Hi all, hi LSJ.
I know these subjects have been debated over here a number of times,
I'd just like to clarify some situations in my head.
I also know that I could just google, but since I have a bunch of
situations to ask about and I just want to make sure if some general
interpretations apply, I fear I'll get distracted by circunstances
mentioned in each thread I find.
Here's the scoop. We've been debating about breaking deals, which
playgroups usually honor deals and what they do with potential
dealbreakers etc. I assumed all involved were talking about casual
play since there's no rule enforcing deals. At some point, someone
said that players in his playgroup do not accept to play (casual) with
dealbrakers and will gang up on any known dealbreaker during
tournaments - he's got to be the first to fall in each table if they
can manage it.
For all I remember about the subject, I believe this is prone to
penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct, maybe for ignoring the play to
win rule.
In the debate that ensued, some other situations were brought about,
like these (assume sanctioned tournaments for all examples):
- a player who attacks another cross-table because he's the most
accomplished/experient and therefore the "biggest threat" in his path
to the GW;
- a player attacks another cross-table because he's a known
dealbreaker and therefore unlikely for the first to get a good deal
and profit from it to gain the GW later;
- a player attacks another cross-table because he's got the biggest
collection of cards and is likely to have the best deck in the table
(not because of the raw number but because he has the means whatever
he wants, including some proven and tested tournament winner
archetypical decks)
- a player attacks someone cross-table because he does not like [clan
X]
- a player attacks another cross-table because the second has Sudenned
some master of the first that would get in his way later (say, Ventrue
Headquarters)
Does these situations fall on the general concept of unsportmanslike
conduct? I mean, on the "etc." part of:
5.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct
Unsportsmanlike conduct is unacceptable and will not be tolerated at
any time. Players who engage in unsportsmanlike conduct will be
subject to the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines
and will be subject to further V:EKN review. Judges, players,
spectators, and officials must behave in a polite, respectable, and
sportsmanlike manner. In addition, players must not use profanity,
argue, act belligerently toward tournament officials or one another,
or harass spectators, tournament officials, or opponents. Players must
not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as
stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players on the
basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.).
If so, which penalties could be applied? I've been searching for the
V:EKN penalty guidelines mentioned on the tournament rules and just
can't find it.
best,
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Clan Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 07:52:21 -0300, "Fabio \"Sooner\""
<fabio_...@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote:
>Hi all, hi LSJ.
Oops. A couple of errors...
>- a player attacks another cross-table because he's got the biggest
>collection of cards and is likely to have the best deck in the table
>(not because of the raw number but because he has the means whatever
>he wants,
"the means *to build* whatever deck he wants..."
including some proven and tested tournament winner
>archetypical decks)>- a player attacks another cross-table because the second has Sudenned
*Suddened*.
>some master of the first that would get in his way later (say, Ventrue
>Headquarters)
best,
[ quoted text not captured ]
My .02:
With the exception of the last two these are all instances of using
information external to the game environment to decide on reasons for a
course of action. The suddened HQ is certainly in game while the
clan-dislike might be in game and, to me, completely fun and acceptable
within the style of WoD lunacy.
-tpl
Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
> Hi all, hi LSJ.
Howdy.
> I know these subjects have been debated over here a number of times,
> I'd just like to clarify some situations in my head.
> I also know that I could just google, but since I have a bunch of
> situations to ask about and I just want to make sure if some general
> interpretations apply, I fear I'll get distracted by circunstances
> mentioned in each thread I find.
Mythophobia?
Hellenologophobia?
> Here's the scoop. We've been debating about breaking deals, which
> playgroups usually honor deals and what they do with potential
> dealbreakers etc. I assumed all involved were talking about casual
> play since there's no rule enforcing deals. At some point, someone
> said that players in his playgroup do not accept to play (casual) with
> dealbrakers and will gang up on any known dealbreaker during
> tournaments - he's got to be the first to fall in each table if they
> can manage it.
Strictly illegal (when it violates the "play to win" rule, of course --
it's OK for the predator of the deal breaker to be one of the gang,
clearly).
> For all I remember about the subject, I believe this is prone to
> penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct, maybe for ignoring the play to
> win rule.
Exactly right.
> In the debate that ensued, some other situations were brought about,
> like these (assume sanctioned tournaments for all examples):
>
> - a player who attacks another cross-table because he's the most
> accomplished/experient and therefore the "biggest threat" in his path
> to the GW;
Immaterial to game state. Play the game. You'd have to wait and see
if your preconception/prejudice regarding his competence is
warranted (that is, until the game state shows that your best play
is a cross table harassment).
> - a player attacks another cross-table because he's a known
> dealbreaker and therefore unlikely for the first to get a good deal
> and profit from it to gain the GW later;
Beyond a "bit" of stretch even if the prejudice were an acceptable
rationale.
> - a player attacks another cross-table because he's got the biggest
> collection of cards and is likely to have the best deck in the table
> (not because of the raw number but because he has the means whatever
> he wants, including some proven and tested tournament winner
> archetypical decks)
One doesn't play one's collection. One plays one's deck.
> - a player attacks someone cross-table because he does not like [clan
> X]
Unstated: and [clan X] is the only clan that that cross-table player
has influenced out.
Immaterial. Play the game.
> - a player attacks another cross-table because the second has Sudenned
> some master of the first that would get in his way later (say, Ventrue
> Headquarters)
If the Cross Table play is play to win, OK.
> Does these situations fall on the general concept of unsportmanslike
> conduct? I mean, on the "etc." part of:
>
> 5.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct
>
> Unsportsmanlike conduct is unacceptable and will not be tolerated at
> any time. Players who engage in unsportsmanlike conduct will be
> subject to the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines
> and will be subject to further V:EKN review. Judges, players,
> spectators, and officials must behave in a polite, respectable, and
> sportsmanlike manner. In addition, players must not use profanity,
> argue, act belligerently toward tournament officials or one another,
> or harass spectators, tournament officials, or opponents. Players must
> not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as
> stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players on the
> basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.).
>
> If so, which penalties could be applied? I've been searching for the
> V:EKN penalty guidelines mentioned on the tournament rules and just
> can't find it.
Section 200.
1) Correct the illegal play.
2) If the player refuses to play according to the rules, then eject
him and adjust the game state to maintain balance in his absence.
--
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/
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:47:17 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
wrote:
>Fabio "Sooner" wrote:>> Hi all, hi LSJ.>
>Howdy.
>>> I know these subjects have been debated over here a number of times,
>> I'd just like to clarify some situations in my head.
>> I also know that I could just google, but since I have a bunch of
>> situations to ask about and I just want to make sure if some general
>> interpretations apply, I fear I'll get distracted by circunstances
>> mentioned in each thread I find.>
>Mythophobia?
>Hellenologophobia?
I'm not sure I understand this, but if I'm going a little too far in
my concerns about browsing old threads, the reason (for now) is that
the mentioned debate went too far on detailed and presumed situations
when I feel my role as NC is to clarifiy the general spirit of the
rules and leave the details (game state, "threat factor" etc.) to the
judges to consider when needed.
>> Here's the scoop. We've been debating about breaking deals, which
>> playgroups usually honor deals and what they do with potential
>> dealbreakers etc. I assumed all involved were talking about casual
>> play since there's no rule enforcing deals. At some point, someone
>> said that players in his playgroup do not accept to play (casual) with
>> dealbrakers and will gang up on any known dealbreaker during
>> tournaments - he's got to be the first to fall in each table if they
>> can manage it.>
>Strictly illegal (when it violates the "play to win" rule, of course --
>it's OK for the predator of the deal breaker to be one of the gang,
>clearly).
Or the dealbreaker's prey if he or she run some risk of being ousted
by the dealbreaker soon, I presume.
>> For all I remember about the subject, I believe this is prone to
>> penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct, maybe for ignoring the play to
>> win rule.>
>Exactly right.
That was the whole point, though the debate went too far off the
tracks.
Most of the situations below were brought up by me as examples of
illegal play. Some didn't accept one or another (like attacking the
most accomplished player).
>> In the debate that ensued, some other situations were brought about,
>> like these (assume sanctioned tournaments for all examples):
>>
>> - a player who attacks another cross-table because he's the most
>> accomplished/experient and therefore the "biggest threat" in his path
>> to the GW;>
>Immaterial to game state. Play the game. You'd have to wait and see
>if your preconception/prejudice regarding his competence is
>warranted (that is, until the game state shows that your best play
>is a cross table harassment).
Exaclty what I thought.
>> - a player attacks another cross-table because he's a known
>> dealbreaker and therefore unlikely for the first to get a good deal
>> and profit from it to gain the GW later;>
>Beyond a "bit" of stretch even if the prejudice were an acceptable
>rationale.
OK.
>> - a player attacks another cross-table because he's got the biggest
>> collection of cards and is likely to have the best deck in the table
>> (not because of the raw number but because he has the means whatever
>> he wants, including some proven and tested tournament winner
>> archetypical decks)>
>One doesn't play one's collection. One plays one's deck.
Sure, but unfortunately I know some that don't realise this.
>> - a player attacks someone cross-table because he does not like [clan
>> X]>
>Unstated: and [clan X] is the only clan that that cross-table player
>has influenced out.
Sure, that was the spirit of the example.
>Immaterial. Play the game.>> - a player attacks another cross-table because the second has Sudenned
>> some master of the first that would get in his way later (say, Ventrue
>> Headquarters)>
>If the Cross Table play is play to win, OK.
Essencially the judge (if called) would have to assert the situation
for the attacker as he would have to do with the cross-table Sudden
Reversal, I presume?
>> If so, which penalties could be applied? I've been searching for the
>> V:EKN penalty guidelines mentioned on the tournament rules and just
>> can't find it.>
>Section 200.
>1) Correct the illegal play.
>2) If the player refuses to play according to the rules, then eject
>him and adjust the game state to maintain balance in his absence.
Understood. Many thanks.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:47:17 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
wrote:
>Fabio "Sooner" wrote:>> Hi all, hi LSJ.>
>Howdy.
>>> I know these subjects have been debated over here a number of times,
>> I'd just like to clarify some situations in my head.
>> I also know that I could just google, but since I have a bunch of
>> situations to ask about and I just want to make sure if some general
>> interpretations apply, I fear I'll get distracted by circunstances
>> mentioned in each thread I find.>
>Mythophobia?
>Hellenologophobia?
[finally found what it is...
for anyone interested in Hellenologophobia:
http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=193:1584 ]
Heh, no. In fact most of the time I have to deal with others who do
not want to stretch any discussion to a broader scale or debate about
a subject in detail. If I engage in any of these two extremes, people
start to ignore the issue and ultimately I feel like I've wrote a
bunch of lines for nothing.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:47:17 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
>>>>>Hi all, hi LSJ.>>
>>Howdy.
>>
>>>>>I know these subjects have been debated over here a number of times,
>>>I'd just like to clarify some situations in my head.
>>>I also know that I could just google, but since I have a bunch of
>>>situations to ask about and I just want to make sure if some general
>>>interpretations apply, I fear I'll get distracted by circunstances
>>>mentioned in each thread I find.>>
>>Mythophobia?
>>Hellenologophobia?>
>
> [finally found what it is...
