Jyhad/VtES Etiquette
Jason Mowat
I have asked a variation of this question in the past, but I would like a
re-clarification of an issue my gaming group brough up. Having never played
in a tournament, I am hoping someone will shed some light on the following:
Deals - Deals are the essence of VtES; they can make or break any player at
the table. However, in longer games (+4 hours) sometimes there are nature
calls, breaks, etc. Is it considered proper etiquette for players to hash
out deals against another player while they are away from the table
momentarily? Furthermore, is it OK for 2 or more Meths to go off into
another room to hatch a plan against another Meth still at the table? What
is done at the tournament level? Are there any specific rulings on this?
The group I play with are all a great bunch of people, and we get along
excellently. We discussed this issue and we all felt that it was probably
unfair to make deals against any particular Meth while they were away from
the table for a drink break/food break/bathroom break. But, we also wanted
to know just how cuthroat the game is played elsewear, particularly in a
tournament setting. If there is no "etiquette laws" in place for deals,
then we will play exactly like that :-)
Cheers,
Jason.
James Coupe
<jmo...@digitalpraxis.com> writes
>Deals - Deals are the essence of VtES; they can make or break any player at
>the table. However, in longer games (+4 hours)
Tournament rounds rarely last that long, and people can go in between if
they are worried about what you suggest.
>sometimes there are nature
>calls, breaks, etc. Is it considered proper etiquette for players to hash
>out deals against another player while they are away from the table
>momentarily?
There are no specific rulings against it. You could appeal under
"Unsportsmanlike conduct", but it seems very unlikely you would get an
appeal.
> Furthermore, is it OK for 2 or more Meths to go off into
>another room to hatch a plan against another Meth still at the table? What
>is done at the tournament level? Are there any specific rulings on this?
It could be ruled as collusion, or potentially collusion, since you have
no way of knowing what was introduced, which you do during table-talk.
>The group I play with are all a great bunch of people, and we get along
>excellently. We discussed this issue and we all felt that it was probably
>unfair to make deals against any particular Meth while they were away from
>the table for a drink break/food break/bathroom break. But, we also wanted
>to know just how cuthroat the game is played elsewear, particularly in a
>tournament setting. If there is no "etiquette laws" in place for deals,
>then we will play exactly like that :-)
There aren't.
However, you mustn't collude. Specifically, that means that no players
may introduce non-game factors into the equation. ("Look, if you do
this bleed, I'll clean your room for a month!" would be collusion, if
used to persuade a player to do something, and would certainly get the
offering player an appropriate reprimand from a fair judge.)
The manner in which you neogtiate deals should also be timely etc. You
shouldn't be seen to drag the game on for "hours" with your deal-making.
But your thoughts of plotting behind someone's back seem, to me, fine.
If you have any problems with it, consult the Head Judge of your
tournament before you start playing, who should be able to provide a
rough sketch of a scenario in which he would take action, and one in
which he wouldn't.
--
James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D | ja...@zephyr.org.uk (New e-mail)
"Who'd have ever predicted the moment would come when I find myself grateful
they've kept women dumb? She's an innocent maiden but then so am I, that's why
it's possible I could get by."
theve...@my-deja.com
what about when a deal is broken? how is that handled in people's
playgroups? no one in our group has ever broken a deal but i've heard
of people throwing chairs around at tournaments when a deal has been
broken (CANCON '98 ('97?) in Canberra).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Derek Ray
<jmo...@digitalpraxis.com> wrote:
>Greets,
>
>I have asked a variation of this question in the past, but I would like a
>re-clarification of an issue my gaming group brough up. Having never played
>in a tournament, I am hoping someone will shed some light on the following:
>
>Deals - Deals are the essence of VtES; they can make or break any player at
>the table. However, in longer games (+4 hours) sometimes there are nature
Note that tournament time limits are 2 hours, maximum. It is not
exactly -rare- for tournament games to go the full 2 hours, but the
majority of games finish before that. I'd guess that most finish
right about at the 1 to 1.25 hour mark.
Our pickup games in our playgroup run a bit longer - around 1.5 to 2
hours. Although occasionally we have a 30 to 45-minute wonder. =)
If you're going to 4 or more hours, rest assured that games will begin
to pass a lot quicker when you gain more experience building decks
(you will be able to oust people faster), and when you become more
familiar with the method of the game (you won't have to think for very
long on what your minions' actions will be). =)
>calls, breaks, etc. Is it considered proper etiquette for players to hash
>out deals against another player while they are away from the table
>momentarily? Furthermore, is it OK for 2 or more Meths to go off into
>another room to hatch a plan against another Meth still at the table? What
>is done at the tournament level? Are there any specific rulings on this?
If someone was in sufficiently bad shape that they needed to rush and
pee, I would say it'd be perfectly proper etiquette to speak,
deal-make, etc. in their absence since they removed themselves from
the environment voluntarily.
I would object to any group of people leaving the table to conduct
dealings in secret, however, as it would really smack of collusion and
kingmaking - something which can be a problem in any multiplayer game.
I've never personally seen it done in a tournament. I wouldn't care
for it at all, even if it didn't affect me in the slightest - I just
find that it adds much more to the game if you are forced to make all
your deals in a reasonably open atmosphere, and if you wish to pull
something on someone, you need to be crafty. =)
>The group I play with are all a great bunch of people, and we get along
>excellently. We discussed this issue and we all felt that it was probably
>unfair to make deals against any particular Meth while they were away from
>the table for a drink break/food break/bathroom break. But, we also wanted
>to know just how cuthroat the game is played elsewear, particularly in a
>tournament setting. If there is no "etiquette laws" in place for deals,
>then we will play exactly like that :-)
It's worth noting that while lying is not prohibited - you can make a
deal like "I won't bleed you with that vampire if you don't Rush and
kill him", and then break it and bleed him anyway, you haven't broken
any rules or anything, but you will earn the undying scorn of your
group for doing so. (The UK has "doing a Sid", I believe. We have
"pulling a Stu".) Generally, one broken deal is enough to make
certain that nobody EVER deals with you again on terms that might be
favorable to you, so it's a good idea not to.
However, if you made the above deal and then that vampire played two
Deflections and called a Kine Resources Contested, it wouldn't be
considered lying. Shameless fudging, but as with any deal, it would
be wise to read the fine print. This sort of thing goes on all the
time and, in our playgroup, is TOTALLY encouraged. See also "jedi
mind trick". =)
-- Derek
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
- C. Darwin, 1871
stubby
friendly games - gentlemanly conduct or something like that.
as for chairs being thrown and that - mostly people sulk and mouth off
but chair throwing is for those who can't lose under any circumstances
the one thing a lot of the uk players hate is memebers of a playgroup
delibertly playing to ensure one of their group makes the final.
just a point
anam
Frederick Scott
"Jason Mowat" <jmo...@digitalpraxis.com> writes:
>But, we also wanted to know just how cuthroat the game is played elsewear,
>particularly in a tournament setting. If there is no "etiquette laws" in
>place for deals, then we will play exactly like that :-)
Some rules of etiquette I have picked up on over the years:
1. If you bleed for 14 or more and oust in a single turn, apologize to your
prey. As in, "I'm sorry, but that sure was FUN!"
2. If you Sudden Reverse three critical discpline cards in three consecutive
turns played by an opponent, it would be sporting to turn your back and/or
pointedly ignore the steam coming out of his ears.
3. The smirk inspired by the successful play of an Archon Investigation
should never measure more than 0.4 cm above the average of the bottom lip
line. (Work on it.)
4. Any player making a reference to Robert's Rules of Order during a vote
should be physically removed from the game.
5. Never cackle, no matter how many times you've S:CEd out of combat.
That Immortal Grapple will be along sooner or later.
6. A good house rule to use is one where you're allowed hit your prey
on the shoulder each time he plays superior Obedience.
7. Using Rotschreck during a combat in which your minions are not involved
shows poor taste.
8. Sensory Deprivation is an incredibly unfair, obnoxious, annoying card
which should probably be banned. Unless it's your's, of course.
9. After the Mind Rape has been left unblocked and is now physically
sitting on top of your opponent's vampire is *not* the time to ask, "By
the way, are we playing NJL or VEKN rules here?".
10. When calling a blood hunt against an opponent's vampire which
diablerized another of the same opponent's minions, try not to sound
too indignant.
11. "I strike with my RPG Launcher at range" is more correct than, "I TOAST
THAT PATHETIC CRACKER'S PIMPLY WHITE ASS!!!".
Fred
James Coupe
>In the '99 UK Nationals final my predator was a malky
>stealth-bleeder and he was getting beaten up by Rob's LoP. i made some
>kind of anti-Rob deal with my predator in exchange for not being bled
>next turn. Next turn, he bled. i said "Hey! You said you wouldn't do
>that!" he said "So???"
Andy Smith (for it is he) was also at GenCon UK '97 (or EuroGenCon, as
it was then). He has always seemed a slightly erratic player to me. By
that, I'm not questioning his ability, but some of the things he does
seem ever so slightly "odd" to me - but then, when it comes to real
play, I am only average. (Apologies to David Tatu for doing badly with
Ugly Princes.)
He'd sat in a similar position to that, however, before. I remember
dealing out the previous round, looking and thinking "Oh god, what have
I done." Andy's deck was hard, it has to be said, but Rob's could beat
it up no trouble (another LoP deck, as you say). It was, basically, in
Andy's interests here to get rid of you as quickly as possible. He was
going to die to Rob, inevitably. His deck could not defend against it
by any means, at all.
> This triggered the Wrath of the Legbiter™. For
>the rest of the game i concentrated on smashing up his vampires. To add
>insult to injury, i then life-booned myself out in his favour when Rob
>got him [it was legal then, not now].
Thus generating the luvverly 2-2-1 VP split. It would be interesting to
have seen what would have happened otherwise.
>This year to add extra chocolate
>sauce to insult i pointed the guy out to all my friends and warned them
>not to make deals with him.
Not possible. Andy Smith turned up very late in the day this year to
have a bit of a look, having done the night shift, and had been unable
to sort through his Jyhad collection to sort out a deck, due to lack of
time and sleep.
James Coupe
John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> writes
>> Note that tournament time limits are 2 hours, maximum. I
>
>at less than two hours in a sanctioned tournament, but it may be set
>higher.
I think what Derek is saying here is more:
"A sanctioned tournament will (almost always) have 2 hour rounds, except
for the final. Because of that, you should never be sat down for more
than 2 hours at a time, maximum."
If you do go from one 2 hour to another 2 hour, just ask the judge
before the start of the second round if you can delay for a couple of
minutes so that the players who timed out/went the distance can have a
couple of minutes to themselves.
James Coupe
John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> writes
>> delibertly playing to ensure one of their group makes the final.
>
>it might qualify as "collusion", which is improper under V:EKN tournament
>rules.
I was actually chatting to the Southampton lot about this one, as
Collusion is a tricky bugger to judge. They were saying that when they
played in their first couple of Portsmouth tournaments, many moons ago,
that yes, they possibly did "collude", just a little. Thing is, they
are all very strong players now, and don't need to do anything of the
sort.
I will also go on record as saying that I saw *nothing* that looked even
remotely like collusion at GenCon UK 2000.
James Coupe
>If someone welches on a deal,
>
>Since we play games other than VTES, we also allow points to carry
>accross to other formats. It certainly ensures fair play.
Just on a deal? Making and breaking deals, and being able to judge
whether someone will or not, is one of the fundamental parts of Jyhad.
I can see an argument for the making a deal behind someone's back (I
wouldn't enforce such an option, unless the penalty guidelines were
altered to fit), but making a deal in plain-sight, and backing out of
it, is perfectly valid and, indeed, necessary way to play, IMO. If you
get a bit of bad card flow, making a deal with someone which is in your
interests and theirs, for the time being, is good.
John Whelan
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Jason Mowat wrote:
> Deals - Deals are the essence of VtES; they can make or break any player at
> the table. However, in longer games (+4 hours) sometimes there are nature
> calls, breaks, etc. Is it considered proper etiquette for players to hash
> out deals against another player while they are away from the table
> momentarily?
I would not consider it proper. Good sportsmanship would seem (to me) to
require that other gamers put the game on hold while any player were
temporarily indisposed. The design of the game assumes that all players
are aware of everything that takes place at the table. No provision is
made for secret dealing.
> Furthermore, is it OK for 2 or more Meths to go off into
> another room to hatch a plan against another Meth still at the table?
I would say that this is bad sportsmanship. Other considerations aside it
slows down the game, and could probably be judged as deliberate stalling.
Time is important in tournaments.
I have done this, however, when playing Jyhad-on-Line. In a format where
rules against secret dealings are unenforceable, it makes no sense to have
such a rule. Besides, it makes the games fun & different.
> What is done at the tournament level?
In the games I have played, either friendly or in tournament, I am not
aware of such behavior being prevalent (except JOL). I would not consider
it proper (except on JOL).
> Are there any specific rulings on this?
Not that I am aware. The V:KEN tournament rules forbid "collusion",
though it has always been a bit iffy precisely what that means. My
understanding is that each player is expected to play to win, and not come
as part of a "team" intent on insuring the victory of one particular
player. This does not of course prevent them from attempting to make
deals that they hope will benefit themselves.
It is also forbidden for players to wager on the outcome of a game.
Stalling and intentionally slow play are likewise forbidden.
Players are not allowed to bribe or otherwise coerce eachother into
condeding a game.
Since allowing for "secret dealing" makes all of these rules
unenforceable, I would guess that this implies that "secret dealing" is
itself not allowed, though nowhere is it specifically stated.
> The group I play with are all a great bunch of people, and we get along
> excellently. We discussed this issue and we all felt that it was probably
> unfair to make deals against any particular Meth while they were away from
> the table for a drink break/food break/bathroom break. But, we also wanted
> to know just how cuthroat the game is played elsewear, particularly in a
> tournament setting.
Around here (NYC and NJ) it is not done.
> If there is no "etiquette laws" in place for deals,
> then we will play exactly like that :-)
You could always check with the judge ...
-- John Whelan
legb...@my-deja.com
be leagues of friends. When it happens in tournaments [to me, so far,
only once] then if you get a chance to retaliate the deal-breaker has
made a BIG error. In the '99 UK Nationals final my predator was a malky
stealth-bleeder and he was getting beaten up by Rob's LoP. i made some
kind of anti-Rob deal with my predator in exchange for not being bled
next turn. Next turn, he bled. i said "Hey! You said you wouldn't do
the rest of the game i concentrated on smashing up his vampires. To add
insult to injury, i then life-booned myself out in his favour when Rob
sauce to insult i pointed the guy out to all my friends and warned them
on him now - i have a self-imposed rule that having done TWO nasty
things to someone who has wronged me i will then call it quits.
>
Buffer line to stop message tailing
Buffer line to stop message tailing
Buffer line to stop message tailing
Buffer line to st
John Whelan
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Derek Ray wrote:
> Note that tournament time limits are 2 hours, maximum. I
Actually, that should be 2 hours minimum. The time limit may not be set
at less than two hours in a sanctioned tournament, but it may be set
higher. In local tournaments, it is always 2 hours for preliminary
rounds, with more time alotted for the final round.
> >calls, breaks, etc. Is it considered proper etiquette for players to hash
> >out deals against another player while they are away from the table
> >momentarily? Furthermore, is it OK for 2 or more Meths to go off into
> >another room to hatch a plan against another Meth still at the table? What
> >is done at the tournament level? Are there any specific rulings on this?
>
> If someone was in sufficiently bad shape that they needed to rush and
> pee, I would say it'd be perfectly proper etiquette to speak,
> deal-make, etc. in their absence since they removed themselves from
> the environment voluntarily.
Hmm. I'm not sure that a "call of nature" break would be classified as
"voluntary". Players should not take "voluntary" breaks in tournaments,
but if they are forced to excuse themselves due to factors beyond their
control (and "calls of nature" qualify) then I would think that courtesy
and sportsmanship demands that other players not attempt to take advantage
of such situations. Not that this is a big deal either way...
If the length of the break is a problem for other players, the matter
should be referred to the judge.
-- John Whelan
John Whelan
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 theve...@my-deja.com wrote:
> what about when a deal is broken? how is that handled in people's
> playgroups? no one in our group has ever broken a deal but i've heard
> of people throwing chairs around at tournaments when a deal has been
> broken (CANCON '98 ('97?) in Canberra).
It is of course perfectly legal to break deals. I think this is rather
short term thinking however. Personally I would not do it, even in the
final round of a tournament where the prize was significant. If you get
known as a deal-breaker it affects your ability to negotiate in future
games.
I once lost a tournament due to a broken deal. The deal-breaker took
first prize as a direct result of his betrayal. His attitude was that,
under the circumstances, I had been very foolish to trust his word, and so
deserved my fate. True enough!
That's fine with me, however, because I expect to participate in other
tournaments with the same player. I expect to be able to use History to
my advantage during any negotiations.
It is certainly not worth throwing chairs over. In the long run, the
honest player has the advantage ... but he must accept that the "long
run" might be longer than a single game, or even a single tournament.
-- John Whelan
hamd...@my-deja.com
system.
If someone welches on a deal, they gain a treason point. This can be
burned at any time (not even in the same game!) and means any directed
actions or bleeds can be directed at the treasonous one for three
turns. Essentially, it means that if the Treason Point is called in,
all the other players are allowed to wipe the floor with that Methusula.
Curiously enough, since we introduced the system, only one person has
ever gained a treason pount. As a direct result, he lost in the most
hideous way possible, and no-one wants to get another one!
Since we play games other than VTES, we also allow points to carry
accross to other formats. It certainly ensures fair play.
DH
John Whelan
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, stubby wrote:
> it is generally accepted that deals aren't broken, expecially during
> friendly games - gentlemanly conduct or something like that.
I generally don't expect deals to be broken in friendly games. However,
this is not because of some unwritten rule. This is because it is stupid
behavior. One's credibility is valuable, even if just for purposes of
effective future play.
If one is going to sacrifice one's credibility, one should at least wait
until there is a hefty box of Sabbat boosters as 1st prize to tempt you in
some final tournament round. Even then, the wisdom of such behavior is
debatable.
> as for chairs being thrown and that - mostly people sulk and mouth off
> but chair throwing is for those who can't lose under any circumstances
>
> the one thing a lot of the uk players hate is memebers of a playgroup
> delibertly playing to ensure one of their group makes the final.
I'm not sure what sort of behavior you are describing, but it sounds like
it might qualify as "collusion", which is improper under V:EKN tournament
rules. Each player is expected to play for his own benefit, not for
anyone elses.
LSJ
> stubby wrote:
> > the one thing a lot of the uk players hate is memebers of a playgroup
> > delibertly playing to ensure one of their group makes the final.
>
> I'm not sure what sort of behavior you are describing, but it sounds like
> it might qualify as "collusion", which is improper under V:EKN tournament
> rules. Each player is expected to play for his own benefit, not for
> anyone elses.
Quite right. If any of the members of a playgroup (or anyone at all, for that
matter) plays to aid another player *instead* of herself (i.e., taking
measures to increase another player's position in a way that her own position
suffers), that is collusion, and it is against the V:EKN rules.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Andrew S. Davidson
>This year ... i pointed the guy out to all my friends and warned them
>not to make deals with him.
This is collusion.
Andrew
GymNat1
matter) plays to aid another player *instead* of herself (i.e., taking
measures to increase another player's position in a way that her own position
suffers), that is collusion, and it is against the V:EKN rules.<<
at the last LA con, this happened quite a bit....a player used succubus club to
give all his pool to another player so as to send him to the finals instead of
the ever hated.....anarch revolt/delaying tactics deck. hmmmm...this is such a
touchy subject to judge.
John Whelan
No it isn't. Why do you think so?
-- John Whelan
John Whelan
I'm unsure if this is necessarily collusion. Did the player really damage
his own position, or did he merely excercise control over the manner of
his own inevitable demise? What were his motives?
I don't think that punishment or vengeance strategies qualify as
"collusion". While they may sacrifice short term benefit, they also send
a message, and thereby attempt to have an effect on the play environment
that one hopes to be to one's long-term benefit (which may extend beyond a
particular tournament). Such messages may include "If you break a deal
with me, you will regret it." In this case, the motive may have been to
discourage the use of a particular deck strategy that that player felt he
could not win against. By punishing the strategy, he hopes to discourage
its use in future competitions (which he hopes will improve his chances).
I've seen a similar response to "Anarch Revolt" decks in friendly games.
Similarly, when you choose to keep a deal you made, even though by
breaking the deal you could win the tournament, this is not "collusion"
(even though, by keeping the deal, you may sacrifice your immediate
interests in favor of another player). It is your long term interests
that concern you, and these may extend beyond the tournament. You do not
want to become known as a deal-breaker, and thereby damage your
negotiating ability. But in the long run, you are playing to win.
-- John Whelan
legb...@my-deja.com
James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <8pn9nr$oas$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, legb...@my-deja.com writes
> >stealth-bleeder and he was getting beaten up by Rob's LoP. i made some
> >kind of anti-Rob deal with my predator in exchange for not being bled
> >next turn. Next turn, he bled. i said "Hey! You said you wouldn't do
> >that!" he said "So???"
