spin-off topic: Is deal making inherent to mutiplayer games?
Teeka
to the discussion about deal-making in tourneys, but I did want to
share this with everyone.) ---
Both Josh and LSJ have said it, and the whole deal making-discussion
is based on it being true: "deal making/table talk is inherent to
VTES, because it's a multiplayer game."
I disagree with this. I don't see why deal making/table talk would
have to be part of VTES, or any multi-player game. It can be, easily,
of course, but it can just as easily not be. I'll try to explain what
I mean.
First of all, as someone already stated, deal making is not covered in
the rules. Basically this means that it's not an inherent part of the
game, but it's not disallowed either. To me, this in turn means that
it's all up to the players to do or not do it. Just like dressing in
all-blue clothes or playing while hanging upside down.
I have played many, many multiplayer games over the years. Games like
Settlers of Catan, or Risk, or Magic with more than two players (which
is the way I always play it) to name but a few.
All of these games could, possibly, have a strong level of deal
making: "I'll trade you the ore you need if you promise not to block
my trade route" (Catan), "I'll counter that Terror if you promise to
play that +2/+2 enchantment on my creature" (Magic). Without a doubt,
this is the way some people play those games.
But still, never ever have I, or anyone I played with, felt the need
to make deals. We all felt that such behaviour would be something
additional, added by the players themselves, which we don't want, we
want to play the game *as it is*. Frankly, it never even really
occurred to me as an option. If it's not in the rules, then it's not
in the game.
When I want to play VTES, I want to use the *cards*. I want to use the
strategies made possible by the *cards* and win because I am good with
the *cards*. I like how lots of aspects of this particular game
invlove dealing with multiple other players, I especially like how
referendums work and the "eligible-to-block"-rules.
However, I want the interaction-factor to be limited by what the
*cards* can do. Meaning: I could spare a player by not damaging him
with my KRC, but I'd have no idea if he'd return the favor. I would
never discuss it, only give out a signal by doing something benevolent
and hope for help later, which might prove to be a mistake. I could
rescue my grandpredator's vampire from torpor hoping that that vampire
will be used to block and kill my predator's vampire. But I won't
offer to do it in return for a promise for help later on. I think the
workings of a card like Bribes is in-game deal making (made possible
by a card) which is fine.
So I'm actually playing SoD in every mutiplayer game I play, without
seeing it as a "special format". Quite the contrary, I see it as the
"normal" way to play a game.
If I wanted to do something in my spare time that involved lots of
debate, I'd become a board member for some union. Instead, I spend my
money on cards and my time on making decks, so I want to *play those
cards*, not play only a few of them and let the rest of the game
depend on how well I can talk.
I think deal making and table talk reduce the value of the cards and
strategies made available to us by R. Garfield, LSJ and everyone else
that's designed (parts of) VTES. What's the use of having hundreds of
cards and many card-based strategies, if deal-making is just as
important, if not more so, to get you the VPs/wins?
To me, deal making can (if not does) reduce the cards themselves to a
second-rate aspect of the game, merely a way to establish a strong
position in the inevitable verbal power struggle.
Having said all this, I want to point out I fully understand that
things have evolved the way they have and this is the way lots of
people like it. I totally see all the arguments why deal making can be
allowed and not saying they're wrong. I just differ in opinion on the
whole assumption that it *has* to be part of VTES.
-Teeka, who would certainly get a time-wasting warning beacuse he can
never explain himself in just a few words. :-)
LSJ
> First of all, as someone already stated, deal making is not covered in
> the rules. Basically this means that it's not an inherent part of the
> game, but it's not disallowed either.
That logic is flawed. If it were true that deal making is not covered, that
still wouldn't necessarily imply that deal making is not an inherent part of the
game.
Also, deal making is covered in the V:EKN rules.
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules#sec4.8
> To me, this in turn means that
> it's all up to the players to do or not do it. Just like dressing in
> all-blue clothes or playing while hanging upside down.
>
> I have played many, many multiplayer games over the years. Games like
> Settlers of Catan, or Risk, or Magic with more than two players (which
> is the way I always play it) to name but a few.
> All of these games could, possibly, have a strong level of deal
> making: "I'll trade you the ore you need if you promise not to block
> my trade route" (Catan), "I'll counter that Terror if you promise to
> play that +2/+2 enchantment on my creature" (Magic). Without a doubt,
> this is the way some people play those games.
> But still, never ever have I, or anyone I played with, felt the need
> to make deals. We all felt that such behaviour would be something
> additional, added by the players themselves, which we don't want, we
> want to play the game *as it is*. Frankly, it never even really
> occurred to me as an option. If it's not in the rules, then it's not
> in the game.
Just because deal-making isn't mandatory doesn't mean it isn't a part.
If you and your friends never feel the need to use bleed bounce, that doesn't
mean bleed bounce isn't part of the game *as it is*.
> I think deal making and table talk reduce the value of the cards and
> strategies made available to us by R. Garfield, LSJ and everyone else
> that's designed (parts of) VTES. What's the use of having hundreds of
> cards and many card-based strategies, if deal-making is just as
> important, if not more so, to get you the VPs/wins?
Because R. Garfield designed the game to be that way, and the cards are designed
the cards under that framework.
The text of Succubus Club even holds indications of that.
> Having said all this, I want to point out I fully understand that
> things have evolved the way they have and this is the way lots of
> people like it. I totally see all the arguments why deal making can be
> allowed and not saying they're wrong. I just differ in opinion on the
> whole assumption that it *has* to be part of VTES.
It doesn't have to be, of course, as evidenced by the Silence of Death format.
It just happens that V:TES was designed with it as a part. (And note that the
evolution direction is the other way -- V:TES started with deal-making included
and the Silence of Death format was created later).
Peter D Bakija
> Both Josh and LSJ have said it, and the whole deal making-discussion
> is based on it being true: "deal making/table talk is inherent to
> VTES, because it's a multiplayer game."
Clearly, I pretty much agree with you. As a multi player game, a
certain level of negotiation is unavoidable, really. But how much of
that happens is dependant on the whim and desire of the players. When
it becomes a problem is when the whim of some players to negotiate
starts to infringe on the whim of other players to play the part of
the game that is not involiving negotiating.
As noted, the rules for VTES in no way recognize dealmaking and
negotiating. The tournament rules do, but primarily in reference to
*limiting* dealmaking and negotiating, rather than mandating or
encouraging them.
Some folks *really* like deal making/bargaining/negotiating in their
games of VTES. Which is fine. Until it makes it hard for other people
who do not have the same wishes to play the game that they want to
play. Granted, there are a lot of situations where what player A
thinks is fun is going to infringe on what player B thinks is fun, for
example:
- Player B likes 4CL and player A does not.
- Player A likes rush combat and Player B hates having his vampires
beat up.
- Player A likes arbitrarily back ousting and ignoring his own victory
conditions, and Player B thinks this is stupid.
But because this is a game, in instances where players like different
things, what is actually supported by the rules wins out. At least in
my mind. In the first example, yeah, player B like 4CL, but the rules
support Player A, so player B has to suck it up or do something else.
In the second example, getting yor vampires beat up is a large part of
the game by design, so player B has to suck it up, adapt, or do
something else. In the third example, Player B is supported by the
tournament rules that arbitrarily back ousting is stupid, as it is not
playing to win, and if you are playing in competition, you are
required to try and win.
Dealmaking and negotiation are *not* however, supported by the rules
of the game--the rule book does not even mention dealmaking and
negotiation, as far as I can tell. So while due to this being a multi
player game, yeah, a certain level of negotiation is a likely result,
it needs to be contained within reason, lest folks not involved in the
negotiation session get shortchanged, in terms of their ability to
play the game they want to play.
If everyone at the table is having a good time negotiating and
dealmaking, great. They are having fun. More power to them. But if
three people are spending a significant portion of time wheeling and
dealing, leaving the other two to sit and do nothing as the clock
ticks away, and those two object to this expenditure of time, they are
in their rights (at least in my head) to have a judge put an end to
it.
> I think deal making and table talk reduce the value of the cards and
> strategies made available to us by R. Garfield, LSJ and everyone else
> that's designed (parts of) VTES.
As far as I recall from reading Garfield's design note on the game, he
seemed to specifically *want* to design a multi player game where the
impact of negotiation was limited (see: predator/prey dynamic;
inherrent political rules). The current tournament rules also seem
specifically designed to attempt to limit the impact of negotiation
(see: PTW; Game Win rule; deals are void in end game).
-Peter
librarian
>
> When I want to play VTES, I want to use the *cards*. I want to use the
> strategies made possible by the *cards* and win because I am good with
> the *cards*. I like how lots of aspects of this particular game
> invlove dealing with multiple other players, I especially like how
> referendums work and the "eligible-to-block"-rules.
> However, I want the interaction-factor to be limited by what the
> *cards* can do. Meaning: I could spare a player by not damaging him
> with my KRC, but I'd have no idea if he'd return the favor. I would
> never discuss it, only give out a signal by doing something benevolent
> and hope for help later, which might prove to be a mistake. I could
> rescue my grandpredator's vampire from torpor hoping that that vampire
> will be used to block and kill my predator's vampire. But I won't
> offer to do it in return for a promise for help later on. I think the
> workings of a card like Bribes is in-game deal making (made possible
> by a card) which is fine.
>
>
I like that playstyle -
Too bad your playgroup is in Europe...
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/
auct...@superfuncards.com
librarian
> -- (Thought I'd better make a new thread, since it's not really adding
> to the discussion about deal-making in tourneys, but I did want to
> share this with everyone.) ---
>
> Both Josh and LSJ have said it, and the whole deal making-discussion
> is based on it being true: "deal making/table talk is inherent to
> VTES, because it's a multiplayer game."
>
> I disagree with this. I don't see why deal making/table talk would
> have to be part of VTES, or any multi-player game. It can be, easily,
> of course, but it can just as easily not be. I'll try to explain what
> I mean.
>
>
I forgot to add a point -
From what I understand, multi-player poker has no deal making.
Joshua Duffin
> Teeka wrote:
> > -- (Thought I'd better make a new thread, since it's not really adding
> > to the discussion about deal-making in tourneys, but I did want to
> > share this with everyone.) ---
>
> > Both Josh and LSJ have said it, and the whole deal making-discussion
> > is based on it being true: "deal making/table talk is inherent to
> > VTES, because it's a multiplayer game."
>
> > I disagree with this. I don't see why deal making/table talk would
> > have to be part of VTES, or any multi-player game. It can be, easily,
> > of course, but it can just as easily not be. I'll try to explain what
> > I mean.
>
> I forgot to add a point -
>
> From what I understand, multi-player poker has no deal making.
As I understand it, that is not usually true in tournaments. It is
fairly common for poker tournaments to end with a few finalists
agreeing to divide up the remaining prize pool among them. This is at
least true in online tournaments and some live tournaments; I think it
may *not* be allowed in most televised tournaments, though. (Since
tournaments sponsored by a televising network have a stake in being
able to televise the final action...)
For what it's worth. I'm not sure if it has much relevance to VTES
deal making or not. :-)
Josh
not a poker shark
Joshua Duffin
> to the discussion about deal-making in tourneys, but I did want to
> share this with everyone.) ---
>
> Both Josh and LSJ have said it, and the whole deal making-discussion
> is based on it being true: "deal making/table talk is inherent to
> VTES, because it's a multiplayer game."
>
> I disagree with this. I don't see why deal making/table talk would
> have to be part of VTES, or any multi-player game. It can be, easily,
> of course, but it can just as easily not be. I'll try to explain what
> I mean.
Well, I don't think I said that dealmaking is necessarily inherent to
all multiplayer games. But table talk is.
It is, IMO, unavoidable that table talk is part of every multiplayer
game unless the rules specifically prohibit it. Dealmaking is also
profitable in many multiplayer games, though the rules structure of
some makes it less useful (and therefore less common) than in others.
Then beyond that, there's the "gentleman's agreement" approach, which
is basically what you're describing, which is that people don't offer
or accept deals because "that's just not how it's done."
Which is fine in a way, but it's also no more or less reliable than
the "social pressure" method of getting people to not play stealth-
bleed decks to make a 4CL environment "balanced" in VTES.
> So I'm actually playing SoD in every mutiplayer game I play, without
> seeing it as a "special format". Quite the contrary, I see it as the
> "normal" way to play a game.
Yeah... but for this to be "really" the case, you would have to get
the tournament rules (if not the rulebook itself) to prohibit table-
talk and dealmaking.
> I think deal making and table talk reduce the value of the cards and
> strategies made available to us by R. Garfield, LSJ and everyone else
> that's designed (parts of) VTES. What's the use of having hundreds of
> cards and many card-based strategies, if deal-making is just as
> important, if not more so, to get you the VPs/wins?
> To me, deal making can (if not does) reduce the cards themselves to a
> second-rate aspect of the game, merely a way to establish a strong
> position in the inevitable verbal power struggle.
Oh yes. It definitely does. I think it is virtually impossible to
succeed in high-level competitive VTES without being willing and able
to participate in the negotiation part of the game.
Josh
talking about vtes as it is, but not in this case as we might wish it
to be
John Flournoy
A number of the big tournaments disallow it. Several more disallow
talk of deals at the table - one fairly notable tournament this year
ended with the last two players literally walking away from the table
to make their deal arrangement, then back to playing things out per
their agreement.
