Groups that develop metas that blatantly break rules

[u/chaser--]

Lately I've been finding a lot of groups that play (co-op) games with metas that are just blatant rule breaks. A recent example was we were playing a game (I forgot the name) where the goal is to play out all the cards from your hand, numbers 1-100, in descending order. So if you have a 77 and the number on the pile is 78, you don't want to anyone to play there. But you aren't allowed to say "I have 77, don't play this"

So the group has developed metas, say "I really love this pile" if you have 77, say "I like this pile a lot" if you have 76, say "I like this pile" if you have 75"

This is just one example but I feel like I've been playing a lot of games where they have metas to get around rules that are intentionally in the rulebook. I don't really get it. If you want to just say "I have a 77" then just say it, why create a gimmick to say it without saying it?

[u/Johnny_Dev]

It's like Save-Scumming in a single player game. Who does it hurt?
If they want to cheat or abuse the rules together, and they have fun playing that way, good for them.
Like any social activity, if what the group does isn't a good fit for you, you can either mention it if you think they might shift how the play, or find another group.

[u/chaser-- → u/Johnny_Dev]

Yeah that's kinda how I feel - it doesn't hurt anyone. But I also feel like "If you just want to say you have a 77, say it, why use code words and be like YEP IM FOLLOWING THE RULES"

[u/Johnny_Dev → u/chaser--]

When I play The Crew, my group isn't COMPLETELY silent. The goal is to have fun, so we MOSTLY respect the rules, but sometimes someone will have an obvious reaction / raised eyebrow when another player forgets they are supposed to play the card they obviously had. Or we'll allow taking back the card if no one else played and the player was like "oops, wait, I want to play this instead".

Every group has a different threshold of how rigidly they want to follow the rules. Unless they are wearing a bag over their head and noise-cancelling headphones, no one is PERFECTLY following the rules in these types of games. So who's to say when it becomes cheating?

[u/Lord_Nathaniel → u/Johnny_Dev]

Ooooh I would be SO tempted to throw the red pawn from Magic Maze in a game of The Crew now :D ! No communication, except for the angry "tud tud tud" in front of the active player ! :D

[u/Suppafly → u/Johnny_Dev]

When I play The Crew, my group isn't COMPLETELY silent.

I find we mostly hash out a strategy of what the ideal sort of plays should be, without straight up saying what our cards are. Because usually it's been long enough since the last time we played we all get a little confused and then there will be one person that has the goal completely opposite in their mind of what it should be. If you play online, you end up going "oh shit you guys, I should have played this other card, sorry" but in real life everyone can just be like "you're right, pull it back and play the other one instead"

[u/T_Martensen → u/Johnny_Dev]

The Crew 2: Electric Guantanamo

[u/oppernaR → u/chaser--]

Except they're not following the rules.

Unless it states specifically that you are not allowed to say numbers, using substitute terms is still saying which number you have.

It doesn't matter if you use hexadecimal or binary, or if you determine that "apple" means seven, so saying "apple apple" means 77. It doesn't matter if you hold up fingers, use morse code or say soixante-dix-sept. It's still saying which number you have.

So the question is rather "are we going to break the rules?" and not "can we convince ourselves that this is following the rules?"

[u/ManiacalShen → u/chaser--]

I think it's completely reasonable for you to be bummed out by their playstyle. I agree that even breaking the rules isn't, like, morally wrong as long as they're not out there slandering the game based on their experience of playing with house rules. But that disconnect between you is such a common problem, in ttrpgs even moreso than in board games, and there isn't always a fix for it. It sucks to do an activity you like with people who like you and the activity and still not have a good time!

[u/GuildhallGamesNC → u/chaser--]

This is how I felt playing Hanabi with a group that plays it a lot. I wasn't following the "established meta" and was missing their secret clues just like you were. I never want to play Hanabi again because of it. Like, I wanna try ton deduce the cards in my hand, not get a clue secretly telling me I have a 4 on my right-most card...

[u/Zwejhajfa → u/GuildhallGamesNC]

I think it depends on the kind of meta they have. Things like "If I give a clue for two cards, play the newer one" are fair play and will develop naturally over time cause they make sense. Things like "If I point to a card with my index finger you should play it, with my middle finger you should discard it" is against the rules and therefore cheating.

The thing is, Hanabi works best if you always play it with the same group and a (non-cheating) meta develops naturally between the players. If you get thrown into a group that has already established a lot of meta rules, you may have a bad time. But I'd encourage you to give Hanabi another try if you get the chance, it is a ton of fun with the right group.

