Complexity
Curevei
his article today talking about the reasons for some of the rules
changes Magic will implement in July:
"Let me approach this from a slightly different vantage point. One of
my jobs as Head Designer is to think about the welfare of the game. A
key question that comes up is this: what is the thing most likely to
kill Magic? Yes, such thoughts are a little gruesome, but it is
important to understand the game's weaknesses. I've thought long and
hard over the last fourteen years, and I've come up with an answer.
I'll give you a second to see if you can guess what it is.
Is it design space? Will Magic die because it runs out of viable game
space to explore? No, Magic's design space is much bigger than most
people think. I have every confidence that I could design a block a
year until the day I die (hopefully, far in the future).
Is it power creep? Will the constant quest of R&D to provide the
bigger, badder, more powerful thing cause the game to collapse in on
itself? No, Development's gotten pretty good at understanding what we
can and can't do. I don't see the game spinning out of control as long
as we have developers of our current quality.
Is it competition from other things? Might Magic end because something
better comes along? While obviously this one's possible, many great
games have coincided with Magic and we're still going strong, so this
concern doesn't worry me.
What is the greatest threat to Magic, in my not so humble opinion? We
stop getting new players. While we have excellent player retention,
for various reasons, people do leave the game. Without a counter
balance of fresh blood, the game would hit the point of diminishing
returns and then Magic no longer becomes economically viable to
produce.
But Magic is an awesome game. How would we ever stop attracting new
players? The answer is what I consider to be the biggest danger to the
game: complexity creep. Let me explain. The game keeps evolving. As it
does so, it continues to add new elements to the game. Complexity can
only grow. Here's the problem: The entry to the game is always the
same. The beginner knows nothing. They have to make the jump from
knowing nothing to knowing enough to play. But that line, "knowing
enough to play," is a moving target. As the game gains in complexity,
the line goes up. At some point the differential is too high and not
enough new players can make the jump.
But things rotate out, you say. If a beginner sticks to Standard, then
the vast majority of the game's complexity is hidden away where they
won't see it. Ah, but here is the problem. New things drift from
expansions to base sets. Some things even become evergreen, meaning
they start appearing in every set. Inertia pushes the line up.
How does R&D fight this? How do we keep the line within the
appropriate range? The answer is twofold. First, we make the best use
of intuition that we can. Second, we remove things."
I find complexity creep (well, complexity explosion would be more
accurate) a severe problem for mature CCGs. Games I would design demo
scripts for I could no longer put up with demoing at all because they
just became too much for the random people I'd run across at cons or
wherever. Only the highly motivated could ever put up with the
overwhelming amount of things they'd need to process to play with a
veteran group.
Then, I find that CCGs as they mature can lose their heart to where
players at some point just lose interest in the sea of new stuff. I'm
seeing this with one of the V:TES groups I play with. As everyone
knows, attrition happens. The rate of attrition with this game seems
low, but then, the rate of new players coming in seems similarly low.
I think there's a lot of potential for cleaning up V:TES in terms of
templating cards better, keywording abilities, trying to eliminate
esoteric card interactions/effects, and for making the game more
intuitive. The goal would be to improve its marketability to new
players.
The full article is at http://tinyurl.com/nvkex2, by the way.
Obtenebration
Overhauling the rules to dumb the game down in the hope new players
and players originally turned off by the perceived complexity will try
it again?
While I don't care for most of the "new" layouts of cards/clans(yellow
for Lasombra, what the hell?), changes like that to try and clean
things up are fine. Rewording cards to create a set way of wording
things, as reprints seem to be doing, is good. But changing core game
mechanics to make it "easier to understand" while removing skill or
complexity is a direction I'd rather not see the game take.
brandonsantacruz
> templating cards better, keywording abilities, trying to eliminate
> esoteric card interactions/effects, and for making the game more
> intuitive. The goal would be to improve its marketability to new
> players.
Interesting article. Although I despise Magic for it's block system, I
think that Mark Rosewater has the right idea: new players make or
break a game. There are a lot of games out there that are perfectly
good in their own right, but I will never play them, or at least I
won't play them enough to know/care about them. That's a bit of self-
centered projection(contradiction in terms? I dunno. LSJ? ;P). In
order to attract new players, one has to make a game palatable.
How about these four issues you brought up; templating, keywords,
eliminating esoteric card interactions/effects, and making the game
more intuitive? What about the issue of the "heart" of the game? I'm
no game designer, but I'd be interested to here what game designers,
quasi-game designers, and V:tM enthusiasts have to say.
Brandon
Ashur
that come up with Nights of Reckoning, good luck.
James Coupe
>Cleaning up wording, creating more keywords where able is fine.
>Overhauling the rules to dumb the game down in the hope new players
>and players originally turned off by the perceived complexity will try
>it again?
Cleaning up rules doesn't necessarily have to be dumbing down. Example:
it's more consistent now that damage prevention follows normal
sequencing rules and, possibly, allows for more depth (because I can
respond to your play, where I'm acting). The previous version was
inconsistent for no real benefit, other than the benefit of not changing
the rules.
Keywords, however, you have to be careful with. There's a difficult
balance to be struck between having information on the cards (which can
look overly complex) and having keywords that scurry useful information
off to an appendix in the back of a rule book. That can be just as off-
putting to a new/casual player, because they're expected to carry even
more information in their head before they can play a reasonably
competent game.
This can be exacerbated where the fact that you can move the rule off to
the rulebook means that the rule becomes extra complicated, because
you're not limited by the few lines you have on a library card (or
spell, or stronghold, or whatever in different games). One common
example of this from Magic is banding, which was typically difficult for
new players to understand properly. In Jyhad, paralyze was similiarly
screwy for little benefit.
That's not to say I don't think keywords can be useful - they obviously
can - but I think you have to be relatively cautious about them. I
think in general they're less bothersome on cards I play - you can ask
me what Trifle means, and I should know - but more bothersome when I
need to care about them on your cards over a long-ish period of time.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Kevin M.
> Quoting from Mark Rosewater, head designer of Magic:The Gathering,
> in his article today talking about the reasons for some of the rules
> changes Magic will implement in July:
> The full article is at http://tinyurl.com/nvkex2, by the way.
The most important paragraph in that article, I think:
"This shift is a subtle but crucial one. Ten years ago, my attitude
was as follows: I love the game of Magic. How can I hold onto every
thing I hold dear to the game? What can I do to keep it from changing,
to keep it the game I love? I was attached not to the essence of the
game but to the specific details of it. What I've learned since then
is that it is not the details that matter most. Magic isn't shaped by
what it is at any one moment in time but by the qualities that allow
it to constantly reinvent itself."
This reminds me first and foremost of the players that keep saying
that rarity indicators will somehow destroy the game, uglify the cards,
and make the game less-appealing. There are also the Imbued haters,
the Gehenna/Event haters, the Grouping haters, etc.
For example, I am trying to get a new format rated
(http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt)
and BOY are there haters for that format, even though it changes
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the current game.
I must say that I have disliked on the idea of changing, at the
TO's/Judge's/players' request, the time limit up and away from
2 hours. Even before this change caused me to lose a continental
championship, I didn't see any reason for it. I still don't, tbh, which
is why I don't and won't use it in any tournaments I'm running.
But I could see someone educating me on the issue and changing
my opinion on the subject, so I don't consider myself a hater on it.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Blooded Sand
> Curevei wrote:
> > Quoting from Mark Rosewater, head designer of Magic:The Gathering,
> > in his article today talking about the reasons for some of the rules
> > changes Magic will implement in July:
>
> [snip Curevei's quoting]
>
Kev, for the same reason that i think Rapid Thought is awesome (yes,
everyone out there, you know it is, get on the train people) is why i
also say remove time limits from normal games.
Rapid thoughts, because of its very nature, almost does not need a
time limit. It is always gonna play fast, its a 3 player game. Kill or
bee killed, no negotiation.
However, regular vtes, having 5 players, leaves room for discussion.
The crucial difference here is that someone can yak all day and use
the argument "bvut i am dealing for a win"
Granted, people allow that behaviour, which is what makes it most
annoying. But the one way to get past it is to say that even if you
talk for 2 hours, you are still not gonna survive due to an artificial
time limit.
my 2 cents
Rarity indicators: awesome idea, why not, makes life easier.
Grouping makes logical sense (exclude the independants ;)
the imbued just suck, cos solitaire is boring to watch.
event cards rck, cos they really tweak people's noses.....
LSJ
> i also say remove time limits from normal games.
It is often impractical to book a venue for an infinite amount of time.
If the response is: "Don't be silly. I'm talking about letting the games play
out naturally, and that means less than 6 hours for all sane and most other
cases", then OK: that's no change at all. 6 hour time limits are already allowed.
That is, nothing is stopping you or any organizer from running tournaments with
"effectively" no time limit. Just use a 6 hour time limit (or whatever number of
hours you feel will achieve the desired result).
Johannes Walch
> Blooded Sand wrote:
>> i also say remove time limits from normal games.
>
> It is often impractical to book a venue for an infinite amount of time.
>
> If the response is: "Don't be silly. I'm talking about letting the games
> play out naturally, and that means less than 6 hours for all sane and
> most other cases", then OK: that's no change at all. 6 hour time limits
> are already allowed.
:)
I remember that one no-time-limit final I "enjoyed".
"Can I hunt with Gregor"
"No, I will block that"
"What if I hunt with Gilbert"
"I will block that as well"
... ad nauseam. That was about hunting. Think KRC.
Blooded Sand
Yeah, but then you get to have the fun bit.
"Arika bleeds you. Blocks?" Crosstable mutterings re DI.
"please block, i wanna play stealth, then be so kind as to bounce me
to the DI monkey, he is annoying me with his flung poop."
Surprising how often you can get that to work.....
XZealot
That has very little to do and more to do with players just wasting
people's time.
PLAY THE GAME
Peter D Bakija
> I remember that one no-time-limit final I "enjoyed".
>
> "Can I hunt with Gregor"
> "No, I will block that"
> "What if I hunt with Gilbert"
> "I will block that as well"
>
> ... ad nauseam. That was about hunting. Think KRC.
Then why did you bother asking? Just do what you are going to do. Your
opponents will do what they are going to do. And the game will
progress.
This level of negotiation strikes me as far more a problem in the game
than any level of complexity could possibly cause. For example, in a
game I played recently, on my first action of the game, I called a KRC
to do 2 to my prey and 2 to my predator (as it would probably pass
that way). My prey was intent on trying to negotiate his way out of
the 2 points of KRC damage. On my first action of the game. When he
was at, like, 20 pool. By doing things like trying to broker a deal to
have me *not* KRC him in exchange for various strange predator/prey
alliance shenanagins. And suggesting that he would wall up and not act
against his prey due to the threat I was posing. By KRCing him for 2.
On my first action. Of the game.
Like, I realize that a lot of people really like the "negotiations
phase" in VTES. Ok, fair enough. It is a multi player game, and that
is part of the game. But when the negotiations revolve around things
like "Do I have permission to take mandatory actions with htis guy?
No? How about this guy? Will you not block me?" and "I, as your prey,
am going to try and negotiate you out of trying to kill me starting on
your first action of the game", it starts to cross the line into the
ridiculous. Far more than, say, the Imbued do by adding complexity to
the game.
-Peter
Blooded Sand
OK, there you are right. And as i believe time should be rewound and
the imbued uncreated, thats some pretty hefty agreement.