>
> it was then). He has always seemed a slightly erratic player to me. By
> that, I'm not questioning his ability, but some of the things he does
> seem ever so slightly "odd" to me - but then, when it comes to real
> play, I am only average. (Apologies to David Tatu for doing badly with
> Ugly Princes.)
>
> He'd sat in a similar position to that, however, before. I remember
> dealing out the previous round, looking and thinking "Oh god, what have
> I done." Andy's deck was hard, it has to be said, but Rob's could beat
> it up no trouble (another LoP deck, as you say). It was, basically, in
> Andy's interests here to get rid of you as quickly as possible. He was
> going to die to Rob, inevitably. His deck could not defend against it
> by any means, at all.
Indeed, so it was PARTICULARLY stupid of him to break his deal. He could
have come out of that game with me owing him a favour, instead of a
grudge.
>
> > This triggered the Wrath of the Legbiter™. For
> >the rest of the game i concentrated on smashing up his vampires. To add
> >insult to injury, i then life-booned myself out in his favour when Rob
> >got him [it was legal then, not now].
>
> Thus generating the luvverly 2-2-1 VP split. It would be interesting to
> have seen what would have happened otherwise.
>
> >This year to add extra chocolate
> >sauce to insult i pointed the guy out to all my friends and warned them
> >not to make deals with him.
>
> Not possible. Andy Smith turned up very late in the day this year to
> have a bit of a look, having done the night shift, and had been unable
> to sort through his Jyhad collection to sort out a deck, due to lack of
> time and sleep.
>
Alright, i knew i had seen him and hadn't played against him but i just
assumed that was because he was on another table. Cool. So i STILL owe
him a bad turn.
> --
> James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D | ja...@zephyr.org.uk (New e-mail)
> "Who'd have ever predicted the moment would come when I find myself grateful
> they've kept women dumb? She's an innocent maiden but then so am I, that's why
> it's possible I could get by."
>
legb...@my-deja.com
2CD84752DE2D3A53.49410A0C...@lp.airnews.net>,
keeping people honest. If i had taken my friends to one side and said,
"hey, let's all gang up on Andy Smith and make sure he doesn't get any
VP" that could have been collusion but it would have been pretty stupid
of me to suggest it and even more stupid of them if they'd agreed to
cooperate. What i said was "that guy isn't trustworthy", ie i gave them a
useful piece of information about him based on my experience. This is
similar to saying "That person usually plays clan X" or "This guy is a
new player". No way is any of that collusion.
Frederick Scott
John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> writes:
>On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote:
>
>No it isn't. Why do you think so?
I'm not Andrew and wouldn't necessarily agree with his view. But to play
Devil's Advocate, I would say this _could_ be collusion if Legbiter were
expecting his friends not to make deals with the guy as part of the
vengence for breaking the previous deal with Legbiter - because that
amount to cooperation to advance Legbiter's position in tournaments based
on personal friendship. It wouldn't be vengenence, OTOH, if the point were
to simply make one's friends aware of a player who can't be trusted to keep
deals (which is what I expect Legbiter's point was).
As a side topic, I'm not sure if it's generally true or not but I've noticed
that the Jyhad players I've played with and the ones who post on this
newsgroup have a *much* greater expectation about opponents keeping deals
than the vast majority of all multiplayer game players, to the extent of
basically never forgiving an opponent for a single stab. I'm not sure why
that is. I mean, I understand the basic argument for it. This is an
eternal conflict and I still remember the massive debates they had on
rec.games.board in the early '90s about this form of metagaming. There
are also basic arguments against it. I don't understand why, as a
group (apparently, in my experience), Jyhad players come down so heavily
on the side that says all separate games are part of an overall campaign
and cannot be viewed independently of one another.
Fred
Christoph
> group (apparently, in my experience), Jyhad players come down so heavily
> on the side that says all separate games are part of an overall campaign
> and cannot be viewed independently of one another.
It is not so much the game as it is the person's character. If someone
could (and does) break a deal with you once, why would you ever deal
with them again? I mean, it is only a game. Why lie and make yourself
look like a total ass for a game?
Sorrow
---
"Are they dead?" - Pugsly
"Does it matter?" - Wednesday
inr...@my-deja.com
> Some rules of etiquette I have picked up on over the years:
>
> 1. If you bleed for 14 or more and oust in a single turn, apologize to
your
> prey. As in, "I'm sorry, but that sure was FUN!"
>
Asking if they have a minion tap in hand is just cruel.
> 2. If you Sudden Reverse three critical discpline cards in three
consecutive
> turns played by an opponent, it would be sporting to turn your back
and/or
> pointedly ignore the steam coming out of his ears.
>
Ahhh... counter spell deck. It is generally nice to let them get off
their next master card.
> 3. The smirk inspired by the successful play of an Archon
Investigation
> should never measure more than 0.4 cm above the average of the bottom
lip
> line. (Work on it.)
>
.6 cm if you warned them and/or it was an unblockable bleed to oust you.
> 4. Any player making a reference to Robert's Rules of Order during a
vote
> should be physically removed from the game.
>
And hit on the head with a gavel... All in favor?
> 5. Never cackle, no matter how many times you've S:CEd out of combat.
> That Immortal Grapple will be along sooner or later.
>
Right, that's when you skin of steel and watch them have a heart attack.
Generally the apropriate time to cackle is once the ambulance has taken
them away.
> 6. A good house rule to use is one where you're allowed hit your prey
> on the shoulder each time he plays superior Obedience.
>
Or any wake above four.
> 7. Using Rotschreck during a combat in which your minions are not
involved
> shows poor taste.
>
Yeah, probably. But it's still funny.
> 8. Sensory Deprivation is an incredibly unfair, obnoxious, annoying
card
> which should probably be banned. Unless it's your's, of course.
>
Well duh. Ohh... another way to break Ian.
> 9. After the Mind Rape has been left unblocked and is now physically
> sitting on top of your opponent's vampire is *not* the time to ask,
"By
> the way, are we playing NJL or VEKN rules here?".
>
Ditto that RTI
> 10. When calling a blood hunt against an opponent's vampire which
> diablerized another of the same opponent's minions, try not to sound
> too indignant.
>
Unless the vampire was famous... in which case you can be indignant only
if you're a groupie.
> 11. "I strike with my RPG Launcher at range" is more correct than, "I
TOAST
> THAT PATHETIC CRACKER'S PIMPLY WHITE ASS!!!".
>
And perhaps better than: "Eat white hot molten doom!" Regardless
blurring and then throwing a car to boot is obviously in the wrong
order. Throw the car first and then blow it up with the RPG.
On a more serious note In any situation where I may be tempted to break
a deal i tell the other party that, and let them know that I'll be hapy
to abide by a deal unless X. X usually being I can oust them, and my
prey is about to oust me, or something similiar. I have a bit of an
issue with the perfectly moralistic approach to deal making, because i
think it goes against the spirit of the game (we are back stabbing.) As
such I try to convince others to do things, and remain vague on an
actual 'deal'.
Cameron
Steve Bucy
GymNat1 wrote in message <20000914024303...@ng-mg1.aol.com>...
This was _definately_ not a case of collusion. The player who used succubus
club to give all his pool to another player (Mike Courtois) actually plays
in the same group as the anarch player (Rob Weber). They are both in my
group. The player Mike helped was actually from another group. He did this
to go out on his own terms and prevent the anarch deck from making it to the
final. A final "screw you" if you will. There was actually a pretty heated
argument between Mike and Rob after. Anarch decks are the only thing
despised more in our neck of the woods then Hostile Takeover or Temptation
of Greater Power decks.
The player that benefited (Wade I believe) just happened to be in the lucky
seat. It really had nothing to do with collusion.
Steve Bucy
--
"The only human commander to survive combat
with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me.
If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn
Frederick Scott
"Christoph" <cbo...@apdi.net> writes:
>> are also basic arguments against it. I don't understand why, as a
>> group (apparently, in my experience), Jyhad players come down so heavily
>> on the side that says all separate games are part of an overall campaign
>> and cannot be viewed independently of one another.
>
>It is not so much the game as it is the person's character. If someone
>could (and does) break a deal with you once, why would you ever deal
>with them again? I mean, it is only a game. Why lie and make yourself
>look like a total ass for a game?
The classic answer to your question is that you shouldn't be making
deals with a player that you cannot enforce with the threat of vengenance
during the same game. If you do so, you deserve what you get. And if
you can, then the advantage of making deals is self-evident. The question,
naturally, would be about the issue of whether the "known dealbreaker" had
a reputation for breaking unenforcable deals at a logical time with obvious
benifits for himself or if he was just being an idiot about about it.
As I said, I understand the basics of the dispute, both for and against
this form of metagaming. I was more wondering why Jyhad, as a game, seems
to attract more players who would continue the vengenance of a broken deal
into a different game. Perhaps the answer is that vengenance of a deal
broken is much harder to enforce during a single game in Jyhad than it is
in a lot of other multiplayer games?
Fred
Rafid Armani
wrote:
>This was _definately_ not a case of collusion. The player who used succubus
>club to give all his pool to another player (Mike Courtois) actually plays
>in the same group as the anarch player (Rob Weber).
>
>The player that benefited (Wade I believe) just happened to be in the lucky
>seat. It really had nothing to do with collusion.
Some can considere this as "Unsportsmanlike Conduct". I explain : you
are there to win, you are not there to do something that will send
yourself to final death. But I guess that's how many methuselahs play
in many tournaments.
I've seen similar things at Dragon*Con. 3 of the 5 finalists in the
Sabbat Draft event just kinda oust themselves by influencing out or
just yielding to their predator. Scott seemed to find it a little
weird but no more than that. I was like, duh ! I've never seen
something like this here. We use to play to death, and we won't give a
pool if we need it to survive, even if it's for a single turn (there's
always something you or somebody else can do to get you out of a
desesperate situation).
I think it's part of the machiavelous side of the game ; you try to
give the hardest time possible to your predator while he tries to kill
you. I remember one time, I had no minion left in front of me and only
3 pools. My predator came to bleed me with a threat. I DI'ed his
threat so he had to bleed me with one more minion. I was dead for
sure, but I made it harder for him to kill me, and I was very proud of
that !
Just my 2 pools
Rafid
kp...@my-deja.com
fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote:
> As I said, I understand the basics of the dispute, both for and
against
> this form of metagaming. I was more wondering why Jyhad, as a game,
seems
> to attract more players who would continue the vengenance of a broken
deal
> into a different game. Perhaps the answer is that vengenance of a
deal
> broken is much harder to enforce during a single game in Jyhad than
it is
> in a lot of other multiplayer games?
>
I think the nature of jyhad's meta-game helps the long-term view of
things. Decks are only dominant in a local group because they
react/surpass what was dominant. Trying to build a deck when you have
no idea what you will be up against is harder than when you have a
basic clue-this is one of the reasons tournaments play diffrently than
friendly weeklies. If your deck building needs to take multiple games
into account, it is a small stretch to say your deal-building does as
well.
Kevin
James Coupe
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes
It is perfectly legitimate table-talk to tell people how trust-worthy or
not a player is. A player's reputation, skill and so forth are
perfectly legitimate game-based considerations.
It is only collusion if you start ganging up on him to your own
detriment, possibly using non-game considerations ("Rush him and I'll
give you a fiver" being the most obvious).
Matthew Heslin
> This was _definately_ not a case of collusion. The player who used
succubus
> club to give all his pool to another player (Mike Courtois) actually
plays
> group. The player Mike helped was actually from another group. He did
this
> to go out on his own terms and prevent the anarch deck from making it to
the
> The player that benefited (Wade I believe) just happened to be in the
lucky
> seat. It really had nothing to do with collusion.
However, since Mike's actions benefitted Wade
at his own cost, doesn't that technically qualify?
(I'm not trying to rile anyone up -- I agree
with Steve that this is not collusion. I'm just trying
to assess the floor rule.)
Collusion is a confusing subject. I've sometimes
found myself playing specifically to undermine another
Methuselah even if he/she was not my prey. If I'm
sacrificing my own chance of winning (or netting a VP),
and aiding another Methuselah (my prey, who doesn't have
me to worry about), that seems to be collusion. However,
I've never considered this unethical or unsportsmanlike.
Does anyone currently on the newsgroup have
a factual instance of collusion to report, or is all of our
discussion hypothetical?
-Matt
Jason Mowat
Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8pqnsd$h67$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> As a side topic, I'm not sure if it's generally true or not but I've
noticed
> that the Jyhad players I've played with and the ones who post on this
> newsgroup have a *much* greater expectation about opponents keeping deals
> than the vast majority of all multiplayer game players, to the extent of
> basically never forgiving an opponent for a single stab. I'm not sure why
> that is. I mean, I understand the basic argument for it. This is an
> eternal conflict and I still remember the massive debates they had on
> rec.games.board in the early '90s about this form of metagaming. There
> are also basic arguments against it. I don't understand why, as a
> group (apparently, in my experience), Jyhad players come down so heavily
> on the side that says all separate games are part of an overall campaign
> and cannot be viewed independently of one another.
This is digressing from my initial point about making deals against another
player with other players while that first player was incapable of
"counter-dealing" to prevent a "don't attack me for x turns and I'll go nuts
on the target for x turns". The "counter-dealing" is part of the fun, IMO,
and adds to the atmosphere. This is not possible if you don't know that
player y and player z have an "arrangement", and can lead to the improper
timing on the target's side of playing their cards.
But, the topic is shifting to "deal-breaking" and the consequence thereof.
I myself think that deal-breaking is totally worthwhile in **some**
instances, and it actually adds to the ambiance of an "underground, evil
vampires hatching schemes" themed game. Deals are made. It takes a shrewd
and cunning person to know when a deal has outlived it's usefulness, and to
capitalize on that fact.
However, deal making and breaking has to be conducted carefully. If you
have a reputation of breaking many of your deals, then right, you will never
be trusted again. So be it. However, if you renege on a deal or two, and
it suits your best interests (or, it hinders your "partner's" interests more
than yours, plus advances you), then I say do it! You are all playing a
competitive game where the objective is to win (and to have fun). If it is
understood that deal making and breaking are aspects of the game, I think it
adds a fun dimension to an already tense, fun, and exciting game.
I like to think of each game as a seperate entity. Deals, alliances, etc
made in the last game don't carry over. The deal I broke against player X
last game "could" come back to haunt me (i.e. I may have an untrustworth
reputation), but then again, if I play the diplomacy right, promise alot,
and actually deliver some of my promises faithfully, the people who play
with me learn to deal with me all the time, but to be ever vigilant when
making such deals. I am also careful to watch for a revenge strike. When
it starts looking like my "partners" are profiting too much from a deal as
to make me vulnerable, they would be wise to look for treachery.
I have broken a few deals from some players at my table, and they have
stated "I WILL NEVER TRUST YOU AGAIN!" (with grins on their faces of
course - well, most of the time ;-) ). Yet, I still find myself maneuvering
into a position where I can offer them deals; deals which are structured
around logic, fear and greed of my fellow players. The person who swore
they would never trust me could then become a powerful ally during that
game, and the deal I make with them could be iron clad, with me not wanting
to break it because I don't want a reputation as a **habitual**
deal-breaker. I am also totally willing to give concessions to attempt to
heal some old wounds (like 'I won't bleed you for x rounds') - although I
never say it was because of the deal I broke in a previous game, which would
contradict me stating that I don't let the actions from previous games carry
over; I don't. It's purely a "faith-building" exercise to I can win back
potentially well-needed trust. However, if I have massive stealth, and the
person I promised not to bleed gets down to 1 blood, hell yeah, I'll bleed
him, deal or no deal. I like to capitalize on any situation in the game.
Anyways, that's my take on actual deal making and breaking. I get this
philosophy from playing games like Avalon Hill's Diplomacy, which is
entirely fun because of the back-stabbing. I think Jyhad/VtES players would
have alot of fun if they broke a deal or too to keep things interesting AND
unstable :-)
Cheers,
Jason
John Whelan
On 14 Sep 2000, Frederick Scott wrote:
> As a side topic, I'm not sure if it's generally true or not but I've noticed
> that the Jyhad players I've played with and the ones who post on this
> newsgroup have a *much* greater expectation about opponents keeping deals
> than the vast majority of all multiplayer game players, to the extent of
> basically never forgiving an opponent for a single stab. I'm not sure why
> that is. I mean, I understand the basic argument for it. This is an
> eternal conflict and I still remember the massive debates they had on
> rec.games.board in the early '90s about this form of metagaming. There
> are also basic arguments against it. I don't understand why, as a
> group (apparently, in my experience), Jyhad players come down so heavily
> on the side that says all separate games are part of an overall campaign
> and cannot be viewed independently of one another.
I can suggest a partial answer to your question. It starts with a well
known principle of game dynamics -- that being that "deal-breaking" is to
a players benefit over the course of a single game, but works to his
detriment over the course of a series of games. This principle applies,
in theory, to Diplomacy as much as to Jyhad. In fact, it was in
connection with Diplomacy that I first heard this principle mentioned.
I would suggest "deal breaking" is just as detrimental to a series of
Diplomacy games as to a series of Jyhad games. The issue that applies in
either case is not which game is being played, but rather whether players
expect to play a series of games on an ongoing basis. Clearly, this is
far more likely to be true of Jyhad than of Diplomacy. Diplomacy is a
fairly simple game. You can explain the rules in one evening, and proceed
to have a night of fun, and then put the box away for a year. I doubt
that many Diplomacy players are in the habit of playing weekly with a
bunch of people they have usually played with before, and expect to play
with again. I'm sure some do, but I'm equally sure that in such cases a
similar anti-traitor ethic develops. Jyhad on the other hand is a game
that requires a certain degree of devotion. The novelty never wears off
due to the infinity of deck designs possible. Those who play at all tend
to play regularly, provided they can find players. The level of
investment of time, energy and $$ needed to play well virtually insures
that the player does not merely expect a single night of fun.
Another possible factor for Jyhad is the difficulty of finding players.
Thus, there may be an additional reluctance to alienate the ones you have.
Andrew S. Davidson
>What i said was "that guy isn't trustworthy", ie i gave them a
>useful piece of information about him based on my experience. This is
>similar to saying "That person usually plays clan X" or "This guy is a
>new player". No way is any of that collusion.
It gets worse. This is scouting and coaching. Coaching is explicitly
cheating too.
What's bad is that your behaviour is shameless to the extent that you
boast of it. You need to think about why these activities are
prohibited. It's because they would turn the game into one of
competing teams. If you're not part of a team of friends who
co-operate and trust each other then you're screwed.
What's telling is the way that you try to enforce your own code of
honour, reacting with such vigour against those who break it. It's
like the Mafia - they set great store by loyalty to the Family and the
code of Omerta but they are still criminals.
This provokes the interesting question of whether in-character
collusion would be allowed. If one Giovanni player supports another
for the good of the clan, is this considered to be collusion?
Andrew
legb...@my-deja.com
fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote:
>
>
> John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> writes:
>
> >On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote:
> >
>
> I'm not Andrew and wouldn't necessarily agree with his view. But to play
> Devil's Advocate, I would say this _could_ be collusion if Legbiter were
> expecting his friends not to make deals with the guy as part of the
> vengence for breaking the previous deal with Legbiter - because that
> amount to cooperation to advance Legbiter's position in tournaments based
> on personal friendship. It wouldn't be vengenence, OTOH, if the point were
> to simply make one's friends aware of a player who can't be trusted to keep
> deals (which is what I expect Legbiter's point was).
i'd say it was legitimate vengeance because it tampers with his
ammunition in advance of the game, but while it WILL bugger up his
position [slightly] it doesn't advance mine at all, so can't really be
ruled collusive.
>
> As a side topic, I'm not sure if it's generally true or not but I've noticed
> that the Jyhad players I've played with and the ones who post on this
> newsgroup have a *much* greater expectation about opponents keeping deals
> than the vast majority of all multiplayer game players, to the extent of
> basically never forgiving an opponent for a single stab. I'm not sure why
> that is. I mean, I understand the basic argument for it. This is an
> eternal conflict and I still remember the massive debates they had on
> rec.games.board in the early '90s about this form of metagaming. There
> are also basic arguments against it. I don't understand why, as a
> group (apparently, in my experience), Jyhad players come down so heavily
> on the side that says all separate games are part of an overall campaign
> and cannot be viewed independently of one another.
>
> Fred
>
Hmmmm. Down here there's a pretty steady diet of treachery and back-
stabbing but there are two or three players who ALWAYS keep their word
and WILL get you back if you renegue on a deal. As Sorrow says, this is
just a character thing. i suspect the answer to your question is that a
lot of us see VTES as an RPG with cards. Evil, ancient and ruthless s/he
may be, but if the Methuselah you portray has a sense of honour that WILL
be reflected in the way you play, i'd have thought. However, in support
of your point one of the reasons why Rob Treasure is so good is that he
will make/break ANY deal in order to win. Will Lee and Rob and i have had
some interesting discussions about our relative strengths and weaknesses
as players and all of us think that the Legbiter/Lee "Samurai" ethic is a
weakness, but it's not going to change - that's just what our Methuselah
characters are like.
Rereading the above it looks a bit rambly. Sorry about that, but i can't
see how to rephrase it more crisply and still say what i mean.
LSJ
> (Steve said...)
