Tournament Report Darmstadt
Carsten isselhorst
Due to christmas and other reasons only 12 players showed up ( i
expected at least 20 but then I got several cancellations ). Another
reason was that we had the BL prerelease 2 weeks ago and a con with a
v:tes tournament 1 week before.
So i was happy that 3 people from munich came in spite of the long
distance.
But nevertheless the 12 people who showed up had a lot of fun. We played
3 preliminary rounds and due to the 4 player tables table split deals
were hard to arrange ( i made no such deal in the first 3 rounds ).
Another point i saw 2 times 3 player ganging up on 1 who was ver strong
in the beginning and seemed to sweep the table.
Following players entered the final:
Rui Vieira ( weenie computer hacking- animalism trap combat) 7 VP
Carsten Isselhorst ( Malkavian madness network bloat/vote) 6 VP
Artur Cardoso (!Ventrue deflection unblockable bleed) 5 VP
Robert Mueller ( Euro Bruhjah -see his newsletter ) 4 VP
Christopher Meisinger (Caitiff( 1cap) Brainwash-KRC-Bribes) 4 VP
The seating order was Rui-Carsten-Robert-Christopher-Artur
(this was really strange since Rui knew my deck and he could have had a
much easier prey in Artur)
The game started and Rui made al ot of pressure on me. Then i got Lucian
and Gilbert out and could start a little bit 5th and MT but Robert was
already quite strong since i couldnt put pressure on him. He even
attacked me then which i blocked with an obedience. Since together with
robert we had vote majority i then agreed to a 3-2 split (since i
couldnt defend much longer against Rui). I called a Kindred restructure
and changed the order to Rui-Robert-Artur-Christopher-Carsten.
Christopher couldnt get his bribed votes through any more and Rui felt
shortly after this to my stealthed bleeds ! Then I walled up until
Robert torporized the whole table and withdrew after my library was
finished.
There are two things to mention taking into account all this table split
discussions:
There is practical nothing some kind of decks can do against a well made
table split. Rui had 5 minions but since he could only bleed he could do
nothing to stop the alliance between me and robert once we were
reseated. The same goes for Artur and Christopher once the deal was done
their deck had no cross table oppurtunities. This is something one has
to consider when building a deck : There are decks who sweep tables in
the preliminary rounds but once you are in a final the simple bleed deck
can only hope to be fast enough or have a weak prey. Cross table actions
can toss the balance the way you want it so be sure to include at least
something in your deck.
The table split deal I made I would also have made under the table win
rule thats for sure so the new rule might not banish this kind of deals
(as some may hope/wish) !
Thanks for listening and a merry christmas
Carsten
Andrew S. Davidson
>The table split deal I made I would also have made under the table win
>rule thats for sure so the new rule might not banish this kind of deals
>(as some may hope/wish) !
A table split deal in the final! Please could you explain your
motivation. Was there a prize for 2nd place? Were you trying to
improve your rating? Did you just want to play kingmaker?
My view is that you lost the game just as much as all the other
losers, possibly more. The tournament set-up should not reward
king-making because such a result demeans the status of the nominal
winner and makes the whole thing into a farce.
Andrew
Peter D Bakija
>>A table split deal in the final! Please could you explain your
motivation. Was there a prize for 2nd place? Were you trying to
improve your rating? Did you just want to play kingmaker?>>
See--now that is just insanity. Table split deals have no place in a
final--there is no incentive at all to be on the losing end, and agreeing to
such a deal has *no* possible rational justification that could hold up to any
sort of scrutiny.
In preliminary rounds, such deals can be reasonably defended--they maximize
your VPs in a bad seating situation and consequently get you a better chance at
getting in the finals. Once you are in the finals, however, VPs only matter in
the sense that if you have more of them than everyone else, you win. Playing to
get 2 when someone else gets 3 (making them win the tournament) is just stupid.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
http://www.geocities.com/bakija6
"...and the only person I can stand to be around
is a neutered vampire who cheats at kitten poker!"
-Buffy
The Nosferatu Stuff
> In preliminary rounds, such deals can be reasonably defended--they
maximize
> your VPs in a bad seating situation and consequently get you a better
chance at
> getting in the finals. Once you are in the finals, however, VPs only
matter in
I thought you couldn't think about getting into the finals, that is an out
of game thing? That every round of a tournament was it's own seperate
thing?
If so, then the reasoning for getting 2/3 split should hold up just as well
in a final as any of the prelim games.
--
Aaron
The Nosferatu Stuff
Johan Lundstrom
>I thought you couldn't think about getting into the finals, that is an out
>of game thing? That every round of a tournament was it's own seperate
>thing?
>If so, then the reasoning for getting 2/3 split should hold up just as well
>in a final as any of the prelim games.
You're only allowed to do this as long as you can justify to the
judges that you have no chance of winning (whatever that means). As
long as you have a chance of winning, you must try to win. When you
can no longer win (or once you have already won), you can do whatever
you want to that isn't collusion.
Finals should be no different from qualifying rounds in this regard.
Anyway, 2-3 VP splitting will become decidedly less useful with the
"table win" concept.
Thanks heaven for that.
LSJ
>
> Andrew wrote:
> >>A table split deal in the final! Please could you explain your
> motivation. Was there a prize for 2nd place? Were you trying to
> improve your rating? Did you just want to play kingmaker?>>
>
> See--now that is just insanity. Table split deals have no place in a
> final--there is no incentive at all to be on the losing end, and agreeing to
> such a deal has *no* possible rational justification that could hold up to any
> sort of scrutiny.
Making a deal to gain 2 VP when not making the deal means you gain
0 VPs is "insane"? Not according to the rules. The incentive to be
on the "losing end" of the deal is the same in a finals as it is
in any other round - to maximize one's VPs.
--
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/
AKB333
>>Making a deal to gain 2 VP when not making the deal means you gain
0 VPs is "insane"?>>
In the finals, yes, yes it is.
>> Not according to the rules. The incentive to be
on the "losing end" of the deal is the same in a finals as it is
in any other round - to maximize one's VPs.>>
Making someone else win the tournament (by agreeing to help them get 3 VPs,
just so you can get 2) is just silly. Far more so than making a 3-2 split in a
preliminary round. Maximizing VPs in a preliminary round has a purpose. Doing
so in the finals is simply saying "I want to make you win for some ransom
reason".
Curevei
>just so you can get 2) is just silly. Far more so than making a 3-2 split in
>a
>preliminary round. Maximizing VPs in a preliminary round has a purpose. Doing
>so in the finals is simply saying "I want to make you win for some ransom
>reason".
>
If the prizes aren't the same for second through fifth, then there's nothing
silly about it. Calculating individuals will simply calculate the expected
gain of coming in second versus the expected gain of fighting for first in a
poor position. At some point, it becomes more valuable to guarantee second,
assuming, again, that second scores more than the other positions.
Halcyan 2
>motivation. Was there a prize for 2nd place? Were you trying to
>improve your rating? Did you just want to play kingmaker?
Hey, BTW, what happens if you *want* to get 2nd place because you'd prefer the
2nd place prize as opposed to the 1st place one? For example, a while back,
Legbiter was talking about how some 2nd place prize was the original art for
Sheldon and (fortunately), he ended up getting it.
Um....if you really want the 2nd place prize, are you allowed to lose on
purpose? Or even more amusingly, if there are two Methusalehs left (each with 1
VP's) in a four player final (for example), wouldn't it be funny if both of the
Methusalehs wanted to end up 2nd place instead of 1st? I guess it's a case of
trying to oust yourself the fastest! =)
Halcyan 2
Halcyan 2
>silly about it. Calculating individuals will simply calculate the expected
>gain of coming in second versus the expected gain of fighting for first in a
>poor position. At some point, it becomes more valuable to guarantee second,
>assuming, again, that second scores more than the other positions.
Also, don't forget that, while you cannot use outside materials to "bribe"
other players, you very well can agree to split tournament prizes. It's been a
while since the topic came up but I swore that's what was stated. So say first
prize is a box of boosters, a nifty trophy, and the title. If I'm only
interested in the trophy and the title, I could very well offer someone a
table-split (3 to me, 2 to them) and let them have the box of boosters. Or not?
Halcyan 2
Johan Lundstrom
>Also, don't forget that, while you cannot use outside materials to "bribe"
>other players, you very well can agree to split tournament prizes.
Surely that would count as collusion?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se>
"Nothing succeeds like excess"
Halcyan 2
>>other players, you very well can agree to split tournament prizes.
>
>Surely that would count as collusion?
Ack! Careful with that "C" word again! Yes, it would probably be collusion if
you decided to split the prize with someone before the tournament (and planned
and played accordingly). But it wouldn't be collusion per se, if during a long,
drawn-out final game with someone who was previously a stranger, you two
decide to split the prize (for whatever reason).
Halcyan 2
LSJ
>
> >A table split deal in the final! Please could you explain your
> >motivation. Was there a prize for 2nd place? Were you trying to
> >improve your rating? Did you just want to play kingmaker?
>
> Hey, BTW, what happens if you *want* to get 2nd place because you'd prefer the
> 2nd place prize as opposed to the 1st place one? For example, a while back,
> Legbiter was talking about how some 2nd place prize was the original art for
> Sheldon and (fortunately), he ended up getting it.
Any winner should be free to choose a prize below her rank (and leave her
own for the next rank). If the first place finisher (in any tournament, not
just VEKN and not just VTES) wants the secon dplace prize, let her take it
(and give the first place prize to the second place finisher.
> Um....if you really want the 2nd place prize, are you allowed to lose on
> purpose?
No.
> Or even more amusingly, if there are two Methusalehs left (each with 1
> VP's) in a four player final (for example), wouldn't it be funny if both of the
> Methusalehs wanted to end up 2nd place instead of 1st? I guess it's a case of
> trying to oust yourself the fastest! =)
Allowing first place to choose would rememdy that.
LSJ
>
> LSJ wrote:
> >>Making a deal to gain 2 VP when not making the deal means you gain
> 0 VPs is "insane"?>>
>
> In the finals, yes, yes it is.
No, no it's not.
> >> Not according to the rules. The incentive to be
> on the "losing end" of the deal is the same in a finals as it is
> in any other round - to maximize one's VPs.>>
>
> Making someone else win the tournament (by agreeing to help them get 3 VPs,
> just so you can get 2) is just silly. Far more so than making a 3-2 split in a
> preliminary round. Maximizing VPs in a preliminary round has a purpose. Doing
> so in the finals is simply saying "I want to make you win for some ransom
> reason".
You're not "making someone else win". If you're only going to get 0
without the deal, someone else is already going to win. What you're
doing is maximizing your VPs, which is what the rules say you should
do.
Carsten isselhorst
>
> LSJ wrote:
> >>Making a deal to gain 2 VP when not making the deal means you gain
> 0 VPs is "insane"?>>
>
> In the finals, yes, yes it is.
Well if you are surely losing you can just sit there and going down or
try to make the best out of the situation and your cards ( what i did !
). So in the end i stayed longer in the final could play more cards and
even got 2 VPs. It wasnt for the rating , it wasnt for the prizes (which
were almost equal from 2nd to 5th place) it was just for playing thisa
game by the rules ! I always want to maximize my VPs thats all !
>
> >> Not according to the rules. The incentive to be
> on the "losing end" of the deal is the same in a finals as it is
> in any other round - to maximize one's VPs.>>
>
> Making someone else win the tournament (by agreeing to help them get 3 VPs,
> just so you can get 2) is just silly. Far more so than making a 3-2 split in a
> preliminary round. Maximizing VPs in a preliminary round has a purpose. Doing
> so in the finals is simply saying "I want to make you win for some ransom
> reason".
No thats not true. Player A seems to win at that time I proposed the
deal. It was just easier with the table split deal. So he would have won
without me and my two VP have been gone to another player(s). Thats all.
I think this discussion only shows one thing how upset people are by all
this table split stuff. It happens everywhere especially if you are at a
table with good players/decks. So either there is a rule that prohibits
deals at all or you have to live with such kind of deals.
Greetings Carsten
Andrew S. Davidson
>Well if you are surely losing you can just sit there and going down or
>try to make the best out of the situation and your cards ( what i did !
>). So in the end i stayed longer in the final could play more cards and
>even got 2 VPs. It wasnt for the rating , it wasnt for the prizes (which
>were almost equal from 2nd to 5th place) it was just for playing thisa
>game by the rules ! I always want to maximize my VPs thats all !
You and others keep justifying your quisling behaviour by reference to
the rules. But the rules don't actually say that you should "maximise
your VPs". They make reference to a "winner" and so the presumption
would be that the object is to be that winner. This is not the same
thing.
>No thats not true. Player A seems to win at that time I proposed the
>deal. It was just easier with the table split deal. So he would have won
>without me and my two VP have been gone to another player(s). Thats all.
So why did player A do the deal? If he had the game in the bag, would
you not say that he should have tried to maximise his VPs and take
those extra 2 VP too? AFAIC, you and he were playing the game with
different objectives.
>I think this discussion only shows one thing how upset people are by all
>this table split stuff. It happens everywhere especially if you are at a
>table with good players/decks. So either there is a rule that prohibits
>deals at all or you have to live with such kind of deals.
As I've already explained, there is no rule which permits formal deals
and so they are indeed prohibited without use of a card effect like
Succubus Club.
Andrew
LSJ
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2002 10:23:58 +0100, Carsten isselhorst wrote:
> >Well if you are surely losing you can just sit there and going down or
> >try to make the best out of the situation and your cards ( what i did !
> >). So in the end i stayed longer in the final could play more cards and
> >even got 2 VPs. It wasnt for the rating , it wasnt for the prizes (which
> >were almost equal from 2nd to 5th place) it was just for playing thisa
> >game by the rules ! I always want to maximize my VPs thats all !
>
> You and others keep justifying your quisling behaviour by reference to
> the rules. But the rules don't actually say that you should "maximise
> your VPs". They make reference to a "winner" and so the presumption
> would be that the object is to be that winner. This is not the same
> thing.
This spurious argument has come up before.
If the "object" of some game is to accumulate points (or to get the
fewest points - Golf, Hearts, etc.), then it is trivial to see how
to figure out second place, etc. The rules don't need to spell this
out directly.
> As I've already explained, there is no rule which permits formal deals
> and so they are indeed prohibited without use of a card effect like
> Succubus Club.
Heh. Table talk is permitted in all games unless restricted by the rules.
GreySeer
> and so they are indeed prohibited without use of a card effect like
> Succubus Club.
The only thing the Succubus Club lets you do that you can't otherwise do is
trade cards and give/recieve pool, you don't even have to make it part of a
deal. In terms of the game there is no such thing as a "formal" deal. Even
if you do have the Succubus Club, "Any additional terms can be established,
but none are enfoced by the rules.". The deal can be as "formal" as you like
but no-one is bound by the terms and there is no penalty for breaking the
terms.
Carsten isselhorst
>
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2002 10:23:58 +0100, Carsten isselhorst wrote:
>
> You and others keep justifying your quisling behaviour by reference to
> the rules. But the rules don't actually say that you should "maximise
> your VPs". They make reference to a "winner" and so the presumption
> would be that the object is to be that winner. This is not the same
> thing.
So if you cant win what does the rule say then ? I think if you loose
you should loose the way you like too. I asked the other guy with votes
if i can get his vote support for not hurting him but his prey and he
accepted thats all so where am i cheating or colluding ( which is
written in another posts or at least meant by several others maybe
including you ) ???
> >No thats not true. Player A seems to win at that time I proposed the
> >deal. It was just easier with the table split deal. So he would have won
> >without me and my two VP have been gone to another player(s). Thats all.
>
> So why did player A do the deal? If he had the game in the bag, would
> you not say that he should have tried to maximise his VPs and take
> those extra 2 VP too? AFAIC, you and he were playing the game with
> different objectives.
