Define Gaming

[JasonK]

I've watched several debates on IDPA rules interpretation and many seem to have at the core the concept of "gaming". To save everyone some time I've searched and quoted all of the references in the online version of the current IDPA rulebook.

Gaming: not found or used in the rulebook.

Gamesmanship: not defined in the rulebook

No "competition only" equipment is permitted in Defensive

Pistol matches since the main goal is to test the skill and ability of the

individual, not their equipment or gamesmanship.  pg. 1; listed under Purpose

To create a level playing field for all competitors to test the skill and ability of

the individual, not their equipment or gamesmanship.  pg. 1; listed under Principals

Gamesman: not defined in the rulebook

If one is going to use low cover for protection, one will not use this gamesman squat.  pg. 19; listed under Course Design Rationale

When the IDPA board voted on the final draft of the rules Oct. 26, 1996, the majority felt that allowing ghost ring sights would be like opening “Pandora’s” box to the gamesmen and would lead to impractical equipment.  pg. 36; listed under Frequently Asked Questions

Game: not defined by rulebook

Please don't try to turn IDPA into the same type of non-practical action shooting as other shooting games.  pg. 20; listed under Course Design Rationale

Here are some of the terms as defined by the online Merriam-Webster dictonary.

Game: to play for a stake

Gaming: the playing of games that simulate actual conditions (as of business or war) especially for training or testing purposes

Cheating: to violate rules dishonestly

[Merlin Orr]

Gaming:  the playing of games that simulate actual conditions (as of business or war) especially for training or testing purposes

Wow! Seems to be differently interpreted by a lot of folks ie: quite the opposite of the "listed" definition.

[Ted Murphy]

IN the concept of the rule book I always took "gamesmanship" to be the kind of thinking that circumvents stages.

An example would be maybe not engaging a target cause the -10 FTN is less costly than the time took engaging the target. That's gamesmanship in that you calculated the most advantageous way to shoot the stage and took the path of least resistance.

Another way woud be to say shoot a standards standing still instead of moving while required. You choose to do this because you know you will get a three second procedural for not moving, but the quality of the hits makes up for it. That's gamesmanship there. Hard for the SO to prove, but there you go.

So it's pretty much tactics that aren't the most honest way to shoot a stage but that nets a return on doing so. In getting a better definition of the USPSA/IPSC concept of freestyle shooting recently, I wonder if it woudl be accurate to say that what IDPA is trying to do is negate the concept of "freestyle" where people pull out all the stops to try and save time on a stage.

Don't know for a fact, just some ideas.

FWIW, "gaming" is used not unlike how the smurfs said "smurf". It's a verb, an adjective, and a noun. It has several meanings. Some people equate gaming with cheating, other people feel it's playing the game within the rule. It can be a complement or a curse. Not the most accurate term to use these days.

I've always considered gamers to be guys like larrys1911 who will buy every gizzy and book and try ever trick to win, but will stay within the rulebook. In larry's case he's mighty serious about staying honest but in the case of others, when you run the edge sometimes you go over it some, and end up cheating. Which is probably why the term gamer has a vague definition to some.

Ted

[tightloop]

The defination is determined by your mindset....and this looks like a topic that will go down hill pretty fast....LOL

[shred]

Most people, if pressed, would probably define "gaming" as "using the rules to do something technically legal, but not at all what we wanted or expected."

This seems to inherently irritate people "that so-n-so just got away with.." in whatever field it's practiced in (ref: any "not guilty by reason of insanity" posts)

[Guest Larry Cazes]

In my mind, in this game (IPSC/USPSA), it doesn't really mean anything negative but it definately is a convenient way to whine about another shooters greater ability to score well within the confines of the rulebook! I got called a gamer this weekend at our local match at richmond and ultimately I took it as a compliment. I had just found a simpler way to execute my plan for that stage. Oh, and by the way, I beat the guy who called me that by 20%+ on that stage. You gotta love it when the plan just comes together.

[freeidaho]

In the context of IDPA:

Gamer: someone that knowingly chooses to shoot an easier COF than designed, rather than compete purely with speed and accuracy. Someone that uses a crutch if you will.

I prefer Matt Burkett's approach to IDPA, "Just shoot the COF the way they want it, but do it faster and more accurately than everyone else.

But I suppose if one does not posses Matt's skill....

