To LSJ, Question about deals...
Huruem
really obvious but we're having a tough debate on a French forum and we
need a clear answer from you to the following question :
Player P wants to make a lose deal with K : 2VP for P, 3 and the GW for
K, with the intend of breaking it while P can obviously win the game
without dealing. Is the deal legal, in the sense that it might be
easier for P, if he breaks the deal, to win the game.
And then, if a judge is called to say whether the deal is legal or not,
can he forbid that deal if he thinks that it goes against the
Play-To-Win Rule?
LSJ
> Sorry to bother you about that, 'cause I think that the answer is
> really obvious but we're having a tough debate on a French forum and we
> need a clear answer from you to the following question :
>
> Player P wants to make a lose deal with K : 2VP for P, 3 and the GW for
> K, with the intend of breaking it while P can obviously win the game
> without dealing. Is the deal legal, in the sense that it might be
> easier for P, if he breaks the deal, to win the game.
It's always legal to play to win. In this case, when it comes time to
honor the deal or play to win, P chooses to play to win, then he's OK.
The only sticky point with deals is that "real" deals (ones that can be
honored even when the honoring would violate play to win) are the ones
that, when made with the expectation that both parties will honor it,
is still playing to win at the time the deal is made.
Other deals are not "real" deals, but merely table talk (although one
side of the deal may not realize that the deal is not "real" to his
partner, and may therefore honor his part in anticipation of his
partner's compliance later, even though his partner cannot break play
to win to honor it when it comes time).
> And then, if a judge is called to say whether the deal is legal or not,
> can he forbid that deal if he thinks that it goes against the
> Play-To-Win Rule?
He can only forbid the subsequent breaking of the play-to-win deal for
any player for whom the deal was not "real" (that is, for any player
who's acceptance of the deal was not "play to win" at the time the deal
was made -- that is, for any player for whom the deal was not a "real"
deal).
Damnans
> Sorry to bother you about that, 'cause I think that the answer is
> really obvious but we're having a tough debate on a French forum and we
> need a clear answer from you to the following question :
>
> Player P wants to make a lose deal with K : 2VP for P, 3 and the GW for
> K, with the intend of breaking it while P can obviously win the game
> without dealing. Is the deal legal, in the sense that it might be
> easier for P, if he breaks the deal, to win the game.
The deal you mention above would only be illegal if player P honors it.
> And then, if a judge is called to say whether the deal is legal or not,
> can he forbid that deal if he thinks that it goes against the
> Play-To-Win Rule?
There is nothing illegal about proposing a deal. Honoring a deal that
violates the play-to-win rule is what makes it illegal.
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
http://www.vtes.net
http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
jeff...@pacbell.net
> Huruem wrote:
> > Sorry to bother you about that, 'cause I think that the answer is
> > really obvious but we're having a tough debate on a French forum and we
> > need a clear answer from you to the following question :
> >
> > Player P wants to make a lose deal with K : 2VP for P, 3 and the GW for
> > K, with the intend of breaking it while P can obviously win the game
> > without dealing. Is the deal legal, in the sense that it might be
> > easier for P, if he breaks the deal, to win the game.
>
> It's always legal to play to win. In this case, when it comes time to
> honor the deal or play to win, P chooses to play to win, then he's OK.
For some reason I had it in mind that you couldn't even *make* a "lose"
deal if you were in a strong enough position to still try for the game
win. Is this not the case? Aren't judges supposed to be able to weigh
in on this?
> The only sticky point with deals is that "real" deals (ones that can be
> honored even when the honoring would violate play to win) are the ones
> that, when made with the expectation that both parties will honor it,
> is still playing to win at the time the deal is made.
So, again, you can make any deals you want, but not honor them? I
apologize for not following the other threads as closely as I probably
should have, but sometimes they get overwhelming to sift through.
> > And then, if a judge is called to say whether the deal is legal or not,
> > can he forbid that deal if he thinks that it goes against the
> > Play-To-Win Rule?
>
> He can only forbid the subsequent breaking of the play-to-win deal for
> any player for whom the deal was not "real" (that is, for any player
> who's acceptance of the deal was not "play to win" at the time the deal
> was made -- that is, for any player for whom the deal was not a "real"
> deal).
So judges can't forbid making of any deals, just breaking of them? Well
then, can't every dealmaker just state to the judge that they were
simply using the deal as a way to gather time to marshall their forces
to push for the GW against their supposed partner?
Jeff
Huruem
as I know, just judge the legality of the deal as it is proposed and
never come back to check if it was honored or not.
So actually when a judge is called for a deal proposal, he just gives
his decision whether it is legal or not to propose it, meaning whether
it would be legal or not to honor it. They don't even see the
difference !
As a matter of facts, it is how they do, and how the players are used
to play their tournaments. That's also how I learned to deal, if I may
say so. So here is my first question : Is it according to the rules or
not? Personally I don't know, I'm so used to play that way... But it
changes a lot of things in the way deals are judged actually.
I suppose that you are already aware of that way of playing and
judging, you must have experienced it during an EC or whatever. There
are qualities and flaws in that method. One of the advantages is that a
judge just gives a decision instantly as a deal is proposed and doesn't
have to come back. Will the deal be broken or not? It's not supposed to
be a problem when the different players involved in the deal seemed to
be playing according to the PTW rule. So Second question : Is the judge
supposed to encourage the player to break the deal, if he might do a
result of course, by one way or another?
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> > It's always legal to play to win. In this case, when it comes time to
> > honor the deal or play to win, P chooses to play to win, then he's OK.
>
> For some reason I had it in mind that you couldn't even *make* a "lose"
> deal if you were in a strong enough position to still try for the game
> win. Is this not the case?
It is not the case.
Deals are just table talk except for one point: It is possible to make
a deal so that, when it comes time, a player may choose to honor a deal
instead of playing to win. That possibility only arises if the terms of
the deal itself (with all parties honoring their parts) conformed to
the concept of playing to win for the player.
In all other respects, deals are just table talk. And table talk is not
restricted.
> Aren't judges supposed to be able to weigh
> in on this?
They can weigh in on whatever they like, so long as they do not reveal
priviledged information (e.g. contents of a player's hand that are not
known to other players, or whether or not a deal is legal for a player
to honor, if that is based on information not known to other players,
which it usually is).