Maybe he was frightened i could do some damge on him before i get ousted
and then my predator would have won, i dont know you. I could for
example banish his prince or do a KRC on him whatever i had in my hand.
It still made me losing but it might have had an effect on the winner.
Since he didnt know my cards he was just precautious.
Greetings Carsten
Andrew S. Davidson
>This spurious argument has come up before.
>If the "object" of some game is to accumulate points (or to get the
>fewest points - Golf, Hearts, etc.), then it is trivial to see how
>to figure out second place, etc. The rules don't need to spell this
>out directly.
Playing to win, playing for a good place or playing to maximise VPs
are not the same thing. It's easy to construct a situation in which
one objective gets in the way of another. Alan Kwan raised this issue
of diverse objectives here over 5 years ago. He didn't get a good
answer then and the matter still seems unsatisfactory.
If you have a concrete reward for each outcome (e.g. rating, ante,
tournament advancement or prizes) then you can evaluate which is the
best objective in a sensible way, e.g. by assigning dollar values and
calculating the expected gains. Without a measure of this kind then
it seems to be a matter of taste. My opinion is that it's best to
play to win and that this results in the best metagame because it's
comparatively free of the personal politics which arise when you have
table-splitting deals.
>> As I've already explained, there is no rule which permits formal deals
>> and so they are indeed prohibited without use of a card effect like
>> Succubus Club.
>
>Heh. Table talk is permitted in all games unless restricted by the rules.
Rubbish. I don't expect significant table talk when I play a game
like Scrabble, say - just the usual grumbling about how long someone
is taking over their move. The same goes for poker where you expect
some chaffing and banter but there would be general outrage if players
started making deals.
And we're not talking about some general chit-chat or even some
propaganda about how so-and-so is winning and needs to be cut down.
I'm used to that in Shadowfist and it's not usually a problem - it
only gets to be nasty when players start issuing dire threats to deter
attacks upon them.
No, the problem in VTES is that you now have players consuming most of
the game in negotiating and detailing elaborate formal deals. For
example, in the final at Gencon UK, I was told that the players
initially spent about 50 minutes negotiating rather than playing.
This is worse than Diplomacy - a game which does have rules which
permit this sort of thing and which recommends a time limit of 15
minutes for negotiation.
And when players routinely treat these deals as solemn and binding and
form cabals to ostracise you if you break them, then I'm afraid the
whole thing is out of control. The rulebook provides not the
slightest excuse for this behaviour. As far as it's concerned, you
just play your cards and do what they say. Any time spent on other
activities takes time away from the proper play of the game and, in a
timed game, that can't be allowed.
What's especially outrageous is that the designer of this game,
Richard Garfield, went on at length about how he didn't want his
multi-player games to just end up as a game of Diplomacy. Allowing
this to happen by default is scandalous.
Andrew
LSJ
>
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2002 06:50:01 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>
> >This spurious argument has come up before.
> >If the "object" of some game is to accumulate points (or to get the
> >fewest points - Golf, Hearts, etc.), then it is trivial to see how
> >to figure out second place, etc. The rules don't need to spell this
> >out directly.
>
> Playing to win, playing for a good place or playing to maximise VPs
> are not the same thing. It's easy to construct a situation in which
> one objective gets in the way of another. Alan Kwan raised this issue
> of diverse objectives here over 5 years ago. He didn't get a good
> answer then and the matter still seems unsatisfactory.
>
> If you have a concrete reward for each outcome (e.g. rating, ante,
> tournament advancement or prizes) then you can evaluate which is the
> best objective in a sensible way, e.g. by assigning dollar values and
> calculating the expected gains. Without a measure of this kind then
> it seems to be a matter of taste. My opinion is that it's best to
> play to win and that this results in the best metagame because it's
> comparatively free of the personal politics which arise when you have
> table-splitting deals.
No. What you have then is the "freedom" to sacrifice a 2-VP position for
a 0-VP position. Sacrificing a win is already against the rules, so
ignoring the "VP-accumulation" goal already imbedded doesn't gain you
anything there.
Current situation: must play to win. This matches your opinion stated
above, although you use that position somehow to argue against the current
situation.
Current situation: if you can't win, you should at least try to accumulate
as many VPs as possible. This is not a diverse objective, since the "main"
objective is the same - positive accumulation of VPs.
Your version: if you can't win, you have as much freedom as you like to
play kingmaker.
> What's especially outrageous is that the designer of this game,
> Richard Garfield, went on at length about how he didn't want his
> multi-player games to just end up as a game of Diplomacy. Allowing
> this to happen by default is scandalous.
Heh. At least Richard knew that it (table talk and deal making) was
part of the game.
Andrew S. Davidson
>Your version: if you can't win, you have as much freedom as you like to
>play kingmaker.
No. The only time that you're really in a "can't win" situation is if
someone has already scored 3 VP. In that case, kingmaking doesn't
arise because you already have a king and you are down to two players.
In this tournament, Carsten did a losing 2 VP deal when he still had
Lucian, Gilbert and was holding a Kindred Restructure. If he'd been
playing to win he should have tried to parley this into a winning
position. Instead he conceded his winning chances and so Robert left
him alone because he had become a willing toady. The 2 VPs that
Carsten gained were not a creditable achievement; they were shameful.
Andrew
Carsten isselhorst
I couldnt get the vote through at this time due to other votes and the
situation in general without the votes of robert. Thats all about it.
LSJ
>
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2002 14:54:00 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>
> >Your version: if you can't win, you have as much freedom as you like to
> >play kingmaker.
>
> No. The only time that you're really in a "can't win" situation is if
> someone has already scored 3 VP.
Not true. Although I agree, as I've said amny times in the past, that it
is very difficult (nearly impossible) to be in a truly lost position
when there are VPs still available.
[snip information about a tournament that I did not attend - did Andrew
attend? If so, feel free to second-guess the judge all you like.]
I make it a policy not to second-guess tournament judges about matters
which fall so clearly into the "need to have complete information about
the situation" category.
Carsten isselhorst
>
> "Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
>
> [snip information about a tournament that I did not attend - did Andrew
> attend? If so, feel free to second-guess the judge all you like.]
He didnt attend. I was the head judge for this tournament but none of
the other judges neither the players at the table were shouting for
collusion/cheating,shamish behaviour or whatsoever ( there were no bad
feelings about this i think because the situation was quite obvious.
Furthermore we keep a friendly atmosphere here even when playing
tournaments and making deals. The three guys from munich also confirmed
that it was a lot of fun to come and play so I dont understand the fuss
which is made about things which belong to the game imho.)
LSJ
... and there you go.
Thanks for the update, and I'm glad everything went smoothly.
Andrew S. Davidson
>He didnt attend. I was the head judge for this tournament but none of
>the other judges neither the players at the table were shouting for
>collusion/cheating,shamish behaviour or whatsoever ( there were no bad
>feelings about this i think because the situation was quite obvious.
I expect that no-one objected because, from what you have said, the
2nd place was not important and your deal didn't significantly change
the important result - who came first. When this is not the case,
matters might go differently.
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>I couldnt get the vote through at this time due to other votes and the
>situation in general without the votes of robert. Thats all about it.
So the other players would have voted against a restructure even when
the alternative was that you and Robert would split the table and they
would get nothing at all?
As best as I can understand it, Robert had the game sewn up because he
could rush and torporise every vampire on the table. The order in
which he decided to do this determined who might pick up the odd spare
VP. If so, then your deal was insignificant - he just let you get the
2 VPs as a personal favour.
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>> What's especially outrageous is that the designer of this game,
>> Richard Garfield, went on at length about how he didn't want his
>> multi-player games to just end up as a game of Diplomacy. Allowing
>> this to happen by default is scandalous.
>
>Heh. At least Richard knew that it (table talk and deal making) was
>part of the game.
I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Anyway, I've just dug up
one of the articles that I remembered. Here it is:
"In my experience critiquing games, the concept that has caused the
most dispute is politics. I refer to a game as political if it has
more than two players, or sides, and during a significant portion of
the game the other players could agree to make you lose. Two-sided
games, like Magic, chess, bridge, and basketball, are never political.
Right now my study of political games is riddled with judgement calls,
making it far from precise. For example, Yahtzee is a game for more
than two players that isn't particularly political: I could win even
if everyone else decides I shouldn't. RISK is highly political,
however, since one person cannot expect to beat the rest of the
players allied together unless they account for less than half the
power in the game.
There are some good things about political games. Any player usually
has a chance to catch up, no matter how far behind he or she might be.
A political game is as deep as the players wish to make it: simple and
straightforward, or convoluted and laden with conspiracy.
That said, I lean towards games where politics take a back seat. I
haven't always felt that way, but over the years I have found that
when I played games with a strong political component, the game itself
didn't matter much.
Playing Nicely With Others
--------------------------
There is a wide array of opinions, often passionate, about the role of
politics in games, with equally intelligent folk at all extremes.
Most people who have played a lot have had some good experiences with
political games. It is always hard to draw conclusions from past game
experience, though, because good players can make any game fun.
Similarly, it is hard to determine whether a political game is itself
at fault or if the players aren't playing well. When someone is
always whining about being behind, is that a problem with the player
or the game?
Players often increase their enjoyment of political games by
establishing unwritten rules of conduct. I know circles where whining
is punished by group attacks. Other groups forbid negotiations, or
only allow players to exert limited influence. Players are commonly
expected to maximize their personal position even when they have no
chance of winning. Often it is difficult to figure out exactly what
the rules are, and playing around on the boundary of what is
acceptable is risking group displeasure. When the game depends on
unwritten rules, I usually credit the players with creating a lot of
the fun, rather than the game.
There is a lot of potential for abuse in games where players can trade
resources freely, since two players who cannot win individually could
flip a coin and give the winner all their pooled resources to create a
single viable position. To prevent such abuse, groups sometimes
outlaw coin flips or random decisions, but players can still
circumvent such efforts b alternating the "winner" between games or by
developing understandings. For example, if John is out of the running
in this game and gives me good trades or gifts, he will get reciprocal
consideration in the future.
Bad Games and Good Politics
---------------------------
Many features crop up frequently in political games that I consider
bad game elements. A major part of the strategy in a political game
is to draw attention to other people's positions and attempt to play
them off against one another. One of the easiest ways to do this is
to take a weak position. This may not immediately appear to be bad,
but the implications are profound: if you _choose_ a weak position,
then it is not actually weak. And if weak positions really have the
same power, then how you play the game doesn't make much difference.
What really matters is how you play the players, whether the game is
RISK or Family Business.
One of the most unpleasant features of a political game is what I
refer to as kingmaking. Kingmaking happens when a player who has no
chance of winning can choose who does win. This holds some charm for
beginners, because being a kingmaker allows revenge against irritating
players, and justifies diplomacy - the winner is chosen by someone
else. The advanced player tends to dislike kingmaking, though,
because it trivializes the time spent playing. The longer the game
goes on, the more irksome is such an ending.
Another depressing thing about many political games is the way they
encourage passive play. If attacking another player costs me and my
opponent resources, then there is a strong incentive to sit back and
let other people fight. Games that have this characteristic can be a
lot of fun if some of the players ignore this and attack anyway, but
are real drag if everyone sees waiting as a disadvantage. How many
times have you seen one player get sick of doing nothing and say,
"Well, I have to be going, so I have to attack"? Boredom should not
be an incentive for conflict in a game.
It is a good exercise to evaluate the effect of politics on games
involving more than two sides. This can be quite a challenge, and
people who meet it often come out with a different perspective on the
games they play. The result for me was discovering that most
political games were, underneath the veneer, the same game, and that I
was tired of playing that game."
-- Richard Garfield, The Duelist, June 1997
LSJ
>
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2002 14:54:00 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>
> >> What's especially outrageous is that the designer of this game,
> >> Richard Garfield, went on at length about how he didn't want his
> >> multi-player games to just end up as a game of Diplomacy. Allowing
> >> this to happen by default is scandalous.
> >
> >Heh. At least Richard knew that it (table talk and deal making) was
> >part of the game.
>
> I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Anyway, I've just dug up
> one of the articles that I remembered. Here it is:
[snip]
"I lean towards games where politics take a back seat."
[snip]
Right. Which is why he included the predator-prey mechanism, the
bleed-only-your-prey default, and why (as he indicates in the
article you quoted) he doesn't allow players to freely trade
their resources.
He didn't want a "no-politics" game (like Yatzee). He just wanted
a game where the politics wasn't at the fore.
(Silly cross-posting neutered, as usual. Please try to restrict your
posts to their approriate newsgroups. It just looks more like a troll,
you know, when you spuriously cross-post.)
Peter Sarrett
news:7869AC7C6D013CD8.B23ED609...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2002 14:54:00 -0500, LSJ wrote:
> Playing Nicely With Others
> --------------------------
> There is a lot of potential for abuse in games where players can trade
> resources freely, since two players who cannot win individually could
> flip a coin and give the winner all their pooled resources to create a
> single viable position.
I know of no group in which such behavior would be acceptable, and would not
play in such a group myself.
All multiplayer games are subject to potential abuses. To keep them fun and
friendly, players recognize the need for a code of behavior that excludes
certain activities not explicitly proscribed by the rules. I've never
understood why Richard Garfield views this as a problem. There are
unwritten rules of behavior in any social setting, where things that are
physically possible are nevertheless deemed unacceptable. Why should
multiplayer games be any different?
- Peter Sarrett
Robert Goudie
news:3c34f250$1...@news.microsoft.com...
Hey Peter,
Your declaraction that you wouldn't play in such a group makes it clear that
following your view of multiplayer gaming doesn't faciliate players "playing
together". It is only your benchmark of whether or not you'd like to play with
a player or group. Defining the rules in a way to avoid pure diplomacy allows
players with disparate viewpoints to actually play together. A casual
"just-for-fun" gamer can player with the hardcore "win-at-all-costs" gamer
without a problem.
Relying on social pressure and an awareness of an undefined, yet understood,
code of conduct doesn't work unless the players know each other and plan on
continuing to play with each other.
-Robert
rob...@vtesinla.org
>
> - Peter Sarrett
>
>
>
>
>
Bruno Wolff III
> "Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
> news:7869AC7C6D013CD8.B23ED609...@lp.airnews.net...
>> On Wed, 02 Jan 2002 14:54:00 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>
>> Playing Nicely With Others
>> --------------------------
>> There is a lot of potential for abuse in games where players can trade
>> resources freely, since two players who cannot win individually could
>> flip a coin and give the winner all their pooled resources to create a
>> single viable position.
>
> I know of no group in which such behavior would be acceptable, and would not
> play in such a group myself.
It happened in a diplomacy game I was in. It was a 5 player game and
a 2 vs 3 situation occurred with the 3 player group having 18 centers
vs 16 with no chance of either group getting more without a defection.
Nobody thought a defector would be treated well by the side they defected
to. The three player side decided to shoot darts to see who would get
to win. After the person was determined trading centers to the declared
winner were begun. The manuever wasn't completed before we stopped playing
since no one expected that the action could be stopped or that anyone
would defect and we had better ways to spend the remaining time.
Peter Sarrett
"Bruno Wolff III" <br...@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:slrna3a0r0...@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu...
> It happened in a diplomacy game I was in.
And this was satisfying and acceptable to everyone? I don't play Diplomacy,
so I don't know if this sort of thing is the norm. But if I were to invest
the kind of time that Diplomacy requires, I'd be extremely disturbed to have
it end in a manner which trivializes everything that has come before and
would think twice about playing with those players, or that game, again.
- Peter
David desJardins
> And this was satisfying and acceptable to everyone? I don't play
> Diplomacy, so I don't know if this sort of thing is the norm. But if
> I were to invest the kind of time that Diplomacy requires, I'd be
> extremely disturbed to have it end in a manner which trivializes
> everything that has come before and would think twice about playing
> with those players, or that game, again.