> for anyone interested in Hellenologophobia:
> http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=193:1584 ]
Cute pages. Each phobia gets it's own copy of the form letter, and the
severity of the letter is the same regardless of the phobia:
http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=301:1381
I was just joking, myself, though. :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:47:17 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>>>Fabio "Sooner" wrote:>>>- a player attacks another cross-table because the second has Sudenned
>>>some master of the first that would get in his way later (say, Ventrue
>>>Headquarters)>>
>>If the Cross Table play is play to win, OK.>
> Essencially the judge (if called) would have to assert the situation
> for the attacker as he would have to do with the cross-table Sudden
> Reversal, I presume?
Yes. CT SR is often delivered under the auspices of "cycling my hand",
though, which is sometimes a valid example of play-to-win. Moreso
in the case of a master which would "get in the way later", as in
your case.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Cute pages. Each phobia gets it's own copy of the form letter, and
the
> severity of the letter is the same regardless of the phobia:
The fear of long words: Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia
http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=204:1595
Somehow, using that word for this fear just seems cruel.
Darby
LSJ a écrit :
> Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:47:17 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all, hi LSJ.>>>
>>>
>>> Howdy.
>>>
>>>>>>> I know these subjects have been debated over here a number of times,
>>>> I'd just like to clarify some situations in my head.
>>>> I also know that I could just google, but since I have a bunch of
>>>> situations to ask about and I just want to make sure if some general
>>>> interpretations apply, I fear I'll get distracted by circunstances
>>>> mentioned in each thread I find.>>>
>>>
>>> Mythophobia?
>>> Hellenologophobia?>>
>>
>>
>> [finally found what it is...
>> for anyone interested in Hellenologophobia:
>> http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=193:1584 ]>
>
> Cute pages. Each phobia gets it's own copy of the form letter, and the
> severity of the letter is the same regardless of the phobia:
> http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=301:1381
LOL. This one was great !!
Orpheus, not bannophobic.
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:12:36 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
wrote:
>>>Mythophobia?
>>>Hellenologophobia?>>
>> [finally found what it is...
>> for anyone interested in Hellenologophobia:
>> http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=193:1584 ]>
>Cute pages. Each phobia gets it's own copy of the form letter, and the
>severity of the letter is the same regardless of the phobia:
>http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=301:1381
>
>I was just joking, myself, though. :-)
Heh, I know. Just was caught by surprise since I didn't know what the
heck was this particular phobia.
And jokes that drive the listener to learn more don't hurt ;)
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:22:20 +0100, Orpheus <orphe...@DEADfree.fr>
wrote:
>> Cute pages. Each phobia gets it's own copy of the form letter, and the
>> severity of the letter is the same regardless of the phobia:
>> http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?SDID=301:1381>
>LOL. This one was great !!
>
>Orpheus, not bannophobic.
I wonder when Tzimiscephobia will be discovered by science.
I know, I've been building a lot of decks asking myself "will it
survive against a Tzimisce prey or predator"?
agh, gotta love Tranquility and Sire's Index Finger and block fails
cards...
[ quoted text not captured ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thirty seconds' worth of opinion:
Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
|
| For all I remember about the subject, I believe this is prone to
| penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct, maybe for ignoring the play to
| win rule.
| In the debate that ensued, some other situations were brought about,
| like these (assume sanctioned tournaments for all examples):
I'll also assume each player is foolish enough to state his motives out
loud, instead of fabricating something random that falls under the "play
to win" rule.
| - a player who attacks another cross-table because he's the most
| accomplished/experient and therefore the "biggest threat" in his path
| to the GW;
I'd bar the action if he actually _SAID_ as much.
However, usually the most accomplished players are also in a good
position game-state-wise, so it's not hard to make the jump from "Must
Kill Goudie" to "Goudie's position is too good, I have to rein him in"
- -- and the second is very hard to rule against because you can't
legislate against stupid play, only illegal play.
| - a player attacks another cross-table because he's a known
| dealbreaker and therefore unlikely for the first to get a good deal
| and profit from it to gain the GW later;
Penalty on the spot. Play to win the current game, not to vindicate
your own personal moral compass. Of course, having that particular
moral compass tends to indicate that you're not sure how to win in the
first place. =)
| - a player attacks another cross-table because he's got the biggest
| collection of cards and is likely to have the best deck in the table
Penalty on the spot. Players should base decisions on the game state.
| (not because of the raw number but because he has the means whatever
| he wants, including some proven and tested tournament winner
| archetypical decks)
Everyone I know has the potential for a proven, tested
tournament-winner. It's called OBF DOM, and it's made with mostly
commons. The given argument is garbage.
| - a player attacks someone cross-table because he does not like [clan
| X]
Penalty. Players should base decisions on the game state.
| - a player attacks another cross-table because the second has Sudenned
| some master of the first that would get in his way later (say, Ventrue
| Headquarters)
No penalty. The initial Sudden is legal for obvious reasons; so is
in-game retributive action to discourage further Suddens. Everything
here is based on the game state.
| If so, which penalties could be applied? I've been searching for the
| V:EKN penalty guidelines mentioned on the tournament rules and just
| can't find it.
Mostly, just disallow the action, rewind as much as possible (if
necessary), and move on. But few players will call for the judge when
it's happening, so the rewind tends to be beyond the scope of "easily
possible" and the end result is often just "don't do it again".
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCPM6wtQZlu3o7QpERAvbyAJwIIyApx1WogdJyfZK9t1rzeXTEOQCg61ny
Si6+msLmPtiqkWgFy9XmLMU=
=DaZN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:15:28 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Thirty seconds' worth of opinion:
>
>Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
>|
>| For all I remember about the subject, I believe this is prone to
>| penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct, maybe for ignoring the play to
>| win rule.
>| In the debate that ensued, some other situations were brought about,
>| like these (assume sanctioned tournaments for all examples):
>
>I'll also assume each player is foolish enough to state his motives out
>loud, instead of fabricating something random that falls under the "play
>to win" rule.
You assume right in this case.
In fact, there's a generalized stance about deals in most playgroups
in the country (at least in the two domains with the largest base of
players) that dealbreaking is EVIL and should be dealt with the most
harsh response possible. Most players (guided by the "elders" who
taught them the game) voice it out frequently like they're the knights
of honor or something.
I've seen people freaking out on a *perceived* deal break by shouting
out loud to all tables around.
>| - a player who attacks another cross-table because he's the most
>| accomplished/experient and therefore the "biggest threat" in his path
>| to the GW;
>
>I'd bar the action if he actually _SAID_ as much.
>
>However, usually the most accomplished players are also in a good
>position game-state-wise, so it's not hard to make the jump from "Must
>Kill Goudie" to "Goudie's position is too good, I have to rein him in"
>- -- and the second is very hard to rule against because you can't
>legislate against stupid play, only illegal play.
Exactly. That's why I refrained from looking on past threads, I just
needed to clarify the players on the general concept - you can't base
yourself on experience alone. Be smart and wait for him to live by its
standards. If you're afraid that Player X is in your table, and you
know that X is too damn good, give X a chance to show at least a
little of it and not only you won't be doing illegal play, but you
will be successful in rallying others to help you in this task of
reigning him.
These situations make me feel that the rules are mainly made to guide
players to the sure paths of victory - be cunning and the rules will
support you to the best, be stupid and corny and they'll stand in your
way.
>| - a player attacks another cross-table because he's a known
>| dealbreaker and therefore unlikely for the first to get a good deal
>| and profit from it to gain the GW later;
>
>Penalty on the spot. Play to win the current game, not to vindicate
>your own personal moral compass. Of course, having that particular
>moral compass tends to indicate that you're not sure how to win in the
>first place. =)
Heh, sure. :-)
I have the impression that these sanitized environments (no
dealbreaking tolerance) in some playgroups were constructed by some
"elders" that had early access to the general tenets of the V:EKN
rules to take advantage of the newbies who don't. If you're the
experienced guy who knows how to take the most out of a deal,
enforcing deals based on moral pressure just gives you another edge.
Unfortunately most regular players in here don't know jack about the
V:EKN rules, be it by lack of language skills to read and understand
it (which is something that can only be reversed by informed and
bilingual players, and that's what I'm bound to do as NC) or by being
lazy enough to not browse through them or search any forum about the
subject (which I can't do jack about and frankly couldn't care less;
if one does not want to be informed, it's his problem).
The frightening side of this is that there are *princes* who feel they
have the right to enforce dealbreaking intolerance, even in
tournaments, and some who know that this stance is not supported by
the rules in any event and simply don't talk about the issue for fear
of "encouraging dealbreaking".
>| - a player attacks another cross-table because he's got the biggest
>| collection of cards and is likely to have the best deck in the table
>
>Penalty on the spot. Players should base decisions on the game state.>| (not because of the raw number but because he has the means whatever
>| he wants, including some proven and tested tournament winner
>| archetypical decks)
>
>Everyone I know has the potential for a proven, tested
>tournament-winner. It's called OBF DOM, and it's made with mostly
>commons. The given argument is garbage.
This is one situation I've included for clarity's sake. I believe most
players in the country (and I mean as close as 100% as it can get)
knows this, but it doesn't hurt to include this example since nothing
prevents newbies from feeling this way in the future - hey, I don't
have a single War Ghoul, that guy has lots, his Tzimisce deck will
call one as soon as possible, I have to prevent it etc. What if the
player has built a Tzimisce bleed deck with no WG?
I've seen this a couple of times.
>| - a player attacks someone cross-table because he does not like [clan
>| X]
>
>Penalty. Players should base decisions on the game state.
Same case as above.
>| - a player attacks another cross-table because the second has Sudenned
>| some master of the first that would get in his way later (say, Ventrue
>| Headquarters)
>
>No penalty. The initial Sudden is legal for obvious reasons; so is
>in-game retributive action to discourage further Suddens. Everything
>here is based on the game state.
Even if there's a chance for the suddened player to, say, oust his
prey in two turns if he devotes his resources already available to it?
This goes a little in the realm of specific cases, but I've had CT
Suddens in a master I tried to place and it usually happens when I'm
in a position where the CT player knows that I'm about to make a VP or
two and reach him - so it strikes me as an incentive to do exactly
what I'm about to. Of course, sometimes the Sudden could prevent me
from making the VP right now, but that's another story.
>| If so, which penalties could be applied? I've been searching for the
>| V:EKN penalty guidelines mentioned on the tournament rules and just
>| can't find it.
>
>Mostly, just disallow the action, rewind as much as possible (if
>necessary), and move on. But few players will call for the judge when
>it's happening, so the rewind tends to be beyond the scope of "easily
>possible" and the end result is often just "don't do it again".
Yeah, I'm fine with "just don't do it again, ok?". The problem of
players not calling the judge is what I'm most concerned about. That's
why I called for general dispositions of the unsportmanslike conduct
and the play to win rule - I hope one day they'll have a genuine
enough understanding of the concepts to be able to apply it in many
given situations, not just very specific ones. The latter tends to
make most players feel like almost everything is plausible when it's
not the case.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <os4r31tgn8hl2gqnu...@4ax.com>, "Fabio
\"Sooner\"" <fabio_...@NOSPAMterra.com.br> writes:
>In fact, there's a generalized stance about deals in most playgroups
>in the country (at least in the two domains with the largest base of
>players) that dealbreaking is EVIL and should be dealt with the most
>harsh response possible. Most players (guided by the "elders" who
>taught them the game) voice it out frequently like they're the knights
>of honor or something.