> > This was _definately_ not a case of collusion. The player who
> > used succubus club to give all his pool to another player
> > (Mike Courtois) actually plays in the same group as the
> > anarch player (Rob Weber). They are both in my group. The
> > player Mike helped was actually from another group. He did
> > this to go out on his own terms and prevent the anarch deck
> > from making it to the final. A final "screw you" if you
> > will...
> > The player that benefited (Wade I believe) just happened to
> > be in the lucky seat. It really had nothing to do with
> > collusion.
>
> However, since Mike's actions benefitted Wade
> at his own cost, doesn't that technically qualify?
As I understand the situation described in the quote above, it
wasn't "at his own cost". He would have been ousted if he didn't
make the trade just as he would have been if he did make the trade.
So the trade didn't "undermine" his position - he was still just
as finished.
Trying to police how a player with a lost position is allowed to
play out her lost position is difficult and dangerous - eventually
leading to the judge having to second-guess every action, block,
decision to play a card, etc. made by every player.
> [Just trying to assess the collusion rule]
> Collusion is a confusing subject. I've sometimes
> found myself playing specifically to undermine another
> Methuselah even if he/she was not my prey. If I'm
> sacrificing my own chance of winning (or netting a VP),
> and aiding another Methuselah (my prey, who doesn't have
> me to worry about), that seems to be collusion.
Right. If you play to benefit other player(s) (the predator
of the player you're undermining above) to the detriment of
your own position, then that's collusion.
> However,
> I've never considered this unethical or unsportsmanlike.
Collusion is unsportsmanlike in that it is cheating, by the
V:EKN rules.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
James Coupe
<hes...@sprynet.com> writes
> However, since Mike's actions benefitted Wade
>at his own cost, doesn't that technically qualify?
Is suicide shortly before a player kills you really at your own cost?
LSJ
>
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:26:51 GMT, legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >What i said was "that guy isn't trustworthy", ie i gave them a
> >useful piece of information about him based on my experience. This is
> >similar to saying "That person usually plays clan X" or "This guy is a
> >new player". No way is any of that collusion.
>
> It gets worse. This is scouting and coaching. Coaching is explicitly
> cheating too.
Scouting typically means finding out which cards a play *has* in her deck -
not what sort of character the player has. Scouting is not mentioned in
the V:EKN rules.
The rule on "coaching" is on "receiving outside assistance or coaching"
[VEKN 5.1] - this is not outside, so wouldn't qualify as coaching.
(A remark from your opponent is not considered coaching - coaching is
when someone outside of the game offers advice/comments.)
> This provokes the interesting question of whether in-character
> collusion would be allowed. If one Giovanni player supports another
> for the good of the clan, is this considered to be collusion?
Collusion is not allowed. There is no "in-character" allowance for any
rules violation.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
L. Scott Johnson
> I can suggest a partial answer to your question. It starts with a well
> known principle of game dynamics -- that being that "deal-breaking" is to
> a players benefit over the course of a single game, but works to his
> detriment over the course of a series of games. This principle applies,
> in theory, to Diplomacy as much as to Jyhad. In fact, it was in
> connection with Diplomacy that I first heard this principle mentioned.
>
> I would suggest "deal breaking" is just as detrimental to a series of
> Diplomacy games as to a series of Jyhad games.
Right. This has been "proven" by game theorists - in a single game,
it is to your advantage to "defect" (to break the deal, in this case).
But over a series of games, cooperation is ultimately the best idea,
borne out by the finding that the "best" strategy for interacting
is the simple "tit-for-tat" - which first cooperates, then just
matches the opponent's last choice (defect or cooperate).
EXCEPTION
If your starting pool of actors is just a mass of defectors (who always
defect, no matter what), then they will do as well as each other.
Introducing any other (lone) strategy into this mix means that the
lone strategy will do worse (always being defected against, so never
able to reap the rewards of cooperating).
On-line demo of the principle:
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/paul.stephens/dm1/
For more, just search the web for "Prisoner's Dilemma".
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | "The little demon wasn't
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | telling the truth,"
Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger | Tom implied.
Deviant One
>I've seen similar things at Dragon*Con. 3 of the 5 finalists in the
>Sabbat Draft event just kinda oust themselves by influencing out or
>just yielding to their predator. Scott seemed to find it a little
>weird but no more than that. I was like, duh ! I've never seen
>something like this here. We use to play to death, and we won't give a
>pool if we need it to survive, even if it's for a single turn (there's
>always something you or somebody else can do to get you out of a
>desesperate situation).
>
>I think it's part of the machiavelous side of the game ; you try to
>give the hardest time possible to your predator while he tries to kill
>you. I remember one time, I had no minion left in front of me and only
>3 pools. My predator came to bleed me with a threat. I DI'ed his
>threat so he had to bleed me with one more minion. I was dead for
>sure, but I made it harder for him to kill me, and I was very proud of
>that !
>
That is the way to do it. Go down kicking and screaming and making your
predator work for it. In the first round of the constructed deck tournament at
Dragon Con I was getting hammered because my grand predator was unable to put
any pressure on my predator. When I was down to 3 pool and the bleed came in
for 5, I felt completely justified in using my Archon Investigation to burn the
minion. I was ousted either way, but felt that I still had to do whatever I
could to hamper my predator in his destroying of me. (If only I could have
drawn that card earlier in the game)
You never know what can occur in a game to change your position. In theory you
could be down to one pool and have no minions to work with and something could
happen that could put you back in the game. Yes, it is a long shot and probably
won't happen, but it could.
Never Give Up. Never Surrender.
Eric Nawrotzki
Pontifex of New Jersey
"Live Now. Make Now the most precious time. Now will never come again."
Andrew S. Davidson
>I would suggest "deal breaking" is just as detrimental to a series of
>Diplomacy games as to a series of Jyhad games. The issue that applies in
>either case is not which game is being played, but rather whether players
>expect to play a series of games on an ongoing basis. Clearly, this is
>far more likely to be true of Jyhad than of Diplomacy. Diplomacy is a
>fairly simple game. You can explain the rules in one evening, and proceed
>to have a night of fun, and then put the box away for a year. I doubt
>that many Diplomacy players are in the habit of playing weekly with a
>bunch of people they have usually played with before, and expect to play
>with again. I'm sure some do, but I'm equally sure that in such cases a
>similar anti-traitor ethic develops.
Not so. I have played hundreds of games of Diplomacy and the
participants were often well known to each other. In the postal
branch of that hobby, one person organised an "Anti-Nithing League"
whose purpose was to identify and pillory oath-breakers. This was
regarded as a joke by most players - contrary to the very spirit of
the game. And there was one famous partnership who tended to form
solid alliances in the games that they played together, splitting the
board in a 2-way draw if they could. Their behaviour was frowned upon
though they were otherwise such nice guys that they got away with it.
This is mostly a matter of expectations. Diplomacy's theme is
realpolitik and double-dealing is explicitly facilitated by provision
for secret negotiation and simultaneous movement. I'd have thought
that Jyhad would be the same - the very name evokes its theme of the
constant struggle for supremacy amongst the machiavellian methusalehs.
These are amoral ancients whose humanity has been corrupted by The
Beast and it's absurd to play them as if they were Victorian
cricketers.
Andrew
Sorrow
> realpolitik and double-dealing is explicitly facilitated by provision
> for secret negotiation and simultaneous movement. I'd have thought
> that Jyhad would be the same - the very name evokes its theme of the
> constant struggle for supremacy amongst the machiavellian methusalehs.
> These are amoral ancients whose humanity has been corrupted by The
> Beast and it's absurd to play them as if they were Victorian
> cricketers.
But see, what incentive do I have to make a deal with you if I know
that the odds are good that you are going to break it? I may as well
just do without and work with the situation on my own terms, good or
bad, win or lose. At least then, I know where I'm getting the shaft
from and how bad. If I make a deal with you, you could break it at
the worst possible moment for me and make my situation even worse.
If I am in a good place (ie, I'm not on the ropes), then why would I
bother dealing with a person who's broker a deal in the first place?
Yes, we as players are supposed to be looking out for our own best
interests. But those interests include not getting screwed over.
Sorrow
---
"...but you know, evil is an exact science..."
James Coupe
>i'd say it was legitimate vengeance because it tampers with his
>ammunition in advance of the game, but while it WILL bugger up his
>position [slightly] it doesn't advance mine at all, so can't really be
>ruled collusive.
Indeed.
What ruling something like this as collusion (which it isn't) would mean
is that you simply could never, ever talk to other people about your
games, as it would unduly influence them towards supporting/attacking
other players.
James Coupe
>cheating too.
I think you fail to understand how Jyhad is played.
Would you advocate that I can never, ever talk about any game I play
ever? That is all James has been doing. Have you never, ever spoken to
someone about how a player performed? You have been scouting, coaching
and colluding, then.
Word gets around about players, you can do nothing about that, nor
should there be any reason to. If a player is turning up with a new,
innovative deck style, it's in the interests of the game that people can
discuss it, to come up with counter-styles, find the holes etc.
By your definition, this group is collusion, scouting and coaching. I
suggest you unsubscribe from it, you cheat, you.
Passenger Pigeon
<06F262969E1B64C4.96BA85A4...@lp.airnews.net>,
a...@csi.com wrote:
> This assumes that the deal's parameters and payoff matrix is the
> classic Prisoner's Dilemma. This is often not the case and defection
> is profitable in the long run. This is why infidelity is common in
> humans and other species - it has been bred into us.
In the long run, we are all dead.
To make that point somewhat less succinctly, I will use your very own
example; it is good for a species to tend towards having many children
with (once the species becomes slightly civilized) uncertain fathers,
because it tends to ensure the survival of that species and make its
societal evolution more likely. However, it's generally a bad
relationship strategy to lie to everybody you know and cheat on all your
significant others, because you will end up alone and quite possibly
shot. Many strategies that are viable in the protracted long run have
very nasty consequences in the short run, or, for that matter, in the
slightly less long run.
Don't plan for the protracted long run. By the time it comes to pass,
it won't matter any more.
--
William Burke, passenge...@hotmail.com
HTH. HAND. * <--- Perth
Visit my web page! Current essay: Happiness. http://come.to/passenger-pigeon/
Andrew S. Davidson
>By your definition, this group is collusion, scouting and coaching. I
>suggest you unsubscribe from it, you cheat, you.
This is a public forum and we are not playing in a tournament. As he
told us, Legbiter's action took place at the UK Nationals this year
where he "pointed the guy out to all my friends and warned them
not to make deals with him". It's like the difference between a
public announcement while the markets are closed and insider-trading
while they are not.
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>coaching is when someone outside of the game offers advice/comments
That's what Legbiter did, as I understand it.
>Collusion is not allowed.
I suppose that the collusion rule was just copied verbatim from the
DCI rules for Magic. Magic is not a multi-player game though and
that's why the rule is difficult to apply to VTES. Has this rule ever
been applied in practise or is it just a paper tiger?
> There is no "in-character" allowance for any rules violation.
An amusing example of this is that Scorpion players are allowed to
bribe their opponents in L5R events.
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>Right. This has been "proven" by game theorists - in a single game,
>it is to your advantage to "defect" (to break the deal, in this case).
>But over a series of games, cooperation is ultimately the best idea,
>borne out by the finding that the "best" strategy for interacting
>is the simple "tit-for-tat" - which first cooperates, then just
>matches the opponent's last choice (defect or cooperate).
This assumes that the deal's parameters and payoff matrix is the
classic Prisoner's Dilemma. This is often not the case and defection
is profitable in the long run. This is why infidelity is common in
humans and other species - it has been bred into us.
Andrew
James Coupe
>where he "pointed the guy out to all my friends and warned them
>not to make deals with him".
Warning someone about a player's reputation is not a breach of the
rules, in any way shape or form.
Matthew Heslin
> > Collusion is a confusing subject. I've sometimes
> > found myself playing specifically to undermine another
> > Methuselah even if he/she was not my prey. If I'm
> > sacrificing my own chance of winning (or netting a VP),
> > and aiding another Methuselah (my prey, who doesn't have
> > me to worry about), that seems to be collusion.
> Right. If you play to benefit other player(s) (the predator
> of the player you're undermining above) to the detriment of
> your own position, then that's collusion.
Hmmm... I would argue that if I can
foresee my own inescapable demise in the near
future, than any actions are defensible under the
previous "it's not at your own cost if you're on your
way out either way" discussion point.
If you want to get extreme, stonewalling
is collusion by virtue of failing to oust your prey.
I guess no one had any collusion stories
to tell?
-heslin
Mike Ooi
Matthew Heslin wrote in message <01c01f9a$4f4aca20$bd5179a5@wyld>...
> Hmmm... I would argue that if I can
>foresee my own inescapable demise in the near
>future, than any actions are defensible under the
>previous "it's not at your own cost if you're on your
>way out either way" discussion point.
> If you want to get extreme, stonewalling
>is collusion by virtue of failing to oust your prey.
>
> I guess no one had any collusion stories
>to tell?
What about if you're in a 4 player game, and your grand predator is so close
to ousting your predator that he starts to slam you *before* he becomes your
predator, so you nail your prey as hard as you can and then oust yourself,
making it a 3 player game with your former predator now in a much stronger
(and what turned out to be an inevitably dominant) position?
-Mike
Derek Ray
wrote:
>What about if you're in a 4 player game, and your grand predator is so close
>to ousting your predator that he starts to slam you *before* he becomes your
>predator, so you nail your prey as hard as you can and then oust yourself,
>making it a 3 player game with your former predator now in a much stronger
>(and what turned out to be an inevitably dominant) position?
I think this can be called an acute case of "V:TES Finger", often seen
when someone begins to screw someone else before the screwing is
appropriate.
Someone else wondered about stonewalling - I tend to stonewall when
it's obvious that either I won't ever get through my prey, or when my
predator is playing something that happens to totally hose my deck if
I play as normal. I call it the "2-VP plan". Basically, once you
realize you can't possibly go forward and live, you begin going
BACKWARDS exclusively, hoping that perhaps you can oust a couple
predators and then bung up your prey completely when he finally
becomes your predator. =) The 2-VP plan is not a usual game-winner,
and is not recommended for casual use - but 2 VP as compared to 0 is a
significant difference in a tournament, and sometimes you can pull it
out.
Your odds of pulling it out are significantly enhanced if you are
playing a combat or intercept deck, of course. =) Not that *that*
would have anything to do with me coming up with this idea. *cough*
=)
-- Derek
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
- C. Darwin, 1871
Andrew S. Davidson
>I don't think that punishment or vengeance strategies qualify as
>"collusion". While they may sacrifice short term benefit, they also send
>a message, and thereby attempt to have an effect on the play environment
>that one hopes to be to one's long-term benefit (which may extend beyond a
>particular tournament). Such messages may include "If you break a deal
>with me, you will regret it."
>
>Similarly, when you choose to keep a deal you made, even though by
>breaking the deal you could win the tournament, this is not "collusion"
>(even though, by keeping the deal, you may sacrifice your immediate
>interests in favor of another player). It is your long term interests
>that concern you, and these may extend beyond the tournament. You do not
>want to become known as a deal-breaker, and thereby damage your
>negotiating ability. But in the long run, you are playing to win.
If you allow consideration of long-term interest then the rule against
collusion is a dead letter. A player who sacrifices his position to
help a friend win _is_ doing so for his own benefit. He's either
doing it because it makes him feel good or because he expects his
friend to repay the favour in a subsequent event. I see no difference
between this and the examples that you give - in all cases the player
is no longer playing _that_ game to win and is pursuing some other
agenda.
To drive a coach and horses through this rule, all the alleged
colluder has to do is say, "but I have a deal and I must keep it for
the sake of my reputation". According to the received wisdom here, he
then ceases to be a villain and becomes a noble gentleman instead.
Contrariwise, if you are serious about stopping collusion then you
must take each game in isolation. When you do this, deal-breaking is
not merely to be expected - in some cases it is mandatory.
Andrew
legb...@my-deja.com
<05B1B74B79C66286.01ED9925...@lp.airnews.net>,
<snip>
We used to play Diplomacy with a guy called Don - it was quite a big
group and it met regularly for nearly a year. Don is memorable because
he ALWAYS renegued on deals and thus he was a VERY bad Diplomacy player.
Of course you are right to say that in Diplomacy you're EXPECTED to
break your deals, but the thing you have missed out is that UNLESS you
make AND keep some deals you will LOSE. To win in Diplomacy you have to
break the deal in such a way as to give yourself an overwhelming
advantage and screw up your victim beyond all hope of recovery.
I'd have thought
> that Jyhad would be the same - the very name evokes its theme of the
> constant struggle for supremacy amongst the machiavellian methusalehs.
> These are amoral ancients whose humanity has been corrupted by The
> Beast and it's absurd to play them as if they were Victorian
> cricketers.
*Pauses to consider the Machiavellian Beast vs Victorian Cricketing
Mafioso Ultimate Grudge Match*
Hmmm. Rather a lot of mixed metaphors and empty accusations of
unsportsmanlike/illegal play flying around today, so let's try to make
this a bit concrete.
In a game of Jyhad/VTES, if i make a deal, i will keep it [exception
noted below]. i expect people i make deals with to do the same. If they
don't, then i will do them at least two bad turns - this game if
possible, over a series of games if not. One or both of those bad turns
could be NOT to keep a deal i've promised to do in the game.
i don't HATE people who diss me in the game and i don't think they are
cheats, but i would find it faintly amusing if they ran off to mummy
complaining that Horrid Legbiter was Picking On Them as i implemented my
remorseless revenge.
If you think there is any collusion or cheating involved in this then
too bad, because you are wrong. And in fact, to do otherwise would just
be plain STUPID - do you REALLY expect me, having been screwed over in
one game, to deal with the same player in a subsequent game as if the
first shafting had
legb...@my-deja.com
<5B236F567D77D807.ABE02B4C...@lp.airnews.net>,
a...@csi.com wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:26:51 GMT, legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >What i said was "that guy isn't trustworthy", ie i gave them a
> >useful piece of information about him based on my experience. This is
> >similar to saying "That person usually plays clan X" or "This guy is
a
> >new player". No way is any of that collusion.
>
No, as explained below by Scott and James.
<snip>
>
> What's bad is that your behaviour is shameless to the extent that you
> boast of it.
If i didn't warn people that i bite, i would have to bite more often.
Rather than boasting, advertising what i do when people break deals with
me is like poisonous insects wearing bright colours to warn predators
off eating them. What i'm telling you openly is that you don't HAVE to
make deals with me, but if you do, you should keep them or face the
consequences.
You need to think about why these activities are
> prohibited.
i know why they're prohibited. And i wasn't doing them.
It's because they would turn the game into one of
> competing teams. If you're not part of a team of friends who
> co-operate and trust each other then you're screwed.
You're not understanding what happened at Gencon and what happens
everywhere in VTES, it seems to me. Outside the game, some of us are
friends. Inside the game, we ruthlessly try to beat each other.
Sometimes we use our knowledge of each other's in-game trustworthiness
to further our own ends by making profitable deals. This is like the way
bachelor male lions and Gelada baboons cooperate to get mating
opportunites but it is all still part of ruthless bad ol' natural
selection. And i don't trust all my friends by ANY means - Rob, for
example, is just NOT a trustworthy person for in-game deals, which he
will make and keep ONLY up to the point that he continues to benefit
from them. Other friends, dear but nameless, actually aren't worth
making deals with because they aren't very good at figuring out what
constitutes a good deal.
>
> What's telling is the way that you try to enforce your own code of
> honour, reacting with such vigour against those who break it. It's
> like the Mafia - they set great store by loyalty to the Family and the
> code of Omerta but they are still criminals.
>
Er, right, and thanks, i think. Does this mean you DON'T think i play
like an absurd Victorian cricketer, or does it mean that you think
Victorian cricketers were mafiosi?
<snip>
i think you might enjoy reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins if
you haven't done so already. As nicely explained in that book, the truth
is that if you want to win long-term in any game, including life or
VTES, then you have to do quite a lot of cooperating, not for moral
reasons but just because cooperating is an efficient way to further your
own selfish interests. The degree of cooperation allowed in VTES is
[rightly] limited, but not to the extent that you suppose. However, in
the absence of genetic relatedness, no kind of cooperation can survive
under natural selection unless there are STRINGENT sanctions against
deal-breaking.
Buffer line to stop message tailing
Buffer l
stubby
>
>i think you might enjoy reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins if
>you haven't done so already. As nicely explained in that book, the truth
>is that if you want to win long-term in any game, including life or
>VTES, then you have to do quite a lot of cooperating, not for moral
>reasons but just because cooperating is an efficient way to further your
>own selfish interests. The degree of cooperation allowed in VTES is
>[rightly] limited, but not to the extent that you suppose. However, in
>the absence of genetic relatedness, no kind of cooperation can survive
>under natural selection unless there are STRINGENT sanctions against
>deal-breaking.
1) trust you to bring genetics into it
2) we are all good friends outside the game- i think the comment from
james was "he gets better results fromd eals with the southampton lot,
rather than the pompey lot" thats cos we know him too well :)
as for breaking deal, or warning people off other players i have one
player to bring to mind
MR SUITCASE MAN !!!!!
anam
Matthew Heslin
> What about if you're in a 4 player game, and your grand predator is so
close
> to ousting your predator that he starts to slam you *before* he becomes
your
> predator, so you nail your prey as hard as you can and then oust
yourself,
> making it a 3 player game with your former predator now in a much
stronger
> (and what turned out to be an inevitably dominant) position?
