DealBreakers

Dealbreaking is very legal and it is part of the game. I have no problem with people breaking deals. That said, i wouldn't mind seeing a list of people that cannot be trusted in deals (ofcourse only talking the game here). Or if that list is too long, people who will not break a deal. just for starters: just copy or quote the list and add or remove a player :-) (from JOLgames at this moment) Dealbreakers that i remember: Jeff Kuta Orpheus Tobias Wes (although it has been a while) People who didn't break their deals when they could have: (i will make this list longer when i remember more) Frede Ira Cooper (me) Herve Jan Roger Just let me know, for my future deals :-) W

> Dealbreaking is very legal and it is part of the game. > I have no problem with people breaking deals. Then why do you want a list? > That said, i wouldn't mind seeing a list of people that cannot be > trusted in deals (ofcourse only talking the game here). Some sort of Red List, of underhand, sneaky deal breakers? Personally I don't care. I make deals as I see them on the table, and I will break deals if I think I will benefit from it. If you get hurt in deals, be prepared for that possibility, then the trust issue is less of a problem. This whole honouring deals gets real tiring if you start to get branded before you even play a game as a 'deal breaker' Most players wouldn't want to know another players deck list as that would be seen as 'unfair' yet most want to know about 'dealbreaking' Play as you see it. Sam Marsh, occassional deal breaker.

<Wouter...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht news:1127747339.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Dealbreaking is very legal and it is part of the game. > I have no problem with people breaking deals. why do you need a list then? > > That said, i wouldn't mind seeing a list of people that cannot be > trusted in deals (ofcourse only talking the game here). again, why? You cannot base your expectations about their actions on one action they took, maybe even once. Besides, who is checking this list? I could just as easily add people to it, and you will never know if they're dealbreakers or not. > > Or if that list is too long, people who will not break a deal. > > just for starters: just copy or quote the list and add or remove a > player > :-) nope. > > Dealbreakers that i remember: <snip names> > People who didn't break their deals when they could have: <snip names except for:> > Cooper (me) BS lists: I can be on both. I have broken deals, re-negotiated deals and kept deals while I could break them. And putting yourself in that list is just plain WRONG. > Just let me know, for my future deals Out-of-game considerations: consider yourself warned :p

<Wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote: (snip) > That said, i wouldn't mind seeing a list of people that cannot be > trusted in deals (ofcourse only talking the game here). (snip) New list! V:TES players who attended parties thrown by Communist party members in the early 1950's: ----------------------------- Peter Bakija Fred Scott Matt Hirsch Mark Loughman Connor Bell Please add to my list if you have accurate info regarding other players. better dead than red, Jay

>>That said, i wouldn't mind seeing a list of people that cannot be >>trusted in deals (ofcourse only talking the game here). > > > again, why? You cannot base your expectations about their actions on one > action they took, maybe even once. Besides, who is checking this list? I > could just as easily add people to it, and you will never know if they're > dealbreakers or not. You quite simply need to make a list of people that can be trusted to put names on a dealbreaker list first, which we can get to once we make the list of people trusted to put names on a list of names that are trusted to put names on a dealbreaker list. I agree it's a silly exercise. Anyone looking for some kind of quasi-enforceable trust system (which is basically what a dealbreaker list is, right?) can't be having that much fun when they play this game. - crispy

<Wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1127747339.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > That said, i wouldn't mind seeing a list of people that cannot be > trusted in deals (ofcourse only talking the game here). You're probably going to get a lot of flack, but personally I like the idea. Beware, though it could quickly get out of hand, as different people have different definitions for what a dealbreaker is. Or someone could go the Spartacus route and just submit everyones name to your list. Also, maybe there are more dealbreakers on-line then in person? But why not have a list? There's no rule against it. NW

Wouter...@yahoo.com wrote: > Dealbreaking is very legal and it is part of the game. > I have no problem with people breaking deals. > > That said, i wouldn't mind seeing a list of people that cannot be > trusted in deals (ofcourse only talking the game here). > > Or if that list is too long, people who will not break a deal. > > just for starters: just copy or quote the list and add or remove a > player > :-) > > (from JOLgames at this moment) > > Dealbreakers that i remember: > Jeff Kuta Not that this will change your perception, but I think that even though I was a weasel, I upheld what we really agreed on. I agreed that Jared needed more bleeds Deflected to him. I also said I had ways to make bleeds not hurt (Spying Mission), but I didn't really say I'd use them. Finally, I didn't oust you on my turn. Jared's J:CS took care of that. Yeah, it was terribly unethical, but I don't know if it could technically be termed deal-breaking. I'll have to ask my Ventrue lawyers. Jeff

[ quoted text not captured ] Robert Goudie. I've seen him keep a deal that he could have broken. Very trustworthy. :)

> Besides, who is checking this list? Dunno. People who care about it? > I > could just as easily add people to it, and you will never know if they're > dealbreakers or not. True. That, however, would just clearly show how in-game dealbreaking behaviour and general moral behaviour can correlate despite what many dealbreakers claim. > Out-of-game considerations: consider yourself warned :p Heh. Funny you would say that. ;) -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > > I > > could just as easily add people to it, and you will never know if they're > > dealbreakers or not. > > True. That, however, would just clearly show how in-game dealbreaking > behaviour and general moral behaviour can correlate despite what many > dealbreakers claim. That is such a clearly ludicrous statement. If I break a deal in V:tES you think that it indicates im moraly suspect? V:tES is a game, in the game you are allowed to make deals within the rules, also within the rules of the game its perfectly fine to break these deals... so your saying people are moraly questionable for playing within the rules of the game! I find that so offensive that in fact, I wonder if its meant as a joke. /rant

Wouter...@yahoo.com wrote: > That said, i wouldn't mind seeing a list of people that cannot be > trusted in deals (ofcourse only talking the game here). I have my own list of people I personally have seen breaking deals. That is to make sure they don't fool me twice (once was way too much already). I don't like to open up a Red List in the Newsgroup though. That tastes a bit like denouncation in the worst times of Germany. I would suggest to make your own experiences and keep them in mind if you are about to deal again with those people. Of course you can ask me of my list if we meet at a tournament and I will tell you. But even then you cannot be sure if I don't try to agitate against a certain player or if it's true. So taking Red Lists of others doesn't make sense, make your own and keep it secret. Just my two burgers...

I have also attended parties thrown by the communist party, democratic party, socailist party, drunk party, and alchoholics anonymous. -BEAR

"Jazzbeaux" <sam....@NOTrenelec.co.uk> wrote in message news:dh94a9$8fk$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com... >> Dealbreaking is very legal and it is part of the game. >> I have no problem with people breaking deals. > > Then why do you want a list? So that he can have the benefit of the experience of other people with respect to who can be truested and who can not. Assuming he trusts the people who are making and contributing to the list, of course. Heh! Fred

I agree that listing people in the newsgroup is not the best way to do it, but as a non deal breaking player (not even if I am going to be ousted in the process, EVEN in a tournament), I feel harmed by deal breaking behaviour. People who don't know me, might not make a deal with me (and give up possible benefit to both of us), simply because he has to assume that I could break the deal. Keeping my deals may be considered foolishness by many, but it really comes handy when you need help from your cross table and he KNOWS you are keeping your word... Dan "Deceive not those of the Blood, for my House is Founded on Truth" Haquim - The Law of the Word

[ quoted text not captured ] Just look at the member nations on the U.N. Human Rights Committee. I think the Red Listers should just take control of the list. ;) Jeff /likes the U.N.

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMtelenet.be> wrote in message news:8EUZe.5532$SG1.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... >> That said, i wouldn't mind seeing a list of people that cannot be >> trusted in deals (ofcourse only talking the game here). > > again, why? You cannot base your expectations about their actions on one > action they took, maybe even once. I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Do you mean you don't think it's legal to base future game behavior on past game experience with another player because it's considered an "out of game" consideration or that you don't think it's reasonable to do so? If the former, I'm not sure whether you're right in a technical sense or not but I'm pretty sure that if it is illegal, such an interpretation of that rule is entirely unenforcable. When we sit down with other players we've played with before, we know all kinds of things about them: what clans they like to play, whether they play combat or vote or bleed well or poorly. And whether they break deals capriciously, occasionally, or never. It would be stupid not to use such knowledge as you play the game and no one tries to ignore it. Therefore, if this _were_ the rule, we all play illegally all the time. If the latter, I disagree. Knowing how a player views past deals he makes as the game continues is very important information and even one experience with another player will tell me a lot of useful information. Whether I believe a third party's opinion - on the other hand - is another matter. Fred

"Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:uGVZe.53412$vJ4....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com... > <Wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > (snip) >> That said, i wouldn't mind seeing a list of people that cannot be >> trusted in deals (ofcourse only talking the game here). > (snip) > > > New list! > > V:TES players who attended parties thrown by Communist party > members in the early 1950's: > ----------------------------- > Peter Bakija > Fred Scott > Matt Hirsch > Mark Loughman > Connor Bell CRAP!!! Caught attending parties before I was born! (They were good parties, though!) Fred

<Wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1127747339.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Dealbreaking is very legal and it is part of the game. > I have no problem with people breaking deals. > > That said, i wouldn't mind seeing a list of people that cannot be > trusted in deals (ofcourse only talking the game here). > Random memory, but somewhat relevant: I was playing in a game with someone and he said something about being worried about me playing bleed modifiers. I said, in what I thought was a joking manner, "what? I don't have any bleed modifiers!" Then, later, when I played a conditioning he said, quite seriously, "okay, but I maintain a list of people who've broken deals with me and so now you're going on the list." But, I was just keeeding . . . NW

"Name" <na...@name.com> wrote in message news:mcYZe.150$056...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com... [ quoted text not captured ] "EXCUSE ME SIR!!! I take offense to that remark! How dare you?!? I am *NOT* a 'deal-breaker'. I am a liar, thankyouverymuch!" Fred

Wouter...@yahoo.com wrote: > Dealbreaking is very legal and it is part of the game. > I have no problem with people breaking deals. > > That said, i wouldn't mind seeing a list of people that cannot be > trusted in deals (ofcourse only talking the game here). Let's assume you get a list of people who've broken deals before. Then what? I think that information is likely to be useful in very few situations. In most deals, it is in both participants' best interest to keep the deal. Does the fact that someone has broken a deal in the past make them incapable of keeping a deal that is obviously in their own best interest? Of course not. Afterall, dealbreakers are all about self-interest since that's probably what fueled their previous dealbreaks! Even players who have broken deals in the past will still keep nearly all of their deals since it rarely benefits them to break a deal at all. > People who didn't break their deals when they could have: > (i will make this list longer when i remember more) I'd imagine that every player who has broken a deal could also be listed in this column. Add me to both columns, please. :) -Robert

> Random memory, but somewhat relevant: I was playing in a game with someone > and he said something about being worried about me playing bleed modifiers. > I said, in what I thought was a joking manner, "what? I don't have any bleed > modifiers!" Then, later, when I played a conditioning he said, quite > seriously, "okay, but I maintain a list of people who've broken deals with > me and so now you're going on the list." > > But, I was just keeeding . . . > Here's another random memory: Shadow Twin Constructed 2005, Final Round. A -> B -> C -> D -> Me C has ousted D, my Predator has a VP. I have a Deal with my Prey A(): We oust his next two Preys (B and C) and then we both Withdraw. We easily oust the first Prey (B). I no longer believe us capable of ousting the other Prey (C). I oust my Prey (A), and then oust my new Prey (C). Did I break the deal? I say no, the Deal was broken by the fact that we could no longer oust C.

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: > Here's another random memory: > > Shadow Twin Constructed 2005, Final Round. > > A -> B -> C -> D -> Me > > C has ousted D, my Predator has a VP. I have a Deal with my Prey A(): We > oust his next two Preys (B and C) and then we both Withdraw. We easily > oust the first Prey (B). I no longer believe us capable of ousting the > other Prey (C). I oust my Prey (A), and then oust my new Prey (C). > > Did I break the deal? I say no, the Deal was broken by the fact that we > could no longer oust C. And I say 'you're a stinkin' bastard', for making the 'hey prey, let's oust my grand-prey without me pressuring you at all' deal. :P -John Flournoy -aka 'player B'

Hello Coop, know thee that I'd find this initiative ridiculous even if I wasn't on this preposterous list. You've been betrayed in the JOL finals by Jeff, ok. Now : you offered yourself to your predator, he would have been silly not to oust you. He could have refused any kind of deal, I'd have done so in his stead now, but ousting you was normal. We play Vampires, remember ? You cannot trust a vampire not to bite you when you present a bleedig jugular. And I told you he'd betray you... B) As for me being on this list now, it just shows how preposterous the whole thing is : I betrayed you a year ago, on a Life Boon (hate that card), never did since, and I'm labelled "Dealbreaker" for life ? That's plain stupid. Deals are sometimes respected and sometimes broken. When I make a deal, I take "insurances", because your prey's goal is always... to oust you (and more after if possible).

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, John Flournoy wrote: >> Did I break the deal? I say no, the Deal was broken by the fact that we >> could no longer oust C. > > And I say 'you're a stinkin' bastard', for making the 'hey prey, let's > oust my grand-prey without me pressuring you at all' deal. :P > Oust or be ousted. :p

Some asked "why do you want that list, if you think dealbreaking is ok?" Well, i don't break deals. I do think deal breaking is ok for others. I however think that not breaking deals will give me some long term advantage. (If people know me they might chose me as a partner before someone else, because i am trustworthy) That doesnt mean i think less of dealbreakers, as that is just a different strategy. For my own deals however i would find it useful to know who has broken deals before. So that i won't give myself on a plate to them, when it gets to that. I already have my own "Red List" ,ie people i will not deal with because they betrayed me before. I just wanted to hear other peoples Red List... Let the deal breakers be known to all, that 'll teach them to Way of the Light :-) I know this is no useful system because fraud is too easy, i do not intend to make a fraudfree list,...i just thought it might be fun,... so people; just write down the names by whom you were betrayed (if possible with examples) and perhaps also examples when you weren't betrayed. I will get some examples where i stupidly believed the one who betrayed me later :-) W

"Dragos" <Daniel....@med.ge.com> schreef in bericht news:1127762275.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Keeping my deals may be considered foolishness by many, but it really > comes handy when you need help from your cross table and he KNOWS you > are keeping your word... > AAMOF, both black and white views are foolish, imo. Never breaking deals is easily exploited and leads to an environment with way to may deals. Always breaking deals means no-one will ever deal with you again. Shades of Gray and all that..

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> schreef in bericht news:opsxp2ba...@news.chello.hu... >> Besides, who is checking this list? > > Dunno. People who care about it? you mean people who would like to see public humiliation back in the law? > >> I >> could just as easily add people to it, and you will never know if they're >> dealbreakers or not. > > True. That, however, would just clearly show how in-game dealbreaking > behaviour and general moral behaviour can correlate despite what many > dealbreakers claim. I'll take that as a personal offence. so right back at ya: never breaking deals correlates to not playing with a full arsenal and is therefore STOOOOPID. > >> Out-of-game considerations: consider yourself warned :p > > Heh. Funny you would say that. ;) I don't see the joke. If I broke a deal 5 years ago, I'm forever branded a deal breaker? and that's in-game????