>I've seen people freaking out on a *perceived* deal break by shouting
>out loud to all tables around.
Perhaps you should tell people that you're not going to play with people
who have an apparent mental age of, oh, about five years old, and that
you need to get them off the table too.
It's a game. People play to win. If your players can't cope with that,
it may be time for them to grow up.
--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:23:40 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:
>In message <os4r31tgn8hl2gqnu...@4ax.com>, "Fabio
>\"Sooner\"" <fabio_...@NOSPAMterra.com.br> writes:>>In fact, there's a generalized stance about deals in most playgroups
>>in the country (at least in the two domains with the largest base of
>>players) that dealbreaking is EVIL and should be dealt with the most
>>harsh response possible. Most players (guided by the "elders" who
>>taught them the game) voice it out frequently like they're the knights
>>of honor or something.
>>I've seen people freaking out on a *perceived* deal break by shouting
>>out loud to all tables around.>
>Perhaps you should tell people that you're not going to play with people
>who have an apparent mental age of, oh, about five years old, and that
>you need to get them off the table too.
>
>It's a game. People play to win. If your players can't cope with that,
>it may be time for them to grow up.
Believe me, no matter how much I agree with you on the mental age part
- not to mention that it is *just a game*, nothing really important to
merit that much ethic zeal - if I take this approach I'll end up with
almost no one to play with (if any at all) or will be obliged to
travel to play in non-"sanitized" cities.
I never broke any deal myself and thought about doing it just for a
start and to provoke a response on the matter - so to see if they
actually live by what they preach, and to see them in a situation
where they could have to apply the rules against their will - but I
fear it will cause more trouble than it's worth. Besides, I'm in just
for the fun, so I consider getting harsh as improductive a response as
is theirs to enforce a fake environment with no dealbreaking. I also
believe that dealbreaking has its own problems - if you build up too
serious a reputation on the matter you won't be able to profit from
deals at some point. What strikes me as odd is knowledgeable players
and Princes not defending the personal right to break them.
So I find it better just to try to enlighten new players and Princes.
Some new Princes in the country are beginning to build larger
playgroups now and are already advised about the issue - in fact I've
engaged in this debate again in local mailing lists because I know
there's a player who already won a tournament breaking deals
elsewhere, and there's a chance that he'll make up to the Nationals or
the SAC, so I feel I must prepare the old-timers judges to that
possibility. Some newbies in my city are already advised about
dealbreaking also - that it CAN happen and IS allowed, no matter the
fact that they never see it in locaI casual games. In time, I expect
the general view on this to shift once player bases swap older players
with new ones, which will happen eventually. I guess it's the best way
to deal with the issue - if some have the mental age of five years
old, that does not mean all who come about will act accordingly if
they're properly counseled and informed.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:52:01 -0300, Fabio "Sooner
<fabio_...@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote:
> Heh, sure. :-)
> I have the impression that these sanitized environments (no
> dealbreaking tolerance) in some playgroups were constructed by some
> "elders" that had early access to the general tenets of the V:EKN
> rules to take advantage of the newbies who don't. If you're the
> experienced guy who knows how to take the most out of a deal,
> enforcing deals based on moral pressure just gives you another edge.
???
If you are a dealbreaking player with lots of experience, you know
when to break your deals to gain the most of them. Giving you an edge.
Oh, wait, it must be experience that gives you an edge. Hmm.
Maybe keeping or breaking deals is just a matter of preference then?
No, that couldn't be. Deal-keepers must be branded for heresy, else
they might, in the end, get an edge from being honest. That would be
awful. Honesty should be punished. Welcome to the 21st century.
--
Bye,
Daneel
In message <q2ar31p9fhrtng5ge...@4ax.com>, "Fabio
\"Sooner\"" <fabio_...@NOSPAMterra.com.br> writes:
>Besides, I'm in just
>for the fun, so I consider getting harsh as improductive a response as
>is theirs to enforce a fake environment with no dealbreaking.
Why?
Part of fun, for many people, is winning, or the struggle of trying. If
other people are artificially constructing environments which makes it
easier for *them* to win, it's less fun for other people. (Oftentimes,
this occurs with people who are too naive and too trusting finding that
they need to 'ban' deal-breaking to make up for their strategic flaws
and lack of skills.)
Additionally, this sort of bullshit house rule prevents people from
moving around and playing with other groups. (Ditto, see many arguments
in the past about xCL vs No Limits play, which meant that quite a few
xCL groups had house rules which said "Well, don't play any cheesey
stealth bleed decks" - though these rules were often unspoken.)
If you want things to remain fun and accessible for the many, preventing
this sort of crap is a good first step.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <opsnx69v...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>
writes:
>Maybe keeping or breaking deals is just a matter of preference then?
>
>No, that couldn't be. Deal-keepers must be branded for heresy, else
> they might, in the end, get an edge from being honest. That would be
> awful. Honesty should be punished. Welcome to the 21st century.
No-one is criticizing deal-keeping. People are discussing the sort of
play which violates play-to-win based on "Deal breakers are evil and
must not be allowed on any table I'm on therefore I shall remove them
from the table to punish them."
No-one is saying that deal-keeping is wrong, or that known deal-keepers
shouldn't benefit from their reputation and experience.
Your post completely misses the point, in a quite spectacular fashion.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:54:42 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:
>In message <q2ar31p9fhrtng5ge...@4ax.com>, "Fabio>\"Sooner\"" <fabio_...@NOSPAMterra.com.br> writes:>>Besides, I'm in just
>>for the fun, so I consider getting harsh as improductive a response as
>>is theirs to enforce a fake environment with no dealbreaking.>
>Why?
Because there are other means to change the situation without just
withdrawing from it or creating an open grudge.
Not that I don't feel like I should sometimes, but as a NC I feel I
don't have the right to just play Cartman and yell "screw you guys,
I'm going home" - no matter how much I admire Cartman ;)
>Part of fun, for many people, is winning, or the struggle of trying. If
>other people are artificially constructing environments which makes it
>easier for *them* to win, it's less fun for other people. (Oftentimes,
>this occurs with people who are too naive and too trusting finding that
>they need to 'ban' deal-breaking to make up for their strategic flaws
>and lack of skills.)
>Additionally, this sort of bullshit house rule prevents people from
>moving around and playing with other groups. (Ditto, see many arguments
>in the past about xCL vs No Limits play, which meant that quite a few
>xCL groups had house rules which said "Well, don't play any cheesey
>stealth bleed decks" - though these rules were often unspoken.)
>If you want things to remain fun and accessible for the many, preventing
>this sort of crap is a good first step.
I agree with each and every line, believe me.
I just choose another path to prevent this sort of crap to happen -
the path of enlightenment (pun intended ;-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:10:13 GMT, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:52:01 -0300, Fabio "Sooner
><fabio_...@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote:
>>> Heh, sure. :-)
>> I have the impression that these sanitized environments (no
>> dealbreaking tolerance) in some playgroups were constructed by some
>> "elders" that had early access to the general tenets of the V:EKN
>> rules to take advantage of the newbies who don't. If you're the
>> experienced guy who knows how to take the most out of a deal,
>> enforcing deals based on moral pressure just gives you another edge.>
>???
>If you are a dealbreaking player with lots of experience, you know
> when to break your deals to gain the most of them. Giving you an edge.
>Oh, wait, it must be experience that gives you an edge. Hmm.
>Maybe keeping or breaking deals is just a matter of preference then?
Somewhat. Maybe one is better at extracting the most out of a deal so
there's no need to break them. Others are better at keeping
dealbreaking a last resort or a possibility to consider when they need
to build a scenario that eases the way to victory. It's not only a
matter of preference but playstyle and personal skills.
>No, that couldn't be. Deal-keepers must be branded for heresy, else
> they might, in the end, get an edge from being honest.
No. The point is that no one - dealkeepers or dealbreakers - must be
branded for heresy.
If players prone to one side artificially enforce a playing
environment to abide by their standards, this can give them an edge.
It doesn't matter if the side artificially enforced is "dealbreaking
is evil" or "dealkeeping is stupid" - it works as a half-experience
either way.
That would be
> awful. Honesty should be punished. Welcome to the 21st century.
I believe honesty has his own rewards most of the time, at least in
this game. That's why I said I never broke a deal myself - I just try
to make deals that I won't need to break to profit from them, and on
the other side, to accept deals that seem unlikely to be broken by the
other part involved since it's in his or her best interests to deal
with me. If these personal standards are not met, I prefer not to make
or accept a deal in the first place. But I support the right of anyone
to break deals without hassle.
The "outer" world is another issue entirely. I agree that honesty is
underrated nowadays - but that's another cup of tea. Not being honest
can lead to crime. Dealbreaking in this game is not a crime.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:51:03 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:
>In message <opsnx69v...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>>writes:>>Maybe keeping or breaking deals is just a matter of preference then?
>>
>>No, that couldn't be. Deal-keepers must be branded for heresy, else
>> they might, in the end, get an edge from being honest. That would be
>> awful. Honesty should be punished. Welcome to the 21st century.>
>No-one is criticizing deal-keeping. People are discussing the sort of
>play which violates play-to-win based on "Deal breakers are evil and
>must not be allowed on any table I'm on therefore I shall remove them
>from the table to punish them."
>No-one is saying that deal-keeping is wrong, or that known deal-keepers
>shouldn't benefit from their reputation and experience.
Yeah, that is pretty much the issue. They *should* profit from
reputation - they just can't prevent others to play the game in a
different perspective that's allowed by the rules. Not just because
it's illegal, but because it's unnecessary - as I said before,
building a good reputation has its own rewards, there's no need to
turn its own reputation into a canon.
[ quoted text not captured ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
| On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:51:03 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
| wrote:
|
|>No-one is criticizing deal-keeping. People are discussing the sort of
|>play which violates play-to-win based on "Deal breakers are evil and
|>must not be allowed on any table I'm on therefore I shall remove them
|>from the table to punish them."
|
|>No-one is saying that deal-keeping is wrong, or that known deal-keepers
|>shouldn't benefit from their reputation and experience.
|
| Yeah, that is pretty much the issue. They *should* profit from
| reputation - they just can't prevent others to play the game in a
| different perspective that's allowed by the rules. Not just because
| it's illegal, but because it's unnecessary - as I said before,
| building a good reputation has its own rewards, there's no need to
| turn its own reputation into a canon.
Technically, nobody should be able to profit from reputation. Each game
should be its own individual occurrence, with the actions in that game
based entirely on the game state -- and no out-of-game considerations.
Realistically, this is not possible. So while a deal-keeper is
certainly free to refuse any deals made by a deal-breaker, and can
advise other players at the table that this player has broken deals in
the past, he cannot directly act on that information in-game (ie., he
cannot Rush the player to "punish him for breaking deals".)
It's interesting to note from a theoretical standpoint that if
out-of-game information and communication were impossible (the ideal
state of affairs), it is the deal-keeper who suffers rather than the
deal-breaker; the deal-keeper relies on others knowing out-of-game
information that persists between games to either gain his own
"advantage", or to remove a deal-breaker's advantage. The deal-breaker,
on the other hand, gains an advantage; others must trust him at their
own peril, since they know nothing about whether he will keep his word
or not.