Um, sounds like you helped your
predator out while sacrificing your own position.
Collusion? I think so, but then again, I've been
wrong about this topic quite a bit so far.
There's nothing in the collusion rule
that states the perfidy must be mutual. I had
been under the mistaken impression that two
Methuselahs had to be in cahoots for their
wrongdoing to be considered collusion, but it
seems as though I can collude with Mike without
Mike even knowing what I'm up to. True?
(Why am I beating this horse? I agree
with everyone else. What's my problem? I'll
shut up now.)
-heslin
X_Ze...@email.msn.com
> I guess no one had any collusion stories
> to tell?
Actually Matt, I do have one. 4 years ago I was holding a tournament in
New Iberia, La. and we had 12 players. It was $5 a head entry fee and
winner take all. We were not playing with any errata or Golden Tenets.
It was a one game tournament with everyone playing on the same table
(12 player game!). Three players colluded together. One brought a
weenie politics deck consisting of 10 blood dolls and 40 conservitive
agitations and 40 Kine Resources Contested. The other two brought rush
decks. Their plan, as I found out later, was to have the politics
player win and then split the pot 3 ways. This was achieved through the
rush decks crippling any vampires with votes and the vote deck laying
down massive and I do mean massive Con Ags.
This collusion in effect scuttled our playgroup as no one wanted to play
against the triumvirate, who colluded together. This is a blatantly
obvious example of collusion. Hope this helps.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
legb...@my-deja.com
<466DCD989DFF9F47.27B09706...@lp.airnews.net>,
In VTES you have a lot of different resources to deploy. Very important
among these, especially if you do politics a lot, is your reputation.
Arguably it is your MOST important resource, since you get your pool,
cards etc back at the end of every game. Can't you see that often it
will be necessary for you to sacrifice some other resource in order to
keep your reputation?
>
> To drive a coach and horses through this rule, all the alleged
> colluder has to do is say, "but I have a deal and I must keep it for
> the sake of my reputation". According to the received wisdom here, he
> then ceases to be a villain and becomes a noble gentleman instead.
>
Or someone who understands the value of their resources better than you
seem to do: or possibly a colluder or just an incompetent clown. The
test is probably something to do with overall tournament performance. i
think the mistake you are making is assuming that any kind of behaviour
which COULD be taking place because of collusion is actual EVIDENCE of
collusion. For example, there are lots of possible reasons why my wife
might kiss another man. Adulterous intention is one of these possible
reasons, but it does not follow that every time she kisses a bloke i
should divorce her.
> Contrariwise, if you are serious about stopping collusion then you
> must take each game in isolation. When you do this, deal-breaking is
> not merely to be expected - in some cases it is mandatory.
>
i think there is a germ of sense in some of the things you have been
saying, namely that there are some kinds of behaviour that teeter on the
brink of being collusive, or that actually are collusive but difficult
to spot or legislate against. Sobeit - so long as we squash the most
obvious cases of intra-playgroup conspiracy that's all that's required
at tourney level, most people would think. However, the above paragraph
is just about the silliest thing i have ever seen on the newsgroup. The
fact that you are [apparently seriously] arguing in favour of FORCING
people to break in-game deals or be disqualified should make you take a
deep breath and put your head in a nice, cool bucket of wa
John Whelan
On 15 Sep 2000, Deviant One wrote:
> That is the way to do it. Go down kicking and screaming and making your
> predator work for it. In the first round of the constructed deck tournament at
> Dragon Con I was getting hammered because my grand predator was unable to put
> any pressure on my predator. When I was down to 3 pool and the bleed came in
> for 5, I felt completely justified in using my Archon Investigation to burn the
> minion. I was ousted either way, but felt that I still had to do whatever I
> could to hamper my predator in his destroying of me. (If only I could have
> drawn that card earlier in the game)
> You never know what can occur in a game to change your position. In theory you
> could be down to one pool and have no minions to work with and something could
> happen that could put you back in the game. Yes, it is a long shot and probably
> won't happen, but it could.
>
> Never Give Up. Never Surrender.
Actually, defiance against your predator, if your position is definitely a
lost one, usually makes little sense as a meta-strategicy. Your only
strategic considerations remaining, in a lost position, are those which
transcend the current game. You have a chance to send a message to the
remaining players in the game, to reward or punish their behavior during
this game, which might influence their behavior in future games which
might be more to your advantage.
In such a situation, it rarely makes sense to try to punish your
predator. He is only trying to win. Ousting you is his job. No matter
how much you try to punish him for his victory, he will not regret what he
did. The harder you make it for thim, the harder he will try in
future. Punishing him will not teach him the error of his ways.
Save your vengeance for elsewhere. Look around the table. Is there
anyone else you can hold to blame for your current lost position? Did the
other players at the table give you inadequate support? Did someone
torpor one too many of your vampires in cross-table attacks? Why then
would you want to protect them by acting as a "buffer" to your predator?
Is your position lost because your prey torpored too many of your vampires
with his rush deck? If so, then why would you spend your last final turns
protecting him? That was exactly what he was hoping for when he rushed
you. He was hoping you would just leave him alone, and spend all your
remaining energies acting as a buffer for his grand-predator. Well, screw
that! Show him that he made a mistake. Show him that he went too
far. Show him that all he did was replace one predator with an even
stronger one. Tap yourself out doing him as much damage as possible, and
then transfer your pool as low as possible.
In a lost position, your final turns are a chance to send a
message. Don't waste it on someone to whom it will be meaningless.
-- John Whelan
Dan Howell
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.00091...@amanda.dorsai.org...
>
> On 15 Sep 2000, Deviant One wrote:
>
> > That is the way to do it. Go down kicking and screaming and making your
> > Never Give Up. Never Surrender.
>
> predator. He is only trying to win. Ousting you is his job. No matter
> how much you try to punish him for his victory, he will not regret what he
> did. The harder you make it for thim, the harder he will try in
> future. Punishing him will not teach him the error of his ways.
This reminds me of an argument I saw once on rec.sport.USFootball. When
you're playing competitively - be it gridiron, rugby or VTES - and the chips
are down, you ought to give it everything. When I'm on 1 or 2 pool (and
being inexperienced this happens a lot) then I tend to take the "die in the
last ditch" approach. I might not be all that good a flanker or Methuselah,
but if I'm not giving every turn of every game my all I shouldn't have
showed up in the first place.
You said further down that your last turns are about a message to someone. I
agree with your point, but personally think of them as a message to
everyone at the table.
Dan Howell.
John Whelan
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Dan Howell wrote:
> This reminds me of an argument I saw once on rec.sport.USFootball. When
> you're playing competitively - be it gridiron, rugby or VTES - and the chips
> are down, you ought to give it everything. When I'm on 1 or 2 pool (and
> being inexperienced this happens a lot) then I tend to take the "die in the
> last ditch" approach. I might not be all that good a flanker or Methuselah,
> but if I'm not giving every turn of every game my all I shouldn't have
> showed up in the first place.
The arguments I made would not apply to football, which is a game with
only two sides.
If there is a corrolation, it is the following: How you lose is
important. This applies to both Football and Jyhad. I certainly agree
that, in both football and Jyhad, you should not just fold when you see
you have lost, but try to go out in a manner that will give your opponents
as hard a time as possible.
However, such considerations in Jyhad are fare more complex than in
Football. You have up to 4 opponents, not 1. You get to choose which one
you want to give a hard time to. In choosing which opponent to screw
with, your predator is usually the least appropriate choice ... for
reasons already stated. Staying in the game as long as possible is not
necessarily going to be the best way of giving your chosen target a hard
time.
> You said further down that your last turns are about a message to someone. I
> agree with your point, but personally think of them as a message to
> everyone at the table.
It *is* a message to everyone at the table. The message is this: "I
won't be your tool. I won't just sit here and be a buffer for you. If
you want me still in the game -- it you want to keep my predator from
getting victory point and becoming too strong, then you had better think
twice about targeting me to the point of denying me all hope of victory."
To continue to act as a buffer after you have been defanged also sends a
message. "Attack me! Even if I have no hope, I will still serve your
ends."
-- John Whelan
John Whelan
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote:
> If you allow consideration of long-term interest then the rule against
> collusion is a dead letter.
Collusion has never been enforceable no matter how you look at
it. Denying legitimate game-related considerations just because they
transcend a *single* game sacrifices much and gains nothing in
return. Unsportsmanlike collusion will still go unpunished.
> A player who sacrifices his position to
> help a friend win _is_ doing so for his own benefit. He's either
> doing it because it makes him feel good or because he expects his
> friend to repay the favour in a subsequent event.
Your point might be stronger if you eliminated the "makes him feel good"
motivation from consideration. That is a non-game factor, either in the
short term or the long term.
> I see no difference
> between this and the examples that you give - in all cases the player
> is no longer playing _that_ game to win and is pursuing some other
> agenda.
I expect that my integrity will help me win, because other players will
take seriously my promises and my threats. Therefore I remain loyal to my
integrity. The collusion rule forbids me colluding with other players,
not colluding with myself.
> To drive a coach and horses through this rule, all the alleged
> colluder has to do is say, "but I have a deal and I must keep it for
> the sake of my reputation". According to the received wisdom here, he
> then ceases to be a villain and becomes a noble gentleman instead.
Not if he is unable to defend his strategic motivation for making the
deal. In a Jyhad game, all negotiation is public. If their negotiations
were external to the game, then that is clearly collusion, as it brings in
non-game factors. If his motivation for making the deal did not involve
winning the game, then that is also a non-game factor.
> Contrariwise, if you are serious about stopping collusion then you
> must take each game in isolation. When you do this, deal-breaking is
> not merely to be expected - in some cases it is mandatory.
That is an extreme position, but at least I cannot fault you for
inconsistency.
But it would be better, I think, to allow the rule against collusion to be
a "dead letter" than to make integrity illegal. Nobody should be mandated
to break their word. If they made the deal with improper motivations,
then they have already colluded, and can be held accountable on that
basis.
-- John Whelan
John Whelan
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Andrew S. Davidson wrote:
> This is mostly a matter of expectations. Diplomacy's theme is
> realpolitik and double-dealing is explicitly facilitated by provision
> for secret negotiation and simultaneous movement. I'd have thought
> that Jyhad would be the same - the very name evokes its theme of the
> constant struggle for supremacy amongst the machiavellian methusalehs.
Perhaps the part of the theme you are ignoring is the word "Eternal" in
the title. From a role-playing standpoint I never assume, in a game of
Jyhad, that my ousting means my Final Death. I assume that I shall rise
from torpor next week and play again. In Diplomacy, however, the
situation is intended to simulate a situation where a diplomat typically
gets one game in a lifetime (which is presumably the reason real diplomacy
is so duplicitous).
> These are amoral ancients whose humanity has been corrupted by The
> Beast and it's absurd to play them as if they were Victorian
> cricketers.
We may have different perceptions of absurdity. I am just now reading
some of the clan novels, and am bemused by the behavior of the vampires
there, especially the Sabbat. They typically cannot spend 5 minutes
together without killing eachother, or engaging in some duplicitous
behavior. Their behavior transcends "amoral" or "evil" and enters into
the realm of abject stupidity. You wonder how such idiots could survive a
single year, much less centuries. If they have survived centuries, then
why are all their strategies so dangerous and so short-sighted.
Realistically, an immortal would have strong motivation to keep his word
when dealing with a fellow immortal. It is simply rational self interest.
Betrayal makes sense only when you are sure you can destroy its memory,
which in a Jyhad game is not possible.
I don't see why you are using Victorian Cricketeers as examples of
paragons of morality. Someone of a radical bent might argue that the
Victorian upper classes who were so fond of cricket were a perfect analogy
for vampires. Like vampires, their immorality is evident in how they
treat "lesser" beings, not necessarily in how they treat each other.
One could have an interesting philosophical discussion about whether their
is, in the long run, any difference between morality and "rational self
interest". Game theory seems to support the notion that much "moral"
behavior may actually be to one's benefit in the long run. I personally
do not consider rational self-interest and morality to be the same -- at
least, not from the perspective of the moral chooser, whose "rationality"
wisdom and foresight are necessarily finite. If morality and self
interest are one, it is only from the perspective of Eternity, which is
something even "immortal" vampires cannot perceive.
-- John Whelan
Derek Ray
<jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
>It *is* a message to everyone at the table. The message is this: "I
>won't be your tool. I won't just sit here and be a buffer for you. If
>you want me still in the game -- it you want to keep my predator from
>getting victory point and becoming too strong, then you had better think
>twice about targeting me to the point of denying me all hope of victory."
It's the wrong message though. It says "I'll spaz and dump out if you
even take a small action against me, so you better get rid of me
quick, because I'm a loose cannon." And that's what I'd do. Someone
who is a threat to transfer themselves out when they feel in a
hopeless situation might as well do it SOONER than LATER, in my
opinion, while I still have resources to deal with it and I can make
sure it happens on MY terms - so I will strike them MORE cross-table
than I would anyone else. Someone who is likely to come cross-table
after me while they're dying just because they ended up with 1 of the
4 points from my KRC (when 3 were aimed at my prey) ... well, it's
likely to go 3-1 THEIR way next time, to make sure they're gone.
HOWEVER, more likely than not, your ousting is directly relative to
one player's actions - your predator's. Transferring yourself out is
a way of screwing your grand-predator, who has probably done nothing
at ALL to hurt you, but without Eagle's Sight, often can't do much at
all to really DEFEND you. So all you've done is kingmake in favor of
your predator, and by extension you are saying "anyone who ousts me
deserves to win." Your prey may have never taken a single Rush action
against your vampires, but instead blocked or deflected your every
bleed. Should he be screwed by his good play?
There is another game consideration, too. Walling up against your
predator and conserving your resources buys you time - something which
can often help. An extra Blood Doll showing up in your deck, for
example. The critical Rush action to remove a key vampire. The
Dramatic Upheaval vote you've been hoping for. And of course, there's
always the chance that players around the table will come and save
you. It's in nobody's interest but your predator's that he get a VP
and six pool. You can expect immediate, ACTIVE help from your
grandpredator. You can expect passive help from everyone else, who
may not be able to save your butt without putting themselves in a
precarious position - and this is good play on their part, to give up
on you after a certain point. Self-interest has to be first. Your
predator is (hopefully) not an idiot. He is not going to frantically
expend resources on you to the extent that he gets himself ousted.
Your goal should be to buy time until his OWN predator has him on the
ropes, putting him in the same position you were just in - at which
point you can begin focussing on offense again.
But to flip your lid and transfer yourself out while Rushing
cross-table, just because someone passed an Ancilla Empowerment that
did 7 to their prey and 4 to you, incidentally putting you on 2 pool
and in danger of ousting? That's totally unwarranted, and I will be
one of the first to start throwing deliberate damage cross-table next
game to get the loose cannon off the deck.
steven...@my-deja.com
>
> >Right. This has been "proven" by game theorists - in a single game,
> >it is to your advantage to "defect" (to break the deal, in this
case).
> >But over a series of games, cooperation is ultimately the best idea,
> >borne out by the finding that the "best" strategy for interacting
> >is the simple "tit-for-tat" - which first cooperates, then just
> >matches the opponent's last choice (defect or cooperate).
>
> This assumes that the deal's parameters and payoff matrix is the
> classic Prisoner's Dilemma. This is often not the case and defection
> is profitable in the long run.
Even if the payoff matrix for a repeated game is the classic prisoner's
dilemma, defection may be the equilibrium rational, self-interested
strategy. [Straining to remember my college class on game theory]
Basically, game theory predicts that defection will be optimal if ANY
of of the following conditions hold:
1) There are only a finite number of iterations of the prisoner's
dilemma, and that number is common knowledge [1] to all participants
before the start of the first iteration. The logic is simple enough:
in the last iteration all players will defect, since there is no
possibility of retaliation in future games. But since defection will
be universal in the last round, no player will have an incentive to
coperate in the second round, since coopartion in that round will not
lead to coopation in the last round. This arguement applies to each
preceding round, with the conclusion being that defection will occur,
starting with the first interation.
2) The probability that the current iteration will be the last is
sufficently high [2].
3) Defection cannot be observed or inferred [3].
The experimental literature roughly confirms these theories, with
exception that in case 1, the players may behave as though they were
uncertain about the number of iterations, and will converge toward the
predicted behavior in later rounds. This divergence from theory might
have something to do with imperfections in the hueristics actually used
by players to approximate rationality.
In summary, defection is always the optimal strategy unless defection
is observable, and the players believe that they will play an unknown
but large number of future games against players that will learn from
the current game (either by being participants, or by receiving
reliable information about the game).
Jyhad seems to fit this requirement, perhaps more so than most other
multi-player games. First, the number of interations can be quite
large. Even within a single game, I might have multiple opportunities
to make a deal with another play, and thus an opportunity to break that
deal. Second, the pool of players is relatively small. Even
tournaments have some non-trivial repetition of player meetings (within
a game, between games, within a tournament and between tournaments).
Thus, I would expect to see more cooperation in Jyad than in other
games, and less cooperation at tournaments than in local playgroups.
Steven Joyce
[1] Using the usual definition of common knowledge: all the
participants know it, and they all know that the others know it, and
they know that the others know that they know it, ad infitum.
[2] "Sufficient" is a function of the relative magnitudes of the
payoffs.
[3] This can happen if individual actions are not directly observable
and either more than two players are involved in each iteration, or the
pairings of players repeated infrequently across iterations.
David Pontes
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, John Whelan wrote:
> Similarly, when you choose to keep a deal you made, even though by
> breaking the deal you could win the tournament, this is not "collusion"
> (even though, by keeping the deal, you may sacrifice your immediate
> interests in favor of another player).
LSJ suggested that to isolate and identify collusion, one should
see wether the player in question is or is not working to maximize his VPs
in the tournament.
For instance, when you take actions that may result on the
probable ousting of a meth other than your prey, you are usually (note:
usually) engaged in collusion.
Anyway, this rule of thumb alone can make a good tool to spot
collusion. It does create a small paradox when, for instance you make a
deal that involves gainging up with other meth(s) to oust your prey and
then oust yourself (also referred to as 'concede'). In this case, you give
up your position (probably a postion what would grant you some more VPs)
in order to keep a deal - all apparently legal, from conversations with
LSJ, but breaks the basic rule. It is also legal to give up your position
(granting 2 VPs to your prey) when only you and another meth are still
left on the table. Not a good thing, but it's how it works (yeah, read the
fine print).
Also note that collusion is just a subsection of unsportmanslike
behavior - and it's this unsportmanslike behavior that is punished by VEKN
rules, not just collusion. What the judge must ensure is that 'throughout
the game, players act in a sportmanslike manner'. As you can see, this is
extremely subjective. Say, if in Congo, people are expected to keep their
word at all times, it might be ruled unsportmanslike behavior if someone
broke a deal. The concept of 'unspostmanslike behavior' IMO depends a lot
on the environment we're in.
For instance, (and this actually happened) if a player makes a
deal that gets broken, he cannot just complain because nobody ever did
that in his games. But he migh have a point if after the deal was broken,
everyone in the table laughed in his face.
Also, because something (in this true case, 'someone') peeved a
meth in a previous game, nothing actually prevents a meth from doing
anything else during that tournament round other than paying 1 pool and 4
transfers to bring the next vampire from his crypt. (When questioned, he
allegated that he was making a protest because 'the air was transparent' -
I shit you not. The whole table was a mess). What can the referee do in
these situations? The answer is: anything he likes, and the players have
to deal with it.
> It is your long term interests that concern you, and these may extend
> beyond the tournament. You do not want to become known as a
> deal-breaker, and thereby damage your negotiating ability. But in the
> long run, you are playing to win.
>
There's no way you can rule sportmanslike behavior if you start
with that 'long term' premise. That way, people would just say 'Hey, this
is the way I am' and you'd have to leave it at that. What would you say if
(again, true case) a meth started rushing all the dark-skinned vampires
just 'coz they're darkies' (besides "you're a bloody moron")? You really
have to start on something palpable, and VP's is IMO a good base for that.
Unfortunately there are some discrepancies from judge to judge as to what
accounts for unsportmanslike behavior but, as LSJ one pointed out to me,
it's always a factor on judged events (take soccer, for instance).
So, IMHO, ousting yourself is usually unsportmanslike behavior
(again note 'usually'). In this case, it would depend heavily on the
current standing - if the self-ousting player did so in knowing that he
would still be in the final but not the AR/DT player, then it would be all
right. Otherwise, sanctions would be in order :)
Bye now, thanks for reading
David Pontes, Lisbon
Rafid Armani
<dp...@mega.ist.utl.pt> wrote:
> For instance, when you take actions that may result on the
>probable ousting of a meth other than your prey, you are usually (note:
>usually) engaged in collusion.
I remember myself, in a tournament, ousting my grand predator with my
Malkavian Prank... duh ! : )
But I still think it was his own mistake ; he shouldn`t have taken the
number of pool I had in mind. MOUAHAHAHAHA ! (really evil laugh)
Rémy, Malkavian Prince of Québec city
ra...@videotron.ca
"Where`s my hunting ground ? You people stole my hunting ground ! I
will kill you for that ! What you say ? Just a game ? Don`t try this
with me ! ARRRGHHH !"