Preys of the world, understand the following. My job, purpose, raison
d'etre, whatever, is to expunge your smouldering carcass from its
immortal coil. i will do this by bleeding you, voting you out,
smashing your minions, removing your library, blocking everything you
do, or any other form of nastiness i can come up with. Do not whine
about this, it is just the way things are. In return, i will not try
to weedle my predator into not hurting me, as he should also fulfil
his destiny.
suoli
> OK, there you are right. And as i believe time should be rewound and
> the imbued uncreated, thats some pretty hefty agreement.
> Preys of the world, understand the following. My job, purpose, raison
> d'etre, whatever, is to expunge your smouldering carcass from its
> immortal coil. i will do this by bleeding you, voting you out,
> smashing your minions, removing your library, blocking everything you
> do, or any other form of nastiness i can come up with. Do not whine
> about this, it is just the way things are. In return, i will not try
> to weedle my predator into not hurting me, as he should also fulfil
> his destiny.
And I'm sure you wouldn't mind if your prey back ousted you in
exchange for a peace treaty with his next predator :)
Seriously though, just make it clear that you won't negotiate and you
shouldn't be bothered again.
Chris Berger
>
> OK, there you are right. And as i believe time should be rewound and
> the imbued uncreated, thats some pretty hefty agreement.
> Preys of the world, understand the following. My job, purpose, raison
> d'etre, whatever, is to expunge your smouldering carcass from its
> immortal coil. i will do this by bleeding you, voting you out,
> smashing your minions, removing your library, blocking everything you
> do, or any other form of nastiness i can come up with. Do not whine
> about this, it is just the way things are. In return, i will not try
> to weedle my predator into not hurting me, as he should also fulfil
> his destiny.
>
*you* into a smoking crater, then you might want to be willing to
negotiate. Like, "I'll try to oust you, but will leave your
permanents alone so you can apply pressure on your own prey." Or
"I'll give you one turn of no bleeding, so that I can still have some
minions left on the turn after that." If my only option to even have
a chance of staying in the game to oust my own prey is to completely
cripple or back-oust my predator, then you'd better believe that's
exactly what I'm going to do. If you, as predator, are afraid of
that, then you might want to make some concessions, or start thinking
about what deck you're going to play NEXT game...
Don't get me wrong - I'll never whine or complain about a predator
that's trying to oust me. If you succeed, then well done. But I will
fight back, even if it's "going in the wrong direction".
Peter D Bakija
> Don't get me wrong - I'll never whine or complain about a predator
> that's trying to oust me. If you succeed, then well done. But I will
> fight back, even if it's "going in the wrong direction".
Which is fine--sometimes you need to back oust your predator. And
sometimes you need to crosstable oust someone. These things happen.
The point is that people should just do what they are going to do, or
feel they need to do, expect that their opponents are going to react
as they feel they need to do, and not spend 20 minutes explaining
*why* you are backousting me. Or threatening me with backousting in an
attempt to get me to stop trying to oust you.
This game works infinitely better if people *act* rather than talk
about acting.
-Peter
Daneel
<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
I agree. If I had to construct a mental list of the top reasons why
ex-new players I know left the game, complexity as written in the
article would not be very high on the list. Lot of players had their
enthusiasm grinded up on their first (few) tournament(s).
Endless negotiations and playing the table instead of the cards is
recommended by many top players as the way to win. Nevertheless it
is seldom appealing to a newbie, who just got hooked on the game
because of the *insert random card game element from theme to artwork*.
The other thing I see many newbies get upset about is the dealbreaking
/ backstabbing / general at-the-table untrustworthyness of many V:tES
players. Which, paired with the occasional bad play / wrong decision
can lead to a suboptimal multiplayer experience.
I would assume both of these are stronger deterrents than complexity.
--
Regards,
Daneel
brandonsantacruz
of negotiation standards(what is appropriate to try and broker, with
whom, etc) add to complexity or at least in-game hassles.
How about templating, keywords, eliminating esoteric card interactions/
effects, and making the game
more intuitive? What about the issue of the "heart" of the game?
Brandon
Daneel
<ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 10:11ï¿œam, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> OK, there you are right. And as i believe time should be rewound and
>> the imbued uncreated, thats some pretty hefty agreement.
>> Preys of the world, understand the following. My job, purpose, raison
>> d'etre, whatever, is to expunge your smouldering carcass from its
>> immortal coil. i will do this by bleeding you, voting you out,
>> smashing your minions, removing your library, blocking everything you
>> do, or any other form of nastiness i can come up with. ï¿œDo not whine
>> about this, it is just the way things are. In return, i will not try
>> to weedle my predator into not hurting me, as he should also fulfil
>> his destiny.
>>
> I understand the sentiment, but if your prey has the option of turning
> *you* into a smoking crater, then you might want to be willing to
> negotiate. Like, "I'll try to oust you, but will leave your
> permanents alone so you can apply pressure on your own prey." Or
> "I'll give you one turn of no bleeding, so that I can still have some
> minions left on the turn after that." If my only option to even have
> a chance of staying in the game to oust my own prey is to completely
> cripple or back-oust my predator, then you'd better believe that's
> exactly what I'm going to do. If you, as predator, are afraid of
> that, then you might want to make some concessions, or start thinking
> about what deck you're going to play NEXT game...
>
> Don't get me wrong - I'll never whine or complain about a predator
> that's trying to oust me. If you succeed, then well done. But I will
> fight back, even if it's "going in the wrong direction".
But then again, your predator might think: here I have a whiney prey who
would rather back-oust me than take his chances against his prey while
I'm taking my chances against him (which would be, you know, playing
the game). So I'm going to go out of my way to cripple him, so he can
start thinking how to play his NEXT game...
I'm not saying that everyone can only target their prey with whatever
they have. There can be strategic advantages by doing damage upstream
or cross-table. But the purpose - win game, maximize VPs - should not
suffer.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Johann von Doom
> Seriously though, just make it clear that you won't negotiate and you
> shouldn't be bothered again.
This tactic can backfire, though. I tried it during one of the
tournaments at last year's NAC, as I had gotten sick of how many times
people had asked my opinion before taking actions (my playgroup is
just the opposite, so my tolerance for that isn't very high). After my
predator asked my permission to bleed me for one, I explained that I
would always answer him "no," and that he should just attempt his
actions and play the game rather than trying to hedge his bets before
he tapped every card, and that way we could save some time.
I suspect that he hadn't encountered this idea before, though, because
I'm pretty sure that he took that to mean that I was declaring my
intent to backoust him. He ended up suiciding himself against me and
giving the table to his predator.
So by all means, try this tactic out...but make sure the person you're
talking to understands your intent. :)
John Eno
Juggernaut1981
I'm all for the whole "standardised format with pretty-ness changes".
No problem with having all the disciplines on the left, capacity on
the right, yada yada yada yada. Ditto for the Library cards. Right
up that alley... I find it a bit of a pest to play with my G1-G2 OLD
Vamps, but that's cause finding stuff like disciplines on a Brujah is
borderline eyestraining.
@ Tournaments and Newbies
I think you just need to let the newbies know what to expect. Play a
few social games with "old tourney cheese" decks. Malk94, Crazy Malks
of Doom, Lasombra Bleedzooka, AAA, etc... Let them get a taste for how
painful it can be. Let them know that people will make deals and
possibly even do so with the intention to break it in the near
future. It's about expectations: social games = fun wacky trick decks
and combat bloodbaths, tournament = pain w/ more pain and a side-order
of pain.
@ "Asking permisson"
One of the standard "asking permission" moments in our local group is
the "Hey, do you mind a bleed for one by [insert weenie here] to get
the edge off [insert player here but often prey]?" It's basically a
negotiation tactic.
@ Negotiating
Yeah, I dislike the whole "dithering negotiations" moments. It can
get frustrating when there is a vote deck that has to ask the table to
either help it or shut it down. Gets tiresome. I generally prefer
those games where people will just announce "Vamp X does [blah]".
Negotiate if you want to buy time (either for your Prey to soften your
GPrey or because you want a bit more time on your Pred, etc)... don't
just Negotiate because you can't make a firm decision...
suoli
> On Jun 22, 11:38 am, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Seriously though, just make it clear that you won't negotiate and you
> > shouldn't be bothered again.
>
> talking to understands your intent. :)
>
> John Eno
I guess you didn't make it very clear then ;)
suoli
> But then again, your predator might think: here I have a whiney prey who
> would rather back-oust me than take his chances against his prey while
> I'm taking my chances against him (which would be, you know, playing
> the game).
The negotiation phase IS "playing the game" just as much as any other
phenomenon that emerges as a consequence of the basic rules of the
game.
bwross
> This level of negotiation strikes me as far more a problem in the game
> than any level of complexity could possibly cause. For example, in a
> game I played recently, on my first action of the game, I called a KRC
> to do 2 to my prey and 2 to my predator (as it would probably pass
> that way). My prey was intent on trying to negotiate his way out of
> the 2 points of KRC damage. On my first action of the game. When he
> was at, like, 20 pool. By doing things like trying to broker a deal to
> have me *not* KRC him in exchange for various strange predator/prey
> alliance shenanagins. And suggesting that he would wall up and not act
> against his prey due to the threat I was posing. By KRCing him for 2.
> On my first action. Of the game.
"Okay, let's negotiate." Turn to rest of table, "Can I just hit my
prey for three instead so we can get down to playing the game?" Even
if they do hold you to the two and two, you'll at least send the
message that you're willing to grease squeaky wheels... but not in a
pleasant way. Really, anyone who isn't happy when their predator
calls a KRC for less than three on them deserves to be hit for three
with every KRC.
Brent Ross
Johann von Doom
> I guess you didn't make it very clear then ;)
Yeah, I totally failed. Hopefully I learned my lesson.
John Eno
Johannes Walch
It was not me who was asking. It is all very true what you say. Still,
when there is no time limit there will always be 1-2 players who think
there is all the time in the world so why not discuss about everything.
Since you can play for 8 hours where is the downside? Of course that is
not a very bright opinion but it tends to happen. There is virtually no
stalling without a time limit as long as there is any (even very little)
progress.
Johannes Walch
100% agreed. I am very much in opposition to all the "playing the game"
crap that is constantly repeated by some people recently. I see much
more time wasted by people *playing* slow or thinking about their plays
too long than in actual deals. People discovering the cards in their
hand at the start of their turn are the cause of more time-outs than
dealmaking or discussions. Also in the tournaments I play there are
*very few* timeouts since the new deal rules have been established (I
would say ~10%).
Johannes
Peter D Bakija
> It was not me who was asking. It is all very true what you say. Still,
> when there is no time limit there will always be 1-2 players who think
> there is all the time in the world so why not discuss about everything.
And that is why not having a time limit is a bad thing. 'Cause some
people are insane.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> 100% agreed. I am very much in opposition to all the "playing the game"
> crap that is constantly repeated by some people recently.
Here is the thing. VTES has rules and mechnics for a reason. Yet many
people seem to see VTES such that the rules and mechanics are simply a
mechanism to facilitate their negotiations and social engineering
fantasies, as opposed to the negotiations being a mechanism to
facilitate their game playing fantasies. I can see why someone might
be attracted to the first view, but then, why not just play Diplomacy,
where the rules are virtually non existant for and the whole game is
the negotiations phase?
Again, I fully accept that some amount of every multi player game is
going to be bound in negotiation and deal making. But when social
engineering victory is one's primary goal (i.e. "play the players, not
the cards", which is a common belief held by many in this community),
as opposed to winning via the rules and mechanics of the game, it is
often a *huge* pain in the ass for all others involved.