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht news:zVXZe.81950$DW1.46511@fed1read06... > "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMtelenet.be> wrote in message > news:8EUZe.5532$SG1.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... >>> That said, i wouldn't mind seeing a list of people that cannot be >>> trusted in deals (ofcourse only talking the game here). >> >> again, why? You cannot base your expectations about their actions on one >> action they took, maybe even once. > > I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Do you mean you don't think it's > legal to base future game behavior on past game experience with another > player because it's considered an "out of game" consideration or that you > don't think it's reasonable to do so? the out-of-game line had a smiley. It was a joke. > > If the latter, I disagree. Knowing how a player views past deals he makes > as the game continues is very important information and even one > experience > with another player will tell me a lot of useful information. I'm just saying that no-one will break every deal, even if branded a deal breaker. I have broken deals in the past, but most of them I've kept. how does that give you information about my future actions? >Whether I > believe a third party's opinion - on the other hand - is another matter. > not to go to deep into it: it's your last sentence that sums up what i meant to say.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Wouter...@yahoo.com wrote: > Dealbreaking is very legal and it is part of the game. > I have no problem with people breaking deals. > > That said, i wouldn't mind seeing a list of people that cannot be > trusted in deals (ofcourse only talking the game here). > > Or if that list is too long, people who will not break a deal. > > just for starters: just copy or quote the list and add or remove a > player Call Senator McCarthy. He'll be interested in this one. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDOG6vtQZlu3o7QpERAl/dAKCsGS5dybP5qIv+noF/ooq3Uc69rgCgybey woJBrF1gH/zIcByKSDkO64w= =j8xY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMtelenet.be> wrote in message news:C7_Ze.5851$l93.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... >> I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Do you mean you don't think it's >> legal to base future game behavior on past game experience with another >> player because it's considered an "out of game" consideration or that you >> don't think it's reasonable to do so? ... >> If the latter, I disagree. Knowing how a player views past deals he makes >> as the game continues is very important information and even one experience >> with another player will tell me a lot of useful information. > > I'm just saying that no-one will break every deal, even if branded a deal breaker. I have broken deals in the past, but most of > them I've kept. how does that give you information about my future actions? Well, if you break even one deal, I know you'll consider breaking deals at all. That, to me, is a different thing than someone I've never seen break a deal - especially if I've played a lot of games with the guy. But besides that, if I see you make even a single deal, I see whether or not you'll break under a given set of circumstances. I might see you break it the first time it's slightly more convenient for you to break it than keep it. Or I might see you keep a deal that was very tempting to break over the course of the game. Lots of stuff you can tell with just a single incident. And, by the way, I'd assert that most people are affected by just one example like that, whether they know it or admit or not. Even you. Fred

If dealbreaking is legal AND we will have a list of dealbreakers, i see two problems. 1st. In our games at the moment, we already lose the most time by discussing, if some behaviour is dealbreaking. Sometimes i agree, that i broke a deal, only to stop the stupid discussion, if a move i made was deal breaking or not. A list will intensify those discussions in every game. 2nd. If making a list of deal breakers in this forum is not out of game, than telling wrong informations about deal breaking is also not out of game. The first thing all deal breakers have to do, is flood these list with wrong informations. And non-deal-breakers could also profit from having some other guys on these list. Sooner or later the whole thing will end in a big mess of lies and slandering. Frank

Wouter...@yahoo.com wrote: > That said, i wouldn't mind seeing a list of people that cannot be > trusted in deals (of course only talking the game here). So you need anonymous (mostly, as we are on the Internet) informants to give you better advice than your own judgement on a table, talking to a real person? And how do you know that someone who never broke deals before will not break the deal if the stakes are high enough? How much truth resulted from witchhunts in history? Well, I guess you will get the point ... P.S: Just reading through the "Game of Thrones" novels, I can´t imagine that anyone can actually keep a deal ;-) -- johannes walch

Robert Goudie wrote: > I'd imagine that every player who has broken a deal could also be > listed in this column. Add me to both columns, please. :) Funny, when I thought about it I found out that the only person I would trust to never break a deal with me while playing V:TES would be considered a regular deal-braker by most of the people. Well the stupidity of this list is just obvious, let´s get back to the in-game issues :) -- johannes walch

Correct me if I am wrong... but isnt it illegal to carry over the effects (ie. deal breaking) from one game to the next? Andrew

In message <1127800811....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Daley <dal...@iinet.net.au> writes: >Correct me if I am wrong... but isnt it illegal to carry over the >effects (ie. deal breaking) from one game to the next? It is impossible to prevent players from carrying knowledge of players' behaviour from game to game, tournament to tournament. The rules never force you to accept a deal and you are perfectly entitled to tell someone "No, because you'll stab me in the back, like you did back in 1922." Similarly, you could say to someone "No, I don't think you have the skill to pull that off, but I'd have to do all my work first and it would be wasted, so no deal" - bringing knowledge of your experience of a player's skill to a decision. It is, however, illegal to violate play to win based on something like, for example, "OH MY GOD HE'S A DEAL BREAKER I HAVE TO OUST HIM RIGHT NOW BECAUSE HE'S EVIL AND HE DESERVES TO DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE." The difference is important. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Useless list. Basicly all I played with these ten years have broken a deal at least once. Basicly all, at least once, also honored a deal, when they could benefit from breaking it. People in my playgroup consider me a guy that honor deals. But I know I have at least once broken a deal. So that will mean people have to consider that when playing me? Bottompoint: Anyone can break a deal, if not in the past, they may do it in the future. Robert

I definitely belong on that first list. I also definitely belong on the second list. As should any VTES player.

<Wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote > > Let the deal breakers be known to all, that 'll teach them to Way of > the Light Supposing that we have seen the wisdom of the Way of the Light, how would we arrange to be removed from the list of Evil Doers? Seriously though, if one already has a reputation for being a deal-breaker, it's damned near impossible to repair that reputation, so there's really not much point in reforming. Cheers, WES High Priest of the Way of the Dark

<Wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote > > (from JOLgames at this moment) > > Dealbreakers that i remember: > Jeff Kuta > Orpheus > Tobias > Wes (although it has been a while) I think, as the original proponent of this idea, that I should be at the *VERY TOP* of this list, goddammit. Of course, I proposed it as a joke, but hey... props where they're deserved, eh? :) And yes, it has been a while. Cheers, WES

[ quoted text not captured ] I agree with the recent posts stating that the list of dealbreakers/deal-keepers is useless. Nonetheless, I think that some people will choose to never break a deal in VTES. For those D&D buffs, I play VTES as Lawful Evil, though most people will play as Neutral Evil, and a few (perhaps the most frustrating players to me) play as Chaotic Evil. And I guess some people are Neutral on the Evil/Good scale. But if you ever get to the Good side of things, then you're probably not playing to win anymore. :) That weird tangent aside, I think there are long-term reputation benefits to never breaking a deal, and thus some people will choose to never break a deal. Personally, I think the possibility of dealbreaking makes the game exciting, though I generally prefer to play with people who don't break deals. Ira Prince of Fairdealing, MO

Well actually i was already making the first mail with the list BEFORE i got back to the table :-) It was very funny to see you write it there. :-) W

People, people don't take me too serious here! :-) I know such kind of lists will never be waterproof, and thus are near useless. I just wouldn't mind reading about instances and people where you were betrayed in a deal and by whom. And possibly how stupid you were making the deal. Or instances where you yourself betrayed someone because the other guy was so stupid,...or instances where a nice deal was kept even though,...etc. For instance: My predator (Jeff) plays stealth-bleed, with waaay too many deflections. My grandpredator plays dominate-bleed. I am dead meat from the beginning, not drawing my DOM-minions. SO my prey runs wild, having 7 princes already (or something). For some reason i manage to stay in the game until turn 8. Then my prey wants to oust his prey. (and probably wins the game by doing so, if it develops logical) I can DI the KRC that ousts my grandprey, but by doing so i put myself within ousting range. So i ask Jeff if he wants a deal where i try to stop the one who will win the table (my prey). Me: ">if you spy all your bleeds thats ok, yes.... >and not make your defelctions land on me, but on Jared for example. > >Is that a deal?" Jeff: "Yes, ....and some more text. :)" (not sure how your ventrue lwyers can talk you out of this one Jeff ;-) ) Orpheus already warned me that you would break the deal, but i am just the gullible guy i am, and trust people at first,...even in game,... First opportunity Jeff deflects a bleed to me. So,...yep, i was stupid to believe him. Not that it matters much, because i would never win this game anyway, but hey it's just the principle :-) Anyone else has some nice stories about how they were betrayed? you know,..the watch-out-for-this-guy stories. :-) again, don't take it too serious,....just be warned! i will put you on my list if you break a deal with me :biggrin: W

<Wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1127814742.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > My predator (Jeff) plays stealth-bleed, with waaay too many > deflections. My grandpredator plays dominate-bleed. I am dead meat from > the beginning, not drawing my DOM-minions. SO my prey runs wild, having > 7 princes already (or something). For some reason i manage to stay in > the game until turn 8. Then my prey wants to oust his prey. (and > probably wins the game by doing so, if it develops logical) Jared always gets about 7 princes out with that deck, it's amazing how he does it. :) - Pat

<Wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] (I know you're responding to me here, but that may not be obvious to those using some newsreaders.) I actually suggested it here on the newsgroup a few years ago during a different discussion on deals. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_frm/thread/b805e56a0c2135b0/002f872fcbd4dd75?tvc=1&q=Wes#002f872fcbd4dd75 Message #68... In response to you, actually :) That was a very interesting discussion, IMO. I suspect I am probably "Chaotic Evil" in Ira's D&D way of looking at these things, but really, I just like to think that I'm on a different Path than Humanity :) Cheers, WES

"Wes" <gh...@NYETmnsiSPAM.net> wrote in message news:dhb5j...@enews4.newsguy.com... > <snip puny human morality discussion> > > I suspect I am probably "Chaotic Evil" in Ira's D&D way of looking at > these things, but really, I just like to think that I'm on a different > Path than Humanity :) > Hear hear! I love the alternative moralities from the WoD. Being on the Path of Death and the Soul was one of my favorite things about playing Sabbat during my brief period of LARPing. - Pat

I would stop discussing the still-ongoing game. Give them time to wrap it up.

"Pat" <patrick.l...@comcast.nyetspam.net> wrote > > Hear hear! I love the alternative moralities from the WoD. > > Being on the Path of Death and the Soul was one of my favorite things > about playing Sabbat during my brief period of LARPing. I was always more of a Path of Caine person. But to me that always translated as the Path of Powergamer-Enabling. To be honest, I'm not even sure what Chaotic Evil means in the context of V:tES, but it sounds right somehow :) Cheers, WES

Derek Ray wrote: > Call Senator McCarthy. He'll be interested in this one. Man. This is some of the craziest shit I've ever seen on this newsgroup. -Peter

Wouter...@yahoo.com wrote: > ... i wouldn't mind seeing a list of people that cannot be > trusted in deals (ofcourse only talking the game here). > > Or if that list is too long, people who will not break a deal. The list of dealbreakers would be too long, too ambiguous and too contraversial to maintain. But as someone who recognizes the strategic value of being known for honest dealing, I think it's a great idea to give people whose word you can trust completely their props in this forum. I'll agree that Ira Fay is one such, having seen him keep deals that weren't as good as he thought when he made them. I would also never expect Boris Zaretsky to break a deal--but then again, Boris seldom makes a deal that would restrict his strategic options. Both are excellent players, and I would make deals with them that I would never make with, say, John Flournoy or Mike Ooi or Ankur Gupta or Eric Chiang. Which isn't to say I wouldn't make deals with any of those four, just that I wouldn't build a strategy around a deal with one them where I didn't get my end up front. Playing with people whose word I can trust, we have more strategic options.

[ quoted text not captured ] Do you think so? To me it seems so mundane it hurts. Fabio "Sooner" Macedo, on the way to a nomadic and hermit lifestyle away from humanity

<ira...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1127812916.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com wrote: > That weird tangent aside, I think there are long-term reputation > benefits to never breaking a deal, and thus some people will choose to > never break a deal. sorry, not for me. I don't trust anyone on a V:TES table.

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:dha03f$7qm$2...@news01.versatel.de... [ quoted text not captured ] I actually do not recall have ever broken a deal. If anyone can provide contrary info to that I'd be willing to consider it, but until then I have to list myself in the never breaks deals column. That of course does not make me a push over. Raille

Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote: > Do you think so? To me it seems so mundane it hurts. What, a black list of people who break deals? Yeah, that's kinda crazy. -Peter

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMtelenet.be> wrote in message news:VTc_e.6281$WC3.2...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... [ quoted text not captured ] Ditto. However that does not mean you cannot deal, make deals and at least try to accept them at face value. Raille

"Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1127839229.6c3f96df188fb7539178d72141370981@teranews... > I actually do not recall have ever broken a deal. > > If anyone can provide contrary info to that I'd be willing to consider it, > but until then I have to > list myself in the never breaks deals column. > > That of course does not make me a push over. > Of course not. You're a pushover for a wealth of other reasons... :P DZ AW

<Wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1127747339.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Dealbreaking is very legal and it is part of the game. > I have no problem with people breaking deals. > > That said, i wouldn't mind seeing a list of people that cannot be > trusted in deals (of course only talking the game here). > Too numerous to count, deal-breaking is the de facto standard for VTES. Of course, some raise it to an art form (ala Stu "Oathbreaker" Pieloch), and may merit additional mention (and adulation)... > Or if that list is too long, people who will not break a deal. > This list would interest me more. I love to know who brings their moral baggage of real life to the table, so as to be able to extort maximum effect. So, who are the other Lawful Pinheads out there? > Frede > Ira > Cooper (me) > Herve > Jan Roger Steve Coombs Rob Grau David Davila Ed McGlynn (although I haven't honestly tested his mettle too hard) Peter Jehlen (Boston's corrupting influence may have broken him since he and I last gamed) DaveZ AW

"David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message news:w6g_e.663$DY....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com... > I love to know who brings their moral baggage of real life to the table, Moral baggage, my pimply ass. A reputation as a faithful deal-keeper is truly useful in this game. Fred

> Which isn't to say I wouldn't make deals with any of those > four, just that I wouldn't build a strategy around a deal > with one them where I didn't get my end up front. Playing > with people whose word I can trust, we have more strategic > options. That was concisely and eloquently stated. :) Furthermore, I'd say that the diversity of dealmaking approaches based on the trustworthiness of the opponent is one of the things that makes VTES interesting. If *everyone* kept their deals or *everyone* was a known dealbreaker, the game would be less fun. Ira

[ quoted text not captured ] As long as it's unjustified. :)

"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.gweep.net> wrote in message news:2005092714...@sidehack.gweep.net... [ quoted text not captured ] I suppose that would make it even more useful - but very short lived, I'm afraid. But even a justified reputation, boring as it sounds, makes some things possible that otherwise wouldn't be. Fred dons pocket protector and broken, taped-back-together black frame glasses