Andrew S. Davidson
>However, the above paragraph
>is just about the silliest thing i have ever seen on the newsgroup. The
>fact that you are [apparently seriously] arguing in favour of FORCING
>people to break in-game deals or be disqualified should make you take a
>deep breath and put your head in a nice, cool bucket of wa
It's simple logic. LSJ tells us that the practical test or definition
of collusion is "taking measures to increase another player's position
in a way that her own position suffers". He further tells us that
this is a hard rule - "Collusion is not allowed. There is no
"in-character" allowance for any rules violation."
The consequence is that if you have made a deal which turns out to put
you in such a position then you must break it or be in breach of the
rules. For example, you might have promised your votes to someone as
part of a deal but, if a referendum were to result in your immediate
ousting with no offsetting benefit, then you must vote against
regardless. Other examples may be less clear but the principle is
that you should always be guided by self-interest - you are not
allowed to put another player first.
Your efforts to build a reputation are directly contrary to this rule.
You seek to assure other players that you will go through with a deal
even if it is against your interest to do so. You expect to reap a
long-term benefit but that's what makes it collusion - you're willing
to trade a loss in this game for benefits outside of the game. And
this is a bad thing because it naturally makes you discriminate in
favour of your friends who are known to be trustworthy and with whom
you have a long-term relationship.
So, the only deals which are legal are those which directly and
continouously serve a player's self-interest in that game. In this
case, there is no need to worry about honour or reputation -
self-interest is motivation enough. The playing field is level and
that's the way it should be in an open tournament.
Andrew
James Coupe
Complete and utter crap.
All players, in all games, establish a reputation over time. That is
not collusion, cheating or scouting. It is fact.
I know, that if I go into a deal with Legbiter, he is more likely to go
through with the deal than another player. That is all.
Perhaps you would prefer that no player was ever allowed to interact
with any other player? Should we all play V:TES wearing masks, or via a
web based form, so that people can't work out who we are?
John Whelan
Trying to extend the analogy into real life impossibly complicates things.
One aspect of your analysis that I question is your application of the
term "long run" to the real-life scenario under consideration. The
reproductive arena (in which infidelity may or may not be profitable) is
an arena in which A) the stakes (successful reproduction) are very high,
B) one has a very limited number of chances to "win" (or "games") in the
course of ones lifetime, and C) the situation is such that there are
reasonable chances of keeping the betrayal secret permanently.
Thus, the situation you present is far more analogous to a single game
than to a series of games. More precisely, it is analagous to a brief,
limited series of games in which one's betrayal is unlikely to be
discovered in the short term, and the games will likely be over before the
negative consequences have a chance to fall. In such situations, betrayal
may be worth the risk (unless, of course, the Theologians are right and
the soul is truly immortal, in which case the games may continue much
longer than the betrayer anticipates).
Of course, no definite verdict has been reached with respect the the
relative value of fidelity vs betrayal as reproductive strategies. Both
strategies continue to be part of the game, which goes on, and on, and on,
and on ... but always with different players (which is one of the reasons
why betrayal maintains some viability as a strategy).
The lessons of the prisoners dilemma apply very well to V:tES, for the
series of games is limitless, and the chances of keeping betrayals secret
are virtually nil.
-- John Whelan
John Whelan
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Derek Ray wrote:
> It's the wrong message though. It says "I'll spaz and dump out if you
> even take a small action against me, so you better get rid of me
> quick, because I'm a loose cannon."
That would be a "wrong message" if it in fact described the tactics I was
advocating. It doesn't. Below are is the position I presented, followed
by your version of the position I presented (paraphrased to emphasise the
contrast:
My position: It is sometimes appropriate to use certain tactics if you
have no chance of a victory point.
Your version of my position: It is always appropriate to use those
tactics if someone takes a "small action" against you.
Please, if you are going to debate me, please take issue with the position
I present, not some deformed straw-man rendition of it. That is a
reasonable request, is it not?
> And that's what I'd do. Someone
> who is a threat to transfer themselves out when they feel in a
> hopeless situation might as well do it SOONER than LATER, in my
> opinion, while I still have resources to deal with it and I can make
> sure it happens on MY terms - so I will strike them MORE cross-table
> than I would anyone else. Someone who is likely to come cross-table
> after me while they're dying just because they ended up with 1 of the
> 4 points from my KRC (when 3 were aimed at my prey) ... well, it's
> likely to go 3-1 THEIR way next time, to make sure they're gone.
I should ignore this entirely, since it has nothing to do with any
situation I presented. However, the tactics you are discussing seem
poorly reasoned out, and make YOU seem like a loose cannon. Not only are
you a loose cannon, but you are a pathetically ineffective one, since you
are attacking someone who is already dead and could not care less. You
are expending energies to attack the weakest player in the game and making
his predator stronger faster.
> HOWEVER, more likely than not, your ousting is directly relative to
> one player's actions - your predator's.
Right, and I have already explained why trying to "punish" him for his
efforts, once your cause is clearly lost, is irrational in most cases.
> Transferring yourself out is
> a way of screwing your grand-predator, who has probably done nothing
> at ALL to hurt you,
Why should I care about screwing my grand-predator? Sure, if he actually
HAS done something to help me, however minor, then this is a serious
factor to consider. I might want to reward his efforts by staying in the
game as long as possible, to ensure that he does not regret making such
efforts in future games. Without such considerations, however, there is
no reason I should care whether he is screwed or not.
> but without Eagle's Sight, often can't do much at
> all to really DEFEND you.
Not knowing his cards, I have no idea what he can or cannot do. If he
actually HAS done something to help me, then perhaps I should arrange my
ousting in a manner that rewards him. Otherwise, I owe him even less
consideration than I owe my predator. In my predators case, I have
absolutely no right to hope for aid no matter what he has in his hand.
> So all you've done is kingmake in favor of
> your predator,
So? If I remain in the game as long as possible, when I have no hope of
ousting anyone, I am playing "Kingmaker" in favor of my prey and against
my predator? How is that any different?
> and by extension you are saying "anyone who ousts me
> deserves to win."
That may be an overextension, but I still don't understand your objection.
Why do *you* feel that someone who ousts you does NOT deserve to win?
Why should you make *special* efforts to prevent HIM from winning, as
opposed to anyone else?
> Your prey may have never taken a single Rush action
> against your vampires, but instead blocked or deflected your every
> bleed. Should he be screwed by his good play?
What is this "may have" nonsense? My thesis was that it is *sometimes*
appropriate to use such tactics, not always. I provided my own example of
when such tactics were appropriate, and it was not even remotely similar
to the scenario you describe.
But you still do not explain why I should want to "not screw" my prey for
his "good play"? Why is this more appropriate than rewarding my predator
for his good play? My task, as defined by the game, involves screwing my
prey, not my predator. Why is my prey a less appropriate target for my
wrath?
> There is another game consideration, too. Walling up against your
> predator and conserving your resources buys you time - something which
> can often help. <snip>
This is begging the question of whether or not my position is truly
hopeless. If my position is not hopeless, then obviously that makes the
tactics I advocate less appropriate.
> But to flip your lid and transfer yourself out while Rushing
> cross-table, just because someone passed an Ancilla Empowerment that
> did 7 to their prey and 4 to you, incidentally putting you on 2 pool
> and in danger of ousting? That's totally unwarranted, and I will be
> one of the first to start throwing deliberate damage cross-table next
> game to get the loose cannon off the deck.
That's positively hilarious, Derek. You are obviously a far worse loose
cannon than I have ever been (I am not regarded as one at all). By your
own logic, everyone should start rushing YOU cross-table.
Also, since my position is merely that such tactics are SOMETIMES
appropriate, it would be far better to address the examples I presented
than to come up with extreme examples of your own.
-- John Whelan
John Whelan
On 19 Sep 2000, Eric Pettersen wrote:
> John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
> > Actually, defiance against your predator, if your position is definitely
> > a lost one, usually makes little sense as a meta-strategicy. Your only
> > strategic considerations remaining, in a lost position, are those which
> > transcend the current game. You have a chance to send a message to the
> > remaining players in the game, to reward or punish their behavior during
> > this game, which might influence their behavior in future games which
> > might be more to your advantage.
> >
> > In such a situation, it rarely makes sense to try to punish your predator.
> > He is only trying to win. Ousting you is his job. No matter how much
> > you try to punish him for his victory, he will not regret what he did.
> > The harder you make it for thim, the harder he will try in future.
> > Punishing him will not teach him the error of his ways.
>
> Presuming that the other players also played in their own best interests,
> and didn't gratuitiously screw you, means that your logic that you can't
> dissuade them from doing the same thing again applies just as much to them
> as to your predator. You are right that non-game considerations are all
> that are left once you are in a hopelessly lost position. I disagree that
> there is then no point in screwing with your predator, though.
I believe my position was that their is "usually" no point in doing so,
and that it "rarely" makes sense to try to punish him.
> If your
> predator is playing a type of deck that you despise (weenie dominate
> tap-and-bleed comes to mind, YMMV) you certainly shouldn't make it as easy
> as possible for them to oust you by tapping out and attacking someone
> across the table, just because that person may have marginally worsened
> your position.
Sure. That is a good example. You might want to discourage a certain
deck style by making it as difficult as possible for players who play such
decks. Another example might be if your predator broke a deal
(ie. promising not to bleed for a turn, as in the Legbiter's example).
Another situation I mentioned in another post would be where you have
received aid from other players to keep you in the game, and you wish to
reward their efforts. In this case, though, you are not really trying to
punish your predator, except as a side effect of trying to reward someone
else. Cross-table aid is not something you want to discourage by
self-ousting tactics.
> If someone screws with you and it's not in their best interest, that's
> different. Obviously, it's better to try to dissuade them as it happens,
> rather than after the fact, but no one would then blame you in that case
> if you metaphorically "gave them the finger" as you exited the game.
Keep in mind, however, that their best interest depends on your
behavior. Your prey, who fatally cripples you with his rush deck, is
hoping that you will just sit there for a while as a helpless and disabled
buffer. It is clearly in his interest to do so, if he knows you will
cooperate with the scheme. If he knows that you will behave differently,
however, then he may think twice. Why would he spend too much energy
rushing your vampires, if he knows he will only replace a weak predator
with a strong one? He might think it wiser to focus on his prey, and
attack your vampires only so much as to give himself a chance, without
necessarily denying you of all hope.
-- John Whelan
Dan Howell
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 02:52:41 -0400, John Whelan
> <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
>
> >It *is* a message to everyone at the table. The message is this: "I
> >won't be your tool. I won't just sit here and be a buffer for you. If
> >you want me still in the game -- it you want to keep my predator from
> >getting victory point and becoming too strong, then you had better think
> >twice about targeting me to the point of denying me all hope of victory."
When you're on 2 pool, who in their right mind is going to burn actions to
cross-table you anyway? But I want to see if I've got this right. Are you
saying that you'de just sit there, in a precarious situation, and hope that
another player's going to bail you out so you've got enough untapped minions
to inflict damage on your prey? Fair enough. It'll be in your
grand-predator's best
interests to help you...except that IMHO and at the level we all
normally play at, it just doesn't happen that way...
> HOWEVER, more likely than not, your ousting is directly relative to
> one player's actions - your predator's. Transferring yourself out is
> a way of screwing your grand-predator, who has probably done nothing
> at ALL to hurt you, but without Eagle's Sight, often can't do much at
> all to really DEFEND you.
...and that's why. The aim of the game is to thrash/stealth-bleed/vote/ToGP
your prey to a pulp, and if you've applied reverse beatdown in your pred's
turn and done as much as you can in your own...then your grand-predator
might
just top-deck something and take out your pred's BFMinion. Congratulations.
You
just did yourself a favour.
> But to flip your lid and transfer yourself out while Rushing
> cross-table, just because someone passed an Ancilla Empowerment that
> did 7 to their prey and 4 to you, incidentally putting you on 2 pool
> and in danger of ousting? That's totally unwarranted, and I will be
> one of the first to start throwing deliberate damage cross-table next
> game to get the loose cannon off the deck.
I had to re-read John's post before I was sure he'd actually said this.
But he did, and I agree with Derek whole-heartedly here. The only time
this would _ever_ be justified is if said AE was proposed by someone
planning to take 2VPs in one turn. (No names, no packdrill, you know who you
are...)
But said player's probably up to dealing with most of what you chuck at
them,
simply because they had the skill and talent to be on 6+ pool at this point
and you
haven't.
BUT. And it's a big one...I'm still essentially a rookie. And I'm very aware
that, in certain situations, especially tournament games...well, "common
sense" could
fly out of the window. (Anyone want to come up with a "Defenestration" pot
card,
BTW?) So I'm not flaming you, JW...I just can't see it at the moment.
Dan Howell. In VTES, that which kills you always makes you stronger.
Eric Pettersen
> Actually, defiance against your predator, if your position is definitely
> a lost one, usually makes little sense as a meta-strategicy. Your only
> strategic considerations remaining, in a lost position, are those which
> transcend the current game. You have a chance to send a message to the
> remaining players in the game, to reward or punish their behavior during
> this game, which might influence their behavior in future games which
> might be more to your advantage.
>
> In such a situation, it rarely makes sense to try to punish your predator.
> He is only trying to win. Ousting you is his job. No matter how much
> you try to punish him for his victory, he will not regret what he did.
> The harder you make it for thim, the harder he will try in future.
> Punishing him will not teach him the error of his ways.
Presuming that the other players also played in their own best interests,
and didn't gratuitiously screw you, means that your logic that you can't
dissuade them from doing the same thing again applies just as much to them
as to your predator. You are right that non-game considerations are all
that are left once you are in a hopelessly lost position. I disagree that
there is then no point in screwing with your predator, though. If your
predator is playing a type of deck that you despise (weenie dominate
tap-and-bleed comes to mind, YMMV) you certainly shouldn't make it as easy
as possible for them to oust you by tapping out and attacking someone
across the table, just because that person may have marginally worsened
your position.
If someone screws with you and it's not in their best interest, that's
different. Obviously, it's better to try to dissuade them as it happens,
rather than after the fact, but no one would then blame you in that case
if you metaphorically "gave them the finger" as you exited the game.
---
Eric Pettersen
pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)
Rafid Armani
<jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
>So? If I remain in the game as long as possible, when I have no hope of
>ousting anyone, I am playing "Kingmaker" in favor of my prey and against
>my predator? How is that any different?
I think that a methuselah has two defined parts in the game : predator
and prey. When I play, I try to do my best in both parts. If,
sometimes, I become a too easy prey for my predator, I try to reduce
my actions as predator to make a balance. My first task, if I want to
have a chance to win, is to stay alive. So, when I`m too weak to
survive, my only chance is to transfer all my energy on the defensive
mode (so I can maybe survive a little more and, you know, good things
happen sometimes...). This strategy is not a way to punish my
predator, it`s a way of giving me all the chances I can and all the
time I can. Time can get you killed, time can give you rebirth ; you
never know.
To survive is the first task of a prey. When the deer succeed in
surviving the wolf`s attack, it don`t thinks : "Screw you Mr Wolf !"
It was all for itself, not against anything.
Derek Ray
<jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
>My position: It is sometimes appropriate to use certain tactics if you
>have no chance of a victory point.
>
>Your version of my position: It is always appropriate to use those
>tactics if someone takes a "small action" against you.
No, of course not. You've misstated my position just as badly as you
claim I've misstated yours. But if you're going to come cross-table
at all, I AM forced to wonder just exactly what you consider being a
just cause for use of those tactics - and I have to err on the side of
caution, or I am being careless.
>are attacking someone who is already dead and could not care less. You
>are expending energies to attack the weakest player in the game and making
>his predator stronger faster.
If that player is likely to come attack me if I don't oust him, then I
want him GONE before he gets a chance to act on those bright ideas.
If he's not going to attack me, I'll probably ignore him - but it all
depends on what I've seen a player do in the past. A player such as
you has probably transferred himself out, screwed around, and
basically played kingmaker frequently, and so I may not be inclined to
let you have your way - I may just deny you your last set of actions
you thought you'd be getting, and deal with the situation under MY
terms instead of yours.
>> HOWEVER, more likely than not, your ousting is directly relative to
>> one player's actions - your predator's.
>
>Right, and I have already explained why trying to "punish" him for his
>efforts, once your cause is clearly lost, is irrational in most cases.
Your cause isn't lost until you are at zero pool, however. Rolling
over for him is fine for the animal kingdom, but doesn't cut it here
with humans. You gain no bonus for fishing out and going "Darn, he
got me! OK, here, predator, have a free ride, I transfer myself out -
you can spend all your actions ousting your new prey, instead of
taking the 3 'bleed-for-1' actions you would normally need to oust me
next turn!"
>Why should I care about screwing my grand-predator? Sure, if he actually
>HAS done something to help me, however minor, then this is a serious
Of course he has. He's been trying to oust your predator all game.
>factor to consider. I might want to reward his efforts by staying in the
>game as long as possible, to ensure that he does not regret making such
>efforts in future games. Without such considerations, however, there is
>no reason I should care whether he is screwed or not.
"might" is an understatement here. As the grandpredator in question,
if I see a rollover in progress, I will conserve my actions and defend
myself against my own predator so that I can have more resources to
smack the hell out of my prey after he gains 6 pool - I'm going to
need them since my prey is basically getting a free ride.
>> but without Eagle's Sight, often can't do much at
>> all to really DEFEND you.
>
>Not knowing his cards, I have no idea what he can or cannot do. If he
If you can't figure out what his deck does by the time you're ousted,
you are in a world of hurt in this game.
If he has superior Auspex, he might be able to reach forward and stop
a crucial bleed. If he has lots of Potence, he might be able to make
a bunch of your predator's vampires dead, increasing your chances of
survival. But if all he has is some Animalism and Protean, and your
predator does nothing but bleed you for 2 with every minion every
turn, there probably isn't shit he can do to help you UNLESS you wall
up and try to make your predator turn his attention to the right.
>actually HAS done something to help me, then perhaps I should arrange my
>ousting in a manner that rewards him. Otherwise, I owe him even less
>consideration than I owe my predator. In my predators case, I have
>absolutely no right to hope for aid no matter what he has in his hand.
You owe your predator absolutely no consideration whatsoever. You
cannot gain any VPs if you are ousted, so your first priority MUST be
staying alive. Rolling over fails this test miserably. I have seen
DI's played cross-table on a bleed mod, just to maintain the existing
table balance. The simple fact is, you do not KNOW what is going to
happen, so you might as well try to LIVE and make something of your
position, instead of just giving up.
>> So all you've done is kingmake in favor of
>> your predator,
>
>So? If I remain in the game as long as possible, when I have no hope of
>ousting anyone, I am playing "Kingmaker" in favor of my prey and against
>my predator? How is that any different?
You have no idea if you have any hope of ousting anyone. The most
amazing situational reversals have happened in the past - often as a
result of cards like Dramatic Upheaval. If your position blows, hang
in there and see if it changes, don't just suicide.
>> and by extension you are saying "anyone who ousts me
>> deserves to win."
>
>That may be an overextension, but I still don't understand your objection.
>Why do *you* feel that someone who ousts you does NOT deserve to win?
>Why should you make *special* efforts to prevent HIM from winning, as
>opposed to anyone else?
Why should you make special effort to ENSURE that he wins, as opposed
to anyone else? -- The converse of your statement is ALSO true. You
are expected, by the game's basic premise, to attempt to oust your
prey, and attempt to NOT be ousted by your predator. Picking one and
"going out" that way is generally acceptable. Transferring yourself
out is the mark of a fish.
>What is this "may have" nonsense? My thesis was that it is *sometimes*
>appropriate to use such tactics, not always. I provided my own example of
>when such tactics were appropriate, and it was not even remotely similar
>to the scenario you describe.
Your example was vague. If your prey spends all his time killing your
vampires, he MIGHT have a very good reason for doing so, such as that
he has no defense OTHER than killing them before they take bleed or
vote actions. Deciding to suicide out of spite is very fishy, though.
>But you still do not explain why I should want to "not screw" my prey for
>his "good play"? Why is this more appropriate than rewarding my predator
>for his good play? My task, as defined by the game, involves screwing my
>prey, not my predator. Why is my prey a less appropriate target for my
>wrath?
Your task involves OUSTING your prey. Handing him over to your
predator after you've turned him into a soggy cat toy is not ousting
your prey - it's playing kingmaker and giving 2 VPs to your predator.
>This is begging the question of whether or not my position is truly
>hopeless. If my position is not hopeless, then obviously that makes the
>tactics I advocate less appropriate.
Your position is never hopeless until you are at zero pool. This is
FACT, not opinion. People will do crazy shit, and you might well get
another shot at ousting your own prey when YOU know perfectly well
that you were tapped out without any Wakes - but your predator spent
all his time hunting instead of bleeding for 1.
>> But to flip your lid and transfer yourself out while Rushing
>> cross-table, just because someone passed an Ancilla Empowerment that
>> did 7 to their prey and 4 to you, incidentally putting you on 2 pool
>> and in danger of ousting? That's totally unwarranted, and I will be
>> one of the first to start throwing deliberate damage cross-table next
>> game to get the loose cannon off the deck.