> People discovering the cards in their
> hand at the start of their turn are the cause of more time-outs than
> dealmaking or discussions.
There is no connection, argument wise, between "I am primarily trying
to win this game through social engineering, and as such, wheeling and
dealing endlessly over every possible action and card play" and "Oh. I
don't really know what I'm doing."
Yes. People who don't know what they are doing (i.e. discovering cards
in their hand at the start of their tuns)? Yes. Also a pain in the
ass. But not something people do intentionally. Any more than
miscounting pool is something they do intentionally (which is also a
pain in the ass).
-Peter
Johannes Walch
Correct.
Blooded Sand
True. But then i get to play the other game. When someone starts
talking too much (easily identified by "what about if i hunt with x?
no? how about y?") I start playing the blah game. Immature, childish
and immensely satisfying.
Every time they open their mouth i start going blah blah blah. So
much fun.... ;)
Serious though, if you know the people you are playing with are not
tools, time limits are silly. If they are tools, apply a one hour per
player time limit, if they go over that hour they are auto ousted.
LSJ
> Serious though, if you know the people you are playing with are not
> tools, time limits are silly. If they are tools, apply a one hour per
> player time limit, if they go over that hour they are auto ousted.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/28bca8a379ed08ca
Johannes Walch
I don�t know about your fun games, but I think time limits are a
brilliant idea.
They remind everybody that his actions have to be efficient and timely
if he wants to win the game because otherwise the clock runs out. That
is true for all the players so in theory everybody wins because other
players not playing slow is more fun for everyone. In reality there are
still some too-much-talkers or too-slow-players but the existing
time-limit keeps that in check.
Also LSJ brought up the very valid point that time limits are also
essential because you have to organize events, book rooms and so on. Of
course most games *could* be quicker w/o the time limit (although I am
not sold on that) but the *one* game that lasts 5h will fuck up your
tournament.
Daneel
wrote:
> On 22 kesￜ, 20:53, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote:
>> But then again, your predator might think: here I have a whiney prey who
>> ￜ would rather back-oust me than take his chances against his prey while
>> ￜ I'm taking my chances against him (which would be, you know, playing
>> ￜ the game).
>
> The negotiation phase IS "playing the game" just as much as any other
> phenomenon that emerges as a consequence of the basic rules of the
> game.
I disagree.
The rules are uniform. They are specific. They are a working of the
rulebook
+ errata + rulings etc. Solid things.
The negotiation in V:tES (and in any other multiplayer game by the way) is
only as much there as the players want it to be there, in the form that
they
want it to be there, obeying the set of rules accepted by all
participants.
This part is for sure not uniform and definitely not tangible.
So maybe one playgroup play with the unwritten rules "minimum negotiations,
only short-term deals, no means no", and are puzzled to encounter another
player at a tournament who is playing by the school "minimum 5 minutes
whining/dealing/begging for DI, before you toss in a pool". While both
players may enjoy the game corresponding with how they usually play, and I
imagine they both consider their way to play to be legitimate, they still
don't mesh together.
Now in the end the more verbal player will be seen as taking the time of
the
others.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Daneel
<johanne...@vekn.de> wrote:
> suoli schrieb:
You are mixing things.
People playing slow due to lack of skill - happens, we need to be
patient. I'm sure you don't mind the time from a noob who then gets
better and will be a worthy adversary in the future. Unless you do
some elitist tournament this will stay (but will be far less
disruptive than the other manifestations of entry level skill, be it
in misjudgement of table dynamics, being prone to manipulation or
simply doing something irrational).
People playing slow as a strategic use of the limited time - in theory
call a judge and have him correct the situation, in practice there's
not much you can do (the judge will not take it upon himself to rule
slow play because he will not be fully convinced that that is what is
happening).
...these things are completely unrelated to wasting time with chatter
(although the second point kind of has an overlap with it).
Mind you, I'm not only against the time wasting aspect of the constant
chatter. It is actually the secondary effect. The primary is a
disillusionment of those people who got hooked onto the game due to
theme, rules, cards, etc. (the tangible, written part of the game)
and face a completely different, intangible game reality at the tables.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Daneel
<brandons...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So, I'm hearing people say that negotiation and varying expectations
> of negotiation standards(what is appropriate to try and broker, with
> whom, etc) add to complexity or at least in-game hassles.
I wouldn't call it complexity. It's like having a different game reality
in the rulebook / on the cards and at the actual tables. Hassle is closer
to it... :)
> How about templating, keywords, eliminating esoteric card interactions/
> effects, and making the game
> more intuitive? What about the issue of the "heart" of the game?
They sound good. But how integral negotiation is to the game is, I beleive,
closer to the heart than templating.
I find card text simplification, wording templates, reliance on well-chosen
keywords to be generally good things. They facilitate the learning of the
game. They make it easier to keep up with new expansions. They aren's the
heart of the game, though, they are a technical detail (which can save a
lot of time).
--
Regards,
Daneel
suoli
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:58:02 -0700 (PDT), suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 22 kesä, 20:53, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote:
> >> But then again, your predator might think: here I have a whiney prey who
>
> > The negotiation phase IS "playing the game" just as much as any other
> > phenomenon that emerges as a consequence of the basic rules of the
> > game.
>
> I disagree.
>
> The rules are uniform. They are specific. They are a working of the
> rulebook
> + errata + rulings etc. Solid things.
>
> The negotiation in V:tES (and in any other multiplayer game by the way) is
> only as much there as the players want it to be there, in the form that
> they
> want it to be there, obeying the set of rules accepted by all
> participants.
> This part is for sure not uniform and definitely not tangible.
It is as tangible as rush combat, tap&cap or any other phenomenon that
emerges from but is not specifically mentioned by the rules.
The rules only describe the boundaries of the sandbox and the
properties of the sand. They do not tell you what kind of sand castles
you should make or how to make them. You're opinion on negotiations is
valid but no more supported by anything in the rulebook than the
opposing view.
Peter D Bakija
> It is as tangible as rush combat, tap&cap or any other phenomenon that
> emerges from but is not specifically mentioned by the rules.
Well, not really. The examples you give are examples that are bounded
by the concrete rules of the game--rush combat (for example) is just a
strategy based on the mechanics of the game. Without the mechanics of
the game, rush combat (or whatever) does not exist.
Without the mechanics of the game, negotiations still exists. You can
still play "Let me see how many people I can convince to do things
that are in my best interest while not necessarily in their best
interest" in any group circumstance you can imagine (VTES/Diplomacy/D
+D/Survivor/eating lunch/investment banking/orgy). That this is ported
into VTES, again, is inevitable (as it is a multi-player activity).
But at a certain point, the concrete mechanics of the game itself need
to be the main focus of the game.
And a large portion of Daneel's point (as I understand it) is that
this focus on negotiation is bad for the long term survival of the
game--new players come to play VTES as it is a cool card game with
cool mechanics. When they sit down to play VTES at a tournament, they
may very well discover that the actual cool card game with actual cool
mechanics is primarily subservient to the other game, which has
nothing to do with a cool card game and cool mechanics, and has
everything to do with "who is best at convincing other people to do
things for them".
-Peter
suoli
> On Jun 23, 6:09 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It is as tangible as rush combat, tap&cap or any other phenomenon that
> > emerges from but is not specifically mentioned by the rules.
>
> Well, not really. The examples you give are examples that are bounded
> by the concrete rules of the game--rush combat (for example) is just a
> strategy based on the mechanics of the game. Without the mechanics of
> the game, rush combat (or whatever) does not exist.
Without the mechanics of the game there are no negotiations, winners,
losers, players, cards or a game to play.
> Without the mechanics of the game, negotiations still exists. You can
> still play "Let me see how many people I can convince to do things
> that are in my best interest while not necessarily in their best
> interest" in any group circumstance you can imagine (VTES/Diplomacy/D
> +D/Survivor/eating lunch/investment banking/orgy).
Is this a basis for an opinion or a basis for a fact? I can sort of
understand why someone wouldn't personally like negotiations for the
above reasons but I wouldn't agree that they lead to an inherent,
undeniable "wrongness" of negotiations.
> That this is ported
> into VTES, again, is inevitable (as it is a multi-player activity).
> But at a certain point, the concrete mechanics of the game itself need
> to be the main focus of the game.
I'm not convinced that certain mechanics are more concrete than
others. Sounds like more opinions and preferences.
> And a large portion of Daneel's point (as I understand it) is that
> this focus on negotiation is bad for the long term survival of the
> game--new players come to play VTES as it is a cool card game with
> cool mechanics. When they sit down to play VTES at a tournament, they
> may very well discover that the actual cool card game with actual cool
> mechanics is primarily subservient to the other game, which has
> nothing to do with a cool card game and cool mechanics, and has
> everything to do with "who is best at convincing other people to do
> things for them".
I have no problem with his opinion, as long as it's not misrepresented
as fact. Someone doesn't like negotiations? Ok, that's cool. Someone
doesn't like negotiations because their personal interpretation of the
supposed spirit of the rule is absolute proof that negotiations are
unnatural and an abomination unto LSJ? Not very becoming.
Blooded Sand
You seem to be missing the gist of his argument here. A new player,
who likes the game mechanics, as presented by the cards and rules,
plays the game, and then gets his head handed to him because he does
not have the same negotiation skills that a skilled, old player does.
Thus gets disenchanted by the game, not due to being unable to play
the game itself, or build good decks, but because he does not have the
necessary negotiation skills to win at tournaments.
This is most likely anecdotal, but the number of players that i have
seen start playing, play in the non competitive playgroup for a period
of time, then go to one single large tournament and quit playing
because it bores them to tears is a not insignificant number. I can
understand and empathise with them, because while i do try to
negotiate, certain play styles (the whiney, i dont-wanna-lose-one-
pool, i-will-threaten-with-di-every-play type) drive me to a rather
annoyed state. There are a number of people i outright refuse to play
with, simply for this reason. However i am forced to spend time, which
i have paid good money for, in their ultimately infuriating company if
i play in a tourney with them.
I have no dislike for negotiation, however i have severe dislike for
people who cannot accept the fact thatif someone has said no to their
whingeing, the game needs to move on.
Azel
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 07:59:19 -0700 (PDT), Peter D Bakija
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - 원본 텍스트 보기 -
i've found that the players i've most successfully drawn in were
because i deliberately played up the utter bastardry of machiavellian
table politics and byzantine complexity of managing table strength.
that said, it helped to prevent new people from negotiating more than
a minute or 5 for everything. reminding the players to plan their turn
ahead AND keep things moving really helped.
that said, a good game of Jyhad for me is a mix of utter bastardry
which you talk about and a very healthy dollop of humor and speed. all
the grinding, tedious negotiation with backstabbing, untrustworthyness
can be exhausting on its own. mixed with humor, in-game in-jokes and
the like tends to keep focus on the game and keep people happy. my
ancillary beginners group liked that they were at the negotiating
table/war room and comedy theater at the same time. make 'em die
laughing, eh?
suoli
> On Jun 24, 2:37 am, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have no problem with his opinion, as long as it's not misrepresented
> > as fact. Someone doesn't like negotiations? Ok, that's cool. Someone
> > doesn't like negotiations because their personal interpretation of the
> > supposed spirit of the rule is absolute proof that negotiations are
> > unnatural and an abomination unto LSJ? Not very becoming.