Then why are you flaming Andrew Davidson for having exactly the same
problem with VTES (players entering into elaborate, artificial
agreements), and coming to exactly the same conclusion (either prevent
that behavior from occurring, or don't play that game, or not with those
players)?
When he says it's better to avoid playing that way, and Richard Garfield
says it's better to avoid playing that way, and Bruno Wolff says it's
better to avoid playing that way, and you say it's better to avoid
playing that way, aren't you all saying the same thing??
David desJardins
Andrew S. Davidson
>He didn't want a "no-politics" game (like Yatzee). He just wanted
>a game where the politics wasn't at the fore.
He described RISK as highly political. I consider VTES, as currently
played in tournaments, to be more political than RISK. It is not a
game in which politics is taking the back seat.
Andrew
Peter Sarrett
"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OY6Z7.1411$zw3.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Hey Peter,
>
> Your declaraction that you wouldn't play in such a group makes it clear
that
> following your view of multiplayer gaming doesn't faciliate players
"playing
> together". It is only your benchmark of whether or not you'd like to play
with
> a player or group. Defining the rules in a way to avoid pure diplomacy
allows
> players with disparate viewpoints to actually play together. A casual
> "just-for-fun" gamer can player with the hardcore "win-at-all-costs" gamer
> without a problem.
In sufficiently complex games players can always find ways to collude if
they really wish to, regardless of how the rules are structured. What
prevents them from doing so is a combination of personal ethics and the code
of behavior of the group they're in.
In a tournament setting with players who are unfamiliar with one another
these rules, of necessity, may be explicitly dictated by the judge rather
than implicitly understood. But the principle is the same.
Certain kinds of behavior break a game, or other players' enjoyment of it.
Expecting all such behavior to be explicitly banned by the rules is
unrealistic and should not be necessary. All it takes is the recognition
that certain behavior exists in a gray area and the consideration to ask
about a group's preferences toward that behavior beforehand.
In short: we don't need to legislate morality, in society or in games.
- Peter
Hannigan
- the argument is, AFAICS, irrelevant - but surely when he wrote,
"One of the most unpleasant features of a political game is what I
refer to as kingmaking. Kingmaking happens when a player who has no
chance of winning can choose who does win. This holds some charm for
beginners, because being a kingmaker allows revenge against irritating
players, and justifies diplomacy - the winner is chosen by someone
else. The advanced player tends to dislike kingmaking, though,
because it trivializes the time spent playing. The longer the game
goes on, the more irksome is such an ending."
it could considered relevant to his hypothetical view on the subject
of table splits. If two combat decks sit next to one another and no
one else at the table is playing combat decks at all, I consider to be
basically true that neither has a chance to win without some sort of
deal, unless of course one of the combat decks can beat the other
consistently at combat - and even then, it's not looking good.
Now, given that neither deck can really hope to win, I would argue
that any attempt at table-splitting really _is_ just kingmaking - and
I also think that either of the combat decks would have a good chance
of getting one of the other three decks split the table with them, if
they could not work out a deal with one another. Also, I think that
Garfield would regard it as abusive, since he said,
"There is a lot of potential for abuse in games where players can
trade
resources freely, since two players who cannot win individually could
flip a coin and give the winner all their pooled resources to create a
single viable position. To prevent such abuse, groups sometimes
outlaw coin flips or random decisions, but players can still
circumvent such efforts b alternating the "winner" between games or by
developing understandings. For example, if John is out of the running
in this game and gives me good trades or gifts, he will get reciprocal
consideration in the future."
It's in the nature of the game that two combat decks probably _can_
effectively pool their resources and split a table made up of
non-combat decks, and clearly it's allowed that they should do so.
Two political decks can do the same, I suspect, in many situations.
I think that it's horrible that this should be permitted, though. It
happened at the first tournament I ever played in (although not at my
table); and I can't think of a single reason why I would ever play
again in a tournament if I saw it happening again.
I think, and I am sure that I am not alone, that the game should be
played in a different way - that the primary object of every
Methuselah should be to fend off his(or her) predator and oust his(or
her) prey, and only to take such other actions as are necessary for
his survival - and that helping your prey to oust other Methuselahs is
a fundamental break from how the game was meant - and designed - to be
played.
I don't argue that table-splitting is against the rules; clearly, it
is not. I just think that the rules should be changed in some manner
to prevent it being a viable option for one kind of deck in a hopeless
seating position, and not a viable option for another kind of deck in
a similarily bad position.
Perhaps - I do not mean this seriously, really - players in
tournaments should be allowed to bleed and play directed bleed action
cards against any other player at the table, to allow a horrible
retaliation on combat decks which team up (after all, you only need to
kill one of the teamed decks to return the game to the state which I
regard as correct - and it's possible to cut some kind of deal whereby
the predator of that deck must rescue x number of torporized minions
in exchange for the destruction of his prey). Alternately, since this
would obviously allow table-splitting deals between two bleed decks
sitting next to one another, it could be allowed only by a vote of the
majority of the players at the table. =)
I guess I feel that if you happen to have brought a deck to a table
and gotten a seat where you just cannot win with that deck, you should
give it your best, go down fighting, bear in mind that no deck is
unbeatable, and remember that the worst weakness of a combat deck is
often another combat deck.
Peter Sarrett
"David desJardins" <de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:vohzo3u...@math.berkeley.edu...
>
> Then why are you flaming Andrew Davidson for having exactly the same
> problem with VTES (players entering into elaborate, artificial
> agreements), and coming to exactly the same conclusion (either prevent
> that behavior from occurring, or don't play that game, or not with those
> players)?
I'm not. I'm commenting on Richard Garfield's article-- and in an unheated
manner. The only flame here is yours.
> When he says it's better to avoid playing that way, and Richard Garfield
> says it's better to avoid playing that way, and Bruno Wolff says it's
> better to avoid playing that way, and you say it's better to avoid
> playing that way, aren't you all saying the same thing??
If we all said what you claim we said, yes. But we didn't.
Bruno offered no opinion one way or the other (at least in r.g.b, where I'm
reading this).
Richard Garfield said it's better (for him) not to play "political" games at
all.
I said all that's needed is a community code of behavior.
- Peter
(I'll restrict future replies, if any, to r.g.b)
LSJ
> It happened in a diplomacy game I was in. It was a 5 player game and
This is not directed at Bruno personally - I just picked his post as
an example (I enjoy reading his stuff in r.g.board, as a general rule).
Request:
Let's refrain from posting non-V:TES-related stuff to
rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
Thanks all.
Follow-ups directed appropriately.
Carsten isselhorst
>
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 11:05:44 +0100, Carsten isselhorst wrote:
>
> >I couldnt get the vote through at this time due to other votes and the
> >situation in general without the votes of robert. Thats all about it.
>
> So the other players would have voted against a restructure even when
> the alternative was that you and Robert would split the table and they
> would get nothing at all?
Well everybody tried to make his VP since everybodys prey was low on
blood. Furthermore for my restructure there was only 1 possible position
to prevent from being ousted and this the other guy with votes wouldnt
have allowed because his prey was soon to be ousted (4 pool remaining)
so i was left with the choie to make a deal with robert or die during
the next 1 or 2 rounds.
> As best as I can understand it, Robert had the game sewn up because he
> could rush and torporise every vampire on the table. The order in
> which he decided to do this determined who might pick up the odd spare
> VP. If so, then your deal was insignificant - he just let you get the
> 2 VPs as a personal favour.
>
> Andrew
Well not 100% true since i played already an obedience when he rushed me
and had a secure haven on Lucian. Furthermore he couldnt waste his time
with killing minions because everyone was low on blood ( giving other
players the VPs they needed to win ) and he hadnt too many bums rushes
(but Theo Bell ) so when i offered the deal i think it was in his best
interest to accept it because otherwise maybe things have gone
different.
Andrew S. Davidson
>Perhaps - I do not mean this seriously, really - players in
>tournaments should be allowed to bleed and play directed bleed action
>cards against any other player at the table, to allow a horrible
>retaliation on combat decks which team up
Something of the sort used to be possible - you could bleed any
methusaleh if you were using a directed bleed action rather than the
default bleed. But I think it would be better if rush actions were
restricted in a similar way - make them only usable against your prey.
That would leave political actions as the only way to take political
action in the Garfield sense. That's obviously appropriate. All
players have the opportunity to vote and should seek to ensure that
they have good representation.
Another useful option would be cards which would allow you to deflect
a rush, just as you can deflect a bleed. Most of the cards should be
disciplineless, just like Bum Rush, Ambush and Haven Uncovered, e.g.
Mistaken Identity
Out-of-turn Master
Cost: free
Play when a minion has taken an action to enter combat with one of
your minions. That action is now directed against any other minion of
your choice.
Andrew
Hannigan
Well, yes. Exactly. When I play casually, VP splits never occur.
But what we actually have at tournaments, AFAICS, is a community code
of behaviour that says that it's OK to combine resources and team up;
not, as I think you are suggesting, that it's NOT OK to do so. I
don't necessarily want to play that way, and don't want to play
against people who do play that way as long as there are some people
at the table(like, say, my wife) who don't play that way.
I agree that most groups of players would never allow such behaviour,
but, as Robert Goudie has pointed out, at a tournament this social
restriction doesn't apply, because the players don't constitute a
'group' who have to play together and get along. And, in any event,
the social restriction will only be felt by some players as long as
the powers that be say that it's the correct thing to do. I think
it's important that this awkwardness be avoided, and I think that the
only reasonable way is to outlaw deals where one player agrees that he
will help another to win.
I wonder if the people who say that table-splitting is the correct
thing to do also do it in their casual games? It wouldn't be accepted
around here, but perhaps they simply play in more cut-throat groups
than I do.
You see, I don't think there's anything _wrong_, per se, with playing
that way, and I would probably do it myself if that was how the game
was normally played in my group - there are certainly people who're
thick-skinned enough to take it. I just think that you won't get any
new players in a group if you make a habit of it, and will probably
eventually lose a number of embittered players, because it's an
unfriendly way to play.
Also, I think it's probably too hard to judge when a player honestly
and reasonably believes he has no chance to win the game, which, as I
understand, is a precondition for a VP split. How can we know that
it's not simply collusion? As far as I can see, there's no way to
establish that objectively, which is another good reason for banning
the practice.
James Coupe
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes:
>On 3 Jan 2002 18:11:52 -0800, Hannigan wrote:
>>Perhaps - I do not mean this seriously, really - players in
>>tournaments should be allowed to bleed and play directed bleed action
>>cards against any other player at the table, to allow a horrible
>>retaliation on combat decks which team up
>
>Something of the sort used to be possible - you could bleed any
>methusaleh if you were using a directed bleed action rather than the
>default bleed.
And such had numerous issues. Whilst the archives are available for
Hannigan to look through, the most salient issues tended to be:
- design intent. Night Moves, the Jyhad rules Book, Cat Burglary
(*Jyhad* text) and so on provided extremely convincing evidence
that this is how it was designed and balanced.
- power. Bleed affects primary resources with one source of
interaction. Votes can affect both primary and secondary
resources with multiple points of interaction. Combat can
affect secondary resources with only one point of interaction.
It is clear that allowing bleed to be 'randomly' directed around
the table is more powerful than a vote of KRC, for instance.
- players. A not insignificant number of players would use this to take
petty revenge on others, rather than playing the game. This is
mostly an extension of 'design intent' which is partly what this
was designed to avoid.
(By primary and secondary resources, I am referring (using relatively
old but rarely dug up terms) to pool vs resources in play.)
--
James Coupe You remind me of the babe. What babe?
PGP 0x5D623D5D The babe with the power. What power?
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Power of voodoo. Who do?
13D7E668C3695D623D5D You do. Do what? Remind me of the babe.
Joshua Duffin
"Hannigan" <hanni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6143fc7b.02010...@posting.google.com...
> I think, and I am sure that I am not alone, that the game should be
> played in a different way - that the primary object of every
> Methuselah should be to fend off his(or her) predator and oust his(or
> her) prey, and only to take such other actions as are necessary for
> his survival - and that helping your prey to oust other Methuselahs is
> a fundamental break from how the game was meant - and designed - to be
> played.
It may seem a little hair-splitting, but to me the object of
each Methuselah is to win the game (by getting the most VPs
of anyone at the table). This is not always best accomplished
by only fending off your predator and ousting your prey. You
may need to help another Methuselah survive so that she'll still
be around when she becomes your prey and *you* can get her VP.
You may need to help another Methuselah get killed so that she
won't kill you before you can get anywhere.
Trying to work this way won't always win you the game either,
of course, but only looking one space left and right is (IMO)
rather short-sighted. There are a number of ways in which it
*is* possible to affect Methuselahs who aren't sitting next to
you, and so it seems to me wise to take those into account as
well.
I also think the game is more interesting when you're thinking
about all the other players rather than only two of them, but
maybe that's just me. :-)
I'm not saying that table-splitting is necessarily a good thing
or a good idea, but cross-table influence is a part of the game,
and was designed in from the very start: Bum's Rush's original
text was "(D) Attack an opponent's minion. You have an optional
maneuver usable during this combat."
Cryptic Mission: "(D) Remove 1 blood from any vampire or do 1
damage to any ally or retainer."
Major Boon: "Play this card to take another Methuselah's blood
pool loss due to a bleed (must be at least 1 blood). Modifiers to
the bleed can be played after you play this card. In the future
you can force the rescued Methuselah to take a loss due to a
bleed against you. This boon is then burned."
Eagle's Sight: "This vampire may attempt to block any action of
any minion."
Nor do I feel that there are really very many (if any) hopeless
table positions. Most of these really just call for biding your
time and hoping that someone makes a mistake, overextends, or
runs into trouble from another player. Making a losing deal
instead will often enough be a blunder, and may not even get you
the VPs you're hoping for; your partner has little reason to
stick to the deal once he's got 3 VPs. (Sure, you can call him
a dealbreaker all you want, but people will still make deals
with him if they're mutually advantageous, and if they don't
trust him in deals where he'd have to spare their pitiful life,
well, maybe they shouldn't be trusting *anyone* that much.)
Josh
thinking out loud
Joshua Duffin
> Something of the sort used to be possible - you could bleed any
> methusaleh if you were using a directed bleed action rather than the
> default bleed. But I think it would be better if rush actions were
> restricted in a similar way - make them only usable against your prey.
> That would leave political actions as the only way to take political
> action in the Garfield sense. That's obviously appropriate. All
> players have the opportunity to vote and should seek to ensure that
> they have good representation.
It wouldn't, though. Cryptic Mission, Major Boon, and Eagle's
Sight (from the original Garfield-designed set) all have cross-
table reach in addition to (the also Garfield-designed) Bum's
Rush. Continuing the list: Arson, Betrayer, Bloodhunt, Charnas
the Imp, Curse of Nitocris, Deflection, Entrancement, Far Mastery,
Fifth Tradition, Game of Malkav, Golconda, Grave Robbing, Haven
Uncovered, Kine Dominance, KRCG News Radio, Life Boon, Malkavian
Prank, Malkavian Time Auction, Misdirection, Minor Boon, Muddled
Vampire Hunter, Rampage, Renegade Garou, Rotschreck, Smiling Jack
the Anarch, Society of Leopold, Succubus Club, Talbot's Chainsaw,
Temptation of Greater Power, Thadius Zho, Vampiric Disease,
Vulnerability, XTC Laced Blood.
(Incidentally, Succubus Club's effect seems to thoroughly
contradict Garfield's stated desire to not let players pool their
resources. I don't know why he designed it...)