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:7sg_e.82022$DW1.41416@fed1read06... [ quoted text not captured ] [singsong] Fred's a Lawful Pin-head... Fred's a Lawful Pin-head... nyah n-yah nah Nah nah [/singsong] Sorry. Goofy mood today. Too much repetitive spreadsheet entry. I'm up over 300 lines entered on an Excel sales/marketing monstrosity... Who asks a chemist do this kinda crap, anyways?? Frankly, I try to do what I can to structure deals these days so as to make them _not_ in the best interest of either party to break, so deal-breaks are now an uncommon sight for me, but that current position was fostered by a healthy distrust of any deal which required blind trust by one or both parties for sustained peroids. *shrug* The intersection of DaveZ's VTES Nature and Nurture, I suppose... DaveZ cross-eyed Spreadsheet Weaver

"David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message news:QVh_e.369$mM7...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com... > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:7sg_e.82022$DW1.41416@fed1read06... >> "David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message >> news:w6g_e.663$DY....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com... >>> I love to know who brings their moral baggage of real life to the table, >> >> Moral baggage, my pimply ass. A reputation as a faithful >> deal-keeper is truly useful in this game. >> > [singsong] Fred's a Lawful Pin-head... Fred's a Lawful Pin-head... nyah > n-yah nah Nah nah [/singsong] Curb your toungue, knave! Last night, way late while on my way to 7-11 for some creme soda, the sign *CLEARLY* said "DON'T WALK" *AND* *I* *WALKED*!!! Dude, in my life, the excitement never ends. > Frankly, I try to do what I can to structure deals these days so as to > make them _not_ in the best interest of either party to break, so > deal-breaks are now an uncommon sight for me, but that current position was > fostered by a healthy distrust of any deal which required blind trust by one > or both parties for sustained peroids. Well, OK, that's probably 95+% of the deals in my world, too. But when in a desparate position (myself or someone else), it can highly useful to have the chance to construct an unusal deal. Even better if it eventually works. Fred

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 To me it's just really sad. It means that some people have lost the ability to remember that it's just a game,... and we've taken one step too far down the Magic road. A game where an argument always breaks out is no fun. A game where you must have a "list of deal breakers" handy, so that your precious ego isn't harmed when you get fooled? No fun. A game where the interaction isn't about the cards being played, and instead is about who can talk faster? No fun. See "Diplomacy". I haven't had time for "no fun" in a long time, personally. I think I've had more fun as a result. [ quoted text not captured ] - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDOc0ktQZlu3o7QpERAgIrAKDjw4BK3s1E9aXeNZL2JZKnGgn9KACeKwx6 Feu1W+FUzxNX+6M2D4c75io= =4tgZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

David Zopf wrote: > Steve Coombs > Rob Grau > David Davila > Ed McGlynn (although I haven't honestly tested his mettle too hard) > Peter Jehlen (Boston's corrupting influence may have broken him since he and > I last gamed) I'll add myself to that list. I tend to avoid making deals as often as possible (as I think excessive deal making is detrimental to game play, and try to reduce it through example), but I'll occasionally make a short term, concrete quid-pro-quo deal ("Help me pass this vote and I'll rescue your guy from torpor"; "Don't bleed me this turn and I won't attack any of your guys on my next turn"; stuff like that) and I generally keep those. Not that I think such a list is valid for anything. I just think this discussion is a lot more entertaining than the other one :-) Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot, easily spilled liquids to naked people." -Brittni Meil

David Zopf wrote: > [singsong] Fred's a Lawful Pin-head... Fred's a Lawful Pin-head... nyah > n-yah nah Nah nah [/singsong] Which clearly opens the gates for: I don't wanna be a lawful pinhead no more. I just saw a deal break I could go for. [ quoted text not captured ]

Wes <gh...@NYETmnsiSPAM.net> wrote: > To be honest, I'm not even sure what Chaotic Evil means > in the context of V:tES, but it sounds right somehow :) L.A. is the Chaotic Evil center of the VTES universe. Nowhere else is even close. ;) > Cheers, > WES Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

Emmit Svenson <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I'll agree that Ira Fay is one such, having seen him keep deals that > weren't as good as he thought when he made them. I would also never > expect Boris Zaretsky to break a deal--but then again, Boris seldom > makes a deal that would restrict his strategic options. OMFG! Have you EVER played with Boris? ;) > Both are excellent players, and I would make deals with them that I > would never make with, say, John Flournoy or Mike Ooi or Ankur Gupta > or Eric Chiang. Which isn't to say I wouldn't make deals with any of > those four, just that I wouldn't build a strategy around a deal with > one them where I didn't get my end up front. Playing with people > whose word I can trust, we have more strategic options. Nice to see that ou admit your out-of-game considerations for all to see. I hear that the first step on the road to recovery is admitting that you have a problem. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > Wes <gh...@NYETmnsiSPAM.net> wrote: > > To be honest, I'm not even sure what Chaotic Evil means > > in the context of V:tES, but it sounds right somehow :) > > L.A. is the Chaotic Evil center of the VTES universe. Nowhere else is > even close. ;) Oddly enough, we got a late start on this whole deal-breaking thing. We're new to it but we're fast learners. ;) -Robert

In article <1127839354....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > What, a black list of people who break deals? Yeah, that's kinda crazy. Who said the list needs to be black? I also propose an opposite list: a list of deal-keepers. This list could be used by deal-breakers to know which people are naiv^H^H^H^H trustworthy enough to hold their part of a deal, making deal-breaking much easier and secure. ;)

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote > > I don't wanna be a lawful pinhead no more. > I just saw a deal break I could go for. Beat up the deal with a baseball bat, oh yeah. Cheers, WES

"Charles Lechasseur" <daremo...@syspammpatitrapco.ca> wrote in message news:daremovenov66-22D...@news21.bellnet.ca... [ quoted text not captured ] Er, it would be if they could get anyone to make a deal with them...

First off, I have broken deals in the past. Just for your future reference. It happens rarely as it should - not because of my solid moral fiber - but rather the simple fact that one should not make a deal that does not benefit you. As in our JOL game f.ex. The only thing stopping VTES from devolving into a pure retoric contest is the mutual suspecion all VTES players should have too each other. The occasional broken deal is needed to sustain that mood so appropiate to the game. You could say it is the duty of all players duty to break a deal every now and then ;) Had I been stronger in that JOL game I would not have had to rely on deal making and risk the backstab. As it were the inferior deck (mine) won the game. You will recall that I was made aware of Ira's reputaion and I know your playing style requires a "clean sheet" so to speak. I still had a hard time trusting both of you. Simply because the deal allowed another - weaker - deck to win the game. Which brings me to why I think deals needs to be broken from time to time. The best mouthpiece should not win every game. VP splits has practically driven me to abort tournaments as a whole. I get upset and it is not healthy for me. Why i didn't bring three IG decks to that tourney is beyond my ability to explain. Your list aint worth nothing. I am in the wrong place. Frede Wouter...@yahoo.com wrote: > People who didn't break their deals when they could have: > (i will make this list longer when i remember more) > Frede > Ira > Cooper (me) > Herve > Jan Roger > > Just let me know, for my future deals > :-) > W >

In article <a5r_e.82961$DW1.16042@fed1read06>, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Charles Lechasseur" <daremo...@syspammpatitrapco.ca> wrote in message > news:daremovenov66-22D...@news21.bellnet.ca... > > I also propose an opposite list: a list of deal-keepers. This list could > > be used by deal-breakers to know which people are naiv^H^H^H^H > > trustworthy enough to hold their part of a deal, making deal-breaking > > much easier and secure. ;) > > Er, it would be if they could get anyone to make a deal with them... Dealbreakers always find people to make deals with them. Regardless of past dealbreaking, it's always possible to find a situation where the player has something to offer that you want *right now* and it's worth taking the chance that he won't break the deal. Remember that if it's in his best interest to keep his word, he will! (Or should, at least.)

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:b8j_e.82173$DW1.53829@fed1read06... > > "David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message > news:QVh_e.369$mM7...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com... >> "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message >> news:7sg_e.82022$DW1.41416@fed1read06... >>> "David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message >>> news:w6g_e.663$DY....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com... >>>> I love to know who brings their moral baggage of real life to the >>>> table, >>> >>> Moral baggage, my pimply ass. A reputation as a faithful >>> deal-keeper is truly useful in this game. >>> >> [singsong] Fred's a Lawful Pin-head... Fred's a Lawful Pin-head... nyah >> n-yah nah Nah nah [/singsong] > > Curb your toungue, knave! Last night, way late while on my way to 7-11 > for some creme soda, the sign *CLEARLY* said "DON'T WALK" *AND* *I* > *WALKED*!!! Dude, in my life, the excitement never ends. > Mmm. Creme sooodaaaaa. Obviously, the temptation/addiction was simply too great. Thats a slippery slope, Fred, so be careful. You'll be busting VTES deals for bribes of creme soda, soon. Every player has his price... >> Frankly, I try to do what I can to structure deals these days so as to >> make them _not_ in the best interest of either party to break, so >> deal-breaks are now an uncommon sight for me, but that current position >> was >> fostered by a healthy distrust of any deal which required blind trust by >> one >> or both parties for sustained peroids. > > Well, OK, that's probably 95+% of the deals in my world, too. But when in > a > desparate position (myself or someone else), it can highly useful to have > the chance to construct an unusal deal. Even better if it eventually > works. > serious question: what do you do in structuring that unusual deal to treat with the de facto dealbreaker? Upon a cursory galnce, it would seem that another Lawful Pinhead would be mandatory for such a deal to be struck... and those are the minority of players, IME. DaveZ AW > >

[ quoted text not captured ] Let me rephrase that: I'm surprised that nobody ever thought (and tried to put the idea in practice) anything like this before - I usually expect the worst from people in general, y'know ;) Fabio "Sooner" Macedo - no faith in humanity

Would you mind if I highlight a point, Derek? Derek Ray wrote: > A game where you must have a "list of deal breakers" handy, so that your > precious ego isn't harmed when you get fooled? No fun. Again: "ego" is *the word*. Not that I think the original poster was such a case (heck, I'd be a fool to conclude that of someone I don't know personally), but I know a bunch of these types. best,

Would you mind if I highlight a point, Derek? Derek Ray wrote: > A game where you must have a "list of deal breakers" handy, so that your > precious ego isn't harmed when you get fooled? No fun. Again: "ego" is *the word*. Not that I think the original poster was such a case (heck, I'd be a fool to conclude that of someone I don't know personally), but I know a bunch of these types. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo Giovanni Newsletter Editor (in absentia) and eventually the organizer for the V:TES Roleplay Day, where dealbreaking is rewarded to a small extent (thanks for the idea Wes!)

Peter D Bakija wrote: > David Zopf wrote: > > > [singsong] Fred's a Lawful Pin-head... Fred's a Lawful Pin-head... nyah > > n-yah nah Nah nah [/singsong] > > Which clearly opens the gates for: > > I don't wanna be a lawful pinhead no more. > I just saw a deal break I could go for. > Peter D Bakija > pd...@lightlink.com > http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 Damn. You were faster. :-P Fabio "Sooner" Macedo, occasional ramonic dealbreaker

[ quoted text not captured ] Twenty twenty twenty four times ago I've been a dee-al breaker. Nothing to lose, nothing to hold up I've been a dee-al breaker. Fabio "Sooner" Macedo, two times ago I've been a dee-al breaker.

"David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message news:alx_e.466$cF6...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com... >>> Frankly, I try to do what I can to structure deals these days so as to >>> make them _not_ in the best interest of either party to break, so >>> deal-breaks are now an uncommon sight for me, but that current position was >>> fostered by a healthy distrust of any deal which required blind trust by one >>> or both parties for sustained peroids. >> >> Well, OK, that's probably 95+% of the deals in my world, too. But when in a >> desparate position (myself or someone else), it can highly useful to have >> the chance to construct an unusal deal. Even better if it eventually works. >> > serious question: what do you do in structuring that unusual deal to treat with the de facto dealbreaker? Upon a cursory galnce, > it would seem that another Lawful Pinhead would be mandatory for such a deal to be struck... and those are the minority of > players, IME. Yes, that's correct. That's precisely the advantage of being a lawful pinhea... I mean a known deal-keeper. You just don't make deals like that with someone you've seen that breaks them. What's the difference? Everyone in this thread, including you, is saying that they _never_ structure deals like this ever. So it just makes something possible that would otherwise be impossible. Of course, as Gregory Pettigrew pointed out, if your partner should decide that this is the moment he no longer cares about his reputation, you could lose out big time. But that usually doesn't happen. Fred

"Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo" <fabio....@gmail.com> writes: > Twenty twenty twenty four times ago > I've been a dee-al breaker. > Nothing to lose, nothing to hold up > I've been a dee-al breaker. Deal breaker, He's a man, a man with a Midas Touch - A spider's touch. Such a deal maker Beckons you to enter his VP deal - It's not for real. Golden words will he pour in your ear, But his lies can't disguise what you feel. For a player girl Knows, when he's dissed her, It's a kiss of death From mister deal breaker. -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

Kevin M. wrote: > Emmit Svenson <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > I would also never > > expect Boris Zaretsky to break a deal--but then again, Boris seldom > > makes a deal that would restrict his strategic options. > > OMFG! Have you EVER played with Boris? ;) Once or twice. As in most Tuesdays for several years. > > Both are excellent players, and I would make deals with them that I > > would never make with, say, John Flournoy or Mike Ooi or Ankur Gupta > > or Eric Chiang. Which isn't to say I wouldn't make deals with any of > > those four, just that I wouldn't build a strategy around a deal with > > one them where I didn't get my end up front. Playing with people > > whose word I can trust, we have more strategic options. > > Nice to see that ou admit your out-of-game considerations for all to see. > I hear that the first step on the road to recovery is admitting that you > have a problem. Are you trying to claim that planning my game based on my experience with other players is an out-of-game consideration? I suppose in Vegas you expect people to play poker without ever trying to predict how other people bet based on previous experience playing together. Anticipating your opponents is part of the game.

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht news:nvy_e.83987$DW1.2495@fed1read06... > "David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message > news:alx_e.466$cF6...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com... You just don't make deals like that with someone > you've seen that breaks them. this is just blatantly wrong. I'm a dealbreaker (in the sense of: deal or no deal: a game win is a game win), but i regularly have deals proposed to me and have deals I proposed accepted. Even dealbreakers keep most of their deals.

