and I know many supporters of it) but I'm fortunate enough to not need it as much anymore for development of ideas (great circle of experienced game testers readily to hand). John T |
Jamesonsafari | 20 May 2016 8:01 a.m. PST |
I'm a mule. But the games are in my corral. So vamps don't get invited back. Easy way to deal with them. Guys that exploit holes don't get invited back either. We're a "play the history not the rules" sort of bunch. |
Ottoathome | 20 May 2016 8:12 a.m. PST |
Dear Major B. That's one of the earmarks of a Vamp. They never believe they exist. Don't worry Gildas Facit, when a Vamp shows up he's given the boot immediately. In the twelve or so gamers in my group there isn't one either… any more. The problem with Vamps is that you get them in clubs in stores where they can't be disinvited. I have my games at my house. Like James on Safari, I'm a mule and the games are in my corral. |
ubercommando | 20 May 2016 8:42 a.m. PST |
It's not that the rules are broken per se. It's that if just one or two bits were changed it would become broken. Game breakers, in my experience, will suggest trying a game where the scenario templates in the rule books be dispensed with and we all free form it. Or that uncertain command and control be dropped, or that the ranges and ground scale be changed….and then the game becomes broken. It's more like deconstructing a game but failing to put it back together again. |
wrgmr1 | 20 May 2016 9:06 a.m. PST |
Our group has more mules than tramps. There are no Vamps. Great description Otto. |
MajorB | 20 May 2016 9:45 a.m. PST |
That's one of the earmarks of a Vamp. They never believe they exist. Are you accusing me? |
Ottoathome | 20 May 2016 9:49 a.m. PST |
Dear Major B Not at all! Just seconding your contribution. otto |
Ottoathome | 20 May 2016 10:11 a.m. PST |
Dear Ubercommando I understand your example, but that's really not much different than "breaking the game" by focusing on he contradictions or incongruities and forcing them through to the detriment of the structure of the game. If a specific rule or practice or scenario feature is necessary to the game, then removing it does the same. The way to answer these things is a resounding "NO" or if you wish to be nicer about it, simply suggest that they set up a game with their own figures and things and we will try out the change. I predict that it will happen on the third day of Rosh Khodesh. |
Doctor X | 20 May 2016 10:51 a.m. PST |
One way to stop them is to have them make up their army list and then tell the players to switch sides. Then he gets to fight his own broken army. See how long that lasts after a few times of that. |
Ottoathome | 20 May 2016 12:18 p.m. PST |
Dear Doctor X Yes, a remarkably efficient and elegant way to solve the problem. I actually saw that done once. The deer in the headlights look on the guy whose idea it was revealed all. otto |
Lee Brilleaux | 20 May 2016 2:06 p.m. PST |
I hadn't heard the term 'broken' used about a game until just a few years ago. It always seemed to be connected with the kind of people who believed themselves to be very smart (and occasionally were) but who lacked the commitment or inventiveness to actually design a game. Instead, the wanted to show off by twisting someone else's design until it's completely bent out of shape. |
CalypsoCommando | 20 May 2016 2:13 p.m. PST |
As some have suggested, I generally prefer to change the rules of engagement rather than ban folks. I've typically found you can usually just houserule around a rulebreaking game mechanic, and if list construction is the issue just play scenarios with fixed OOB's that someone in the group has set, then give the option of which side to play to the person that didn't design the scenario (or have the scenario designer umpire/GM if they're willing.) I've encountered some of the rulebreaking types, but it seems one of the more minor wargaming sins, in my opinion, since it's not that hard to work around. Other personality issues can be much worse. |
Cheriton | 20 May 2016 2:26 p.m. PST |
Ottoathome, I loved your description of the three types of gamers! Yes, bulls-eye! Ex-mule (for too many decades) here and, unfortunately, largely an ex-gamer…though surprisingly few regrets. Still planning, painting and loving the hobby. Had my wife read it, she agreed totally having too often been the commissary on site. |
Chris Wimbrow | 20 May 2016 5:24 p.m. PST |
I hadn't heard the term 'broken' used about a game until just a few years ago. It always seemed to be connected with the kind of people who believed themselves to be very smart (and occasionally were) but who lacked the commitment or inventiveness to actually design a game. Instead, the wanted to show off by twisting someone else's design until it's completely bent out of shape. There was a post on BoardGameGeek in this time frame. Someone was bragging that they had just broken their fifth game, IIRC. Either it was duly deleted or sank into a distant past of ignored threads. |
Russ Lockwood | 20 May 2016 5:49 p.m. PST |