Anyway, the point is, the political aspect of Jyhad does exist
as part of the original design. It's obviously not supposed to
be apolitical, just not *all* political.
> Another useful option would be cards which would allow you to deflect
> a rush, just as you can deflect a bleed. Most of the cards should be
> disciplineless, just like Bum Rush, Ambush and Haven Uncovered, e.g.
This would definitely be interesting. I'd expect, though, that
the cards should require a discipline, like Deflection, My
Enemy's Enemy, Telepathic Misdirection, and Redirection.
A card that allowed you to redefine terms of a vote (which would
probably have to be before voting began to avoid being abusive)
might also be fun. It would probably also have to require a
discipline. (Hopefully these wouldn't all be Dominate. :-)
Josh
not running for office
Hannigan
> >Something of the sort used to be possible - you could bleed any
> >methusaleh if you were using a directed bleed action rather than the
> >default bleed.
>
> And such had numerous issues. Whilst the archives are available for
> Hannigan to look through, the most salient issues tended to be:
>
> - design intent. Night Moves, the Jyhad rules Book, Cat Burglary
> (*Jyhad* text) and so on provided extremely convincing evidence
> that this is how it was designed and balanced.
> - power. Bleed affects primary resources with one source of
> interaction. Votes can affect both primary and secondary
> resources with multiple points of interaction. Combat can
> affect secondary resources with only one point of interaction.
> It is clear that allowing bleed to be 'randomly' directed around
> the table is more powerful than a vote of KRC, for instance.
> - players. A not insignificant number of players would use this to take
> petty revenge on others, rather than playing the game. This is
> mostly an extension of 'design intent' which is partly what this
> was designed to avoid.
>
> (By primary and secondary resources, I am referring (using relatively
> old but rarely dug up terms) to pool vs resources in play.)
No, I don't think I need to bother looking at those archives. I
played back when you could direct bleeds (with bleed cards) at anyone,
and it sucked - we rapidly made a house rule that you could only bleed
your prey. Remember, I said that I wasn't serious. I was merely
thinking through analogy, and I think the parallel to rush decks going
across table is a valid one.
Obviously the ability to bleed any player would be better than the
ability to designate any player with KRC, since in order for KRC to be
a problem the voter must both hold the vote and be able to pass the
vote. Is bleeding any Methuselah better than being able to attack the
minions of any Methuselah, though? I don't believe that it is.
Bleeding your predator, for example, will only very rarely be a good
idea.
I don't necessarily buy that design intent is a good reason to do
things, but certainly I don't feel that allowing bleeds to be directed
at any player is a good idea.
I also don't feel that allowing a player to make a strong permanent
alliance in which he agrees to take second place and by which he feels
bound is a good idea.
I don't know which I consider a worse idea.
Hannigan
James Coupe
<hanni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>Obviously the ability to bleed any player would be better than the
>ability to designate any player with KRC, since in order for KRC to be
>a problem the voter must both hold the vote and be able to pass the
>vote. Is bleeding any Methuselah better than being able to attack the
>minions of any Methuselah, though? I don't believe that it is.
Potentially, it (bleeding) is (better than combat).
One of the theories regarding such is that of primary vs secondary
resources. The theory goes that a primary resource - pool, in 99% of
instances - is more valuable and potentially more fragile than a
secondary resource. For instance, if you rush me, I can bring out a new
vampire. If you Banish me, I can replace the vampire.
Assuming you bring out vampires, you have 10 pool left (say). If I do
ten point of bleed, dead. With secondary resources, you have to work
through the secondary resources first before you can eliminate the
primary ones. This affords a considerable amount more of control (you
can take out their defences, whereas a stealth and bleed deck can still
be bounced, countered etc.) but for a considerably longer ride.
Swings and roundabouts.
>I don't necessarily buy that design intent is a good reason to do
>things, but certainly I don't feel that allowing bleeds to be directed
>at any player is a good idea.
Design intent is not the only reason why some things should stay as they
are, no. However, when you see that something has actually definitely
been designed in a specific manner, this should be enough to evaluate it
rather more heavily. Design intent will lead into costing, balancing,
wording, play-testing and so on, design intent being fundamental to all
this. Of course, mistakes can be made - it is hard to playtest a game
to a level which will reach what players will do in open, co-operative
(that is, many groups of players can discuss tactics easily),
competitive play. But design intent will feed through into a *lot* of
the inherent balancing mechanisms that were designed.
>I also don't feel that allowing a player to make a strong permanent
>alliance in which he agrees to take second place and by which he feels
>bound is a good idea.
Two players can simply do this in an unspoken fashion if they choose
anyway. It can be sometimes made obvious through play what is being
planned. Or simple table talk of each individual deal, rather than any
grand scheme. It's far from impossible.
That people feel "bound" by it is something that the rules will find
hard to address.
Matt Latham
> > I said all that's needed is a community code of behavior.
>
> Well, yes. Exactly. When I play casually, VP splits never occur.
>
> But what we actually have at tournaments, AFAICS, is a community code
> of behaviour that says that it's OK to combine resources and team up;
> not, as I think you are suggesting, that it's NOT OK to do so. I
> don't necessarily want to play that way, and don't want to play
> against people who do play that way as long as there are some people
> at the table(like, say, my wife) who don't play that way.
>
> I agree that most groups of players would never allow such behaviour,
> but, as Robert Goudie has pointed out, at a tournament this social
> restriction doesn't apply, because the players don't constitute a
> 'group' who have to play together and get along. And, in any event,
> the social restriction will only be felt by some players as long as
> the powers that be say that it's the correct thing to do
These are great points. This lack of social convention is why my wife
refuses to play in any tournaments anymore that aren't pre-releases.
At the last sanctioned constructed tourney I was in, my wife witnessed
someone jump up, point at me when he ousted me, and dance. First thing
she said to me was "That's why I don't play tournament Jyhad anymore".
She said the same thing to me when she saw someone berate another
player at his table for 20 minutes for not making a deal with him.
This from someone who back in the late 90's used to drive with me 5
hours to attend tournaments.
I agree with Robert that it's better to have something set in stone
than an "implied social contract". I used to drive myself nuts
imposing my definition of "cheezy" on others. I've been a lot more at
peace when instead of getting upset at the boring, redundant, and
exceptionally focused decks (especially when I've seen the same deck
1000 times before) I see at tournaments, I revel in those who dare to
bring innovative and creative deck designs. Instead of "shaming"
people, I make certain to tell the people who enhance my game
experience that they did so.
In the above example of the dancer/pointer, I did not make an issue of
that. I did make certain that the people at my next table who acted
with sportsmanship and who added creative twists to their decks knew I
appreciated it.
Its not fair to yourself or others to impose your social contract on
them. Instead just thank the people who play in a way that makes you
smile.
Matt
LSJ
> (Incidentally, Succubus Club's effect seems to thoroughly
> contradict Garfield's stated desire to not let players pool their
> resources. I don't know why he designed it...)
You may be misremembering a Garfield quote regarding his dilike of
games which allow players to trade resources arbitrarily.
If that's not the quote you're thinking of, please let me know.
Andrew S. Davidson
>Certain kinds of behavior break a game, or other players' enjoyment of it.
>Expecting all such behavior to be explicitly banned by the rules is
>unrealistic and should not be necessary.
>...
>In short: we don't need to legislate morality, in society or in games.
Unlike the real world, it appears to be an axiom of games that
anything which is not explicitly permitted is forbidden. That's
because a game is an artificial universe with arbitrary rules in which
anything might be possible and so you can't rely upon common sense to
constrain the players.
Political negotiation and deals can have a significant impact upon a
game. It follows that, unless a game explicitly permits such speech,
it is forbidden. Part of the charm of Diplomacy is that it explicitly
encourages you to make and break deals. The morality it legislates is
that of realpolitik.
A game such as Scrabble is silent on the subject. It would therefore
be inappropriate for players in a multi-player game to do things like
show each other their rack, plan big words together and so forth. The
game is about making words to score points and that's all. The moral
issues which tend to arise concern the legitimacy of words. In the
similar case of Boggle, we used to have a player who would regularly
use the archiac familiar form of English when conjugating words, e.g.
the verb "go" might be extended as "goest" or "goeth". This was so
amusing that we let it pass but I'm sure it would cause trouble in
other circles.
Andrew
Trevor Hyde
1. No matter how the game is structured, you cannot remove all
personality issues with the players. Equally irritating to the
'political' complaints voiced in the article are poor sport
problems that are rampant in many gaming environments. There
are a lot of *ssh*l*s who game to get a feeling of superiority.
Whether you win or lose, the gaming experience tends to be
spoiled. There are people who carry grudges from game to game,
etc.
2. Artificial limitations lead to uniquely creative responses.
This results from the simple fact that the game designers cannot
outwit every potential player. The Kingmaker problem is really
about victory conditions, not player interaction: there is no
incentive to improve your own position in most games if you do
not come in first place. If the game singularly rewards a sole
victor, then people will create non-traditional paths to victory
when traditional paths are exhausted. At the very least, a
stalemate option should be available.
I think that this issue is a particularly important area for
future game development. Especially for games that are supposed to
simulate human interaction, to any degree (historical simulations,
Jyhad, etc.). People involved in naturalistic competitive arenas
typically have different goals, which may or may not be in conflict,
allowing more than one party to achieve its goals. Diplomatic games
often fail by not allowing this. For example, many countries were
victorius in each of the major European conflicts (WWI, WWII, the
Napoleonic wars, etc.). However, the game Diplomacy only allows a
single victor. Many space opera types of games (Galactic Empires,
Twilight Imperium, etc.) provide spectacular simulations of space
exploration and technology development, than fall absolutely flat
with lifeless victory requirements that have little to do with the
game theme. Games usually enforce artificial competitive arenas
(usually with the sole goal being domination) to minimize rules
problems. In essence, everyone is being forced to play the role
of Hitler or Hirohito, rather than Churchill or Roosevelt.
Games that offer individual goals-oriented victory conditions are
rare, but they do exist. Europa Universalis is a great example,
although the game design is prohibitively convoluted. Games with
aspects of multiple simultaneous solitaire (especially Civilization)
get much of this feel because many players are just trying to
improve their own performance in comparison to previous trials.
3. Individual games exist within a broader context. Irritating
behavior on the part of a player can serve a function. For example,
one guy in our group constantly tries to test the rules boundaries
of games when he first plays them, and ends up losing spectacularly,
often throwing the balance off, and really irritating the old school
gamers in the group. However, he tends to do extremely well the next
time he plays the game because he learns the nooks and cranies of
the game's strategies. He was introduced to gaming relatively recently,
and would otherwise not stand a chance against the older gamers in
the group (20+ years of wargaming experience each).
Trevor
Andrew S. Davidson
>(Incidentally, Succubus Club's effect seems to thoroughly
>contradict Garfield's stated desire to not let players pool their
>resources. I don't know why he designed it...)
I doubt that he intended that it should be abused in the way that some
players now do. But, in any case, the fact that it is a unique
location obviously constrains its effect. If you want to do deals,
you have to put put the card in your deck then draw, play and defend
it. If other players don't like to see such dealing going on then
there is something that they can do about it, e.g. play Sudden
Reversal or Arson.
And, of course, the corollary is that you can't do deals of this sort
without being in the Succubus Club. Players who want to berate others
about deals for 20 mins (as we read elsewhere in this thread) should
be told to shut up and play.
>Anyway, the point is, the political aspect of Jyhad does exist
>as part of the original design. It's obviously not supposed to
>be apolitical, just not *all* political.
The politics should come from the cards, as above. When two combat
decks agree a table split they are going beyond the cards, IMO. Their
deal depends upon real-world political factors such as mutual trust.
>A card that allowed you to redefine terms of a vote (which would
>probably have to be before voting began to avoid being abusive)
>might also be fun.
Yeah. It irritates me when folk want to know the terms of a
referendum before deciding whether they will try to block it - that is
not the correct sequence of play and so they are literally out of
order in discussing the matter at that point. A card of this kind
would force them to make their mind up first - they could never be
sure of the terms until later.
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>2. Artificial limitations lead to uniquely creative responses.
>This results from the simple fact that the game designers cannot
>outwit every potential player. The Kingmaker problem is really
>about victory conditions, not player interaction: there is no
>incentive to improve your own position in most games if you do
>not come in first place. If the game singularly rewards a sole
>victor, then people will create non-traditional paths to victory
>when traditional paths are exhausted. At the very least, a
>stalemate option should be available.
It's best if the possibility of victory only disappears when the game
is over or the player is eliminated. If a multi-player game can put
players in a no-win situation so that their play is aimless then it is
ipso facto a bad design.
>Games usually enforce artificial competitive arenas
>(usually with the sole goal being domination) to minimize rules
>problems. In essence, everyone is being forced to play the role
>of Hitler or Hirohito, rather than Churchill or Roosevelt.
Churchill was arguably the most bellicose of these four. I once
played his role in a good PBM wargame called WW2. This had excellent
personal victory conditions. In his case, these included preservation
of the British Empire, the deposing of Hitler and the removal from
power of the Nazis. But most important was that Churchill himself
should become Prime Minister! (he started the game as First Lord of
the Admiralty). He didn't do too well in the real thing because,
while he achieved most of these goals, he wasn't PM at the end of it
all.
>Games that offer individual goals-oriented victory conditions are
>rare, but they do exist.
The Babylon 5 CCG had a good feature of "agenda" cards which gave the
races and their ambassadors different ways of scoring victory points.
I like it when there are hidden agendas too, e.g. the UFOs in
Illuminati or the missions/character cards in Chrononauts.
Something of the sort might be a good addition to Vampire (the game
that sparked this discussion). The game makes it clear that the
objectives of the ancient masters are inscrutable but then fails to
live up to this this by giving them just one simple way of scoring VPs
- by destroying their left-hand neighbour. Hidden goals and agendas
would be fun and would help undermine solid alliances because the
outcome would be less certain. For example, the following might be
out-of-turn master cards which you play as and when you achieve a
goal:
1. Triumph of the Sabbat - score 1 VP when you burn a vampires with a
Camarilla title if there are no other vampires with Camarilla titles
in play.
2. Control of the City - score 1 VP if you control five locations
and no other player controls any.
3. Cull the Weak - score 1 VP when you burn a vampire with a capacity
of 1 or 2 if there are no other vampires of this kind in play.
Andrew
Rich Shipley
>
> It's best if the possibility of victory only disappears when the game
> is over or the player is eliminated. If a multi-player game can put
> players in a no-win situation so that their play is aimless then it is
> ipso facto a bad design.
If someone has a chance to win at the end of the game no matter how poorly
they have played, it is ipso facto a bad design.
Rich
Frederick Scott
I think that's kind of your personal taste showing. A million weekday
game shows say you're wrong. These are the guys who will lose a ton of
money if people vote with their feet and turn the show off. They *DON'T*
design "bad" games - at least, not for very long they don't. And they all
have a "final round" that counts nearly as much as the rest of the game so
that no one's out of it completely until the game has actually ended.
Sometimes, if you play badly enough, you can be eliminated before then but
it's pretty hard.
Yes, my definition of "bad" here is keyed on the cultural medium
and who it attracts. Your mileage will certainly vary. But it still makes
my point, I think. I've seen some pretty good board games that allowed
for players who were way behind but not eliminated from play to somehow get
back into it. It's not necessarily a bad thing; it just depends on how
that mechanic works. If it's pretty much random and happens often enough
that players who've done well in the early game frequently feel cheated
by some late game development, then I agree with you. OTOH, if it gives a
trailing player something to work at diligently to have _some_ relatively
modest chance of putting himself back into the thick of the pack, I think
that can be a very good element of a game.
However you may feel about good and "bad" play, Andrew's point is excellent.