And even with that limitation, yeah, a lot of poker tournaments have
deals, both in terms of how (many) pros swap 'pieces' of each other
before the tournament starts (i.e. 'we'll give each other 5% of our
earnings when we're done' or 'I'll pay half your entry fee and you
give me a quarter of your winnings') and in terms of deals made when
it's down to the last few players.
There's been a little mini-controversy at the WSOP this year, as one
prominent player offered a deal to another player, asked a tourney
director if doing so was okay and got approval, only to later find out
the director was ignorant of the actual rules - the player's response
has basically been that many, many people had such deals, and always
did, but that he was getting scolded for actually asking permission
and making his arrangement public.
> For what it's worth. I'm not sure if it has much relevance to VTES
> deal making or not. :-)
>
> Josh
-John Flournoy
Olivier_PEREZ
have intruduce deal into all the other game I'm playing... and it's
fun.
Peter D Bakija
Olivier_PEREZ <olivier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Deal is a part of VTES.
The rulebook does not necessarily support this idea.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
LSJ
> In article <1182461959.5...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Olivier_PEREZ <olivier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Deal is a part of VTES.
>
> The rulebook does not necessarily support this idea.
True or not (it's already been pointed out that it is in the V:EKN rules), the
lack of explicit text in the rulebook in no way indicates that deals are not
part of VTES.
Deals are part of V:TES. (errata, if you don't believe the fact that this is
assumed for most multi-player games that don't explicitly prohibit deals).
Jeroen
> In article <1182461959.523265.201...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Olivier_PEREZ <olivier.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Deal is a part of VTES.
>
> The rulebook does not necessarily support this idea.
Nor does it explicitly say that you can't say anything.
By the way, why are you channeling Andrew S. Davidson ;-) He made this
exact argument years ago.
I hope I haven't summoned him now....
Teeka
> Teeka wrote:
> > First of all, as someone already stated, deal making is not covered in
> > the rules. Basically this means that it's not an inherent part of the
> > game, but it's not disallowed either.
>
> That logic is flawed. If it were true that deal making is not covered, that
> still wouldn't necessarily imply that deal making is not an inherent part of the
> game.
>
Don't think so. I'd say that a rulebook should cover all there is to
say about the game itself, apart from what anyone would decide to do
with them, or add to them later.
The rulebook and the texts on all the cards are what embody *the game*
as an entity. Even though many people add things to it, (like table
talk and deals, or a card limit, or having pizza whether you want to
or not) those things are not an inherent part of the game itself, but
an inherent part of the way it *turns out to be played by a number of
people*, which is something different. If the majority of players
decided to always play with their underpants on their heads, that
would become an inherent part of the game *as played*, but unless
there's rules about it, not a part of the game itself.
> Also, deal making is covered in the V:EKN rules.
I know. But just the tournament rules. Not the actual rulebook (still
two different things, right?). And lots of those VEKN rules exist
because people started adding non-inherent things (that weren't
covered by the rules), and those things had to be contained. Not the
other way around. If people would stick to doing things that are made
possible by the rules and card texts and nothing else, many of the
VEKN rules would not be necessary but the game could still be played
perfectly fine.
> Just because deal-making isn't mandatory doesn't mean it isn't a part.
>
> If you and your friends never feel the need to use bleed bounce, that doesn't
> mean bleed bounce isn't part of the game *as it is*.
>
Dare I say it?.... ....yes I do. That analogy is flawed. ;-)
Bleed bounce IS an inherent part of the game, because it is made
possible by the text on certain cards. Deal-making through table talk
is not made possible by any card text or rule in the rulebook. It is
added by people. It's not a matter of what I personally would like, or
feel the need to use, at all, that's my whole point.
> Because R. Garfield designed the game to be that way, and the cards are designed
> the cards under that framework.
>
> The text of Succubus Club even holds indications of that.
>
I'd say the text of SC indicates that he intended for *certain* deals
to be possible only through use of a specific card, which I say is
fine. Golden rule, cards overrule the rulebook. Plus, designing a card
that makes something possible would, I think, prove that he intended
that something to not be possible otherwise. Why else design SC? I
mean, if he intended or expected all VTES players to speak in rhyme,
there'd be no Madness Ot Bard either. He didn't, so he made a card
that made it mandatory. Dumb card, I know, but you get the point.
Jeroen
> -- (Thought I'd better make a new thread, since it's not really adding
> to the discussion about deal-making in tourneys, but I did want to
> share this with everyone.) ---
>
> Both Josh and LSJ have said it, and the whole deal making-discussion
> is based on it being true: "deal making/table talk is inherent to
> VTES, because it's a multiplayer game."
>
> I disagree with this. I don't see why deal making/table talk would
> have to be part of VTES, or any multi-player game. It can be, easily,
> of course, but it can just as easily not be. I'll try to explain what
> I mean.
>
> First of all, as someone already stated, deal making is not covered in
> the rules. Basically this means that it's not an inherent part of the
> game, but it's not disallowed either. To me, this in turn means that
> it's all up to the players to do or not do it. Just like dressing in
> all-blue clothes or playing while hanging upside down.
>
> I have played many, many multiplayer games over the years. Games like
> Settlers of Catan, or Risk, or Magic with more than two players (which
> is the way I always play it) to name but a few.
What? No deals in Risk? huh? That was the original dealmaking
multiplayer game for me when I was 12.
> All of these games could, possibly, have a strong level of deal
> making: "I'll trade you the ore you need if you promise not to block
> my trade route" (Catan),
*insert "wood for sheep" joke here*
>"I'll counter that Terror if you promise to
> play that +2/+2 enchantment on my creature" (Magic). Without a doubt,
> this is the way some people play those games.
> But still, never ever have I, or anyone I played with, felt the need
> to make deals. We all felt that such behaviour would be something
> additional, added by the players themselves, which we don't want, we
> want to play the game *as it is*. Frankly, it never even really
> occurred to me as an option. If it's not in the rules, then it's not
> in the game.
Strange: I'd say: 'if it isn't forbidden, its legal'
Blooded Sand
Oooooooooooh, does this mean Succubus club is gonna be needed to make
deals? SWEEEEEEEEET!!!
Joke. Really.
LSJ
> Don't think so. I'd say that a rulebook should cover all there is to
> say about the game itself, apart from what anyone would decide to do
> with them, or add to them later.
That would make it unusable for its primary purpose: as a tool to learn how to
play the game.
> The rulebook and the texts on all the cards are what embody *the game*
> as an entity. Even though many people add things to it, (like table
> talk and deals, or a card limit, or having pizza whether you want to
> or not) those things are not an inherent part of the game itself, but
> an inherent part of the way it *turns out to be played by a number of
> people*, which is something different. If the majority of players
> decided to always play with their underpants on their heads, that
> would become an inherent part of the game *as played*, but unless
> there's rules about it, not a part of the game itself.
Many things are assumed by the rules -- like knowledge of "hand" "cut" and
"deal-making" as those terms apply to games.
>> Also, deal making is covered in the V:EKN rules.
>
> I know. But just the tournament rules. Not the actual rulebook (still
> two different things, right?). And lots of those VEKN rules exist
> because people started adding non-inherent things (that weren't
> covered by the rules), and those things had to be contained.
What things?
Time limits, perhaps. And multi-round structure. Modified construction rules
(banned list, 60-90 library limit).
Most of the stuff that isn't part of "how to run a tournament" part is just a
formalization of things that are otherwise assumed, like sportsmanship.
> Deal-making through table talk
> is not made possible by any card text or rule in the rulebook. It is
> added by people.
It isn't added. It's already there. It's part of the assumed environment. As it
is for most multi-player games.
>> Because R. Garfield designed the game to be that way, and the cards are designed
>> the cards under that framework.
>>
>> The text of Succubus Club even holds indications of that.
>
> I'd say the text of SC indicates that he intended for *certain* deals
> to be possible only through use of a specific card, which I say is
> fine. Golden rule, cards overrule the rulebook. Plus, designing a card
> that makes something possible would, I think, prove that he intended
> that something to not be possible otherwise. Why else design SC? I
> mean, if he intended or expected all VTES players to speak in rhyme,
> there'd be no Madness Ot Bard either. He didn't, so he made a card
> that made it mandatory. Dumb card, I know, but you get the point.
SC doesn't add deals. It adds trade ability. And, because it had added some
game-enforced deals, it had to, a a reminder, indicate that the other deals
(which existed even without SC) are not now enforced by SC's existence.
Teeka
> Well, I don't think I said that dealmaking is necessarily inherent to
> all multiplayer games.
ok. please excuse me for misquoting you.
>
> It is, IMO, unavoidable that table talk is part of every multiplayer
> game unless the rules specifically prohibit it.
why? I already pointed out I've never done it, or seen it be done in
many sessions of many different games with many different people
through many years. Have I been extremely lucky? It's all in how you
look at it, do you say something is fine because there's no rule
saying that it's not allowed, or do you say it's not fine because
there's no rule allowing it?
...Phew. 0:30 am, a few beers down my throat and I'm getting
philosofical...
anyway...
Dealmaking is also
> profitable in many multiplayer games,
of course (it's the whole point of doing it). But so is keeping your
opponents awake the night before the game. Nothing in the rules about
that either.
though the rules structure of
> some makes it less useful (and therefore less common) than in others.
> Then beyond that, there's the "gentleman's agreement" approach, which
> is basically what you're describing, which is that people don't offer
> or accept deals because "that's just not how it's done."
>
I'd say anything that adds something to the game should be done by
agreement. There's should have to be an agreement to not play the game
as is. "How it is done" is, by my standards, defined by the rulebook.
But I think I'm starting to talk in circles now.
> Which is fine in a way, but it's also no more or less reliable than
> the "social pressure" method of getting people to not play stealth-
> bleed decks to make a 4CL environment "balanced" in VTES.
>
Which is totally different. 4CL breaks the rules, because the rulebook
specifically says there's no card limit. Not being allowed to play
stealth-bleed breaks the rules, because the sulebook says you can use
any combination of cards you want (barring the grouping rule). Deal
making does not relate to the rules at all, neither following nor
breaking them. People willfully add it to the game *as played*.
> > To me, deal making can (if not does) reduce the cards themselves to a
> > second-rate aspect of the game, merely a way to establish a strong
> > position in the inevitable verbal power struggle.
>
> Oh yes. It definitely does. I think it is virtually impossible to
> succeed in high-level competitive VTES without being willing and able
> to participate in the negotiation part of the game.
>
I know. Too bad though. It's just like sports, you can't make it in
professional soccer without being able to fake injuries and influence
the ref. Shame, cause I like a game for what it is, not necessarily
for how some/many others decide to play it.
Shade
> On 21 jun, 18:44, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > That logic is flawed. If it were true that deal making is not covered, that
> > still wouldn't necessarily imply that deal making is not an inherent part of the
> > game.
>
> Don't think so. I'd say that a rulebook should cover all there is to
> say about the game itself, apart from what anyone would decide to do
> with them, or add to them later.
Sorry but that's crazy talk. The rulebook would be thousands of pages
long to cover all there is to say about the game...
Like I don't like people starting on VP deals on turn 1 or anything,
or excessive whining to try and get out of a hole, but helping out
cross table allies with a rescue or whatever in return for something
surely occurs in every play group everywhere. Which is pretty much a
deal right, and you know, not like a big issue or anything.
Simon
Teeka
> Teeka wrote:
> > Don't think so. I'd say that a rulebook should cover all there is to
> > say about the game itself, apart from what anyone would decide to do
> > with them, or add to them later.
>
> That would make it unusable for its primary purpose: as a tool to learn how to
> play the game.
>
I don't understand what you mean here. Please explain.
> Many things are assumed by the rules -- like knowledge of "hand" "cut" and
> "deal-making" as those terms apply to games.
>
Hand and Cut are game terms. So of course it's assumed we know what
they are. And of course I know what deal making is. I just don't think
it needs to go without saying that it's there as part of a game.
> And lots of those VEKN rules exist
> > because people started adding non-inherent things (that weren't
> > covered by the rules), and those things had to be contained.
>
> What things?
Table talk, cheating, time wasting, use of proxies..
> > Deal-making through table talk
> > is not made possible by any card text or rule in the rulebook. It is
> > added by people.
>
> It isn't added. It's already there. It's part of the assumed environment. As it
> is for most multi-player games.
>
There we are, back at the start. I say it's wrong to assume this to be
true. That's why I started this thread apart from the other
discussion, see my first post.
librarian
> Teeka wrote:
>
>> The rulebook and the texts on all the cards are what embody *the game*
>> as an entity. Even though many people add things to it, (like table
>> talk and deals, or a card limit, or having pizza whether you want to
>> or not) those things are not an inherent part of the game itself, but
>> an inherent part of the way it *turns out to be played by a number of
>> people*, which is something different. If the majority of players
>> decided to always play with their underpants on their heads, that
>> would become an inherent part of the game *as played*, but unless
>> there's rules about it, not a part of the game itself.
>
> Many things are assumed by the rules -- like knowledge of "hand" "cut"
> and "deal-making" as those terms apply to games.
>
"Hand", "Cut", and "Deal-making" are rules that apply in many games, but
not all games. In games that require or allow them, they are specified.