>
> You seem to be missing the gist of his argument here.
No, I do get what he is saying. I'm just trying to point out that it's
based on opinion, not fact.
> A new player,
> who likes the game mechanics, as presented by the cards and rules,
Negotiating is as much a part of game mechanics, as presented by the
cards and rules, as any other game mechanic.
> plays the game, and then gets his head handed to him because he does
> not have the same negotiation skills that a skilled, old player does.
> Thus gets disenchanted by the game, not due to being unable to play
> the game itself, or build good decks, but because he does not have the
> necessary negotiation skills to win at tournaments.
The same could be said about any aspect that a new player isn't
skilled in. Not long ago there was a thread about a player entering a
tournament and being overwhelmed by the number of cards he didn't
know.
> I have no dislike for negotiation, however i have severe dislike for
> people who cannot accept the fact thatif someone has said no to their
> whingeing, the game needs to move on.
Yeah, I think we all dislike douches. Nobody is advocating useless
time wasting.
Blooded Sand
Except you seem to be defending the side of people asking "mind if
Smudge hunts? Mind if smudge bleeds you for 1?"
Which is the side that is the problem in the eyes of many. If you
wanna hunt, do it. You wanna bleed, do it. I will NEVER give you
permission to damage my pool, unless it is a political action or
smilar that does my prey even more damage.
Not so hard to understand, yet certain people seem unable to grasp
this very simple point.
Janne Hägglund
> On 24 kesä, 10:36, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > A new player,
> > who likes the game mechanics, as presented by the cards and rules,
>
> Negotiating is as much a part of game mechanics, as presented by the
> cards and rules, as any other game mechanic.
Ketchup can be as much a part of a good plate of spaghetti and meatballs as
any other ingredient.
However, I would be disgusted if I was presented with a plate full of
ketchup, with half a meatball and a few strands of spaghetti floating in it.
I thing that's Blooded Sand's point regarding negotiating and VTES.
It definitely is my point.
HG
LSJ
He seems to be saying that the argument he responded to, namely: "negotiation
isn't playing the game, at least not a much as much as other phenomena that
emerge as a consequence of the basic rules of the game." is one of opinion, not
a hard fact.
> Which is the side that is the problem in the eyes of many.
And in the eyes of many others, it isn't. This is another opinion issue (rather
than a fact-of-the-matter "negotiation is bad full stop".
> If you
> wanna hunt, do it. You wanna bleed, do it. I will NEVER give you
> permission to damage my pool, unless it is a political action or
> smilar that does my prey even more damage.
I will (and have) often give permission to my predator to damage my pool by
bleeding me if it takes the Edge away from my prey (and I think I will not be
able to get the Edge on my turn or have better things to do with my actions that
get the Edge if my predator can do it).
> Not so hard to understand, yet certain people seem unable to grasp
> this very simple point.
.
Blooded Sand
Salem
> On Jun 23, 5:02 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote:
>> 100% agreed. I am very much in opposition to all the "playing the game"
>> crap that is constantly repeated by some people recently.
>
> Here is the thing. VTES has rules and mechnics for a reason. Yet many
> people seem to see VTES such that the rules and mechanics are simply a
> mechanism to facilitate their negotiations and social engineering
> fantasies, as opposed to the negotiations being a mechanism to
> facilitate their game playing fantasies. I can see why someone might
> be attracted to the first view, but then, why not just play Diplomacy,
> where the rules are virtually non existant for and the whole game is
> the negotiations phase?
Because I also like the theme?
How did Prince of the City pan out? I playtested it, but never actually
picked up a copy of the final boardgame. I seem to recall it being a lot
like diplomacy, but with vampires....
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
Chris Berger
> suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On 24 kesä, 10:36, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > A new player,
> > > who likes the game mechanics, as presented by the cards and rules,
>
> > Negotiating is as much a part of game mechanics, as presented by the
> > cards and rules, as any other game mechanic.
>
> Ketchup can be as much a part of a good plate of spaghetti and meatballs as
> any other ingredient.
>
> However, I would be disgusted if I was presented with a plate full of
> ketchup, with half a meatball and a few strands of spaghetti floating in it.
>
ketchup on it instead of marinara. That's just gross.
Daneel
wrote:
> I have no problem with his opinion, as long as it's not misrepresented
> as fact. Someone doesn't like negotiations? Ok, that's cool. Someone
> doesn't like negotiations because their personal interpretation of the
> supposed spirit of the rule is absolute proof that negotiations are
> unnatural and an abomination unto LSJ? Not very becoming.
Someone realizes how negotiations, card sleeves, the lunch break and the
party afterwards are not an integral part of the game like the rules and
the cards. Even though some people can't imagine playing the game without
some or all of these (me, for exampe, can't imagine playing without
sleeves, but I realize that even though it is my preference, it is not an
integral part of the game like the rules or cards are).
The fact that negotiations are not an integral part of the game does not
contradict the fact that the game can be a lot more enjoyable to all
players by having a level of negotiation they are all comfortable with.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Daneel
>> If you
>> wanna hunt, do it. You wanna bleed, do it. I will NEVER give you
>> permission to damage my pool, unless it is a political action or
>> smilar that does my prey even more damage.
>
> I will (and have) often give permission to my predator to damage my pool
> by bleeding me if it takes the Edge away from my prey (and I think I
> will not be able to get the Edge on my turn or have better things to do
> with my actions that get the Edge if my predator can do it).
Ok, ignoring the hypothetical part of the discussion now... If you want to
allow your predator to take the edge, you're going to say during his turn,
"dude, if you bleed for 1, I won't block/bounce because my prey has the
edge". This is lightyears from asking for the 5th time if someone has a
DI they are willing to play on that first Conditioning.
I'm pretty sure we all know what everyone talks about here. I'm not sure
bringing the hypothetical (whether it is playing the game to negotiate)
into it really clarifies the issue; from some of the responses I get
the feeling that it actually obfuscates it.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Peter D Bakija
<43e134ed-b9d6-4e9a...@q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
suoli <suolir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Without the mechanics of the game there are no negotiations, winners,
> losers, players, cards or a game to play.
You negotiate without VTES cards. As mentioned, you can play "who is
best at convincing people to do things for them" without cards in any
circumstance. You can't, however, play "Rush Combat" without VTES cards
(well, you can wander around and beat people up, but then you get
arrested. And that isn't a game so much as a crime). Your example that
"negotiation is as much a part of VTES as rush combat (or whatever--I'm
just using that as the convenient example)" is a faulty one. As you
can't have Rush Combat without VTES rules and VTES cards. You *can* have
"Hey! Do something for me that is against your best interest!" without
VTES rules and VTES cards.
> Is this a basis for an opinion or a basis for a fact?
Is what? That you can play "Hey! Do something for me that is against
your best interest!" without VTES cards? That is a fact.
> I can sort of
> understand why someone wouldn't personally like negotiations for the
> above reasons but I wouldn't agree that they lead to an inherent,
> undeniable "wrongness" of negotiations.
I'm not saying that they lead to an inherent, undeniable "wrongness". As
noted, I fully accept that a certain amount of negotiation is
unavoidable in multi player games. But at a certain point, people need
to be willing to agree that the cards and concrete rules of the game are
more important than the negotiations (as otherwise, why play VTES as
opposed to any other activity where negotiations are key?). And in my
long history of playing VTES, the games that have been memorably bad
tended to result from people putting too much effort into trying to
negotiate a positive result rather than trying to generate a positive
result through card playing and rules.
Are people going to negotiate in VTES? Of course. But I find it
problematic (for individual games, and for the game environment as a
whole) when people rely on negotiation as their primary mechanism for
generating a positive result.
> I'm not convinced that certain mechanics are more concrete than
> others. Sounds like more opinions and preferences.
???
Cards and card texts? Concrete mechanics. Game rules? Concrete
mechanics. Victory resulting from ousting your prey? A Concrete
mechanic. Negotiation? Not a concrete mechanic. The rulebook even
specifically tells you that deals cannot be bound by the rules. Which
makes them a non concrete mechanic.
You have rules and cards and card texts. These are concrete mechanics
(i.e. they are enforced by the rulebook). Negotiation is no more or less
enforceable than having a beer during a game or playing with no pants.
> I have no problem with his opinion, as long as it's not misrepresented
> as fact. Someone doesn't like negotiations? Ok, that's cool. Someone
> doesn't like negotiations because their personal interpretation of the
> supposed spirit of the rule is absolute proof that negotiations are
> unnatural and an abomination unto LSJ? Not very becoming.
I'm unclear on how someone's opinion can be misrepresented as a fact. It
is apparently Daneel's opinion that excessive negotiation is bad for the
game. I don't think he has ever claimed that it is a fact that excessive
negotiation is bad for the game.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff
LSJ
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:21:36 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
>>> If you
>>> wanna hunt, do it. You wanna bleed, do it. I will NEVER give you
>>> permission to damage my pool, unless it is a political action or
>>> smilar that does my prey even more damage.
>>
>> I will (and have) often give permission to my predator to damage my
>> pool by bleeding me if it takes the Edge away from my prey (and I
>> think I will not be able to get the Edge on my turn or have better
>> things to do with my actions that get the Edge if my predator can do it).
>
> Ok, ignoring the hypothetical part of the discussion now... If you want to
> allow your predator to take the edge, you're going to say during his turn,
> "dude, if you bleed for 1, I won't block/bounce because my prey has the
> edge". This is lightyears from asking for the 5th time if someone has a
> DI they are willing to play on that first Conditioning.
And that concession is lightyears from "NEVER".
> I'm pretty sure we all know what everyone talks about here. I'm not sure
> bringing the hypothetical (whether it is playing the game to negotiate)
> into it really clarifies the issue; from some of the responses I get
> the feeling that it actually obfuscates it.
Uh. OK. I didn't know what you were talking about then. I thought you meant
never, given the way you emphasized it.
I frequently ask (once, not the new five times strawman) "can I bleed you (prey)
for 1 to get the Edge away from your prey?".
In my opinion, that is a fine question to ask.
Peter D Bakija
<d22c180c-3913-4d91...@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
suoli <suolir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, I do get what he is saying. I'm just trying to point out that it's
> based on opinion, not fact.
That is kind of a pointless exercise--all statements in this context
are, unless for a specific reason indicating otherwise, based on
opinion. Pointing it out is like pointing out that words are made of
letters.
suoli
> In article
> <d22c180c-3913-4d91-a3ae-6fbaa94f7...@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No, I do get what he is saying. I'm just trying to point out that it's
> > based on opinion, not fact.
>
> That is kind of a pointless exercise--all statements in this context
> are, unless for a specific reason indicating otherwise, based on
> opinion.
There is a difference between "x is a lesser part of y than z because
of [insert handwaving]" and "I would prefer less x in my z". I find
the former statement obnoxious in the same way that I find "my opinion
is better than yours" obnoxious.
suoli
Which is fine. My point to which Blooded Sand was replying is that the
amount of negotiating VTES should have is a matter of opinion, just
like the amount of meatballs and spaghetti in your ketchup.
suoli
I can see why it might seem that way. Some posters have a habit of
disguising their opinions as arguments. For the record, if I point out
a flaw in someone's argument it does not mean that I hold an opposite
opinion. My opinion on excessive negotiating is not important to a
discussion about whether it is an absolutely lesser or greater part
then other parts of VTES.