The framework of boardgame rules involves an assumption that all players
are playing to win. So creating a population of players who cannot win for
a significant portion of the game and who have no motive to do anything else
that was designed into the game by the game designers will find their own
motivations, and their play will often screw up the intent of the game. This
is a classic example of bad design, though it's sufficiently subtle that the
average game designer never thinks about it.
As for "bad play", in multiplayer games that's often hard to discern from
"good play" that went bad for some reason or another: bad die rolls, in CCGs
a bad metagame choice, and particularly the play of other players. Particularly
that last one. In multiplayer games, it often happens that your position gets
hosed not by your own bad play but by the horrible choices made by some dipshit
who gleefully acts as the willing lapdog for the wrong alliance, blind to how
he's going to get doublecrossed the instant your position has been reduced to
rubble and you're no longer able to help him. Therefore, I also don't think
it's a good assumption you make that players who lead have played well and those
who are way behind played badly and deserve no chance of winning. Tain't
necessarily so.
Fred
Christopher Dearlove
>anything which is not explicitly permitted is forbidden.
That may be true _within the game_, but it clearly isn't true outside
the game, where talking about the game is outside it by default.
("appears to be an axiom" is a bit of a dodgy concept as well.)
>Political negotiation and deals can have a significant impact upon a
>game. It follows that, unless a game explicitly permits such speech,
>it is forbidden.
And hence I think this conclusion is invalid. At best it may be a
social convention that your group follows. (And good luck to you,
all groups need conventions, if this works for you, fine. However
it certainly doesn't work for any group I've been in - except for
specific, highly regulated games such as chess and bridge.)
To take a specific example I've never played in a Siedler group
where if a player moving the thief said "which is better, next
to X's wheat or ore?" other players couldn't answer. (Most groups
I've played in allow a lot more, but I'm trying not to confuse
the issue, as lines have to be drawn somewhere.)
(Whilst posting, a point I haven't seen mentioned yet, but is
always relevant in this context - especially the coin flip to
combine resources issue - is attitudes to coming second, third
etc. for which see many past threads.)
--
Christopher Dearlove
Christopher Dearlove
<freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes
>Rich Shipley wrote:
>> If someone has a chance to win at the end of the game no matter how poorly
>> they have played, it is ipso facto a bad design.
>
>I think that's kind of your personal taste showing. A million weekday
>game shows say you're wrong.
Three points
(a) There's a big difference between the viewpoint of a game player and
a game spectator (although of course sometimes they coincide).
(b) When playing for money unless the game is designed to be winner
takes all (and I have only seen enough game shows, of the sort
you are referring to, to know some are, some aren't) positions
other than first matter, and things are rather different than
games played for fun (if the stakes are large enough).
(c) The sort of hardened gamer you get round here has different
(I'll avoid the subjective "higher") standards than the majority
of the population.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Christopher Dearlove
>players in a no-win situation so that their play is aimless then it is
>ipso facto a bad design.
A definite overstatement. I can't think of a multiplayer game in
which I couldn't put myself in a no-win situation (generally by
doing nothing, or sometimes something even more counterproductive).
So to be sensible you have to qualify it in terms of a player playing
sensibly ... and then how do you separate this from well?
Your comment will end up classifying all multiplayer games as bad.
(OK, there are a few minor exceptions, snakes and ladders being one.
You can argue if that's really a game - as we've done before here.)
>Churchill was arguably the most bellicose of these four.
Well personally, maybe (although Hitler was in the German army in WWI).
In terms of leading a nation, I think not. Even if you discounted
all Hitler's other actions, it's pretty difficult to find any act of
any other WWII leader more bellicose than invading the USSR - Tojo
in December 1941 possibly excepted.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Frederick Scott
>
> In article <882DF3B68D94017D.27044B69...@lp.airnew
> s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes
> >If a multi-player game can put
> >players in a no-win situation so that their play is aimless then it is
> >ipso facto a bad design.
>
> A definite overstatement. I can't think of a multiplayer game in
> which I couldn't put myself in a no-win situation (generally by
> doing nothing, or sometimes something even more counterproductive).
All general statements, when applied pedantically, are "overstatements".
You need to look at the point he's making (and frankly, the points I
was making in my reply to Rich Shipley's point) for what it's worth.
You're right, if you try hard enough, you can put yourself in a no-win
situation in any multiplayer game. But that's a lot easier in some games
than others. So read Andrew's statement as meaning, "To the extent players
find themselves in no-win situations in multiplayer games, the game is
badly designed." As with a lot of things, it's probably impossible to
avoid this problem altogether. But some games are definitely better than
others in this sense.
I'd elaborate more on why this is, but I already did so in my other post
which you nitpicked to death. (Hint: all analogies are ultimately flawed,
too. I already knew there were differences between game shows and board
games, etc., before I made the comparison. Are you arguing to make a
point or are you arguing just to argue?)
Fred
Derek Ray
<E1DAA3EA87BFBA79.36D05C09...@lp.airnews.net>,
Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> mumbled something about:
>Yeah. It irritates me when folk want to know the terms of a
>referendum before deciding whether they will try to block it - that is
You can always lie to them. Of course, you can expect nothing else you
say to be believed for the rest of the game (at least), but in the right
situation, it is certainly correct to lie.
>not the correct sequence of play and so they are literally out of
>order in discussing the matter at that point. A card of this kind
Certainly not. Such minor 'deals' as "If you give me some of the pool
from that Parity Shift, I won't Eagle's Sight and block it" are the
stuff of which table interaction is made.
And again, you can always lie to them.
>would force them to make their mind up first - they could never be
>sure of the terms until later.
They still aren't ever sure of the terms. There's plain old lying. In
most cases, there isn't a good reason to lie, or a lie will be so
obvious as to be ignored.
When your prey (the vote deck) is about to call a KRC and you are on one
pool, and your own predator has not shown any intercept, then you should
not try to weasel your way out with threats. You are a dead man. You
must block that action, because your prey is WORLDS better off with the
non-intercept deck behind him and has every reason to lie. Of course, a
lie is also extremely obvious here, so you have only yourself to blame
if you believe him, don't block, and then get ousted backwards by the
vote.
However, if your prey is about to call a KRC, and you've got plenty of
pool, and your grandprey has plenty of pool, it can often be worth the
risk of the lie to threaten him. If he agrees, great! you've saved
some resources. If he doesn't, well, you can decide whether or not you
care enough to block KNOWING that you'll lose a pool if you don't. And
if he lied, well, he just tipped his hand at a time which would gain him
no VPs -- a poor play in any circumstances.
--
"Now remember, class; rape BEFORE you pillage."
Christopher Dearlove
e_do...@removethis.com> writes
>Christopher Dearlove wrote:
>>
>> In article <882DF3B68D94017D.27044B69...@lp.airnew
>> s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes
>> >If a multi-player game can put
>> >players in a no-win situation so that their play is aimless then it is
>> >ipso facto a bad design.
>>
>> A definite overstatement. I can't think of a multiplayer game in
>> which I couldn't put myself in a no-win situation (generally by
>> doing nothing, or sometimes something even more counterproductive).
>
>All general statements, when applied pedantically, are "overstatements".
>You need to look at the point he's making (and frankly, the points I
>was making in my reply to Rich Shipley's point) for what it's worth.
No, I wanted to indicate not just that his statement was slightly too
general, but that it was very much too general. I made the mathematician's
mistake of providing an extreme case counterexample rather than a more
significant one.
>You're right, if you try hard enough, you can put yourself in a no-win
>situation in any multiplayer game. But that's a lot easier in some games
>than others. So read Andrew's statement as meaning, "To the extent players
>find themselves in no-win situations in multiplayer games, the game is
>badly designed."
Well Andrew needs to work on his phrasing, which was the much stronger
comment that if the game _can put_ players in a no-win situation then
the game is a bad design. That's the statement I was against.
Now if I take your, better, reformulation it's actually a valid point.
(Of course there's a creative tension between this and the "nothing
you do in the first half of the game matters" problem.) However it's
also worth point out that a key point is the players' skill levels.
To take a specific example a game which is often criticised for this
problem is Outpost. It's very easy to get behind so far you're dead
meat. So is Outpost a bad game. Not necessarily, among players who know
what they are doing Outpost can work very well - and is a regular at
one convention I attend. For those players Outpost is not a bad game,
they postpone the "can't catch up" until sufficiently late in the game
it's worth finishing.
In fact why limit ourselves to multiplayer games, it's a problem just
as much in two player games. (I know, the discussion came from one about
aspects of games which are multiplayer, but this isn't - although some
of the consequences thereof may be.) So let's consider chess. It's
remarkably easy to get into a no-win situation playing chess. Yes,
serious players resign the game when they realise this, but less
serious ones tend not to. I've seen a poor player carrying on a lost
game for a long time futilely hoping for an error by his opponent
with no hope. So is chess a bad design? (Is the Pope Muslim?)
>I already knew there were differences between game shows and board
>games, etc., before I made the comparison. Are you arguing to make a
>point or are you arguing just to argue?
I was pointing out that your example of game shows was almost
completely irrelevant to the case in point (we were discussing playing
games, the example was what was satisfactory to a spectator) and
therefore an almost worthless comparison. If you wanted to make the
point you need a game which is good _to play_ which has the property
you want. (And I think not involving money, as that also is different.)
I'm not saying you can't find one. (Actually I can find games I enjoy
with this property, but I think they're all flawed in some way.)
Is that pointed enough for you?
--
Christopher Dearlove
James Coupe
In message <882DF3B68D94017D.27044B69...@lp.airnew
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes:
>The game makes it clear that the
>objectives of the ancient masters are inscrutable but then fails to
>live up to this this by giving them just one simple way of scoring VPs
>- by destroying their left-hand neighbour. Hidden goals and agendas
>would be fun and would help undermine solid alliances because the
>outcome would be less certain.
However, these would significantly destabilise the game.
The game is based around the push-pull mechanism of pool vs defence.
You spend some pool to defend the rest. Spend too little, you can't
defend it. Spend too much, a small error will mean that they get
through and pulverise you too quickly.
This mechanism is fundamental. All cards in the game as based
fundamentally around this. Combat decks have hugely significant power
because of their omni-directability, but are significantly depowered by
the fact that they aren't affect pool. If simply burning vampires were
to give you victory points, the whole designed paradigm would crumble.
Granted, if you were redesigning the game from the ground up, you might
want to include alternate victory conditions. It would be extremely
hard to do so now, however, without completely wrecking the balances
that have been designed, tested, exploited, balanced and established.
Rich Shipley
news:3C3884DC...@removethis.com...
> Rich Shipley wrote:
> > "Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
> >
news:882DF3B68D94017D.27044B69...@lp.airnews.net...
> > >
> > > It's best if the possibility of victory only disappears when the game
> > > is over or the player is eliminated. If a multi-player game can put
> > > players in a no-win situation so that their play is aimless then it is
> > > ipso facto a bad design.
> >
> > If someone has a chance to win at the end of the game no matter how
poorly
> > they have played, it is ipso facto a bad design.
>
> I think that's kind of your personal taste showing.
Of course it is. Just like the post I was responding to.
Rich
Curevei
>>rare, but they do exist.
>
>The Babylon 5 CCG had a good feature of "agenda" cards which gave the
>races and their ambassadors different ways of scoring victory points.
>I like it when there are hidden agendas too, e.g. the UFOs in
>Illuminati or the missions/character cards in Chrononauts.
B5 is a pretty good game to compare and contrast tournament V:TES with for
those who haven't played it. For one thing, it's had its share of problems
trying to get the tournament scoring system to reflect normal play. In fact,
for smaller tournaments, the problem of playing for second is a serious one.
While it already has table wins to an extent, the benefits for winning aren't
sufficiently far above coming in second (or for coming in first without
winning) to discourage throwing games. However, in large tournaments, the
number of players you are competing with forces the players to play for wins.
As for agenda in B5, they were intended to get around the multiplayer problem
of beating up on whoever is winning by giving a leap to victory bonus which
would obfuscate who was truly winning; and, they can be played hidden, though
dropping an agenda late amounts to much the same surprise factor. However,
they failed. They failed because knowledgeable players memorize all of the
tournament level agenda and can accurately gauge where every player is with
sufficient thought and concentration. Unfortunately for the game, simply
adding more agenda only pushes off the problem for a few months. While there
are a few tricky ways to win, they aren't sufficiently tricky that most players
can't prepare for them as well.
Frederick Scott
>
> In article <3C38C33F...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_hom
> e_do...@removethis.com> writes
> >Christopher Dearlove wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <882DF3B68D94017D.27044B69...@lp.airnew
> >> s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes
> >> >If a multi-player game can put
> >> >players in a no-win situation so that their play is aimless then it is
> >> >ipso facto a bad design.
> >>
> >> A definite overstatement. I can't think of a multiplayer game in
> >> which I couldn't put myself in a no-win situation (generally by
> >> doing nothing, or sometimes something even more counterproductive).
> >
> >All general statements, when applied pedantically, are "overstatements".
> >You need to look at the point he's making (and frankly, the points I
> >was making in my reply to Rich Shipley's point) for what it's worth.
>
> No, I wanted to indicate not just that his statement was slightly too
> general, but that it was very much too general.
> Andrew needs to work on his phrasing, which was the much stronger
> comment that if the game _can put_ players in a no-win situation then
> the game is a bad design. That's the statement I was against.
>
> Now if I take your, better, reformulation it's actually a valid point.
> (Of course there's a creative tension between this and the "nothing
> you do in the first half of the game matters" problem.)
I think that's exactly the point: when Andrew talks about games that
put their players in "no-win" situations, you automatically construe
that to mean one has to design a game in which the first half of the
game doesn't matter to solve the problem - or at least Rich apparently
did. Rich's statement is the one I felt went off the deep end. There's
an enormous difference between a game where a player has some kind of
chance right up to the end of the game vs. one in which the first
half of the game doesn't matter at all. It's a bit of a creative
tension but I think there's all sorts of creative tensions in game
design.
> However it's
> also worth point out that a key point is the players' skill levels.
> To take a specific example a game which is often criticised for this
> problem is Outpost. It's very easy to get behind so far you're dead
> meat. So is Outpost a bad game. Not necessarily, among players who know
> what they are doing Outpost can work very well - and is a regular at
> one convention I attend. For those players Outpost is not a bad game,
> they postpone the "can't catch up" until sufficiently late in the game
> it's worth finishing.
It's still a design flaw. Here's the thing: if unskilled players have
gotten themselves in such a mess in the first half of a game which
severely tests skill, why is the game worth continuing through to the
second half? I'm pretty sure the answer is to test the skills of the
winning players sufficiently to determine a winner between them.
But Andrew is exactly correct about this: when this happens, you have a
problem going on in that the losing player or players - however unskilled
they may be in terms of advancing their own position - may well be capable
of engaging in kingmaking activities, deliberately or otherwise. If
so, then your game of skill is out the window - because the behavior
of these lousy players represents a random and (depending on the game)
often inordinately powerful element in the game. Give such players
some kind of goal to work towards and the other, better players can
begin to predict the formers' behavior and align their strategies to
cope with it.
> In fact why limit ourselves to multiplayer games, it's a problem just
> as much in two player games. (I know, the discussion came from one about
> aspects of games which are multiplayer, but this isn't - although some
> of the consequences thereof may be.)
The reason you don't worry about this in two-player games is that the
issues we're concerned about that derive from unpredictable behavior
can't arise. The two players play as long as the game entertains them
and then quit - or finish, however they will. Who cares? It's their
choice. But the losing player has no other motivation than to attempt
as best he can to continue to improve his position. He can't affect
play between two or more other players who still have a fighting chance.
> >I already knew there were differences between game shows and board
> >games, etc., before I made the comparison. Are you arguing to make a
> >point or are you arguing just to argue?