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMtelenet.be> wrote in message news:ncA_e.7203$7d3.2...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... [ quoted text not captured ] With all due respect, I don't think you're following the sort of deals I'm talking about. If you need to trust your existence to another player who would have a positive incentive to break it in order to make a mutually beneficial deal with him, you can do this with a person who is known to keep such deals. You would be ill-advised to try it with someone who is known to break deals, in occasionally. Fred

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Frederick Scott wrote: > What's the difference? Everyone in this thread, including you, is saying that > they _never_ structure deals like this ever. So it just makes something > possible that would otherwise be impossible. Of course, as Gregory Pettigrew > pointed out, if your partner should decide that this is the moment he no > longer cares about his reputation, you could lose out big time. But that > usually doesn't happen. It happened to me. In a tournament. With a guy I'd been playing with for years. You can't rule it out. -- David Cherryholmes

Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo wrote: > Wes wrote: > > "Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote > > > > > > I don't wanna be a lawful pinhead no more. > > > I just saw a deal break I could go for. > > > > Beat up the deal with a baseball bat, oh yeah. > > Cheers, > > WES > > Twenty twenty twenty four times ago > I've been a dee-al breaker. > Nothing to lose, nothing to hold up > I've been a dee-al breaker. Kuta is a deal-breaker Orphee-u-us is a deal-breaker Weston is a deal-breaker NOW-Oo-oW-oo-OwW! Jeff

> Of course, as Gregory Pettigrew pointed out, if your partner should > decide that this is the moment he no longer cares about his reputation, > you could lose out big time. But that usually doesn't happen. > Actually, I was trying to point out that it was a subjective matter. The deal was clearly broken (from my perspective) long before I bled out my prey. I gave him 2 full rounds after I realized the deal was untenable to come up with any means to salvage the deal. I could argue that he made a deal he could not keep, making *him* the Dealbreaker. -Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.gweep.net> wrote in message news:2005092816...@sidehack.gweep.net... [ quoted text not captured ] I was referring to the comment you made that a good reputation is even more valuable if it were unjustified. Be that as it may, this particular story is an example of how things often aren't very cut and dried. I think some cases are more objective but at least some of the time, you're right - the status of dealbreaker can be very subjective. Fred

Peter D Bakija wrote: > David Zopf wrote: > > > Steve Coombs > > Rob Grau > > David Davila > > Ed McGlynn (although I haven't honestly tested his mettle too hard) > > Peter Jehlen (Boston's corrupting influence may have broken him since he and > > I last gamed) > > I'll add myself to that list. I tend to avoid making deals as often as > possible (as I think excessive deal making is detrimental to game play, and > try to reduce it through example), but I'll occasionally make a short term, > concrete quid-pro-quo deal ("Help me pass this vote and I'll rescue your guy > from torpor"; "Don't bleed me this turn and I won't attack any of your guys > on my next turn"; stuff like that) and I generally keep those. > Yeah, that's what I was talking about when I spoke about my experience tempering my deal making. Going much beyond this takes a pair of Lawful Pinheads, or very extenuating circumstances for two de facto players. Another interesting aspect of this is the impact that a player's mentality can have in shaping his play group. I admit that my own play style is probably the reason why I don't see lawful pinheads in my groups. It ends up being that way because I make it that way (to a greater of lesser extent)... > Not that I think such a list is valid for anything. Oh, yeah. Totally invalid, totally for fun... > I just think this > discussion is a lot more entertaining than the other one :-) > Well, that _was_ my main objective :-) DZ AW

This seems to like a happy family reunion... Anyway, I'm a new player of V:TES ( 1 year ) but I'd never been betrayed on a deal because when I do a deal I take as granted that that deal will be broken, ever! And the best part of a deal is the tension while it resolves into it's end and both players will finally know if the other would keep his part. And is crazy think another way, just think that in the end "it can be only one", ultimately one of you would have to oust the other, even if you decide to split the prize. I also have never broken a deal but that is just because I never saw a advantage for me in doing it, that's Vampire. If the question is a list then, by all means, take the yellow pages! Luis

[ quoted text not captured ] When I was young A us'd to deal with Jeff and hand him de GW; Pass down the pool when he git dry, And bresh away de pox fly. Jeff break deal - i don' care Orpheus break deal - i don' care Fred break deal - i ROFLMAO

In my playgroup backstabbing is taken for granted, I seem to have developed a "undeserved" reputation of making a deal and then happily stabbing the person in the back all while smiling. Mind you I only do this if I think I can successfully oust a player in one hit or I "go for glory" in an attempt to get the Game Win. I'll usually make short term deals in order to try and preeserve table balance, and make sure no other opponent will runawau with the game. With the exeption of me :) I'm also incredibly vindictive and will try and take the player who screwed me down screaming. I have never intentionally rolled over unless my game is pretty much screwed and I don't want my prey running away with the game. My favourite quote: "Stupitity should always be rewarded". After Gorterix and and Advanced Sashca Vykos but themselves into torpor against Nefiti's snakes via Burst of Sunlight (that's right 1 agg) and then were eaten by a laughing Anvil and Theo Bell.

Atom Weaver wrote: > Yeah, that's what I was talking about when I spoke about my experience > tempering my deal making. Going much beyond this takes a pair of > Lawful Pinheads, or very extenuating circumstances for two de facto > players. Yep. I'm really kind of unclear as to what kind of "deals" people are talking about keeping or breaking. Do people actually break the kind of quid pro-quo deals I'm talking about (i.e. "Hey--help pass my vote and I'll rescue your guy from torpor with my next action." Vote passes. "Yeah, I don't feel like rescuing your guy now...")? That strikes me as insane, in both the literal sense and in the figurative sense as how is that going to help you win the game in the long run if you piss people off like that? Or are people talking about some kind of nebulous long term "Deal" that I don't really understand? > Oh, yeah. Totally invalid, totally for fun... I knew *this* one was mostly comedy material. I was primarily commenting on the other one which seemed serious :-) > Well, that _was_ my main objective :-) Strike: Success! -Peter

Frederick Scott wrote: > If you need to trust your existence to another player > who would have a positive incentive to break it in order to make a > mutually beneficial deal with him, you can do this with a person > who is known to keep such deals. You would be ill-advised to try > it with someone who is known to break deals, in occasionally. You'd think no one had heard of the Prisoners' Dilemma. Depending on the payout matrix, backstabs that pay off bigger than cooperating may result in a lower long-term profit if mutual distrust pays off less than either. Since no one can claim to have done a payout analysis for this game, people who insist that breaking deals is smarter than keeping them are just expressing their personal preference, as are people whose strategy is to keep them. Since the short-term benefits of the backstab are always so strong and so immediate, I suspect many have trouble recognizing the long-term benefits--it's like smoking crack versus not smoking crack. In the short term, I understand crack is pretty darn good. :) But there's another undercurrent in this whole discussion: it's obviously in the interest of habitual dealbreakers to keep habitual dealkeepers from trusting each other. Take all this "pinhead" yapping with a grain of salt.

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1128001953....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > But there's another undercurrent in this whole discussion: it's > obviously in the interest of habitual dealbreakers to keep habitual > dealkeepers from trusting each other. Take all this "pinhead" yapping > with a grain of salt. Well, I think those guys are also saying that a game in which you can never trust anyone completely is ultimately more fun, in their opinion. But, yea. Fred

<d21...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1127982772.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > After Gorterix and and Advanced Sashca Vykos but themselves into torpor > against Nefiti's snakes via Burst of Sunlight (that's right 1 agg) and > then were eaten by a laughing Anvil and Theo Bell. How does it work that cards "laugh"? 'Laughing' is an action modifier card now, is it? Fred

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1128001953....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > But there's another undercurrent in this whole discussion: it's > obviously in the interest of habitual dealbreakers to keep habitual > dealkeepers from trusting each other. Take all this "pinhead" yapping > with a grain of salt. The thing is: i won't believe you when you tell me you never broke a deal. So, for me, the long-term benefits are zero. And there are only possible benefits when you play with people you know.

[ quoted text not captured ] Deal-deal, Deal-break Beach Deal-deal, Deal-break Beach Deal-deal, Deal-break Beach You can reach a deal in Dealbreak Beach Fabio "Sooner" Macedo, singin' and signin' on the idea that these dealbreakers do get deals, honour them and need some lovin' too

Atom Weaver wrote: > (snip) Going much beyond this takes a pair of > Lawful Pinheads, (...) > Another interesting aspect of this is the impact that a player's > mentality can have in shaping his play group. I admit that my own play > style is probably the reason why I don't see lawful pinheads in my > groups. (snip) Y'know, there's this site for the brazilian VTES scene, and there's this sort of a glossary where some common terms in this forum are translated or explained to ease things for non-native speakers who have *some* knowledge with English but are not familiar with these terms... ... if I read the expression Lawful Pinhead posted in here three times more, I'll include it in the glossary :-D Fabio "Sooner" Macedo - already trying to craft a similar expression in Portuguese... but it has to sound as funny as Lawful Pinhead does.

[ quoted text not captured ] I refer you to the Prisoner's Dilemma, and the Tit for Tat strategem, the winning policy that involves trusting strangers until they betray you. By never trusting anyone, you will never reap the greatest reward. How well this strategy translates into V:tES is anyone's guess. But employing it is just as rational as never trusting anyone.

In message <1128001953....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Emmit Svenson <emmits...@hotmail.com> writes: >You'd think no one had heard of the Prisoners' Dilemma. Depending on >the payout matrix, backstabs that pay off bigger than cooperating may >result in a lower long-term profit if mutual distrust pays off less >than either. > >Since no one can claim to have done a payout analysis for this game, >people who insist that breaking deals is smarter than keeping them are >just expressing their personal preference, as are people whose strategy >is to keep them. Since the short-term benefits of the backstab are >always so strong and so immediate, I suspect many have trouble >recognizing the long-term benefits--it's like smoking crack versus not >smoking crack. In the short term, I understand crack is pretty darn >good. :) Unlike the classic prisoner's dilemma, though, you aren't always being offered the same deal and you aren't always aware of being backstabbed. From the first point: I might back out on a big deal when I suddenly see a chance to sweep (my one Pulse of the Canaille turns up and I check everyone's hand, in some fantasy scenario). This might screw up my credibility for BIG BIG BIG deals, but it's quite possible that some players will think "Yeah, I can trust him for a little deal." I can also offer deals where I go first. Unlike the Prisoner's Dilemma, things aren't simultaneous. Think I'll backstab you? Okay. I'll rush Arika now on the condition that you don't bleed me next turn. I go first. You can't get burned. (This will help restore any wounds in my credibility, too!) On the second point: I say "You give me 2 pool from that Parity Shift, I'll Rush Sweaty Nash and I reckon I can put him in torpor." Okay! You give me 2 pool. I rush Sweaty. I play Carrion Crows. I play Quick Meld in response to a Fake Out. I play Claws of the Dead. I play Scorpion Sting. Sweaty plays Majesty. Darn, I say, I don't have any Psyche!s to hand now. Goshdarnit. Isn't that a pity? Have I just backstabbed you? It might well be worth me cycling my ahnd and getting two pool, but not worth torporising Sweaty because I reckon I can do something more interesting with him. Or I might not have any Psyche!s in my hand. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <sKS_e.84326$DW1.79979@fed1read06>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: ><d21...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >news:1127982772.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> After Gorterix and and Advanced Sashca Vykos but themselves into torpor >> against Nefiti's snakes via Burst of Sunlight (that's right 1 agg) and >> then were eaten by a laughing Anvil and Theo Bell. > >How does it work that cards "laugh"? 'Laughing' is an action modifier >card now, is it? Yes, it was one of the new cards in the Tenth Anniversary Tins, though it looks like it was probably supposed to be a promo at some other point. One of the cards that leaks in by accident, you know. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:R5kHYWRY...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > Unlike the classic prisoner's dilemma, though, you aren't always being > offered the same deal and you aren't always aware of being backstabbed. > > From the first point: I might back out on a big deal when I suddenly see > a chance to sweep (my one Pulse of the Canaille turns up and I check > everyone's hand, in some fantasy scenario). This might screw up my > credibility for BIG BIG BIG deals, but it's quite possible that some > players will think "Yeah, I can trust him for a little deal." > > I can also offer deals where I go first. Unlike the Prisoner's Dilemma, > things aren't simultaneous. Think I'll backstab you? Okay. I'll rush > Arika now on the condition that you don't bleed me next turn. I go > first. You can't get burned. OK. But the point is about the deals you can't do anymore. Not the ones you still can. No one claimed that once your reputation is hosed, you won't be able to any kind of a deal - just that your ability to do certain kinds of things will be compromised. > (This will help restore any wounds in my credibility, too!) Huh? No, I don't see how it does that. If I make a deal with you in which I've risked an extravagant consideration and got hosed for it, I'm not going take such a risk with you ever again. I don't care how many small risks you've proven yourself faithful in upholding. Nor did you need to prove yourself worthy of a smaller risk. I understand that all players have their temptation points. I don't think Emmit's reference to the prisoner's dilemma was meant to be literal. The point is more along the lines of pointing out that deals in this game are possible in which one's reputation for upholding them is a critical factor to their ever getting made in the first place. If you want to be a guy who will take advantage of an overly naive deal offered you and claim that it's the fault of anyone who would hold out such a temptation, that has its advantages. But resisting temptation also has its advantages. Fred

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:upSI8TSB...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <sKS_e.84326$DW1.79979@fed1read06>, Frederick Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >><d21...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >>news:1127982772.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>> After Gorterix and and Advanced Sashca Vykos but themselves into torpor >>> against Nefiti's snakes via Burst of Sunlight (that's right 1 agg) and >>> then were eaten by a laughing Anvil and Theo Bell. >> >>How does it work that cards "laugh"? 'Laughing' is an action modifier >>card now, is it? > > Yes, it was one of the new cards in the Tenth Anniversary Tins, though > it looks like it was probably supposed to be a promo at some other > point. One of the cards that leaks in by accident, you know. Damn. Another card like the Magic "Throat Wolf" I can never find. Fred

In message <zpX_e.84510$DW1.22329@fed1read06>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >But the point is about the deals you can't do anymore. Not the ones >you still can. No one claimed that once your reputation is hosed, you won't >be able to any kind of a deal - just that your ability to do certain kinds >of things will be compromised. How many of those deals will turn up for a given player? Not get accepted - I'm just talking about situations where those deals might turn up. I've seen a number of players who simply wouldn't be able to make some (many) of the deals that other people do, because of the decks they play. For example, a cross-table action is harder when you're a focused bleed deck without cross-table possibilities (e.g. not a Kindred Spirits deck). But quite possible when you're a rush deck that can rush anywhere it likes. Or I just don't ever offer deals. I've seen players like that too. They might take a deal if it's offered, but they never go out of their way to craft a wily deck that can actively seek deals with titbits to tout to others. Do I, the player above, get hurt by doing a backstab? Possibly not, in that the deals people would want to play around with - which would get declined, due to a poorer reputation - just never turn up for me anyway. >Huh? No, I don't see how it does that. If I make a deal with you in >which I've risked an extravagant consideration and got hosed for it, >I'm not going take such a risk with you ever again. You are not the only person in existence, Fred. Anecdotal, personal "But I'd never even think about that! Ever again! EVER!" is no proof that that's a general position. For others, if the proposition is lucrative enough, it may be enough. The effect of such on other people may well be useful. "Oh yeah, well, I can see why he backstabbed that one time and he's never done it since..." Tales of backstabbing will often fade over time. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:51:59 GMT, Jeroen Rombouts <jeroen....@NOSPAMtelenet.be> wrote: > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> schreef in bericht > news:opsxp2ba...@news.chello.hu... >>> Besides, who is checking this list? >> >> Dunno. People who care about it? > > you mean people who would like to see public humiliation back in the law? I don't know if the group of people who "would like to see public humiliation back in the law" completely covers my reference to the "people who care about it". If what I suspect is correct, and the coverage is less than absolute, then you should probably re-examine your statement (and your motivations behind posting it). >>> I >>> could just as easily add people to it, and you will never know if >>> they're >>> dealbreakers or not. >> >> True. That, however, would just clearly show how in-game dealbreaking >> behaviour and general moral behaviour can correlate despite what many >> dealbreakers claim. > > I'll take that as a personal offence. If the cap fits... ;) > so right back at ya: never breaking > deals correlates to not playing with a full arsenal and is therefore > STOOOOPID. Why don't you shoot your prey if you can't oust him? Why don't you bribe your prey so that he transfers out? Why don't you fart loudly whenever you are being bled? Why don't you break the deals you make when playing VTES? Why don't you play a more optimal deck to win? Why don't you play with better strategy/tactics? The answer to these questions (or a lack of answer) may enlighten you to the inherently flawed nature of your conclusion. The tools you employ to win the game are naturally a subset of all tools concievable. The method you ultimately use to determine that subset is characteristic of your personality. Depending on what you expect from the game, and what you true motivation is to play the game (remember, playing to win is just one of the rules), you will use a different method. I see some methods as repulsive to play against, I see others as repulsive to employ but not repulsive to play against, and yet others as attractive to employ, or play against. During casual games I would naturally prefer to play against players whose method of selecting the tools they employ during play more closely resembles my own. During tournament games I have no choice whom I play, but having the option to revert to a more pleasant playing experience if all participants share a similar method would perhaps enhance my gaming pleasure. The repulsive nature of this discussion stems from the controversy inherent to a dealbreaker arguing that being a dealbreaker is not in itself linked to an otherwise immoral character (which could well be the case), and then proceeding to hint at employing questionable methods to maintain dealbreaking anonimity. >>> Out-of-game considerations: consider yourself warned :p >> >> Heh. Funny you would say that. ;) > > I don't see the joke. If I broke a deal 5 years ago, I'm forever > branded a deal breaker? and that's in-game???? Yeah, right. "Judge! This guy won't deal with me, he probably thinks I'm a dealbreaker, so he is using out of game information, so please disqualify him!" Please reconsider. (My example no less extreme than yours.) -- Bye, Daneel