> > The only sticky point with deals is that "real" deals (ones that can be
> > honored even when the honoring would violate play to win) are the ones
> > that, when made with the expectation that both parties will honor it,
> > is still playing to win at the time the deal is made.
>
> So, again, you can make any deals you want, but not honor them? I
Correct.
> apologize for not following the other threads as closely as I probably
> should have, but sometimes they get overwhelming to sift through.
I'll second that. :-)
> > > And then, if a judge is called to say whether the deal is legal or not,
> > > can he forbid that deal if he thinks that it goes against the
> > > Play-To-Win Rule?
> >
> > He can only forbid the subsequent breaking of the play-to-win deal for
> > any player for whom the deal was not "real" (that is, for any player
> > who's acceptance of the deal was not "play to win" at the time the deal
> > was made -- that is, for any player for whom the deal was not a "real"
> > deal).
>
> So judges can't forbid making of any deals, just breaking of them? Well
> then, can't every dealmaker just state to the judge that they were
> simply using the deal as a way to gather time to marshall their forces
> to push for the GW against their supposed partner?
Sure. So long as they never honor a deal, that's fine.
Damnans
> The problem is that most of the judges in France and in Germany, as far
> as I know, just judge the legality of the deal as it is proposed and
> never come back to check if it was honored or not.
> So actually when a judge is called for a deal proposal, he just gives
> his decision whether it is legal or not to propose it, meaning whether
> it would be legal or not to honor it. They don't even see the
> difference !
>
> As a matter of facts, it is how they do, and how the players are used
> to play their tournaments. That's also how I learned to deal, if I may
> say so. So here is my first question : Is it according to the rules or
> not? Personally I don't know, I'm so used to play that way... But it
> changes a lot of things in the way deals are judged actually.
I think it is according to the rules, but I also think there are better
ways for a judge to deal with these situations.
For example:
Prior to the start of a tournament, the judge announces that any
table-splitting deals should be reported to him for his supervision;
and that, after evaluating any deal, the judge will give a piece of
paper with something written on it to each dealer involved.
During that tournament, player B and player C make a table-splitting
deal. Player C will get 3 VPs and player B will get 2 VPs. However,
Player B has reasonable chances to get the game win.
Player D calls a judge so that he can supervise the deal.
The judge determines that player B has reasonable chances to win the
game, and writes something down on two pieces of paper. Then he gives
one of those pieces of paper to player B, and the other one to player
C.
Player C's written note reads: "It is legal for you to honor the deal".
Player B's written note reads: "It is illegal for you to honor the
deal".
[...]
> So Second question : Is the judge supposed to encourage the player to break the
> deal, if he might do a result of course, by one way or another?
Making deals is up to the players, not to the judge, so a judge cannot
break any deals.
What a judge can tell a player after evaluating a deal (i.e., before
the deal has been made) is: "if you honor this deal you are not playing
to win" or "if you honor this deal you are playing to win".
In the first case, it is still up to the player to make the deal, since
the deal has not been made yet. But if that player decides to make that
deal, he will be quite aware that he is not allowed honor it.
tzimisce_dragon
LSJ wrote:
> Huruem wrote:
> > Sorry to bother you about that, 'cause I think that the answer is
> > really obvious but we're having a tough debate on a French forum and we
> > need a clear answer from you to the following question :
> >
> > Player P wants to make a lose deal with K : 2VP for P, 3 and the GW for
> > K, with the intend of breaking it while P can obviously win the game
> > without dealing. Is the deal legal, in the sense that it might be
> > easier for P, if he breaks the deal, to win the game.
>
> It's always legal to play to win. In this case, when it comes time to
> honor the deal or play to win, P chooses to play to win, then he's OK.
>
does the judge have the right to warn player P, at the time he
negotiates his/hers deal, that honoring such a deal is illegal, as it's
not PtW ? or is this not acceptable/nice for the game/legal, as it may
result in judge spoiling P's bluff (if any) ?
finaly, i really don't like breaking deals during play... of course, i
only make deals that are PtW. BUT of course, i could just break them
and have a better chance of PtW...
I just don't like it, nor the people in my playgroup... we don't break
deals...
If i tell you that you may go ahead and KILL my predator's minions this
turn and i won't bleed you, then i won't. You can go ahead, kick the
crap out of my predator's minions and as tempting it is to break the
deal and bleed you i won't do it... i can wait a turn and oust you then
:)
Really, i don't understand, how one can trust another and keep his end
of a deal when he knows that he is likely to get SCREWED by his deal
partner trying to get an even even bigger advantage than the one the
deal hands out... e.g. in the above mentioned example, in which i lose
unless my prey kills almost every single minion of my predator, i can
make a deal, not to hurt him in my next turn, so he won't have to keep
untapped minions to defend and can help me not get ousted by my
predator by killing his minions.
If when my turn comes, i break the deal (PtW, right ?) and bleed him,
then in some other game, why on earth should he trust me again ? We may
both benefit from the deal, but the deal is very likely not to be ever
made or kept by either one from fear of betrayal...
As i told you, here in Greece, in my playgroup, we always honor
deals... so, i ask out of curiosity... how on earth do you trust, even
slightly, each other and conduct deals ? give me some examples... From
what i've heard, i wouldn't trust you... you sneaky traitors... :P :)
ira...@gmail.com
> > in on this?
>
> They can weigh in on whatever they like, so long as they do not reveal
> priviledged information (e.g. contents of a player's hand that are not
> known to other players, or whether or not a deal is legal for a player
> to honor, if that is based on information not known to other players,
> which it usually is).
Let's say the judge secretly tells player P that his proposed deal will
actually be legal. If player P then asks the judge to share that
priviledged information with the rest of the table, should the judge
share it?
I think the answer is no, but I want to be sure. Otherwise, in the
opposite case, the table asks player P to ask the judge to share the
information, and if player P refuses, then the table knows the deal is
illegal.
Thanks,
Ira
ira...@gmail.com
> negotiates his/hers deal, that honoring such a deal is illegal, as it's
> not PtW ? or is this not acceptable/nice for the game/legal, as it may
> result in judge spoiling P's bluff (if any) ?
If player P asks, the Judge should privately inform player P if the
deal is legal or not.
As LSJ writes, the judge should not reveal priviledged information,
which means the judge shouldn't tell the whole table, just player P.
In that way, the judge can't spoil P's bluff (if any.)
Ira
Greg
> > > Aren't judges supposed to be able to weigh
> > > in on this?