> Which is the side that is the problem in the eyes of many. If you
> wanna hunt, do it. You wanna bleed, do it. I will NEVER give you
> permission to damage my pool, unless it is a political action or
> smilar that does my prey even more damage.
That is your right. Nobody should be forced to negotiate more than
they are willing to. If, however, you were hypothetically saying that
your decision on not negotiating is the universally right decision I
would have a problem with that.
> Not so hard to understand, yet certain people seem unable to grasp
> this very simple point.
And who would that be?
James Coupe
>There is a difference between "x is a lesser part of y than z because
>of [insert handwaving]" and "I would prefer less x in my z". I find
>the former statement obnoxious in the same way that I find "my opinion
>is better than yours" obnoxious.
Someone makes on argument on what they think is better - it is clearly
their opinion that X is better than Y, because they're arguing in favour
of it. They may also have reasons for their opinion - many opinions are
based on people's belief in those very reasons.
Obsessive-compulsive pointing out that someone's obvious opinion is an
opinion serves to do nothing other than clutter a discussion. Please
stop.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
suoli
> suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >There is a difference between "x is a lesser part of y than z because
> >of [insert handwaving]" and "I would prefer less x in my z". I find
> >the former statement obnoxious in the same way that I find "my opinion
> >is better than yours" obnoxious.
>
> Someone makes on argument on what they think is better - it is clearly
> their opinion that X is better than Y, because they're arguing in favour
> of it.
Claiming that X is absolutely a lesser part of Y than some part Z is
clearly not a statement of opinion.
> Please
> stop.
I'll stop when I feel like it. Thanks for your contribution, James.
Peter D Bakija
> Claiming that X is absolutely a lesser part of Y than some part Z is
> clearly not a statement of opinion.
But it is clearly a statement of opinion due to the context of the
discussion, i.e. we are in a discussion forum on usenet. Unless
someone specifically points out that what they are saying is fact (or
it is obvious that it is a fact), it is, by default, an opinion.
If someone is here arguing that X is a lesser part of Y, it is an
opinion. Unless it is claimed as a fact.
"Too much negotiation in VTES is bad for the game." That is an
opinion.
"Negotiation is not a concrete, enforceable rule in VTES." That is a
fact (indicated by me pointing out that it is a fact).
-Peter
Aleksi Nuora
> On Jun 24, 5:22 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Claiming that X is absolutely a lesser part of Y than some part Z is
> > clearly not a statement of opinion.
>
> But it is clearly a statement of opinion due to the context of the
> discussion, i.e. we are in a discussion forum on usenet. Unless
> someone specifically points out that what they are saying is fact (or
> it is obvious that it is a fact), it is, by default, an opinion.
Maybe "belief" would be more accurate, no?
> "Negotiation is not a concrete, enforceable rule in VTES."
Neither is rush combat. The rules tell us how combat and acting works.
The cards have certain properties. Neither the rules nor the cards
tell us to or imply that we should purposely enter combat and play
combinations of combat cards as a strategy. These mechanisms are all
projected by our habit of looking for patterns. Rush combat or any
other similar phenomenon is therefore no more absolutely concrete,
enforceable a rule in VTES then negotiation. When all this is taken
into account one should realize that when used in this context
"concreteness" itself is a very subjective concept.
The statement "negotiating isn't playing the game" does not seem to
acknowledge the above.
> That is a
> fact (indicated by me pointing out that it is a fact).
>
> -Peter
I don't believe Daneel was trying to present his argument as an
opinion. More often than not it seems that a statement is meant as a
fact or belief by default and includes a disclaimer like "IMO" or "I
prefer" if it's meant as an opinion.
Peter D Bakija
<befcf3c6-fb38-48ab...@l2g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
A belief is an opinion.
> Neither is rush combat.
I'm not claiming it is. I'm claiming it is an example of something that
is bound by and uses the concrete rules of the game. You can't, for
example, play a rush combat deck unless your deck can rush vampires.
"Rush combat" (for example) is little more than shorthand for "here is
what my deck does, in the confines of the concrete, enforceable rules of
the game." It isn't "part of the game" any more than any other term or
description is "part of the game".
> The rules tell us how combat and acting works.
> The cards have certain properties. Neither the rules nor the cards
> tell us to or imply that we should purposely enter combat and play
> combinations of combat cards as a strategy. These mechanisms are all
> projected by our habit of looking for patterns. Rush combat or any
> other similar phenomenon is therefore no more absolutely concrete,
> enforceable a rule in VTES then negotiation.
Negotiation has no connection to the rules of the game. At all. The game
does not prevent negotiation. 'Cause it is a multi player game,
negotiation is likely to enter into the game. But no part of the rules
set enforces, measures, or governs negotiation. "Rush Combat" or
"Stealth and bleed" or "Bruise and Bleed" are concepts that are
shorthand for parts of the game that are enforced by, measured by, and
governed by the rules set. Negotiation is something that is brought to
the game, much like (using a good example Daneel mentioned) using card
sleeves is something that is brought to the game, and the game rules
have no impact on (except in both cases, they are blanked covered by,
like everything else, "don't cheat").
Again, I accept that as this is a multi-player exercise, negotiation is
inevitable. But claiming that it is as much a part of the rules as,
well, things that are part of the rules, is questionable.
> When all this is taken
> into account one should realize that when used in this context
> "concreteness" itself is a very subjective concept.
I don't really think that it is. Rules that are in the rulebook?
Concrete rules. Things that are not in the rulebook? Not concrete rules.
In the sense that I'm using the word "concrete".
> The statement "negotiating isn't playing the game" does not seem to
> acknowledge the above.
I don't think anyone is honestly claiming that "negotiation isn't
playing the game". The phrase "shut up and play the game" (or whatever)
is an off hand way of saying "Stop spending so much time trying to talk
your way to victory, and instead, move the actual mechanical aspects of
the game along".
As I have mentioned multiple times. Is negotiation inevitable in a
multi-player game like this? Sure. But too much of it makes the game go
badly.
> I don't believe Daneel was trying to present his argument as an
> opinion.
By him saying it, it is automatically an opinion.
> More often than not it seems that a statement is meant as a
> fact or belief by default and includes a disclaimer like "IMO" or "I
> prefer" if it's meant as an opinion.
If you are arguing about something on usenet, the default assumption is
"this is an opinion". Pointing out that it is an opinion is redundant.
This is my public service announcement. When people are arguing on
usenet? Unless they are specifically claiming what they are saying is
factual (or it is otherwise patently obvious), it is their opinion.
There is no need to point it out or conjecture about it.
Aleksi Nuora
> In article
> <befcf3c6-fb38-48ab-91d2-911e29138...@l2g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> Aleksi Nuora <aleksinu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe "belief" would be more accurate, no?
>
> A belief is an opinion.
Not in this case. Wiktionary (and me) defines belief as a mental
acceptance of a claim as truth. Opinion, on the other hand, is
generally accepted as a personal and subjective view.
> Negotiation has no connection to the rules of the game. At all.
It has the same connection as rush combat. After all, the rules
include human players and subsequently all that follows from the
interaction of human players.
> Again, I accept that as this is a multi-player exercise, negotiation is
> inevitable. But claiming that it is as much a part of the rules as,
> well, things that are part of the rules, is questionable.
I didn't really claim that game mechanisms are directly a part of the
rules. I do claim that game mechanisms, such as rush combat and
negotiations, are indirectly (or non-concretely?) a result of the
rules.
> I don't think anyone is honestly claiming that "negotiation isn't
> playing the game". The phrase "shut up and play the game" (or whatever)
> is an off hand way of saying "Stop spending so much time trying to talk
> your way to victory, and instead, move the actual mechanical aspects of
> the game along".
To me rushing and negotiating are equally mechanical aspects. I can
understand why someone who doesn't negotiate during games would not
view it as an equal part of the game. After all, they don't even
participate in it.
> As I have mentioned multiple times. Is negotiation inevitable in a
> multi-player game like this? Sure. But too much of it makes the game go
> badly.
I acknowledge and agree that having more than the players want is too
much.
> > I don't believe Daneel was trying to present his argument as an
> > opinion.
>
> By him saying it, it is automatically an opinion.
This is not obvious to me, possibly because you might be using the
word opinion where I would use the word belief.
Peter D Bakija
<9b47d190-801c-4b8b...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Aleksi Nuora <aleks...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not in this case. Wiktionary (and me) defines belief as a mental
> acceptance of a claim as truth. Opinion, on the other hand, is
> generally accepted as a personal and subjective view.
I think you are splitting hairs, here. When people argue on the
internet, they argue in support of things that they believe are true,
even if they are opinions. When I argue in support of an idea? It is
'cause I think it is correct. It is still an opinion, however, and
stating that it is an opinion is an unnecessary redundancy. If I didn't
think it was true, I wouldn't argue in support of it. That doesn't make
it not an opinion. Unless it is a fact.
> It has the same connection as rush combat. After all, the rules
> include human players and subsequently all that follows from the
> interaction of human players.
Ok, here is the thing. "Rush combat" isn't anything. It is a shorthand
phrase for "something my deck does, and by calling it that, people
understand what I'm talking about". The term isn't anything in and of
itself. Negotiation is something. It is trying to convince people to do
things that are beneficial to you. This is a thing. "Rush combat" is not
a thing. It is just a convenient term to call something, and that
something is specifically something within the confines of the rules of
the game (i.e. when you call something "Rush Combat", you are referring
to using the cards and rules of the game to accomplish something. When
you call something "Negotiation", you are just talking people into doing
things for you. And could just as well do that with sandwiches. You
can't "Rush combat" with sandwiches).
> I didn't really claim that game mechanisms are directly a part of the
> rules. I do claim that game mechanisms, such as rush combat and
> negotiations, are indirectly (or non-concretely?) a result of the
> rules.
The rules do not make Negotiations go. The rules *do* make Rush Combat
go. With different rules? No Rush Combat. With different rules?
Negotiation is exactly the same.
> To me rushing and negotiating are equally mechanical aspects.
There is nothing at all mechanical about negotiation. Playing cards,
using the rules of the game, drawing cards, tapping cards? These are
mechanical aspects of the game. Taking actions, the interaction of
stealth and intercept, the steps of combat? These are mechanical aspects
of the game. Talking someone into possibly doing something for you? Not
so much.
> I can
> understand why someone who doesn't negotiate during games would not
> view it as an equal part of the game. After all, they don't even
> participate in it.
At this point, I'm not arguing about whether it is an equal part of the
game or not. I'm pointing out that there are mechanical and concrete
parts of the game (cards, rules, actions, tapping, intercept, strikes,
drawing, contestation), and negotiation is not a mechanical and concrete
part of the game (as it is in no way controlled by, enforced by, or
measured by the rules). Is it *part* of the game? Sure. As it is a multi
player game, unless you forbid speaking, there will be negotiation. But
it is not a mechanical or concrete part of the game set.
> I acknowledge and agree that having more than the players want is too
> much.
See, the problem comes when some players want a lot of negotiation, and
some players want a lot less negotiation. In that case, you have more
than the players want. Even if some of the players want that much.
> This is not obvious to me, possibly because you might be using the
> word opinion where I would use the word belief.
This is the internet. Everything is an opinion.
LSJ
> In article
> <9b47d190-801c-4b8b...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> Aleksi Nuora <aleks...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not in this case. Wiktionary (and me) defines belief as a mental
>> acceptance of a claim as truth. Opinion, on the other hand, is
>> generally accepted as a personal and subjective view.