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:Ret3BQT+...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <zpX_e.84510$DW1.22329@fed1read06>, Frederick Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>But the point is about the deals you can't do anymore. Not the ones >>you still can. No one claimed that once your reputation is hosed, you won't >>be able to any kind of a deal - just that your ability to do certain kinds >>of things will be compromised. > > How many of those deals will turn up for a given player? Not get > accepted - I'm just talking about situations where those deals might > turn up. OK, sure. Some types of players benefit more than others from nurturing their flawless reputation. >>Huh? No, I don't see how it does that. If I make a deal with you in >>which I've risked an extravagant consideration and got hosed for it, >>I'm not going take such a risk with you ever again. > > You are not the only person in existence, Fred. Anecdotal, personal > "But I'd never even think about that! Ever again! EVER!" is no proof > that that's a general position. For others, if the proposition is > lucrative enough, it may be enough. It's not clear exactly what point you're making. I mean, if *anyone* - 'player X', we'll call him for purposes of argument - ever risks something extravagant by trusting 'player Y' and gets torched for it then player X (if he's halfway intelligent) would be ill-advised to take that same risk again ever. On top of that, anyone at the table who directly sees this, probably would never risk anything extravagant on player Y either. Furthermore, there is the possibility that others not at the table who hear the story of the betrayal may also never trust Y that far ever again - except now we're starting to get somewhat less certain since others would have to trust that the story was true when they heard it. So how the story passes from mouth to mouth begins to matter. > The effect of such on other people may well be useful. "Oh yeah, well, > I can see why he backstabbed that one time and he's never done it > since..." They may say that. But they're still ill-advised to take the same risk, obviously. By contrast, if they've worked with other players who have never backstabbed and seemed to care about their reputation, it might pay off to make such unusual deals. > Tales of backstabbing will often fade over time. Only if the victims and others witnesses somehow leave the picture. Fred.

> > so right back at ya: never breaking > > deals correlates to not playing with a full arsenal and is therefore > > STOOOOPID. > > Why don't you shoot your prey if you can't oust him? Yep! > Why don't you bribe your prey so that he transfers out? How about them apples? > Why don't you fart loudly whenever you are being bled? Silent but Violent sends them shrieking to the door everytime. > Why don't you break the deals you make when playing VTES? Because I feel that God's justice will be meted out and I will be sent to the lake of brimstone and fire for breaking a deal in a fun game. > Why don't you play a more optimal deck to win? Have you seen my decks? How would you describe them? > Why don't you play with better strategy/tactics? The above work just fine for me, especially the farting. :) Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Yep. I'm really kind of unclear as to what kind of "deals" people are > talking about keeping or breaking. Do people actually break the kind of > quid pro-quo deals I'm talking about (i.e. "Hey--help pass my vote and > I'll rescue your guy from torpor with my next action." Vote passes. > "Yeah, I don't feel like rescuing your guy now...")? That strikes me as > insane, in both the literal sense and in the figurative sense as how is > that going to help you win the game in the long run if you piss people > off like that? Yeah, I've seen that before, actually. It's always in situations where, if they let you have the ONE THING you need that they would NEVER give you if they knew what you wanted it for, you can gain a commanding position. To use both halves of your example: you pass my Consanguineous Boon vote, I immediately slap Cryptic Rider on it and call an ousting KRC with my next action... a vote that you would not have passed for me, ever. "Ooops, sorry, out of actions this turn, guess I can't rescue. Nothin' personal, but I had to get the VP." Or, you say you'll rescue my guy from torpor and I promise to pass your next vote. You rescue, I vote against your own ousting vote; on my turn, I Giant's Blood my empty guy and use him to bleed, Freak Drive, and KRC my OWN prey for the VP. In the long run, it hurt those people not at all; I still see people make deals with them all the time. =) - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDPHZRtQZlu3o7QpERAo4BAJwN7VYsVHVnAtx/a5zfajMP3nVGaQCfZdeG nzYCpfjAa6ga+s1iHfOqIcE= =P8Ag -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1128000293.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... >> Yeah, that's what I was talking about when I spoke about my experience >> tempering my deal making. Going much beyond this takes a pair of >> Lawful Pinheads, or very extenuating circumstances for two de facto >> players. > > Yep. I'm really kind of unclear as to what kind of "deals" people are > talking about keeping or breaking. Do people actually break the kind of > quid pro-quo deals I'm talking about (i.e. "Hey--help pass my vote and > I'll rescue your guy from torpor with my next action." Vote passes. > "Yeah, I don't feel like rescuing your guy now...")? That strikes me as > insane, in both the literal sense and in the figurative sense as how is > that going to help you win the game in the long run if you piss people > off like that? > > Or are people talking about some kind of nebulous long term "Deal" that > I don't really understand? Well, both at various points in this thread. But the interesting ones to discuss are the ones for which the payoff to break must be at least as greater and likely greater than any possible result the player gets if he upholds the deal. For example: Player A has Jost Werner with 1 blood, 1 pool, and no library cards. His prey is player B. Player B has Arika with 1 blood, 1 pool, and one Kine Resources Contested card in hand, no other library cards. His prey is player C. Player C has Muaziz with 1 blood, 3 pool, no library cards, and 1 victory point. His prey is (now) player A. It's player A's turn. He is expecting to take his one sure victory point when player B interrupts him and offers to call Kine Resources contested, putting 3 points on C and one point on himself. If you're player A, do you take the deal? If you're player B and player A takes the deal, do you go through with it or do you double-cross player A? To resolve the issue, bypass player A's dilemma for the time being and let him look at the issue from player B's perspective. Player B only goes through with the deal if he cares more about his reputation in the long run than if he wants the game win. Knowing that, player A only _possibly_ trusts player B if player B actually has some kind of a reputation to protect. If player B has been in this position before and succumbed to temptation, there's no reason to think he wouldn't likewise succumb now. (Maybe the only argument player B could make is if the prior time, the stakes were higher: that was for large tournament win; this is just a preliminary round in a small tournament. I don't know. It would take a massive difference to convince me.) This has a bunch of philosophical, "Why-do-you-game?" type implications. And quite arguably, if the deal is offered, accepted, and kept in the end, charges of metagaming would be hard to deny. If metagaming, why would the deal not be considered an out-of-game consideration and thus illegal? And, if it were illegal, would it likewise be illegal if the offer was made, accepted, but not kept (backstabbed). Would it illegal to even make the offer? Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > If you're player B and player A takes the deal, do you go through with it > or do you double-cross player A? Like, just for the sake of discussion, realizing that the situation you propose is just for illustration purposes, I can't for the life of me figure out why player A would accept any such deal. Player A can kill player B now, gain 6 pool, and then kill player C sooner than player C can kill him back. I can't understand why someone would, instead of taking a certain VP now make some crazy deal to get the same VP later, but give someone the opportunity to screw you. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot, easily spilled liquids to naked people." -Brittni Meil

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BF62160A.22421%pd...@lightlink.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: > >> If you're player B and player A takes the deal, do you go through with it >> or do you double-cross player A? > > Like, just for the sake of discussion, realizing that the situation you > propose is just for illustration purposes, I can't for the life of me figure > out why player A would accept any such deal. Player A can kill player B now, > gain 6 pool, and then kill player C sooner than player C can kill him back. Doh! I had this figured out and just forgot a huge detail (or a couple of them). Muaziz was supposed to have a laptop, JS Simmons, and Tasha Morgan. And a note the player A does not have any vampires in his crypt that could make an appearance fast enough to make a difference. Now try it... Fred, hoping he hasn't forgotten anything else

> >>How does it work that cards "laugh"? 'Laughing' is an action modifier > >>card now, is it? > > > > Yes, it was one of the new cards in the Tenth Anniversary Tins, though > > it looks like it was probably supposed to be a promo at some other > > point. One of the cards that leaks in by accident, you know. > > Damn. Another card like the Magic "Throat Wolf" I can never find. > > Fred Cards from the anarch madison group that I still can't find but wish were printed: "infernal pain in the ass grapple"(Assumed to be Immortal Grapple), "Avon Calling" (I now believe that one to be harass), and my personal favorite "Dead Girls Don't Say No"(Daemonic Possesion). :) -BEAR

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> schreef in bericht news:opsxvrar...@news.chello.hu... > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:51:59 GMT, Jeroen Rombouts > <jeroen....@NOSPAMtelenet.be> wrote: > >> "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> schreef in bericht >> news:opsxp2ba...@news.chello.hu... >>>> Besides, who is checking this list? >>> > > Why don't you shoot your prey if you can't oust him? > Why don't you bribe your prey so that he transfers out? that's against the rules. > Why don't you fart loudly whenever you are being bled? because that's only funny once :-) > Why don't you break the deals you make when playing VTES? Don't know. Keep m if they're good, break VP deals when it gives you a table win. > Why don't you play a more optimal deck to win? rock - paper - scissors. What's the most optimal deck? > Why don't you play with better strategy/tactics? because i mostly play drunk or sleep deprived. > > The answer to these questions (or a lack of answer) may enlighten you > to the inherently flawed nature of your conclusion. Yes, look at me being Enlightened :s >The tools you > employ to win the game are naturally a subset of all tools > concievable. The method you ultimately use to determine that subset > is characteristic of your personality. no. I play combat decks, so I'm a violent person? Cosmo-psychology... >Depending on what you expect > from the game, and what you true motivation is to play the game > (remember, playing to win is just one of the rules), you will use a > different method. I see some methods as repulsive to play against, I > see others as repulsive to employ but not repulsive to play against, > and yet others as attractive to employ, or play against. No deck and no strategy that's allowed by the rules is repulsive to me, as long as it is trying to win. >During > casual games I would naturally prefer to play against players whose > method of selecting the tools they employ during play more closely > resembles my own. During tournament games I have no choice whom I > play, but having the option to revert to a more pleasant playing > experience if all participants share a similar method would perhaps > enhance my gaming pleasure. dude, if you cannot get over the fact that mostly people (in tournements) play to win, without putting moral judgement on the decks/way people play that's your problem. not mine. I mostly don't play stereotypical winning decks, but that has nothing to do with what I consider a part of my character. > > The repulsive nature of this discussion stems from the controversy > inherent to a dealbreaker arguing that being a dealbreaker is not > in itself linked to an otherwise immoral character (which could > well be the case), and then proceeding to hint at employing > questionable methods to maintain dealbreaking anonimity. right, anonimity. I'm posting this and all other post under my real name.... > >>>> Out-of-game considerations: consider yourself warned :p >>> >>> Heh. Funny you would say that. ;) >> >> I don't see the joke. If I broke a deal 5 years ago, I'm forever branded >> a deal breaker? and that's in-game???? > > Yeah, right. "Judge! This guy won't deal with me, he probably thinks > I'm a dealbreaker, so he is using out of game information, so please > disqualify him!" Please reconsider. (My example no less extreme > than yours.) > difference was: mine was a joke.

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht news:E5Z_e.84519$DW1.84439@fed1read06... [ quoted text not captured ] again, no. people in a losing position will still make a VP split deal. 2 VP (or whatever) is still more than the 0 they're going to get now. And means time to prepare for a possible deal break.

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMtelenet.be> wrote in message news:B79%e.8443$%q1.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht >> It's not clear exactly what point you're making. I mean, if *anyone* - >> 'player X', we'll call him for purposes of argument - ever risks >> something extravagant by trusting 'player Y' and gets torched for it >> then player X (if he's halfway intelligent) would be ill-advised to >> take that same risk again ever. On top of that, anyone at the table >> who directly sees this, probably would never risk anything extravagant >> on player Y either. Furthermore, there is the possibility that others >> not at the table who hear the story of the betrayal may also never >> trust Y that far ever again - except now we're starting to get somewhat >> less certain since others would have to trust that the story was true >> when they heard it. So how the story passes from mouth to mouth begins >> to matter. >> > again, no. people in a losing position will still make a VP split deal. 2 VP (or whatever) is still more than the 0 they're > going to get now. And means time to prepare for a possible deal break. Again, you're missing the point because you're thinking about a different situation than I was talking about above. Sure, if Player X is in a totally screwed situation with nothing to lose he _might_ consider making such a deal, knowing he'll probably only lose in a different way. And, of course, he'd be much more willing to make the deal with someone who had a flawless reputation and expressed an intent to keep it that way. Player X has nothing to lose, so why not? I'm talking about situations where a player has something to lose. See the "Evil Metagaming Pinheads" post (amended in response to Peter's comment). Fred

"Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo" <fabio....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1128018706....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Atom Weaver wrote: >> (snip) Going much beyond this takes a pair of >> Lawful Pinheads, (...) >> Another interesting aspect of this is the impact that a player's >> mentality can have in shaping his play group. I admit that my own play >> style is probably the reason why I don't see lawful pinheads in my >> groups. (snip) > > Y'know, there's this site for the brazilian VTES scene, and there's > this sort of a glossary where some common terms in this forum are > translated or explained to ease things for non-native speakers who have > *some* knowledge with English but are not familiar with these terms... > > ... if I read the expression Lawful Pinhead posted in here three times > more, I'll include it in the glossary :-D > Yay! I love changing the vernacular... Lawful Pinhead: (noun) a VTES player who never deliberately breaks an in-game deal. cf. Frederick Scott (does that count as one of the "three times more" ? :) DZ AW BTW, your glossary is Change-Worthy ;-)