> >
> > They can weigh in on whatever they like, so long as they do not reveal
> > priviledged information (e.g. contents of a player's hand that are not
> > known to other players, or whether or not a deal is legal for a player
> > to honor, if that is based on information not known to other players,
> > which it usually is).
>
> Let's say the judge secretly tells player P that his proposed deal will
> actually be legal. If player P then asks the judge to share that
> priviledged information with the rest of the table, should the judge
> share it?
>
Recall that the Judge is likely required to attain Priveledged
Information to determine the legality of a deal, and, as such, he is
forbidden from revealing such remarks to anybody, even himself, until
the Tournament is over.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
LSJ escreveu:
> > So judges can't forbid making of any deals, just breaking of them? Well
> > then, can't every dealmaker just state to the judge that they were
> > simply using the deal as a way to gather time to marshall their forces
> > to push for the GW against their supposed partner?
> Sure. So long as they never honor a deal, that's fine.
I can safely say that all V:tES deals I've made in the last three years
or so fall under that category ("to gather time to marshall forces
etc.") or were very small affairs (like in "I'll rescue your vamp now
and you will do X for me next turn, ok?").
I'd say many players do that also.
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
Ankur Gupta
> deal has been made) is: "if you honor this deal you are not playing to
> win" or "if you honor this deal you are playing to win".
>
> In the first case, it is still up to the player to make the deal, since
> the deal has not been made yet. But if that player decides to make that
> deal, he will be quite aware that he is not allowed honor it.
Of course, this simplistic approach doesn't handle the shifting nature of
the game. If a deal that was previously illegal to uphold suddenly becomes
a player's best play-to-win scenario, he is of course allowed to "break
his intention of breaking a losing deal with another player". It should be
pointed out that a player shouldn't be obligated to break a deal once game
state dictates a different course of action.
Just sayin'.
What this all really comes down to is "play to win, damnit". :)
Ankur
Damnans
> > What a judge can tell a player after evaluating a deal (i.e., before the
> > deal has been made) is: "if you honor this deal you are not playing to
> > win" or "if you honor this deal you are playing to win".
> >
> > In the first case, it is still up to the player to make the deal, since
> > the deal has not been made yet. But if that player decides to make that
> > deal, he will be quite aware that he is not allowed honor it.
>
> Of course, this simplistic approach doesn't handle the shifting nature of
> the game. If a deal that was previously illegal to uphold suddenly becomes
> a player's best play-to-win scenario, he is of course allowed to "break
As you say, this approach is simplistic, that's why the judge should
also tell that player that he is not allowed to honor the deal unless
keeping the deal means playing to win.
> What this all really comes down to is "play to win, damnit". :)
Yes, dammit! :-) A lot of players forget about that :-)
tzimisce_dragon
Greg wrote:
>
> Recall that the Judge is likely required to attain Priveledged
> Information to determine the legality of a deal, and, as such, he is
> forbidden from revealing such remarks to anybody, even himself, until
> the Tournament is over.
>
so correct, i agree...
although, when a player A proposes a deal to a player B, then if he is
a
bit experienced, in most case he can tell by himself if the deal is
legal or not...
tzimisce_dragon
ira...@gmail.com wrote:
.
>
> As LSJ writes, the judge should not reveal priviledged information,
> which means the judge shouldn't tell the whole table, just player P.
> In that way, the judge can't spoil P's bluff (if any.)
>
agreed, it seems logical, but what if there's only 1 Head Judge for 3
tables ?
he can't be on all tables at once... so, how should he put it/say it,
so as to
call him to the table when the time comes to inform player P that is
illegal to
honor the deal ???
i know that i am getting into small details, but i believe that these
technical
problems are important and i'd like your ideas. Thanks.
LSJ
Correct. Parallel to showing cards in hand -- player P can say that the
deal is "real" (and may or may not be telling the truth), but he cannot
divulge the sincerity of his statement by having the judge expose truth
any more than he can show cards in his hand so show his sincerity about
statements regarding the contents of his hand.
x5m...@gmx.de
> As i told you, here in Greece, in my playgroup, we always honor
> deals... so, i ask out of curiosity... how on earth do you trust, even
> slightly, each other and conduct deals ? give me some examples... From
> what i've heard, i wouldn't trust you... you sneaky traitors... :P :)
What do you do in big tournaments, where you dont know the other
players? You still deal with them, but you make different deals. That
is the same with player, you know, will sometimes break deals.
Make small deals, that even if they are broken, will not kill you. (If
rescue your minion, if you rescue mine, can be broken. But it is
usually stupid to break it.)
Make deals, that you get the benefit first. (We kill first my prey,
than yours, cannot be broken against you.)
Make deals, that it would be silly to break them. (You get first, i get
second place in a final is a dela, that can be broken, but why should
the player who gets the first place break that deal? He is not winning
anything.)
If you play with players who sometimes break deals, you will notice
that VTES as a game gets better in that situation.
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:1146775858.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> jeff...@pacbell.net wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
[Huruem wrote]
>> > > And then, if a judge is called to say whether the deal is legal or
>> > > not,
>> > > can he forbid that deal if he thinks that it goes against the
>> > > Play-To-Win Rule?
>> >
>> > He can only forbid the subsequent breaking of the play-to-win deal for
>> > any player for whom the deal was not "real" (that is, for any player
>> > who's acceptance of the deal was not "play to win" at the time the deal
>> > was made -- that is, for any player for whom the deal was not a "real"
>> > deal).
>>
>> So judges can't forbid making of any deals, just breaking of them? Well
>> then, can't every dealmaker just state to the judge that they were
>> simply using the deal as a way to gather time to marshall their forces
>> to push for the GW against their supposed partner?
>
> Sure. So long as they never honor a deal, that's fine.
I think there may have been a typo in the sentence "can only forbid the
subsequent breaking of the play-to-win deal", above? It sounds like it
should have read "can only forbid the subsequent KEEPING of the deal" for a
player for whom the deal was not play-to-win at the time it was made.
Though I'm not totally sure, since there's a lot of "real/not real" embedded
in there. :-) But I would think that in general, judges can never forbid
the breaking of any deal - only the keeping of a deal can be illegal by the
"play to win" rules - as I understand it, players are never required by the
V:EKN rules to make (or keep) deals in an effort to win.
Josh
never plays not to win
Joshua Duffin
>> LSJ wrote:
>> > It's always legal to play to win. In this case, when it comes time to
>> > honor the deal or play to win, P chooses to play to win, then he's OK.
