Strategy games vs Rules

[Muadib]

Here is a question that always plagues me when I sit down to play a strategy game. Almost all games have clearly defined rules that limit how you play the game and limit your reactions to your opponent. I hate this...this is why I hate chess. The question is which is better, the ability to win by playing by the rules, or the ability to win by using the rules. By using the rules I mean finding the one hole someone forgot to cover in the games instructions and exploiting it to your own strategic advantage. (to some this is called cheating)

My opinion, based on the fact that in real strategy the only limiting factor is your ingenuity, i prefer to win by whatever means work. I will not cheat in the sense that I add more units part way though or anything stupid like that. Depending on the game I have found many holes that I can use, especially in Warhammer. I was wondering what anyone else thought.

[Valiyn]

I agree with you. Unfortunately, unless you have someone well versed in strategy games and game design in general, who is also unbiased, to act as a referee then you will always be limited to the rules that are set. I.e. A tank moved 1/2 across x type of terrain. In reality, you could find some ingenious way around this mobility problem, but in a game that is not possible without a human referee to decide on the factors an idea will overcome. That example is somewhat of a long stretch, but should get the point across.

Rules in game is what determines the framework and fairness. You won't see an end to them in a strategy game unless the game is very advanced in how it is set up. Even then, you still lack alot of the larger context of the surrounding world that strategy is set up in. But the political and other needs of consideration of real strategy can be seen as the "rules" in strategy games.

[TheLastMohican]

Here is a question that always plagues me when I sit down to play a strategy game. Almost all games have clearly defined rules that limit how you play the game and limit your reactions to your opponent. I hate this...this is why I hate chess.

This confuses me. The rules of chess simply tell you how the pieces move, with a few special abilities like castling and en passant captures. When you say your reactions are limited, are you objecting to the rules that prevent you from taking a piece and putting it anywhere on the board that you please? How can a game be played without such basic rules? It would be like asking a person to "solve" a blank crossword puzzle.

[Kalarchis]

The question is which is better, the ability to win by playing by the rules, or the ability to win by using the rules.

The question is redundant. When you use the rules, you play by the rules. As long as you don't break the rules, you're playing by them. Now, there are loopholes and such in games. Some people call it "cheating," I personally know people to call it "cheap." There are a thousand cheap moves in games, and some people will exploit them repeatedly, and other people will complain about it. In the end, it doesn't really matter.

So to answer your question, yes.

[Muadib]

To Vaylin...most strategy games are really about tactics anyway...which is most near and dear to my heart.
To the last mohican....I repeat there are no rules in tactics, you are limited by your ingenuity. I do not argue against rules they are needed to play the game. I just do not think that it is fair to be called cheap or a noob for exploiting simple logical tactics that either bend or go through the rules or are overlooked by others. I just do not think that alot of strategy games are very good simulations of strategy. In my chess example...how come I cannot re role a piece that is in a difficult situation...its what I would do in real life

[Shifter]

The rules are what make it a strategy game, if you could somehow create a way to modify the behaviour of your chess pieces, have them do whatever you want, then strategy would not be required, only a better set of pieces or a better set of rules. In real life you seek to create a favourable imbalance so that you don't have to rely on having a superior strategy. Strategy games, by their nature are designed to be balanced so that strategy alone is the deciding factor.

[deinotes]

Here is a question that always plagues me when I sit down to play a strategy game. Almost all games have clearly defined rules that limit how you play the game and limit your reactions to your opponent. I hate this...this is why I hate chess. The question is which is better, the ability to win by playing by the rules, or the ability to win by using the rules. By using the rules I mean finding the one hole someone forgot to cover in the games instructions and exploiting it to your own strategic advantage. (to some this is called cheating)

My opinion, based on the fact that in real strategy the only limiting factor is your ingenuity, i prefer to win by whatever means work. I will not cheat in the sense that I add more units part way though or anything stupid like that. Depending on the game I have found many holes that I can use, especially in Warhammer. I was wondering what anyone else thought.
It's very easy to use exploits to win.
I find more enjoyment in winning or losing within the rules and finding the weakness in the other player and built my strength.
I am most content when i win from a underdog position.
Maybe you should play magic there are so many rules in that game that there are many "holes" and even better many are allowed ;).
You will also find out after a number of games with exploit users, why poeple have problems with poeple using "holes".

[Apocynum]

I definitely prefer games with fewer simple rules that can be combined in volumes of creative ways than games with volumes of rules that can be played in few ways.

I think 'winning' by exploiting holes and ambiguity in the rules isn't winning, at least it's not winning against your opponent, it's just outwitting the game. Playing against an exploiting player is like spending a day in a court of law...and it's not fun.

[Crazyblue]

I do not have issues with games that have rules. They are necessary to define what can and cannot be done. When rules are arbitrary and not fun is when they go too far.

For instance, in a strategy game where you have to select 5 units to fight a 'battle', it is not logical for you to have all the rest of your men sit on the sidelines so that the field can be even. Why this is done may vary from game to game, it might just be limitations of the system, or that the battles would be trivial, or that if you treat your units as expendable it would be impossible to win if you're expected to have 10+ for a fight and you have 6 left or something. Overall, an ideal game has a basic structure that allows the player multiple 'viable options' with different strategic value depending on the situation. There has to be some risk with every tactic, and every tactic has to have a situation where it would be worthwhile or it is ignored.

While finding a glitch in a game would be creative (possibly) it's like cheating on a puzzle. The entire point of it is for you to solve it and once you look at the answer you might as well stop trying to solve it.