>
> I was pointing out that your example of game shows was almost
> completely irrelevant to the case in point (we were discussing playing
> games, the example was what was satisfactory to a spectator) and
> therefore an almost worthless comparison.
My example was just fine. It's not exactly the same thing being a player
vs. a spectator but for those purposes, the distinction isn't very
relevant. The game has to be interesting either way, to keep players
OR spectators interested. I think the example was quite relevant and I
think you're picking nits.
> If you wanted to make the
> point you need a game which is good _to play_ which has the property
> you want. (And I think not involving money, as that also is different.)
> I'm not saying you can't find one.
Then why are we even arguing about it? Rich Shipley's pat statement was
incorrect. Period.
Fred
Andrew S. Davidson
>>Unlike the real world, it appears to be an axiom of games that
>>anything which is not explicitly permitted is forbidden.
>
>That may be true _within the game_, but it clearly isn't true outside
>the game, where talking about the game is outside it by default.
I would distinguish role-playing commentary and banter from talk which
is designed to alter the course of the game. The latter cannot be
considered outside the game.
>And hence I think this conclusion is invalid. At best it may be a
>social convention that your group follows. (And good luck to you,
>all groups need conventions, if this works for you, fine. However
>it certainly doesn't work for any group I've been in - except for
>specific, highly regulated games such as chess and bridge.)
These are good examples - I doubt that you will find much free speech
at tournament level in these games. They even use screens and bidding
cards in bridge to prevent any kind of communications beyond that
permitted by the rules. That's because they take the game seriously.
The games we're talking about are just parlour games by comparison.
>To take a specific example I've never played in a Siedler group
>where if a player moving the thief said "which is better, next
>to X's wheat or ore?" other players couldn't answer.
I've not played that one but my experience is that such questions are
the occasion for much tedious time-wasting as players compete in
displays of erudition and misdirection. I think games slip into this
by stealth. When players are first introduced to the game there is
naturally much explanation of the rules and strategy as players are
still learning the details. But this then persists longer than it
should. Once players know how to play they should make their own
moves without all this extraneous chatter.
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>If someone has a chance to win at the end of the game no matter how poorly
>they have played, it is ipso facto a bad design.
Fred has put the matter well. I would just summarise it by saying
that if players have played poorly then they should have a diminished
chance of winning. It's having absolutely no chance at all which is
bad.
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>Certainly not. Such minor 'deals' as "If you give me some of the pool
>from that Parity Shift, I won't Eagle's Sight and block it" are the
>stuff of which table interaction is made.
Such interaction is illegal without a card effect. The game has cards
like Monocle of Clarity and Succubus Club to provide player
interaction of this sort. Trying to get the same benefit without
using a card is cheating.
And a good practical reason why it _should_ be illegal is that it
consumes game time and that is a limited resource. In one infamous
example, the ruckus over one such vote/intercept deal consumed about
an hour.
>However, if your prey is about to call a KRC, and you've got plenty of
>pool, and your grandprey has plenty of pool, it can often be worth the
>risk of the lie to threaten him. If he agrees, great! you've saved
>some resources. If he doesn't, well, you can decide whether or not you
>care enough to block KNOWING that you'll lose a pool if you don't. And
>if he lied, well, he just tipped his hand at a time which would gain him
>no VPs -- a poor play in any circumstances.
Players should do this analysis for themselves and not waste time
talking about it. There's a bit in "New York by Night" which puts it
well:
"Michaela? Don't worry about her any more. Polonia took off her
head. It was a beautiful thing. I was there with the pack - we're
Polonia's templars right now. We literally walked into her haven. He
killed her right then and there. It was supposed to be a diplomacy
talk. You know, just sitting at the table and trying to work out our
differences. Hello, bitch? Do you think we're some kind of New Age
therapy fanclub?"
-- Hester Reed, ductus of the Love's Easy Tears pack
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>A definite overstatement. I can't think of a multiplayer game in
>which I couldn't put myself in a no-win situation (generally by
>doing nothing, or sometimes something even more counterproductive).
Of course you can deliberately ruin your position in many games if you
want to be perverse. So what?
>Your comment will end up classifying all multiplayer games as bad.
There are certainly plenty of bad ones but there are some gems. I
came across Looping Louie recently and thought it quite enchanting.
You always have a chance in that game until you're out.
>In terms of leading a nation, I think not. Even if you discounted
>all Hitler's other actions, it's pretty difficult to find any act of
>any other WWII leader more bellicose than invading the USSR - Tojo
>in December 1941 possibly excepted.
Foolish more than bellicose - these were both acts of some
desperation. Hitler went to war with the USSR when he did because he
was exasperated with Churchill's intransigent blockade. And Tojo went
to war with the USA because of their equally deadly oil embargo.
What's interesting is that none of these "players" thought that they
had lost the game until the end, despite their often grim situation.
With hindsight, we now know that the Axis faced insuperable odds and
were beaten before they started. This makes it tough to have a WW2
wargame which is both a good simulation and a good game.
Andrew
Derek Ray
<310EBE842C33301D.286BF369...@lp.airnews.net>,
>On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 22:46:53 GMT, Derek Ray wrote:
>
>>Certainly not. Such minor 'deals' as "If you give me some of the pool
>>from that Parity Shift, I won't Eagle's Sight and block it" are the
>>stuff of which table interaction is made.
>
>Such interaction is illegal without a card effect. The game has cards
>like Monocle of Clarity and Succubus Club to provide player
>interaction of this sort. Trying to get the same benefit without
>using a card is cheating.
As demonstrated elsewhere and explained elsewhere, it is neither illegal
nor cheating.
Sorry. Please try again.
The reason you do not see deals like this in Poker is because it is a
game of odds -- any time you tip the odds by letting someone else win
when they shouldn't, you eventually end up screwing yourself.
>And a good practical reason why it _should_ be illegal is that it
>consumes game time and that is a limited resource. In one infamous
>example, the ruckus over one such vote/intercept deal consumed about
>an hour.
People should be told to "Just play the game" when it takes too much
game time, by the other three players at the table.
>>However, if your prey is about to call a KRC, and you've got plenty of
>>pool, and your grandprey has plenty of pool, it can often be worth the
>>risk of the lie to threaten him. If he agrees, great! you've saved
>>some resources. If he doesn't, well, you can decide whether or not you
>>care enough to block KNOWING that you'll lose a pool if you don't. And
>>if he lied, well, he just tipped his hand at a time which would gain him
>>no VPs -- a poor play in any circumstances.
>
>Players should do this analysis for themselves and not waste time
>talking about it. There's a bit in "New York by Night" which puts it
>well:
They can just as easily waste time thinking about it -- potentially more
time, in fact.
--
"I am NOT illiterate -- my parents were married!"
Rich Shipley
>
> Then why are we even arguing about it? Rich Shipley's pat statement was
> incorrect. Period.
My statement was intentional hyperbole, but it was no more incorrect that
the statement I was responding to. Whether a game is flawed or not is a
matter of personal taste of the people playing it (assuming it is actually
playable by the rules).
Rich
Rich Shipley
I respect that you prefer things that way. I just think that other
preferences can be valid also.
If your chance of winning would rely on all other players making
intentionally bad moves, would you count this as a diminished chance or no
chance?
Rich
Joshua Duffin
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3C36320C...@white-wolf.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > (Incidentally, Succubus Club's effect seems to thoroughly
> > contradict Garfield's stated desire to not let players pool their
> > resources. I don't know why he designed it...)
>
> You may be misremembering a Garfield quote regarding his dilike of
> games which allow players to trade resources arbitrarily.
>
> If that's not the quote you're thinking of, please let me know.
No, that is the one I'm thinking of. He wrote:
"There is a lot of potential for abuse in games where players can trade
resources freely, since two players who cannot win individually could
flip a coin and give the winner all their pooled resources to create a
single viable position."
It's true that this doesn't apply *exactly* to the Succubus Club,
since the "players can trade resources freely" situation only
exists when the Club is actually in play, and only between the
Club-controlling player and others. But the Club does create this
situation, and as such I found it strange that he created (as he
presumably did) the card.
Josh
hasn't gone clubbing recently
LSJ
>
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 22:46:53 GMT, Derek Ray wrote:
>
> >Certainly not. Such minor 'deals' as "If you give me some of the pool
> >from that Parity Shift, I won't Eagle's Sight and block it" are the
> >stuff of which table interaction is made.
>
> Such interaction is illegal without a card effect.
Not true, as you well know.
Joshua Duffin
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:39:44 -0500, Joshua Duffin wrote:
>
> >(Incidentally, Succubus Club's effect seems to thoroughly
> >contradict Garfield's stated desire to not let players pool their
> >resources. I don't know why he designed it...)
>
> I doubt that he intended that it should be abused in the way that some
> players now do.
Well, what he wrote in that article you (re)posted indicates
that he was well aware of the abuse it would make possible.
> But, in any case, the fact that it is a unique
> location obviously constrains its effect. If you want to do deals,
> you have to put put the card in your deck then draw, play and defend
> it. If other players don't like to see such dealing going on then
> there is something that they can do about it, e.g. play Sudden
> Reversal or Arson.
Certainly. But creating the effect at all seems strange when
you don't like people to be able to exchange resources so freely.
> And, of course, the corollary is that you can't do deals of this sort
> without being in the Succubus Club. Players who want to berate others
> about deals for 20 mins (as we read elsewhere in this thread) should
> be told to shut up and play.
You can't do deals of the "trade pool, cards in hand, etc" sort,
no. Unenforceable abstract deals, sure. You could equally well,
in Settlers of Catan, make a deal with another player to not
put the robber on one of her hexes when you move it after rolling
a seven, and in return have her not put it on one of yours when
she next moves it. It might not be important enough in Settlers
to be worth making deals about, but really, almost every multi-side
game I know of allows table-talk dealmaking. The ones that don't
(like bridge) prohibit it for some specific reason (in the case
of bridge, it seems to be to make "talking without talking" part
of the skills needed to play).
> The politics should come from the cards, as above. When two combat
> decks agree a table split they are going beyond the cards, IMO. Their
> deal depends upon real-world political factors such as mutual trust.
Of course it does. Every deal depends on real-world political
factors. Even the ones you'd come up with using political action
cards would. (eg, you vote for my KRC now and I'll vote for yours
next turn.)
The politics come from the multi-player nature of the game. Since
interaction isn't restricted to only one other person, beating up
on the strongest player is often useful for the weaker players;
certainly how much beating up you can do should be limited, but
I think it pretty much is.
> Yeah. It irritates me when folk want to know the terms of a
> referendum before deciding whether they will try to block it - that is
> not the correct sequence of play and so they are literally out of
> order in discussing the matter at that point. A card of this kind
> would force them to make their mind up first - they could never be
> sure of the terms until later.
So don't tell them. You could also be asked who you're planning
to rush with the Talbot's Chainsaw you're equipping, but you don't
have to answer that question either. But it's a fair enough
question to ask. If you don't answer, they may assume the worst
and try to block, but that's what you wanted anyway...
Josh
want the culture changed? do it yourself!
Richard Bell
until the end, but whether you will continue to enjoy playing, no matter
how badly you are doing. Civilization has the problem that you cannot
be eliminated, but growing and nurturing a civilaztion, and trading with
others, can be fun, even if you dead last. This is why Civ is a great game.
Your Mileage May Vary. I have a friend who is an abysmal civ player, but
will keep coming back, because he enjoys playing.
Frederick Scott
I disagree. There is a whole basis of motivation to what you're doing when
you play board games that is part and parcel to the whole activity. The
assumption is made as you play the game that each player has an intent to
win the game to the best of his of his ability. (Mind you, there may be some
exceptions to this when you get to certain kinds of board games where one or
more of the activities within the game, for instance fomenting honest
discussion, is actually the central point of the game and whatever
scorekeeping system is in place, if any, is peripheral.) These games tend
to break down if this motivation is missing. Therefore, Andrew's statement
is absolutely correct: it's *always* bad design to put players in a situation
where the central motivation has disappeared. (I guess I would have to add
the caveat that I'm assuming they still have real power to affect the game
after their chances to win have been obliterated.) The fact that the vast
majority of games do this to one extent or another merely reveals how
unappreciated this point is by far too many game designers. Christopher
Dearlove says he can't think of a multiplayer game where this isn't true;
I don't find that surprising. It's a very common flaw in multiplayer games.
What you're talking about, IIUC, *is* hyperbole. The ability to comeback
no matter how badly one has done - within reason (meaning that one is not
intentionally trying to eliminate one's self) - is not necessarily bad
game design, for reasons I listed in my previous response to your post.
Fred
LSJ
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3C36320C...@white-wolf.com...
> > Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > > (Incidentally, Succubus Club's effect seems to thoroughly
> > > contradict Garfield's stated desire to not let players pool their
> > > resources. I don't know why he designed it...)
> >
> > You may be misremembering a Garfield quote regarding his dilike of
> > games which allow players to trade resources arbitrarily.
> >
> > If that's not the quote you're thinking of, please let me know.
>
> No, that is the one I'm thinking of. He wrote:
>
> "There is a lot of potential for abuse in games where players can trade
> resources freely, since two players who cannot win individually could
> flip a coin and give the winner all their pooled resources to create a
> single viable position."
Yeah, that's the one.
> It's true that this doesn't apply *exactly* to the Succubus Club,
> since the "players can trade resources freely" situation only
> exists when the Club is actually in play, and only between the
> Club-controlling player and others. But the Club does create this
> situation, and as such I found it strange that he created (as he
> presumably did) the card.
It's a long way from "trade resources freely" to the non-freely
stuff allowed by (the unique location played as a master card).
Frederick Scott
> The mark of a good game is not whether anyone has a chance to win right up
> until the end, but whether you will continue to enjoy playing, no matter
> how badly you are doing. Civilization has the problem that you cannot
> be eliminated, but growing and nurturing a civilaztion, and trading with
> others, can be fun, even if you dead last. This is why Civ is a great game.
Funny you should mention that. Civilization is one on my list of prime
offenders. The only thing about it is that most of the time I've played the
six and seven player games where two or three people have been basically
eliminated by mid-game, these people have always been sufficiently weak that
they seem to have little concept that they've been eliminated. They still do
"bad" things, though: primarily getting so desperate for trade cards that it's
often impossible to stop the leaders with a trade embargo.
It's an interesting point though. I would say it applies better to Mayfair
rail games. I still remember one of my friends some years ago mentioning that
he knew he had no chance 2/3rds of the way through the game but he was enjoying
the hell out of building the track to make his line real cool. I can
appreciate that. Been there myself.
You're right: certain games have activities with the game that can be fun of their
own accord, outside of how they contribute to winning the game. When that kind
of thing happens, it gives an outlet to losing players that gives them some
kind of motivation. It's probably not a predictable thing, though (some players
like building track or trading Civ cards, some don't), so it doesn't really fix
the problem - which is allowing the leading players to set their strategy in
view of what the trailing players are likely to decide to do.
Fred
Christopher Dearlove
<freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes
>Christopher Dearlove wrote:
>> However it's
>> also worth point out that a key point is the players' skill levels.
>> To take a specific example a game which is often criticised for this
>> problem is Outpost. It's very easy to get behind so far you're dead
>> meat. So is Outpost a bad game. Not necessarily, among players who know
>> what they are doing Outpost can work very well - and is a regular at
>> one convention I attend. For those players Outpost is not a bad game,
>> they postpone the "can't catch up" until sufficiently late in the game
>> it's worth finishing.
>
>It's still a design flaw. Here's the thing: if unskilled players have
>gotten themselves in such a mess in the first half of a game which
>severely tests skill, why is the game worth continuing through to the
>second half?
You've missed my point. Why should a game have to be playable by
unskilled players? If a problem only occurs with unskilled players
is it actually a design fault in a game?