>>
>> For some reason I had it in mind that you couldn't even *make* a "lose"
>> deal if you were in a strong enough position to still try for the game
>> win. Is this not the case?
>
> It is not the case.
>
> Deals are just table talk except for one point: It is possible to make
> a deal so that, when it comes time, a player may choose to honor a deal
> instead of playing to win. That possibility only arises if the terms of
> the deal itself (with all parties honoring their parts) conformed to
> the concept of playing to win for the player.
>
> In all other respects, deals are just table talk. And table talk is not
> restricted.
It seems like it would be simpler for everyone if deals were *always* just
table talk, and never produced exemptions from the general "play to win"
rule, even when based on a player's evaluation at some earlier point in the
game that he no longer had a reasonable chance of winning.
Though I know not everyone would agree with me on this. :-)
Josh
au contrarian
Ben Peal
This is another "play to win" case where LSJ's answer is irrelevant.
Player K knows that Player P must play to win, and therefore knows
that Player P is going to break the deal. Therefore, Player K knows
that making a deal with Player P is foolish and should choose another
course of action.
Stop trying to make huge deals and split tables. Make small deals
instead. It works better. Trust me.
- Ben Peal
Ankur Gupta
>> restricted.
>
> It seems like it would be simpler for everyone if deals were *always*
> just table talk, and never produced exemptions from the general "play to
> win" rule, even when based on a player's evaluation at some earlier
> point in the game that he no longer had a reasonable chance of winning.
>
> Though I know not everyone would agree with me on this. :-)
Josh, it's an interesting hope. How would a judge then adjudicate those
who wish to table-talk by making promises and then loudly insisting that
they won't sacrifice their personal honor by breaking a deal when it
ceases to be a winning course of action?
I mean. . . adjudicate without banning like half the players of vtes. :)
Can you force someone *not* to lie/backstab? At least currently, the
play-to-win litmus test allows a judge to involve him/herself at the
creation of a
potential-instance-of-table-talk-that-could-in-some-scenario-violate-play-to-win.
Say that ten times fast. :) Anyway, it doesn't seem that even such an
allowance does anything concrete: the most it seems to do is allow for a
possible avoidance later. Problems could still arise later, despite this
check, since we don't have to assume that a player is honest about his/her
intentions to the judge.
Ankur Gupta
Member of the "play to win, damnit" brigade
Ankur Gupta
>
> Player K knows that Player P must play to win, and therefore knows
> that Player P is going to break the deal. Therefore, Player K knows
> that making a deal with Player P is foolish and should choose another
> course of action.
Ben, you're right, of course. Assuming that K knows that "P can obviously
win otherwise". The obviousness only needs to exist for P, who is trying
to assess the legality of accepting (or proposing) a "losing" deal.
K need not know of these considerations for P.
Ankur Gupta
Prince of West Lafayette
Ankur Gupta
> obviously win otherwise". The obviousness only needs to exist for P, who
> is trying to assess the legality of accepting (or proposing) a "losing"
> deal.
>
> K need not know of these considerations for P.
To clarify, though K need not know, if he *does* know of the
considerations, he should not make any such deal. That seems to have been
your point Ben. Am I right?
Ankur
Ben Peal
> To clarify, though K need not know, if he *does* know
> of the considerations, he should not make any such
> deal. That seems to have been your point Ben. Am I right?
Er...uh...my head is spinning. :)
The point is that K knows that P is going to break the deal,
so K shouldn't bother making the deal at all. There's no need
for a big debate about it on this forum, the French forum, or
any other forum.
- Ben
LSJ
> It seems like it would be simpler for everyone if deals were *always* just
> table talk, and never produced exemptions from the general "play to win"
> rule, even when based on a player's evaluation at some earlier point in the
> game that he no longer had a reasonable chance of winning.
Of course it would be simpler.
It is just a case of the simpler not being "better" on the whole.
Eliminating intercept, aggravated daamage, and torpor would make the
game simpler, too.
For more on eliminating deals from the game, see
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2t2pv9F1qqe8jU1%40uni-berlin.de
Ankur Gupta
It wasn't clear to me that K knows, and it isn't part of the situation as
such. It's clear to me that P knows, because otherwise there would be no
discussion. And, as you've unknowingly implied, the latter case (K does
not know) is the only interesting case to discuss.
Ankur
Ben Peal
> It wasn't clear to me that K knows, and it isn't part
> of the situation as such. It's clear to me that P knows,
> because otherwise there would be no discussion. And,
> as you've unknowingly implied, the latter case (K does
> not know) is the only interesting case to discuss.
K knows that P must play to win. K knows that P can't
win if P gets 2 VP and K gets 3 VP. Therefore, K knows
that P isn't going to honor the deal.
- Ben
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>> It seems like it would be simpler for everyone if deals were *always*
>> just
>> table talk, and never produced exemptions from the general "play to win"
>> rule, even when based on a player's evaluation at some earlier point in
>> the
>> game that he no longer had a reasonable chance of winning.
>
> Of course it would be simpler.
>
> It is just a case of the simpler not being "better" on the whole.
Meh. It might not be, but I'm not sure I'm convinced yet...
> Eliminating intercept, aggravated daamage, and torpor would make the
> game simpler, too.
Those things are in the rulebook. I don't recall you having put deals in
the rulebook as of yet. :-)
> For more on eliminating deals from the game, see
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2t2pv9F1qqe8jU1%40uni-berlin.de
Oh, I've seen that. I'm not suggesting that deals should be eliminated from
the game. I'm suggesting that it might be worthwhile to eliminate their
ability to exempt players from the "play to win" tournament rule.
Josh
fought the law, and the law won
Joshua Duffin
"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.63.06...@fiordland.cs.duke.edu...
>>> In all other respects, deals are just table talk. And table talk is not
>>> restricted.
>>
>> It seems like it would be simpler for everyone if deals were *always*
>> just table talk, and never produced exemptions from the general "play to
>> win" rule, even when based on a player's evaluation at some earlier point
>> in the game that he no longer had a reasonable chance of winning.
>>
>> Though I know not everyone would agree with me on this. :-)
>
> Josh, it's an interesting hope. How would a judge then adjudicate those
> who wish to table-talk by making promises and then loudly insisting that
> they won't sacrifice their personal honor by breaking a deal when it
> ceases to be a winning course of action?