This sort of environment would likely lead to almost no long-term deals
being made, and noticeably fewer short-term deals. And it certainly
makes one wonder about the relative strength of a strategy which
_relies_ on out-of-game considerations to be successful, instead of
simply being good at the game itself.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCPjpwtQZlu3o7QpERAp+8AKDlLR2fT4Ei7TIQAOqHnZ/w8Yb4QgCfdm1F
0lfrayTwxz7xIdkEhNdpjrE=
=z+ua
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Derek Ray wrote:
> Technically, nobody should be able to profit from reputation.
> Each game should be its own individual occurrence, with the actions
> in that game based entirely on the game state -- and no out-of-game
> considerations.
If that were true, then in an ideal game no one should be able to
profit from knowing other people's "tells", since being able to see
when folks are telling the truth or bluffing is usually based on
experiences with them from previous games. I think knowing other
people's record on deal-keeping and deal-breaking and making decisions
based on that prior experience is a legitimate part of game strategy,
and so building and maintaining a reputation can be a valid strategy as
well.
> It's interesting to note from a theoretical standpoint that if
> out-of-game information and communication were impossible (the ideal
> state of affairs), it is the deal-keeper who suffers rather than the
> deal-breaker;
Sure. It's as simple as the Prisoner's Dilemma. A prisoner who squeals
always comes out even or ahead...assuming there is only one round
played.
> ...the deal-keeper relies on others knowing out-of-game> information that persists between games to either gain his own> "advantage", or to remove a deal-breaker's advantage. ...it certainly> makes one wonder about the relative strength of a strategy which
> _relies_ on out-of-game considerations to be successful, instead of
> simply being good at the game itself.
If by out-of-game you meant knowledge from a previous game, you'd be
exactly right. But that last sentence suggests that you don't consider
reputation a valid part of V:tES...a position that to me sounds a
little like Andrew Davidson's trollish stance that since diplomacy and
discussion are not explicitly allowed in the rules, they should be
banned from the game.
It's been established that if you make legal deals--deals you make with
the intention of maximizing your VPs--then it is is legal to abide by
those deals even if sticking to them will lessen your chance of taking
VPs. So keeping and breaking deals are equally legal strategies.
Therefore figuring out how likely other people are to keep deals is a
part of the game. Therefore convincing other people that you're going
to keep a deal is part of the game. Therefore establishing a reputation
as someone who keeps deals (or punishes cross-table mischief, or
whatever) is part of the game. And people who make their reputations
work for them are good at this aspect of the game.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Emmit Svenson wrote:
| Derek Ray wrote:
|
|>Technically, nobody should be able to profit from reputation.
|>Each game should be its own individual occurrence, with the actions
|>in that game based entirely on the game state -- and no out-of-game
|>considerations.
|
| If that were true, then in an ideal game no one should be able to
It is true that each game SHOULD BE its own individual instance; taking
actions based on out-of-game considerations are not permitted.
It is not true that each game is; it's not possible for it to be. But
this doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried.
| profit from knowing other people's "tells", since being able to see
| when folks are telling the truth or bluffing is usually based on
| experiences with them from previous games. I think knowing other
There are an awful lot of poker-fad-chasers out there right now who are
willing to demonstrate that this statement is false -- these same green
individuals are the ones who sit down with nine strangers and act
surprised that experienced players never call when they bet their strong
hands, and always seem to raise back when they're bluffing.
Prior experience with the individual is always a plus, but it is hardly
necessary -- and is often simply not available. I can assure you that
it's very easy to read people, because most people simply don't have any
meaningful degree of self-awareness. Without that self-awareness, there
are dozens of little body-language tells available for someone who's
looking.
| people's record on deal-keeping and deal-breaking and making decisions
| based on that prior experience is a legitimate part of game strategy,
| and so building and maintaining a reputation can be a valid strategy as
| well.
But it shouldn't be. The game should be about the game.
|>It's interesting to note from a theoretical standpoint that if
|>out-of-game information and communication were impossible (the ideal
|>state of affairs), it is the deal-keeper who suffers rather than the
|>deal-breaker;
|
| Sure. It's as simple as the Prisoner's Dilemma. A prisoner who squeals
| always comes out even or ahead...assuming there is only one round
| played.
And out-of-game (ie. prior round) considerations are forbidden.
It is clear that the ideal situation is intended to be for each game to
be a separate instance, and that "revenge for prior games" or "i must
slay bob, for he is a dealbreaker" is not to be tolerated.
We cannot reach the ideal situation, because reality will not let us.
So we must make the effort to approach that ideal as closely as
possible, instead.
|>...the deal-keeper relies on others knowing out-of-game
|>information that persists between games to either gain his own
|>"advantage", or to remove a deal-breaker's advantage. ...it certainly
|>makes one wonder about the relative strength of a strategy which
|>_relies_ on out-of-game considerations to be successful, instead of
|>simply being good at the game itself.
|
| If by out-of-game you meant knowledge from a previous game, you'd be
| exactly right. But that last sentence suggests that you don't consider
| reputation a valid part of V:tES...a position that to me sounds a
Rather, you should phrase it thus: I consider it regrettable that there
is no way to separate reputation from V:TES, and simply play each game
as its own entity.
I have certainly taken my share of over-cautious upstreaming and
cross-table last-KRC-points for simply being a well-known, skilled
player. I know for a fact that many others have run into the same
problem. But THAT sort of thing is inherent in the nature of
multi-player games, so complaining about it will do little good; one
simply prepares for it as best possible and adapts.
A two-player game, of course, does not have this problem. You are
always attempting to defeat your opponent, and your reasons can be
whatever you like; any action to hinder your opponent automatically
helps you win.
| It's been established that if you make legal deals--deals you make with
| the intention of maximizing your VPs--then it is is legal to abide by
| those deals even if sticking to them will lessen your chance of taking
| VPs. So keeping and breaking deals are equally legal strategies.
For the current game.
| Therefore figuring out how likely other people are to keep deals is a
| part of the game. Therefore convincing other people that you're going
For the current game.
| to keep a deal is part of the game. Therefore establishing a reputation
For the current game.
| as someone who keeps deals (or punishes cross-table mischief, or
| whatever) is part of the game. And people who make their reputations
| work for them are good at this aspect of the game.
Ahhh, but it's NOT part of the game.. Establishing a reputation is
entirely based on prior-game... aka out-of-game... considerations.
People who spend their time developing "good reputations" are simply
attempting to compensate for their own lack of skill at the game itself.
~ If they were clever or well-spoken enough to convince others to accept
deals on those deals' perceived merits, they wouldn't need the
reputation -- witness those who have posted here in the past pointing
out that even though they have broken deals, people continue to make
deals with them. Why? Because they have something others need in the
current game, or they are clever and well-spoken enough to convince
others that they need the thing in question.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCPlhJtQZlu3o7QpERArS9AJ4qs+Jd+Q1VITk4OVVq42d7nm05lwCg4KaM
p6CM5JxKUdq4q5VMJp/K8OY=
=Q0IG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
| On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:15:28 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com>
| wrote:
|
|>I'll also assume each player is foolish enough to state his motives out
|>loud, instead of fabricating something random that falls under the "play
|>to win" rule.
|
| You assume right in this case.
| In fact, there's a generalized stance about deals in most playgroups
| in the country (at least in the two domains with the largest base of
| players) that dealbreaking is EVIL and should be dealt with the most
| harsh response possible. Most players (guided by the "elders" who
| taught them the game) voice it out frequently like they're the knights
| of honor or something.
Well, in any given game there's a lot to be said for piling on someone
who just broke a deal; typically they've just gained a huge advantage.
But the "dealbreaking is EVIL!!" out-of-game approach brings to mind an
analogy to bar pool, which may be too Americanish to be properly
understood, but I'll try anyway.
- -- In bars, some people want to play "ball in pocket"; the shooter must
indicate before his shot which ball will fall and where, because if he
didn't do it ON PURPOSE it doesn't count. (This is actually where the
silliness begins; a random player who just bangs balls around and hopes
for some to fall in will almost never win a game against a skilled player.)
- -- If you demonstrate that you're too good with this, your opponent will
begin adding restrictions such as "call the whole shot; kiss, carom, and
bank" -- where you must not only call which ball and pocket, but how
many rails it will strike, whether it will strike other balls, and in
what order this will all happen.
- -- If you still keep winning, your opponent will demand that you bank
the 8, allow your opponent to break the whole time, etc. Often you can
see people making new rules up on the spot, in an effort to gain SOME
sort of advantage... and this is the point of the analogy. Deals are
not forbidden by the rules, nor are they enforced by the rules. This
means that it's legal to make one, to keep one, and to break one. The
"dealbreaking is EVIL!" crowd is doing the same thing; they're trying to
add on extra rules that don't exist in the rulebook, simply to give
themselves an advantage.
| I've seen people freaking out on a *perceived* deal break by shouting
| out loud to all tables around.
Yeah, see, I think I might just quit hanging out with those people
altogether. It's one thing to choose to never break deals; I'm fine
with that. But frantically applying social pressure upon realization
that one was tricked? Geez, grow up already.
|>However, usually the most accomplished players are also in a good
|>position game-state-wise, so it's not hard to make the jump from "Must
|>Kill Goudie" to "Goudie's position is too good, I have to rein him in"
|>- -- and the second is very hard to rule against because you can't
|>legislate against stupid play, only illegal play.
|
| Exactly. That's why I refrained from looking on past threads, I just
| needed to clarify the players on the general concept - you can't base
| yourself on experience alone. Be smart and wait for him to live by its
| standards. If you're afraid that Player X is in your table, and you
| know that X is too damn good, give X a chance to show at least a
| little of it and not only you won't be doing illegal play, but you
| will be successful in rallying others to help you in this task of
| reigning him.
This is, of course, excellent advice. And perhaps you will be lucky;
player X may have a crappy draw, and you won't ever HAVE to rein him in.
~ Wouldn't that be convenient?
| I have the impression that these sanitized environments (no
| dealbreaking tolerance) in some playgroups were constructed by some
| "elders" that had early access to the general tenets of the V:EKN
| rules to take advantage of the newbies who don't. If you're the
Even having never played in a group where deals MUST be honored even
when doing so would cause you to lose, I'm still not sure I agree with
this impression. I don't think anyone has hidden agendas; I think this
is simply some people's instinctive adding of unwritten rules to the
rulebook, or applying their personal moral compass to a game, and
possibly a fear of surprises. Nobody likes sudden turnarounds, so it of
course seems the most natural thing in the world to say "oh, hey, you
broke your deal, that's not allowed" when one realizes that he left
himself wide open.
| experienced guy who knows how to take the most out of a deal,
| enforcing deals based on moral pressure just gives you another edge.
If the tournament rules ever forbade dealbreaking, timeouts would
increase sharply; skilled players would spend their entire time trying
to trick people into bad deals that they would then be forced to honor,
similar to folklorish tales about the Devil walking around with a
pocketful of contracts and trying to get EVERYONE's signature for their
souls.
| The frightening side of this is that there are *princes* who feel they
| have the right to enforce dealbreaking intolerance, even in
| tournaments, and some who know that this stance is not supported by
| the rules in any event and simply don't talk about the issue for fear
| of "encouraging dealbreaking".
