PBW ethics, opinions please.

[Gozra]

I am putting up a prize of 10 Galatic credits for anyone coming up with a "gamey" situation that the better than 70% majority can aggree that it is gamey. No rotting flesh stories either. Gold 1.78 only Bugs not allowed.

[DarkHorse]

I think the definition of 'gamey' really depends on why a person plays a given game in the first place.

Allow me to posit a hypothetical game player, one who plays a given game because they find the 'game universe' to be compelling, for varying reasons. Perhaps they enjoy science fiction-inspired settings, or maybe they have personal interest in the historical perspectives offered by a game, or maybe the fantasy elements really appeal to our hypothetical game player. This type of player will often try to stay true to a particular style of play that they feel is consistent with the spirit in which the game is intended, at least as they perceive it. This is how they enjoy the game, by trying to stay 'in character', as it where.

Let's say another hypothetical player-type is also attracted to the fictional universe in question, but maybe not to the same degree. This person gets greater enjoyment out of the strategic challenges, or empire building, and doesn't balk at the micromanagement required to get the most out of their position in the game. While this player may also have been attracted to the game by the coolness of the science fiction/fantasy/historical/etc theme of the game, what they really enjoy is the down and dirty nuts and bolts of the game system, and the challenge of outplaying their rivals and winning the game. The setting is just an added bonus, making the micromanagement tolerable. After all, who would play SEIV if all the graphics where removed, and it was distilled down to a huge spreadsheet? Not too many people, I think.

Generally speaking, these two types of game players will get along just fine. But where their philosophies overlap there is a bit of a gray area. This gray area is where the term 'gamey' comes into play. A Nuts and Bolts (NaB) player may see absolutely nothing wrong with a particular tactic (I won't get specific because it's open to interpretation), since this tactic is clearly allowed by the rules and doesn't involve obviously nefarious methods like hacking the game/exploiting bugs in the software, etc. The Spirit of the Game (SoG) player, however, may view such a tactic as 'gamey', as it clearly (to them) goes against the implied spirit of the game universe, although it is technically allowed (usually by the limitations of programming a simulation of a huge universe). (By the way, I hope no one objects to my terms, I'm not trying to stereotype anyone.) The SoG's argument would be along the lines of "Your race would never do (insert tactic here), you are playing unrealistically and exploiting the limitations of the medium!" while the NaB's response might be "What are you talking about? I'm not breaking any rules, and I can't believe you are being so anal. It's just a game!" or something to that effect.

Most times, of course, arguments like this never arise, but some tactics eventually come to be viewed with increasing suspicion over time, and will occasionally spawn the 'gamey' debate. Neither side is right or wrong, of course, because they each have their own motivations for playing the game. In a game like chess, which is already distilled down to its tactical essence, this type of debate would never arise. Can you imagine: "Why is your king hiding! That would never happen in the Middle Ages, kings always led their armies into battle!!"

Anyway, that's my rambling take on the 'gamey' term. I hope it made at least a little sense.

[SamuraiProgrammer]

In my opinion, there are certainly exploits that should be avoided because they unbalance the game and make it less interesting and / or fun. I think a common link between 'gamey' exploits would be that the rules or game mechanics allow something that is inconsistent with what is expected.

I would like to tell of an escapade that happened in a pbem game I ran. Before I tell any more details, I would like to say that as soon as someone mentioned that this might be less than sportsmanlike, the player in question ceased this activity immediately. In our conversations, it was obvious that he would have never done it if he thought someone would dissaprove.

In one game we played, this player chose ancient race. This (in and of itself) is fine and I find nothing wrong with it. He then proceeded to trade with computer races. Again, this is fine and I find nothing wrong with it.

What happened next, however, was (IMHO) a problem. He claimed a system he had never been in (OK by itself). He traded it to a computer race for one of their HOME PLANETS! This I had a problem with. There is no way a race would trade one of their HOME planets for an undeveloped system half way across the galaxy.

I am interested in commments from others about this tactic.

I am also interested in continuing the discussion and coming to a consensus as to what is appropriate and what is not.

In my opinon...

If it is a bug that will be corrected it is wrong to exploit it.

If it is a bug that cannot be avoided, the tech should be avoided by agreement.

It it is an exploit of a 'gross inadequacy' of the AI it should be avoided. There is room for debate on what constitutes 'gross inadequacy'.

There are many other 'tactics' that may reduce the playability of the game, but they are unavoidable in many cases.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by SamuraiProgrammer:

What happened next, however, was (IMHO) a problem. He claimed a system he had never been in (OK by itself). He traded it to a computer race for one of their HOME PLANETS! This I had a problem with. There is no way a race would trade one of their HOME planets for an undeveloped system half way across the galaxy.

WOW!!! It is totally obvious from this that there is a bug in how the game evaluates the value of a system. I hope MM knows about this. I'll be extremely surprised if anyone thinks this is fair play.

[couslee]

Well put Darkhorse.

But one thing, "gamey" can show up in chess. Imagine my irritation
When I was a child, and first learning the game, the first time I learned of "casteling" I got mad because the rules said you only can move one piece per turn, not two! So I called my friend on it, and he explained how that was part of the game. Now, I really got indignant with him when I went to apply the move and was told I couldn't because I had previously moved my King. The conversation really got heated the next game when after I had pieces in place for this "gamey" tactic, he casteled on the queen side, which does not go all the way to the edge, negating my previous piece strategy placement.

Of course, I have since learned to love the move, and the game. (And it didn't ruin our friendship) But it does provide a good example of different views on "gamey"

[Atrocities]

I think Fyron's statement is pretty self-explanatory. What is your question about it? Do you disagree?

Geoschmo

I did not know what this was. Fyron explained it to me. And I know better than to argue with the might G. So not comment.

[geoschmo]

Atrocities. ROFL! Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you. I had no idea you didn't understand the term. I thought you were objecting to it on some principle.

Darkhorse. What you describe is one of the main reasons the No trade option was added to the game. There are quite a few people that would say playing against the AI period is "exploitive" gamey, because they are so weak. It's not uncommon at all for PBW games to be human only.

Geoschmo