Well, in hypothetical-world, I guess the judge would remind them that they
must always play to win the game, so they shouldn't try to offer people
deals that would require them to lose the game. That way, they won't have
to worry about their honor being sacrificed or not.
> I mean. . . adjudicate without banning like half the players of vtes. :)
What!! I can't ban half the players of vtes?!?! :-)
> Can you force someone *not* to lie/backstab? At least currently, the
> play-to-win litmus test allows a judge to involve him/herself at the
> creation of a
> potential-instance-of-table-talk-that-could-in-some-scenario-violate-play-to-win.
> Say that ten times fast. :) Anyway, it doesn't seem that even such an
> allowance does anything concrete: the most it seems to do is allow for a
> possible avoidance later. Problems could still arise later, despite this
> check, since we don't have to assume that a player is honest about his/her
> intentions to the judge.
Yeah. I think it's always possible for problems to arise, no matter what
the rules say. As they stand now, yes, the judge can tell a player involved
whether or not the deal he or she wants to make will be a legal one for them
to keep (though as an aside, my god! talk about a judgement call that it's
not nice to force the judge to make). But problems can still arise now, if
the player (a) didn't consult the judge in the first place, or (b) keeps the
deal and loses the game while the judge isn't looking, despite the original
losing deal not having been legal for them to keep.
Really, no matter what, the judge is kind of forced to be involved any time
there's a dispute over whether people can make a losing deal. Of course, if
people would just play to win (dammit!), it wouldn't come up very often.
:-)
Josh
member of the 'pop another cork' brigade
John Flournoy
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > Of course it would be simpler.
> >
> > It is just a case of the simpler not being "better" on the whole.
>
> Meh. It might not be, but I'm not sure I'm convinced yet...
>
> > Eliminating intercept, aggravated daamage, and torpor would make the
> > game simpler, too.
>
> Those things are in the rulebook. I don't recall you having put deals in
> the rulebook as of yet. :-)
Tournaments and games having 'judges' aren't in the rulebook yet,
either. :P
> Josh
-John Flournoy
Joshua Duffin
"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146854711.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
[L. Scott Johnson wrote]
>> > Eliminating intercept, aggravated daamage, and torpor would make the
>> > game simpler, too.
>>
>> Those things are in the rulebook. I don't recall you having put deals in
>> the rulebook as of yet. :-)
>
> Tournaments and games having 'judges' aren't in the rulebook yet,
> either. :P
Oh fine, be that way. ;-) Nonetheless, deals don't appear in the V:EKN
tournament rules either, at least not by name. They are, however, alluded
to in the Judge's Guidelines, in the section on the concepts underlying the
Collusion violation:
"Philosophy:
Players participating in standard table talk or in-game agreements should
not be considered in violation of this rule as long as they meet the
following criteria:
No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash,
cards, or other items.
No part of the agreement has been secret or has taken place outside of the
current game.
No part of the agreement involves a random selection of the winner.
The agreement does not otherwise violate section 5.2 of the V:EKN Tournament
Rules."
Section 5.2 of the V:EKN Tournament Rules, of course, says that "Players
must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated
in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their
V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.)."
The famous "play to win" rule. Such as it is.
Josh
"WINNERS DON'T USE DRUGS"
James Coupe
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo <fabio....@gmail.com> writes:
>I can safely say that all V:tES deals I've made in the last three years
>or so fall under that category ("to gather time to marshall forces
>etc.") or were very small affairs (like in "I'll rescue your vamp now
>and you will do X for me next turn, ok?").
>
>I'd say many players do that also.
As time goes by, I've seen fewer and fewer "If I do X, you won't bleed
me for five turns or do anything bad to me at all ever ever ever!"
deals.
The few times I've seen someone propose them, they've either been turned
down or back-stabbed on. Because frankly the player should've known it
was a stupid deal. A couple of Voter Captivations and Parity Shifts can
hugely twist a game - and I'm supposed to keep a stupid deal I made two
turns ago when my predator now has enough pool to bring Enkidu?
Fshyeahright.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Ankur Gupta
How does K know that P believe that earning more than 2 VP is possible? If
K believes that P can only earn 2 VP, then K does not know that P won't
honor the deal.
Ankur
tzimisce_dragon
James Coupe wrote:
>
> The few times I've seen someone propose them, they've either been turned
> down or back-stabbed on. Because frankly the player should've known it
> was a stupid deal. A couple of Voter Captivations and Parity Shifts can
> hugely twist a game - and I'm supposed to keep a stupid deal I made two
> turns ago when my predator now has enough pool to bring Enkidu?
> Fshyeahright.
>
So, if player A makes the following deal with player B (his prey): I
will not do anything bad to you (Player B) for 4 turns, and you (player
B) do Y, right now"...
So, Player B does Y and player A honors the deal for 2 turns.
The 3rd turn, it seems that if Player A continues to honor the deal, he
will propably
get ousted by his predator. So, can the judge tell him at that point "I
coomand thee... stop honoring the deal and PLAY TO WIN!!!!" ???
2nd question.... if at the 3rd turn, it seems that Player A is not
threatened by his predator and can keep honoring the deal, BUT.... if
he does so, then his prey (Player B) will most propably oust his prey
next turn and thus seriously damage Player A's chances of winning more
VPs... Also, it seems that Player A has significanlty chances of
ousting Player B and then B's prey, if he stops honoring the deal...
BUT player A wants to honor the deal...
Should/can the Judge say " I command you!!!! stop honoring the deal
PLAY TO WIN" ???
i am asking, because i's like to know exactly how should/must the Judge
react to such deals...
James Coupe
tzimisce_dragon <clan_a...@yahoo.com> writes:
>So, if player A makes the following deal with player B (his prey): I
>will not do anything bad to you (Player B) for 4 turns, and you (player
>B) do Y, right now"...
>
>So, Player B does Y and player A honors the deal for 2 turns.
>
>The 3rd turn, it seems that if Player A continues to honor the deal, he
>will propably
>get ousted by his predator. So, can the judge tell him at that point "I
>coomand thee... stop honoring the deal and PLAY TO WIN!!!!" ???
You haven't provided the crucial element of information - was the deal
play-to-win when it was made? If so, as LSJ has stated repeatedly, the
deal can be kept. If it wasn't (and so wasn't a legal deal, but rather
table-talk that fooled a player) then the judge can command it.
