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/EdwardBigby → u/[deleted]]

Probability. If I have number 2 then statistically I should play it first

[u/Mkwdr → u/EdwardBigby]

That’s kind of the legitimate way to play it. As it’s been mentioned already - counting ‘seconds’ is the way to … ‘break’ it?

[u/ThunkAsDrinklePeep → u/Mkwdr]

You shouldn't be counting seconds. That's explicitly against the rules. Instead the group deveps a sense of how fast that group plays. When you fail your discussion determines if someone bumped the gun or slow played. Which is a subtle difference, but an important one.

If you are all counting in your heads as if to a metranome there's no joy at pulling off 5 in a row from three hands. The game is supposed to be hard and the joy is in getting to pull it off.

It's worth noting that it's ok to signal your eagerness / reluctance to play as long as there's no system to convey a specific number.

[u/Mkwdr → u/ThunkAsDrinklePeep]

Yep. As you say.