Simple example: You don't have a Hand in Rat-a-Tat Cat, but you do play
with cards. The rules don't mention a "Hand", why would you assume to
play with one? You don't make that assumption, since it's not in the
rules. I say same with deal-making in VTES.
librarian
In VTES, if all players but one agree to concede, the game ends, with
the last player being the winner. In addition, if ALL players agree to
end the game, the game ends. And in the finals of a tournament, it is
legal to say "I'm damn tired, let's just split the prizes and end this
game - you came in to the final top seed, you still win." And everyone
can agree to that, and it's legal, and the prize pool is split.
best-
librarian
>
> Deals are part of V:TES. (errata, if you don't believe the fact that
> this is assumed for most multi-player games that don't explicitly
> prohibit deals).
AHA!
When can we see it on the Web site?
best -
librarian
> On 22 jun, 00:24, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> All of these games could, possibly, have a strong level of deal
>>> making: "I'll trade you the ore you need if you promise not to block
>>> my trade route" (Catan),
>> *insert "wood for sheep" joke here*
>>
>
> heh. boy I love Catan, it's brilliant.
Man, everyone in the world makes those jokes, I agree - brilliant.
We used to simply call Catan "Sheep and Wood". Still do I guess, just
don't play it with the frequency we used.
Peter D Bakija
Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nor does it explicitly say that you can't say anything.
They also don't explicitly say that you can't attempt to gain advantage
over your opponent by making high pitched squealing noises whenever they
are trying to take an action.
> By the way, why are you channeling Andrew S. Davidson ;-) He made this
> exact argument years ago.
Indeed he did. And he was right.
> I hope I haven't summoned him now....
Now that is just asking for trouble.
Peter D Bakija
> True or not (it's already been pointed out that it is in the V:EKN rules), the
> lack of explicit text in the rulebook in no way indicates that deals are not
> part of VTES.
Why is the lack of explicit text disallowing deal making in VTES
indication that it is part of the game where the lack of explicit text
disallowing countless other things (such as playing only in semiphore
or with your underwear on the top of your head) does not indicate that
they are part of the game?
> Deals are part of V:TES. (errata, if you don't believe the fact that this is
> assumed for most multi-player games that don't explicitly prohibit deals).
So add this to the rulebook. I'm sure a short section on deal making
and bargaining added to the rulebook would be easy to include and save
everyone a great deal of trouble in the long run.
That being said, I still find the implication that a player can spend
an infinite amount of time on any part of game play, as long as it is
"in earnest", to be troubling. If it is ok for two players to spend as
much time as they want, provided that they are dealing in earnest,
regardless of the feelings of the players at the rest of the table,
why isn't it ok for a single player to spend as much time as he wants
working out all the possibilities of all of his possiblt moves in his
head, regardless of the feelings of the players at the rest of the
table? If my opponents can spend half an hour talking up a deal, I
want to spend half an hour figuring out what I want to do with my
turn.
-Peter
LSJ
> On Jun 21, 5:57 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> True or not (it's already been pointed out that it is in the V:EKN rules), the
>> lack of explicit text in the rulebook in no way indicates that deals are not
>> part of VTES.
>
> Why is the lack of explicit text disallowing deal making in VTES
> indication that it is part of the game
Because deal making is the default.
>> Deals are part of V:TES. (errata, if you don't believe the fact that this is
>> assumed for most multi-player games that don't explicitly prohibit deals).
>
> So add this to the rulebook. I'm sure a short section on deal making
> and bargaining added to the rulebook would be easy to include and save
> everyone a great deal of trouble in the long run.
Save a few people some trouble, perhaps.
Most people seem to get it right already (understanding the default).
> That being said, I still find the implication that a player can spend
> an infinite amount of time on any part of game play, as long as it is
> "in earnest", to be troubling.
Then stop taking it to absurdity.
Reflect on it as "allowing players to play the game". Then it shouldn't trouble you.
tigernat1
> It is, IMO, unavoidable that table talk is part of every multiplayer
> game unless the rules specifically prohibit it.
> why? I already pointed out I've never done it, or seen it be done in
> many sessions of many different games with many different people
> through many years. Have I been extremely lucky? It's all in how you
> look at it, do you say something is fine because there's no rule
> saying that it's not allowed, or do you say it's not fine because
> there's no rule allowing it?
>
You have never rescued a vampire from torpor cross table? You have
never played a vote deck? You have never played a rush combat deck?
You have never played an eagles sight to block a crosstable action?
Vegas gNat
Morgan Vening
wrote:
Cross table player has his star reaction untap vampire in torpor, and
is going to die on his pred's next turn?
Vote deck on a table with no intrinsic votes, or so much transient
vote that they'll always pass?
Rush combat decks going cross table to reduce imminent/future threats?
Crosstable Eagle's Sight to stop a player being ousted and changing
the dynamics too much?
None of these REQUIRE table talk. Most are helped by it, and can be
used to get favours, but I've done a lot of crosstable interactions in
the past, solely because of how it'll influence MY game, and my chance
for the Game Win. Sometimes you need to kill a cross-table player, or
keep alive your predator or prey, to do it. But as often as not, it's
done without lengthy negotiation, or the requirement of a specific
favour.
Morgan Vening
Andrew 'Wes' Weston
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote
> (such as playing only in semiphore
> or with your underwear on the top of your head) does not indicate that
> they are part of the game?
I like that playstyle -
Too bad your playgroup is in Europe...
James Coupe
>
In your own games, do what you want.
In any game using sanctioned tournament rules, however, you'll have
trouble, as it would clearly fall under Unsportsmanlike Conduct, and way
beyond the level of Severe.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Jeroen
> In article <1182463985.145592.298...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Nor does it explicitly say that you can't say anything.
>
> They also don't explicitly say that you can't attempt to gain advantage
> over your opponent by making high pitched squealing noises whenever they
> are trying to take an action.
If you find players to play with you after that: sure, go right ahead.
You can't do it at a tournement, though.
Another example: except when playing for ante, the rules don't say
anything about playing for a stake of some kind. Does that mean you
can't play V:TES for money? Or to determine who goes to the local
night shop to get drinks and snacks?
Tetragrammaton
<snip>
> And in the finals of a tournament,
> it is legal to say "I'm damn tired, let's just split the prizes and
> end this game - you came in to the final top seed, you still win."
> And everyone can agree to that, and it's legal, and the prize pool is
> split.
Not to my understand - unless you're in a total losing
position (and it's unlikely that ALL the table but one
will be in a total losing position at a given point, early or mid-game)
you have still to win the round or to try maximize your points -
what you say it's against the play to win rule, IMHO.
Emiliano
Tetragrammaton
> On Jun 21, 11:57 am, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> -- (Thought I'd better make a new thread, since it's not really
>> adding to the discussion about deal-making in tourneys, but I did
>> want to share this with everyone.) ---
>>
>> Both Josh and LSJ have said it, and the whole deal making-discussion
>> is based on it being true: "deal making/table talk is inherent to
>> VTES, because it's a multiplayer game."
>>
>> I disagree with this. I don't see why deal making/table talk would
>> have to be part of VTES, or any multi-player game. It can be, easily,
>> of course, but it can just as easily not be. I'll try to explain what
>> I mean.
>
>
It depends at which level of "talk"you're referring to, however.
A it stands, the SoD format (table talk reduced to the essential
of annoucing the play of cards/effects) is perfeclty playable and,
indeed, has been played as side event several time
within major events, such as continental championships.
You don't really need all that table talk to play vtes - it's just lot
of players that simply got used to the ways of continous table talk
with deals around, after years and years of stratified defininitions
here about what is doable trough a deal, when it has to be considered
legal or not, and so on.
All of this can give an unique level of game play, sure, but sure
to play the multi-players-ccg-game maybe this has gone a bit far
Given the big power of deals on the game, you can consider to put table-talk
(deals-oriented) instead of 20-30 cards in the deck, at this point.
> It is, IMO, unavoidable that table talk is part of every multiplayer
> game unless the rules specifically prohibit it. Dealmaking is also
> profitable in many multiplayer games, though the rules structure of
> some makes it less useful (and therefore less common) than in others.
> Then beyond that, there's the "gentleman's agreement" approach, which
> is basically what you're describing, which is that people don't offer
> or accept deals because "that's just not how it's done."
>
> Which is fine in a way, but it's also no more or less reliable than
> the "social pressure" method of getting people to not play stealth-
> bleed decks to make a 4CL environment "balanced" in VTES.
>
>> So I'm actually playing SoD in every mutiplayer game I play, without
>> seeing it as a "special format". Quite the contrary, I see it as the
>> "normal" way to play a game.
This is not the real state of things with the tournament game, however.
Lot of people *deals* a lot, and that's normal too, because it's
allowed by the official rules.
best
Emiliano
Tetragrammaton
<snip>
> Deals are part of V:TES. (errata, if you don't believe the fact that
> this is assumed for most multi-player games that don't explicitly
> prohibit deals).
That way, however, you're cutting from the game all the players that would
like
to play not necessarily with deals - is vtes still a CCG or not ?
You can't sell deal abilty to customers - unless do you want
to turn vtes somewhat to a fixed-distribution-per-precons card game, in
which
everyone has the same deck *and* so the ability at deal
would be the only to make the difference for the way to victory.
This way, you're stressing the social interaction/deals system, making
it somewhat a *mandatory* part of the game can have a big detrimental
effect,
because we're still dealing with a CCG, are we ?
Unless isn't in the interest of WW of selling more of his/her product, the
game
should find ways to attract new players, and not to dwindling the number of
the
existing ones *imposing* deals as part of the game.
just my 2 cents
Emiliano
Tetragrammaton
Players are free to deal, sure - but the game in itself
does not necessarily involve deals, however.
By your argument, then it seems me that we should change tournament rules
accordingly,
making deals as *significant part of the game* to be considered by a judge
in telling which are
the reasonable chanches to "win" of a given player in a given situation.
Emiliano
Jeroen
> LSJ wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Deals are part of V:TES. (errata, if you don't believe the fact that
> > this is assumed for most multi-player games that don't explicitly
> > prohibit deals).
>
> That way, however, you're cutting from the game all the players that would
> like
> to play not necessarily with deals - is vtes still a CCG or not ?
> You can't sell deal abilty to customers
Just like you can't sell intelligence. Does that mean we need IQ-
leagues? Deal making is something you get by doing it.
Deals never take away the CCG aspect: deals are based on what's going
on in the game.
- unless do you want
> to turn vtes somewhat to a fixed-distribution-per-precons card game, in
> which
> everyone has the same deck *and* so the ability at deal
> would be the only to make the difference for the way to victory.
> This way, you're stressing the social interaction/deals system, making
> it somewhat a *mandatory* part of the game can have a big detrimental
> effect,
> because we're still dealing with a CCG, are we ?
Yes. A MULTIPLAYER CCG.
> Unless isn't in the interest of WW of selling more of his/her product, the
> game
> should find ways to attract new players, and not to dwindling the number of
> the
> existing ones *imposing* deals as part of the game.
They have always been there, right from the start. Nothing new there.
And the rules team have already taken steps to rectify the abundance
of dealing.
- Game Win rule
- Play to win rule
- .5 VP for withdrawing
- voiding deals in the 1-on-1 game.
What more can they do? * Unless a 2-player version of the game makes
it to tournement status, deals will always be part of it. It they
weren't they would have been no need for the rule that says that you
always get a VP when your prey is ousted, no matter who does it.
*well; I once suggested a split of the 1 VP for being left standing.
Meaning a time-out would net you .20VP; .25VP; .33VP or .5VP depending
on how many players are left at the end.
James Coupe
<teeka_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>I have played many, many multiplayer games over the years. Games like
>Settlers of Catan, or Risk, or Magic with more than two players (which
>is the way I always play it) to name but a few.
>making: "I'll trade you the ore you need if you promise not to block
>play that +2/+2 enchantment on my creature" (Magic). Without a doubt,
>this is the way some people play those games.
>But still, never ever have I, or anyone I played with, felt the need
>to make deals.
Lots of people do, in all sorts of such games. It very much depends on
who you play with. Some people have a culture, spoken or unspoken, of
"fight the good fight" and will only try to win under their own steam.
Others will co-operate to get wins. Others will wheel and deal and
scheme and plot in order to pull a win out of their ass when everything
looked awful. Those in different categories will regard other people in
other categories in different ways - someone who uses whatever legal
tactics they can to win will often regard someone who refuses to
backstab or deal extensively as honourable but easy to manipulate or
predict, or whatever.
What can make a significant difference, however, is the structure of the
game.
1) Is there any prize of any worth, or are we playing for
pride/fun/something fairly trivial?
2) Is there a defined, or easily derived, second place?
As others have pointed out, poker can get many, many deals - because you
have a huge pot of money to split. If you're only ever playing for fun,
or the prize is that you get the extra slice of pizza, it's going to be
much harder to split things with people. OF course, if you play
sometimes for fun but sometimes for a huge prize, the fun games may
become more competitive as people practise.
However, you can also find games pan out quite differently if someone
can take a second place - particularly if that means something, like
qualifying for a spot on the final table.