Broken rules are like software bugs…they're undocumented features. :) At least until they're patched with errata. Now, the errata may 'break' something else in the rules in a law of unintended consequences type of way, but that's the nature of rules that intend to recreate historical situations. |
basileus66 | 20 May 2016 10:22 p.m. PST |
Thing is that sometimes legitimate complaints are mistaken with the work of a Vamp. |
(Phil Dutre) | 21 May 2016 12:03 a.m. PST |
Every rule system can be broken, whether it's a set of rules for a game or a set of legal rules or whatever. This is familiar stuff for all mathematicians and computer scientists who know something about decision theory, computability, Gödel's incompleteness theorem, the Entscheidungsproblem etc. The only question is how far you want to go outside the immediate rules to call them 'broken'. Every game does not only have a set of rules, but also a set of implicit social rules. E.g. don't cheat when rolling the dice. But also 'don't exploit a loophole to not ruin the fun'. Of course, if a game is more a collection of loopholes than an actual game, it's just a bad game. But every game has the occasional loophole that falls outside the original intent of the games designer. Possible exception are games that are so optimized throughout the centuries, that all loopholes have effectively been closed. |
Caliban | 21 May 2016 2:09 a.m. PST |
I came across a different kind of 'game breaker' from those mentioned on this thread: I ended calling him (and it was a him) the psychologist. Basically, a domineering member of a group of people I ended up gaming with. They had all been playing together for a number of years and knew each other's styles intimately – so much so that this particular guy would always base his strategy in any game purely on the personalities of the other players. It all started to unravel for him when outsiders like me joined and so were unpredictable. I noticed that he was trying to 'learn' my style, so I deliberately did random things every so often just for the sake of it – it is a game, right? It just wasn't as much fun as it should have been. So I stopped and went on to other things. |
Dynaman8789 | 21 May 2016 4:27 a.m. PST |
What is "game breaking" about learning other players styles and playing in a way that defeats them? Those other players should have caught on and countered it. I would also note that in effect you did the exact same thing to him that he was doing (and to that I say bravo!) |
Weasel | 21 May 2016 6:33 a.m. PST |
Any game can be broken if you apply enough variables into it. The 80 ton Battletech mech armed with 30 machine guns was a "fun" exercise in that which we all agreed to ban after it was tried the first time. |
Tom Molon | 21 May 2016 8:16 a.m. PST |
Isn't the idea of learning other player's styles and playing in a way that defeats them merely an extension of the principle of war to "Know your enemy"? Granted, it's cheesy if pronounced in the setting of a group of friends gathering to have a good time, but even in that context isn't there a desire to win the engagement that would lead you to anticipate your opposing general's actions based on tendencies, or to tempt him into a situation you think his personality just couldn't resist? I guess I'm saying, wouldn't a little of this be natural and militarily sound? |
McLaddie | 21 May 2016 8:39 a.m. PST |
Every rule system can be broken, whether it's a set of rules for a game or a set of legal rules or whatever. This is familiar stuff for all mathematicians and computer scientists who know something about decision theory, computability, Gödel's incompleteness theorem, the Entscheidungsproblem etc.The only question is how far you want to go outside the immediate rules to call them 'broken.' Every game is is a puzzle to be solved. Implicit in any game is the search for optimum play within the rules, whether it is chess, poker or 'Go Fish.' So, another way of looking at a game being 'broken' is that the optimum play [optimum army] as been discovered. The games with few 'solutions' don't have a long life. Those with many, many solutions continue to be played. Those which allow significant strategies outside the rules [like poker for instance] also will enjoy a longer life. Any player who is looking to win, attempting to understand how the game system works or seeing it as a challenging puzzle to be solved is eventually going to 'break' the game. That takes in a significant number of gamers. |
etotheipi | 21 May 2016 11:03 a.m. PST |
I find the intertwining of the "all games can be broken" and the "playing the players is part of the game" discussions interesting, especially as I see the definition of a "broken game" as the intersection of these two ideas. A game is broken when you can win a gaming event before play starts, that is, as a function of the rules and scenario alone, not taking into account the opposing players' decisions. (The discussions also highlight why I think it is important for game design to keep "rules", "scenario", and "game" (among others) as separate things.) That definition of "broken" leads to some of the above problems with "point system"/"tournament" games that are supposed to create "equal odds" for all sides to win. When you leave the nature of victory criteria (on the scenario side) and composition (on the rules side) open and unlinked like that, you create a composition problem (which is related to Gödelian inconsistency). |