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1128001953....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: >> If you need to trust your existence to another player >> who would have a positive incentive to break it in order to make a >> mutually beneficial deal with him, you can do this with a person >> who is known to keep such deals. You would be ill-advised to try >> it with someone who is known to break deals, in occasionally. > > You'd think no one had heard of the Prisoners' Dilemma. Depending on > the payout matrix, backstabs that pay off bigger than cooperating may > result in a lower long-term profit if mutual distrust pays off less > than either. > ...and the rewards for deal-breaking are highly variable, too. > Since no one can claim to have done a payout analysis for this game, > people who insist that breaking deals is smarter than keeping them are > just expressing their personal preference, as are people whose strategy > is to keep them. Since the short-term benefits of the backstab are > always so strong and so immediate, I suspect many have trouble > recognizing the long-term benefits-- I don't think anyone has taken so simplistic a view of deals at all. I'm certainly aware that Fred (for example), given his Lawful Pinhead nature, can deal-make much more strongly with another Lawful Pinhead than I ever could. Given my own experience of the relative abundance of Lawful Pinheads, though, I can make some safe estimates as to the number of opportunities such an attitude will offer me. (It doesn't look good from here). Nor do I think that a strict payout analysis (nearly impossible, given the variables) is necessary to derive a general sense of when deals can/should/ought to be kept or broken. > > But there's another undercurrent in this whole discussion: Its more than just an undercurrent... Its a steamy sewage stream of festering word-play!! > it's > obviously in the interest of habitual dealbreakers to keep habitual > dealkeepers from trusting each other. Take all this "pinhead" yapping > with a grain of salt. > Do so. It was offered with a pound and a half of Coarse Kosher Sea Grade right beside it. Mostly done in fun, I did start this "Lawful Pinhead" thing because the morality issues surrounding prior verbiage was similarly biased. I'm exxagerating, of course, but the original deal-breakers language struck me as painting deal-breakers as a bunch of corrupt foul souls to be properly blacklisted and handled with long poles only, with the deal-keepers list being a roll of the Paragons of Virtue and Sportsmanship, a VTES Dean's List, if you will. Just wanted to point out that the converse position holds up just as well... :-) DZ AW

"David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message news:Alc%e.624$qX7...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... > Lawful Pinhead: (noun) a VTES player who never deliberately breaks an > in-game deal. cf. Frederick Scott Hmmm. I don't recall declaring I _deliberately_ never broke an in-game deal. I just don't think anyone can recall sucha an experience, however. (Alex Harmon has pointed out to me two or three times where I was about to absent-mindedly break one of our deals. I desisted. Go figure.) Fred, would love to get to more tournaments so the issue would come up more often

On 26 Sep 2005 13:24:42 -0700, Orpheus <orphe...@free.fr> wrote: > We play Vampires, remember ? Remind me next time to actually cut up my prey and bleed him to death. We play vampires, after all. > As for me being on this list now, it just shows how preposterous the > whole thing is : I betrayed you a year ago, on a Life Boon (hate that > card), never did since, and I'm labelled "Dealbreaker" for life ? > That's plain stupid. Yeah, right. I only killed this one guy, and anyway, he was a sore loser, so why am I branded a killer? That does not mean I am incapable of not killing someone! ;) -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > On 26 Sep 2005 13:24:42 -0700, Orpheus <orphe...@free.fr> wrote: > > > We play Vampires, remember ? > > Remind me next time to actually cut up my prey and bleed him > to death. We play vampires, after all. This is going too far. There's a REALLY big difference in scope from "this is a game about vampires, so dealbreaking is part of the game" to "this is a game about vampires, so biting people in the neck is part of the game". That's the same difference in scope from "I smoke cigarettes, therefore I can die of lung cancer, maybe I should stop smoking" to "I smoke cigarettes, so I'll soon turn to be a crack dealer, maybe I should stop smoking". I can dig the whole debate about how much actually keeping deals can be used to any given player's advantage. I think any sane person, even regular dealbreakers, can accept this. Fred Scott is being utterly helpful in debating this part of the issue without so much of a fuzz. What I would like for Lawful Pinheads (at its worst incarnation, the types who announce to the world how they're honoured and nice and how everyone *should* make deals with them so they can profit) to realize is that this. game. has. no. rules. about. deals. and. so. people. who. break. them. are. not. automatically. untrustworthy. out. of. game. So there's no point on keeping this side of the discussion, unless one wants to actively announce to the world (erm, I mean the V:tES community) that one can't tell the difference from a home cat to a hungry tiger, metaphorically speaking. In fact, ***all Lawful Pinheads I know personally are MORE PRONE to commit unethical acts out of game*** than anyone else. Most cheat his or her significant other regularly, another uses company resources to send singles he sells, and so on. Not that these are big issues since they happen everywhere in the world and are not as dangerous to society as theft or murder, but still, it's a hilarious situation: since these people can't seem to separate the real world from a game session, it's only fitting that they won't be able to apply the same ethics they so actively support during a V:tES game in real world situations. Daneel, I believe you're not like that. So please don't take the metaphors too far. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo sick of that black-and-white world vision and kicking the door down

"Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo" <fabio....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1128115220.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > What I would like for Lawful Pinheads (at its worst incarnation, the > types who announce to the world how they're honoured and nice and how > everyone *should* make deals with them so they can profit) to realize > is that > > this. game. has. no. rules. about. deals. and. so. people. who. break. > them. are. not. automatically. untrustworthy. out. of. game. I think the vast majority understand this, including most "lawful pinheads". There just seem to be a few who think that there's some real life immorality to game-wise backstabbing. I don't know why they can't draw that line. (Do they think it's real-life immoral when one drives up the price of rental in Monopoly by buying up a set of properties and building hotels?) But it's not part-and- parcel to being what David Zopf started out as calling lawful- pinheadism. Fred

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message news:1128035462.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > The above work just fine for me, especially the farting. :) > > Comments Welcome, > Norman S. Brown, Jr > XZealot > Archon of the Swamp After the NAQ back in this spring I must agree with the farting bit. ;) Raille

On 30 Sep 2005 14:20:20 -0700, Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo <fabio....@gmail.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> On 26 Sep 2005 13:24:42 -0700, Orpheus <orphe...@free.fr> wrote: >> >> > We play Vampires, remember ? >> >> Remind me next time to actually cut up my prey and bleed him >> to death. We play vampires, after all. > > This is going too far. > > There's a REALLY big difference in scope from "this is a game about > vampires, so dealbreaking is part of the game" to "this is a game about > vampires, so biting people in the neck is part of the game". Exactly - this is what I try to point out. I don't think the magnitude of the issue is very significant when we are looking at the absolutely hypothetical ethical correlations. I use extreme examples because I think what most people don't seem to realize is that there are things you don't do in a game because even if it's a game, you are still a human being playing it with other human beings. So whenever someone says "dood, its a game, I'm not lying, I just play a vampire", I immediately want to ask, okay, so what else do you do to play that? Dress up in a fancy way? Drink real blood? Do random madness when playing Malkavians? I don't seem to get it why people draw the line at a convenient point that is no more or less ethical than any previous or consequent point. > What I would like for Lawful Pinheads (at its worst incarnation, the > types who announce to the world how they're honoured and nice and how > everyone *should* make deals with them so they can profit) to realize > is that > > this. game. has. no. rules. about. deals. and. so. people. who. break. > them. are. not. automatically. untrustworthy. out. of. game. Interesting. If you want to put it this way, I'd rather say, that since this game has no rules about deals, behaviour regarding that aspect of the game is governed by individual personality. > Daneel, I believe you're not like that. So please don't take the > metaphors too far. I don't really think you can really assess what I am like. I mean, you're looking at a couple hundred of posts, and that's it. No real point, I just don't really know where you are coming from here. > sick of that black-and-white world vision and kicking the door down It may not be as black and white as the dismissal makes it seem. But this is not about my views on dealbreaking, I just feel that there are some serious logical flaws in the dealbreaker camp's propaganda. ;) -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> schreef in bericht news:opsxyhoo...@news.chello.hu... > On 30 Sep 2005 14:20:20 -0700, Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo > <fabio....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Daneel wrote: >>> On 26 Sep 2005 13:24:42 -0700, Orpheus <orphe...@free.fr> wrote: >>> >>> > We play Vampires, remember ? >>> >>> Remind me next time to actually cut up my prey and bleed him >>> to death. We play vampires, after all. >> >> This is going too far. >> >> There's a REALLY big difference in scope from "this is a game about >> vampires, so dealbreaking is part of the game" to "this is a game about >> vampires, so biting people in the neck is part of the game". > > Exactly - this is what I try to point out. I don't think the magnitude > of the issue is very significant when we are looking at the absolutely > hypothetical ethical correlations. I use extreme examples because I > think what most people don't seem to realize is that there are things > you don't do in a game because even if it's a game, you are still a > human being playing it with other human beings. true, that's where the rules and especially the sportmanship rules come in. And, of course, basic human decency. Neither of those things rule out breaking a deal. >So whenever someone > says "dood, its a game, I'm not lying, I just play a vampire", That's the wrong thing to say. You're not playing A vampire, your playing Vampire: The Eternal Struggle. Completely different thing. Besides, define 'lying' in-game. Most deals are not made with the express intend of breaking them. The one who eventually breaks a deal probably didn't even know he was going to break it. So he wasn't exactly lying when he made the deal. >I > immediately want to ask, okay, so what else do you do to play that? > Dress up in a fancy way? Drink real blood? Do random madness when > playing Malkavians? I don't seem to get it why people draw the line at > a convenient point that is no more or less ethical than any previous > or consequent point. If you don't see the difference, go see a shrink, for crying out loud. > >> What I would like for Lawful Pinheads (at its worst incarnation, the >> types who announce to the world how they're honoured and nice and how >> everyone *should* make deals with them so they can profit) to realize >> is that >> >> this. game. has. no. rules. about. deals. and. so. people. who. break. >> them. are. not. automatically. untrustworthy. out. of. game. > > Interesting. If you want to put it this way, I'd rather say, that since > this game has no rules about deals, behaviour regarding that aspect of > the game is governed by individual personality. Why the moral judgement? Have you ever played Junta? Or does your *honor* forbid you to play games that require backstabbing? Or when playing poker, those that are bluffing with a bad hand: are they lying and therefore morally questionable people? > >> Daneel, I believe you're not like that. So please don't take the >> metaphors too far. > > I don't really think you can really assess what I am like. I mean, > you're looking at a couple hundred of posts, and that's it. No real > point, I just don't really know where you are coming from here. > >> sick of that black-and-white world vision and kicking the door down > > It may not be as black and white as the dismissal makes it seem. But > this is not about my views on dealbreaking, I just feel that there > are some serious logical flaws in the dealbreaker camp's propaganda. ;) The only logic the 'dealbreaker camp' is saying: deals can be broken when convenient. Where is the logical flaw?

Daneel wrote: > On 30 Sep 2005 14:20:20 -0700, Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo >> Daneel wrote: >>> On 26 Sep 2005 13:24:42 -0700, Orpheus <orphe...@free.fr> wrote: >>> > We play Vampires, remember ? >>> Remind me next time to actually cut up my prey and bleed him >>> to death. We play vampires, after all. >> This is going too far. >> >> There's a REALLY big difference in scope from "this is a game about >> vampires, so dealbreaking is part of the game" to "this is a game about >> vampires, so biting people in the neck is part of the game". > > Exactly - this is what I try to point out. I don't think the magnitude > of the issue is very significant when we are looking at the absolutely > hypothetical ethical correlations. I use extreme examples because I > think what most people don't seem to realize is that there are things > you don't do in a game because even if it's a game, you are still a > human being playing it with other human beings. So whenever someone > says "dood, its a game, I'm not lying, I just play a vampire", I > immediately want to ask, okay, so what else do you do to play that? > Dress up in a fancy way? Drink real blood? Do random madness when > playing Malkavians? I don't seem to get it why people draw the line at > a convenient point that is no more or less ethical than any previous > or consequent point. Because the point you call "convenient" is actually just the very real point of the game-world vs. the real-world. The deals you, by way of playing your role of a Methuselah, make with other Methuselahs (also played by players), you can, as a Methuselah, break, as can any other Methuselah. Methuselahs can break deals. Since you're playing one, you can play at breaking deals (in the *play* of the game). Methuselahs can drain their lackeys dry. Since you're playing one, you can play at draining your lackeys dry (by, for example, playing Minion Tap). That is clearly not the same thing as "since you say it's OK to play at draining a in-game lackey dry, I can literally out-of-game take a fellow player's real-world blood." -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote > > That is clearly not the same thing as "since you say it's OK to > play at draining a in-game lackey dry, I can literally out-of-game > take a fellow player's real-world blood." Damn, that changes everything... Umm, on a completely unrelated note... does anybody here know a good criminal lawyer? Cheers, WES

"Wes" <gh...@NYETmnsiSPAM.net> schreef in bericht news:dhlqm...@enews3.newsguy.com... [ quoted text not captured ] No need to. You are not responsible for you own actions, because you have an Excuse (tm): the Evil satanic game designers made you do it. (eye roll)

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 10:51:27 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: > Because the point you call "convenient" is actually just the very > real point of the game-world vs. the real-world. > > The deals you, by way of playing your role of a Methuselah, make with > other Methuselahs (also played by players), you can, as a Methuselah, > break, as can any other Methuselah. > > Methuselahs can break deals. Since you're playing one, you can play at > breaking deals (in the *play* of the game). > > Methuselahs can drain their lackeys dry. Since you're playing one, > you can play at draining your lackeys dry (by, for example, playing > Minion Tap). > > That is clearly not the same thing as "since you say it's OK to > play at draining a in-game lackey dry, I can literally out-of-game > take a fellow player's real-world blood." Ah, but there are cards for deception. Say, I play Misdirection. Or bleeding, and a lot of other things are basically deception. The whole game is about deception. But the player playing the game uses those cards to play the deception just like to drain their lackeys dry. This is all within the game. Tabletalk is not within the game. From that perspective, a *player* can play a deceptive, lying age-old vampire without himself even showing the faintest hint of deception - the cards in the game depict that deception quite well. -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> schreef in bericht news:opsxzigz...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] The deal isn't in-game either....