If the *only* thing that mattered in V:TES was getting Table Wins, you'd
see a hell of a lot less VP dealing. (This would also cause many
problems in smaller tournaments, where you wouldn't get enough players
for the final, and have a number of other unpleasant side effects.) It
doesn't matter to me if you get a 3-2 split or a 5-0 split, if I'm the
one on the losing end. The 2VP don't count for anything, except
possibly pride. Whereas if I'm in a position where those 2VP are
valuable to me (higher rank, final table seat, qualifying for a
continental championship), I will want them.
Were you to want to minimize deal-making in V:TES, you would probably
need to find some method of:
- incentivising TW over VP, even more than now
- making a sweep significantly better than a 3-2 split (say, a sweep
counted for 2 table wins, so I'm less likely to make rollover
deals or withdraw deals)
- maintaining a way of tie-breaking, so that the small 10 player
tournament with two tables where only 2 different players get
Game Wins, but try to minimize the reward (this is very, very,
very hard - some players just will play for that tie-breaker,
almost no matter what you do, unless there's a random choice of
tie-breakers, and that would suck a bit)
- potentially, making timeouts a problem for all players on the table,
so that speedy play is encouraged (say, all players get -0.5VP,
not +0.5VP) and lengthy table talk discouraged, without actually
preventing it where necessary
- tying this all together so that players can't game the system ("hey,
if we timeout, Billy Bob will lose the 0.5VP that would keep him
on the final table..."), at least in any egregiously distasteful
fashion
- possibly, trying to prevent "spoilers" or sort of king-making -
players whose only incentive is to disrupt the table in such a
way as to prevent the winner getting the extra benefits (e.g. in
my sweep = 2TW example, you might prevent a sweep by letting
yourself be ousted, because it makes no difference to you who
ousts you, and you're feeling mean).
Note that none of this is easy. Also the example tweaks, such as making
a sweep worth 2TW, are just random examples off the top of my head
(having seen similar-ish things suggested in the past, though), rather
than serious, considered suggestions.
Note that even then, you could easily see table splits on the final
table at a tournament with a decent prize, where I offer you half of the
box of boosters for your help.
James Coupe
<nos...@none.com> writes:
>That way, however, you're cutting from the game all the players that would
>like
>to play not necessarily with deals
What's your point?
No game attracts everyone. All games make choices.
>- is vtes still a CCG or not ?
Duh.
>You can't sell deal abilty to customers
Nor can you sell deck construction skills to customers. Nor can you
sell ability to read a table to customers. Nor can you sell strategical
thinking to customers. Nor can you sell weighing up the odds of success
to customers. Nor can you sell reading a poker face to customers.
All of these are part of V:TES. None can be sold to customers. Excuse
me while I weep.
>- unless do you want
>to turn vtes somewhat to a fixed-distribution-per-precons card game, in
>which
>everyone has the same deck *and* so the ability at deal
>would be the only to make the difference for the way to victory.
This is a strawman.
First, hello, it's a CCG. The business model doesn't work like that.
Second, no two players playing the same deck ever play it in the same
way - some players are better than others, some players are better with
specific decks than others (some aren't good at combat, say, whereas
others are just great with it). Skill at playing the non-deal-making
part of the game is no small part of actually winning.
Note also that in an environment where you find that deals are causing
you too much trouble, you may find that learning to spoil deals
effectively is in your interests, and will work in your favour. This
does not have to be dealing with other people. It can be removing a
player from the table who, otherwise, you would have left alone. Judge
comes over and examines playing to win: "Well, if I leave him on the
table, the two of them are going to oust me. That can be playing to
win. In the situation I'm in, I'm choosing to remove him, because I can
choose how I die, so I chose this way. And if it stops me dying, that's
good for me too."
This isn't very hard, but is overlooked too often. Players do not make
deals out of diamond. They can be affected. Their deals can be
affected, nullified, or simply quashed. Maybe you wouldn't normally
cross-table rush and dunk Anneke in a situation like this, but now that
Anneke has offered her support to help your predator oust you (passing
his KRCs, burning you in bloodhunts, blocking you now and then,
whatever), you cross-table rush her and dunk her. Or you Kindred
Spirits bleed her. Or she gets Pentex Subversion, not your prey.
Disrupt the deals. Threaten to disrupt them when they're being made.
"Look, all I'm saying is that if you make that deal, I need to get you
off the table, so I will. I'm not going to make any deals with your
predator. I'm not going to make any deals with you. I'm just going to
pile in on you to stop myself dying, because if I let the two of you co-
operate, I'm dead anyway." That takes approximately 15 seconds of time,
and you don't have to enter into any further negotiation.
>This way, you're stressing the social interaction/deals system, making
>it somewhat a *mandatory* part of the game can have a big detrimental
>effect,
No, it's not a mandatory part of the game. Players that don't want to
make deals don't have to. Play groups with large numbers of players who
don't want to make deals won't make many deals.
White Wolf will not send the deal police round and make you make more
deals. Because you don't have to. Nor do you have to play bleed
bounce, but it might be advantageous to you. Or not.
>Unless isn't in the interest of WW of selling more of his/her product, the
>game
>should find ways to attract new players, and not to dwindling the number of
>the
>existing ones *imposing* deals as part of the game.
They're not being imposed. They're allowed. If players want to use
them, they can, but they are no more imposed than players choosing to
play decks that bleed for 13 is being imposed.
It's a choice.
Tetragrammaton
> On 22 jun, 10:34, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Deals are part of V:TES. (errata, if you don't believe the fact that
>>> this is assumed for most multi-player games that don't explicitly
>>> prohibit deals).
>>
>> That way, however, you're cutting from the game all the players that
>> would like
>> to play not necessarily with deals - is vtes still a CCG or not ?
>> You can't sell deal abilty to customers
>
> Just like you can't sell intelligence. Does that mean we need IQ-
> leagues? Deal making is something you get by doing it.
>
you don't want to deal, two other players at your table want to deal, a
third one usually counter-argue trying to avoid that deal, you witness the
scene
waiting for the table talk to end - it's a common scenario.
> Deals never take away the CCG aspect: deals are based on what's going
> on in the game.
Yes, but what's going on in the game, also, can be based on some kind
of existing deal.
> - unless do you want
>> to turn vtes somewhat to a fixed-distribution-per-precons card game,
>> in which
>> everyone has the same deck *and* so the ability at deal
>> would be the only to make the difference for the way to victory.
>> This way, you're stressing the social interaction/deals system,
>> making
>> it somewhat a *mandatory* part of the game can have a big detrimental
>> effect,
>> because we're still dealing with a CCG, are we ?
>
> Yes. A MULTIPLAYER CCG.
>
Sure.
>> Unless isn't in the interest of WW of selling more of his/her
>> product, the game
>> should find ways to attract new players, and not to dwindling the
>> number of the
>> existing ones *imposing* deals as part of the game.
>
> They have always been there, right from the start. Nothing new there.
> And the rules team have already taken steps to rectify the abundance
> of dealing.
> - Game Win rule
> - Play to win rule
> - .5 VP for withdrawing
> - voiding deals in the 1-on-1 game.
>
Nothing of that stops the flaw that, being deals so poweful in impacting
the game, the table talk necessary to set up them for the best of each
involved
player necessarily usually takes lot of time.
This can lead to problem, above all with new players.
> What more can they do? * Unless a 2-player version of the game makes
> it to tournement status, deals will always be part of it.
Problem isn't the deal in itself - is that imposing somewhat the deal system
as a
fundamental part of the game will result with further people going away
from
the game, and few new players coming in.
A 14 years-old game with an huge *lot* of rules such as vtes should take now
in
consideration to create an easier official level for less-skilled, beginnes
players.
Officializing a format that cuts away excessive table talks by deals seems
me the
best option available.
Emiliano
Jeroen
> Jeroen wrote:
> > On 22 jun, 10:34, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote:
> >> LSJ wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> Deals are part of V:TES. (errata, if you don't believe the fact that
> >>> this is assumed for most multi-player games that don't explicitly
> >>> prohibit deals).
>
> >> That way, however, you're cutting from the game all the players that
> >> would like
> >> to play not necessarily with deals - is vtes still a CCG or not ?
> >> You can't sell deal abilty to customers
>
> > Just like you can't sell intelligence. Does that mean we need IQ-
> > leagues? Deal making is something you get by doing it.
>
> Nope - you get it independlty by the fact that you want to do it or not -
> you don't want to deal, two other players at your table want to deal, a
> third one usually counter-argue trying to avoid that deal, you witness the
> scene
> waiting for the table talk to end - it's a common scenario.
So? If you don't want to deal, you don't deal. If you do want to deal,
you deal. Simple as that. If you feel that you lose too much by not
dealing, start dealing. Or vice versa. Honestly, though, if you don't
like a minimum of table talk V:TES isn't really your game.
>
> > Deals never take away the CCG aspect: deals are based on what's going
> > on in the game.
>
> Yes, but what's going on in the game, also, can be based on some kind
> of existing deal.
True, but so what? A table split deal still needs to be played out.
With the cards. Meaning succes is not guaranteed. IME, deals are only
a problem is people never break 'm.
>
> > - unless do you want
> >> to turn vtes somewhat to a fixed-distribution-per-precons card game,
> >> in which
> >> everyone has the same deck *and* so the ability at deal
> >> would be the only to make the difference for the way to victory.
> >> This way, you're stressing the social interaction/deals system,
> >> making
> >> it somewhat a *mandatory* part of the game can have a big detrimental
> >> effect,
> >> because we're still dealing with a CCG, are we ?
>
> > Yes. A MULTIPLAYER CCG.
>
> Sure.
Meaning, just like in other multiplayer games were you can affect each
other's positions: deals will and can be made.
>
> >> Unless isn't in the interest of WW of selling more of his/her
> >> product, the game
> >> should find ways to attract new players, and not to dwindling the
> >> number of the
> >> existing ones *imposing* deals as part of the game.
>
> > They have always been there, right from the start. Nothing new there.
> > And the rules team have already taken steps to rectify the abundance
> > of dealing.
> > - Game Win rule
> > - Play to win rule
> > - .5 VP for withdrawing
> > - voiding deals in the 1-on-1 game.
>
> Nothing of that stops the flaw that, being deals so poweful in impacting
> the game, the table talk necessary to set up them for the best of each
> involved
> player necessarily usually takes lot of time.
> This can lead to problem, above all with new players.
Why? new players probably have played Risk or something like it. Don't
tell me that nobody ever said: well, if you don't attack me there, I
won't attack you. Or something like that.
>
> > What more can they do? * Unless a 2-player version of the game makes
> > it to tournement status, deals will always be part of it.
>
> Problem isn't the deal in itself - is that imposing somewhat the deal system
> as a
> fundamental part of the game will result with further people going away
> from
> the game, and few new players coming in.
No. you can't expect people to play a game that is not the right game
for them. If they leave because of that, they are not really V:TES
material. (Not tournement material anyway. I don't remember making VP
deals in non-tournement games)
Unless VP dealing is overly rampant in Italy. I have seen it reduced
over the last couple of years. Not table talking, but Table-deals.
> A 14 years-old game with an huge *lot* of rules such as vtes should take now
> in
> consideration to create an easier official level for less-skilled, beginnes
> players.
> Officializing a format that cuts away excessive table talks by deals seems
> me the
> best option available.
Learning people to play a game, by learning them not to play that
game? strange.
Tetragrammaton
> In message <SJLei.18293$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes:
>> That way, however, you're cutting from the game all the players that
>> would like
>> to play not necessarily with deals
>
> What's your point?
>
> No game attracts everyone. All games make choices.
>
>
>> - is vtes still a CCG or not ?
>
> Duh.
>
>
>> You can't sell deal abilty to customers
>
> Nor can you sell deck construction skills to customers. Nor can you
> sell ability to read a table to customers. Nor can you sell
> strategical thinking to customers. Nor can you sell weighing up the
> odds of success to customers. Nor can you sell reading a poker face
> to customers.
Poker isnt' ccg, sorry.
Deck construction, reading the table of a multiplayer ccg,
strategical thinking are all things implied, i think, when you buy the cards
for
a multiplayer ccg -
Social abilty for deal-making isn't implied, however, because,
as you say, it's (or should be) a choiche.
Abilty at social interaction depends too much on the mood and disposition
of the single player, to be counsidered as a fundamental part of the game.
So, as peter bakjia points out, if these are the premises then it would
be better to see the deal system officialized in the rulebook and clearly
evident
in the game description.
This would cut all of the discussion here, i think.
>
> All of these are part of V:TES. None can be sold to customers.
> Excuse me while I weep.
No need, really.
>
>> - unless do you want
>> to turn vtes somewhat to a fixed-distribution-per-precons card game,
>> in which
>> everyone has the same deck *and* so the ability at deal
>> would be the only to make the difference for the way to victory.
>
> This is a strawman.
>
> First, hello, it's a CCG. The business model doesn't work like that.
> Second, no two players playing the same deck ever play it in the same
> way -
As per magic, or pokemon and the like, sure
>some players are better than others, some players are better
> with specific decks than others (some aren't good at combat, say,
> whereas others are just great with it). Skill at playing the
> non-deal-making part of the game is no small part of actually winning.
>
Indeed - there's a reason, in fact, why the discussion is also about
the time taken by a skilled player for playing the cards
versus
the time taken by a skilled player for table talk in the dealing process.
