An Argument for a Conservative Stage List

I am going to preface this thread philosophical discussion with two things:

First, I am not an attorney.
Second, I live in Kansas.

These two things are important because they are going to be the two easiest ways to circumvent my argument.

Back story: The line of reasoning I'm going to present began with my attempts to hold a tournament locally. During my venue search, many of the managers of venues expressed concerns that a video game tournament where participants entered a cash fee for a cash payout constituted gambling.

I went and did some research, and this is what I determined.

H.R. 2610: The Skill Games Protection Act died in House SubComittee. The relevance of this is that the legality of skilled games against being deemed gambling isn't protected by federal law. This means that it then falls under the jurisdiction of the states. Most states have their own Gaming Commission that has the executive discretion in terms of statutes and enforcing said rules within the state.

Based on my research of the bylaws of the Kansas Racing & Gaming Commission, the criteria used to determine if a game is considered gambling falls under two separate prongs if cash is exchanged. These are paraphrased based on my understanding of the around 80 pages of legal documents I was reading:

1. A game must consist of man vs. man elements where the winner is determined by skill.
2. A skill game consisting of man vs. machine elements that alter the outcome to be different than the results above, will be considered gambling.

I think that for the most part, the current stage list attempts to account for the first prong and passes. The stage list is for the most part, competitively sound. However, the second prong was instituted because of machine gambling (i.e. computer poker that operates under algorithms in the computer to simulate "randomness" but can never really be truly random. So a skilled person who knew the algorithm could in theory have enough skill to continually beat the computer, but since it's humanly impossible to computer said algorithm they just determined that all man vs. machine things were gambling to be safe). And because of this second prong, the stage list fails.

If we operate under the game objective that a game's winner is decided by who takes the opponents stocks or who ever has the most stocks but least amount of damage at the end of the timer, then the two pronged test has serious implications in the logistical legality of holding a brawl tournament.

Based on that prong test, a stage element that does damage or kills a player, ought to be enough to deem it illegal for tournament play because it runs the risk of having the entire tournament considered illegal gambling.


Based on this ideology, I submit that the following should be considered the legal stages of play:

BattleField
Castle Siege
Delfino Plaza
Final Destination
Frigate Orpheon
Lylat Cruise
Pokemon Stadium 1
Pokemon Stadium 2
Rainbow Cruise
Smashville
Yoshi's Island Brawl

They are essentially the stages in the universal stage list that do not have stage elements that do damage. I hesitate to add Frigate Orpheon because I feel like of all the stages, this stage transformation is the only one that can reasonably be constituted as the game altering the outcome based on the level "killing someone". However, by removing this level I realize there then comes an argument that any level with a stage transformation such as RC, PS2, and Delfino where the player is often put into unfavorable positions without interaction from an opponent might be considered a Man vs. Machine element. Also, I include YI despite the ghosts because they don't eliminate a stock, which when isolated from the prong of player vs. player, wouldn't necessarily be considered man vs. machine.

EDIT: Just to clear up confusion, random does not necessarily constitute man vs. machine play. Random is an element this is considered in the first tier on whether the game is a skill game. That is typically what most stage discussion legality threads are discussing, because asking if the stage is competitive falls under the realm if it's a game of skill. If it satisfies that element of a game of skill, then the random elements cease being an issue.

For example, Jungle Japes has the Klap Trap occurring on a specific route and timer. It isn't random, but it's a stage hazard that does damage. Which alters results simply based on it have direct impact of stock and percents. Compared to YIB Ghost, which is "random", but is legally viable because it doesn't necessarily take away stocks or deal damage.

If we didn't look at it in this manner of a separated two prong test, then we'd have to say that Brawl in itself would never qualify as legal because the stage spawning points at the beginning of a set aren't identical and thus giving one player a competitive advantage. Advantage/disadvantage doesn't matter unless it's clearly measurable within the context of the game objective.


I await legitimate rebuttals. However, please don't rebut with, "My state's laws are different so your point is invalid." And if I'm wrong on my interpretation, someone feel free to correct me on that since I'm not an attorney. But based on my conversations with people at the KRGC, I think my understanding of the bylaws are correct.