Still a shame that we used "princes", honestly. If they had just been
"demo monkeys" or "seneschals" or something, I think half the Princes we
have:
a) wouldn't have decided to be Princes
b) wouldn't be dead useless
A Prince caught doing that should be summarily removed; they need to
support the VEKN rules, not their own personal versions of them.
| This is one situation I've included for clarity's sake. I believe most
| players in the country (and I mean as close as 100% as it can get)
| knows this, but it doesn't hurt to include this example since nothing
| prevents newbies from feeling this way in the future - hey, I don't
| have a single War Ghoul, that guy has lots, his Tzimisce deck will
| call one as soon as possible, I have to prevent it etc. What if the
| player has built a Tzimisce bleed deck with no WG?
| I've seen this a couple of times.
I'm not sure this is quite the same situation. For example, the
Tzimisce player influences the Little Tailor as his first vampire,
discards no cards, and says "done". It's a legal play to say "I believe
that this deck will attempt to recruit a War Ghoul", and slay the Little
Tailor on the spot... even though the deck in question is actually a
Lunatic Eruption/Eagle's Sight deck with no retainers.
It's dumb play and falls under the "You are Not Psychic" guideline, but
it's not illegal. And I don't think it should be, although it points up
yet another unpleasantry about multi-player games with incomplete
information.
It's another thing entirely to say "He's got lots of cards and so his
deck is going to be lots better than mine, so I have to kill him now."
|>| - a player attacks another cross-table because the second has Sudenned
|>| some master of the first that would get in his way later (say, Ventrue
|>| Headquarters)
|>
|>No penalty. The initial Sudden is legal for obvious reasons; so is
|>in-game retributive action to discourage further Suddens. Everything
|>here is based on the game state.
|
| Even if there's a chance for the suddened player to, say, oust his
| prey in two turns if he devotes his resources already available to it?
We can't legislate against poor play -- just against illegal play.
| This goes a little in the realm of specific cases, but I've had CT
| Suddens in a master I tried to place and it usually happens when I'm
| in a position where the CT player knows that I'm about to make a VP or
| two and reach him - so it strikes me as an incentive to do exactly
| what I'm about to. Of course, sometimes the Sudden could prevent me
| from making the VP right now, but that's another story.
You describe both the situations above from the perspective of
decisions-based-on-game-state. If you're "about to make a VP", then
there are obvious in-game reasons to target you, and there are obvious
in-game reasons for you to retaliate, etc.
|>Mostly, just disallow the action, rewind as much as possible (if
|>necessary), and move on. But few players will call for the judge when
|>it's happening, so the rewind tends to be beyond the scope of "easily
|>possible" and the end result is often just "don't do it again".
|
| Yeah, I'm fine with "just don't do it again, ok?". The problem of
| players not calling the judge is what I'm most concerned about. That's
Yep. And that's a real bitch. I don't know a way to solve it, though,
other than making clear to players that they always CAN call the judge,
and no penalty will ever be assessed for asking for a ruling. Of
course, that shifts the social pressure from one point to another;
calling the judge will now be flagged as the "bad" activity instead of
whatever was previously "bad".
I guess that's why I said above that I'd probably just go find something
else to do. Players who are going to object to the rules being enforced
are going to object to something no matter where the line is drawn;
after awhile you end up asking yourself "Am I going to have fun wasting
time here, or would I rather be alphabetising my socks?"
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCPl86tQZlu3o7QpERAsEFAJ9b9DUrXZXwRZv3FJbCAVnuIs1swQCgz3o3
grjaBv8BdgwnT/e89U0CefU=
=/Mi5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"Fabio "Sooner"" <fabio_...@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote
<snip>
Just a suggestion... why not have a special "fun day" where people are
actually *encouraged* to break deals and such? Call it "Sleaze Day" or
something. Make sure people realize it is just for that day and that it's
just for fun. My feeling is that if people stop taking deal-breaking so
seriously in the short run then perhaps these attitudes will eventually fade
away in the long run.
Like many who have contributed to this thread, I don't think I would want to
play in the environment you described either, to be honest. Perhaps this
fact should also be brought to your playgroup's attention. After all, if
they are so concerned with the individual reputation of deal-breakers in
your group, maybe they will also be concerned by the reputation of "immature
idiots" they just earned from the world V:tES community :)
It's only fair, really.
Cheers,
WES
Proud to be a Deal-breaker
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:51:03 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:
> In message <opsnx69v...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>> writes:>> Maybe keeping or breaking deals is just a matter of preference then?
>>
>> No, that couldn't be. Deal-keepers must be branded for heresy, else
>> they might, in the end, get an edge from being honest. That would be
>> awful. Honesty should be punished. Welcome to the 21st century.>
> No-one is criticizing deal-keeping. People are discussing the sort of
> play which violates play-to-win based on "Deal breakers are evil and
> must not be allowed on any table I'm on therefore I shall remove them
> from the table to punish them."
>
> No-one is saying that deal-keeping is wrong, or that known deal-keepers
> shouldn't benefit from their reputation and experience.
>
> Your post completely misses the point, in a quite spectacular fashion.
In that case I must have misread the posts that voice a negative opinion
about people who don't break deals. Let's see... We can see that they
don't know how to play the game, need to grow up and want to compensate
for their lack of skill.
I guess I didn't quote them, but I assumed people read the whole thread.
These certainly seem like critique to me.
*insert random insult about reading and stuff*
--
Bye,
Daneel
Derek Ray wrote:
> Emmit Svenson wrote:
> | Derek Ray wrote:
> |>It's interesting to note from a theoretical standpoint that if
> |>out-of-game information and communication were impossible (the ideal
> |>state of affairs), it is the deal-keeper who suffers rather than the
> |>deal-breaker;
> |
> | Sure. It's as simple as the Prisoner's Dilemma. A prisoner who squeals
> | always comes out even or ahead...assuming there is only one round
> | played.
... assuming there's only one deal to ever be made in a game between
a given person and everyone else. In practice, it's only the last
deal a player makes (and breaks or keeps) that has no future
consequences in a given game.
> And out-of-game (ie. prior round) considerations are forbidden.
Fortunately, deals are just a form of table talk, not something governed
by the rules.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:45:09 -0300, Fabio "Sooner
<fabio_...@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote:
> No. The point is that no one - dealkeepers or dealbreakers - must be
> branded for heresy.
I somewhat agree. I don't mind playing with dealbreakers, I just don't
make deals with them (but I don't really like deals anyway). I like
playing the game, and deals aren't really that integral for my mostly
strategy-oriented play preference.
Widespread dealbreaking is the second best alternative to players
actually growing up and learning to play the game (in which case
deals would become mostly pointless - or, the way I see it, people
would realize them being mostly pointless). Keeping silly deals
is much worse than breaking them, though. Of course, I would prefer
not making them the first place.
Still, I admire players who keep their deals, because I consider
them to be more mature people, and more interesting adversaries.
> I believe honesty has his own rewards most of the time, at least in
> this game. That's why I said I never broke a deal myself - I just try
> to make deals that I won't need to break to profit from them, and on
> the other side, to accept deals that seem unlikely to be broken by the
> other part involved since it's in his or her best interests to deal
> with me. If these personal standards are not met, I prefer not to make
> or accept a deal in the first place. But I support the right of anyone
> to break deals without hassle.
I agree.
> The "outer" world is another issue entirely. I agree that honesty is
> underrated nowadays - but that's another cup of tea. Not being honest
> can lead to crime. Dealbreaking in this game is not a crime.
Yeah, this too.
--
Bye,
Daneel
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:07:28 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>It's interesting to note from a theoretical standpoint that if>out-of-game information and communication were impossible (the ideal
>state of affairs), it is the deal-keeper who suffers rather than the
>deal-breaker; the deal-keeper relies on others knowing out-of-game
>information that persists between games to either gain his own
>"advantage", or to remove a deal-breaker's advantage. The deal-breaker,
>on the other hand, gains an advantage; others must trust him at their
>own peril, since they know nothing about whether he will keep his word
>or not.
I guess that's what makes the local players too fond of putting social
pressure to enforce deals.
>This sort of environment would likely lead to almost no long-term deals
>being made, and noticeably fewer short-term deals. And it certainly
>makes one wonder about the relative strength of a strategy which
>_relies_ on out-of-game considerations to be successful, instead of
>simply being good at the game itself.
Wish everybody realised this - usually one uses the "there would be
considerably less deals" argument to justify one's position about
enforcing deals.
best,
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:14:33 GMT, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:51:03 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
>wrote:> Your post completely misses the point, in a quite spectacular fashion.
>
>In that case I must have misread the posts that voice a negative opinion
> about people who don't break deals. Let's see... We can see that they
> don't know how to play the game, need to grow up and want to compensate
> for their lack of skill.
I guess these observations were not applied on anyone who don't break
deals, but the ones who *enforce* deal-keeping in an artificial way.
>I guess I didn't quote them, but I assumed people read the whole thread.
> These certainly seem like critique to me.
>*insert random insult about reading and stuff*
Yeah, it was critique - you just missed the target of the critique ;)
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
LSJ wrote:
|> Emmit Svenson wrote:
|> |
|> | Sure. It's as simple as the Prisoner's Dilemma. A prisoner who squeals
|> | always comes out even or ahead...assuming there is only one round
|> | played.
|
| .... assuming there's only one deal to ever be made in a game between
| a given person and everyone else. In practice, it's only the last
| deal a player makes (and breaks or keeps) that has no future
| consequences in a given game.
True, although typically once you break a deal in a given game, the
entire table will turn on you. This is why many of us say we won't
break one for anything less than HUGE gains. Future consequences in
that game need to become basically irrelevant.
|> And out-of-game (ie. prior round) considerations are forbidden.
|
| Fortunately, deals are just a form of table talk, not something governed
| by the rules.
Of course. As I've said everywhere, making a deal is legal, keeping a
deal is legal, and breaking a deal is legal. But declaring that you'll
Rush Bob simply because Bob broke a deal with you last game is still a
big no-no. =)
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCPslEtQZlu3o7QpERAmr3AKCYwEDFNAGY6hiFvdE0imaaQl0cPQCfe4Ik
nA/bijWYOCeo39i1qBJlsYE=
=o6pU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
LSJ wrote:
> Emmit Svenson wrote:> > Sure. It's as simple as the Prisoner's Dilemma. A prisoner who
squeals
> > always comes out even or ahead...assuming there is only one round
> > played.
>
> ... assuming there's only one deal to ever be made in a game between
> a given person and everyone else. In practice, it's only the last
> deal a player makes (and breaks or keeps) that has no future
> consequences in a given game.
Just to keep things clear, I was referring to one round of the
Prisoner's Dilemma, not one round of V:tES.
Derek Ray wrote:
> Emmit Svenson wrote:
> | Derek Ray wrote:
> |
> |>Technically, nobody should be able to profit from reputation.
> |>Each game should be its own individual occurrence, with the actions
> |>in that game based entirely on the game state -- and no out-of-game
> |>considerations.
> |
> | If that were true, then in an ideal game no one should be able to
>
> It is true that each game SHOULD BE its own individual instance;
taking
> actions based on out-of-game considerations are not permitted.
>
> It is not true that each game is; it's not possible for it to be.
But
> this doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried.
I'm not sure who you're speaking for when you say "should" and
"shouldn't" all through this post. Are you saying this is your personal
gameplaying aesthetic, or are you saying this is a necessary
consequence of the game rules or V:EKN rules?
