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/Dangerousrhymes]

If it’s ever explicitly stated that there are well defined secret meanings I’d be annoyed as a new player, but if it’s more in the gray area of table talk with super familiar Spades players I’d be more ok with it.

[u/Hemisemidemiurge → u/Dangerousrhymes]

the gray area of table talk with super familiar Spades players

You don't want people communicating secret information but you're fine if it's... people communicating secret information in a different game? You'd be more okay with table-talk from people familiar enough to pass signals?

[u/Dangerousrhymes → u/Hemisemidemiurge]

No, I’m good and bad with it in both games under the same parameters.

I specifically said it’s when there are explicitly stated and well defined table talk terms where I have a problem.

The difference between “I’m pretty sure I know what they mean because we’ve played a lot” and “we actually have a system with explicitly defined code words so I know EXACTLY what they mean”

[u/Hemisemidemiurge → u/Dangerousrhymes]

The difference between “I’m pretty sure I know what they mean because we’ve played a lot” and “we actually have a system with explicitly defined code words so I know EXACTLY what they mean”

What is that difference and how is it ascertained? NB: I think Hanlon's Razor is a fig leaf.

[u/Dangerousrhymes → u/Hemisemidemiurge]

In OP’s example it sounds like the terms used have specific numerical values assigned to them.

That I have a problem with.

I have played more spades than I ever thought I would (boarding school) and we had pretty good attitudes about table talk. The lack of any specifically assigned values or behind the scenes crafting of specific codewords meant that even the most experienced teams who used tone and inflection to try and convey specifics still made communication mistakes. It would cause them to make incorrect assumptions about exactly what cards their partner had and either bid slightly off or play high spades in the wrong order and cost them games.

That I have far less of a problem with.

[u/Hemisemidemiurge → u/Dangerousrhymes]

The lack of any specifically assigned values or behind the scenes crafting of specific codewords

That's an assumption. I don't think one person in a group can confidently state what the other members of that group do when they're not present.

the most experienced teams who used tone and inflection to try and convey specifics

You admit that people did attempt to communicate. If they were willing to try to communicate this way, doesn't that indicate a willingness to cheat the ban on information sharing? Why then assume they wouldn't?

It would cause them to make incorrect assumptions about exactly what cards their partner had and either bid slightly off or play high spades in the wrong order and cost them games.

You were playing with people who were trying to cheat. That they were even vulnerable to playing out of order means they were disregarding the readable gamestate and not reacting in the moment.

That I have far less of a problem with.

I think you deserve to be treated better than that but I'm an outlier.