Please do. I'm not sure if you understood the argument or even read it based on your response. It's not an advocate for a regional separate rules set, although I can see how it can be misconstrued that way. Legal viability ought to have just as much impact as competitive viability in my opinion if the competitive community wants to be respected. Until we see that fact, we are in the eyes of the powers that be, no different than glorified gambling institution. And given that the target demographic includes a percentage that can't legally gamble, this is an issue that ought to be considered.

(Lux) said:

1. A game must consist of man vs. man elements where the winner is determined by skill.
2. A skill game consisting of man vs. machine elements that alter the outcome to be different than the results above, will be considered gambling.

Click to expand...

Technically there is no such thing as man vs machine (stage) in brawl.
It's Player (man) + stage (machine) vs Player + stage.

Which is on every stage in the game.

I mean if we were playing Multi-man brawl sure....but we're not.

(Lux) said:

Also, I include YI despite the ghosts because they don't eliminate a stock, which when isolated from the prong of player vs. player, wouldn't necessarily be considered man vs. machine.

Click to expand...

Even if the support ghost doesn't eliminate a stock, it's still a machine element that randomly alters the outcome of a match. And if I interpret this correctly...

(Lux) said:

2. A skill game consisting of man vs. machine elements that alter the outcome to be different than the results above, will be considered gambling.

Click to expand...

...that should get it banned.

Apart from that though, wouldn't that mean that you'd also have to ban characters with random attacks?

Pretty much. That law means that Brawl is ****ed.

My rebuttals:

Luigi's Mansion and Yoshi's Island: Melee. Not random (Pipes for a fact, LM I'm not sure about side platforms), should be included.

Also, PTAD, because the cars are fully predictable and run on a timer. Only random factor is where the stage stops, which is not a problem, see Delfino.

Also, tripping, GnW, Peach, Luigi.

I didn't include Luigi's Mansion and YIM simply because they weren't components of the Universal Stage list.

It doesn't matter if the hazards are random or not. It's a two pronged test. The random element is included in the first prong to test if the level is a game of skill. The second prong test is just whether there are man vs. machine elements in the game. Clearly PTAD has man vs. machine elements because they have hazards that alter the outcome based on current in game objective to win.

Does a random item on turnip pull do damage or remove stock? No, so it's not a man vs. machine element. I think G&W, and Luigi aren't considered Man vs. Machine elements. Judge, Missile, and Turnip pulls have random elements. But they are player initiated random elements that occur within the context of two players going against each other. So in that affect, it's considered a man vs. man element. Just because it's random doesn't make it a man vs. machine element persay. If it's competitive in the first prong is where random elements are weighed. After that, it has to be determined if it's man vs. machine.

I think if anything, tripping is probably the only thing that Brawl as a community would have a hard time getting around because it's a global element of the game. You could sort of follow the same logic I outlined to get around Luigi, GW, and Peach. Does a trip remove stock or do damage? No it does not. Therefore it could be argued it isn't a man vs. machine element in the context of the game.

(Lux) said:

Does a random item on turnip pull do damage or remove stock? No, so it's not a man vs. machine element.

Click to expand...

Why does it have to remove a stock to be man vs machine? Or do damage? An element that does neither can still alter the outcome of the match, which is also what I said about YI:B... which you didn't respond to.

(Lux) said:

I think G&W, and Luigi aren't considered Man vs. Machine elements.Judge, Missile, and Turnip pulls have random elements. But they are player initiated random elements that occur within the context of two players going against each other. So in that affect, it's considered a man vs. man element.

Click to expand...

Eh ok... you do realize that while one player indeed intializes the random element in these attacks, it is still a random element that is forced on the other player, that's the exact same thing as a random stage element, instead that you could argue that that element is more fair, seeing that it's a randomness for both players, both in the initialization and the part where it comes to planning ahead.

chaosmaster1991 said:

Why does it have to remove a stock to be man vs machine? Or do damage? An element that does neither can still alter the outcome of the match, which is also what I said about YI:B... which you didn't respond to.

Click to expand...