Ken Reed

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

Gaming to me is my 130PF 230gr 45ACP revolver loads that I use in my 625 for IDPA rather than the HydraShok loads I carry in my 325PD for self defense.

Because IDPA was established as a game, they have made me a gamer. In order to compete in my class with others of like skill, I have to use the loads designed for the game.

In IDPA, I have seen the term "Gamer" used as a derogatory term. In USPSA, a skilled competitor is a Gamer and proud of it.

Regards,

[mcoliver]

IDPA/USPSA/IPSC or any shooting sports are games of skill both with the gun and with the mind. Most people only get one part right and usually it's the shooting part because that's the easiest to practice. They feel bad when outwitted because they haven't got the skill of the mind yet in the first place. And they are the ones giving Gaming a bad connotation.

[Mark Perez]

"IN the concept of the rule book I always took "gamesmanship" to be the kind of thinking that circumvents stages."

Ted Murphy

we had a classic example of that last night at our indoor match.

The stage had some targets lined on a 45 degree angle away from the shooting position.

One shooter aligned himself on the far left side and just shot a bunch of holes into the first target - "all shoot thru's count". He was using available cover effectively.

You could hear the other minds thinking " that -was- different ."

The MD was observing in the background and came up and said all shots had to be taken between the uprights - since I was the SO , I didn't issue any PE as there wasn't anything in the stage description that forbid such action ,iirc.

Actually thought it was pretty clever ...though it did result in more points down than if he just would have engaged each target individually.

Mark

Edited December 23, 2004 by Mark Perez

[Allgoodhits]

It is all a game, but the same act performed will have a different "spin" depending on who performed it.

If you or I "see and execute" a way of cutting time within the rules of the COF and description yet others do not see it, then that is derogatorilly called "gaming".

However.

If a world class shooter, or favorite son sees it the same way and executes it before us, it is called "brilliant & clever" and the rest are in aw!

Prevent gaming....shoot bullseye!

This unfortuante characteristic is called being human, as only great things can come from great persons. Society has deemed that only mediocrity can come form the rest of us. A great idea from you has many flaws, but the same idea from a superior is......superior! Welcome to the human race.

MJ

[JasonK]

The stage had some targets lined on a 45 degree angle away from the shooting position.

One shooter aligned himself on the far left side and just shot a bunch of holes into the first target - "all shoot thru's count". He was using available cover effectively.

I could take some flak for this one but I consider situations like this to be lessons for course designers. If a shooter sees a flaw in a scenario just take your lumps and learn from it.

Next time place a no-shoot in the array.

[kdj]

I've often thought that the definition of gaming was "someone understands the rules better than I do, benefited from the effort of doing so and I'm upset that I didn't"

Kevin

[short_round]

Prevent gaming....shoot bullseye! 

There's gaming in Bullseye too.

[kdmoore]

"IN the concept of the rule book I always took "gamesmanship" to be the kind of thinking that circumvents stages."

Ted Murphy

we had a classic example of that last night at our indoor match.

The stage had some targets lined on a 45 degree angle away from the shooting position.

One shooter aligned himself on the far left side and just shot a bunch of holes into the first target - "all shoot thru's count". He was using available cover effectively.

You could hear the other minds thinking " that -was- different ."

The MD was observing in the background and came up and said all shots had to be taken between the uprights - since I was the SO , I didn't issue any PE as there wasn't anything in the stage description that forbid such action ,iirc.

Actually thought it was pretty clever ...though it did result in more points down than if he just would have engaged each target individually.

Mark

I've SO'd stages that were set up like this before (intentionally or not, I'm not sure) and the way the MD told us to describe the course involved using the words ... engage each target X number of times. So when you shoot thru, you have only engaged the first target. Thus, you'd need to still shoot the minimum number of rounds in that stage. Still might benefit by not moving, taking your chances, etc. i.e. 4 targets in a ~line, best 3 each, you could stand and blast the first target 12 times.

Of course the real gamers can't do this as their ammo won't go all the way thru 4 targets ....

[blackdragon]

It's all gaming until someone is bleeding and the ambulance shows up!

Ivan

[The Virus]

IDPA IS a game, by trying to make a game NOT a game by creating silly rules and more undefinable rules makes the game even more of a game.

Also since the rules are sort of a nebulas imagined thing, the game cannot even be clearly governed on a level playing field the entire game is subject to broad interpretation rather than specifically defined rules.

IDPA is like a lost child.