>
>That's positively hilarious, Derek. You are obviously a far worse loose
>cannon than I have ever been (I am not regarded as one at all). By your
blah, blah, etcetera. I am providing ACTUAL examples, instead of
vague "what if that guy across the table hurt you??" examples. You,
too, may provide ACTUAL examples of when it might be appropriate to
screw with the table mechanics to your own detriment.
>own logic, everyone should start rushing YOU cross-table.
If someone performed the actions I described above, I would consider
it lame, childish, and spiteful in the utmost degree. I would also
take note of it, so that if I were ever going to take actions that
might cause me to be the target of lame, childish, and spiteful
revenge, that I would know to take those properly, in accordance with
Machiavelli's famous quotation.
(i believe the quote in question reads somewhat like: "a man will
revenge himself for small injustices. if you must commit an
injustice, ensure that you do it to such degree that no revenge is
possible.")
>Also, since my position is merely that such tactics are SOMETIMES
>appropriate, it would be far better to address the examples I presented
>than to come up with extreme examples of your own.
Then you should provide specific ones? Yours were quite vague.
Andrew S. Davidson
>Perhaps you would prefer that no player was ever allowed to interact
>with any other player? Should we all play V:TES wearing masks, or via a
>web based form, so that people can't work out who we are?
I usde to play lots of postal or email games such as Diplomacy and
Starweb. A common and popular format for these was to play them
anonymously. Players were only known to the organiser and could only
communicate publically or via a system of canned, standard messages.
If a World Championship for this game were to be held online then I
would indeed advocate that it be run anonymously in this way. As well
as reducing the possibility of collusion, it would also cut out secret
negotiation.
Playing face-to-face with masks would be quite amusing and appropriate
I feel. Still, I'm not sure what most of you look like anyway. And
is this the reason that "legbiter" is so careful to hide his real
name?
And note that top-level bridge tournaments require their players to
sit behind screens and bid with cards rather than by voice. They have
found that when games are played for high stakes then cheating is
commonplace. The World Series of Poker takes no such precautions and
is reputed to be dominated by a cartel of professional players who
routinely collude with each other to squeeze out the amateurs.
Andrew
legb...@my-deja.com
>
> Playing face-to-face with masks would be quite amusing and appropriate
> I feel. Still, I'm not sure what most of you look like anyway. And
> is this the reason that "legbiter" is so careful to hide his real
> name?
>
University of Portsmouth, and a fair number of people know what i
look like. There are even some pictures of me and other Pompey miscreants
on james Coupe's Web Site.
http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk/images/thumbpage.htm
i think we're just going to have to agree to differ about whether or not
sticking to a deal you've made, and expecting others to do the same, is
or isn't legal in VTES. However, i'm not saying your position isn't
logical, merely that it's absurd. In philosophy the reductio ad absurdum
is traditionally used to test the truth or falsity of one's starting
assumptions.
LSJ
> It's simple logic. LSJ tells us that the practical test or definition
> of collusion is "taking measures to increase another player's position
> in a way that her own position suffers". He further tells us that
> this is a hard rule - "Collusion is not allowed. There is no
> "in-character" allowance for any rules violation."
>
> The consequence is that if you have made a deal which turns out to put
> you in such a position then you must break it or be in breach of the
> rules.
?
No. Keeping your end of the deal is acceptable.
Making a losing deal in the first place would be a breach of the rules
however.
> For example, you might have promised your votes to someone as
> part of a deal but, if a referendum were to result in your immediate
> ousting with no offsetting benefit, then you must vote against
> regardless. Other examples may be less clear but the principle is
> that you should always be guided by self-interest - you are not
> allowed to put another player first.
You aren't putting the other player first - you're putting your
commitments first.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Deviant One
>> part of a deal but, if a referendum were to result in your immediate
>> ousting with no offsetting benefit, then you must vote against
>> regardless. Other examples may be less clear but the principle is
>> that you should always be guided by self-interest - you are not
>> allowed to put another player first.
>
>You aren't putting the other player first - you're putting your
>commitments first.
Actually, I would have to say that in that particular situation described
above, it would be foolish for anyone to expect someone to honor a deal that
will result in them being ousted from the game, and just as foolish for anyone
to honor a deal that would get them ousted.
Your word at honoring a deal is valuable, but it is a game where the object is
to win. No one should expect anyone to do anything that would force them to
lose, even if they did make a deal.
Eric Nawrotzki
Pontifex of New Jersey
"Live Now. Make Now the most precious time. Now will never come again."
James Coupe
>Starweb.
Real-life tournaments preclude this, utterly.
John Whelan
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Derek Ray wrote:
> >My position: It is sometimes appropriate to use certain tactics if you
> >have no chance of a victory point.
> >
> >Your version of my position: It is always appropriate to use those
> >tactics if someone takes a "small action" against you.
>
> No, of course not. You've misstated my position just as badly as you
> claim I've misstated yours.
I did not state *your* position at all. I complained about your
misrepresentation of my position, which you seem to have conceded.
> But if you're going to come cross-table
> at all, I AM forced to wonder just exactly what you consider being a
> just cause for use of those tactics - and I have to err on the side of
> caution, or I am being careless.
Call me clueless, but I am just not following your logic. How does me
coming across-table "at all" (which I presume means no matter the
circumstances) eventually lead you to the conclusion that you must
preemtively attack me (cross table, presumably) in the next game? If that
is not the conclusion you are heading for, then I cannot see the point of
anything you have said.
> If that player is likely to come attack me if I don't oust him,
What the hell makes you think he is likely to come after you? Because he
played a cross-table attack "at all" in a previous game?
> then I
> want him GONE before he gets a chance to act on those bright ideas.
What bright ideas? Why should the specific circumstances of a previous
game apply to this one?
> If he's not going to attack me, I'll probably ignore him - but it all
> depends on what I've seen a player do in the past. A player such as
> you has probably transferred himself out, screwed around, and
> basically played kingmaker frequently,
Actually, I can only recall using such tactics once in all the times I
have played (though there may have been other examples in distant
memory. The circumstances in which those tactics are appropriate are
extremely rare.
You are clearly allowing your imagination to run away with you to come up
with a negative portrait of me which goes far beyond being based on
anything I have said. May I ask why the hostility?
> and so I may not be inclined to
> let you have your way - I may just deny you your last set of actions
> you thought you'd be getting, and deal with the situation under MY
> terms instead of yours.
If you are talking about me, you clearly do not know what you are talking
about.
> >> HOWEVER, more likely than not, your ousting is directly relative to
> >> one player's actions - your predator's.
> >
> >Right, and I have already explained why trying to "punish" him for his
> >efforts, once your cause is clearly lost, is irrational in most cases.
>
> Your cause isn't lost until you are at zero pool, however.
Right, and a chess game isn't over until you are checkmated.
> Rolling over for him is fine for the animal kingdom, but doesn't cut
> it here with humans.
Oh how witty! Do you have any other clever over-generalizations to
substutute for rational argument?
> You gain no bonus for fishing out and going "Darn, he got me!
Who is asking for a "bonus"? I have already indicated why one might have
motives to end your game in a certain manner. Are these witticisms
supposed to substutute for a rebuttal?
> OK, here, predator, have a free ride, I transfer myself out -
> you can spend all your actions ousting your new prey, instead of
> taking the 3 'bleed-for-1' actions you would normally need to oust me
> next turn!"
Appart from the sarcasm, yes, that is essentially correct. I believe that
there can be circumstances when it can be appropriate to do that, and have
presented my reasons why. Do you believe that repeating my position in a
sarcastic manner is a substitute for rational argument?
> >Why should I care about screwing my grand-predator? Sure, if he actually
> >HAS done something to help me, however minor, then this is a serious
>
> Of course he has. He's been trying to oust your predator all game.
Right, and as I have already explained, that is worth neither reward nor
punishment because it is not an aspect of his behavior that I have the
power to influence. It is his task as defined by the rules, and I need
make no effort to persuade nor dissuade him, because such would be a
useless gesture. Predators *will* go after their prey. It is as
pointless to try to reward him as it is to try to punish my own
predator. Unless there is some special aspect of his behavior that is
designed to help me out and keep me in the game, there is no purpose in me
trying to reward his behavior with my final actions.
> >factor to consider. I might want to reward his efforts by staying in the
> >game as long as possible, to ensure that he does not regret making such
> >efforts in future games. Without such considerations, however, there is
> >no reason I should care whether he is screwed or not.
>
> "might" is an understatement here. As the grandpredator in question,
> if I see a rollover in progress, I will conserve my actions and defend
> myself against my own predator so that I can have more resources to
> smack the hell out of my prey after he gains 6 pool - I'm going to
> need them since my prey is basically getting a free ride.
?
> >> but without Eagle's Sight, often can't do much at
> >> all to really DEFEND you.
> >
> >Not knowing his cards, I have no idea what he can or cannot do. If he
>
> If you can't figure out what his deck does by the time you're ousted,
> you are in a world of hurt in this game.
<sigh>
> If he has superior Auspex, he might be able to reach forward and stop
> a crucial bleed. If he has lots of Potence, he might be able to make
> a bunch of your predator's vampires dead, increasing your chances of
> survival. But if all he has is some Animalism and Protean, and your
> predator does nothing but bleed you for 2 with every minion every
> turn, there probably isn't shit he can do to help you UNLESS you wall
> up and try to make your predator turn his attention to the right.
If there isn't shit he can do to help me, then there is absolutely no
reason I owe him any loyalty, now is there? What do you want me to do,
reward him for his good will? Now that really *would* smack of collusion.
If a dealer tells me he really wants to give me a car, but is just plain
out of stock, then I do not owe him $20,000 for his kind thoughts.
> >actually HAS done something to help me, then perhaps I should arrange my
> >ousting in a manner that rewards him. Otherwise, I owe him even less
> >consideration than I owe my predator. In my predators case, I have
> >absolutely no right to hope for aid no matter what he has in his hand.
>
> You owe your predator absolutely no consideration whatsoever.
Neither do I owe him any consideration of a negative sort, in almost all
cases. Unless I owe positive considerations to others at the table, there
is no reason to go out in a way that disfavors my predator.
> You cannot gain any VPs if you are ousted, so your first priority MUST
> be staying alive.
I cannot gain any VP's at all! That is the starting consideration for
the scenario under discussion. I'm sorry that you refuse to accept the
premise, because it means that I am discussing apples, and you are
discussing oranges.
> Rolling over fails this test miserably. I have seen
> DI's played cross-table on a bleed mod, just to maintain the existing
> table balance.
Would not have saved me. There was no hope for me (as the entire table
agreed when I defended my actions -- they had plenty of opportunity to
talk me out of it).
> The simple fact is, you do not KNOW what is going to
> happen, so you might as well try to LIVE and make something of your
> position, instead of just giving up.
I didn't just give up. I made the most of my position to screw the one
who had screwed me. And yes, I did "know" (for all practical
purposes) that there was no hope for me. Theoretically, all things are
possible, but some things are just too whoppingly improbably to base
behavior upon.
> >> So all you've done is kingmake in favor of
> >> your predator,
> >
> >So? If I remain in the game as long as possible, when I have no hope of
> >ousting anyone, I am playing "Kingmaker" in favor of my prey and against
> >my predator? How is that any different?
>
> You have no idea if you have any hope of ousting anyone. The most
> amazing situational reversals have happened in the past - often as a
> result of cards like Dramatic Upheaval. If your position blows, hang
> in there and see if it changes, don't just suicide.
Dude, there was no hope for me. I had no vampires on the table, because
my sole IC member had been stolen by my prey (BEFORE the minion tap) and I
had inadequate pool to bring anyone else out. My predator could do 6
bleed per turn without modifiers. I discussed the move before I did it,
and none of the other players offered me any hope. There was none to be
had. Dramatic upheaval would not have helped me.
> >> and by extension you are saying "anyone who ousts me
> >> deserves to win."
> >
> >That may be an overextension, but I still don't understand your objection.
> >Why do *you* feel that someone who ousts you does NOT deserve to win?
> >Why should you make *special* efforts to prevent HIM from winning, as
> >opposed to anyone else?
>
> Why should you make special effort to ENSURE that he wins, as opposed
> to anyone else? --
Derek, this is absurd! I have already stated why I might have reasons to
prevent someone else from winning.
> The converse of your statement is ALSO true.
No it isn't. Not in situation I am describing. The situation I am
describing is one where my statement is true and the converse of my
statement is false. That is how I defined the situation from the
beginning.
> You are expected, by the game's basic premise, to attempt to oust your
> prey,
More precisely, the purpose is to gain vicory points. We are discussing a
hopeless situation, in which gaining a victory point is no longer
possible.
> and attempt to NOT be ousted by your predator.
No. That is not the purpose of the game at all. In fact, if I could gain
a victory point by being ousted (and that was my best option) that is
precisely what I would do.
> Picking one and
> "going out" that way is generally acceptable. Transferring yourself
> out is the mark of a fish.
Appart from hurling insults at me, can you make any rational arguments why
I should not use such tactics in the defined circumstances?
> >What is this "may have" nonsense? My thesis was that it is *sometimes*
> >appropriate to use such tactics, not always. I provided my own example of
> >when such tactics were appropriate, and it was not even remotely similar
> >to the scenario you describe.
>
> Your example was vague. If your prey spends all his time killing your
> vampires, he MIGHT have a very good reason for doing so, such as that
> he has no defense OTHER than killing them before they take bleed or
> vote actions.
He certainly does have his reasons. IF those reasons are completely
overwhelming (as in that is his only way of pursuing a victory point),
then there is no point in showing him other reasons why he should not.
However, his reasons might not be so completely overwhelming. In such
cases it may be in my interest to behave in a manner that makes his
attacks on me less beneficial than they otherwise might have been.
> Deciding to suicide out of spite is very fishy, though.
Spite has absolutely nothing to do with it. I am merely trying to behave
in a manner that makes destroying me a less attractive option than it
might otherwise be. There is nothing personal about this at all.
> >But you still do not explain why I should want to "not screw" my prey for
> >his "good play"? Why is this more appropriate than rewarding my predator
> >for his good play? My task, as defined by the game, involves screwing my
> >prey, not my predator. Why is my prey a less appropriate target for my
> >wrath?
>
> Your task involves OUSTING your prey.
Oh. I'm sorry Derek. Did I forget to tell you that I was discussing a
lost position where there is no hope of ousting your prey? That must be
why you are so confused about all this.
> Handing him over to your
> predator after you've turned him into a soggy cat toy is not ousting
> your prey
Right, because that is no longer an option.
> - it's playing kingmaker and giving 2 VPs to your predator.
You got it, bub. Playing "kingmaker" was all I had left. What's the
problem?
> >This is begging the question of whether or not my position is truly
> >hopeless. If my position is not hopeless, then obviously that makes the
> >tactics I advocate less appropriate.
>
> Your position is never hopeless until you are at zero pool. This is
> FACT, not opinion.
And a chess position is never hopeless until you are checkmated
(theoretically). This is FACT, not opinion. But, for all practical
purposes, you do face hopeless positions. That is why chess-players
resign before checkmate, even in high stakes tournaments.
> People will do crazy shit,
True, and this is certainly a factor to consider before deciding if your
position is truly hopeless.
> and you might well get
> another shot at ousting your own prey when YOU know perfectly well
> that you were tapped out without any Wakes - but your predator spent
> all his time hunting instead of bleeding for 1.
Whatever.
> >> But to flip your lid and transfer yourself out while Rushing
> >> cross-table, just because someone passed an Ancilla Empowerment that
> >> did 7 to their prey and 4 to you, incidentally putting you on 2 pool
> >> and in danger of ousting? That's totally unwarranted, and I will be
> >> one of the first to start throwing deliberate damage cross-table next
> >> game to get the loose cannon off the deck.
> >
> >That's positively hilarious, Derek. You are obviously a far worse loose
> >cannon than I have ever been (I am not regarded as one at all). By your
>
> blah, blah, etcetera. I am providing ACTUAL examples, instead of
> vague "what if that guy across the table hurt you??" examples. You,
> too, may provide ACTUAL examples of when it might be appropriate to
> screw with the table mechanics to your own detriment.
I shouldn't need to provide actual examples. I have provided a set of not
impossible circumstances, which any number of examples might fit. I have
provided first one hypothetical example and now one real one, which are at
least as specific as those you provided. The examples you provided were
designed specifically NOT to meet the specifications I defined.
> >own logic, everyone should start rushing YOU cross-table.
>
> If someone performed the actions I described above, I would consider
> it lame, childish, and spiteful in the utmost degree.
Are you describing your actions or mine? Spite certainly had nothing to
do with the situations and examples I provided.
> I would also
> take note of it, so that if I were ever going to take actions that
> might cause me to be the target of lame, childish, and spiteful
> revenge, that I would know to take those properly, in accordance with
> Machiavelli's famous quotation.
>
> (i believe the quote in question reads somewhat like: "a man will
> revenge himself for small injustices. if you must commit an
> injustice, ensure that you do it to such degree that no revenge is
> possible.")
I don't see the applicability.
> >Also, since my position is merely that such tactics are SOMETIMES
> >appropriate, it would be far better to address the examples I presented
> >than to come up with extreme examples of your own.
>
> Then you should provide specific ones? Yours were quite vague.
See below for a specific one.
However, the circumstances were clearly defined. With a good will, you
ought to be able to come up with your own hypothetical examples that fit
the criteria.
-- No hope of victory point
-- No special "grievance" (as defined) against predator.
-- Special "grievance" agains Prey or someone else at table.
OK. Here's a specific example for you. This is the only time that I can
recall using such tacitics.
I am playing a obfuscate political deck using large vampires. 4 IC
members are in the crypt, and I have the misfortune to draw all of them.
The plan of the deck is to do backbleeds with night-moves followed by
spying mission, then dramatic upheaval and oust my former predator with a
single stealth bleed that burns all the spying missions if not deflected.
The idea behind the deck is that you get your grand-predator to do most of
the work for you. Thus, I was leaving my prey alone entirely -- even my
deflections were directed to my grand-predator.
I start by bringing out Leandro. My predator was a fast bleeder, but I
had hopes of keeping him at bay with the minion tap in my hand, as well as
some deflections and also had the dramatic upheaval ready to go (with good
chances of passing it). Had I pulled it off, I would have ousted him
rather than the other way round.
However, my prey is playing a dominate gangrel deck, whose plan it is to
torporize other vampires, and then grave rob them. Even though I am
leaving him alone entirely, he decides to target Leandro. My combat
defenses fail under multiple presses, and he grave robs Leandro with 11
pool still on him, as well a a spying mission directed at my predator. A
minion tap that I was planning to use next round sits useless in my hand.
This totally dooms me. No hope at all.
By the time my predator has finished bleeeding my defenseless ass, I have
5 pool left, and 5 blood on the next IC member. I have no hope of
bringing out another vampire. If I had wanted to sit there and just act
as a buffer for the player who just totally screwed me, I could have
transfered 2 pool back, and delayed my predator for another
round. Instead, I chose to put all 4 transfers on my next IC member,
leaving myself at one pool.
In this way, I sought to help show my prey that he had gone perhaps a bit
too far. In his greed to obtain a juicy prize like Leandro, he had in
fact replaced a benign predator for one that was far more
dangerous. Having nothing else to do, I facilitated the situation to
emphasize the point. I discussed the situation with other players before
making the move, and they agreed that my position was hopeless.
I bore no spite against him whatseover. His attack on Leandro was by no
means personal towards me -- its just that Leandro was such a tempting
target. Neither were my measures against him personal. I merely wished
to minimize the profit gained by those who screw with me. The idea is
that others are less likely to screw with me when they have other options
available, if my behavior makes such activity less profitable.
-- John Whelan
Derek Ray
up next time in my unread messages to remind me to respond to your
previous message with a REAL message, instead of a bookmark, when I
have the time to properly address it - which isn't right now, as I am
already supposed to be somewhere else. =)
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:21:52 -0400, John Whelan
<jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
(stuff)
Nystulc
(Deviant One) writes:
>>You aren't putting the other player first - you're putting your
>>commitments first.
>
>Actually, I would have to say that in that particular situation described
>above, it would be foolish for anyone to expect someone to honor a deal that
>will result in them being ousted from the game, and just as foolish for
>anyone to honor a deal that would get them ousted.
Call me a fool then, because I always honor my deals. Once my foolishness is
clearly established to other players, then it will no longer be foolish for
other players to expect me to foolishly
honor my deals. In my foolishness, I expect this to work to my advantage and
enhance my negotiating options.
>Your word at honoring a deal is valuable, but it is a game where the object is
>to win. No one should expect anyone to do anything that would force them to
>lose, even if they did make a deal.
No-one should expect that, no ... unless, of course, the expectation is
justified in light of the habitual behavior of a particular player. This works
to that particular player's advantage, because he/she has negotiating options
not available to others.
-- John Whelan
Andrew S. Davidson
>No. Keeping your end of the deal is acceptable.
>
>Making a losing deal in the first place would be a breach
>of the rules however.
Hark, I hear the sound of galloping hooves. Apart from specific card
effects such as Succubus Club, the rules don't define any such thing
as a deal, losing or otherwise. How is one supposed to recognise when
a deal is being done? And having determined that a deal is being
enacted, how is one supposed to decide whether it is losing or not?
