Grudge Rules as Tournament Rules

[Robin Reeve]

I should have used "debatable" rather than "disgusting".
As a Christian anarchist, I react fiercely vs all imposition of religious beliefs - and superstition about precision dice is religious.
Standard dice results have been tested (there was a debate some months ago on this forum), and a margin of difference from precision dice was not clearly demonstrated.
The scale of an ASL scenario (200 to 400 die rolls) is much too small to note any difference, that only occurs for tens of thousands of rolls.
I would venture that hands' grease, the texture of the surface the dice are rolled on or the way one makes them bounce when throwing them has a much more important impact on the result.

 

[von Marwitz]

The term 'Grudge rules' is an interesting one, isn't it? It's rather pejorative in itself and helps frame the debate in a way that puts their advocate on the defensive.

Agreeing as I do with all the amendments I've seen laid out in this thread on the Arnhem tournament, I think I'd prefer an alternative - 'Refined rules', perhaps, or 'Mended rules'. My personal favourite though would simply be 'Better rules'.

If it is the framing which you dislike, I can't help to point out that
'Refined rules', 'Mended rules' or your personal favourite 'Better rules' do "frame" the argument just as 'Grudge rules' - merely into the other direction.

von Marwitz

 

[Actionjick]

I should have used "debatable" rather than "disgusting".
As a Christian anarchist, I react fiercely vs all imposition of religious beliefs - and superstition about precision dice is religious.
Standard dice results have been tested (there was a debate some months ago on this forum), and a margin of difference from precision dice was not clearly demonstrated.
The scale of an ASL scenario (200 to 400 die rolls) is much too small to note any difference, that only occurs for tens of thousands of rolls.
I would venture that hands' grease, the texture of the surface the dice are rolled on or the way one makes them bounce when throwing them has a much more important impact on the result.

Instead of worrying about dice most players would do better just to study the rules. That will certainly have a more positive impact on your game than the most precision dice ever will.

I've stated before that if someone thought they had to cheat to beat me I would've been flattered. That's just me and personally I was always happy just to be playing.

 

[von Marwitz]

IMO, this whole thread is a tempest in a teapot.

But admittedly, we haven't had such a heated debate in a thread at GameSquad for quite a while...

SSRs change the rules all the time. You trust the designer to get those right. Why not extend the same trust to the TD? -- jim

Apples and oranges IMHO.

If I "distrust" a scenario design(er), I can simply and easily ignore that scenario - there are thousands out there.

If I "distrust" (not a fitting word to describe it IMHO) a TD, I don't have that option in case of tournaments. As has been stated, there aren't that many - and this is especially true if you do not want or cannot spend considerable travelling funds to cover longer distances.

Furthermore, I think there are SSRs and SSRs:
There may be very good reasons for a "Kindling N/A" on boards 16 or 43.
But, for example, allowing MMG/HMG merely be used to full effect by Crews (in non-Japanese OoB's) is a different matter - I call this a 'Grudge rule'.

The same way there are Tournament SSRs and Tournament SSRs:
I know few people who would raise an issue with the Pleva OBA rule.
But requiring precision dice and even declaring certain brands of precision dice not precision enough?! Come on, that's ridiculous.

von Marwitz

 

[von Marwitz]

I described it in my scenario design book, which is where Mark learned the term. Right Markie?

View attachment 30190

Hehe, your first post in more than three years.

Whether "storm in a teapot" or not, this thread does liven up things...

von Marwitz

 

[Jazz]

Hehe, your first post in more than three years.

Whether "storm in a teapot" or not, this thread does liven up things...

von Marwitz

Good sport, what?

 

[Vic Provost]

I've used a Red and Black several times. I've been questioned about which is the colored die. Me: "Red, because black is the absence of color."

Red and Black make me think of early Blue Oyster Cult albums... ME262 live, 3 feet in front of me, all 5 had guitars, going freaking crazy!

Mandatory ASL: I don't like true Grudge Rules that really alter play but a sheet of common SSRs like Twilight of the Reich does not bother me at all, it saves space on the individual scenario cards. Back to playtesting at Dispatches...

 

[von Marwitz]

Silly rules that exist in the game can mostly be exploited by the more skilful players, who recognise when to use them to their advantage. Better Rules can therefore defend weaker tournament players from such sleaze.

In a competitive game between two good players, Better Rules also protects both of them from having to resort to dishonorable tactics (feeling grubby in the bargain), or resentful when such gamesmanship is used against them.

I think the best protection against the feeling that tactics, which the rules allow, are "dishonorable", to feel "grubby" to use them, or even "resentful" if subjected to them is to see the game as a game and not as a competition in which winning is the most important thing that matters.

von Marwitz

 

[Jazz]

I think the best protection against the feeling that tactics, which the rules allow, are "dishonorable", to feel "grubby" to use them, or even "resentful" if subjected to them is to see the game as a game and not as a competition in which winning is the most important thing that matters.

von Marwitz

A game with cardboard playing pieces.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Mandatory ASL: I don't like true Grudge Rules that really alter play but a sheet of common SSRs like Twilight of the Reich does not bother me at all, it saves space on the individual scenario cards. Back to playtesting at Dispatches...