I would disagree that the game rules or V:EKN rules make any inference
that making game decisions based on what you know of other players'
tendencies to make or break deals is somehow wrong or less than ideal.
Technically, profiting from a good reputation is perfectly legal.
> | ...being able to see> | when folks are telling the truth or bluffing is usually based on> | experiences with them from previous games...
>
> ...Prior experience with the individual is always a plus, but it is
hardly
> necessary -- and is often simply not available. ...
But as you say, prior experience is an advantage, and expecting players
to check that advantage at the door in order to play an "ideal" game is
contrary to the accepted notion of how this or any other card game is
played.
> | people's record on deal-keeping and deal-breaking and making
decisions
> | based on that prior experience is a legitimate part of game
strategy,
> | and so building and maintaining a reputation can be a valid
strategy as
> | well.
>
> But it shouldn't be. The game should be about the game.
Andrew Davidson would cetainly agree. :)
Reputation, like every aspect of table dealing, is a part of the game
that is not explicitly governed by the rules outside of the
sportsmanship clause of V:EKN. That does not make it extraneous to the
game. Knowledge based on prior experience is a valid way to maximize
VPs.
> |>It's interesting to note from a theoretical standpoint that if
> |>out-of-game information and communication were impossible (the
ideal
> |>state of affairs), it is the deal-keeper who suffers rather than
the
> |>deal-breaker;
> |
> | Sure. It's as simple as the Prisoner's Dilemma. A prisoner who
squeals
> | always comes out even or ahead...assuming there is only one round
> | played.
>
> And out-of-game (ie. prior round) considerations are forbidden.
No, working towards any goal other than maximizing your VPs is
forbidden. Any information players legally possess that will help them
towards that goal can legally be used in pursuit of that goal.
> It is clear that the ideal situation is intended to be for each game
to
> be a separate instance, and that "revenge for prior games" or "i must
> slay bob, for he is a dealbreaker" is not to be tolerated.
No, the ideal game is not played with strangers in a vaccuum. Those
goals are illegal because they are not in line with maximizing VPs. Not
making deals with dealbreakin' Bob in order to maximize your VPs is not
a fall from some hypothetical ideal gameplay.
> I consider it regrettable that there
> is no way to separate reputation from V:TES, and simply play each
game
> as its own entity.
Fair enough. I disagree.
I suppose it would be in the best interest of anyone with a
reputation for breaking deals--John Flournoy or Eric Chiang, for
example--to agree with you, and in the best interest of anyone with a
reputation for keeping deals--Ira Fay, for example--to disagree with
you.
> | It's been established that if you make legal deals--deals you make
with
> | the intention of maximizing your VPs--then it is is legal to abide
by
> | those deals even if sticking to them will lessen your chance of
taking
> | VPs. So keeping and breaking deals are equally legal strategies.
>
> For the current game.
>
> | Therefore figuring out how likely other people are to keep deals is
a
> | part of the game. Therefore convincing other people that you're
going
>
> For the current game.
>
> | to keep a deal is part of the game. Therefore establishing a
reputation
>
> For the current game.
>
> | as someone who keeps deals (or punishes cross-table mischief, or
> | whatever) is part of the game. And people who make their
reputations
> | work for them are good at this aspect of the game.
>
> Ahhh, but it's NOT part of the game.. Establishing a reputation is
> entirely based on prior-game... aka out-of-game... considerations.
I am not familiar with any clause in the V:tES rules or V:EKN rules
forbidding or discouraging players from using knowledge legally gained
outside the current game in the pursuit of the goal of maximizing VPs.
Can you show me any such clause?
If no such clause exists, then so what if reputation is based on
knowledge from prior game experiences? It's not your cup of tea, but
that doesn't make it illegitimate play.
> People who spend their time developing "good reputations" are simply
> attempting to compensate for their own lack of skill at the game
itself.
Or they are supplementing their already formidible game skills with yet
another advantage.
> ~ If they were clever or well-spoken enough to convince others to
accept
> deals on those deals' perceived merits, they wouldn't need the
> reputation -- witness those who have posted here in the past pointing
> out that even though they have broken deals, people continue to make
> deals with them. Why? Because they have something others need in
the
> current game, or they are clever and well-spoken enough to convince
> others that they need the thing in question.
It does not logically follow that a good dealmaker has nothing to gain
from having a reputation for not breaking deals, or that people who
maintain a good reputation have nothing else going for them.
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:44:26 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>>Well, in any given game there's a lot to be said for piling on someone
>who just broke a deal; typically they've just gained a huge advantage.
Yeah, that's the point of keeping the debate on a general concept
level - usually I get responses with elaborate scenarios that include
other in-game reasons for attacking a cross-table deal-breaker, and
that just serves to spread a general impression that *any* attack
against a deal-breaker is permitted when it's not.
>But the "dealbreaking is EVIL!!" out-of-game approach brings to mind an
>analogy to bar pool, which may be too Americanish to be properly
>understood, but I'll try anyway.
Bar pool is popular in here too, so I guess the message is clear.
>- -- In bars, some people want to play "ball in pocket"; the shooter must
>indicate before his shot which ball will fall and where, because if he
>didn't do it ON PURPOSE it doesn't count. (This is actually where the
>silliness begins; a random player who just bangs balls around and hopes
>for some to fall in will almost never win a game against a skilled player.)
>- -- If you demonstrate that you're too good with this, your opponent will
>begin adding restrictions such as "call the whole shot; kiss, carom, and
>bank" -- where you must not only call which ball and pocket, but how
>many rails it will strike, whether it will strike other balls, and in
>what order this will all happen.
>- -- If you still keep winning, your opponent will demand that you bank
>the 8, allow your opponent to break the whole time, etc. Often you can
>see people making new rules up on the spot, in an effort to gain SOME
>sort of advantage... and this is the point of the analogy. Deals are
>not forbidden by the rules, nor are they enforced by the rules. This
>means that it's legal to make one, to keep one, and to break one. The
>"dealbreaking is EVIL!" crowd is doing the same thing; they're trying to
>add on extra rules that don't exist in the rulebook, simply to give
>themselves an advantage.
Good analogy.
>| I've seen people freaking out on a *perceived* deal break by shouting
>| out loud to all tables around.
>
>Yeah, see, I think I might just quit hanging out with those people
>altogether. It's one thing to choose to never break deals; I'm fine
>with that. But frantically applying social pressure upon realization
>that one was tricked? Geez, grow up already.
*Sigh* As I said before, no matter how many times I've thought about
just quitting, I prefer to try to change things from the inside. No
matter how naive it seems.
Eventually there'll be more players that were taught the rules
properly than there is players used to an artificial environment now.
>| Exactly. That's why I refrained from looking on past threads, I just
>| needed to clarify the players on the general concept - you can't base
>| yourself on experience alone. Be smart and wait for him to live by its
>| standards. If you're afraid that Player X is in your table, and you
>| know that X is too damn good, give X a chance to show at least a
>| little of it and not only you won't be doing illegal play, but you
>| will be successful in rallying others to help you in this task of
>| reigning him.
>
>This is, of course, excellent advice. And perhaps you will be lucky;
>player X may have a crappy draw, and you won't ever HAVE to rein him in.
>~ Wouldn't that be convenient?
Of course. Add to that that even experienced players could build a
crappy deck (no matter how unlikely) or at least a deck that is not
that suited for the game at hand.
It is specially true for our playgroups since most players don't
really care about tournaments, or are RPG players who are fond enough
of clans X and Y to the point of playing them *only* - no matter if
their new "clan X with out-of-clan discipline B" deck is not doing
well in casual play.
>Even having never played in a group where deals MUST be honored even
>when doing so would cause you to lose, I'm still not sure I agree with
>this impression. I don't think anyone has hidden agendas; I think this
>is simply some people's instinctive adding of unwritten rules to the
>rulebook, or applying their personal moral compass to a game, and
>possibly a fear of surprises. Nobody likes sudden turnarounds, so it of
>course seems the most natural thing in the world to say "oh, hey, you
>broke your deal, that's not allowed" when one realizes that he left
>himself wide open.
Maybe I've been a little hysterical about the reasons why deals are
enforced. Anyway, I find that it suits better to reach the objective
(enlighten people about deal-breaking being perfectly legal) when I
question publicy if there are other, less-honored motives for
enforcing deals.
The "dealbreaking is EVIL" stance has been maintained for years by
old-timers, no matter how many new players get in and how many
old-timers leave. It passes on from "teacher" to "student" almost like
a canonical behaviour. Demolishing perceived reputations of honor in
the hands of old-timers could strike a chord with the new players
before they get too used or too entangled in the present situation.
I know it seems too drastic a measure, but when social/moral pressure
is at hand, I find it to be an appropriate response.
>| experienced guy who knows how to take the most out of a deal,
>| enforcing deals based on moral pressure just gives you another edge.
>
>If the tournament rules ever forbade dealbreaking, timeouts would
>increase sharply; skilled players would spend their entire time trying
>to trick people into bad deals that they would then be forced to honor,
>similar to folklorish tales about the Devil walking around with a
>pocketful of contracts and trying to get EVERYONE's signature for their
>souls.
I guess this is what happens in here, though on a less drastic level.
I often see old-timers getting out of their way to trick newbies into
a bad deal to wipe out other experienced, skilled players out of the
table early.
I imagine there's nothing wrong with that as a chosen strategy - what
strikes me as odd is the fact that if the newbie discovers in time how
bad it was to him to make that deal, he has to choose between losing
horribly or risking social/moral pressure, usually from the
old-timers. In a non-sanitized environment, no one would condemn the
newbie for realizing how bad is the situation for him and consequently
going back to the main objective - play to win, not to help others
win.
This is as hypocritical as it gets, in my opinion.
>Still a shame that we used "princes", honestly. If they had just been
>"demo monkeys" or "seneschals" or something, I think half the Princes we
>have:
>a) wouldn't have decided to be Princes
>b) wouldn't be dead useless
Agreed.
>A Prince caught doing that should be summarily removed; they need to
>support the VEKN rules, not their own personal versions of them.
The problem is that I'd have to report an actual case of intentional
bad judging to get someone removed.
Hidden agendas or not, there's some cleverness to the "sanitizing";
the notion is spread during casual play with so much intensity that no
one even *think* about breaking a deal during a tournament. So when
confronted with rhetoric, the answer is almost always "but I know
deals can be broken" - of course they know, they just taught a
different game from the start. It's a case of omission rather than
putting others into direct submission.
Unfortunately, the scenario is worsened by cultural barriers like
language. Most players often rely on more accomplished players because
they can't grasp subtleties on another language - and that's when the
"sanitizing" begins.
>I'm not sure this is quite the same situation. For example, the
>Tzimisce player influences the Little Tailor as his first vampire,
>discards no cards, and says "done". It's a legal play to say "I believe
>that this deck will attempt to recruit a War Ghoul", and slay the Little
>Tailor on the spot... even though the deck in question is actually a
>Lunatic Eruption/Eagle's Sight deck with no retainers.
>It's dumb play and falls under the "You are Not Psychic" guideline, but
>it's not illegal. And I don't think it should be, although it points up
>yet another unpleasantry about multi-player games with incomplete
>information.