>The reason you don't worry about this in two-player games is that the
>issues we're concerned about that derive from unpredictable behavior
>can't arise. The two players play as long as the game entertains them
>and then quit - or finish, however they will. Who cares?
You presume the two players have equal entertainment values. It can be
extremely tedious to finish off a chess player who ought to resign but
is too much of a beginner to realise it. But I agree, it's less of a
problem.
>My example was just fine.
We'll have to agree to (strongly) disagree on that one.
>> I'm not saying you can't find one.
>Then why are we even arguing about it?
Note that "I'm not saying you can't find one." is not the same as
"I agree you can find one." and I'm not making that point either.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Christopher Dearlove
>
>>A definite overstatement. I can't think of a multiplayer game in
>>which I couldn't put myself in a no-win situation (generally by
>>doing nothing, or sometimes something even more counterproductive).
>
>Of course you can deliberately ruin your position in many games if you
>want to be perverse. So what?
I've explained elsewhere (with the context of what I replied to)
as to why this wasn't the best counterexample, but the original
comment covered too many cases, including this one.
>There are certainly plenty of bad ones but there are some gems. I
>came across Looping Louie recently and thought it quite enchanting.
We agree on something!
>>In terms of leading a nation, I think not. Even if you discounted
>>all Hitler's other actions, it's pretty difficult to find any act of
>>any other WWII leader more bellicose than invading the USSR - Tojo
>>in December 1941 possibly excepted.
>
>Foolish more than bellicose - these were both acts of some
>desperation. Hitler went to war with the USSR when he did because he
>was exasperated with Churchill's intransigent blockade. And Tojo went
>to war with the USA because of their equally deadly oil embargo.
Tojo, yes, but I can't see invading Russia as desperation. Long term
Hitler had a Russian problem, but no one's suggesting that Hitler
pre-empting a Russian invasion. Frustration isn't desperation, and
I can think of nothing more bellicose than "I'm not winning here,
let's start another war".
>With hindsight, we now know that the Axis faced insuperable odds and
>were beaten before they started.
The Japanese yes, but the Germans could have won the Battle of the
Atlantic (discovered Enigma was broken and a little more luck),
the USSR could have collapsed politically (say if the Germans take
Moscow) and the US might not have got actively involved until too
late. Maybe you'd call what's left a draw (no one's going to
invade the USA) but it's a rather pro-German draw.
>This makes it tough to have a WW2
>wargame which is both a good simulation and a good game.
Hey, we're back on topic! I would think that if we considered the
Pacific War (which we're agreed is always a long term US/Allied win)
we have game options not available in real life ... call it a
Japanese win if either they get sufficiently far before being
stopped (say if they take everything they did plus Hawaii and
all of New Guinea) or they hold on long enough on the retreat.
A real Japan can't call that a victory, but a game player could.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Christopher Dearlove
<freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes
>Rich Shipley wrote:
>Whether a game is flawed or not is a
>> matter of personal taste of the people playing it (assuming it is actually
>> playable by the rules).
>
>is absolutely correct: it's *always* bad design to put players in a situation
>where the central motivation has disappeared.
Andrew's original statement was that it was bad design if a game _can_
put the players in such a situation, a stronger statement.
>Christopher
>Dearlove says he can't think of a multiplayer game where this isn't true
and it was the stronger version that I said occurred in all multiplayer
games, not your weaker version.
My point here is that if you insist on a player always being in with a
winning chance, no matter how badly he plays, then forget it, it isn't
going to happen. If you want players to be still in with a chance
provided they play reasonably well, then you run into a logical problem
... obviously all players are in with a chance if they play well enough,
they'll be winning, and there's no dividing line between the two cases.
If instead (or as well) you want players no longer in with a chance to
have very little chance of acting to "throw" a game (certainly harder
than the Monopoly "see everything for a dollar" ploy) then some games
are better than others, and many are, for my tastes, acceptably good.
And yes, taste _does_ come into it.
As for your emphasised *always*, there are no absolute rules in game
design, only guidelines. Furthermore _my_ central motivation isn't
necessarily to win, it's to do my best. In the majority of games if
I can't win, I'll try for second, or third, or fourth, or even not to
be last. If you think it's first or nothing, in all games, then we
should play in different groups.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Adam Ruprecht
> Funny you should mention that. Civilization is one on my list of prime
> offenders. The only thing about it is that most of the time I've played the
> six and seven player games where two or three people have been basically
> eliminated by mid-game, these people have always been sufficiently weak that
> they seem to have little concept that they've been eliminated. They still do
> "bad" things, though: primarily getting so desperate for trade cards that it's
> often impossible to stop the leaders with a trade embargo.
This reminds me of an issue groups I've played with have occasionally
grappled with - if trades with the leaders increase their overall chances
of winning (even if those overall chances still remain very small), is it
ethically valid for them to trade with the leaders even if that makes the
person they trade with much more likely to win? I claim that as long as
you have any chance of winning, you should play to maximize it, but it
could easily be viewed as kingmaking.
If the above wasn't clear, here's an abstract example:
A, B, and C are playing a game; their current chances of winning are a,b,
and c. C can interact with A such that c increases to c' and a increases
to a'. What constraints would your group put on a, b, c, a', and c' for
this to be considered a 'fair' deal?
Adam
Brent Keith
> It's best if the possibility of victory only disappears when the game
> is over or the player is eliminated. If a multi-player game can put
> players in a no-win situation so that their play is aimless then it is
> ipso facto a bad design.
Interestingly, this is something which crops up as a problem in certain
tournament formats, even in two player games. In some variants of the so
called "Swiss" format, advancement depends in part on "strength of
schedule". In other words, two or more players with an equal number of
wins, losses and ties (if applicable) trying to get into the same slot in
the next round compare the records of those they played against, such that a
player who defeated someone with 5 wins will advance over a player who
defeated someone with 0 wins (all other factors being equal). The problem
with such systems lies with players who do badly in the first few rounds.
Generally, after two or three losses it is utterly impossible to win the
tournament, or be among the top percentage of players (when the rounds of
Swiss are being used as a qualifier). When it is no longer possible to win,
there is very little motive to continue. If there is some form of ranking
system (ELO or some other) in place for players extending outside the scope
of the tournament, there is some continued motivation to play on despite
losses, but even then those who have been doing so badly are likely to call
it a day and assume they will not win more. (If the tournament is for a
CCG, or any other game where prior preparation of resources like a
customized deck or army is needed, this belief is even stronger.) If they
leave, they effectively forfiet all further games - making the rest of their
record for the day losses. Those who faced them earlier are thus penalized
against others with the same number of games, though had the departing
player contined they could have won the rest of their games. Thus, someone
who has no hope of winning the tournament (or advancing past the qualifiers,
depending on situation) is inadvertantly playing kingmaker, whether they
want to or not.
-Brent Keith
Frederick Scott
> My point here is that if you insist on a player always being in with a
> winning chance, no matter how badly he plays, then forget it, it isn't
> going to happen.
I think you're kind of scratching. If players forget they that motivation
to win and play simply to destroy their chances of winning, then few if
any games will stand up to the requirement that the game never put players
into a position of having no hope. But if players do that, then the whole
issue of motivation is moot anyway. A motivation to win the game is kind
of underpinning assumption of this whole discussion.
I also find the concept of players with vastly differing abilities to be
beside the point, as well. If you've got adults playing against children or
adults who differ greatly in their abilities then the subject becomes
pretty much moot also. The play of extremely weak players is usually
unpredictable anyway (that's why they're weak) so no design element in any
game is solve that problem. In that situation, the problem is the players,
not the game.
Given those two points, I disagree. It is possible to design games that
way.
> If you want players to be still in with a chance
> provided they play reasonably well, then you run into a logical problem
> ... obviously all players are in with a chance if they play well enough,
> they'll be winning, and there's no dividing line between the two cases.
Absolutely not! A lot of games have an element of luck in them which
eliminates unfortunate players too soon despite excellent play. And to
the extent games are skill based, it's quite easy and frequently happens
that a fairly slight difference in skill will eliminate a player who plays
a weak game early. A multiplayer game with a property similar
to Chess (as you cited yesterday) except that only one or some of the
players are eliminated from effective contention early yet still have a
significant position on the board. If there are two or more players
who still have a realistic chance of winning the game, it can't be stopped
(as chess can) due to one player having effectively won the game yet some
players have no chance - which contradicts your statement above. This
whole line of reasoning is incorrect.
> As for your emphasised *always*, there are no absolute rules in game
> design, only guidelines. Furthermore _my_ central motivation isn't
> necessarily to win, it's to do my best.
That's splitting hairs in a two-player game. In a multiplayer game, it's
problematic: outside of winning the game, players often do not agree what
"doing your best" actually amounts to. There's a fair number of people
who care nothing for achieving the second highest total in whatever scoring
system is used (if a there's even a scoring system) and essentially feel
that doing their best is taking down the guy who's play (in their
perception) destroyed their chances of winning. That's exactly why
Andrew's statement is correct: active players without a predictable
motivation in a multiplayer game is, ipso facto, a flaw in the game
design.
> In the majority of games if I can't win, I'll try for second, or third,
> or fourth, or even not to be last. If you think it's first or nothing,
> in all games, then we should play in different groups.
You apparently don't have a wide enough body of experience with
multiplayer games. Many of them have no measure of second or third,
etc. And while I don't generally subscribe to it, there are many
players who play these games who don't care about the difference between
finishing second and last. Motivation to win a board game is pretty much
universal. Like it or not, the fact is is that beyond winning you will
find little consensus in the world. If you only want to play against
players who agree with your runner-up mentality, then perhaps you should
view Andrew's flaw as being the thing that limits the number of opponents
available to you.
Fred
Frederick Scott
>
> In article <3C394149...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott
> <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes
> >Christopher Dearlove wrote:
> >> However it's
> >> also worth point out that a key point is the players' skill levels.
> >> To take a specific example a game which is often criticised for this
> >> problem is Outpost. It's very easy to get behind so far you're dead
> >> meat. So is Outpost a bad game. Not necessarily, among players who know
> >> what they are doing Outpost can work very well - and is a regular at
> >> one convention I attend. For those players Outpost is not a bad game,
> >> they postpone the "can't catch up" until sufficiently late in the game
> >> it's worth finishing.
> >
> >It's still a design flaw. Here's the thing: if unskilled players have
> >gotten themselves in such a mess in the first half of a game which
> >severely tests skill, why is the game worth continuing through to the
> >second half?
>
> You've missed my point. Why should a game have to be playable by
> unskilled players? If a problem only occurs with unskilled players
> is it actually a design fault in a game?
I didn't realize you were using players who are so unskilled that they
essentially had no chance from the get-go. Then I go to the point I
cited in my other post: as players who are that unskilled, they become
so unpredictable in their play that the question of motivating them to
win (or not) is irrelevant. Since they can't possibly play well enough
to win, it doesn't matter whether the game grants them a chance to win:
they will not be able to avail themselves of it. Again, this comes from
taking Andrew's statement too generally. It's not the game which is
preventing the players from winning at any point - it's the players
themselves.
Fred
Rich Shipley
> Rich Shipley wrote:
> >
> > My statement was intentional hyperbole, but it was no more incorrect
that
> > the statement I was responding to. Whether a game is flawed or not is a
> > matter of personal taste of the people playing it (assuming it is
actually
> > playable by the rules).
>
> I disagree. There is a whole basis of motivation to what you're doing
when
> you play board games that is part and parcel to the whole activity. The
> assumption is made as you play the game that each player has an intent to
> win the game to the best of his of his ability.
I agree that should be the intent when you start playing.
> These games tend
> to break down if this motivation is missing. Therefore, Andrew's
statement
> is absolutely correct: it's *always* bad design to put players in a
situation
> where the central motivation has disappeared.
Attempting to win is my intent when playing a game, but it is not my central
motivation. My central motivation is to enjoy the process. I can do this
while losing as well as winning.
> The fact that the vast
> majority of games do this to one extent or another merely reveals how
> unappreciated this point is by far too many game designers. Christopher
> Dearlove says he can't think of a multiplayer game where this isn't true;
> I don't find that surprising. It's a very common flaw in multiplayer
games.
Then I guess the concept of multi-player games is flawed, so don't play them
anymore. I'll go on enjoying them myself.
> What you're talking about, IIUC, *is* hyperbole. The ability to comeback
> no matter how badly one has done - within reason (meaning that one is not
> intentionally trying to eliminate one's self) - is not necessarily bad
> game design, for reasons I listed in my previous response to your post.
I *said* that statement was hyperbole - why are you still arguing it with
me?
I don't really feel that any type of game is flawed. It is all in the
execution and audience. You are the one saying that the majority of
multi-player games out there are flawed and using faulty assumptions to
support this claim.
If designers followed your advice, the scope of games produced would be
drastically diminished. For example, I played three games yesterday - lets
see how they stack up using your criteria:
Settlers of Catan: Since it possible to be put in a position where you
cannot score 10 points, the game is flawed and should be scrapped. I once
ended up a game with 2 points (I think I built a road the who game) and knew
I had no chance a good while before the game ended, but it is still a story
I can laugh about and tell anyone disappointed in losing.
Taj Mahal: Any type of game like this where a limited amount of points are
tallied each round is flawed because it is possible to be too far behind
with a couple turns left to catch up. Chuck it out too.
Urland: This one has the mechanism for those behind that they can jump over
other players on the scoring track, but it uses a tallied score again, so
you still may not have a chance at the end. Bad game - no biscuit.
Rich
Joshua Duffin
[re succubus club vs r. garfield's dislike of "trade resources
freely"]
> It's a long way from "trade resources freely" to the non-freely
> stuff allowed by (the unique location played as a master card).
Um. OK, you can only make trades during your untap phase with
Succubus Club. And only while the card is in play. But besides
that, what could be more free than trading pool, cards in play,
and cards in hand? Isn't that pretty much all the resources
that exist in VTES?
Josh
Anthony Simons
Yes; you've hit the nail right on the head there, Rich. The point, I
think, that the others are getting to here is that they don't enjoy a
game as a result of either given situation and therefore conclude it
is these no-win/easy win factors which signal a bad design.
I'll play damn anything, and enjoy most games I play because I enjoy
indulging in the social pastime of gaming. If people start whingeing
that people win too easily or people don't win at all they have missed
the point that the only winners at any game are those that enjoy it.
People who do this are usually the same type who might turn round and
blame me for their defeat; not because I am the winner but because one
of my plays has assisted somebody else in attaining a lead. They
might say the game is a bad design because it allows such a situation
to arise. They might say that even though my play was within the
bounds of the rules (or as a group our play), it was unfair because he
was winning and is suddenly no longer the leader.
He has lost the game anyway, as he has took the competitive angle to
seriously and has detracted from his own pleasure. One might argue
the colluding players are doing the same, I would argue (and have) if
the rules allow it then it's OK by me. Nothing wrong with
competition, but always remember it is a game. That said, if these
people do not enjoy a particular game then it will become an
intolerable experience to play it. I am not going to force anybody to
play something if they don't think it will end in an acceptable
manner; perhaps I am just a little more accepting?
LSJ
Yeah. And the "while the card is in play" and the "with you"
and the "during your untap phase" put things a long way from
"games that allow players to freely trade resources".
Christopher Dearlove
<freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes
>A lot of games have an element of luck in them which
>eliminates unfortunate players too soon despite excellent play
I haven't been addressing that point, but rather the case of the
problem occurring due to bad play. On this specific point, yes
it's a problem if that occurs too frequently. (But to take a
specific example, this is a complaint sometimes made about
Siedler. However I disagree that that case is over the line.)
<the rest of this increasingly tedious discussion snipped>
>You apparently don't have a wide enough body of experience with
>multiplayer games.