Daneel wrote: > On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 10:51:27 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> >> Methuselahs can break deals. Since you're playing one, you can play at >> breaking deals (in the *play* of the game). >> >> That is clearly not the same thing as "since you say it's OK to >> play at draining a in-game lackey dry, I can literally out-of-game >> take a fellow player's real-world blood." > > Ah, but there are cards for deception. Say, I play Misdirection. Or > bleeding, and a lot of other things are basically deception. The > whole game is about deception. But the player playing the game uses > those cards to play the deception just like to drain their lackeys > dry. This is all within the game. Concession of your original attempt at reduction to absurdity noted. > Tabletalk is not within the game. From that perspective, a *player* > can play a deceptive, lying age-old vampire without himself even > showing the faintest hint of deception - the cards in the game > depict that deception quite well. Yes. None of which alters the point I made above. You *can* play a deceptive vampire by not being deceptive, and just using the cards. Or you can play a deceptive vampire by being deceptive (again, using the cards -- ousting someone, with the cards that is, after the deceptive Methuselahs had made an out-of- game deal otherwise). Since it's just you in your assigned task of "playing" a Methuselah, it in no way suggests that you are somehow a lying cheat of a person in your own self -- just that you know what the game is and what it is not. If you choose not to break your word in general, that doesn't mean you can't play a Methuselah who breaks his word. I've seen Jeremy Irons play characters who break their words. Should I therefore (and for solely that reason) expect Jeremy Irons to be a lying cheat? By no means. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 10:56:16 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 10:51:27 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> >>> Methuselahs can break deals. Since you're playing one, you can play at >>> breaking deals (in the *play* of the game). >>> >>> That is clearly not the same thing as "since you say it's OK to >>> play at draining a in-game lackey dry, I can literally out-of-game >>> take a fellow player's real-world blood." >> >> Ah, but there are cards for deception. Say, I play Misdirection. Or >> bleeding, and a lot of other things are basically deception. The >> whole game is about deception. But the player playing the game uses >> those cards to play the deception just like to drain their lackeys >> dry. This is all within the game. > > Concession of your original attempt at reduction to absurdity noted. Falsely; I am using your point in an attempt to prove its shortcomings. >> Tabletalk is not within the game. From that perspective, a *player* >> can play a deceptive, lying age-old vampire without himself even >> showing the faintest hint of deception - the cards in the game >> depict that deception quite well. > > Yes. > > None of which alters the point I made above. > > You *can* play a deceptive vampire by not being deceptive, and > just using the cards. Or you can play a deceptive vampire by being > deceptive (again, using the cards -- ousting someone, with the > cards that is, after the deceptive Methuselahs had made an out-of- > game deal otherwise). > > Since it's just you in your assigned task of "playing" a Methuselah, > it in no way suggests that you are somehow a lying cheat of a > person in your own self -- just that you know what the game is > and what it is not. > > If you choose not to break your word in general, that doesn't > mean you can't play a Methuselah who breaks his word. > > I've seen Jeremy Irons play characters who break their words. > Should I therefore (and for solely that reason) expect Jeremy > Irons to be a lying cheat? By no means. The line you draw between the "act"/game/whatever and the person playing that "act"/game/whatever can really only be drawn at a single point. Everything within the game is either in the rules or on the cards. So if you draw the line at this point, then deception through cards is playing the game, but tabletalk and dealmaking/breaking is player character. If you say that deception in playing the game should not be confined to the cards/rules, then I challenge you to distinguish why *this* aspect of the game is treated differently than, say, using brute force, bribes, breaking the rules, etc. (other things age-old vampires probably pursue as well). Not to mention the banal "I play a kray-Z MaLkaViaN, so I can just do whatever random madness I feel like doing". Since you have already stated that you do not think that playing a Malkavian is reason enough to do any random madness (beyond the effects generated by clan-specific cards, that is), I do not see why playing a deceptive methuselah would be legal in-game reason enough to lie, dealbreak, etc. as a player. To get back to your actor example: deception through cards is like an actor lying in character in a movie. Lying as a player at the table would be like the actor lying about a role he plays, say, to fellow actors. The former is no reason to assume the person is a lying cheat; the latter can well be. -- Bye, Daneel

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:52:20 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > A game where the interaction isn't about the cards being played, and > instead is about who can talk faster? No fun. See "Diplomacy". Try the Silence of Death VTES variant. My favourite variant, by far - not only because of the dealmaking/dealbreaking/whatnot angle, but also from the lack of tabletalk angle. I've only seen one (1) SoD tournament table reach time; out of about two dozen. It's definitely worth trying for all. -- Bye, Daneel

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:11:13 GMT, Jeroen Rombouts <jeroen....@NOSPAMtelenet.be> wrote: >> The repulsive nature of this discussion stems from the controversy >> inherent to a dealbreaker arguing that being a dealbreaker is not >> in itself linked to an otherwise immoral character (which could >> well be the case), and then proceeding to hint at employing >> questionable methods to maintain dealbreaking anonimity. > > right, anonimity. I'm posting this and all other post under my real > name.... Gotta ad admit, that's a point there. ;) >>> I don't see the joke. If I broke a deal 5 years ago, I'm forever >>> branded >>> a deal breaker? and that's in-game???? >> >> Yeah, right. "Judge! This guy won't deal with me, he probably thinks >> I'm a dealbreaker, so he is using out of game information, so please >> disqualify him!" Please reconsider. (My example no less extreme >> than yours.) >> > difference was: mine was a joke. Well, I wouldn't say I'm dead on serious with this either. I was, a while back, but I've seen stuff since, done stuff since, and I'm not really coming from where I appear to. Perhaps I need to be more clear. -- Bye, Daneel

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 09:56:53 GMT, Jeroen Rombouts <jeroen....@NOSPAMtelenet.be> wrote: > true, that's where the rules and especially the sportmanship rules come > in. > And, of course, basic human decency. Neither of those things rule out > breaking a deal. I'm sure some people would consider "lying" or "breaking the "word"" to be indecent. -- Bye, Daneel

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 04:20:31 GMT, Jeroen Rombouts <jeroen....@NOSPAMtelenet.be> wrote: >> Tabletalk is not within the game. From that perspective, a *player* >> can play a deceptive, lying age-old vampire without himself even >> showing the faintest hint of deception - the cards in the game >> depict that deception quite well. > > The deal isn't in-game either.... That's what I'm trying to say. The deal is made between the players; the cards show the interaction of the methuselahs they "play". Interaction between the methuselahs is governed by the rules of the game and the texts of the cards; interactions between the players are governed by their personalities. -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 10:56:16 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> > wrote: > >> Daneel wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 10:51:27 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> >>> >>>> Methuselahs can break deals. Since you're playing one, you can play at >>>> breaking deals (in the *play* of the game). >>>> >>>> That is clearly not the same thing as "since you say it's OK to >>>> play at draining a in-game lackey dry, I can literally out-of-game >>>> take a fellow player's real-world blood." >>> >>> >>> Ah, but there are cards for deception. Say, I play Misdirection. Or >>> bleeding, and a lot of other things are basically deception. The >>> whole game is about deception. But the player playing the game uses >>> those cards to play the deception just like to drain their lackeys >>> dry. This is all within the game. >> >> Concession of your original attempt at reduction to absurdity noted. > > Falsely; I am using your point in an attempt to prove its shortcomings. If you wish to defend your point, do so. Simply abandoning it when confronted with its shortcomings looks an awful lot like concession (which isn't a bad thing -- it's better than not listening to reason). >>> Tabletalk is not within the game. From that perspective, a *player* >>> can play a deceptive, lying age-old vampire without himself even >>> showing the faintest hint of deception - the cards in the game >>> depict that deception quite well. >> >> Yes. >> >> None of which alters the point I made above. >> >> You *can* play a deceptive vampire by not being deceptive, and >> just using the cards. Or you can play a deceptive vampire by being >> deceptive (again, using the cards -- ousting someone, with the >> cards that is, after the deceptive Methuselahs had made an out-of- >> game deal otherwise). >> >> Since it's just you in your assigned task of "playing" a Methuselah, >> it in no way suggests that you are somehow a lying cheat of a >> person in your own self -- just that you know what the game is >> and what it is not. >> >> If you choose not to break your word in general, that doesn't >> mean you can't play a Methuselah who breaks his word. >> >> I've seen Jeremy Irons play characters who break their words. >> Should I therefore (and for solely that reason) expect Jeremy >> Irons to be a lying cheat? By no means. > > The line you draw between the "act"/game/whatever and the person > playing that "act"/game/whatever can really only be drawn at a > single point. The distinction between point and line in the metaphor is useless. But as you wish. > Everything within the game is either in the rules or on the cards. By definition of "within the game". > So if you draw the line at this point, then deception through > cards is playing the game, but tabletalk and dealmaking/breaking > is player character. If you like. Deal making (agree how you, as a Methuselah, will act as a Methuselah is playing the game). > If you say that deception in playing the game should not be > confined to the cards/rules, then I challenge you to distinguish > why *this* aspect of the game is treated differently than, say, > using brute force, bribes, breaking the rules, etc. (other > things age-old vampires probably pursue as well). Not to mention > the banal "I play a kray-Z MaLkaViaN, so I can just do whatever > random madness I feel like doing". You again fail to see the difference between in-game and real world. You can use bribes in game. Brute force in game. etc. For example, Bribes, Bum's Rush, Retribution, etc. You can't break the rules in game by definition, of course, so that point is even less interesting than the blurring of in-game to out-of-game. Since the rules also include a goal, the breaking of the goal rule is similarly uninteresting to the topic at hand. > Since you have already stated that you do not think that playing > a Malkavian is reason enough to do any random madness (beyond > the effects generated by clan-specific cards, that is), I do not > see why playing a deceptive methuselah would be legal in-game > reason enough to lie, dealbreak, etc. as a player. It isn't a reason to. I didn't say it was. You're confusing sufficient for necessary. Playing a Methuselah is sufficient for deal making and deal breaking as a Methuselah (assuming that the activity itself, keeping or breaking the deal, is legal by the rules). > To get back to your actor example: deception through cards is > like an actor lying in character in a movie. Lying as a player > at the table would be like the actor lying about a role he plays, > say, to fellow actors. The former is no reason to assume the No, it wouldn't. Lying about a card's effect would be like lying to fellow actors about the role. Lying in your role as Methuselah (and then proceeding to continue playing legally in that role) would be like acting, which is why I drew the parallel. > person is a lying cheat; the latter can well be. It (the latter) is certainly not a sufficient condition. The person may be a lying cheat or not, just as the actor may be. But the evidence of the roles he chooses to play and how well he plays them is not necessarily evidence of that -- it may just be evidence of his skill at acting or that game, as appropriate. [ quoted text not captured ]

Daneel wrote: > That's what I'm trying to say. The deal is made between the players; > the cards show the interaction of the methuselahs they "play". > Interaction between the methuselahs is governed by the rules of the > game and the texts of the cards; interactions between the players > are governed by their personalities. There is a mess about some things. Deals and dealbreaking is not in the rules. Neither is the decision whom i rush with my bums rush or whom i help with my actions. Deals and dealbreaking is part of the game. Thats the same with rushing that vampire and not the other one, or ousting my predator because it is necessary. Things that happen in the game are irrelevant to real life. (That is a principle of game theory - to be not connected to real life.) So rushing crosstable my grand predator, does not imply that i hate Fred, the player of my grand predator. Making, breaking or not-breaking a deal doesnt say something about my personality either. There may be some connection between out-game and in-game, like in role-playing were maybe a out-game liar can better play a trickster. So maybe a liar can better play a deal-breaker in VTES. But that is absolutely irrelevant, because if you notice or react to that fact, you are already destroying the principle of the game, not to be connected to the real world.

[ quoted text not captured ] I do understand that, too. It's just that I am not so creative (or was so bored and overreacted at the moment I posted that) to come with a new, funny term for the "worst incarnation of Lawful Pinheads"... Maybe Lawful Fanatics? :D best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

Daneel wrote: > On 30 Sep 2005 14:20:20 -0700, Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo > <fabio....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Daneel wrote: > > There's a REALLY big difference in scope from "this is a game about > > vampires, so dealbreaking is part of the game" to "this is a game about > > vampires, so biting people in the neck is part of the game". > > Exactly - this is what I try to point out. I don't think the magnitude > of the issue is very significant when we are looking at the absolutely > hypothetical ethical correlations. I use extreme examples because I > think what most people don't seem to realize is that there are things > you don't do in a game because even if it's a game, you are still a > human being playing it with other human beings. So whenever someone > says "dood, its a game, I'm not lying, I just play a vampire", I > immediately want to ask, okay, so what else do you do to play that? > Dress up in a fancy way? Drink real blood? Do random madness when > playing Malkavians? I don't seem to get it why people draw the line at > a convenient point that is no more or less ethical than any previous > or consequent point. I can understand the use of extreme examples to point out a situation. But then again, let's get roleplaying as an example. Per your logic, anyone playing a Vampire RPG game is inherently capable of drinking real blood or the like. The point of the RPG is exactly to "play" (in the acting sense) something you wouldn't be, or "do" in a fantasy way something you wouldn't do. It is often refereed as a powerful tool to understand how certain types of people feel about their condition, or to understand why certain people act this or that way. I believe that it is also a great tool for anyone to test its own personal mettle regarding ethics - when you play a theft in a healthy RPG environment, you're not prone to repeat your character's actions in real life, you just get an insight of a thief's motives and mind to make a *really* conscious choice to NOT practice theft in real life. If one cannot grasp that, one simply discovered its morality was not so firm as one would believe. Though cardgames are not roleplaying games, they're based (at least most of them) on RPG fantasy settings, and I simply don't believe there's any reason for CCG players to play them in an acting sense. It's not that every VTES player should play the part and dress like a vampire and so what - even most RPG players don't go that far - but the game was built around a setting that includes stories of backstabbing, intrigue and politics. So why drive out backstabbing in the game context? Why push that beyond the table situation? Why don't actors who played serial killers in movies don't come around killing people in real life? About drawing the line: everyone draws the line where they feel it's right to draw it - but that does not mean you can safely conclude that some *will* draw the line further to a point where you wouldn't accept it. Some will undoubtely act in real life as they act when breaking deals, sure. But most stable and socially aware people will draw the line where the game ends and real life begins - so there's no point in trying to condemn in-game dealbreaking as a extension of real-world stances. It's basically the same as condenming a pro-abortion person as a potential murderer, so everyone should stand against abortion. That view on abortion had to do with that topic alone, it's not like one'll support it out of a larger disregard for social standards (i.e., not killing equals). > Interesting. If you want to put it this way, I'd rather say, that since > this game has no rules about deals, behaviour regarding that aspect of > the game is governed by individual personality. Of course. But for "individual personality" you have a multitude of positions that not always include "I do this in the game because I like to do that out of the game". It most certainly include people that take the stance that "doing this in game means no harm to anyone and it's part of the fun, so why shouldn't I? I don't do this in real world to anyone anyway". It also include "i'm just playing a part, like an actor" people. In fact, most players (and I mean MOST) probably can dig that easily. You're free to conclude that one or other dealbreaker is prone to backstab you out of game too. Of course you are. But once you bring it at a debate, it gets a whole new, generalizing context, when it should come by in a personal level only - i.e., you assess each people you know in person and conclude how far they'd go with the backstabbing thing. Undoubtely you'll know some that you can't lend a single dime to, and others that you can trust your life with. But using your best judgement to extend that option to any dealbreaker or to the possibilities the game present in that camp is a stretch at best. > > Daneel, I believe you're not like that. So please don't take the > > metaphors too far. > > I don't really think you can really assess what I am like. I mean, > you're looking at a couple hundred of posts, and that's it. No real > point, I just don't really know where you are coming from here. Of course not (I cannot assess how you are like). I just felt I should reassure that so everyone reading this can rest assured I'm not taking it personally - exactly because it would be a stupid thing to do from a couple of posts. > It may not be as black and white as the dismissal makes it seem. But > this is not about my views on dealbreaking, I just feel that there > are some serious logical flaws in the dealbreaker camp's propaganda. ;) > -- > Bye, > Daneel Sure there can be logical flaws ;) As stated and thoroughly debated in this thread, the advantages of keeping deals are long-term and can be more rewarding in the long run than the short-term benefits of breaking a deal. I just see, from where I'm pointing at, that the logical flaws on dealbreaking don't come from the "that's in par with the game theme" camp. ;) And, for the sake of peacekeeping, it worries me too much when any mention is made of in-game stances leaking out real-life positions. Remember that that correlation is often used by right-wing and religious fanatics to blame games on murders commited by nutcases who happened to play RPGs or even cardgames. Transporting that logic to the issue at hand (dealbreaking) is too close to those people's fanatism. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

