From: USA Me-FL-DC-Guam-WS-NE-IL-?
I have only one house rule. Never play against an opponent that you don't trust. Make sure they are a "reasonable player". Talk to him and get to know them, play them in a couple of short PBEMs. Then trust him.(Or her). Don't insult him . If you have concerns or beliefs as to what's fair, right or realistic , then discuss them with him before you ever consider playing. The only requirement I have is that my opponent be a good character, suitable of becoming my friend.
I always find it somewhat insulting when players ask me to play , then come forth with a list of legalistic demands that look like something a "Philadelphia lawyer" would come up with. I live with a lawyer (married to one). I don't want to play against one. I want to play against a friend. Handshakes make good friends. Contracts (which let's be honest , a list of house rules is) don't make good friends. They make potential adversaries.
That is an insightful comment.
The idea of business, or ideas of actual adversarial conflicts, are confined by systems of enforcement that monitor agreements by tools like contracts and laws. Get the situation of best outcome by any means that can not be prosecuted.
Actually enjoying being around someone in some interactions is being around those that don't need contracts because the core action is not adversarial but the idea of win win, or enjoying whatever mutual activities occur. And the character of a person does not need a contract if they both can discuss with the same idea of what the spirit of some idea is, and then follow those ideas to compete without adversarial methods needed. I have found the non adversarial form also usually includes much learning and sharing of ideas also.
Are rules ways both players can find what the other deems as acceptable behavior for an enjoyable experience,
or are rules methods to constrain someone that will use unacceptable behavior if allowed.
You once again return to the question from Shutter Island.
Is it better to possible lose as a good man, or to win at all cost including becoming a monster.
Such a deep thought you post there,
A guy celebrating being the winner, and looking around and seeing nobody there anymore.
While the guy that has integrity, starts up another game.
(Although rules can be so that each player knows what the other thinks is a character driven play, and what is an exploit, not for enforcement of some rule, but to add to the enjoyment of both players by understanding the opponents views on the rule sets.)
Part of the reason to post this thread is to understand what the community thinks is cheesy, and what is good play.
And to discuss such topics to think on the possible rule sets, and what people think is good play, and an exploit.
Many years of playing pool added much thought on this very topic, and how different people have different rules of what is cheesy.
Some think a person should be honest about skill level, and call there own fouls.
Some think a person should sandbag to get a later bigger bet.
Some think not seeing an opponent foul and calling them on it is a failure of skill, so they don't call there own fouls.
Some think that if you can bait someone to lose money, that is a skill set.
Some think hustling is a meta part of the pool game itself.
Some think various outer game actions like distraction is part of the game.
And each group feels there approach is 'the way the game' should be played when playing pool, and figures other people think as they do.
Those that find and use every loophole in a system, actually believe that is part of 'how the system is suppose to work'. If the system has a loop hole, and they find it, they deserve the reward for the accomplishment of finding the loophole the system failed to address in the rule set.
Not my view, but that is the ethos of many that think rules are the enemy.
The movie the Matrix has a quote.
"Nobody has ever done this before"
"Thats why it is going to work"
(They found a loop hole that would be closed after there success)
The problem with house rules , is that they need to change as often as the game does. Every time a patch comes out , some of the problems go away. But house rules never die. They just multiply because someone remembers some time in the past when this was a problem. Taking every house rule , and applying it against every patch , update , and mod would be a more than full time job.
I'm reminded of the old story of a new bridegroom watching his spouse prepare a ham for baking. Just before she popped it in the oven , she cut both ends off. When asked why, she responded "because that's how my mother did it".
At the next family gathering , he asked his mother-in-law why she cut the ends off? She replied "because that's how my mom did it".
Cornering the grand mother , he asked her reason for cutting off the ends. The grandmother looked around, made sure no one was looking or listening , then said in a whisper "my baking dish is too small".
My point is , with every rule suggested , you need to take into account, is it still valid or necessary? Who said it's a problem? And is the complainer correct that his complaint is a historical? Brady is famous for citing examples of weird results in ww2 that actually happened as "this game is so borked...." Imagine a sub using one torpedo to sink the largest CV in the INJ? "That is SOOOOOO BORKED!
But often imposing a rule to fix one all edged problem created an imbalance the other way. So what I'm basically saying is use a very light hand with HR's. Don't come up with a shopping list. Come up with one or two , verifiable (that is , acknowledged by one of the developers) problem , and lightly try to balance the problem, if your opponent agrees. Frankly any opponent who comes up with a laundry list of HR's is likely to either be misinformed, have secret desires to be a game designer (without the ability or talent) or simply be looking for an advantage. Be wary.
< Message edited by AW1Steve -- 6/24/2013 11:01:21 PM >
VP-92 sig banner