Hm, ok. Forget about the new example. It was constructed following the
usual thread of thought of a player somewhat concerned about facing an
old-timer on the table:
he's got more cards than me ->
he can build better decks ->
he influences out a Tzimisce ->
geez, it must have 10 War Ghouls in there ->
I can't deal with War Ghouls, so I must contain him
Of course this is stupidity, but it happens nonetheless. It must be
said that what attracks most people to the game in here is exactly the
fact that Rares are not important if you just want to be competitive.
We have a fair share of ex-MtG players who migrated to V:tES because
of that and other similar issues (like not having to deal with banned
sets etc.). It does not wipe out the general feeling that the Rares in
this game are cool, though. Some resent the fact that player X has 9
War Ghouls while he has none, and that alone leads to the chain of
though previously mentioned, even if when confronted later they'll
admit that a DOM/OBF Commons deck would be more effective.
There are a bunch of other cultural/economical issues to consider,
but that would deviate a little from the main topic.
>It's another thing entirely to say "He's got lots of cards and so his
>deck is going to be lots better than mine, so I have to kill him now."
I guess nobody will say that clearly as some do with the deal-breaking
issue, but... who knows. I learned to never underestimate the
potential for stupidity in humankind.
>| Yeah, I'm fine with "just don't do it again, ok?". The problem of
>| players not calling the judge is what I'm most concerned about. That's
>
>Yep. And that's a real bitch. I don't know a way to solve it, though,
>other than making clear to players that they always CAN call the judge,
>and no penalty will ever be assessed for asking for a ruling. Of
>course, that shifts the social pressure from one point to another;
>calling the judge will now be flagged as the "bad" activity instead of
>whatever was previously "bad".
Exactly. That leaves us with the "enlightenment path".
>I guess that's why I said above that I'd probably just go find something
>else to do. Players who are going to object to the rules being enforced
>are going to object to something no matter where the line is drawn;
>after awhile you end up asking yourself "Am I going to have fun wasting
>time here, or would I rather be alphabetising my socks?"
*Sigh* I guess I just like this game too much to just quit and find
something else to do. It must be said anyway that I believe the
general approach can change given proper time. All it takes is one or
two players in the right position to advise, and that's what I'm
trying to do.
best,
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:33:13 -0500, "Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net>
wrote:
>"Fabio "Sooner"" <fabio_...@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote
><snip>
>Just a suggestion... why not have a special "fun day" where people are
>actually *encouraged* to break deals and such? Call it "Sleaze Day" or
>something. Make sure people realize it is just for that day and that it's
>just for fun. My feeling is that if people stop taking deal-breaking so
>seriously in the short run then perhaps these attitudes will eventually fade
>away in the long run.
This is an idea to consider, but I suppose that it can lead to two
extreme consequences that won't help anyway:
- people coming to the tournament/"fun day" too entangled with the
deal-keeping playstyle - which is fair game anyway - to the point
where the "sleaze day" becomes just one more normal play day.
- people could not come to the "sleaze day" exactly because they don't
want to face deal-breaking - this is not unlikely to happen.
I could imagine some out-of-game incentives for breaking deals, like a
limited Build-Your-Own-Storyline with extra prizes for the player
voted as the most "bastard" one. Have to think about that a while
though, because there's still the risk of creating another artificial
environment where we're enforcing something that should be a matter of
playstyle in a normal playgroup. Not to mention that we could end up
having a tournament with almost no deals made. But trying couldn't
hurt, at least not more than it hurts to see people taking
deal-breaking too seriously.
>Like many who have contributed to this thread, I don't think I would want to
>play in the environment you described either, to be honest. Perhaps this
>fact should also be brought to your playgroup's attention.
It has been, at least by me. I jump in anytime the subject is brought
up to light to say that I find this hatred of deal-breaking to be
silly and that it actually strips part of the fun of playing the game
- or at least it brings too much seriousness to it.
After all, if
>they are so concerned with the individual reputation of deal-breakers in
>your group, maybe they will also be concerned by the reputation of "immature
>idiots" they just earned from the world V:tES community :)
:-)
I don't like to spread that general impression actually since most
players wouldn't support "dealbreaking is EVIL" if they were properly
informed in first place. The problem has many permutations attached to
it, some mentioned in other posts - language barriers and a few
english-skilled old-timers using that advantage to lead the "mass" to
the direction they want etc. So in fact the "immature idiots" apply to
a small portion who's been calling the shots.
But it's been two years and a half playing this game and we still have
to deal with the issue, so if everyone suffer for this reputation, I
don't care anymore, even as a NC. I have more important work to do
than to justify this anymore.
I must say that the dealbreaking enforcing could be restricted to the
two major cities in the country, the ones that have the older
playgroups, though. We have more than 20 Princes and I can't say for
certain if 2 or 10 or 18 or all 20 support the idea. It could be a
less countrywide spread notion that it seems. The players most
concerned about enforcing deals could just be the most vocal and
confortable with their position because they're under one or two
Princes who agree with this. Who knows?
The fact is that I play in one of these environments, and I'd gladly
leave to play in another city regularly if I could ($$$).
>It's only fair, really.
>Cheers,
>WES
>Proud to be a Deal-breaker
Heh. :-) Hope V:TES online will expose the "silent majority" to
players like you so they notice that we've been playing in an
artificial environment.
In fact, there's a good chance it will happen for the first time in
the Nationals this year. The catch is that the Nationals are going to
happen in one of the two major cities. I'll have to make sure I'll be
there to oversee the tournament (which I'd feel obliged to do anyway
as NC), so let's see what really happens. Perhaps the involved parties
will be smart enough to not reproduce their "house rules" in the open.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Fabio "Sooner" wrote:
> I believe honesty has his own rewards most of the time, at least in
> this game.
I'd say it's a draw. Back when I was a "never break a deal" type of
guy, I was held hostage by other players. They could threaten anything
to get my word that I'd act a certain way. Now they don't bother. :)
But the other side of the coin is that you can make some deals that you
couldn't otherwise make it you had a rep as someone who might break a
deal.
> That's why I said I never broke a deal myself - I just try
> to make deals that I won't need to break to profit from them, and on
> the other side, to accept deals that seem unlikely to be broken by
the
> other part involved since it's in his or her best interests to deal
> with me.
Exactly.
For me a deal isn't an oath or a handshake or a contract. It is usually
just trying to point out an option to a player that hasn't considered
it. It we both agree that I've pointed out an option that benefits us
both then we act accordingly. The game state is the glue that keeps
our "deal" from being broken.
On the other hand, if we have a deal that is not mutually beneficial
and the only thing holding it together is someone's oath, there may be
a dealbreak.
> If these personal standards are not met, I prefer not to make
> or accept a deal in the first place. But I support the right of
anyone
> to break deals without hassle.
In a game at GenCon last year, my prey and predator were scheming
together and my prey offered me some insane deal. He basically
threatened me in some way and got me to agree to leave him alone. He
then proceeded to tap out and then I ousted him the next turn. One
remaining player was particularly upset at me for being a
"deal-breaker". The other players joined in and voiced their
displeasure. Funny thing is that right after the game ended, 3 of the
other players (remember that all chided me during the game) said that
they would break a deal too. One guy was right about to break a deal
but was ousted first. Once we escaped the in-game propaganda, it turned
out that only 1 of the players was truly in the "never break a deal"
camp.
All this to say that I agree with you that you should just make good
deals/agreements and then the issue basically goes away. Deal-keepers
can make good deals and even the deal-breakers won't break them. Bad
deals, however, are risky.
> The "outer" world is another issue entirely. I agree that honesty is
> underrated nowadays - but that's another cup of tea. Not being honest
> can lead to crime. Dealbreaking in this game is not a crime.
Right. Gotta keep the two separate. I wonder what it is about V:TES
that has created such a high tendency for people to confuse in-game
deal-breaking/deal-keeping with "outer world" morality. Do other games
that allow in-game dishonesty have similar problems?
-Robert
On 21 Mar 2005 05:54:15 -0800, "Emmit Svenson"
<emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Fair amount of snippage.
>> | people's record on deal-keeping and deal-breaking and making>decisions>> | based on that prior experience is a legitimate part of game>strategy,>> | and so building and maintaining a reputation can be a valid>strategy as>> | well.
>>
>> But it shouldn't be. The game should be about the game.>
>Andrew Davidson would cetainly agree. :)
>
>Reputation, like every aspect of table dealing, is a part of the game
>that is not explicitly governed by the rules outside of the
>sportsmanship clause of V:EKN. That does not make it extraneous to the
>game. Knowledge based on prior experience is a valid way to maximize
>VPs.
>>> And out-of-game (ie. prior round) considerations are forbidden.>
>No, working towards any goal other than maximizing your VPs is
>forbidden. Any information players legally possess that will help them
>towards that goal can legally be used in pursuit of that goal.
>>> It is clear that the ideal situation is intended to be for each game>to>> be a separate instance, and that "revenge for prior games" or "i must
>> slay bob, for he is a dealbreaker" is not to be tolerated.>
>No, the ideal game is not played with strangers in a vaccuum. Those
>goals are illegal because they are not in line with maximizing VPs. Not
>making deals with dealbreakin' Bob in order to maximize your VPs is not
>a fall from some hypothetical ideal gameplay.
>>> I consider it regrettable that there
>> is no way to separate reputation from V:TES, and simply play each>game>> as its own entity.>
> Fair enough. I disagree.
>
> I suppose it would be in the best interest of anyone with a
>reputation for breaking deals--John Flournoy or Eric Chiang, for
>example--to agree with you, and in the best interest of anyone with a
>reputation for keeping deals--Ira Fay, for example--to disagree with
>you.
>>> Ahhh, but it's NOT part of the game.. Establishing a reputation is
>> entirely based on prior-game... aka out-of-game... considerations.>
>I am not familiar with any clause in the V:tES rules or V:EKN rules
>forbidding or discouraging players from using knowledge legally gained
>outside the current game in the pursuit of the goal of maximizing VPs.
>Can you show me any such clause?
>
>If no such clause exists, then so what if reputation is based on
>knowledge from prior game experiences? It's not your cup of tea, but
>that doesn't make it illegitimate play.
I just felt only the above was relevant to my point.
If use of prior information is considered so irrelevant to game play,
why is seating for the final round of a tournament not random? Is it
considered, or not considered 'ethical' to scout out decks of people
likely to make the finals, so as to know the most advantagous seating
situation?
I have no problem with people breaking deals. And I think anyone who
directly attacks someone against "Play to Win" for previous
deal-breaking is playing illegally regardless of if they state the
reason or use some excuse.
But I find it quite ironic that some of the people who advocate
deal-breaking, claiming that prior consideration should not be a
factor and that it disadvantages them, are arguing that they should be
advantaged by a 'no prior consideration' philosophy.
I'll probably catch hell for it in the new JOL3 tourney, but in a
realm of anonymity, where I don't know the playstyles of anyone, then
I'm unlikely to accept any significant deal from anyone. If I have no
foundation to believe the deal will be honoured, why would I risk it
without safeguards? That would be the greater form of naivety.
Morgan Vening
In message <opsnzio5...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>
writes:
>In that case I must have misread the posts that voice a negative
>opinion about people who don't break deals.
You did, yes.