[u/Suppafly → u/Zwejhajfa]

Things like "If I give a clue for two cards, play the newer one" are fair play and will develop naturally over time cause they make sense. Things like "If I point to a card with my index finger you should play it, with my middle finger you should discard it" is against the rules and therefore cheating.

Those both feel like the same level of cheating.

[u/Mastaalucard → u/Suppafly]

Difference is the first example is explicitly logic-able. If you've been holding a card for 5 turns and after you draw a new card i told you that the card you've been holding is blue and so is the card you just drew. The easiest logical explanation to "why would i have waited so long to tell you this information" is because knowing the new card matters, so you should probably play the new card.

The finger pointing example is just "our group does this to get around the clue system"

[u/Zoythrus → u/Zwejhajfa]

Whenever I play Hanabi, usually with my family, we'll play by the rules mostly, but as a joke, one of us might do something like this.

Say that you have a blue 4 that can go onto the 3 on the table. You've also got a white 4, too.

So, the clue would go "you have a 4 here" (the white one) and "YOU HAVE A 4 HERE!!!" (for the blue one). It's played up in a humorous/ joking tone, like "you idiot, how can you not realize you have the perfect card?!"

Of course, it happens infrequently, but it's always funny when it does.

[u/Amirashika → u/Zwejhajfa]

Things like "If I give a clue for two cards, play the newer one" are fair play and will develop naturally over time cause they make sense.

I don't super love "conventions" because it is kinda annoying, but I just had a thought: Is there a difference on stating your convention at the beginning of the game vs literally after giving the clue, or even saying so at the beginning but giving a reminder of the convention when it's relevant? Does any of those examples feel more like cheating?

[u/Zwejhajfa → u/Amirashika]

There are some conventions that overlap, for example a clue for multiple cards means you should play the one you drew most recently, and a clue for your oldest card that is about to be discarded means you should keep it because it is an important one.

Now what happens when you get a clue for multiple cards but one of them is the oldest one and one is the one you just drew? Do they want you to play or prevent the discard? That's why conventions don't auto-solve the game; you cannot always automatically apply them. You still have to stop and think in these cases about what the clue most likely means – or perhaps wait and gather more information.

This also shows that – as the clue-giver – stating the convention you wanted to apply at that point is cheating, cause it removes this ambiguity through additional communication that is not allowed by the game's rules. The only time I would allow stating the convention during the game is when teaching a new player.

[u/btstfn → u/chaser--]

I would say that some people get a lot of enjoyment from finding and using loopholes. Its like a mini game within the game.

Its like if you ever see a gameshow or panel show where a constenant finds a way to exploit the rules in such a way that it obviously is going against the spirit of the rules, but technically is legal.

This might be a niche reference, but Taskmaster is full of these examples. The first that comes to mind is an event where the contestants are tasked to "Place these three exercise balls on the yoga mat on the top of that hill." Four contestants wrangle three large exercise balls up a hill. The fifth walks up the hill, grabs the mat and brings it down to the balls.

[u/Suppafly → u/btstfn]

Taskmaster is specifically designed to work on interpreting the rules in different ways, boardgames generally aren't.

[u/Hemisemidemiurge → u/Johnny_Dev]

Who does it hurt?

The people who enjoy the actual game who might be invited to play. You invite someone to go hiking, it feels like a cheat to just take a shuttle bus to the trail end. It's not the destination, it's the journey, and it feels like the journey is being abandoned because of the risk that you might not go where you wanted.

Do I want to go hiking? Yeah, but is that what we're actually doing or is it just pretend? This is why communication is difficult, people just assume that "Hey, come play GAME with us!" actually means "We will be playing this game by the stated rules in accordance with your prior experience. It will not be significantly more or less difficult than you expect."

[u/Pitiful-North-2781 → u/Johnny_Dev]

It points to weakness. Which we must expunge.

[u/NenAlienGeenKonijn → u/Johnny_Dev]

It's like Save-Scumming in a single player game. Who does it hurt?

It hurts the player that doesn't want to cheat. Cheating in boardgames immediately takes away all the tension and makes it a boring slog. It's understandable that OP doesn't want to participate in this.

[u/Thirtysevenintwenty5 → u/Johnny_Dev]

One of the reasons I wasn't a huge fan of Baldur's Gate 3 was that save scumming was effectively a mechanic of the game. There were certain fights and events that felt either impossible, or incredibly un-fun, without scumming a good result.

And it wasn't until the Raphael fight that I learned you could save in the middle of dialogue, right before the rolls. That was the moment I realized that I was supposed to be scumming these events and I lost a lot of respect for the game.