The objective of our tournament play is to remove our opponents stock or have more stocks and lower percents in order to win. It matters because if that is the objective of the game, a stage hazard that does damage or removes is in direct competition AGAINST the man that the hazard if affecting. In the context of YI, it affects the person not being saved by the ghost, given. But, that conflict of interest is seen through the perspective of man vs. man play. It doesn't directly impact the results in respect to the objective because it doesn't remove stocks nor does it do damage. Just because it alters the outcome of the match doesn't mean it should be banned. It has to be in direct competition of the player in question in terms of the game objective.

chaosmaster1991 said:

Eh ok... you do realize that while one player indeed intializes the random element in these attacks, it is still a random element that is forced on the other player, that's the exact same thing as a random stage element, instead that you could argue that that element is more fair, seeing that it's a randomness for both players, both in the initialization and the part where it comes to planning ahead.

Click to expand...

It's a two pronged list. The random element is FIRST considered when asked if it's man vs. man into determining if the game is a skill game. So any of those moves would be weighed on competitive fairness would be addressed in the first tier of examination. I'm more questioning the second prong, where things that kill players that exists outside of man vs. man elements (i.e. moves a player executes when in the context of playing) ought to be banned. I am not saying anything about random or fair when considering stage elements. That belongs in the first prong of testing to seeing if it's competitive. This is just an additional weighing mechanism after that prong of testing.

Um, to he extent of my knowledge, that means EVERY video game is ****ed. I certainly hope Madden tournaments are never held in your state; the PRNG (psuedo-random number generator, in case you didn't know) helps determine whether wind will interfere with a pass trajectory.

Or a SSF4 tournament, because a PRNG helps to determine scaled damage, so no two blows do the EXACT same amount of damage.

Or a Halo Reach tournament, because the Needler projectiles are expelled randomly upon explosion.

The fact of the matter is that ANYTHING that attempts to simulate physics has a PRNG in it somewhere, because we cannot, as of now, simulate physics with 100% accuracy, so the only way to simulate realistic chaos is to control the PRNG. If I was a lawyer defending Brawl, I'd argue that Kansas gaming laws regulating man vs. machine games, such as in the second prong of that commission law, are too broad, because they don't address HOW random variables are used in computer programming, thus including computer simulations that use random variables, but for what can only be considered non-gambling reasons (no one considers real-life football to be gambling, even though the wind randomizes outcomes to some degree, so why should a simulation of wind that does the same thing as nature be considered gambling JUST because a computer is doing it?).

TL:DR;: That law is too broad to be considered a good gambling law, and Brawl is NOT random enough, even on stages like Norfair, to be considered true gambling. It can be argued that the fault is not with Brawl, but with Kansas law and lawmakers not understanding how computer programming works, and thus making a law that is too broad to be useful.

Jack Kieser said:

Um, to he extent of my knowledge, that means EVERY video game is ****ed. I certainly hope Madden tournaments are never held in your state; the PRNG (psuedo-random number generator, in case you didn't know) helps determine whether wind will interfere with a pass trajectory.

Or a SSF4 tournament, because a PRNG helps to determine scaled damage, so no two blows do the EXACT same amount of damage.

Or a Halo Reach tournament, because the Needler projectiles are expelled randomly upon explosion.

The fact of the matter is that ANYTHING that attempts to simulate physics has a PRNG in it somewhere, because we cannot, as of now, simulate physics with 100% accuracy, so the only way to simulate realistic chaos is to control the PRNG. If I was a lawyer defending Brawl, I'd argue that Kansas gaming laws regulating man vs. machine games, such as in the second prong of that commission law, are too broad, because they don't address HOW random variables are used in computer programming, thus including computer simulations that use random variables, but for what can only be considered non-gambling reasons (no one considers real-life football to be gambling, even though the wind randomizes outcomes to some degree, so why should a simulation of wind that does the same thing as nature be considered gambling JUST because a computer is doing it?).