Apart from a few decades of experience (though I'd only really
count the last quarter century as real games experience) owning
more than a couple of hundred of them, and having played a lot
more, being a regular at some of the main British games
conventions and other points I could note, no experience at all :)
Your judgement seems to be even more flawed than your examples.
>Many of them have no measure of second or third, etc.
Some don't, most do. And yes, I will quantify most. The British
boardgames championship (*) is held each year at Baycon. Each game
played there is written up on a sheet and submitted, the winner
being determined by grinding the scores somehow. Each game write
up lists 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. places. In a very few games it's only
possible to write 1st and join everyone as 2nd=. In almost every
game it is straightforward to rank 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. without
inventing any new criteria, just what comes naturally from the
game. Clearly games played for (game) money or points are
usually easy (except some where it's the first to a score,
without evenly scoring everyone else) and many (but not all)
race games place by position. Elimination games can be scored
by order of elimination.
Perhaps _you_ need more experience?
>And while I don't generally subscribe to it, there are many
>players who play these games who don't care about the difference
between
>finishing second and last.
People often post here expressing that opinion, but I rarely
actually come across it in real life, and I've played with what
I would guess is a good fraction of the hardened general games
players here. I suspect it's an attitude more common in the
USA. (As also seems to be the need for how ever many levels
of tiebreak are needed to produce a winner, draws seeming
to be unAmerican.)
>Motivation to win a board game is pretty much
>universal. Like it or not, the fact is is that beyond winning you will
>find little consensus in the world.
Actually I think wanting to do your best is more common than wanting
only to win. How many athletes taking silver throw it away because
they didn't take gold compared to those who still value it above
bronze? (Whilst of course all setting out for the gold, and vowing to
try for gold next time.)
>If you only want to play against
>players who agree with your runner-up mentality,
That sounds remarkably like a poor attempt at an insult. Better luck
next time.
>then perhaps you should
>view Andrew's flaw as being the thing that limits the number of
opponents
>available to you.
I don't seem to have any problems finding opponents, or for that matter
games I enjoy playing. On the latter point maybe I have it easier than
you.
(*) Self-elected, as these things are, but it's only real competitor
(Furrycon) used a pretty similar system. No, I've never won
either - but usually achieve a quite respectable position.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Christopher Dearlove
e_do...@removethis.com> writes
>I didn't realize you were using players who are so unskilled that they
>essentially had no chance from the get-go. Then I go to the point I
>cited in my other post: as players who are that unskilled, they become
>so unpredictable in their play that the question of motivating them to
>win (or not) is irrelevant. Since they can't possibly play well enough
>to win, it doesn't matter whether the game grants them a chance to win:
>they will not be able to avail themselves of it. Again, this comes from
>taking Andrew's statement too generally.
I originally took Andrew's statement as he wrote it, rather than as you
chose to rewrite it. I'm prepared (and have been recently) playing by
your new rules however.
>It's not the game which is
>preventing the players from winning at any point - it's the players
>themselves.
I will spell it out once more so maybe you will understand it.
Consider a game (*) where if a group of player who haven't played it
before (although they may be reasonable games players) sit down to
play within a short time one or more of them will have fallen
behind. As they get better, with practice at the game, the time
before this happens gets longer. Once they've got pretty good at the
game this point is, or is so close to as not to matter, the end of
the game. However it takes some time (quite a number of games)
to achieve this state.
So do we classify the game as bad according to your rules? We could
say yes, because a group of starting players run into the problem.
However that marks as bad a game that can be played entirely
satisfactorily without the problem by some players, for whom it
isn't a bad game. We could say no, because you can achieve the
expert state, but for many groups of players just picking up the
game it is a horrible game. The only logical conclusion we can
come to is that we can't say this is definitively a good or a
bad game, it depends on the players, and in particular it depends
on their skill. So you can't make absolute judgements, as you've
been arguing, and whoever it was who said this is dependent on
the players is right.
However (and I haven't discussed this up to this point) I also
think that the opposing point of view, that all games judgement
is 100% subjective, is also wrong, that the issue we're discussing
is relevant to judging a game (**). See other past threads.
Finally (and I really will try to ignore anything you say by return
unless it's so egregiously wrong like the other one I just replied
to a few minutes ago) I think it's easy to overlook that most of
the sorts of games we discuss here whilst apparently not having
the property I discuss above, of needing practice at that specific
game, need general games practice to play well. I suspect most
people posting here could pick a high skill game they'd never seen
before and do much better than average against a group of random
family gamers because (whether by explicit calculation or "feel")
they know what sort of things to do that appear in many games
(husband resources, play to the victory conditions, attack the
leader, try to be inconspicuous etc.) and can immediately apply
them to many games. I suspect many games we all agree are good
wouldn't appear so to less experienced games players.
(*) I think Outpost isn't far off this.
(**) And hence I think Outpost isn't a perfect game (and actually
it isn't one of my favourites either).
--
Christopher Dearlove
Andrew S. Davidson
>> >Certainly not. Such minor 'deals' as "If you give me some of the pool
>> >from that Parity Shift, I won't Eagle's Sight and block it" are the
>> >stuff of which table interaction is made.
>>
>> Such interaction is illegal without a card effect.
>
>Not true, as you well know.
How do I know this? If I want to play the game, I don't go making
assumptions - I read the rulebook. I've just been through all 64
pages of it and there's not the slightest hint in there that players
can talk as they please during a game. It's a card game. The players
play cards - that's it, nothing more.
Without permission from the rules, the players may not make their own
Bewitching Orations or Charming Lobbies any more than they may
Intimidate, Bribe, Seduce, Grapple or Garotte the other players. No,
they just play their cards and announce their actions as the rules lay
out.
Political speeches are not needed for the game to function but if
players were allowed to make them in the manner you imagine, then
you'd expect to find rules governing this activity. Such rules are
both normal and necessary in real talking shops such as parliaments,
meetings, committees, even this very newsgroup. Rules for determining
who may speak and for how long. What topics may be discussed and the
language which may be used. And, most importantly, when the talking
must stop and the matter proceed to a conclusion. Without such rules,
the talking can go on indefinitely and that seems to be the trend in
UK tournaments.
And if making speeches were to be part of the game then you introduce
a bias in favour of those with the gift of the gab. When discussing
Madness of the Bard, we heard how such verbal skill was not a proper
part of the game because it would introduce a bias against foreign
speakers. The argument was bogus in that case because there's nothing
to stop such speakers from rhyming in their own tongue. But it is
certainly valid in this case as it's obviously more difficult to
haggle with foreigners because you have to communicate effectively and
persuasively - an arbitrary rhyme is not enough.
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>Sorry. Please try again.
>
>The reason you do not see deals like this in Poker is because it is a
>game of odds -- any time you tip the odds by letting someone else win
>when they shouldn't, you eventually end up screwing yourself.
No, you can get deals in poker. Whipsaw raising for example. Players
don't discuss them openly at the table because they know that it's
cheating. And that's a serious matter because there is money at
stake.
A further example of what I mean can be seen in the rulebook for the
new LotR CCG. This includes the following:
"Shadow players may converse and plan among themselves, but they may
not reveal to each other the cards in their hands. They can make
agreements, but those agreements are not binding."
Without an enabling clause of this kind, table-talk of a diplomatic
nature is strictly illegal. Of course, players are wont to take
advantage of the informal circumstances that many games are played in.
But they have no right to do so if the game does not explicitly permit
it.
Andrew
James Coupe
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes:
>>> Such interaction is illegal without a card effect.
>>
>>Not true, as you well know.
>
>How do I know this?
LSJ has told you repeatedly.
If you wish to play dumb, you can do that on your own.
--
James Coupe You remind me of the babe. What babe?
PGP 0x5D623D5D The babe with the power. What power?
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Power of voodoo. Who do?
13D7E668C3695D623D5D You do. Do what? Remind me of the babe.
LSJ
>
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 10:07:23 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>
> >> >Certainly not. Such minor 'deals' as "If you give me some of the pool
> >> >from that Parity Shift, I won't Eagle's Sight and block it" are the
> >> >stuff of which table interaction is made.
> >>
> >> Such interaction is illegal without a card effect.
> >
> >Not true, as you well know.
>
> How do I know this?
Um, off the top of my head - my earlier reply to one of your posts
stating so [LSJ 02-JAN-2002]
Interesting other references:
You stated that you believed Jyhad to allow such [ASD 15-SEP-2000]
You claimed deals were a part of VTES [ASD 17-NOV-2000]
You noted that you didn't need Monocle to ask questions - that
(non-binding) deal-making was routine. [ASD 11-JAN-2001]
and so on.
You also claimed that there are players in your group who are able to
make deals with only a glance. [ASD 20-SEP-2000]. How do you propose
enforcing a rule banning such glances?
Derek Ray
<48D1D8C83CF4D860.DACAAE28...@lp.airnews.net>,
Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> mumbled something about:
>On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 13:35:25 GMT, Derek Ray wrote:
>
>>Sorry. Please try again.
>>
>>The reason you do not see deals like this in Poker is because it is a
>>game of odds -- any time you tip the odds by letting someone else win
>>when they shouldn't, you eventually end up screwing yourself.
>
>No, you can get deals in poker. Whipsaw raising for example. Players
Define, please?
>don't discuss them openly at the table because they know that it's
>cheating. And that's a serious matter because there is money at
>stake.
Horseshit, and crap.
A deal not discussed openly is no less a deal than one discussed openly.
>Without an enabling clause of this kind, table-talk of a diplomatic
>nature is strictly illegal. Of course, players are wont to take
Further crap.
>advantage of the informal circumstances that many games are played in.
>But they have no right to do so if the game does not explicitly permit
>it.
Additional crap. You know better.
--
"I am NOT illiterate -- my parents were married!"
BernieTime
Okay, I've been unable to catch the newsgroup for a couple of weeks
now and have a quick gripe.
Nothing I've read illuminates me as to why this thread is titled "Games and
Politics" by Richard Garfield.
I'm not a net-cop by any means, but is it so bad to change the subject
header when topics go way off???
Not just this thread is suffering either..
BernieTime
Frederick Scott
>
> In article <3C3A033E...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott
> <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes
> >multiplayer games.
>
> Apart from a few decades of experience (though I'd only really
> count the last quarter century as real games experience) owning
> more than a couple of hundred of them, and having played a lot
> more, being a regular at some of the main British games
> conventions and other points I could note, no experience at all :)
>
> Your judgement seems to be even more flawed than your examples.
No, I'm going by your statement, which appear to be extremely naive.
I don't read r.g.b much anymore but back when I did, some years ago,
this kind of discussion, about the value of second place and
metagaming and so forth, came up about every 6 months. You seem
either ignorant of the controversy or at the very least, so pat
in your position that one would hardly detect you were aware of
it. I'm not sure which. In any case...
> >Many of them have no measure of second or third, etc.
>
> Some don't, most do. And yes, I will quantify most. The British
> boardgames championship (*) is held each year at Baycon. Each game
> played there is written up on a sheet and submitted, the winner
> being determined by grinding the scores somehow. Each game write
> up lists 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. places. In a very few games it's only
> possible to write 1st and join everyone as 2nd=. In almost every
> game it is straightforward to rank 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. without
> inventing any new criteria, just what comes naturally from the
> game.
I don't know what kinds of games are played there. The multiplayer
games I've played either have no significant metric at all or else
they might have some kind of number you could latch on and use as
a metric but it would be naive in the extreme to assume that it
meant pigshit in terms of indicating how well players did. Take
Risk for example. If you were naive, you might award places in
inverse order of how the players were eliminated. Indeed, I've
been in Risk tournaments were this was how they placed the losers.
I recall a game in which I had almost won, attacking a player with
4 cards who had an empire guarded by 25 armies total with my 40
movable armies. I was holding 3 cards and would easily have
snowballed to victory had I eliminated her. It was not a
slam-dunk but normally one should win that. I hit a spate of bad
die rolling and couldn't quite take her out. As a result, the
next player eliminated her effortlessly and found himself in a
position to eliminate the rest of the players on the board in any
order he chose. As it happened, he went after me first. No
particular reason, he just noticed me in that particular moment
and started rolling dice. Then he chose someone else, then someone
else and so forth. I wound up placing 5th in the game for that
reason - technically. Really, who cares? I didn't win, the
order of finish had nothing whatsoever to do with who played
how well, it was just how they wrote up the results.
So suffice it to say, I am not impressed by what happens at
the British boardgames championship. A lot of games have metrics
you could use that, when analyzed, don't mean much in terms of
who played better than who. Then and again, some do. Finishing
cash in Acquire, a game in which the player finishes with most
cash is declared winner. It stands to reason that whoever finished
with second most cash can claim second.
On the other hand, sometimes the effort to finish first will lead
a player to take inordinate risks to stop the leader, if the game
allows for that. The effort may rob him of his second place
standing the game's convenient metric: Rail Baron, when you go
clear across the continent using other players' lines in an effort
to tag the person declaring for home and prevent him from winning.
If he falls from second in the metric of on-hand cash and rail line
value while making the effort, did he do less well? I'd say he
screwed up if he *didn't* make the effort but there's no clear
answer to that.
> Clearly games played for (game) money or points are
> usually easy
Some are, some aren't.
> Perhaps _you_ need more experience?
I knew there was a reason I got tired of r.g.b.
> >And while I don't generally subscribe to it, there are many
> >players who play these games who don't care about the difference
> >between finishing second and last.
>
> People often post here expressing that opinion, but I rarely
> actually come across it in real life, and I've played with what
> I would guess is a good fraction of the hardened general games
> players here. I suspect it's an attitude more common in the
> USA. (As also seems to be the need for how ever many levels
> of tiebreak are needed to produce a winner, draws seeming
> to be unAmerican.)
I couldn't say. I've come across them in real life plenty of
times and I quite understand the point of view.
> >Motivation to win a board game is pretty much
> >universal. Like it or not, the fact is is that beyond winning you will
> >find little consensus in the world.
>
> Actually I think wanting to do your best is more common than wanting
> only to win.
No, that's not what I said and that's not how someone who played only
to win would look at it. They would say that if they don't win, there
are other things in the game that they equate to "doing their best"
besides finishing second by some arbitrary metric. Going down in
flames might be one thing if taking a huge risk in risk in terms of
whatever second place metric is being used in order to slightly increase
their chance of stopping the leader. Another one might be being the
kingmaker, if they can't be king. In my experience, there's simply
no consensus about this, depending on the game in question.
> How many athletes taking silver throw it away because
> they didn't take gold compared to those who still value it above
> bronze? (Whilst of course all setting out for the gold, and vowing to
> try for gold next time.)
(Well, there's the 1972 U.S. Men's Basketball Team. Admittedly, that
wasn't exactly about shame in losing. I digress. I just thought it
was funny that I could think of an example with little effort.)
Congratulations. In track and field sports, you've managed to find
an area which is pretty much dominated by players who barely interact
with each other and basically compete against the same single metric,
for instance time to run from start to finish or distance from shot
putter to where the shot lands or something similar. Obviously, you
can place people reliably with that metric.
But let's look at other athletes, such as professional sports leagues.
I don't know what playoffs are like in your part of the world but
here we typically use a simple single-elimination bracket when playoff
teams are determining a champion. Play a game (or a series of games
won by the team wins some number of games first, such as best 4 games
out of 7) against a single opponent. Win and you advance, lose and
you're out. No one in the United States ever bothers to play for third
place anymore. They used to, in some sports (I distinctly remember
the National Football League had a consolation championship back in
the 1960s) but they got rid of it: no one cared. Even the athletes
often didn't care. So now, you're either the champion or you're one
of the victims along the way. There's no second place trophy, or
"silver" to throw away.
So sports, like games, vary in their ability to anoint someone with
"second place" and down the line. As you say, better luck next time.
Fred