>
> I think you are splitting hairs, here. When people argue on the
> internet, they argue in support of things that they believe are true,
> even if they are opinions.
They also split hairs on the Internet.
So, since we all have covered everything in triplicate already, let's move on.
bwross
> > Negotiation has no connection to the rules of the game. At all.
>
> It has the same connection as rush combat.
Not at all. Rush combat is a first derivative... it is created
directly from the mechanisms and rules of combat. Negotiation is a
second derivative... it sits over various other concepts (bleeding,
voting, rushing) which are then tied to the mechnisms of the game.
Negotiation has the same connection as metagaming, not rush combat.
Brent Ross
suoli
> Aleksi Nuora <aleksinu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not in this case. Wiktionary (and me) defines belief as a mental
> > acceptance of a claim as truth. Opinion, on the other hand, is
> > generally accepted as a personal and subjective view.
>
> I think you are splitting hairs, here.
Daneel presenting an opinion as a belief is what started this. It is
absolutely vital for the progression of the discussion that we know
what we're talking about.
It is my belief that meatballs are made of meat. I therefore believe
this to be fact.
It is my opinion that meatballs are awesome. It does not follow that I
believe this to be fact.
There is a clear and important distinction between the above
statements, no?
> > It has the same connection as rush combat. After all, the rules
> > include human players and subsequently all that follows from the
> > interaction of human players.
>
> Ok, here is the thing. "Rush combat" isn't anything. It is a shorthand
> phrase for "something my deck does, and by calling it that, people
> understand what I'm talking about". The term isn't anything in and of
> itself. Negotiation is something. It is trying to convince people to do
> things that are beneficial to you. This is a thing. "Rush combat" is not
> a thing. It is just a convenient term to call something, and that
> something is specifically something within the confines of the rules of
> the game (i.e. when you call something "Rush Combat", you are referring
> to using the cards and rules of the game to accomplish something. When
> you call something "Negotiation", you are just talking people into doing
> things for you.
But negotiating IS using the rules of the game. You can only convince
people to do things that are allowed by the rules. You use game
mechanics as leverage when possible. You can only negotiate because
the rules allow talking and human players.
> And could just as well do that with sandwiches. You
> can't "Rush combat" with sandwiches).
That some mechanics of VTES appear in other games and systems while
others don't shouldn't make any objective difference.
> > To me rushing and negotiating are equally mechanical aspects.
>
> There is nothing at all mechanical about negotiation. Playing cards,
> using the rules of the game, drawing cards, tapping cards? These are
> mechanical aspects of the game. Taking actions, the interaction of
> stealth and intercept, the steps of combat? These are mechanical aspects
> of the game. Talking someone into possibly doing something for you? Not
> so much.
I disagree. Negotiating is possibly more complex than other mechanics
but it nonetheless follows a set of rules.
> > I can
> > understand why someone who doesn't negotiate during games would not
> > view it as an equal part of the game. After all, they don't even
> > participate in it.
>
> At this point, I'm not arguing about whether it is an equal part of the
> game or not. I'm pointing out that there are mechanical and concrete
> parts of the game (cards, rules, actions, tapping, intercept, strikes,
> drawing, contestation), and negotiation is not a mechanical and concrete
> part of the game (as it is in no way controlled by, enforced by, or
> measured by the rules).
I still claim that negotiating is as mechanical, concrete, controlled
and enforced by the rules as other mechanics that are allowed by the
rules.
> > This is not obvious to me, possibly because you might be using the
> > word opinion where I would use the word belief.
>
> This is the internet. Everything is an opinion.
Well that's just, like, your belief, dude.
suoli
> On Jun 24, 8:02 pm, Aleksi Nuora <aleksinu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Negotiation has no connection to the rules of the game. At all.
>
> > It has the same connection as rush combat.
>
> Not at all. Rush combat is a first derivative... it is created
> directly from the mechanisms and rules of combat. Negotiation is a
> second derivative... it sits over various other concepts (bleeding,
> voting, rushing) which are then tied to the mechnisms of the game.
I don't think you can meaningfully draw hard lines like that between
different levels.
> Negotiation has the same connection as metagaming, not rush combat.
But if you could, I'd make the argument that metagaming occurs outside
of the game while negotiating occurs during the game.
Peter D Bakija
> It is my belief that meatballs are made of meat. I therefore believe
> this to be fact.
If you believe that metballs are made of meat, you are leaving room
for you to be wrong. Meatballs *are* made of meat. This is not a
belief. This is a fact.
> It is my opinion that meatballs are awesome. It does not follow that I
> believe this to be fact.
It is also your belief that meatballs are awesome. As you might be
incorrect. Even though you don't think you are.
To draw a parallell that I don't really want to turn into something
else, religion, for example, is based on belief. Which leaves room for
being wrong, as much as the person believing it may think it is true.
Just like opinion. But not like fact--meatballs are made of meat. This
is not an opinion or a belief. It is a statement of fact.
-Peter
suoli
we use are. But it is important that we both use the same terms for
the same things.
On 25 kesä, 17:51, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 9:59 am, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It is my belief that meatballs are made of meat. I therefore believe
> > this to be fact.
>
> If you believe that metballs are made of meat, you are leaving room
> for you to be wrong. Meatballs *are* made of meat. This is not a
> belief. This is a fact.
No, by saying that "I believe" I am expressing that there is no room
in my mind for doubt that meatballs are made of meat and, in my mind,
this is a universal fact.
> > It is my opinion that meatballs are awesome. It does not follow that I
> > believe this to be fact.
>
> It is also your belief that meatballs are awesome. As you might be
> incorrect. Even though you don't think you are.
By saying "it is my opinion" I am expressing that from my point of
view meatballs are awesome but I accept that this can not be a
universal fact.
> To draw a parallell that I don't really want to turn into something
> else, religion, for example, is based on belief. Which leaves room for
> being wrong, as much as the person believing it may think it is true.
> Just like opinion.
The key difference is that a person who believes does not doubt while
a person who opines accepts that his opinion is not a truth.
> But not like fact--meatballs are made of meat. This
> is not an opinion or a belief. It is a statement of fact.
>
> -Peter
It's both a belief and a statement of fact.
brandonsantacruz
This is all very interesting, but it doesn't address the topic outside
of one narrow interpretation.
Brandon
suoli
wrote:
> This is all very interesting, but it doesn't address the topic outside
> of one narrow interpretation.
>
> Brandon
You're right, it doesn't. To be honest there isn't much more to
explore about the original topic. I'm much more interested in the
current discussion I am having with Peter.
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:21:36 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> If you
>>>> wanna hunt, do it. You wanna bleed, do it. I will NEVER give you
>>>> permission to damage my pool, unless it is a political action or
>>>> smilar that does my prey even more damage.
>>>
>>> I will (and have) often give permission to my predator to damage my
>>> pool by bleeding me if it takes the Edge away from my prey (and I
>>> think I will not be able to get the Edge on my turn or have better
>>> things to do with my actions that get the Edge if my predator can do
>>> it).
>>
>> Ok, ignoring the hypothetical part of the discussion now... If you want
>> to
>> allow your predator to take the edge, you're going to say during his
>> turn,
>> "dude, if you bleed for 1, I won't block/bounce because my prey has the
>> edge". This is lightyears from asking for the 5th time if someone has a
>> DI they are willing to play on that first Conditioning.
>
> And that concession is lightyears from "NEVER".
Is this a reference to Blooded Sand's post or to mine?
>> I'm pretty sure we all know what everyone talks about here. I'm not sure
>> bringing the hypothetical (whether it is playing the game to negotiate)
>> into it really clarifies the issue; from some of the responses I get
>> the feeling that it actually obfuscates it.
>
> Uh. OK. I didn't know what you were talking about then. I thought you
> meant never, given the way you emphasized it.
>
> I frequently ask (once, not the new five times strawman) "can I bleed
> you (prey) for 1 to get the Edge away from your prey?".
>
> In my opinion, that is a fine question to ask.
I think most people would be comfortable with that level of negotiation.
Especially if you are willing to accept the first "no" and leave it at
that, of if the person tells you "please just play" you stop asking such
questions.
Then again, if you have 5-6 such innocuous questions per turn, it might
be considered too much by more and more people.
(Also not sure about the strawman part... I can recall multiple examples
of this happening. And other, similar stuff. Even at EC finals you judged.
I would assume that in order for an argument to be considered a strawman
it would have to be unlikely beyond reason.)
--
Regards,
Daneel
LSJ
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:57:43 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
>> Daneel wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:21:36 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If you
>>>>> wanna hunt, do it. You wanna bleed, do it. I will NEVER give you
>>>>> permission to damage my pool, unless it is a political action or
>>>>> smilar that does my prey even more damage.
>>>>
>>>> I will (and have) often give permission to my predator to damage my
>>>> pool by bleeding me if it takes the Edge away from my prey (and I
>>>> think I will not be able to get the Edge on my turn or have better
>>>> things to do with my actions that get the Edge if my predator can do
>>>> it).
>>>
>>> Ok, ignoring the hypothetical part of the discussion now... If you
>>> want to
>>> allow your predator to take the edge, you're going to say during his
>>> turn,
>>> "dude, if you bleed for 1, I won't block/bounce because my prey has the
>>> edge". This is lightyears from asking for the 5th time if someone has a
>>> DI they are willing to play on that first Conditioning.
>>
>> And that concession is lightyears from "NEVER".
>
> Is this a reference to Blooded Sand's post or to mine?
? "NEVER" is a reference to the previously-used NEVER, to which my original
response was responding, clearly.
Context and all.
>>> I'm pretty sure we all know what everyone talks about here. I'm not sure
>>> bringing the hypothetical (whether it is playing the game to negotiate)
>>> into it really clarifies the issue; from some of the responses I get
>>> the feeling that it actually obfuscates it.
>>
>> Uh. OK. I didn't know what you were talking about then. I thought you
>> meant never, given the way you emphasized it.
>>
>> I frequently ask (once, not the new five times strawman) "can I bleed
>> you (prey) for 1 to get the Edge away from your prey?".
>>
>> In my opinion, that is a fine question to ask.
>
> I think most people would be comfortable with that level of negotiation.
> Especially if you are willing to accept the first "no" and leave it at
> that, of if the person tells you "please just play" you stop asking such
> questions.
>
> Then again, if you have 5-6 such innocuous questions per turn, it might
> be considered too much by more and more people.
>
> (Also not sure about the strawman part... I can recall multiple examples
> of this happening. And other, similar stuff. Even at EC finals you judged.
> I would assume that in order for an argument to be considered a strawman
> it would have to be unlikely beyond reason.)
It's a strawman in this context:
A: He seems to be defending the practice of "Mind if I bleed you for 1?"
A: Such questions are the problem. If you want to bleed, do it.
A: I would NEVER give you permission to damage my pool unless it damages my
prey's pool more.
B: I frequently respond to such questions with an affirmative (I don't mind).
C: That's lightyears from asking for the 5th time if someone has and will play a
DI on that Conditioning over there.
That last statement, while true, is a strawman. It wasn't under debate.
brandonsantacruz
The original topic (Ian's writing)
"I find complexity creep (well, complexity explosion would be more
accurate) a severe problem for mature CCGs. Games I would design demo
scripts for I could no longer put up with demoing at all because they
just became too much for the random people I'd run across at cons or
wherever. Only the highly motivated could ever put up with the
overwhelming amount of things they'd need to process to play with a
veteran group.