Note that this may not be as simple as it looks. A player might choose
to make a deal like that, that looks like he's giving up offensive
ability, when in reality he doesn't have any cards in his hand to help
him - say, he's had a bad shuffle and is drawing intercept, equipment
and retainers that he needs to equip first, so he makes a deal about not
bleeding because he needs to cycle through these cards first. The other
players on the table will often not know this, though may be able to
deduce it over several turns when he keeps playing such cards.
>2nd question.... if at the 3rd turn, it seems that Player A is not
>threatened by his predator and can keep honoring the deal, BUT.... if
>he does so, then his prey (Player B) will most propably oust his prey
>next turn and thus seriously damage Player A's chances of winning more
>VPs... Also, it seems that Player A has significanlty chances of
>ousting Player B and then B's prey, if he stops honoring the deal...
>BUT player A wants to honor the deal...
>
>Should/can the Judge say " I command you!!!! stop honoring the deal
>PLAY TO WIN" ???
Was the deal play-to-win when it was made? If so, it can be kept.
Note that simply ousting a prey doesn't, in and of itself, make a given
player's chances of winning seriously lower. If I'm preying on you and
you now have seven pool instead of one, that's still easily killable
with a couple of moderate stealth bleeds, or a few votes (where I gain
pool, too). I may also want you to oust your prey, because he's playing
something I don't like - perhaps he's a wall deck, you have a few "block
fails" cards and will stand a better chance of ousting him than I will.
So I let you do it. Then oust you. Giving me potentially a better
chance at taking the table.
Of course, I may be scrambling to try and take away even a single pool
from you, let alone another six, in which case I might think
differently. Just ousting people doesn't automatically mean my chances
significantly drop, though.
But I can keep a deal if it was play-to-win when it was made. If it
wasn't, I can't - because it was just table-talk, and table-talk doesn't
make illegal actions legal.
>i am asking, because i's like to know exactly how should/must the Judge
>react to such deals...
If a deal is play-to-win, it can be kept. If it isn't, it can't.
Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo
> In message <1146789513.0...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo <fabio....@gmail.com> writes:
> >I can safely say that all V:tES deals I've made in the last three years
> >or so fall under that category ("to gather time to marshall forces
> >etc.") or were very small affairs (like in "I'll rescue your vamp now
> >and you will do X for me next turn, ok?").
> >
> >I'd say many players do that also.
>
> As time goes by, I've seen fewer and fewer "If I do X, you won't bleed
> me for five turns or do anything bad to me at all ever ever ever!"
> deals.
I'd wish it was a trend in here also :/
Usually I only propose/accept these when there's a clear table threat
(and of course, I can use this fact to my advantage). Like, there's a
vote deck around with vote lock, no one is playing intercept, and only
one or two players that can do some cross-table harm. So let the
"capable" ones free for a while to go after it while you marshall
forces, but that's it.
> The few times I've seen someone propose them, they've either been turned
> down or back-stabbed on. Because frankly the player should've known it
> was a stupid deal. A couple of Voter Captivations and Parity Shifts can
> hugely twist a game - and I'm supposed to keep a stupid deal I made two
> turns ago when my predator now has enough pool to bring Enkidu?
> Fshyeahright.
I never fear Enkidu here, cursed minion as he is, but that's another
topic :D
In fact I was just ranting as a "member of the Play to Win, Damnit!
brigade", as Ankur and Ben Peal. After some years playing V:tES, every
game I'm in makes me more and more bothered about such deals and other,
bigger ones (table split or no). For some time, my stance was just to
point out how stupid the deal is and wait for the one who proposed the
deal in first place to win. Once the game ends, abuse your right to say
"I told you so".
That worked wonders, specially with newbies who didn't had enough clout
to notice how big deals detract from the game and usually are proposed
for a single player's advantage, not for any measure of "goodness" on
one's part. But it also gets boring after a while - specially during
tournaments, where you can't have the luxury of losing a table just to
show other players' stupidity. Guess I'll just retire tournaments for a
while.
OK, rant mode off. Back to the topic at hand. I think I share Josh's
concerns; no need to eliminate deals from the game, but the choice to
honor a deal just because it was legal when it was originally made, at
the expense of playing to win when the situation arises, shouldn't be
weighted in. Of course, this lead to another problem - for some, it may
sound like enforcing dishonor as a rule - but again, I don't think
people should take honor issues in a game table so seriously.
Fabio Sooner
Ben Peal
Ankur Gupta wrote:
> How does K know that P believe that earning more than 2 VP
> is possible? If K believes that P can only earn 2 VP, then K
> does not know that P won't honor the deal.
It was stated so in the original question:
"Player P wants to make a lose deal with K : 2VP for P, 3 and
the GW for K, with the intend of breaking it while P can obviously
win the game without dealing."
- Ben
talonz
LSJ wrote:
> jeff...@pacbell.net wrote:
> >
> > So judges can't forbid making of any deals, just breaking of them? Well
> > then, can't every dealmaker just state to the judge that they were
> > simply using the deal as a way to gather time to marshall their forces
> > to push for the GW against their supposed partner?
>
> Sure. So long as they never honor a deal, that's fine.
Wait a sec. So any deal can be brokered, but one cannot follow through
with one that violates the play to win/maximize vps principle? But i
thought a player couldn't be forced to break a deal for that principle?
Which leaves us in a catch 22 doesnt it?
G
James Coupe
talonz <talo...@yahoo.ca> writes:
>Wait a sec. So any deal can be brokered, but one cannot follow through
>with one that violates the play to win/maximize vps principle? But i
>thought a player couldn't be forced to break a deal for that principle?
> Which leaves us in a catch 22 doesnt it?
If the deal wasn't play-to-win when it was made, it can't be followed
through with. A judge can force a deal to be broken if it wasn't a
play-to-win deal when it was made.
Huruem
'cause I think that table splitting makes the game boring as hell. But
the problem is that Frenchies LOVE table splitting, maybe you've seen
it last time you played in France with Kamel and so on. (And swiss or
german players seem to be even worse than us as far as I know...)
When I began playing 3 years ago, every game we played ended up in a
table splitting and it raised lots of questions about dealing and the
play to win rule, just like this one.
Honestly if I was P I definetly wouldn't deal anyway, maybe I would
have talked to K to try to convince him to do what I want... or not.
Ankur Gupta
Who knows that P can obviously win the game without dealing? The scope of
that knowledge is not stated in the question.