Those are SSR that apply to a precise set of scenarios.
The problem would be when a series of rules are imposed to any scenario played.

 

[Robin Reeve]

A game with cardboard playing pieces.

I really thought that my cardboard piece losses were real people killed in a parallel universe!
You mean there is no real suffering occuring?
I am disappointed.
I think I will go back to tormenting cats.

 

[Turuk]

D**n! Can't find a popcorn icon.

This has been a fascinating battle debate.

I think I will go back to torturing cats.

@Actionjick will be sad about your grudge against cats.

 

[von Marwitz]

"House Rules (any mutually agreed upon method for speeding up play, or adjusting the official rules for a particular group's own enjoyment or convenience)..."

Seems to me that tournament SSRs fit under this.

"mutually agreed upon"

Easy (well, it should be) to mutually agree between two players of a scenario.

But there is no "mutual agreement" between a TD and all of the individual players attending his tournament. The attending player has the "choice" (which is none) either not to attend or to subject to the Tournament SSR if called on. Where is this "mutual"?

At such a tournament, merely both players could "mutually agree" to discard a Tournament SSR.

That said, I don't criticize Tournament SSR per se. Some may well make sense, others do not. My point is merely that neither the ones that make sense nor the ones that don't are "mutually agreed" upon.

As such, Tournament SSR should be more carefully considered as scenario SSR.

von Marwitz

 

[Actionjick]

This has been a fascinating battle debate.



@Actionjick will be sad about your grudge against cats.

Yes I am.
In a parallel universe, that is.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

But there is no "mutual agreement" between a TD and all of the individual players attending his tournament. The attending player has the "choice" (which is none) either not to attend or to subject to the Tournament SSR if called on. Where is this "mutual"?

The mutual agreement is there. The tournament director agrees to host the players. The players agree to abide by the tournament director's .... em, direction. They follow the schedule, they play who they are told, and they abide by the rules, or suffer the consequences determined by the TD/host.

At such a tournament, ... both players could "mutually agree" to discard a Tournament SSR.

Quite, but both players would be subject to the consequences mentioned above - which could very well be "none" if the TD wasn't fussed about it or never found out about it. In a single game, not a big deal, but it wouldn't be inconsequential if all players on the same side of a specific scenario were being weighted against each other, and a victory was purchased directly as a result of ignoring a house/tournament rule. I seem to recall this is how we were ranked at Bottoscon, all the Attackers for each scenario were weighted against each other, and all the Defenders ranked similarly.

 

[von Marwitz]

I really trust the integrity of the person I'm playing. I really doubt someone would use loaded dice. BUT if they did. Oh well. It might be another lose in a list of meany for me, I'd just shrug it off. HOWEVER, I suspect the person cheating would have to live with the fact they are a cheat.

This! And this again!

von Marwitz

 

[pensatl1962]

Easy (well, it should be) to mutually agree between two players of a scenario.

But there is no "mutual agreement" between a TD and all of the individual players attending his tournament. The attending player has the "choice" (which is none) either not to attend or to subject to the Tournament SSR if called on. Where is this "mutual"?

At such a tournament, merely both players could "mutually agree" to discard a Tournament SSR.

That said, I don't criticize Tournament SSR per se. Some may well make sense, others do not. My point is merely that neither the ones that make sense nor the ones that don't are "mutually agreed" upon.

As such, Tournament SSR should be more carefully considered as scenario SSR.

von Marwitz

I think the mutual agreement in this case is sort of like a contract: offer and acceptance. The TD offers the scenarios and the parameters of the tournament, which would include any tournament SSRs (whether these are a good idea or not) and by registering to attend the tournament a player is accepting to abide by these rules. So there is mutual agreement (even if it is tacit) in that sense. Of course, we are free to say "no, these tournament rules are not to my liking", and then don't partake in the tournament.

 

[Robin Reeve]

TD have power.
It is complicated for players attending a tourney not to abide by the rules: missing the opportunity to attend is hard to decide, as there aren't scores of tourneys within a reasonable distance...
So TD should be careful when fixing rules.
IRL I would abide by the rules, but would tell the TD my mind about them.
Unfortunately my agenda and my budget have prevented me from attending tourneys. Hopefully, when I am retired, will it be more possible for me to do it.

 

[Actionjick]

TD have power.
It is complicated for players att. ending a tourney not to abide by the rules: missing the opportunity to attend is hard to decide, as there aren't scores of tourneys within a reasonable distance...
So TD should be careful when fixing rules.
IRL I would abide by the rules, but would tell the TD my mind about them.
Unfortunately my agenda and my budget have prevented me from attending tourneys. Hopefully, when I am retired, will it be more possible for me to do it.

Well you could always run your own event. Just sayin'.

 

[Actionjick]

I think the mutual agreement in this case is sort of like a contract: offer and acceptance. The TD offers the scenarios and the parameters of the tournament, which would include any tournament SSRs (whether these are a good idea or not) and by registering to attend the tournament a player is accepting to abide by these rules. So there is mutual agreement (even if it is tacit) in that sense. Of course, we are free to say "no, these tournament rules are not to my liking", and then don't partake in the tournament.

At an event if two attendees agree to not abide by the TD's SSR in their scenario should the " mutually agreed upon " clause in the ASLRB override the TDs rule?