🚀 go-pugleaf

Paul Campbell wrote:

> Jeff Vitous wrote:
> >
> > Allan Goodall wrote:
> >
> > > If this is were a board game that allowed a deviant strategy to easily win
> > > the game, people would decry the game as flawed (at the very least). It's a
> > > computer game, though, so people blame those who use the deviant strategy.
> > > Sorry, I don't buy that. The game's flawed.
> >
> > With most board games, it is possible to devise a solution, "official" or not,
> > to the satisfaction of the players.  Once a given rule is accepted, enforcement
> > generally isn't much of a problem.  In computer games, for some reason only
> > technological limitations are seen as "rules" that have to be obeyed.  The
> > "because I can" defense would never work for a board game.
>
> This comparason just does not hold water. Rules in a board game
> constitute its
> mechanics and give all players a common set of constraints within which
> to
> compete. A boardgame only needs rules because the game itself is not
> phsically
> capable of directly constraining what the players are allowed to do. For
> example if a chess board could physically prevent you from making an
> illegal
> move then you would not need written rules at all.
>
> The difference with a computer game is that the rules are embodied
> directly
> within the game itself rather than some seperate entity. I think  its
> perfectly reasonable to assume that all of a computer games rule are
> enforced
> by the computer - in the end its the only fair and efficient solution.

If it were either fair or efficient, then this thread never would have started, would
it?  You have simply restated what I said...that boardgame rules are more malleable,
and able to be enforced by understanding their intent rather than obtuse
interpretation of the verbage (rules lawyers be damned).  OTOH, computer games offer
an inflexible structure that can and does become exploited.  That may be the way
things are, but don't try telling me it is fair or even desireable.

I'm currently playing in a GBOA tournament, and the scenario setup has an exploitable
flaw that results in the death of the best Persian commander roughly 20% of the
time.  This has been identified and agreed upon by all participants in the tourney,
and a suggestion was made for players to show restraint in their attempts on this
leader's life.  No consensus along these lines were reached, so each game predicably
begins with archers making assassination attempts.  An agreement and some self
control is all that is needed to better balance this game.

Jeff Vitous
jvi...@spamthis.wwa.com