This doesn't seem practical.
As a fr'instance, supposing a player in a game recognises a kindred
spirit and mutters sotto voce, "you wanna ally?". The other player
likes the look of his reputation and, not wanting to attract too much
attention, merely nods. They then work together and, as things turn
out, one player decides that the best plan is for him to throw the
game to his ally. A protest is made that they are colluding but they
say they made a deal. What happens next?
Note, by the way, that my example is not fanciful. There are players
in my playgroup who are able to make a deal with a significant glance.
They are also prone to dramatic gestures when piqued and I have
already had cause to have words with one of them on this subject.
Peer pressure has always been enough to settle such matters in the
past but, when officiating in one of our regular tournaments, I would
have little hesitation in striking down an overt attempt to throw the
game for whatever reason.
>You aren't putting the other player first - you're putting your
>commitments first.
Again, we have no way to recognise such thing as a commitment.
Actions speak louder than words and so it should be a case of "by
their fruits, ye shall know them". If a player takes an action which
will result in a loss then clearly he is no longer playing to win,
he's playing to lose. I call this unsporting, not say cheating, and
it shouldn't be allowed.
Andrew
David Pontes
> >> For example, you might have promised your votes to someone as
> >> part of a deal but, if a referendum were to result in your immediate
> >> ousting with no offsetting benefit, then you must vote against
> >> regardless. Other examples may be less clear but the principle is
> >> that you should always be guided by self-interest - you are not
> >> allowed to put another player first.
> >
> >You aren't putting the other player first - you're putting your
> >commitments first.
>
> Actually, I would have to say that in that particular situation described
> above, it would be foolish for anyone to expect someone to honor a deal that
> will result in them being ousted from the game, and just as foolish for anyone
> to honor a deal that would get them ousted.
>
Not by the current rules. It's now perfectly acceptable if, when
the game goes down to 1 vs 1, one of them decides to withdraw. It seems
I'm the only one to disapprove this, since apparently this is done in
virtually every duelling game and isn't given any sanction. I personally
think it stinks.
> Your word at honoring a deal is valuable, but it is a game where the object is
> to win. No one should expect anyone to do anything that would force them to
> lose, even if they did make a deal.
>
I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. But imagine Legbiter's
situation where he is stronger his other two opponents, and they decide to
gang up on him. His predator (in this case Sarah, James' lovely wife) his
eager for this, since she's got every reason to oust him. But his prey
(Michael, in this case) should only agree on this deal as long as
James (Legbiter) isn't actually ousted, if possible. Sometimes it isn't
possible to reduce a predator's effectiveness to harmless level, and one
must agree to actually oust him from the game. This might seal Michael's
fate, since now his mother has 6 more pool, but at least there's a chance
that he might fare better against her deck than his dad's.
But how do you separate this event from the actual collusion? How
can you identify the two players who gang up on a third with collusion in
mind? IMO, the answer is 'play to win'. If in any event it can be argued
that said player is acting against his interest to win, then another can
bring the judge's attention and he should check for collusion. In the
event of the final 1on1 it's more difficult, but this can be achieved if
one of the ousted players stays and watches the game.
Does this seem too fascist? :) Opinions are welcome.
David Pontes
David Pontes
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:18:43 -0400, LSJ wrote:
>
> >No. Keeping your end of the deal is acceptable.
> >
> >Making a losing deal in the first place would be a breach
> >of the rules however.
>
> How is one supposed to recognise when
> a deal is being done? And having determined that a deal is being
> enacted, how is one supposed to decide whether it is losing or not?
> This doesn't seem practical.
>
It's not, and it's entirely subjective. The judge is naturally
bound to intervene blatant attempts only, and any resourceful player is
able to make something up on the spot so he can get away with it. But if
all the players are aware of this rule, that prevents most collusive deals
from happening since people are aware of the problem. Newbies are screwed,
of course, but they always are, let's face it.
> As a fr'instance, supposing a player in a game recognises a kindred
> spirit and mutters sotto voce, "you wanna ally?". The other player
> likes the look of his reputation and, not wanting to attract too much
> attention, merely nods. They then work together and, as things turn
> out, one player decides that the best plan is for him to throw the
> game to his ally. A protest is made that they are colluding but they
> say they made a deal. What happens next?
>
This is why you're bound by VEKN rules to "make deals in a fashion
that is clear and visible to all players and in a language an manner that
leaves no doubts as to the nature of the deal". Where does it say that? It
doesn't. Apparently it was left out. From talks with LSJ, this was
supposed to be in the VEKN rules and are due to be present on the next
revision. I'd appreciate if LSJ confirmed this, so I wont't look silly
right now :)
This serves to defend you from collusion in foreign coutries, BTW.
> Again, we have no way to recognise such thing as a commitment.
> Actions speak louder than words and so it should be a case of "by
> their fruits, ye shall know them". If a player takes an action which
> will result in a loss then clearly he is no longer playing to win,
> he's playing to lose. I call this unsporting, not say cheating, and
> it shouldn't be allowed.
>
Again, all we should enforce is the 'play to win' attitude.
Unfortunately not all people share this ideal, and things like 'I said I
wouldn't bleed him this turn and just because I have Revelations in play
and knowing that he can't wake or deflect is no reason I should oust him
and break the deal' are going to take place as often as people want. Is
that bad? Maybe. Is the opposite good (ruling on every deal)? That's the
question.
David Pontes
John Whelan
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Dan Howell wrote:
> > But to flip your lid and transfer yourself out while Rushing
> > cross-table, just because someone passed an Ancilla Empowerment that
> > did 7 to their prey and 4 to you, incidentally putting you on 2 pool
> > and in danger of ousting? That's totally unwarranted, and I will be
> > one of the first to start throwing deliberate damage cross-table next
> > game to get the loose cannon off the deck.
>
> I had to re-read John's post before I was sure he'd actually said this.
> But he did, <snip>
Ahem. What? Quote please!
I believe your memory is faulty if you think Derek's example resembles
anything I said. I never mentioned Ancilla Empowerment. In Derek's
example, it is clear that the behavior of the AE caller is simply part of
his deck's strategy for ousting his prey, and any damage to others at the
table is incidental. In this situation, attempting to punish the AE
caller for his actions is every bit as pointless as trying (in a no-hope
situation) to punish my predator for having tried to oust me. Such
retaliations are directly contrary to the principles of retaliation that I
outlined. Retaliation is ineffective unless you are addressing a
situation where the offender might reasonably have been expected to behave
otherwise. Demanding that someone not play the cards his deck was
designed to play, just because the results don't work to my benefit, is
silly.
Also, I do not recall every mentioning transferring myself out in the
aftermath of a cross-table attack. Any mention I made of transferring
myself out was in connection with retaliatory measures against my prey,
not against someone cross-table. If my prey targets me to an excessive
and unwise extent, and costs me all hope in the process, I merely act to
emphasize what may in fact be already true: that by destroying me, he has
merely replaced me with a stronger predator. Of course, if the situation
is such that my prey could not reasonably have acted otherwise, then there
is no point in taking such measures. (All of this, once again, only
applies to no-hope scenarios).
-- John Whelan
Derek Ray
wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 09:18:43 -0400, LSJ wrote:
>
>>No. Keeping your end of the deal is acceptable.
>>
>>Making a losing deal in the first place would be a breach
>>of the rules however.
>
>As a fr'instance, supposing a player in a game recognises a kindred
>spirit and mutters sotto voce, "you wanna ally?". The other player
>likes the look of his reputation and, not wanting to attract too much
>attention, merely nods. They then work together and, as things turn
This amuses me, since such a general "deal" is in neither player's
best interests at all. But two people working together at a dumb deal
is still permitted.
>out, one player decides that the best plan is for him to throw the
>game to his ally. A protest is made that they are colluding but they
>say they made a deal. What happens next?
>Note, by the way, that my example is not fanciful. There are players
>in my playgroup who are able to make a deal with a significant glance.
Not in V:TES they wouldn't be able to. How do you convey "get my guy
out of torpor and i'll Rush your predator's vampire" with a glance?
Answer... you don't. Also, anyone agreeing to a vague, non-specific
deals in V:TES such as "you wanna ally?" is being foolish - I would
not hesitate to break such a deal whenever it was good for me, and I
would take advantage of it as long as I could. Essentially, you have
no deal in this case - so yes, if someone decided to throw the game to
his 'ally', I would penalize the "thrower". (the "throwee" has
committed a successful con job, and doesn't deserve a penalty, since
everything was arranged in-game.)
>They are also prone to dramatic gestures when piqued and I have
>already had cause to have words with one of them on this subject.
>Peer pressure has always been enough to settle such matters in the
>past but, when officiating in one of our regular tournaments, I would
>have little hesitation in striking down an overt attempt to throw the
>game for whatever reason.
And it wouldn't be much of a problem in this instance either.
>>You aren't putting the other player first - you're putting your
>>commitments first.
>
>Again, we have no way to recognise such thing as a commitment.
"I'll rescue your vampire from torpor if one of your vampires Rushes
my prey's bleed-bouncer next turn" is a commitment. Someone holding
to that commitment should not be penalized, even if it would take his
only untapped vampire and would result in his own predator probably
ousting him.
"You wanna ally?" ... "Yes" is not a commitment.
>Actions speak louder than words and so it should be a case of "by
>their fruits, ye shall know them". If a player takes an action which
>will result in a loss then clearly he is no longer playing to win,
>he's playing to lose. I call this unsporting, not say cheating, and
>it shouldn't be allowed.
I would be personally astonished if anyone actually held up their end
of a deal when it would result in their personal oust, UNLESS they
also gained a VP from it themselves.
Assume this situation: you are playing a Toreador vote deck. your
prey has a weenie horde. Your grandprey has a Gangrel untap-and-block
monster. your grand-predator has a donal/constanza/don cruez Brujah
vote-and-pummel deck. Earlier, you and your grand-predator made a
deal that unless you supported ALL his votes, that he was going to
torporize/diablerize enough of your voting minions right then, so that
he wouldn't have to WORRY about it. This is a good deal for both of
you to make, considering your seating position, right? OK, so this
deal is in force, and your grand-predator ousts your predator. Now he
attempts to call an Ancilla Empowerment that will oust you, AND will
also oust your prey. Do you keep the deal and vote with him?
In this instance, I would not blame you for either keeping the deal
(you do gain a VP, after all), or for breaking the deal - the one
instance in which I won't blame someone for breaking a specific deal.
If your prey WEREN'T going to be ousted, I would be very surprised if
you kept the deal, but to some people honor is more important. At
least in this instance, it is a specific deal and the terms can be
quoted - so I would not penalize the player, but I would point out to
him that MOST people will not be surprised if the deal suddenly gets
broken.
(In your position, I would have added to the terms "i'll support all
your votes as long as no damage comes my way", giving myself an "out"
of the deal in both above examples.)
Derek Ray
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:21:52 -0400, John Whelan
<jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Derek Ray wrote:
>
>> No, of course not. You've misstated my position just as badly as you
>> claim I've misstated yours.
>
>I did not state *your* position at all. I complained about your
>misrepresentation of my position, which you seem to have conceded.
note above phrase "as you CLAIM i've misstated yours." I concede
nothing.
Frankly and IMO, you appear to be backpedaling furiously in the face
of counterexamples. I could go back to your message and quote the
relevant bits, but it's really not that important - what's being said
in THIS message is much clearer and easier to work with.
>> But if you're going to come cross-table
>> at all, I AM forced to wonder just exactly what you consider being a
>> just cause for use of those tactics - and I have to err on the side of
>> caution, or I am being careless.
>
>Call me clueless, but I am just not following your logic. How does me
>coming across-table "at all" (which I presume means no matter the
>circumstances) eventually lead you to the conclusion that you must
>preemtively attack me (cross table, presumably) in the next game? If that
>is not the conclusion you are heading for, then I cannot see the point of
>anything you have said.
See below.
>> If that player is likely to come attack me if I don't oust him,
>
>What the hell makes you think he is likely to come after you? Because he
>played a cross-table attack "at all" in a previous game?
Well, I would certainly be WORRIED that he might come after me if he
went cross-table for no reason in a previous game. All of my examples
assume that I've played several games with the person and have SOME
idea what he plays like. A person whom I've never seen play before I
will ignore and totally deal with in-game on the basis of their
in-game actions. But I will remember what their decision-making
process is like, so that in future games I can have some warning.
>> then I
>> want him GONE before he gets a chance to act on those bright ideas.
>
>What bright ideas? Why should the specific circumstances of a previous
>game apply to this one?
Because I'm not a moron? Someone who performed an unwarranted
cross-table action in the previous game is just as likely to perform
one in this game. I doubt I'd ever strike out on turn 1 bashing into
him, but it's very situational.
If I am playing a Tremere vote deck and calling Con. Boons, and my
grandprey happens to be Tremere, and you happen to be HIS prey and be
having a hard go of things as a result... I would begin to worry that
you might come across and start potting my voters. Does it help you?
Yes, to a very small degree. Is it the best play? Absolutely not,
and that's what would worry me - someone who cannot judge the REAL
cause of his problems and will take irrational actions. With any
luck, I'd have some warning (via grumbling, a failed Rush action, or
whatever) that you were actually going to DO something, so I could
start smacking you down ahead of time. But yes, I will keep in mind
what people have done in the past. To do otherwise would be folly.
>> If he's not going to attack me, I'll probably ignore him - but it all
>> depends on what I've seen a player do in the past. A player such as
>> you has probably transferred himself out, screwed around, and
>> basically played kingmaker frequently,
>
>Actually, I can only recall using such tactics once in all the times I
>have played (though there may have been other examples in distant
>memory. The circumstances in which those tactics are appropriate are
>extremely rare.
But didn't you say before that these tactics were appropriate? Only
once in your entire career tends to show otherwise, doesn't it? And
now you're saying the circumstances are extremely rare. Hmmm.
>You are clearly allowing your imagination to run away with you to come up
>with a negative portrait of me which goes far beyond being based on
>anything I have said. May I ask why the hostility?
"A player such as you", in other words referring to a fictional player
who I *have* played multiple games with and would therefore be able to
KNOW this sort of stuff about. I use you as a basis to build that
character upon based on what you are advocating.
>> >> HOWEVER, more likely than not, your ousting is directly relative to
>> >> one player's actions - your predator's.
>> >
>> >Right, and I have already explained why trying to "punish" him for his
>> >efforts, once your cause is clearly lost, is irrational in most cases.
>>
>> Your cause isn't lost until you are at zero pool, however.
>
>Right, and a chess game isn't over until you are checkmated.
There is no luck in chess, and nobody else is able to step in and save
you. It is you v. him. In V:TES, it is quite different. 2 other
players have something to gain from you remaining at the table - your
grandpredator, who doesn't want his prey to gain 6 pool, and your
grandprey, who wants you to live and put pressure on HIS predator.
Possibly your prey as well, who might rather have you alive than your
predator. (I've "saved" predators before.)
Your analogy is flawed and therefore not relevant.
>> Rolling over for him is fine for the animal kingdom, but doesn't cut
>> it here with humans.
>
>Oh how witty! Do you have any other clever over-generalizations to
>substutute for rational argument?
Humor puts things in perspective. Here, you clearly needed some,
since you were missing out on the big picture.
>> You gain no bonus for fishing out and going "Darn, he got me!
>
>Who is asking for a "bonus"? I have already indicated why one might have
>motives to end your game in a certain manner. Are these witticisms
>supposed to substutute for a rebuttal?
la, la, la, la. Of course, I notice that you don't read the whole
thing and gain the perspective, resulting in your answer below.
>> OK, here, predator, have a free ride, I transfer myself out -
>> you can spend all your actions ousting your new prey, instead of
>> taking the 3 'bleed-for-1' actions you would normally need to oust me
>> next turn!"
>
>Appart from the sarcasm, yes, that is essentially correct. I believe that
>there can be circumstances when it can be appropriate to do that, and have
>presented my reasons why. Do you believe that repeating my position in a
>sarcastic manner is a substitute for rational argument?
Well, it's SUPPOSED to show you how dumb your position looks when it's
restated from another point of view. I guess that is asking too much
insight from you. Kingmaking is generally viewed as "bad" in any
multiplayer game, and that's what you're doing in the example above -
because of your "roll over" action, you screw up your prey and your
grand-predator sharply. Specifically, you screw your grand-predator
BADLY, who could possibly have ousted your predator before you HANDED
HIM SIX EXTRA POOL ON YOUR TURN. Would it have mattered to you? No.
Did it fuck up the table dynamic? YES. Is it unsportsmanlike? YES.
>> >Why should I care about screwing my grand-predator? Sure, if he actually
>> >HAS done something to help me, however minor, then this is a serious
>>
>> Of course he has. He's been trying to oust your predator all game.
>
>Right, and as I have already explained, that is worth neither reward nor
>punishment because it is not an aspect of his behavior that I have the
>power to influence. It is his task as defined by the rules, and I need
>make no effort to persuade nor dissuade him, because such would be a
>useless gesture. Predators *will* go after their prey. It is as
A grandpredator with a Rush deck has two options: Rush vampires, or
bleed for 1 (or more, possibly). If you are about to die, you ought
to turn around and persuade him that Rushing vampires would be more
beneficial to him than bleeding for 4, even if your predator is only
at 6 pool, because if your predator has no vampires, he cannot oust
you and your grandpredator can bleed him for 4 NEXT turn just as
easily. However, if he bleeds for 4 and your predator ousts you, it
is a net loss to your grandpredator of 2 points of forward progress.
Most grandpredators will realize this. Some need to have it pointed
out to them.
>pointless to try to reward him as it is to try to punish my own
>predator. Unless there is some special aspect of his behavior that is
>designed to help me out and keep me in the game, there is no purpose in me
>trying to reward his behavior with my final actions.
Nobody is suggesting that you "reward" him - but just that you not
SCREW him.
>> "might" is an understatement here. As the grandpredator in question,
>> if I see a rollover in progress, I will conserve my actions and defend
>> myself against my own predator so that I can have more resources to
>> smack the hell out of my prey after he gains 6 pool - I'm going to
>> need them since my prey is basically getting a free ride.
>
>?
If you, my grandprey, are just going to curl up and die, then I will
not expend finite resources such as my Anarch Troublemaker, Alacrity
cards, etc. in an attempt to put my prey on the edge when he's just
going to get 6 pool back quickly. I will wait until you are out, and
THEN I will begin expending those resources. In the meantime, it just
serves to put my prey into "panic defense" mode quicker than it
normally would.
Stated otherwise: Assume I can do 7 points of pool damage to my prey,
and you are about to oust yourself. If my prey has 8 pool and gains
6, he will likely transfer out a new minion. Excellent! My 7 pool
will bring him down to 2 or 3, then, and I will have good, solid
forward pressure for awhile. If, however, I wind up and pound hell
out of him for 7, and he then gains 6, he will NOT try to get a new
minion out, and will probably just sit on that pool as a buffer. Bad
play on my part - now I have expended my finite resources to make
almost no progress.
>> If he has superior Auspex, he might be able to reach forward and stop
>> a crucial bleed. If he has lots of Potence, he might be able to make
>> a bunch of your predator's vampires dead, increasing your chances of
>> survival. But if all he has is some Animalism and Protean, and your
>> predator does nothing but bleed you for 2 with every minion every
>> turn, there probably isn't shit he can do to help you UNLESS you wall
>> up and try to make your predator turn his attention to the right.
>
>If there isn't shit he can do to help me, then there is absolutely no
>reason I owe him any loyalty, now is there? What do you want me to do,
>reward him for his good will? Now that really *would* smack of collusion.
Wall up a little bit and make him take other actions. Animalism has
intercept, but it can't stop bleeds that aren't directed at IT. If
you let your predator do nothing but bleed you over and over, an
ANI/PRO deck is forced to just sit there and watch. If your predator
has to take a couple hunt actions, or a couple equip actions, though,
the guy with Animalism might cough up a Raven Spy or Cat's Guidance...
and then use that Protean to put a vampire in torpor. See how you can
help yourself by just trying to stay alive?
>> You owe your predator absolutely no consideration whatsoever.
>
>Neither do I owe him any consideration of a negative sort, in almost all
>cases. Unless I owe positive considerations to others at the table, there
>is no reason to go out in a way that disfavors my predator.
There is no reason to go out in a way that FAVORS your predator,
either. Again, the converse of your argument is ALSO true.
>> You cannot gain any VPs if you are ousted, so your first priority MUST
>> be staying alive.
>
>I cannot gain any VP's at all! That is the starting consideration for
>the scenario under discussion. I'm sorry that you refuse to accept the
>premise, because it means that I am discussing apples, and you are
>discussing oranges.
Your starting consideration is so rare as to be an incredibly odd
case. Since you have finally posted your example below, I can see
that yes, you are screwed and can gain no VPs in that game. But it is
VERY, VERY RARE to be in this position, which is something you appear
to fail to understand yourself. You ALWAYS have some potential to
come back as long as you have one vampire on the table and some pool.
>> The simple fact is, you do not KNOW what is going to
>> happen, so you might as well try to LIVE and make something of your
>> position, instead of just giving up.