Then, I find that CCGs as they mature can lose their heart to where
players at some point just lose interest in the sea of new stuff. I'm
seeing this with one of the V:TES groups I play with. As everyone
knows, attrition happens. The rate of attrition with this game seems
low, but then, the rate of new players coming in seems similarly low.
I think there's a lot of potential for cleaning up V:TES in terms of
templating cards better, keywording abilities, trying to eliminate
esoteric card interactions/effects, and for making the game more
intuitive. The goal would be to improve its marketability to new
players."
The major issues discussed in the topic were dealt with in less than a
handful of posts out of the over 70 under this thread. There "isn't
much more to explore?" The thread was almost immediately derailed into
the topic of how much negotiation is appropriate when playing. Are
card templating, keywords, strange card interactions/effects, making
intuitive cards, and the "heart of the game" not worth discussing? I
find it to be a compelling set of questions, more than a lot of other
topics(that's a statement of opinion, btw, which does not have to be
explicit in order to be understood. Most/all things are opinion, given
the limited reach of human knowledge, perception, provability,
etc*feeds trolls*). Any chance of addressing those issues?
Here's my input:
Templating- I like the latest templates pretty well. It would be good
to have the old crypt/library cards reprinted (a second or third time
for some I think) to match the new templates. Could do something like
make a symbol for non-unique by the name for crypt and unique for
library, but that's really minor.
Keywords- I'm in favor of basic keywords. blah blah may prevent 1
damage from blah each blah could be "prevent 1" with a symbol to
designate how often, if they didn't just regularize the format to per
combat.
Strange cards interactions/effects- Making the beginning, end, and all
of the other parts of a phase (including combat, action, of the turn)
more simple to follow so that you don't need to read all of the errata
before playing a card before/after another card. The fastest way to
effect many difficult interactions is to re-evaluate the rules and
customs(that's what I'll call a rule you won't find in the rulebook).
Making the game intuitive- Ties together with the earlier subjects,
but is a little different I think. Making all counters either add up
or go down would be one way (I see a lot of counters, something is
going to happen). Making things playable when one would think they
should be played. That's a little vague, but take agg hand damage for
an example. Should I have Wolf Claws as I'm striking you, or after
I've seen your strike? That example is not a big beef of mine, just a
disharmony between V:tM (intuitive) and VTES (less than intuitive).
Heart of the game- I'd have a hard time with that, especially since
I've not been playing nearly as long as the game has been around. The
World of Darkness would be a starting point, perhaps.
Brandon
brandonsantacruz
*remove* counters as part of a card's effect (i.e. Week of Nightmares)
vs add them (Dreams). This way it's like a count-down.
suoli
wrote:
> The major issues discussed in the topic were dealt with in less than a
> handful of posts out of the over 70 under this thread. There "isn't
> much more to explore?" The thread was almost immediately derailed into
> the topic of how much negotiation is appropriate when playing.
Why do you think that happened? Most of the things worth saying about
the subject were said in the article.
> Are
> card templating, keywords, strange card interactions/effects, making
> intuitive cards, and the "heart of the game" not worth discussing?
Maybe they are, maybe they're not. I'm personally indifferent.
> I
> find it to be a compelling set of questions, more than a lot of other
> topics(that's a statement of opinion, btw, which does not have to be
> explicit in order to be understood. Most/all things are opinion, given
> the limited reach of human knowledge, perception, provability,
> etc*feeds trolls*). Any chance of addressing those issues?
Don't look at me. But I don't see why there can't be two parallel
discussions.
LSJ
> Should I have Wolf Claws as I'm striking you, or after
> I've seen your strike? That example is not a big beef of mine, just a
> disharmony between V:tM (intuitive) and VTES (less than intuitive).
You have to play Wolf Claws before you're striking me.
You seem to be misinterpreting the choosing/announcement of the strike as the
resolution of the strike.
brandonsantacruz
So it's: "My strike is hands for one agg" *play wolf claws*? My play
group must be confused on that, because I was taught you only had to
say it was agg before people decided on prevent. Oops! Can you tell I
don't play protean much?
What say ye on the other points?
Brandon
LSJ
It's announce strikes (both minions announce) then resolve strikes.
Announce strike: hands (for strength damage, my strength is currently one).
Announce strike: other minion announced whatever strike xe makes.
...
Resolve strike:
--Apply strike effects: Hmm. My strength is still one, so I hit you for one
damage after all.
--Handle damage: prevent and then heal unprevented damage.
Before applying the strike (i.e., "before striking", "before landing the
strike"; the "..." above), you may adjust your strength or adjust the kind of
damage done by your hands. Such changes will affect how your announced
but-not-yet executed strike will ultimately be executed.
An acting minion can wait to do this (and often does elects to wait) until after
the opposing minion also declares xer strike.
> What say ye on the other points?
Suitably spoken.
Juggernaut1981
Before applying the strike (i.e., "before striking", "before landing
the
strike"; the "..." above), you may adjust your strength or adjust the
kind of
damage done by your hands. Such changes will affect how your
announced
but-not-yet executed strike will ultimately be executed.
>
So there is in effect a window between "I'm gonna punch you" and "The
punch lands". Is this window "wide" enough to also then say drop a
Rotshreck?
e.g.
Minion A: Nightstick for Prevent
Minion B: Nightstick for 3 prevent
Minion B: Oh don't forget my wolfclaws for Agg... and Rotschreck
With the result of B goes to torpor from Rotschreck
LSJ
> LSJ>
> Before applying the strike (i.e., "before striking", "before landing
> the
> strike"; the "..." above), you may adjust your strength or adjust the
> kind of
> damage done by your hands. Such changes will affect how your
> announced
> but-not-yet executed strike will ultimately be executed.
>
> So there is in effect a window between "I'm gonna punch you" and "The
> punch lands". Is this window "wide" enough to also then say drop a
> Rotshreck?
Of course. That's exactly the window (and the only window) in which R�tscreck
can be played.
> e.g.
> Minion A: Nightstick for Prevent
> Minion B: Nightstick for 3 prevent
> Minion B: Oh don't forget my wolfclaws for Agg... and Rotschreck
> With the result of B goes to torpor from Rotschreck
Um. No. Wold Claws won't make "Nightstick for prevent" do aggravated damage.
Assuming you meant A declared "hands" and then B declared "Nightstick prevent",
then yes.
Juggernaut1981
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> > LSJ>
> > Before applying the strike (i.e., "before striking", "before landing
> > the
> > strike"; the "..." above), you may adjust your strength or adjust the
> > kind of
> > damage done by your hands. Such changes will affect how your
> > announced
> > but-not-yet executed strike will ultimately be executed.
>
> > So there is in effect a window between "I'm gonna punch you" and "The
> > punch lands". Is this window "wide" enough to also then say drop a
> > Rotshreck?
>
> can be played.
>
> > e.g.
> > Minion A: Nightstick for Prevent
> > Minion B: Nightstick for 3 prevent
> > Minion B: Oh don't forget my wolfclaws for Agg... and Rotschreck
> > With the result of B goes to torpor from Rotschreck
>
> Um. No. Wold Claws won't make "Nightstick for prevent" do aggravated damage.
> Assuming you meant A declared "hands" and then B declared "Nightstick prevent",
> then yes.
Sorry, somewhere up there a brain explosion happened. Since
Rotschreck requires it to be OoT, Minion A: Nightstick for Prevent,
Minion B: Hands 1 + Wolf Claws for Agg + Rotschreck
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>>>> Ok, ignoring the hypothetical part of the discussion now... If you
>>>> want to
>>>> allow your predator to take the edge, you're going to say during his
>>>> turn,
>>>> "dude, if you bleed for 1, I won't block/bounce because my prey has
>>>> the
>>>> edge". This is lightyears from asking for the 5th time if someone
>>>> has a
>>>> DI they are willing to play on that first Conditioning.
>>>
>>> And that concession is lightyears from "NEVER".
>>
>> Is this a reference to Blooded Sand's post or to mine?
>
> ? "NEVER" is a reference to the previously-used NEVER, to which my
> original response was responding, clearly.
>
> Context and all.
Weird how you somehow assume my reply to your post to be also a reply
to the post you replied to.
It kind of isn't. Blooded Sand stated that he is completely against
these negotiative interactions and cuts back on them as early as
possible. Which is a very understandable point of view, I sympathize
with it and find no need to reply to it, as it said it all, especially
in the context (debating how bad excessive negotiations can be to the
game).
Then you stated your that you will often allow someone to bleed you for
one if your prey has the edge. Which is also an understandable
viewpoint, except in the context it is a strawman (which is excessive
negotiations, one way of which is to try to negotiate through every
minute gain and loss, to which Blooded Sand gave examples).
To which I pointed out that this is probably not excessive negotiation
to most people, although depending on what else you do during the game
it may be part of it. Putting the discussion back to excessive
negotiation.
Ok, I think I addressed it in the previous part of my post. It just occured
to me that you probably confused my post to be written by Blooded Sand and
replied as such. But ok. Anyway, your example (taking the additional piece
of information that A's point was made in reference to the common ways
excessive negotiation can effect the game, and how he is dealing with it)
doesn't refute the original point, it however illustrates a more
negotiation-friendly preference.
--
Regards,
Daneel
bwross
> On 25 kesä, 12:14, bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 24, 8:02 pm, Aleksi Nuora <aleksinu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Negotiation has no connection to the rules of the game. At all.
>
> > > It has the same connection as rush combat.
>
> > Not at all. Rush combat is a first derivative... it is created
> > directly from the mechanisms and rules of combat. Negotiation is a
> > second derivative... it sits over various other concepts (bleeding,
> > voting, rushing) which are then tied to the mechnisms of the game.
>
> I don't think you can meaningfully draw hard lines like that between
> different levels.
Ah, but you can. There are rules and cards that can force another
deck into combat, but there's no way to force a player to negotiate.
So you can build a deck around rush combat, but you can't build a deck
around negotiation because the other players can simply ignore you
(something that's particularly likely if your deck's strategy is to
simply whine and make yourself into an annoyance). The difference is
that one is directly tied to the rules, and the other is a meta level
beyond that. That distinction is very clear.
> > Negotiation has the same connection as metagaming, not rush combat.
>
> But if you could, I'd make the argument that metagaming occurs outside
> of the game while negotiating occurs during the game.
Yes, and apples and oranges are different, but they are still both
fruits. Pointing out that two things are different things doesn't
remove their similarities... in this case, the meta level that both of
these work on (beyond the direct scope of the rules).
Brent Ross
suoli
> On Jun 25, 10:07 am, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think you can meaningfully draw hard lines like that between
> > different levels.
>
> Ah, but you can. There are rules and cards that can force another
> deck into combat, but there's no way to force a player to negotiate.
I don't think that's a very meaningful difference when it comes to the
absolute level of something being a concrete part of the game. You
could similarly argue that voting doesn't have the same level of
connection to the rules as rush because you can't force a player to
call political actions. And then there's the fact that the rules
implore players to do their best to maximize VP's with the means that
are available, one of them being negotiation.
> > > Negotiation has the same connection as metagaming, not rush combat.
>
> > But if you could, I'd make the argument that metagaming occurs outside
> > of the game while negotiating occurs during the game.
>
> Yes, and apples and oranges are different, but they are still both
> fruits.
Apples and oranges are similar but peaches are not? ;)
> Pointing out that two things are different things doesn't
> remove their similarities... in this case, the meta level that both of
> these work on (beyond the direct scope of the rules).