[RammerJammer]

Gaming is anyone posessing a better plan/gun/equipment/skillset than me. And it is WRONG!

[GOF]

Gamer (noun) "A shooter who knows the Rule Book better than the inexperienced MM Class SO holding the timer".

Gaming (verb) "A Gamer using their Rule Book knowledge during a COF to completely confuse the inexperienced MM Class SO holding the timer, who then has to resort to actually looking at the Rule Book, and which usually winds up being passed to the MD for final judgement because the MM SO is now totally lost."

If more experienced competitive shooters, with a better knowledge of both the Rule Book and competitive shooting in general, were appointed as SOs, this would not be an issue. Unfortunately, you can join IDPA as your first competitive shooting experience on a Monday... take a SO class on Wednesday... and lord it over MA Class shooters who have been in IDPA for over a decade, and thoroughly understand the Rule Book.

Hey! I'm a SO! I'll tell ya how to do it!

That's the biggest problem with IDPA and I perasonally have seen it from the World Championships, down through four Nationals, and a half-dozen State Championships. You have MM Class SO who have no idea what they are doing.... but, By Golly!... they're gonna do it.

The poor guy who spends more than a few hundred $s, and travel time, to attend a 'Sanctioned Match' is the one who gets stuffed.

Gamers? They know the Rule Book well. The MM Class SOs? Not so much.

[ADulay]

If more experienced competitive shooters, with a better knowledge of both the Rule Book and competitive shooting in general, were appointed as SOs, this would not be an issue. Unfortunately, you can join IDPA as your first competitive shooting experience on a Monday... take a SO class on Wednesday... and lord it over MA Class shooters who have been in IDPA for over a decade, and thoroughly understand the Rule Book.

Hey! I'm a SO! I'll tell ya how to do it!

That's the biggest problem with IDPA and I perasonally have seen it from the World Championships, down through four Nationals, and a half-dozen State Championships. You have MM Class SO who have no idea what they are doing.... but, By Golly!... they're gonna do it.

Gamers? They know the Rule Book well. The MM Class SOs? Not so much.

You know, I've been reading your rantings about MM SO's for over a year now.

Did one of them kick your dog or something? Marry your daughter? What is the problem??

You get MM SO's because they have volunteered to do it. Nobody forced them. They're trying to help out the game. They're involved.

If you've got a problem with MM SO's and it really, really bothers you, shoot something else. You're obviously not happy with the current state of affairs.

I just had to go back and delete about 80% of this message as I was getting carried away a bit so I'll end it now.

Also, please let us all know of which SO shot his first match on Monday, got his SO on Wednesday and wound up at a major match on Saturday. I do believe you've taken a few liberties with your time lines.

AD

,

[jmorris]

Gaming is anything that will allow one to shoot a COF faster than the slowest shooter that is using the word "gamer".

For example, if you are a guy that uses an "entry" position for your firearm between positions and the RO yells "muzzle" you are trying to help the "gamers".

Shooting a COF faster is more likely the problem, it is always better to ask the RO and SO what you can and cannot do.

Edited November 28, 2013 by jmorris

[Agent #1911]

IDPA IS a game, by trying to make a game NOT a game by creating silly rules and more undefinable rules makes the game even more of a game.

Also since the rules are sort of a nebulas imagined thing, the game cannot even be clearly governed on a level playing field the entire game is subject to broad interpretation rather than specifically defined rules.

IDPA is like a lost child.

I agree. just look at the BUG nationals. make silly rules, get silly results. not to mention, most newbie to idea thinks you "MUST" use your carry gun. they whine and complain if they are at the bottom if they get beat by a shooter that understand the rules better. I understand that the principles are based on concealed carry and defensive scenario but by golly, this is not Thunder Ranch defensive training course

[trp]

It's simple if your trying to win your gaming...the way I see it, if I'm playing a game or sport I want to win I'm competitive bc I might see something different from the next guy and if I'm not breaking the rules I should be good.

I think some idpa guys think your supposed to read there minds on stage design and how they think it should go in there head, which is almost never the case

[GlockCanMan]

IDPA is nothing but a game. If you really want to level the game and make it even for everyone...you will need to get the targets to shoot back...that will really make everyone use cover properly

[chirpy]

To me a good example of gaming is shooting to slide lock when you don't need to just so you can take advantage of the quicker reload. Not against the rules but bending them to save a second or two on the reload.

JMHOFWIW

Richard