>
>I didn't just give up. I made the most of my position to screw the one
>who had screwed me. And yes, I did "know" (for all practical
I will address THIS statement further down, now that you have posted a
concrete example. Suffice it to say, you were screwed, but your own
actions were nothing but spite.
>> You have no idea if you have any hope of ousting anyone. The most
>> amazing situational reversals have happened in the past - often as a
>> result of cards like Dramatic Upheaval. If your position blows, hang
>> in there and see if it changes, don't just suicide.
>
>Dude, there was no hope for me. I had no vampires on the table, because
>my sole IC member had been stolen by my prey (BEFORE the minion tap) and I
>had inadequate pool to bring anyone else out. My predator could do 6
>bleed per turn without modifiers. I discussed the move before I did it,
>and none of the other players offered me any hope. There was none to be
>had. Dramatic upheaval would not have helped me.
Ah... the story begins to come out! See how much easier it is when
you post concrete examples in the first place? Without those, I am
forced to deal with the usual situation in a game, which is a position
that looks totally hopeless but is potentially salvageable with a
little luck.
>> Why should you make special effort to ENSURE that he wins, as opposed
>> to anyone else? --
>
>Derek, this is absurd! I have already stated why I might have reasons to
>prevent someone else from winning.
IN THE ABSENCE OF EXAMPLES, I MUST USE GENERALITIES. Why can't you
understand that? You didn't post the situation, so I either have to
create my own examples, or try to guess yours, or deal with
non-specifics.
>> The converse of your statement is ALSO true.
>
>No it isn't. Not in situation I am describing. The situation I am
>describing is one where my statement is true and the converse of my
>statement is false. That is how I defined the situation from the
>beginning.
Actually, the converse of your statement is STILL true in the
situation you are describing - you were just feeling angry and
spiteful. See below.
>> You are expected, by the game's basic premise, to attempt to oust your
>> prey,
>
>More precisely, the purpose is to gain vicory points. We are discussing a
And ousting your prey is the first step in that process.
>> and attempt to NOT be ousted by your predator.
>
>No. That is not the purpose of the game at all. In fact, if I could gain
>a victory point by being ousted (and that was my best option) that is
>precisely what I would do.
The example you state (gaining a VP while being ousted) is extremely
rare and can only be pulled off by a few votes. It will not happen
often, and I have not personally seen it happen in many, many months.
I will stand by my accurate statement that yes, you are intended to
attempt to not be ousted by your predator. If you notice, I ordered
those statements very carefully - first, oust prey. second, don't get
ousted. If you can't do #1 on your turn, you had better do #2.
>Appart from hurling insults at me, can you make any rational arguments why
>I should not use such tactics in the defined circumstances?
Now that you have FULLY DEFINED the circumstances, yes, I can. See
below.
>> Your example was vague. If your prey spends all his time killing your
>> vampires, he MIGHT have a very good reason for doing so, such as that
>> he has no defense OTHER than killing them before they take bleed or
>> vote actions.
>
>He certainly does have his reasons. IF those reasons are completely
>overwhelming (as in that is his only way of pursuing a victory point),
>then there is no point in showing him other reasons why he should not.
"only" is not an appropriate word here and should be removed from the
sentence. anyone should be free to gain VPs in any manner they can
manage, and I'll NEVER rule against anyone who is taking actions that
will gain them VPs.
>However, his reasons might not be so completely overwhelming. In such
>cases it may be in my interest to behave in a manner that makes his
>attacks on me less beneficial than they otherwise might have been.
Spite. Also, "locking the barn door after the horse is gone."
Threats such as "if you do X, i'll transfer myself out" are spite,
pure and simple. It is a poor way to apply pressure to someone, and
it is one that I will generally completely and totally ignore - if you
can't come up with good reasons, please don't proffer bad ones.
>> Deciding to suicide out of spite is very fishy, though.
>
>Spite has absolutely nothing to do with it. I am merely trying to behave
>in a manner that makes destroying me a less attractive option than it
>might otherwise be. There is nothing personal about this at all.
Spite doesn't have to be personal.
>> - it's playing kingmaker and giving 2 VPs to your predator.
>
>You got it, bub. Playing "kingmaker" was all I had left. What's the
>problem?
If you don't see the problems with playing kingmaker, I don't ever
want to play in a game with you. Kingmaking is generally considered
one of the biggest problems in multiplayer games where players can all
affect each other, and as such is normally avoided like the plague by
most people.
>> Your position is never hopeless until you are at zero pool. This is
>> FACT, not opinion.
>
>And a chess position is never hopeless until you are checkmated
>(theoretically). This is FACT, not opinion. But, for all practical
>purposes, you do face hopeless positions. That is why chess-players
>resign before checkmate, even in high stakes tournaments.
This is because there is NO luck in chess, and because nobody else can
come out of the woods and save you. If you know your opponent has the
knowledge to make all the correct moves and mate you, you have no
reason to assume that he will make a stupid move and NOT mate you.
Again, this analogy is not appropriate.
>> People will do crazy shit,
>
>True, and this is certainly a factor to consider before deciding if your
>position is truly hopeless.
>
>> and you might well get
>> another shot at ousting your own prey when YOU know perfectly well
>> that you were tapped out without any Wakes - but your predator spent
>> all his time hunting instead of bleeding for 1.
>
>Whatever.
*snort* I've conned someone into doing that before. I had two pool,
a tapped-out Gangrel combat deck, and he had two vampires. I told him
"I can't let you bleed me at all anymore. The first vampire you send
over here is going to torpor." Since I had been showing plenty of
Guard Dogs previously, he believed me - although my hand was
completely pants at the time with two claws, a maneuver, and four
Master cards.
You may say "whatever", but you shouldn't scoff. A little fast talk
can work wonders. So can a little intimidation.
>> blah, blah, etcetera. I am providing ACTUAL examples, instead of
>> vague "what if that guy across the table hurt you??" examples. You,
>> too, may provide ACTUAL examples of when it might be appropriate to
>> screw with the table mechanics to your own detriment.
>
>I shouldn't need to provide actual examples. I have provided a set of not
>impossible circumstances, which any number of examples might fit. I have
You have provided a set of extremely rare circumstances, which only a
very few specific examples might fit. Saying "i shouldn't need to
provide actual examples" is just silly.
>provided first one hypothetical example and now one real one, which are at
>least as specific as those you provided. The examples you provided were
>designed specifically NOT to meet the specifications I defined.
It isn't difficult to not meet your specs. Far fewer games are
hopeless than you think, which is what I keep trying to point out to
you.
>> I would also
>> take note of it, so that if I were ever going to take actions that
>> might cause me to be the target of lame, childish, and spiteful
>> revenge, that I would know to take those properly, in accordance with
>> Machiavelli's famous quotation.
>>
>> (i believe the quote in question reads somewhat like: "a man will
>> revenge himself for small injustices. if you must commit an
>> injustice, ensure that you do it to such degree that no revenge is
>> possible.")
>
>I don't see the applicability.
If I am looking at a Domain Challenge in my hand and no additional
damage votes, and my prey has 3 tapped vampires and 4 pool, and you
are cross-table with your tapped-out Rush deck, this is a small
injustice to you. What I do on my turn is directly going to relate to
how crazy you are likely to be, and whether I think I'll draw up
another damage vote. If I think you're going to be crazy and come
after me cross-table, then if I draw up a KRC, I can assure you that
the 3 extra is going to come YOUR way, so hopefully your predator will
get rid of you and I won't have to deal with a Rush. Or if I don't
draw up a KRC until the end of my turn, and you *DO* Rush me on your
turn, then it'll definitely land on you as well. Revenge-oriented
players are something to either step cautiously around, or to step
heavily on.
>OK. Here's a specific example for you. This is the only time that I can
>recall using such tacitics.
>
>I am playing a obfuscate political deck using large vampires. 4 IC
>members are in the crypt, and I have the misfortune to draw all of them.
>The plan of the deck is to do backbleeds with night-moves followed by
>spying mission, then dramatic upheaval and oust my former predator with a
>single stealth bleed that burns all the spying missions if not deflected.
OK, this is a problem already - you can't stack Spying Missions, and
you MUST burn the Spying Mission on the "next" bleed. When you do the
second Night Moves, the first Spying Mission is burned, and due to
card text on Night Moves ("If more than 1 pool is bled with this
action, ignore the excess"), the bleed is still for only 1. You can
play Dominate modifiers on a Night Moves bleed, and the bleed will
still be for only 1. So you can never have more than one Spying
Mission in play for any given vampire/Methuselah combination. If you
have three vampires, they can all have a Spying Mission out on a
Methuselah, but they will all have to take bleed actions to make use
of all the SMs.
This is a side issue, but still, it needed to be pointed out.
>The idea behind the deck is that you get your grand-predator to do most of
>the work for you. Thus, I was leaving my prey alone entirely -- even my
>deflections were directed to my grand-predator.
Which will make him VERY disinclined to do any work for you. Faced
with a grandprey bouncing bleeds to me, I would leave my OWN prey
alone completely in hopes of getting rid of the strange player taking
random actions.
Your bounces should still go to your prey, because after you swap with
your predator and oust him, your prey will be... your prey! How
logical.
>I start by bringing out Leandro. My predator was a fast bleeder, but I
>had hopes of keeping him at bay with the minion tap in my hand, as well as
>some deflections and also had the dramatic upheaval ready to go (with good
>chances of passing it). Had I pulled it off, I would have ousted him
>rather than the other way round.
No, per card text on Night Moves, but go on.
>However, my prey is playing a dominate gangrel deck, whose plan it is to
>torporize other vampires, and then grave rob them. Even though I am
>leaving him alone entirely, he decides to target Leandro. My combat
Leandro automatically affects your prey, by his special ability and
his very existence. And early in the game, Leandro's special is a
real bitch to deal with.
Also, Leandro is your first vampire! How does your prey know that
you're going to leave him alone in the future? Take your word for it?
Of course you've been leaving him alone up 'til now - you've had no
vampires! You had no option! =)
>defenses fail under multiple presses, and he grave robs Leandro with 11
>pool still on him, as well a a spying mission directed at my predator. A
>minion tap that I was planning to use next round sits useless in my hand.
>
>This totally dooms me. No hope at all.
Yep. You're pretty much screwed. Chalk that up to "bad seating
position" and "bad crypt draw".
>By the time my predator has finished bleeeding my defenseless ass, I have
>5 pool left, and 5 blood on the next IC member. I have no hope of
>bringing out another vampire. If I had wanted to sit there and just act
>as a buffer for the player who just totally screwed me, I could have
>transfered 2 pool back, and delayed my predator for another
>round. Instead, I chose to put all 4 transfers on my next IC member,
>leaving myself at one pool.
I have been in situations where I had absolutely no vampires and no
way of getting more. I have previously, and would in this situation,
taken the 2 pool back and made him actually take the actions to bleed
me out, just to maintain the table balance as best I could and NOT
attempt to be a kingmaker. Although I doubt you really affected your
prey significantly, in this instance.
>In this way, I sought to help show my prey that he had gone perhaps a bit
>too far. In his greed to obtain a juicy prize like Leandro, he had in
Absolutely not. Your prey made an EXCELLENT play by snagging Leandro.
A bit too far? Not by a long shot!
Your actions, on the other hand, were nothing more than spite. Sure,
you were screwed, but it was EASILY his best play in that situation to
take Leandro.
Why? Leandro has Dominate, so fits into the deck perfectly. A
Gangrel DOM deck probably has skill cards, so even Leandro's inferior
DOM isn't a big deal. Leandro had 11 blood on him - that's FIVE Grave
Robbings at superior that his own vampires don't have to pay for OR
take the action to do. Leandro has 4 votes - a Gangrel deck doesn't
normally have vote influence, so now he has some. Leandro has an
inherent +2 bleed - something that's often a problem for Gangrel as
well. And to top it all off, Leandro's special is now a BENEFIT for
him, instead of a constant nuisance as before. Plus, you end up with
no vampires and can't take any actions to damage him. How can this be
wrong for him?
>fact replaced a benign predator for one that was far more
>dangerous. Having nothing else to do, I facilitated the situation to
>emphasize the point. I discussed the situation with other players before
>making the move, and they agreed that my position was hopeless.
Your position was hopeless, but still spiteful, sorry. "emphasize the
point"? In his situation, I would take the same action every single
time, even if a weenie Dominate tap-n-bleed horde were your predator.
His deck already assumes that he'll have a hostile predator, so if he
gets a hostile predator but has a free Leandro on top of it all, he is
easily ahead of the game.
>target. Neither were my measures against him personal. I merely wished
"Sorry I stabbed you. It wasn't anything personal."
>to minimize the profit gained by those who screw with me. The idea is
>that others are less likely to screw with me when they have other options
>available, if my behavior makes such activity less profitable.
See... this kind of thinking just worries me. All it does is screw up
the table dynamic, although frankly I doubt your prey cared, he was in
such good shape. Nor will it affect my decisions to screw with you in
the future, if it's in my own best interest - although I will probably
make sure that you get -very- dead if I do screw with you, to minimize
the effects of any spiteful retaliations. If you're going to
retaliate against someone for making the best play he can in the
situation he was in... (shakes head)
LSJ
> >members are in the crypt, and I have the misfortune to draw all of them.
> >The plan of the deck is to do backbleeds with night-moves followed by
> >spying mission, then dramatic upheaval and oust my former predator with a
> >single stealth bleed that burns all the spying missions if not deflected.
>
> OK, this is a problem already - you can't stack Spying Missions, and
> you MUST burn the Spying Mission on the "next" bleed. When you do the
> second Night Moves, the first Spying Mission is burned, and due to
> card text on Night Moves ("If more than 1 pool is bled with this
> action, ignore the excess"), the bleed is still for only 1.
Nah - Spying Mission (superior) is played before the pool is removed,
and playing it results in the bleed being "unsuccessful" (you don't
get the Edge, previous Spying Missions are not burned, etc.)
[RTR 30-MAY-1995]
You can "stack" them.
Derek Ray
wrote:
>Nah - Spying Mission (superior) is played before the pool is removed,
>and playing it results in the bleed being "unsuccessful" (you don't
>get the Edge, previous Spying Missions are not burned, etc.)
>[RTR 30-MAY-1995]
>
>You can "stack" them.
Hmm. i had thought that the card text "next time this vampire
bleeds"... although I suppose that since Spying Missions get burned at
the END of the action, after Deflections and the like, that makes
sense.
oops. we've been playing backwards for quite a while then. =)
Mike Ooi
LSJ wrote in message <39C8FE79...@white-wolf.com>...
>Nah - Spying Mission (superior) is played before the pool is removed,
>and playing it results in the bleed being "unsuccessful" (you don't
>get the Edge, previous Spying Missions are not burned, etc.)
>[RTR 30-MAY-1995]
>
>You can "stack" them.
That is so awesome...and so wrong <a smile so evil my cat ran from the room
in sheer terror>!!! Wait 'till the Malks at Malk & Kookies get a hold of
this idea...
Andrew S. Davidson
> This is why you're bound by VEKN rules to "make deals in a fashion
>that is clear and visible to all players and in a language an manner that
>leaves no doubts as to the nature of the deal". Where does it say that? It
>doesn't. Apparently it was left out. From talks with LSJ, this was
>supposed to be in the VEKN rules and are due to be present on the next
>revision.
That's something to look forward to. Take a look at the legal fine
print associated with something like a software licence. It takes an
immense amount of verbiage to eliminate uncertainty from a contract
and even then, this rests upon an unstated body of statute and common
law. Most people don't bother to read such stuff but this would force
all players to confront the issue any time they wanted to deal. I was
sorry to discover that Madness of the Bard was banned from tournament
play but this would more than make up for it.
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>>As a fr'instance, supposing a player in a game recognises a kindred
>>spirit and mutters sotto voce, "you wanna ally?". The other player
>>likes the look of his reputation and, not wanting to attract too much
>>attention, merely nods. They then work together and, as things turn
>
>This amuses me, since such a general "deal" is in neither player's
>best interests at all.
How so? The effectiveness of an alliance is in proportion to the
degree of trust between the parties. The more you spell out your
obligations, the more that suspicion is aroused and trust is lost.
>>Note, by the way, that my example is not fanciful. There are players
>>in my playgroup who are able to make a deal with a significant glance.
>
>Not in V:TES they wouldn't be able to. How do you convey "get my guy
>out of torpor and i'll Rush your predator's vampire" with a glance?
I don't speak their body language but believe their claims.
>>Again, we have no way to recognise such thing as a commitment.
>
>"I'll rescue your vampire from torpor if one of your vampires Rushes
>my prey's bleed-bouncer next turn" is a commitment.
You've written this out and even so it is riddled with ambiguity.
VEKN rules forbid the taking of notes and so there wouldn't even be
this much to go on. A verbal contract is worth the paper that it's
written on.
>"You wanna ally?" ... "Yes" is not a commitment.
Marriage vows are equally open-ended but I don't recommend telling
your spouse that they are not a commitment. In this case, I
understand more clearly what is meant than your "bleed-bouncer"
gibberish. The fact that we don't understand each other is no
surprise - this newsgroup is testament to the extent to which folk are
able to misunderstand and disagree with each other. The game should
not try to make sense of players' utterances - that way lies madness.
Andrew
Sorrow
> >and playing it results in the bleed being "unsuccessful" (you don't
> >get the Edge, previous Spying Missions are not burned, etc.)
> >[RTR 30-MAY-1995]
room
> in sheer terror>!!! Wait 'till the Malks at Malk & Kookies get a hold of
> this idea...
The only problem with this is that it takes X turns to stack them and X+1
turns to actually use them all. During that time, your prey won't be
losing any pool for all those actions and could be using the pool she didn't
lose for other, better things. Plus, all those Spying Missions are a great
big bulls eye on the vamp like it's just saying "Rush me, please. Pretty
please? Oh, come on, you know you want to...". Lastly, what happens
if you knock the bleed up to stealth and your prey deflects? Unless you
have yet another Spying Mission in hand, you help your prey out a *whole*
lot if it cannot be blocked.
As I'm sure you can tell, I don't really use Spying Missions...
Sorrow
James Coupe
>sorry to discover that Madness of the Bard was banned from tournament
>play
Why do you wish to penalise players whose natural tongue is not that of
the majority of players at the tournament?
Also, define "rhyming sentences". Does that count half-rhymes? Eye-
rhymes? Internal rhymes? All of those are forms of rhyme.
Derek Ray
wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:17:17 -0400, Derek Ray wrote:
>
>How so? The effectiveness of an alliance is in proportion to the
>degree of trust between the parties. The more you spell out your
>obligations, the more that suspicion is aroused and trust is lost.
You are, eventually, trying to oust that person. Your interests
involve removing him from the table, at such a time as it will gain
you a VP. Trusting any other player implicity is stupid and will get
you dead. The game is NOT about happy touchy feely, it's about
ancient Methuselahs manipulating younger vampires. As such, "trust"
is really just not a part of the game.
Making a deal with the devil that involves "You wanna ally?" is just
ridiculous on the face of it - the devil will honor the contract when
he feels it appropriate, and break it when he feels it appropriate to
do THAT, and point out that you didn't say he couldn't do that.
Anyone offering or agreeing to such a deal is asking to be screwed
with a telephone pole.
>>>Again, we have no way to recognise such thing as a commitment.
>>
>>"I'll rescue your vampire from torpor if one of your vampires Rushes
>>my prey's bleed-bouncer next turn" is a commitment.
>
>You've written this out and even so it is riddled with ambiguity.
No, not especially. As long as the letter of the commitment is
satisfied, then nobody should be frosted. Yes, you could Rush any
untapped vampire who had the capacity to play bleed bounce cards and
say "I rushed your bouncer." Yes, you could Rush and fail. You could
Rush and deliberately fail. All of this is to be expected. The
devil, is, INDEED, in the details, and this is part of the richness of
the game.
>VEKN rules forbid the taking of notes and so there wouldn't even be
>this much to go on. A verbal contract is worth the paper that it's
>written on.
Attempting to deny that you made such a deal, with three witnesses and
the other deal-maker all saying "He certainly DID make such a deal!",
is absurd on the face of it. In any case it doesn't matter - the
point is not under debate before a court of law, the point is under
debate in front of real live human beings, and rules lawyers tend to
get ruled AGAINST these days, just for trying to be rules lawyers. If
you choose to claim you didn't make such a deal, and violate the terms
of it, you only have to deal with the person you broke your deal with
- there are no rules against breaking a deal. The victim can appeal
to the tournament judge all he likes, and the judge will just shrug at
him, even if he has a written contract notarized by God himself.
>>"You wanna ally?" ... "Yes" is not a commitment.
>
>Marriage vows are equally open-ended but I don't recommend telling
>your spouse that they are not a commitment. In this case, I
>understand more clearly what is meant than your "bleed-bouncer"
>gibberish. The fact that we don't understand each other is no
Please do tell me what is not understood about my example? It is
excruciatingly specific, and while holes are left in it, they're not
very wide. Certainly not enough to qualify as "gibberish".
And since nothing specific is said in "you wanna ally", I would pay
lip service to it until it no longer served my interests.
>surprise - this newsgroup is testament to the extent to which folk are
>able to misunderstand and disagree with each other. The game should
>not try to make sense of players' utterances - that way lies madness.
It doesn't. It lets humans (the judge) do that, which humans are
EASILY qualified to do.