>
>
> Note also that in an environment where you find that deals are causing
> you too much trouble, you may find that learning to spoil deals
> effectively is in your interests, and will work in your favour. This
> does not have to be dealing with other people. It can be removing a
> player from the table who, otherwise, you would have left alone.
Yes , but in fact i'm not saying that cross table actions are possible only
trough
the deals or table talk.
That's another matter.
> Judge comes over and examines playing to win:
> "Well, if I leave him
> on the table, the two of them are going to oust me. That can be
> playing to win. In the situation I'm in, I'm choosing to remove him,
> because I can choose how I die, so I chose this way. And if it stops
> me dying, that's good for me too."
>
> This isn't very hard, but is overlooked too often. Players do not
> make deals out of diamond. They can be affected. Their deals can be
> affected, nullified, or simply quashed. Maybe you wouldn't normally
> cross-table rush and dunk Anneke in a situation like this, but now
> that Anneke has offered her support to help your predator oust you
> (passing his KRCs, burning you in bloodhunts, blocking you now and
> then, whatever), you cross-table rush her and dunk her. Or you
> Kindred Spirits bleed her. Or she gets Pentex Subversion, not your
> prey.
>
> Disrupt the deals. Threaten to disrupt them when they're being made.
> "Look, all I'm saying is that if you make that deal, I need to get you
> off the table, so I will. I'm not going to make any deals with your
> predator. I'm not going to make any deals with you. I'm just going
> to pile in on you to stop myself dying, because if I let the two of
> you co- operate, I'm dead anyway." That takes approximately 15
> seconds of time, and you don't have to enter into any further
> negotiation.
Honeslty, i never seen such kind of "threatening" to end up in 15 seconds
of table talk, in 14 years that i play the game.
<snip>
> They're not being imposed. They're allowed. If players want to use
> them, they can, but they are no more imposed than players choosing to
> play decks that bleed for 13 is being imposed.
>
> It's a choice.
Yes it is - But you're forced to counter-deal or counter-argue
in front of a deal, usually.
Even if you don't want to do that.
Tetragrammaton
> On 22 jun, 11:11, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote:
>> Jeroen wrote:
>>> On 22 jun, 10:34, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote:
>>>> LSJ wrote:
>>
>>>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> Deals are part of V:TES. (errata, if you don't believe the fact
>>>>> that this is assumed for most multi-player games that don't
>>>>> explicitly prohibit deals).
>>
>>>> That way, however, you're cutting from the game all the players
>>>> that would like
>>>> to play not necessarily with deals - is vtes still a CCG or not ?
>>>> You can't sell deal abilty to customers
>>
>>> Just like you can't sell intelligence. Does that mean we need IQ-
>>> leagues? Deal making is something you get by doing it.
>>
>> Nope - you get it independlty by the fact that you want to do it or
>> not - you don't want to deal, two other players at your table want
>> to deal, a third one usually counter-argue trying to avoid that
>> deal, you witness the scene
>> waiting for the table talk to end - it's a common scenario.
>
> So? If you don't want to deal, you don't deal. If you do want to deal,
> you deal. Simple as that. If you feel that you lose too much by not
> dealing, start dealing. Or vice versa. Honestly, though, if you don't
> like a minimum of table talk V:TES isn't really your game.
>
The predominancy and importance of table talk for setting up a good deal
between 2/3 players usually consumes a notable amount of time, and pisses
off
all those that don't want to deal and that, eventually,
find themselves in the condition of *having to* (counter) deal
to keep their chanche of winning/maimizing the
game.
>>
>>> Deals never take away the CCG aspect: deals are based on what's
>>> going on in the game.
>>
>> Yes, but what's going on in the game, also, can be based on some kind
>> of existing deal.
>
> True, but so what? A table split deal still needs to be played out.
> With the cards. Meaning succes is not guaranteed. IME, deals are only
> a problem is people never break 'm.
Don't know - but i think you know that you can perfeclty keep your word
on the deal even if you will be in a losing position later.
.
>> Nothing of that stops the flaw that, being deals so poweful in
>> impacting the game, the table talk necessary to set up them for the
>> best of each involved
>> player necessarily usually takes lot of time.
>> This can lead to problem, above all with new players.
>
> Why? new players probably have played Risk or something like it. Don't
> tell me that nobody ever said: well, if you don't attack me there, I
> won't attack you. Or something like that.
>>
Risk isn't ccg and does not involve such many rules to learn.
Your example is just about a short term deal too, not about what
can be considered a vp split deal, sorry.
>>> What more can they do? * Unless a 2-player version of the game makes
>>> it to tournement status, deals will always be part of it.
>>
>> Problem isn't the deal in itself - is that imposing somewhat the
>> deal system as a
>> fundamental part of the game will result with further people going
>> away from
>> the game, and few new players coming in.
>
> No. you can't expect people to play a game that is not the right game
> for them.
It depends - players usually buy the cards expecting to play with
them most of the time at the game's table - and not to witness time
consuming arguments about vp split deals by some others at the
same table.
That's my point.
Either this aspect is made blatantly evndent in game's description
/ rulebook , or this "deal system is a fundamental part of the game" to
sound like an arbitrary assumption by a part of the community about
"what" the game of vtes is.
> If they leave because of that, they are not really V:TES
> material. (Not tournement material anyway. I don't remember making VP
> deals in non-tournement games)
> Unless VP dealing is overly rampant in Italy. I have seen it reduced
> over the last couple of years. Not table talking, but Table-deals.
>
>> A 14 years-old game with an huge *lot* of rules such as vtes should
>> take now in
>> consideration to create an easier official level for less-skilled,
>> beginnes players.
>> Officializing a format that cuts away excessive table talks by deals
>> seems me the
>> best option available.
>
> Learning people to play a game, by learning them not to play that
> game? strange.
See above
Teeka
> On 22 jun, 11:11, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote:
> So? If you don't want to deal, you don't deal. If you do want to deal,
> you deal. Simple as that. If you feel that you lose too much by not
> dealing, start dealing. Or vice versa.
Heh. See professional cycling. If you don't want to use EPO, don't use
it. If you want to use it, use it. If you feel you lose too much by
not using, start using. But then it turns out, you can't possibly win
for over 90% of the time because of the advantage it gives others that
"use". So you're forced to do it for sake of competition, even though
you think no one should in the first place.
Some of us have stated that deals are inherent part of the game, which
I (still) disagree with. Meaning I will "lose too much" from it on a
frequent basis. And get forced into a kind of behaviour I think should
not be there in the first place.
Honestly, though, if you don't
> like a minimum of table talk V:TES isn't really your game.
>
>
No, that means playing VTES *with many people who currently play* is
not my game. I like the game as is by means of the rulebook, card
texts and all the combinations, strategies and styles made possible by
the rulebook and texts, a whole lot. I'll decide if VTES is my game or
not, thank you very much.
> > >> because we're still dealing with a CCG, are we ?
>
> > > Yes. A MULTIPLAYER CCG.
>
> > Sure.
>
> Meaning, just like in other multiplayer games were you can affect each
> other's positions: deals will and can be made.
>
>
Can, but not necessarily will. I didn't pull the examples in my first
post out of a hat, you know.
> Why? new players probably have played Risk or something like it. Don't
> tell me that nobody ever said: well, if you don't attack me there, I
> won't attack you. Or something like that.
>
>
Sorry, but I'm telling you now: Nobody did.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>>> That being said, I still find the implication that a player can spend
>>> an infinite amount of time on any part of game play, as long as it is
>>> "in earnest", to be troubling.
>> Then stop taking it to absurdity.
>>
>> Reflect on it as "allowing players to play the game". Then it
>> shouldn't trouble you.
>
> Players are free to deal, sure - but the game in itself
> does not necessarily involve deals, however.
That's what I said, yes.
The game inherently allows deals -- the ability to deals/table talk is assumed.
(i.e., players are free to deal).
And players are not forced to make deals.
> By your argument, then it seems me that we should change tournament rules
> accordingly,
> making deals as *significant part of the game* to be considered by a judge
> in telling which are
> the reasonable chanches to "win" of a given player in a given situation.
Non sequitur.
Why would the fact that deals are permitted but not required mean that the
tournament rules should be changed to make some deals mandatory?
Peter D Bakija
> If you find players to play with you after that: sure, go right ahead.
> You can't do it at a tournement, though.
This is kind of the crux of the issue--why can't I do this at a
tournament? Because it is disruptive to other people playing the
game?
So is spending an inordinate amount of time making a deal.
-Peter
Tetragrammaton
I dind't say to make some deals mandatory -
I say however that if the deals are officially part of the game (as you
wrote elsewhere
on this 3d) then a judge should take also them in consideration as another
element of the game, to tell if a players has reasonable chanche to win or
to
maximize or not.
That's my point.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> Why would the fact that deals are permitted but not required mean
>> that the tournament rules should be changed to make some deals
>> mandatory?
>
> I dind't say to make some deals mandatory -
> I say however that if the deals are officially part of the game (as you
> wrote elsewhere
> on this 3d) then a judge should take also them in consideration as another
> element of the game, to tell if a players has reasonable chanche to win or
> to
> maximize or not.
> That's my point.
Yes. And the direct result of that (and the only change effected by that rule)
would be that sometimes deals become mandatory. Using deals for that means that
the judge could determine that the player has a reasonable chance if hu makes
the deal and no chance otherwise. In which case, the play to win rule would make
the dealing mandatory.
As it is, players are not forced to trust each other to uphold deals.
Tetragrammaton
should consider
an *existent* deal as a part of the game for the reasonable chanches
to win -
The rule about the fact that you're not forced to deal would remain
the same - as much as you can choose to *not* bleed you all-tapped
prey at 1 pool in a given turn for your own legal ptw purposes.
But an existent deal *should* be taken into account a this point -
otherwise an existing deal isn't part of the game, by definition.
Emiliano
LSJ
> No, i'm not meaning that - i mean that, given your definition, the judge
> should consider
> an *existent* deal as a part of the game for the reasonable chanches
> to win -
> The rule about the fact that you're not forced to deal would remain
> the same - as much as you can choose to *not* bleed you all-tapped
> prey at 1 pool in a given turn for your own legal ptw purposes.
> But an existent deal *should* be taken into account a this point -
> otherwise an existing deal isn't part of the game, by definition.
Of course. Then we're set. The judge can already consider existing deals, since
the game recognizes existing deals.
Sorry I didn't get your meaning before. I thought you were suggesting a change.
Tetragrammaton
> Tetragrammaton wrote:
>> No, i'm not meaning that - i mean that, given your definition, the
>> judge should consider
>> an *existent* deal as a part of the game for the reasonable chanches
>> to win -
>> The rule about the fact that you're not forced to deal would remain
>> the same - as much as you can choose to *not* bleed you all-tapped
>> prey at 1 pool in a given turn for your own legal ptw purposes.
>> But an existent deal *should* be taken into account a this point -
>> otherwise an existing deal isn't part of the game, by definition.
>
> Of course. Then we're set. The judge can already consider existing
> deals, since the game recognizes existing deals.
>
reasonable
chanches for a player to win/maximize or not ?
thanks
LSJ
That question is exactly what is answered above.
Could you clarify what you're looking for?
Tetragrammaton
Nothing special - i just didn't know that before.
When such thing was assumed for the first time ?
thanks
Johannes Walch
It is an inherent assumption as the judge has to judge the situation on
the state of the game. Existing deals are obviously a part of the game
state.
Johannes
Tetragrammaton
Afaik a deal can be broken in any moment, or fulfilled even when the
game state has changed so much since the initial deal agreement.
How i can consider a thing that can be erased in any moment
as "reasonable" chanche to count on, to win or maximize ?
> Johannes
Johannes Walch
> Indeed - there's a reason, in fact, why the discussion is also about
> the time taken by a skilled player for playing the cards
> versus
> the time taken by a skilled player for table talk in the dealing process.
I have seen a lot of time-wasting by people playing cards as I have seen
the same with people making deals. I think it depends on the players.
Some people tend to be slow others don´t.
Just an example: Kamel is very well known for making a lot of deals and
for his love to discuss them during the game. Sometimes the discussion
can take up a considerable amount of time which is considered "bad" by
some people, the complain about it. On the other hand I have never seen
anybody applauding him on his extremely quick playstyle.
Perhaps the time needed for discussion can be saved by playing quickly
when you don´t do deals. Of course there have been games where a
discussion that was going forth-and-back has dragged the game to a
timeout. But likewise I have seen games where the players played a lot
of cards to no real state of the game change just until the time out.
My point is, dealmaking is certainly not the most prominent cause for
games timing out. The time-outs happen in stalemate situations and as
often as they can be caused by deals they can also be caused by the
cards (and deals could help in solving them).
Johannes
LSJ
At the first DCI tournament, I suppose, since it is part of the game.
Or at the first VEKN tournament after PTW was formalized, if the modern
interpretation of the sportsmanship is fundamental to your query.
It was touched on (by me) back in 2001, FWIW.
>> It is an inherent assumption as the judge has to judge the situation
>> on the state of the game. Existing deals are obviously a part of the
>> game state.
>>
> Isn't that obvious, imho.
> Afaik a deal can be broken in any moment, or fulfilled even when the
> game state has changed so much since the initial deal agreement.
> How i can consider a thing that can be erased in any moment
> as "reasonable" chanche to count on, to win or maximize ?