TL:DR;: That law is too broad to be considered a good gambling law, and Brawl is NOT random enough, even on stages like Norfair, to be considered true gambling. It can be argued that the fault is not with Brawl, but with Kansas law and lawmakers not understanding how computer programming works, and thus making a law that is too broad to be useful.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if the variables are random. As long as the random variable are small enough that it passes the test of a skill game, it's fine. It's only when a computer element acts against the player within the context of game objectives does it fall back within the realm of gambling.

For example, I think in Madden, the AI controlled elements of that game, such as players that are in motion that are controlled by AI and not the player, would constitute man vs. machine element. And in KS, that's gambling. And according to the KRGC, it's similar in most states.

I agree that the law sucks. But since HR2610 died in house committee, we are sort of screwed in that regard.

(Lux) said:

The objective of our tournament play is to remove our opponents stock or have more stocks and lower percents in order to win.

Click to expand...

And the support ghost doesn't help you with that second condition when it saves you?

(Lux) said:

It matters because if that is the objective of the game, a stage hazard that does damage or removes is in direct competition AGAINST the man that the hazard if affecting.

Click to expand...

But when you're helping one side you're indirectly damaging the other side by denying it the advantage it would have gotten without the element.

(Lux) said:

In the context of YI, it affects the person not being saved by the ghost, given. But, that conflict of interest is seen through the perspective of man vs. man play. It doesn't directly impact the results in respect to the objective because it doesn't remove stocks nor does it do damage.

Click to expand...

Yeah, let's say both players are on their last stock and there are only a couple of seconds remaining. P1 attempts to KO P2 and would have succeeded if the support ghost hadn't appeared. The time runs out directly afterwards and P2 wins because he has a less percent.
Totally didn't impact the result.

(Lux) said:

Just because it alters the outcome of the match doesn't mean it should be banned. It has to be in direct competition of the player in question in terms of the game objective.

Click to expand...

But the ghost impacts the whole match, thus both players. And one of them is potentially at a disadvantage because of it.

(Lux) said:

It's a two pronged list. The random element is FIRST considered when asked if it's man vs. man into determining if the game is a skill game. So any of those moves would be weighed on competitive fairness would be addressed in the first tier of examination. I'm more questioning the second prong, where things that kill players that exists outside of man vs. man elements (i.e. moves a player executes when in the context of playing) ought to be banned. I am not saying anything about random or fair when considering stage elements. That belongs in the first prong of testing to seeing if it's competitive. This is just an additional weighing mechanism after that prong of testing.

Click to expand...

So those attacks would be considered man vs man elements even though they have a RNG which is clearly a machine element? Why?

(Lux) said:

It doesn't matter if the hazards are random or not. It's a two pronged test. The random element is included in the first prong to test if the level is a game of skill. The second prong test is just whether there are man vs. machine elements in the game. Clearly PTAD has man vs. machine elements because they have hazards that alter the outcome based on current in game objective to win.

Click to expand...

Smashville has a platform, clearly a man vs. machine element. For that matter, FD has ledges, which is a machine element. Literally everything in Brawl is a machine element, random or no. So why are damaging hazards the only thing that bothers you?

chaosmaster1991 said:

And the support ghost doesn't help you with that second condition when it saves you?



But when you're helping one side you're indirectly damaging the other side by denying it the advantage it would have gotten without the element.



Yeah, let's say both players are on their last stock and there are only a couple of seconds remaining. P1 attempts to KO P2 and would have succeeded if the support ghost hadn't appeared. The time runs out directly afterwards and P2 wins because he has a less percent.
Totally didn't impact the result.



But the ghost impacts the whole match, thus both players. And one of them is potentially at a disadvantage because of it.



So those attacks would be considered man vs man elements even though they have a RNG which is clearly a machine element? Why?

Click to expand...

Your rebuttal on YI is pretty strong, and a line of reasoning I actually questioned myself when weighing the criteria. I think what makes your argument correct is the timer influencing the objective of the gameplay. In my opinion, if we removed timer constraints, then YI would stand. However, since we have it in the current rulesset, I admit you are probably correct.

In regard to your last part, I think the best way to examine it would be what initiated said random event. In the terms of Luigi, G&W, and Peach, a player initiated it. Thus making it a player vs. player scenario. At which point, it would fall under the scope of the first test to see if it's too random to make it anticompetitive. Which is a better way of approaching it than simply saying, "Ban those characters." Since honestly that's the only other alternative solution from a legal standpoint (not a competitive one).