Caliban | 22 May 2016 2:22 a.m. PST |
Dynaman said: 'What is "game breaking" about learning other players styles and playing in a way that defeats them? Those other players should have caught on and countered it. I would also note that in effect you did the exact same thing to him that he was doing (and to that I say bravo!)' And Tim Molon said: 'Isn't the idea of learning other player's styles and playing in a way that defeats them merely an extension of the principle of war to "Know your enemy"? Granted, it's cheesy if pronounced in the setting of a group of friends gathering to have a good time, but even in that context isn't there a desire to win the engagement that would lead you to anticipate your opposing general's actions based on tendencies, or to tempt him into a situation you think his personality just couldn't resist? I guess I'm saying, wouldn't a little of this be natural and militarily sound?' I agree with both statements – it's just that this particular player took it to an extreme. I think the reason is that it all started with role-playing, and then carried over into boardgames and figure games. As umpire of a campaign, I found that with this group I was beginning to think about beefing up certain players to compensate. We used strategic boardgames as the basis for the campaign, but the players' behaviour changed the dynamic entirely, partly due to a lot of psychologising. The interplayer dynamic during the tabletop battles just was not much fun, so I moved on. I must say that the group really enjoyed all of this – so the problem was me! |
Ottoathome | 25 May 2016 9:20 a.m. PST |
Of course, "breaking the game" reminds me of a humorous incident. Once, MANY years ago we used to take down board games and play in the room between events at the Historicon convention. We had a whole group of abut 8 guys who would all bunk together in three adjoining rooms and one of them was sort of the common room for these games where we could put up a table and move comfortably around it. (Because of the vagaries of the construction of the hotel, there were a few rooms which were almost double the size of a normal room.) Anyway one day we were playing Axis and Allies and one player was constantly frustrated by the other in unique and "scorch" ways and he blew his top and in high game he "flipped" the board and sent a packed board flying. We were picking pieces out of the rug and beds and other places all weekend. He soon apologized and was quite embarrassed about it. We forgave him of course. However.. From then on "I'm flipping the board" became a jocular expression meaning "I've had enough of this "flippin'" game and became a hilariously funny line, which people used to show displeasure and at some times for others to lighten up. Well one day at "The Weekend" Tracy Johnson, a great guy and a great gamer put on this "double blind" Axis and Allies Game at the Weekend. I was playing on one board and George a friend from my group was on the other. Tracy was not of our group and so when George came over to our table and Tracy said "Oh you can't look" George with a broad grin said "Naah I flipped the board." Meaning he couldn't handle the Double Blind. Tracy's eyes widened lik a cartoon character and he got up to retrieve the rubble. We re-assured him that Goerge had NOT indeed flipped the board but left it all in order to be picked up later and we continued the game as a regular Axis and Allies game. We all had a good laugh. Several games and conventions later Tracy, playing a game said "I think it's about time to flip the board" and we all had a good laugh. The guy who flipped the board in the original group eventually got over his embarrassment and used the the term again when we were playing a game at Historicon we didn't like. We all had a good laugh. Everything forgiven. I think we'll make up a new meaning to "I'm gonna BREAK this game!" |
Rick Don Burnette | 31 May 2016 11:57 a.m. PST |
Helping to develop a couple of games in the late 1970s, I was a rules or game breaker, yet didnt do my job well enough as others outside our hroup after at least one game was published, broke the game through playing it in a different but legal style And recently, playing Team Yankee, I found that many things that I was accustomed to from other su h like modern or ww2 games I couldnt do because the focus of the TY game is a certakn kind of carnage. Examez. Artilldry fires have to be re rolled for, even for the same target, indeed, the artillery fires do ot remain after sited to catch foow on forces. Tanks vehiless and infantry do not have fewer casualties ifthey rapidly move throuvh beaten zones Units, stands, are spotted at all ranges, can be hit unless in concealment or cover .There is no electronic warfare such as radio jamming or cutting land lines So it is a game The only thing that I would break the game on would be the large number of dice rolls that prevent the game from having more than a few platoons per side |