There are similarities between a human face and rock formations on
Mars. Whether these similarities have any relevance to anything is a
different issue.
Blooded Sand
> On 26 kesä, 07:37, bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote:
> I don't think that's a very meaningful difference when it comes to the
> absolute level of something being a concrete part of the game. You
> could similarly argue that voting doesn't have the same level of
> connection to the rules as rush because you can't force a player to
> call political actions.
And yet voting is covered by the rules, has cards specifically created
for it, there are titles that allow greater vote interaction.
> And then there's the fact that the rules
> implore players to do their best to maximize VP's with the means that
> are available, one of them being negotiation.
The rules implore that. The rules do not cover or mandate negotiation.
Negotiation occurs, but is an arising characteristic of the game, not
an inherent one.
suoli
> On Jun 26, 1:46 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 26 kesä, 07:37, bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think that's a very meaningful difference when it comes to the
> > absolute level of something being a concrete part of the game. You
> > could similarly argue that voting doesn't have the same level of
> > connection to the rules as rush because you can't force a player to
> > call political actions.
>
> And yet voting is covered by the rules, has cards specifically created
> for it, there are titles that allow greater vote interaction.
How does that relate to bwross's argument? He argued that negotiating
is different from other mechanics of the game because you can't force
a player to negotiate. I responded that this difference is meaningless
and not even unique to negotiating, as you can't force a person to
call votes. It would be completely arbitrary to draw lines using that
as a basis. Which is fine when it comes to opinions but not when it
comes to objective facts.
> > And then there's the fact that the rules
> > implore players to do their best to maximize VP's with the means that
> > are available, one of them being negotiation.
>
> The rules implore that. The rules do not cover or mandate negotiation.
> Negotiation occurs, but is an arising characteristic of the game, not
> an inherent one.
The rules include negotiation in the same nature that they include
voting, even if they don't set as many explicit restrictions on it.
Daneel
wrote:
> On 25 kesￜ, 03:38, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <9b47d190-801c-4b8b-9777-087267a8d...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>> ï¿œAleksi Nuora <aleksinu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Not in this case. Wiktionary (and me) defines belief as a mental
>> > acceptance of a claim as truth. Opinion, on the other hand, is
>> > generally accepted as a personal and subjective view.
>>
>> I think you are splitting hairs, here.
>
> Daneel presenting an opinion as a belief is what started this. It is
> absolutely vital for the progression of the discussion that we know
> what we're talking about.
I'm deeply, immensely and undescribably sorry for this heinous
transgression. Having read your post I now realize the folly of my
ways, and the harmful effect I was inadvertently having on this
community. I can only offer my deepest and sincerest apologies! As I
cannot change my previous posts, I can only apply to your sense of
humanity, and ask you (and any other readers) to please, as a token
of your generousity, disregard the obvious flaws and omissions in the
posts I made, and assume, through a leap of faith, that whatever I
wrote is my opinion, and nothing else. If it helps (and I know that
I'm perhaps asking too much), imagine me having incorporated "In my
opinion" in every single sentence I wrote, write, or will write on
this newsgroup.
As I would be utterly unable to ever repay a favor of such gargantuan
magnitude, I can only offer the humble request of a man so wrecked
by forum-usage flaws that my whole existance is but a mockery of
everything the perfect forumite should be like.
> It is my belief that meatballs are made of meat. I therefore believe
> this to be fact.
On a tangential note - the first time I had meat loafs made of soybeans,
I was convinced that it was actually meat. A weird, unfamiliar kind of
meat, but still meat. I was shocked to realize that my belief was
incorrect. I've also heared this story about a friend and a transvestite,
although even if it thematically fits to my meat loaf example, full
disclosure would perhaps be out of line with respect to the purpose
and spirit of this newsgroup (not to mention the potential consequences
to me if such an overshare ever got back to my friend). But I digress.
--
Regards,
Daneel
suoli
> As I would be utterly unable to ever repay a favor of such gargantuan
> magnitude, I can only offer the humble request of a man so wrecked
> by forum-usage flaws that my whole existance is but a mockery of
> everything the perfect forumite should be like.
I would have also accepted "oh, okay, I see your point". You're making
it seem like this is a big issue or something. I wasn't preying on
you, just responding to Peter.
Blooded Sand
Well, you WERE kinda making a big point out of it. As whatever anybody
says, unless it is verifiable and undeniably a fact, their opinion.
But i assume you will just keep arguing about this, even when the
poster who's point you highlight has to make a massively sarcastic
post just to point out that it was his opinion he was raising, as you
seem unable, or maybe just incapable, of understanding that.
wumpus
> > It is my belief that meatballs are made of meat. I therefore believe
> > this to be fact.
>
> On a tangential note - the first time I had meat loafs made of soybeans,
> I was convinced that it was actually meat. A weird, unfamiliar kind of
> meat, but still meat. I was shocked to realize that my belief was
> incorrect. I've also heared this story about a friend and a transvestite,
> although even if it thematically fits to my meat loaf example, full
> disclosure would perhaps be out of line with respect to the purpose
> and spirit of this newsgroup (not to mention the potential consequences
> to me if such an overshare ever got back to my friend). But I digress.
Awesome! Meat loaf analogies FTW! I like this new, sarcastic Daneel
- please give us more. I keep being tempted to derail and rename this
thread to 'stupidity' or 'inanity' (instead of 'complexity', but this
post makes the whole thing worth it (almost).
Alex
suoli
> Well, you WERE kinda making a big point out of it.
"The negotiation phase IS "playing the game" just as much as any other
phenomenon that emerges as a consequence of the basic rules of the
game."
This was my original response to Daneel. I wouldn't call it making a
big point. Everything else has been a response to a response to a
response.
> As whatever anybody
> says, unless it is verifiable and undeniably a fact, their opinion.
No, it is either an opinion or a belief. The two are separate
concepts.
> But i assume you will just keep arguing about this, even when the
> poster who's point you highlight has to make a massively sarcastic
> post just to point out that it was his opinion he was raising, as you
> seem unable, or maybe just incapable, of understanding that.
Take a deep breath. Count to five. Slowly breath out. Now that you are
calm, take a moment to think about the difference between opinion and
belief.
wumpus
On Jun 26, 4:46 am, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 kesä, 07:37, bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 25, 10:07 am, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I don't think you can meaningfully draw hard lines like that between
> > > different levels.
>
> > Ah, but you can. There are rules and cards that can force another
> > deck into combat, but there's no way to force a player to negotiate.
>
> I don't think that's a very meaningful difference when it comes to the
> absolute level of something being a concrete part of the game. You
> could similarly argue that voting doesn't have the same level of
> connection to the rules as rush because you can't force a player to
> call political actions.
Argh. Are you really that dense? Or are you just trolling?
The proper analogy to Brent's argument is that voting is like rush
combat because you can include cards in your own deck to call votes.
Other players may not be able or willing to vote in the resulting
referenda, but they certainly have to participate, if only by
observing and absorbing the impact that a successful vote may have on
them. What they don't have to do is participate in the negotiations
that may accompany the voting - 'cause that's not required by the
rules.
> And then there's the fact that the rules
> implore players to do their best to maximize VP's with the means that
> are available, one of them being negotiation.
And yet, I have never, ever known a judge to penalize someone for not
negotiating. As that way lies insanity.
At this point I've completely lost track of what larger point you (and
Peter) are trying to make. But your continuing insistence that
negotiation is 'just as much a part of the game as <insert game
mechanic provided by the rules or cards here>' seems like pointless
dogmatism to me, while Peter's (and others') point that negotiation is
a characteristic of any human interaction while <insert game mechanic
provided by the rules or cards here> is a specific characteristic of
V:tES is so obvious as to be a tautology, so I'm not sure why you're
trying so hard to deny it.
Put it this way: I'm pretty sure that if you tried hard enough, you
could arrange to play a game of V:tES without any negotiation
(computer interface with no chat function). But it would be pretty
hard to play a game of V:tES without using the rules and cards of
V:tES.
Alex
Amenophobis
Thanks for those words above. I really was tempted to write something
a bit harsher. :)
I believe (a common expression for opinions, btw) that suoli won't get
it, but hey, you can't have everything, no? ;)
suoli
> > I don't think that's a very meaningful difference when it comes to the
> > absolute level of something being a concrete part of the game. You
> > could similarly argue that voting doesn't have the same level of
> > connection to the rules as rush because you can't force a player to
> > call political actions.
>
> Argh. Are you really that dense? Or are you just trolling?
And a nice day to you too.
> The proper analogy to Brent's argument is that voting is like rush
> combat because you can include cards in your own deck to call votes.
> Other players may not be able or willing to vote in the resulting
> referenda, but they certainly have to participate, if only by
> observing and absorbing the impact that a successful vote may have on
> them.
They similarly have to observe and absorb the impact that a successful
negotiate-action may have on them, either directly or through the
following actions of other players.
> At this point I've completely lost track of what larger point you (and
> Peter) are trying to make. But your continuing insistence that
> negotiation is 'just as much a part of the game as <insert game
> mechanic provided by the rules or cards here>' seems like pointless
> dogmatism to me, while Peter's (and others') point that negotiation is
> a characteristic of any human interaction while <insert game mechanic
> provided by the rules or cards here> is a specific characteristic of
> V:tES is so obvious as to be a tautology, so I'm not sure why you're
> trying so hard to deny it.
I know that it seems obvious to you that negotiation is for some
reason not as concrete as some other game mechanic but can you think
of a solid, objective reason that supports this? Or could it be that
"concreteness" in this context is actually an unquantifiable,
subjective quality, like the awesomeness of meatballs?
suoli
> Thanks for those words above. I really was tempted to write something
> a bit harsher. :)
> I believe (a common expression for opinions, btw) that suoli won't get
> it, but hey, you can't have everything, no? ;)
In what way have I insulted you?
XZealot
You snipped the part where he gave an objective concrete point to
support his position.
"Put it this way: I'm pretty sure that if you tried hard enough, you
could arrange to play a game of V:tES without any negotiation
(computer interface with no chat function). But it would be pretty
hard to play a game of V:tES without using the rules and cards of
V:tES. "
This is pretty much the definative position you have been arguing
against.
LSJ
You should probably save your fingers.
You've already expressed it as well as it can be expressed.
I believe some people won't get it.
brandonsantacruz
> - please give us more. I keep being tempted to derail and rename this
> thread to 'stupidity' or 'inanity' (instead of 'complexity', but this
> post makes the whole thing worth it (almost).
>
> Alex
You've made a friend here.
Brandon
suoli
> You snipped the part where he gave an objective concrete point to
> support his position.
Only because I already responded to a similar argument. I find the
fact that negotiating in some ways differs from other mechanics to be
insufficient to prove that it is not as concrete as those other
mechanics. You'd also have to show how those differences lead to a
lack of concreteness. See also bwross's unrelated but befitting
response:
"Yes, and apples and oranges are different, but they are still both
fruits. Pointing out that two things are different things doesn't
remove their similarities..."
> "Put it this way: I'm pretty sure that if you tried hard enough, you
> could arrange to play a game of V:tES without any negotiation
> (computer interface with no chat function). But it would be pretty
> hard to play a game of V:tES without using the rules and cards of
> V:tES. "
>
> This is pretty much the definative position you have been arguing
> against.
Again, that's a completely arbitrary measure of concreteness. I could
also play a game without any combat, bleeding, voting or hunting.