You seem to be switching from "aware of the deal" to "reasonably expect the
partner in the deal to honor the deal".
Any deal is entered with the expectation that the partner will honor it, so it
is not unreasonable to assume that the partner will honor it.
Of course, the rules do not enforce the honoring of a deal, so it is also
possible that the deal will be broken.
But all that is obvious. Is there something specific you're looking for?
Tetragrammaton
Ok, then that was not written anywhere.
Period.
<snip>
> You seem to be switching from "aware of the deal" to "reasonably
> expect the partner in the deal to honor the deal".
The partner can be reasonably expected *both* to honor
or to not honor the deal, because the deal can be legally be
broken in any moment.
Awareness it's another matter.
>
> Any deal is entered with the expectation that the partner will honor
> it, so it is not unreasonable to assume that the partner will honor
> it.
> Of course, the rules do not enforce the honoring of a deal, so it is
> also possible that the deal will be broken.
>
> But all that is obvious. Is there something specific you're looking
> for?
For you, maybe. But that isn't obvious by any means.
To me, is not obvious that the judge should base his interpretation
assuming that the deal will be honored, because, on the other side,
the deal in itself may be legally not honored and broken in any moment.
That's not reasonable, sorry.
crispyfloss
> > it, so it is not unreasonable to assume that the partner will honor
> > it.
> > Of course, the rules do not enforce the honoring of a deal, so it is
> > also possible that the deal will be broken.
>
> > But all that is obvious. Is there something specific you're looking
> > for?
>
> For you, maybe. But that isn't obvious by any means.
> To me, is not obvious that the judge should base his interpretation
> assuming that the deal will be honored, because, on the other side,
> the deal in itself may be legally not honored and broken in any moment.
> That's not reasonable, sorry.
Base your interpretation on the reasonableness of the player's
decisions. It's reasonable for her to assume the deal will be honored
and play accordingly; it's also reasonable for her to assume the deal
will be broken and play accordingly. You're forbidding fewer choices
than if you assume only one or the other. Through that lens, a
greater range of decisions fit within the rules.
That's a good thing, isn't it? To keep people from doing what's wrong
rather than forcing them to do what's "best"?
Joshua Duffin
> On Jun 22, 3:59 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > If you find players to play with you after that: sure, go right ahead.
> > You can't do it at a tournement, though.
>
> This is kind of the crux of the issue--why can't I do this at a
> tournament? Because it is disruptive to other people playing the
> game?
Because it's unsportsmanlike in disrupting the game for all players
besides yourself. (Maybe for yourself too...)
> So is spending an inordinate amount of time making a deal.
That doesn't disrupt the game for the person you're dealing with. If
at least two people are interacting in the game to some good purpose,
I don't know if you can reasonably argue that they shouldn't be
allowed to play the game like that.
An inordinate amount of time, sure, they shouldn't take an inordinate
amount of time. But can they take time at all? Sure. VTES is a
multiplayer game in which there are many and sundry ways to affect the
other players. The natural result of that is that players *do* affect
the other players (not just their prey) and negotiations then often
occur about the effect players are going to have on each other.
Josh
not a big fan of deals but can't argue against the existence of table
talk in vtes
Joshua Duffin
> On Jun 21, 5:57 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > True or not (it's already been pointed out that it is in the V:EKN rules), the
> > lack of explicit text in the rulebook in no way indicates that deals are not
> > part of VTES.
>
> Why is the lack of explicit text disallowing deal making in VTES
> disallowing countless other things (such as playing only in semiphore
> or with your underwear on the top of your head) does not indicate that
> they are part of the game?
Those things are allowed during a game of VTES unless they are
unsportsmanlike conduct, cheating, etc.
Likewise, dealmaking is allowed during a game of VTES unless it is
unsportsmanlike conduct, cheating, dealmaking, slow play, etc.
It is common for games to have the rules define what is not allowed,
and anything not prohibited is allowed. I think the rules of sports
are usually written that way: in basketball, you must dribble if you
are in possession of the ball and moving your feet; you cannot spend
more than three seconds in the painted area; you cannot wear jewelry
or hard articles of clothing on the court. But you can do pretty much
anything that is not prohibited by the rules.
> > Deals are part of V:TES. (errata, if you don't believe the fact that this is
> > assumed for most multi-player games that don't explicitly prohibit deals).
>
> So add this to the rulebook. I'm sure a short section on deal making
> and bargaining added to the rulebook would be easy to include and save
> everyone a great deal of trouble in the long run.
Yeah, I don't know if it would... :-)
> That being said, I still find the implication that a player can spend
> an infinite amount of time on any part of game play, as long as it is
> "in earnest", to be troubling. If it is ok for two players to spend as
> much time as they want, provided that they are dealing in earnest,
> regardless of the feelings of the players at the rest of the table,
> why isn't it ok for a single player to spend as much time as he wants
> working out all the possibilities of all of his possiblt moves in his
> head, regardless of the feelings of the players at the rest of the
> table? If my opponents can spend half an hour talking up a deal, I
> want to spend half an hour figuring out what I want to do with my
> turn.
I don't think your opponents should spend half an hour figuring out a
deal. I think you can call a judge over and have them take less than
half an hour to do that.
Josh
an it harm none
librarian
> librarian wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> And in the finals of a tournament,
>> it is legal to say "I'm damn tired, let's just split the prizes and
>> end this game - you came in to the final top seed, you still win."
>> And everyone can agree to that, and it's legal, and the prize pool is
>> split.
> Not to my understand - unless you're in a total losing
> position (and it's unlikely that ALL the table but one
> will be in a total losing position at a given point, early or mid-game)
> you have still to win the round or to try maximize your points -
> what you say it's against the play to win rule, IMHO.
>
> Emiliano
>
>
Here are the rules I was misremembering. It's an "Intentional Draw",
not a concession.
By the way LSJ, there is an end-paragraph mark missing from the end of
3.6...
best -
chris
3.5. Conceding Games
Players may concede a game at any time provided all but one of the
players agree to concede, and provided it doesn't violate the play to
win rule, with the result that game is recorded as if the remaining
player had succeeded in ousting the conceding players in sequence.
Please note that players who attempt to bribe, coerce, or otherwise
improperly induce their opponents to concede will be subject to the
appropriate section of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines.
3.6. Intentional Draw
Players may mutually agree to accept an intentional draw at any time
before the game results are submitted. If an offer to intentionally draw
is declined, the game must continue as normal without any further
coercion to accept the offer. Declaring an intentional draw has the same
results for competitors as playing to the time limit (see sec 3.7.2. [sic]
--
Super Fun Cards
http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/
auct...@superfuncards.com
LSJ
> By the way LSJ, there is an end-paragraph mark missing from the end of
> 3.6...
End parenthesis, you mean?
Not missing now. Thanks.
Joshua Duffin
> On 21 jun, 22:38, Joshua Duffin <jtduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, I don't think I said that dealmaking is necessarily inherent to
> > all multiplayer games.
>
> ok. please excuse me for misquoting you.
Oh certainly. No worries. :-)
> > It is, IMO, unavoidable that table talk is part of every multiplayer
> > game unless the rules specifically prohibit it.
>
> why? I already pointed out I've never done it, or seen it be done in
> many sessions of many different games with many different people
> through many years. Have I been extremely lucky? It's all in how you
> look at it, do you say something is fine because there's no rule
> saying that it's not allowed, or do you say it's not fine because
> there's no rule allowing it?
You say it's fine because there's no rule prohibiting it. Rulebooks
are commonly written to spell out what is *not* allowed; they don't
usually mention if you can or can't drink beer while playing the game,
or talk to the other players, if the game-rule-writers don't care
about those things. They do mention them if they *do* care if you do
those things: for example, in poker tournaments, the rules often
include prohibitions on table talk that tries to induce your opponents
to take one course of action or another.
> > Dealmaking is also
> > profitable in many multiplayer games,
>
> of course (it's the whole point of doing it). But so is keeping your
> opponents awake the night before the game. Nothing in the rules about
> that either.
That's one of those not-so-good analogies though, I think. The night
before is not game-related-activity time. Talking during the game is
game-related-activity time.
> > Oh yes. It definitely does. I think it is virtually impossible to
> > succeed in high-level competitive VTES without being willing and able
> > to participate in the negotiation part of the game.
>
> I know. Too bad though. It's just like sports, you can't make it in
> professional soccer without being able to fake injuries and influence
> the ref. Shame, cause I like a game for what it is, not necessarily
> for how some/many others decide to play it.
I think you're seeing the point pretty clearly there. "diving" in
soccer is (or can be) illegal by the rules, and if it becomes a
problem in game-play, it can only really be addressed by adding
something to the rules trying to make it harder to get away with.
(Assuming that people believe that "diving" should be kept out of the
game.)
Josh
one by one i'll knock you out
Clément
> On 21 jun, 22:38, Joshua Duffin <jtduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Oh yes. It definitely does. I think it is virtually impossible to
>> succeed in high-level competitive VTES without being willing and able
>> to participate in the negotiation part of the game.
> I know. Too bad though. It's just like sports, you can't make it in
> professional soccer without being able to fake injuries and influence
> the ref.
First of all, it's not true that you must be able to fake injuries and
influence the ref to make it in professional soccer. Many players do
those things and get away with it. But it's not required to succeed,
by any means.
Second, faking injuries is clearly cheating. Cheating is not part of
the game. If people get away with cheating (any kind of cheating),
then the powers that be need to figure out some way to properly
enforce the rules (which could very hard to do sometimes).
More importantly, make deals in VTES is not cheating. Even if you
consider that table talk and dealing is not part of the game, how can
it be compared to cheating, really?
> Shame, cause I like a game for what it is, not necessarily
> for how some/many others decide to play it.
Fair enough, but then again, who gets to decide what the game is, and
what it's not?
Mind you, I'm totally in favor of the "stop talking, play the game"
approach. Because yeah, I agree that some players talk too much, and
feel like they need to get a favour from every time they threaten to
block you, or that they need to ask permission for every single action
their minions take. And I also hate that some players will try to
secure a table-split without even trying to actually play the game.
On the other hand, politics, manipulation and interaction are a
legitimate, interesting part of the game. It's an important part of
playing the game. Sometimes people use table talk to avoid playing the
game, which is obviously bad. It doesn't mean that table talk is bad
in itself.
I like the game for what it is, which includes table talk.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
Matthew T. Morgan
Yeah, I think Peter actually has the wrong impression here. If two
players are talking a lot and you are bored, you don't get to make a judge
force them to stop. Your boredom doesn't surpass their right to work out
their deal.
On the other hand, if two players are talking so much that the game is
likely to time out, then that violates play to win. If the game times
out (with nobody or only one person or maybe two people ousted), then you
cannot win. In this case, it is reasonable to ask a judge to intervene.
Of course the judge will have to use judgment to determine whether or not
excessive chatter is actually going to cause the table to time out and
cost everyone the opportunity to win.
Matt Morgan
Peter D Bakija
> Likewise, dealmaking is allowed during a game of VTES unless it is
> unsportsmanlike conduct, cheating, dealmaking, slow play, etc.
I'm totally ok with dealmaking going on to an extent, but what I am
concerned about is, as noted, dealmaking taking an excessive amount of
time, which amounts to slow play, which there are rules to prevent.
Yet apparently, dealmaking can take an infinite amount of time, as
long as it is done "in earnest". Which strikes me as problematic.
At a certain point, dealmaking, even if done in earnest, can take too
long and waste too much time of a given round.
> I don't think your opponents should spend half an hour figuring out a
> deal. I think you can call a judge over and have them take less than
> half an hour to do that.
Apparently not. As as long as they are doing it in earnest, they can
take all the time in the world. As apparently, playing the game does
not hinder playing the game.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I think Peter actually has the wrong impression here. If two
> players are talking a lot and you are bored, you don't get to make a judge
> force them to stop. Your boredom doesn't surpass their right to work out
> their deal.
No, no. I think I have the right impression, in that what you state here
seems to be the case. Which strikes me as very bad for the game as a
whole.
Granted, in this instance, where you use the word "boredom" (which
certainly is an issue, but less of an issue than the rest of the issue)
referring to my argument, really, it isn't so much boredom as "an
inability to play the game while I wait for other people, who are
inordinately monopolizing the limited resource of time". Again, I have
no actual problem with people striking deals, as long as they do so in a
timely fashion. If they don't, it seems like you *should* be able to
call a judge and have them stop. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
As as long as they are dealing "in earnest", two people can spend as
long as they want brokering a deal while the rest of the players sit
around and do nothing.
> On the other hand, if two players are talking so much that the game is
> likely to time out, then that violates play to win. If the game times
> out (with nobody or only one person or maybe two people ousted), then you
> cannot win.
If someone already has 2 VPs, and they then spend the next hour debating
a table split deal with someone who is in a "lost" position, even if the
are talking so much that the game is going to time out, they are still
playing to win--the guy with 2.5VPs wins the game when it times out, and
the guy in the "lost" position is better off with the game having timed
out. And as long as they are dealing in earnest, it apparently doesn't
matter that they deal so long that time runs out.