Obviously if K knows, no deal is made, because it's dumb for K. What if K
doesn't know, but P "obviously knows" his own potential?
What then?
Ankur
Ben Peal
Ankur Gupta wrote:
> > It was stated so in the original question:
> >
> > "Player P wants to make a lose deal with K : 2VP for P, 3 and
> > the GW for K, with the intend of breaking it while P can obviously
> > win the game without dealing."
>
> Who knows that P can obviously win the game without dealing? The scope of
> that knowledge is not stated in the question.
>
> Obviously if K knows, no deal is made, because it's dumb for K. What if K
> doesn't know, but P "obviously knows" his own potential?
>
> What then?
The question specifies that it is obvious that P can win the game
without
making such a deal. I've taken that to mean that it's obvious to
everyone,
and Huruem has not stated otherwise.
- Ben
Ankur Gupta
>> K doesn't know, but P "obviously knows" his own potential?
>>
>> What then?
>
> The question specifies that it is obvious that P can win the game
> without
> making such a deal. I've taken that to mean that it's obvious to
> everyone,
> and Huruem has not stated otherwise.
Yeah, that's where I took the question to mean something else, since it
wasn't clear on that point. I figured the only interesting scenario is
where P was the only one aware of the obviousness of the issue. Or more
to the point, that K was not aware of such obviousness. :)
Ankur
not at all obvious
LSJ
> OK, rant mode off. Back to the topic at hand. I think I share Josh's
> concerns; no need to eliminate deals from the game, but the choice to
> honor a deal just because it was legal when it was originally made, at
> the expense of playing to win when the situation arises, shouldn't be
> weighted in.
By not allowing the deal to be weighted in, you are effectively
eliminating deals (and saying that players must play to win at all
moments, overriding deals as necessary to conform to that).
Joshua Duffin
Yes, I think the tournament environment might be more enjoyable and fair if
players were required to play to win at all moments, rather than only "all
moments in which they haven't made a deal allowing them to play to help
someone else win".
Josh
there's no 'being friends' in vtes
Ankur Gupta
> if players were required to play to win at all moments, rather than only
> "all moments in which they haven't made a deal allowing them to play to
> help someone else win".
I'm going to try this out in our local playgroup. I doubt it's going to
work, but let's see.
> Josh
>
> there's no 'being friends' in vtes
Is there hand-holding?
Ankur
LSJ
> > eliminating deals (and saying that players must play to win at all
> > moments, overriding deals as necessary to conform to that).
>
> Yes, I think the tournament environment might be more enjoyable and fair if
> players were required to play to win at all moments, rather than only "all
> moments in which they haven't made a deal allowing them to play to help
> someone else win".
Perhaps more enjoyable, depending on your (subjective) tolerance for
social interaction, but it would be hard to argue "more" fair, even
from a subjective standpoint, since the only deals that are allowed to
be honored over play to win are the ones that conform to play to win
when made. The level of fairness would thus remain the same.
tzimisce_dragon
Joshua Duffin wrote:
>
> Yes, I think the tournament environment might be more enjoyable and fair if
> players were required to play to win at all moments, rather than only "all
> moments in which they haven't made a deal allowing them to play to help
> someone else win".
>
>
If what you are saying is implemented (LSJ help us), then
the players will know that their deal partner is likely to be
forced not to honor the deal, so, this eliminates deals and
deprives from the game one of its greatest multiplayer elements.
Fight fire with fire is not always a good idea, try fighting fire with
water...
If table splits is what you dislike, then i agree (in most of the
cases)
but try to find another way to oppose this situation.
Shade
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> Yes, I think the tournament environment might be more enjoyable and fair if
> players were required to play to win at all moments, rather than only "all
> moments in which they haven't made a deal allowing them to play to help
> someone else win".
>
> Josh
>
> there's no 'being friends' in vtes
Sure. But there is being friends after vtes... If I made a legal deal
that was the best I could get at the time, it seems reasonable to say I
should be allowed to honour it on the basis that I will play / talk /
live with the same people again.
Anyway I think the problem is more that some players look for table
splitting deals early in the game rather than any problem with the
rules per se.
tzimisce_dragon
Shade wrote:
>
> Anyway I think the problem is more that some players look for table
> splitting deals early in the game rather than any problem with the
> rules per se.
i agree... it's a bad habbit...
People should have more confidence in their deck and own capabilities
and don't try to do such deals since turn 1.
Joshua Duffin
"tzimisce_dragon" <clan_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147165082....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I think the tournament environment might be more enjoyable and fair
>> if
>> players were required to play to win at all moments, rather than only
>> "all
>> moments in which they haven't made a deal allowing them to play to help
>> someone else win".
>>
>>
> but they do.... and the deals help them get there...
> If what you are saying is implemented (LSJ help us), then
> the players will know that their deal partner is likely to be
> forced not to honor the deal, so, this eliminates deals and
> deprives from the game one of its greatest multiplayer elements.
I don't really find table-splitting alliances to be a great multiplayer
element. The fact that all the players in the game can affect each other
and work against or with each other, yes, that is an interesting multiplayer
aspect of VTES. But agreeing to divide up VPs - and especially, agreeing to
take the losing end of a deal "because it's the best I can do now" - isn't
something I think is fun or especially good multiplayer-dynamic-wise.
> Fight fire with fire is not always a good idea, try fighting fire with
> water...
>
> If table splits is what you dislike, then i agree (in most of the
> cases)
> but try to find another way to oppose this situation.
Such as what? I don't think there's much need for "play to not win" deals
in VTES other than splitting up tables. When players want to make a deal
that enhances *both* of their chances to win the game, there is no question
that they're "playing to win" both in the making and the keeping of the
deal.
Josh
old and crotchety
Joshua Duffin
"Shade" <sha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147168107....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>> Yes, I think the tournament environment might be more enjoyable and fair
>> if
>> players were required to play to win at all moments, rather than only
>> "all
>> moments in which they haven't made a deal allowing them to play to help
>> someone else win".
>>
>> Josh
>>
>> there's no 'being friends' in vtes
>
> Sure. But there is being friends after vtes... If I made a legal deal
> that was the best I could get at the time, it seems reasonable to say I
> should be allowed to honour it on the basis that I will play / talk /
> live with the same people again.
There's being friends after poker too, isn't there? Yet in poker people may
play quite ruthlessly.