[ quoted text not captured ] I would say that it's hardly the point. Children play games of police and thieves. They need no card, rules, or any special environment artificially made (as a game table is, since it's constructed, in equal parts, by designer's efforts and real people coming together to get fun). They not even need anything resembling the real thing - i.e., they can just use some pieces of wood to represent guns, badges or whatever. Do this means the children who are playing the thieves can be treated as potential thieves in the future? I wouldn't even go as far as assuming that these would be the ones who "stole" the cookies I had in the oven. The children who played police are as much potential "suspects" of this "heinous crime" as the others. And we don't even need to get started on childhood innocence and adulthood malice - as adults in a healthy social environment, we should be even more aware of the moral implications of *real* thefting and lying than children are. If they can separate things, why shouldn't we? Just because someone invented the tools (i.e., cards and rules) for us to play the part as the children do? That's absurd. Or just because some people made the conscious choice of ignoring the implications and live with the consequences? It's almost an offense to our capacity as grown-up people to expect we *need* these tools to separate things. As said in a previous post, you're entitled, as anyone is, to judge each people you know according how they act. It's not that transposing in-game behaviour to out-of-game ethics is a good start. More often than not, the (few) people who aren't capable of drawing the line and will act in a unethical (by your standards) on the real world will often show you how they are even before you had the chance to see them breaking a deal. So no point in dragging that as a consequence to their in-game behaviour. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:aBf%e.85281$DW1.81167@fed1read06... > "David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message > news:Alc%e.624$qX7...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... >> Lawful Pinhead: (noun) a VTES player who never deliberately breaks an >> in-game deal. cf. Frederick Scott > > Hmmm. I don't recall declaring I _deliberately_ never broke an in-game > deal. I just don't think anyone can recall sucha an experience, however. > (Alex Harmon has pointed out to me two or three times where I was about > to absent-mindedly break one of our deals. I desisted. Go figure.) > Yeah, my verbiage was constructed to try to allow for the possibility that an LP _could_ break a deal in a non-deliberate (inadvertent, absent-minded, or accidental break, or when keeping a deal is no longer relevant to the game state) fashion, and yet remain a Lawful Pinhead. Maybe it wasn't worded properly to obtain that effect. Also for the record, I don't think that positions on deal-keeping exhibited by Daneel's point of view are AT ALL a necessary part of being an LP, although Daneel ends up being within the LP group... I think that would be obvious, but I wanted to state it 'aloud', regardless. DZ AW

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsxzigz...@news.chello.hu... > Tabletalk is not within the game. From that perspective, a *player* > can play a deceptive, lying age-old vampire without himself even > showing the faintest hint of deception - the cards in the game > depict that deception quite well. Tournament Rules (granted, its buried a little bit, in the Judge's Guide) specifically contradict this position on table-talk: 164. Cheating - Collusion <snip> Philosophy: Players participating in standard table talk or in-game agreements should not be considered in violation of this rule as long as they meet the following criteria: No player introduces incentives outside the current game such as cash, cards, or other items. No part of the agreement has been secret or has taken place outside of the current game. No part of the agreement involves a random selection of the winner. The agreement does not otherwise violate section 5.2 of the V:EKN Tournament Rules. There are your guidelines _in the rules_ as to what is, and is not, allowed with respect to deal-making in VTES. Obviously, deal-breaking is allowed by the fact that in doing so, the now-broken deal still suits all aspects of the criteria list. One thing Daneel's posts raise as a valid consideration, though, is that deals aren't addressed at all in the base rules. I think that making the nature of in-game deals explicit (if only to say that they are allowed, but not enforced in any way) might be helpful in those rare cases when there are players who have a difficult time grasping the place of deals in-game. DaveZ AW

David Zopf wrote: > news:opsxzigz...@news.chello.hu... > One thing Daneel's posts raise as a valid consideration, though, is that > deals aren't addressed at all in the base rules. I think that making the > nature of in-game deals explicit (if only to say that they are allowed, but > not enforced in any way) might be helpful in those rare cases when there are > players who have a difficult time grasping the place of deals in-game. > DaveZ > AW I think this is acceptable. Having the rules to explicitly say that deals are part of the game but there's no enforcing them certainly would not hurt. But personally, I don't think it would really diminish the amount of confusion regarding "the place of deals". It can be a somewhat pessimistic conclusion on my part, but I tend to believe that people who have difficulty with "the place of deals" in the game are the ones who will never really accept the deal angle in this game on first place, and would be way happier if they were NOT allowed. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo Giovanni Newsletter Editor in absentia

"Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo" <fabio....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1128357609....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] OK. My goal is to get potential players comfortable with the place of deal-making/breaking within VTES. If that position doesn't jive with a particular person's world-view, or if they just cannot accept the way in-game deals are interpreted within VTES, then VTES probably isn't a game which they'll find entertaining. I'm all about giving a customer what she needs to know if a product is right for them, or not... In the past, I've had group trouble with players who are disruptive to other players because of their inability to draw the line between in and out of game properly*. The more 'official' tools I have to address issues like that, the less likely those issues will disrupt a small, developing group. Hell, explain the pros and cons of being a deal-keeper and a deal-breaker, if necessary, although the "real estate" in the rulebook probably precludes such an extensive treatment of the topic. DZ AW * My first attempt at a playgroup in Charlotte (ca. 1998) had a house full of 5 LARPers who thought that bringing their RPG personae to the VTES table was a fine way of playing VTES. Despite my attempts to draw a clear line of behavior for them, the shenanigans which resulted as they drifted over and back across the "In/Out of Game Line" ripped apart that first group (and the LARPer's household), causing me to have to re-start the group from near-scratch in a different location. ** Later in Charlotte, I ran across another player who had a position similar to Daneel's regarding deal-making. Despite warnings about the nature of deals as perceived by the existing group, said player took deal-breaking as a personal affront, but refused to leave the group despite his disruptive attitude and verbal abuse of those who did him wrong'. Again, location had to be changed with discretion, because the disruptive influence refused attempts to mitigate, and also refused to stop attending when asked. Fortunately, the group was established by then, and weathered this hiccup well.

"Fabio 'Sooner' Macedo" <fabio....@gmail.com> wrote > > I do understand that, too. It's just that I am not so creative (or was > so bored and overreacted at the moment I posted that) to come with a > new, funny term for the "worst incarnation of Lawful Pinheads"... Maybe > Lawful Fanatics? :D Paladins! Cheers, WES

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 00:00:22 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: >> Falsely; I am using your point in an attempt to prove its shortcomings. > > If you wish to defend your point, do so. Simply abandoning it when > confronted with its shortcomings looks an awful lot like > concession (which isn't a bad thing -- it's better than not > listening to reason). I simply don't understand what point you are making, I'm either too married to my views or you fail to come through. Nevertheless, here is an absurd example to help in the understanding. Let's assume that we have a hypothetical country caller Pinheadia. In Pinheadia fisticuffs is not against the law. In fact, beating up other people has a culturally distinctive, strong tradition. Depending on what body part you punish, and in what manner, a whole lot of different human relationships can be maintained. For example, punching someone in the thighs is a sign of affection. In Pinhedia there exist strict laws against speaking falsehood, breaking one's word, or misleading others. It is considered the ultimate violation of someone's human rights to lie to that person. Breaking the explicitly given word is always punished by death, while the occasionally vague or misleading sentence is punished by exile or public humiliation. How, in your opinion, would VTES be played in Pinhedia? What do you think about dealmaking, dealbreaking or beating up other players, when the game is played in Pinhedia? -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsx42lm...@news.chello.hu... > Let's assume that we have a hypothetical country caller Pinheadia. ... > In Pinhedia there exist strict laws against speaking falsehood, > breaking one's word, or misleading others. It is considered the > ultimate violation of someone's human rights to lie to that > person. Breaking the explicitly given word is always punished by > death, while the occasionally vague or misleading sentence is > punished by exile or public humiliation. > > How, in your opinion, would VTES be played in Pinhedia? Speaking falsehood, breaking one's word, and misleading others are against social values in just about any part of the world. It makes no difference if you conjecture a place where they've codified such social mores into law. The legal status isn't the issue. The issue is whether the context of these things is taken into account. Most people seem to have an innate understanding that doing such things in the context of a mere game does not constitute the sort of problem which makes them an anathema in real life. Presumedly, that would be just as true in Pinheadia as anywhere else. However, if no such distinction is made in Pinheadia law, then the answer is that by law, VtES could not be played in Pinheadia in the same manner as it were elsewhere. If Pinheadia law likewise proscribed sporting events which lasted more than two hours, then many American sports couldn't be played the same way they are elsewhere since the length of the game is a key element in its play. So what? What is the point of this analogy? It seems to ignore the critical issues in considering whether lying in the context of a game is morally different than lying in the context of other activities. Concerning the comparison with violence, most people, regardless of where they are, understand that unchecked violence is generally harmful to civilized society. Hence, it is not a coincidental thing that radically liberal laws about free use of fisticuffs does not exist anywhere in the civilized world (at least, not that I've heard of). There may be some specific exceptions of various types in various places, but the idea that overall it's a bad thing seems to be universal. By contrast (again), the notion that my card "attacks" your card in a game and "beats it up" is usually just fine. Same thing: game violence doesn't actually hurt anything any more than game lying and game deal-breaking. Fred

Daneel wrote: > On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 00:00:22 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> > wrote: > >>> Falsely; I am using your point in an attempt to prove its shortcomings. >> >> If you wish to defend your point, do so. Simply abandoning it when >> confronted with its shortcomings looks an awful lot like >> concession (which isn't a bad thing -- it's better than not >> listening to reason). > > I simply don't understand what point you are making, I'm either too > married to my views or you fail to come through. Nevertheless, here > is an absurd example to help in the understanding. My point: your (original) attempt at reduction to absurdity is flawed because it steps over a irreducible boundary -- that if in-game vs. out-of-game. See also the rest of my response(s), where the point was made in other ways. > Let's assume that we have a hypothetical country caller Pinheadia. > > In Pinheadia fisticuffs is not against the law. In fact, beating up > other people has a culturally distinctive, strong tradition. > Depending on what body part you punish, and in what manner, a > whole lot of different human relationships can be maintained. For > example, punching someone in the thighs is a sign of affection. > > In Pinhedia there exist strict laws against speaking falsehood, > breaking one's word, or misleading others. It is considered the > ultimate violation of someone's human rights to lie to that > person. Breaking the explicitly given word is always punished by > death, while the occasionally vague or misleading sentence is > punished by exile or public humiliation. > > How, in your opinion, would VTES be played in Pinhedia? It would not. Neither would VtM or Balderdash, for that matter. Pinheadia would also not have any form of stage or film entertainment (other than "reality" programs). And population would drop to zero very quickly as children learn their lying lessons the very hard way at, I guess, around the time they learn to answer the question "did you break that?". > What do you think about dealmaking, dealbreaking or beating up > other players, when the game is played in Pinhedia? I do not. If you could "beat someone up" by acting (a form of lying) your part as a Methuselah, then there might be some parallel. But you can't. You've stepped over that irreducible point again. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 02:04:10 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: >> Let's assume that we have a hypothetical country caller Pinheadia. >> >> In Pinheadia fisticuffs is not against the law. In fact, beating up >> other people has a culturally distinctive, strong tradition. >> Depending on what body part you punish, and in what manner, a >> whole lot of different human relationships can be maintained. For >> example, punching someone in the thighs is a sign of affection. >> >> In Pinhedia there exist strict laws against speaking falsehood, >> breaking one's word, or misleading others. It is considered the >> ultimate violation of someone's human rights to lie to that >> person. Breaking the explicitly given word is always punished by >> death, while the occasionally vague or misleading sentence is >> punished by exile or public humiliation. >> >> How, in your opinion, would VTES be played in Pinhedia? > > It would not. Interesting you would say that. What exactly do you think would prevent Pinhedians from playing VTES? >> What do you think about dealmaking, dealbreaking or beating up >> other players, when the game is played in Pinhedia? > > I do not. If you could "beat someone up" by acting (a form > of lying) your part as a Methuselah, then there might be > some parallel. But you can't. You've stepped over that > irreducible point again. I think I see what you are obfuscating here, but you are wrong. VTES is not about acting, there is no argument about that; that excuse is inherently pointless. Which leaves us with my original point - the game is about playing cards, and how you play the cards; what you add to that in terms of communication, etc. is basically determined by personality. -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> schreef in bericht news:opsx6xcy...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] Just saying no and stamping your foot is not going to convince anyone, you know. If you would have said that it's determined by the way you play games, that would have been no problem. But drawing conclusions about real life integritiy by the way someone plays a game is waaaaay off. BTW, if you don't like the social aspect of a multiplayer (yes, with the deals and backstabbing it usually entails) go play 1 vs 1 games.

Daneel wrote: > On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 02:04:10 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> >>> How, in your opinion, would VTES be played in Pinhedia? >> >> It would not. > > Interesting you would say that. What exactly do you think would > prevent Pinhedians from playing VTES? The laws of Pinheadia, as per the snipped portion. >>> What do you think about dealmaking, dealbreaking or beating up >>> other players, when the game is played in Pinhedia? >> >> I do not. If you could "beat someone up" by acting (a form >> of lying) your part as a Methuselah, then there might be >> some parallel. But you can't. You've stepped over that >> irreducible point again. > > I think I see what you are obfuscating here, but you are wrong. I am obfuscating nothing. When you say you bleed your prey, you mean "In my role as a Methuselah, I bleed you in your role as my prey." You don't mean you bleed your friend Bob. You mean some Methuselah has one of her minions "bleed" some other Methuselah. "You" don't ever have the edge -- the Methuselah you are playing does. Likewise when you make a deal in your role as a Methuselah with someone else in their role. > VTES is not about acting, there is no argument about that; that > excuse is inherently pointless. Which leaves us with my And has not been not offered, so saying so is pointless. > original point - the game is about playing cards, and how you > play the cards; what you add to that in terms of communication, > etc. is basically determined by personality. As you like. I'll leave you to your world, then. -- That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet. Keep a little and let a little come back to me. LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

[ quoted text not captured ] Ok, after this whole thread, realize that _you_ are the only one holding to this definition, as far as those who have revealed their position on the matter. For the rest of us, the game is about _the whole of the game state_. Anything and everything that falls inside of that "in-game" line which LSJ has elucidated on so extensively. If I go back and review every one of your analogies, each one of them has some substantive aspect which results in real-world out-of-game consequences (people getting hit, punched, ex-sanguinated, or running afoul of strange laws in imaginary countries). Isn't this a clue to you as to where and how your position is so horribly damaged? The scope of consequences for an in-game deal begins and ends with changes to the game state _only_, whether it is kept or broken. This is an adequate and sufficient condition to conclude that the deal (kept or broken) is a part, and only a part, of the game, as are the actions of the player who makes or breaks them. DaveZ Atom Weaver P.S. Hey!! If a deal which includes considerations beyond the scope of the game state is an illegal deal, perhaps we should conclude that, if a person can't help but bring out-of game considerations (oh, say, assessments of people's real personae, away from game) to every deal they make, then each and every last one of their deals are illegal! Problem solved! One cannot make legal deals unless and until one can leave non-game-state considerations OUT OF THE GAME... :-)

Atom Weaver wrote: > One cannot make legal deals unless and until one can > leave non-game-state considerations OUT OF THE GAME... :-) That´s so true! Frank