In terms of stage hazards, the stage governing cpu as an entity initiates whatever effect the hazard has, thus making it Man vs. Machine.

InferiorityComplex said:

Smashville has a platform, clearly a man vs. machine element. For that matter, FD has ledges, which is a machine element. Literally everything in Brawl is a machine element, random or no. So why are damaging hazards the only thing that bothers you?

Click to expand...

Does the platform on SV or ledge on FD actively work against the player in the context of the game in terms of removing stocks and/or dealing damage? The damaging hazards are the only thing that are worry some because they have a direct connection with the objective of our tournament play. Most machine elements in brawl aren't in conflict with the player.

Most of your arguments are very similar to Susa's arguments in his thread about removing random hazards.

But basically, what it comes down to, is there would be only 5 legal stages,(FD,BF,YI(M),JJ,RC) if we remove all the randomness.
And we have to because any randomness can help players stall for time, which directly influences the second criteria for victory.

I don't think you have to remove all randomness. Just because they gain the ability to stall for time does not put the player in direct conflict with the computer. Like I see what you guys are trying to say that "randomness is a computer element". I don't know how to make it clearer that you're missing the point. Randomness is accounted for in the first prong of examination of a legality because randomness will be a detriment to whether the game can be considered a game of skill. I'm sure we can agree that most of the level are competitively sound in the universal stage list. Just because it's random doesn't mean it's in conflict with the the player.

The second examination looks to see if there are computer elements that are in DIRECT conflict with the player. Just because it helps you run away doesn't mean it's in direct conflict with the objective of not losing your stocks first. Nor is it even DIRECT conflict with the player when it comes to terms of differing percents when it comes to a timeout. The ability to stall would be an indirect result of a player using certain stage elements to stall. Therefore, it's the player initiating whatever tactic that causes the stalling. While it has an indirect link, it must first pass through a player in terms of intent, at which point it would fall under the realm of player vs. player. So unless it does damage or kills, it's indirect at best and probably falls under the category of prong 1, not prong 2.

Well put it this way.

Every hazard in the game except for the rain on WarioWare is easily avoidable without an opponent, so whenever you're hit into the hazard that's your opponent outplaying you. So like stalling it's mostly player initiated.

And why does the difference between direct and indirect matter? It's still altering the outcome of the game.

Just because it's "easily avoidable" doesn't mean it doesn't fall under the parameters of Man vs. Machine. A stage hazard doing damage is not player initiated. It is stage initiated. If it is inititated solely by a computer element, it falls under the prong 2 test and fails.

It matters if it's indirect if the step that makes it indirect makes the question if the level is competitive or not. By in large, many levels with stage hazards that deal damage are competitive, even if they are random. It's not about if it's competitive. It's ONLY about how the stage hazard falls within the context of the game objective of removing stocks and racking damage within allotted time. If those are the only criteria of determining win or loss between two players, than only cpu elements that affect stocks or damage ought to be weighed in criteria 2.

I'm with Jack on this one. This law essentially means that all video games are gambling.

Unfortunately that's probably correct. I'm just doing my best to circumvent that law while still maintaining a level of something resembling our competitive community. Fortunately, state to state, the laws are different. I encourage everyone to look up their state specific laws and see if we can troubleshoot for loopholes. Or try to get HR2610 or something like that back on the forefront of discussion.

But it's pointless. If they'll take offense to brawl with norfair and Brinstar legal with that law, they'll almost certainly still take offense to brawl without.

Tripping. 'Nuff said.

Ah, American gambling laws.

It amuses me to say the least that should I go to the Pokémon VGC, I'm gambling according to Kansas law.

I don't know how lawmaking works in America, but here I'd petition my local MPP to contest the law in parliament. I suggest you do whatever the American equivalent of that is.

OP brings up an interesting point, I was actually thinking about the legality of smash tournaments the other day.


Arent all smash tournaments effectively illegal when not run under the guise of a gaming comission?