That said, of course it's legal to honor a legal deal (tautological, even).
I'm suggesting that the game might be better if the idea of "the best I can
get at the time" were removed from the universe of possible legal deals in
VTES.
> Anyway I think the problem is more that some players look for table
> splitting deals early in the game rather than any problem with the
> rules per se.
I agree, but to me, almost any time in the game is too early for
table-splitting deals. It disheartens me to see people 'race to the bottom'
by offering to help another player win in exchange for a measly VP or two.
:-)
Josh
whatever happened to punk rock cred?
Joshua Duffin
I think there is not infrequently a 'race to the bottom' when people
perceive a contender to win emerging in a game, and decide they are willing
to help that person win in exchange for a VP or two. I find that not
particularly fair to people who might like to play the game out in its
natural course.
My tolerance for social interaction is perfectly high. My tolerance for the
whining phase (which never ends) as 'social interaction' may have waned over
the years, it's true.
Josh
negotiations, schmegotiations
Joshua Duffin
"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.63.06...@fiordland.cs.duke.edu...
>> if players were required to play to win at all moments, rather than only
>> "all moments in which they haven't made a deal allowing them to play to
>> help someone else win".
>
> I'm going to try this out in our local playgroup. I doubt it's going to
> work, but let's see.
Hmm, interesting. I think it's more often an issue in larger/more serious
tournaments, but yeah, it may be hard to convince people that they shouldn't
sell themselves for a couple VPs, if they think those VPs may make a
difference later on.
>> there's no 'being friends' in vtes
>
> Is there hand-holding?
Only with mutual consent.
Josh
no means no
LSJ
> I think there is not infrequently a 'race to the bottom' when people
> perceive a contender to win emerging in a game, and decide they are willing
> to help that person win in exchange for a VP or two. I find that not
> particularly fair to people who might like to play the game out in its
> natural course.
Where you have arbitrarily defined "natural" as "deal-free".
Of course it's fair -- they have the same opportunity to make deals.
Removing deals would be not particularly fair to the players who like
deals in the game, to use your new version of "fair".
Shade
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> I agree, but to me, almost any time in the game is too early for
> table-splitting deals. It disheartens me to see people 'race to the bottom'
> by offering to help another player win in exchange for a measly VP or two.
> :-)
I think we're on the same page here.
Having not seen many cases of this personally I'm not sure what the
solution is, or indeed if there is one. Other than to sigh and pour
yourself another drink of course :-)
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
>> I think there is not infrequently a 'race to the bottom' when people
>> perceive a contender to win emerging in a game, and decide they are
>> willing
>> to help that person win in exchange for a VP or two. I find that not
>> particularly fair to people who might like to play the game out in its
>> natural course.
>
> Where you have arbitrarily defined "natural" as "deal-free".
>
> Of course it's fair -- they have the same opportunity to make deals.
Eh. That's no more true of dealmaking than it is for Madness of the Bard
versus people not skilled at making rhymes. You may (again arbitrarily)
include dealmaking as a VTES play-skill that ought to be tested in
tournament play, but others might not see it that way.
> Removing deals would be not particularly fair to the players who like
> deals in the game, to use your new version of "fair".
Sure. That's why it's a matter of taste. I'm not personally sure that
dealmaking ought to be as important a VTES skill as it currently is.
Josh
arbitrarageur
James Coupe
<jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes:
>You may (again arbitrarily)
>include dealmaking as a VTES play-skill that ought to be tested in
>tournament play, but others might not see it that way.
I don't see that it's arbitrary at all.
Garfield explicitly included a multiplayer, social-interaction,
negotiation element in the game, and was well-aware of the potential for
deal-making and deal-breaking. But that's also why he gave each player
different goals (ousting their prey, rather than getting a VP for
concluding any "cross-table" oust etc.) - to prevent the negotiation
being too free, and purely a question of charisma and who your buddies
are.
I'm not sure how testing a skill that the designer of the game encoded
into it from the start is "arbitrary" any more than deck construction,
resource management and a poker face are arbitrary skills to be tested
in the game.
In the end, this goes back to a discussion that's been had many, many
times. If two players see something that benefits both of them (such as
me getting 2 VP rather than 0, and you comfortably getting the table win
rather than a much tighter game) - it's extremely hard to intervene.
It's their perceived best course of action - and it's not the judge's
position to intervene and correct poor play, simply illegal play. Then
you do start testing something arbitrary - which players can communicate
a "deal" without making a deal. And that's a *bad* thing to encode,
because it relies on cultural norms, body language, shared references
("Remember that time we...") which are counter to a game being played
internationally.
If you want to change the behaviour of players and be able to enforce
it, the best way of changing their behaviour is to change the metrics
they measure their performance against. The introduction of the game
win (rather than simply total VPs) did that, and worked very well for
what it was aiming at. But if two players honestly perceive their
actions as being in their own best interests, they're going to try and
pull them off.
The answer is to make it so that behaviour doesn't benefit them.
tzimisce_dragon
Joshua Duffin wrote:
>
> Sure. That's why it's a matter of taste. I'm not personally sure that
> dealmaking ought to be as important a VTES skill as it currently is.
>
>
anyway, you do have a point saying what you say, but i don't think that
eliminating deals or reducing deals' importance is good for the game.
You can't blame the game, if there are players that do "lame" deals and
"spoil" the game... if you eliminate deals, be certain that these kind
of
people will likely find a whole new way of "screwing" your pleasure of
the game...
if you ask me, people that try to make a deal early in the game to get
1-2 VPs
and lose the game (helping their deal-partner to win) are either
bluffing and
intending to "break" the deal later in the game to win, or they are
LOSERS!!!
If A tries to make a deal with B to collect 1-2 vps and then lose
(helping B to win), then try to make a deal with A to let him win... by
helping you get 1-2 VPs, convince him and
then SCREW him and take the table... just my opinion...
Andrew 'Wes' Weston
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> I agree, but to me, almost any time in the game is too early for
> table-splitting deals.
Hey Josh,
I agree wholeheartedly.
Lately, however, in JOL, I have seen table-splitting deals made as early as
the first few turns. I find this trend disturbing... I don't understand why
people would give up so early. There have been a few occasions where I've
had to take the ass-end of a table-split, but only after a long and tough
struggle. I don't seee one Immortal Grapple discarded and then decide my
Majesty deck can't possibly win. Sad, really.
Cheers,
WES