See, again, I have no absolute problem with dealing and
negotiation--this is a multiplayer game, and that sort of thing is
inevitable. But it strikes me that there should be, at least a
theoretical, limit to the amount of time people can spend on this
particular activity, lest it sideline the actual "card game" part of the
game. But apparently, this is not the case. And as long as folks are
dealing "in earnest", they can spend all the time in the world, and the
want of the rest of the table to, ya know, actually play the game is
irrelevant.
Which strikes me as a problem.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
LSJ
> On Jun 22, 3:49 pm, Joshua Duffin <jtduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Likewise, dealmaking is allowed during a game of VTES unless it is
>> unsportsmanlike conduct, cheating, dealmaking, slow play, etc.
>
> I'm totally ok with dealmaking going on to an extent, but what I am
> concerned about is, as noted, dealmaking taking an excessive amount of
> time, which amounts to slow play, which there are rules to prevent.
The deal making that amounts to slow play is illegal by the rules restricting
slow play.
> Yet apparently, dealmaking can take an infinite amount of time, as
> long as it is done "in earnest". Which strikes me as problematic.
If your time limit is infinite yes. But that would not be a sanctioned tournament.
> At a certain point, dealmaking, even if done in earnest, can take too
> long and waste too much time of a given round.
Not really. Not in the way you're thinking of it as "wasting" anyhow. Playing
the game isn't wasting the game's time. The game's time is designed to be spent
playing the game.
As Matt notes, though, deal-making time can take you closer to the time limit
and, if you get too close, it may eliminate the possibility of you getting a
game win (not enough time remaining), so the transition for the deal maker whou
could get a GW from able to get a GW to not able to get a GW would violate PTW.
Likewise for reduced VP prospects for deal-making players who are already out of
game win range.
>> I don't think your opponents should spend half an hour figuring out a
>> deal. I think you can call a judge over and have them take less than
>> half an hour to do that.
>
> Apparently not. As as long as they are doing it in earnest, they can
> take all the time in the world. As apparently, playing the game does
> not hinder playing the game.
You're talking at cross-purposes. Duffin's example was one in which the deal
could have been made in less time, not one in which the whole time was spent in
earnest.
Matthew T. Morgan
> In article <2007062310...@eris.io.com>,
> "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, I think Peter actually has the wrong impression here. If two
>> players are talking a lot and you are bored, you don't get to make a judge
>> force them to stop. Your boredom doesn't surpass their right to work out
>> their deal.
>
> No, no. I think I have the right impression, in that what you state here
> seems to be the case. Which strikes me as very bad for the game as a
> whole.
Okay, but it seems to me that if you're looking at it from a PTW
perspective, talking the table into a timeout shouldn't occur very
often.
> Granted, in this instance, where you use the word "boredom" (which
> certainly is an issue, but less of an issue than the rest of the issue)
> referring to my argument, really, it isn't so much boredom as "an
> inability to play the game while I wait for other people, who are
> inordinately monopolizing the limited resource of time". Again, I have
> no actual problem with people striking deals, as long as they do so in a
> timely fashion. If they don't, it seems like you *should* be able to
> call a judge and have them stop. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
> As as long as they are dealing "in earnest", two people can spend as
> long as they want brokering a deal while the rest of the players sit
> around and do nothing.
Well, it's very subjective as to what is timely and what isn't. I mean,
either the deal gets made and the game gets completed in two hours (legal
and, IMO, timely) or discussion drags on forever and the table times out
(not as legal - not necessarily illegal, but at least an instance in which
a judge could ask players to speed things up). So with that in mind, any
time you think players are taking too long, you can call a judge to rule
as to whether or not the players are risking violating PTW by talking so
much. The judge will exercise judgement and play will continue one way or
the other. That seems like the solution you're looking for.
>> On the other hand, if two players are talking so much that the game is
>> likely to time out, then that violates play to win. If the game times
>> out (with nobody or only one person or maybe two people ousted), then you
>> cannot win.
>
> If someone already has 2 VPs, and they then spend the next hour debating
> a table split deal with someone who is in a "lost" position, even if the
> are talking so much that the game is going to time out, they are still
> playing to win--the guy with 2.5VPs wins the game when it times out, and
> the guy in the "lost" position is better off with the game having timed
> out. And as long as they are dealing in earnest, it apparently doesn't
> matter that they deal so long that time runs out.
What you're describing here is slow play to take advantage of the time
limit. That's illegal. As always, you'd need the judge to see things as
you do, but such illegal behavior should be corrected. I mean, you've got
to look at the motivation behind the deal. Is the guy with 2 VPs getting
something from it other than timing the table out for the win? If not,
then it can't be anything other than stalling. And the guy who only wants
half a VP? He's not even trying. Call a judge.
> See, again, I have no absolute problem with dealing and
> negotiation--this is a multiplayer game, and that sort of thing is
> inevitable. But it strikes me that there should be, at least a
> theoretical, limit to the amount of time people can spend on this
> particular activity, lest it sideline the actual "card game" part of the
> game. But apparently, this is not the case. And as long as folks are
> dealing "in earnest", they can spend all the time in the world, and the
> want of the rest of the table to, ya know, actually play the game is
> irrelevant.
But they can't really spend the whole two hours on a deal because that's
not playing to win. You can't win if nobody takes any turns. I
understand LSJ's reluctance to put a time limit on deal making. I have
played games in which there was a lot of dealing but the game still ended
on time and one player won. That's perfectly legal, even if more than an
hour was spent talking. There's no clear line to draw here other than
whether people trying to win the game. If they are, then there's no
problem.
> Which strikes me as a problem.
I think the problem comes up when players sort of forget about the time
limit and talk too much without really meaning to. Or when they probably
can't win and aren't going to get anywhere and spend too long grasping at
straws. Of course you've got the types who will try to cut a deal every
time any card is played. I think your best bet there is to encourage
other players to ignore that guy and remind them of the time limit and of
the fact that nobody wins if the table times out. If players have come to
the table to win, then they should consider this seriously. If they
haven't, then there's your real problem. It's just masked by all the
yaking.
Matt Morgan
Tetragrammaton
But those players ("out of game win range"), eventually should be supposed
to do the
best to maximize their position (whereas isn't a totally losing position).
So the factor of a time-consuming table talks by others, due a deal,
is important for them too (even non-winning, they also would have time
enough to get their 1 vp or whatever).
Emiliano
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> As Matt notes, though, deal-making time can take you closer to the
>> time limit and, if you get too close, it may eliminate the
>> possibility of you getting a game win (not enough time remaining), so the
>> transition for the deal
>> maker whou could get a GW from able to get a GW to not able to get a
>> GW would violate PTW.
>> Likewise for reduced VP prospects for deal-making players who are
>> already out of game win range.
>
> But those players ("out of game win range"), eventually should be supposed
> to do the
> best to maximize their position (whereas isn't a totally losing position).
> So the factor of a time-consuming table talks by others, due a deal,
> is important for them too (even non-winning, they also would have time
> enough to get their 1 vp or whatever).
Yes, that's what I said.
LSJ
OK, so it's not what I said above: "by others" changes it.
But the "by others" has already been covered (by me) -- it doesn't matter if a
player is getting shorted on time -- the rules do not guarantee any particular
number or percentage of time to the player. So long as the other players are
using the game time to play the game, it's fine.
Tetragrammaton
So, for example - taking 20 mins to do your turn in the normal
fashion (eg, no table talk, just doing your phases without any particualr
chat) would likely be considered as stalling for time - taking 20 mins
of your turn trying to deal with someone else would, likely, not be
considered
like that -
Is this right ?
LSJ
> So, for example - taking 20 mins to do your turn in the normal
> fashion (eg, no table talk, just doing your phases without any particualr
> chat) would likely be considered as stalling for time - taking 20 mins
> of your turn trying to deal with someone else would, likely, not be
> considered
> like that -
> Is this right ?
Taking 20 minutes to play the game, with all 20 spent (by you and the other
players, since your turn is not solely your own unless there are no effect
applied or that can be applied during your turn) playing the game, is not
stalling. If conducting your turn really takes 20 minutes, fine.
XZealot
> But they can't really spend the whole two hours on a deal because that's
> not playing to win.
Actually, it is playing to win, if it is the finals of a tournament
and you are the first seed, then all you have to do is keep people
politicking while preventing anyone from getting ousted and you have
won. I have seen tournaments won in just such a way.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Tetragrammaton
>> But they can't really spend the whole two hours on a deal because
>> that's not playing to win.
>
> Actually, it is playing to win, if it is the finals of a tournament
> and you are the first seed, then all you have to do is keep people
> politicking while preventing anyone from getting ousted and you have
> won. I have seen tournaments won in just such a way.
>
is, playing it
to score the gw for that round.
What you say seems pretty against the 4.8. - Play to Win.
regards
Emiliano
Tetragrammaton
The point is: if the judge has to consider an existing table split deal as a
"part"
of the game that gives players a reasonable chanche to "win" / "maximize"
(for the ones that have set up it) or to "lose" (say, for the not-dealing
playes(s)
that clearly is going to get the major disavantage from it), then it should
be reasonable
enough for the player(s) not involved in the deal to give up the game
instantlty
("ehy, now there's the table split deal between A and B; i don't want to
counter-deal
to balance that, so i've already lost the game and i give up").
Emiliano
XZealot
See the best way to stall a table is to politic, but you don't have to
be the one to do all the talking. You just have to make the deal so
good that other players are forced to "counter or lose". Once you
have triggered that you can easily burn up 25% of the tables time just
"bouncing" ideas around. It is not that hard, really, and it is in
earnest because being frozen out of a deal, especially a "juicy" deal,
means that you are at such a disadvantage that you can't really win.
Tetragrammaton
remarking is that you can't consider the tournament scoring/standing,
because you have still to play the final *round* with the PTW rule, that
is playing to win the round.
The fact that a player is the top seed (or the second, or the
fifth...whatever)
shouldn't matter.
Emiliano
Salem
from what I can recall (a quick search didn't bring up anything too
useful), in the final round, playing to win the tournament is considered
'playing to win'. you don't need to aim for an actual GW.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
James Coupe
Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes:
>As as long as they are dealing "in earnest", two people can spend as
>long as they want brokering a deal while the rest of the players sit
>around and do nothing.
I think you're missing something.
In a situation where a player is playing egregiously badly, they may
still actually be playing to win. They're new. They're stupid.
They're stubborn. They've completely misread some card text. They're
easily manipulated. They're playing someone else's deck and don't
really understand it. At some point, it doesn't matter that they're
earnestly playing to win, because the judge won't believe them. The
judge will make a judgement call.
So it is with deal making. At some point, it will simply stop mattering
that the players are deal making in earnest because the judge will feel
forced to make a choice re: slow play, stalling etc. Or, as has been
pointed out, talking the game out will violate play-to-win. Where that
point will come will, of course, depend on the judge's judgement. Just
like in other situations, like judging play-to-win or a lost situation.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
James Coupe
<salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes:
>from what I can recall (a quick search didn't bring up anything too
>useful), in the final round, playing to win the tournament is
>considered 'playing to win'. you don't need to aim for an actual GW.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/86a2828bdbb74496
is one example of this - players in the final are assumed to be playing
to win. (Unless they're doing things like collusion or whatever.)
However, now that "play to win" is actually written into the Tournament
Rules, it would probably be helpful to add this sort-of-exception to it.
LSJ
>> But they can't really spend the whole two hours on a deal because that's
>> not playing to win.
>
> Actually, it is playing to win, if it is the finals of a tournament
> and you are the first seed, then all you have to do is keep people
> politicking while preventing anyone from getting ousted and you have
> won. I have seen tournaments won in just such a way.
That would be stalling to take advantage of a time limit. Politicking for
politicking's sake is stalling. Politicking for the game's sake is allowed.
Tetragrammaton
> In message <467e3ce4$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem
> <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> from what I can recall (a quick search didn't bring up anything too
>> useful), in the final round, playing to win the tournament is
>> considered 'playing to win'. you don't need to aim for an actual GW.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/86a2828bdbb74496
> is one example of this - players in the final are assumed to be
> playing to win. (Unless they're doing things like collusion or
> whatever.)
>
> However, now that "play to win" is actually written into the
> Tournament Rules, it would probably be helpful to add this
> sort-of-exception to it.
Why to raise exeption ? I don't see that as necessary - the PTW
applied to *any* round would just fine in getting player to play the
round in the normal way, that is, playing to win the round (that will
lead anyway, in the final round, to winning the tournament).
And, as you state, the tournament rules don't say that the final
round should be somewhat be an exeption for 4.8.
I really hope this will be adressed.
Emiliano
James Coupe
<nos...@none.com> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/86a2
>>828bdbb74496
>> is one example of this - players in the final are assumed to be
>> playing to win. (Unless they're doing things like collusion or
>> whatever.)
>>
>> However, now that "play to win" is actually written into the
>> Tournament Rules, it would probably be helpful to add this
>> sort-of-exception to it.
>
>Why to raise exeption ?
It's not raising one. This exception already exists.
>I don't see that as necessary - the PTW
>applied to *any* round would just fine in getting player to play the
>round in the normal way, that is, playing to win the round (that will
>lead anyway, in the final round, to winning the tournament).
You misunderstand the situation, and would do well to read the rest of
the tournament rules, including the Judges' Guidelines.
160 - Bribery
Players in the finals of a tournament should not be considered
in violation of this rule as long as they meet the following
criteria:
* No player introduces incentives outside the current game
such as cash, cards, or other items. (For example, splitting the
prizes would be acceptable.)
* All players involved in all affected games agree on the
outcome.
Note also that a number of tournaments have specific prizes for ranks 1
through 5. (In particular, especially large tournaments can do this -
such as offering artwork or justicar trophies, or whatever.) I have, in
the past, pointed out that this can cause problems if a player really
wants the second place prize, and it is preferable for the player in
first place to have first choice - but this isn't always feasible.
>And, as you state, the tournament rules don't say that the final
>round should be somewhat be an exeption for 4.8.
However, LSJ has repeatedly said that this is the case, and has not
overturned it.
StenD...@gmail.com
> is based on it being true: "deal making/table talk is inherent to
> VTES, because it's a multiplayer game."
>
> I disagree with this. I don't see why deal making/table talk would
> have to be part of VTES, or any multi-player game. It can be, easily,
I would propose the assumption that deal-making is inherent to
any multiplayer game that is prolonged and where all players
compete simultaneously. (Just so we don't compare with figure
skating, for example.)
Let me expand.
A sprint-style game, multiplayer or not, doesn't lend itself well
to dealmaking. Whenever the task of making a deal obviously
lowers your average result it becomes more profitable to just
utilize the game-mechanics as efficiently as possible.
Compare running 110 metres hurdles.
Now let us compare with running 3000 metres. Taking turns
at point position would on average be profitable to those
"players" who are able to sustain a high average speed but
are less skilled at sprinting those last 200 metres to goal.
For the same reason "players" with less overall stamina would
benefit from acting together (making deals) towards a temporary
goal of sabotaging any attempts at keeping a high average
sustained speed.
For this reason I find the comparision with poker somewhat
halting. I would argue that one hand of poker (in a tournament)
resembles one round of VTES. A sprint style multi player game.
I(magine if you had to switch tables between hands in poker, or,
conversely, imagine that the normal VTES tournament was played
best of seven rounds before reseating, kicking out a few players, and
just repeat in absurdum until you have five players left.)
Anyway, a round of VTES is comparable with a long distance running
competition. Deal making is inherent to that kind of multiplayer
competition as different styles of "playing" can be used to achieve a
goal to a much greater extent than when you need to finish best and
have all of ten seconds or so to reach that goal.
When you add teams to the concept of multiplayer games (compare
bicycling) deal making becomes even more obvious. VTES has added
an explicit banning of this style of deal making to the rules
(collusion),
probably because of the overly obvious benefits from this kind of deal
making.
The very need to regulate deal making does in itself become an
argument
in favour of the view that deal making is indeed inherent to any game
where
such rules are implemented.
My argument is therefore that any game where your average performance
is lessened by the absence of deals (which you participate in) does
indeed
have deal making as an inherent part.
You can play without ever making deals, but you will suffer from it in
the long run.
Sten Düring
Tetragrammaton
> In message <g2tfi.20755$y05....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes:
>> James Coupe wrote:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/86a2
>>> 828bdbb74496
>>> is one example of this - players in the final are assumed to be
>>> playing to win. (Unless they're doing things like collusion or
>>> whatever.)
>>>
>>> However, now that "play to win" is actually written into the
>>> Tournament Rules, it would probably be helpful to add this
>>> sort-of-exception to it.
>>
>> Why to raise exeption ?
>
> It's not raising one. This exception already exists.
>
>> I don't see that as necessary - the PTW
>> applied to *any* round would just fine in getting player to play the
>> round in the normal way, that is, playing to win the round (that will
>> lead anyway, in the final round, to winning the tournament).
>
> You misunderstand the situation, and would do well to read the rest of
> the tournament rules, including the Judges' Guidelines.
>
The fact that the judge's guidelines (3 years old) let players
to split final prizes (agreeing on the outcome) should not override the ptw
/ 4.8.
As a note, i always didn't like at all that clause, anyway (splitting of
prizes during the
final).
> 160 - Bribery
>
> Players in the finals of a tournament should not be considered
> in violation of this rule as long as they meet the following
> criteria:
>
> * No player introduces incentives outside the current game
> such as cash, cards, or other items. (For example, splitting
> the prizes would be acceptable.)
> * All players involved in all affected games agree on the
> outcome.
>
>
> Note also that a number of tournaments have specific prizes for ranks
> 1 through 5. (In particular, especially large tournaments can do
> this - such as offering artwork or justicar trophies, or whatever.)
> I have, in the past, pointed out that this can cause problems if a
> player really wants the second place prize, and it is preferable for
> the player in first place to have first choice - but this isn't
> always feasible.
>
>
Prizes splitting should not have direct influence on the playing to win
clause.
>> And, as you state, the tournament rules don't say that the final
>> round should be somewhat be an exeption for 4.8.
>
> However, LSJ has repeatedly said that this is the case, and has not
> overturned it.
I hope it will be overtuned, then.
Emiliano
Tetragrammaton
> My argument is therefore that any game where your average performance
> is lessened by the absence of deals (which you participate in) does
> indeed
> have deal making as an inherent part.
If it would be an inherent part (much like the cards, the counters etc),
then all the players should be supposed to use it in every game - a number
of players don't want to use it, however - nor they are forced to use it (by
the rules),
or even (under ptw) to accept a deal that will make them to win the game.
So i'd say that isn't inherent - it's just an optional component of the
game -
otherwise formats like silence of death simply would not exist, and, on the
other side, winning deals (or granting-vp-maximization deal if you can't
win)
should be made mandatory to accept.
> You can play without ever making deals, but you will suffer from it in
> the long run.
Only if others will start to deal at the table.
Otherwise in the long run you'll be just fine.
And a number of players would confirm this, i'm sure.
best regards
Emiliano
StenD...@gmail.com
> StenDur...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 5:57 pm, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > My argument is therefore that any game where your average performance
> > is lessened by the absence of deals (which you participate in) does
> > indeed
> > have deal making as an inherent part.
>
> If it would be an inherent part (much like the cards, the counters etc),
> then all the players should be supposed to use it in every game - a number
> of players don't want to use it, however - nor they are forced to use it (by
> the rules),
> or even (under ptw) to accept a deal that will make them to win the game.
> So i'd say that isn't inherent - it's just an optional component of the
> game -
> otherwise formats like silence of death simply would not exist, and, on the
> other side, winning deals (or granting-vp-maximization deal if you can't
> win)
> should be made mandatory to accept.
I believe you're mixing concepts and comparing apples with pears (if
such an expression exists in English).
I am supposed to transfer up at least one minion to play VTES. The
rules does not force me to do that. I would still say that
transferring
up one minion is an inherent part of the game.
I am supposed to make (or break or sabotage) deals to play VTES.
The rules, etc, etc
Mandatory and inherent are not comparable entities.
In no way is it mandatory for long distance runners to benefit from
a tactical way of running. Still most everyone would consider the
runner who took point for almost all of the distance covered to be
either an idiot or a very inexperienced runner. In reality the runners
take turns at point position -- they make deals.
>
> > You can play without ever making deals, but you will suffer from it in
> > the long run.
>
> Only if others will start to deal at the table.
> Otherwise in the long run you'll be just fine.
> And a number of players would confirm this, i'm sure.
And this is an argument in favour of my position. Only as long as all
players agree upon suboptimal performance (no deals) will you suffer
no degradation to your game.
I would like to point out that agreeing to play in this suboptimal way
is in itself a deal made.
Sten Düring
atomweaver
news:s_rfi.7378$c06....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:
Is there _any_ way to differentiate between the two?
DZ
AW
atomweaver
news:Kzjfi.6914$c06....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:
This suggests a whole new way to exploit the tournament system to
one'sadvantage. In most cases, players build decks which necessitate a
certain amount of time and a certain number of rounds be made availble
to them, in order to accomplish their goals. If what Scott is saying
holds true, then any deck which takes a long time per round (by dealing,
or card actions, 'search library and shuffle' effects, or whatever), has
a reasonable payload, and expects to win within the type of game it
creates (fewer total turns, lots of time for itself, and little time for
its opponents), would have a distinct advantage over all other decks.
They just wouldn't have the time to get their desired objectives
completed, no matter what they are... Now, to go build that deck (and
make the world Hate me in brand new ways.)
DZ
AW
Tetragrammaton
No - you buy the "minion" with the cards - see above - cards and counters
are inherent part of the game , so it's pretty normal that you're supposed
to
use them, yes, under whatever rules the game will tell you to do that.
This is not with deal, however: afaik, deals weren't in the tournament rules
until 2007,
and are still not in the rulebook, on the other side.
That makes me to think they're not (still) ineherent part of the game.
> The rules, etc, etc
>
> Mandatory and inherent are not comparable entities.
>
If it's ineherent, then it makes you to to win or lose a given game -
much as you're supposed to take away the last
pool of your prey with your resources, playing to win, the the deal
(as an "inherent" part).
> In no way is it mandatory for long distance runners to benefit from
> a tactical way of running. Still most everyone would consider the
> runner who took point for almost all of the distance covered to be
> either an idiot or a very inexperienced runner. In reality the runners
> take turns at point position -- they make deals.
>
>>
>>> You can play without ever making deals, but you will suffer from it
>>> in the long run.
>>
>> Only if others will start to deal at the table.
>> Otherwise in the long run you'll be just fine.
>> And a number of players would confirm this, i'm sure.
>
> And this is an argument in favour of my position. Only as long as all
> players agree upon suboptimal performance (no deals) will you suffer
> no degradation to your game.
There's no evidence that the game under deals is somewhat to be considered
"optimal".
Deal can be an aspect of the game - you can play the game without and
everything
it's still just fine, no need to sub-class the game to a non-optimal state
in absence of deals -
maybe for some it can be even better since it spares a lot of arguing and
counter-arguing with long table talk, actually.
> I would like to point out that agreeing to play in this suboptimal way
> is in itself a deal made.
At all - it's just personal taste i think - some people are OK with lot of
chatting,
therefore they see the deal -making process inherent to the game; some
people aren't
fond of continous babbling for seeting up (without play of cards) a table
split, and
see that table talk as an optional for the game - that's all.
Emiliano
Matthew T. Morgan
>
>> But they can't really spend the whole two hours on a deal because that's
>> not playing to win.
>
> Actually, it is playing to win, if it is the finals of a tournament
> and you are the first seed, then all you have to do is keep people
> politicking while preventing anyone from getting ousted and you have
> won. I have seen tournaments won in just such a way.
Yes, it is PTW for the top seed player. It is not PTW for the other
players. If they are earnestly attempting to win the game, they should
stop talking and start playing.
Matt Morgan
Matthew T. Morgan
> In message <467e3ce4$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem
> <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> from what I can recall (a quick search didn't bring up anything too
>> useful), in the final round, playing to win the tournament is
>> considered 'playing to win'. you don't need to aim for an actual GW.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/86a2828bdbb74496
> is one example of this - players in the final are assumed to be playing
> to win. (Unless they're doing things like collusion or whatever.)
>
> However, now that "play to win" is actually written into the Tournament
> Rules, it would probably be helpful to add this sort-of-exception to it.
That's not necessary. Winning the tournament is the same as winning the
final table. It counts as a game win under vekn rules. Due to
tiebreakers, finals can be won with half a VP. Therefore, playing to time
the table out (calling lots of Autarikis Persecutions or whatever) is PTW
and legal for the top-seeded player, as long as there's no intentionally
slow play.
Matt Morgan
Matthew T. Morgan
> See the best way to stall a table is to politic, but you don't have to
> be the one to do all the talking. You just have to make the deal so
> good that other players are forced to "counter or lose". Once you
> have triggered that you can easily burn up 25% of the tables time just
> "bouncing" ideas around. It is not that hard, really, and it is in
> earnest because being frozen out of a deal, especially a "juicy" deal,
> means that you are at such a disadvantage that you can't really win.
I'm not sure if you mean that a player will be compelled to listen to the
deal because of the PTW rule or just that it will be too irresistible to
refuse.
Players can never be forced to accept deals by the rules because deals
aren't enforced by the rules.
In the other case, I guess that can happen. Some people are easily
misled.
"I will put a point of KRC damage on your prey and make all your dreams
come true!"
Matt Morgan
James Coupe
Winning, but not necessarily getting a Game Win.
>It counts as a game win under vekn rules.
3.7.1, where Game Wins are defined, doesn't say that.
A player receives a Game Win at the end of a game in which they
have received at least two (2) Victory Points and have more
Victory Points than any other player in the game. (No game win
is awarded in the case of ties.)
And the particular encoding of Play To Win in the current tournament
rules require you to play for the Game Win first, if practical.
>Due to tiebreakers, finals can be won with half a VP.
Won, but not with a Game Win.
James Coupe
atomweaver <atomw...@spamtrap.com> writes:
>LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in
>news:s_rfi.7378$c06....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:
>> for politicking's sake is stalling. Politicking for the game's sake is
>> allowed.
>
>Is there _any_ way to differentiate between the two?
Is there any way to differentiate between a player playing badly and a
player violating play to win?
James Coupe
StenD...@gmail.com writes:
>I believe you're mixing concepts and comparing apples with pears (if
>such an expression exists in English).
Conventional English idiom is usually "apples with oranges", but it
makes sense with other nouns. (And people sometimes pick other objects
to make a point anyway, so most people will understand what you mean
anyhow.)