It's not about people who don't break deals. It's about people who
don't break deal AND do other stuff on top of that. Deal-keeping is a
legitimate tactic, and no-one is saying people shouldn't be allowed to
do it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <mi8s31dqi5k8354jr...@4ax.com>, "Fabio
\"Sooner\"" <fabio_...@NOSPAMterra.com.br> writes:
>On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:54:42 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk>
>wrote:>>Why?>
>Because there are other means to change the situation without just
>withdrawing from it or creating an open grudge.
Such as?
If you don't do something about it, it continues. And you've already
said you can't do things like, for example, showing people how deal
breaking can benefit a skilled player, as they'll never play with you
ever again because you're a bad person who makes baby Jesus cry. Thus,
the usual fallback of convincing people through exemplary play doesn't
work so well.
(Similarly, re: unspoken house rules and xCL vs NL, coming along with a
monster stealth and bleed deck that pokes massive holes in xCL is
unlikely to help you win friends and influence people.)
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <uift31haorkir9njo...@4ax.com>, "Fabio
\"Sooner\" Macedo" <fabio_...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> writes:
>Wish everybody realised this - usually one uses the "there would be
>considerably less deals" argument to justify one's position about
>enforcing deals.
If you think there should be considerably fewer deals, there are a
number of ways of going about this. Resource denial is a good start -
Sensory Deprivation, say, means that LOTS of deals about "Well, I'll
rescue your vampire if you don't bleed me for three turns" become
nonsensical because they just can't happen.
There are quite a few other table-control strategies available for such.
I like the idea, say, of a deck with a lot of bloat and First Tradition,
supplemented by damage votes and relevant defence to taste.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message
news:d1ltb...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Just a suggestion... why not have a special "fun day" where people are actually *encouraged* to break deals and such? Call it
> "Sleaze Day" or something. Make sure people realize it is just for that day and that it's just for fun. My feeling is that if
> people stop taking deal-breaking so seriously in the short run then perhaps these attitudes will eventually fade away in the long
> run.
I suspect people would tend to get self-conscious about it and mostly just
not make many deals at such an event.
Anyway, why should either deal-keeping or deal-breaking be treated as some
sort of "special" play? "People" can have their own fun day whenever they
feel like it.
I guess I just tend to get leary of anything that suggests the notion of
"non-fun-play" - which, of course, must be any time you're playing that
isn't on a "fun day", right?
Fred
Howdy,
I wasn't sure where to attach this, as it seems generally relevant, but
not to any particular branch of this thread.
I am not by nature I'm not a dealbreaker - I tend to be painfully
honest, bad at bluffing and/or reading others' bluffs, and generally to
be too busy just trying to get my deck to work at all to concern myself
with the abstract distraction of deal creation. But I'm
philosophically very sympathetic to dealbreaking, and make no secret of
the fact that I would break a deal if it would win me a game. (So,
really, I've volunteered for the worst of both worlds... Doh!) None
of which matters, as basically no one ever offers me any deals of any
consequence at all.
As a more or less permanent outsider to V:TES (self-taught, no 'mentor'
except you lovable losers, hanging onto whatever playgroup(s) I can
locate in the various places I've lived, and too married-with-kids at
this point to really play very regularly), I guess my perspective on
the topic of dealmaking/breaking is kind of...different?
My experience is that the 'no-dealbreaking' school of thought arises
from the clique structure of many (most?) playgroups. A bunch of
people play together for years (and probably over many different
games): they all know each other and what to expect from each other.
There is no unexpected dealbreaking (unless they're really good players
and/or friends), so there is no real point in dealbreaking. At some
point this gets codified into the social pressure structures of the
group.
Random stranger X joins playgroup. Will they offer him deals? Duh.
No. In almost any case in V:TES, there is at least one other player at
the table that they know better with whom to deal. Even if they can't
get as good a deal from them, well, they at least know what _kind_ of
deal they'll get - plus they probably not only have a good idea of the
clique member's play style, but also probably have played against his
deck before, so they can greatly minimize their risk, if not maximize
their benefit.
Unfortunately this structure is self-reinforcing, as it is difficult to
win at all under these conditions (you against the table), and thus it
is difficult to develop any influence. If stranger X never wins, then,
1) he's clearly the weakest link, so what can he possibly offer, and 2)
boy would it be embarrasing to lose to him, so everyone does whatever
they can to avoid his winning, if it looks at all like a possibility.
(This is less true for 'real' new players, at least to an extent - they
usually get a kind of 'honeymoon' to learn the game _and_ integrate
into the group.)
Anyway, this is getting more tearful and whiny and personal than I
wanted it. Maybe it's just a coincidence that the playgroups I've been
in have been very anti-dealbreaking (though it sounds like Chicago has
moved on from that - Howdy, John 'n' Eric! - interestingly at a point
where the structure for V:TES fell apart and then reintegrated across a
bunch of playgroups...)? I guess I'd be interested to know whether
dealbreaking is generally an advanced or aquired trait of playgroups,
or if some groups have just been that way all along? Is dealbreaking a
conspiracy foisted onto a hapless V:TES playing population by way of an
r.g.t-c.jyhad Usenet meme? If so, can I get some more around here?
Other helpful suggestions for breaking the dealkeeping virus?
Inquiring minds wanna know,
Alex
"Morgan Vening" <mor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>
> I'll probably catch hell for it in the new JOL3 tourney,
(noted :)
> but in a
> realm of anonymity, where I don't know the playstyles of anyone, then
> I'm unlikely to accept any significant deal from anyone. If I have no
> foundation to believe the deal will be honoured, why would I risk it
> without safeguards? That would be the greater form of naivety.
People make deals because they need what someone else has to offer.
I often joke about my reputation as a deal-breaker. I publicly state that I
love to break deals. Nine-times-out-of-ten, people are aware of my
reputation or the other players quickly make them aware of it.
Yet still people make deals with me, in almost every game.
Why is that?
Because I always try to have something that other people will need.
Integrity and honour are nice selling points... but cross-table offers of
intercept are often more highly-valued in times of desperation.
Cheers,
WES
"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote
>
> This is an idea to consider, but I suppose that it can lead to two
> extreme consequences that won't help anyway:
>
> - people coming to the tournament/"fun day" too entangled with the
> deal-keeping playstyle - which is fair game anyway - to the point
> where the "sleaze day" becomes just one more normal play day.
> - people could not come to the "sleaze day" exactly because they don't
> want to face deal-breaking - this is not unlikely to happen.
Well, you mentioned some of these people are also role-players... I hesitate
to suggest it, but you could tie that in to the theme somehow.
"Come and role-play your clan!"
Gah, I feel sick just typing that.
The irony is that the people who are often so adamant about following the
"honourable path" are often the same people who are heavily into
role-playing. So, why not connect the dots? Myself, I can think of plenty of
reasons not to, but there you go.
As for the potential problems you state, you could always simply ask players
what they think of the idea. As far as I can tell, a lot of the die-hard 4CL
groups were converted to NCL not by logic, but by actually playing the game
correctly for a trial period. Your case seems similar.
> I could imagine some out-of-game incentives for breaking deals, like a
> limited Build-Your-Own-Storyline with extra prizes for the player
> voted as the most "bastard" one.
Yes, I think that's a good idea.
I also suggest special scenarios like giving each player a random
deal-enabling card to use for that game. See my response to Fred, elsewhere
in this thread. It would have to be carefully thought-out and balanced, but
the idea might have potential.
> Have to think about that a while
> though, because there's still the risk of creating another artificial
> environment where we're enforcing something that should be a matter of
> playstyle in a normal playgroup.
Yes, that would be my concern also. But the problem already exists, so I
can't see it getting much worse.
> Not to mention that we could end up
> having a tournament with almost no deals made.
Yes, that's exactly why I think the players might need a helping hand with
the deal-enabler cards.
> I don't like to spread that general impression actually since most
> players wouldn't support "dealbreaking is EVIL" if they were properly
> informed in first place. The problem has many permutations attached to
> it, some mentioned in other posts - language barriers and a few
> english-skilled old-timers using that advantage to lead the "mass" to
> the direction they want etc.
I would go so far as to suggest that a stronger emphasis on deals not being
unenforced by the rules should be in the next rulebook. Perhaps, a few added
sentences could dissuade a lot of players from taking deals as seriously.
I'm not really sure when the NCL statement "There is no per-card limit to
the number of a given card that a player can include in either her library
or crypt" was added to the rulebook, but I imagine it ended a lot of CL
debates.
The same might happen for deal-keeping.
> So in fact the "immature idiots" apply to
> a small portion who's been calling the shots.
Nobody should be "calling the shots". Are these Princes?
> I must say that the dealbreaking enforcing could be restricted to the
> two major cities in the country, the ones that have the older
> playgroups, though.
Your group is not the only one where this occurs. I know some parts of
Quebec take their deal-keeping very seriously. So, when I attend the Ottawa
qualifier in May, I will be on my best deal-keeping behaviour. Oh yes, I
will... I promise!
> We have more than 20 Princes and I can't say for
> certain if 2 or 10 or 18 or all 20 support the idea.
It's not up to them though. Any Prince that enforces, or even encourages,
this kind of attitude does not deserve the role. Again, a comparison to NCL
could be made. Any Prince who enforced 4CL would be laughed off the Conclave
list (I would hope).
It really annoys me to hear of Princes abusing their (non-)authority...
grrrr.
> It could be a
> less countrywide spread notion that it seems. The players most
> concerned about enforcing deals could just be the most vocal and
> confortable with their position because they're under one or two
> Princes who agree with this. Who knows?
Perhaps you should poll them?
> The fact is that I play in one of these environments, and I'd gladly
> leave to play in another city regularly if I could ($$$).
Yeah, in a similar situation, in some ways. I feel for you.
>>Proud to be a Deal-breaker>
> Heh. :-) Hope V:TES online will expose the "silent majority" to
> players like you so they notice that we've been playing in an
> artificial environment.
That's a good point. It will be a bit of a clash between different
playstyles. This has also happened somewhat in JOL. It will either lead to
players avoiding the greater communtiy or slowly integrating themselves into
it. I suspect the latter is more likely, albeit eventually.
> In fact, there's a good chance it will happen for the first time in
> the Nationals this year. The catch is that the Nationals are going to
> happen in one of the two major cities. I'll have to make sure I'll be
> there to oversee the tournament (which I'd feel obliged to do anyway
> as NC), so let's see what really happens. Perhaps the involved parties
> will be smart enough to not reproduce their "house rules" in the open.
I would make sure that you clearly state that they are in fact only house
rules.
Good luck with this. I'm curious to see how it all pans out for you.
Cheers,
WES
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote
>
> Anyway, why should either deal-keeping or deal-breaking be treated as some
> sort of "special" play? "People" can have their own fun day whenever they
> feel like it.
Well, as Fabio mentioned, you'd have to add some kind of incentive. Prize
for sleaziest deal-break or whatever.
Certain cards enable deal-making, in my experience, and by extension
deal-breaking, so you could maybe have each player start with a random
selection of::
--Powerbase: Montreal
--Rumor Mill
--Ventrue Headquarters
...or whatever.
It's an untested solution, and possibly a bad one... who knows.
Cheers,
WES
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:12:14 +1100, salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2005 09:28:08 -0800, "Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org>
> scrawled:>> Right. Gotta keep the two separate. I wonder what it is about V:TES
>> that has created such a high tendency for people to confuse in-game
>> deal-breaking/deal-keeping with "outer world" morality. Do other games
>> that allow in-game dishonesty have similar problems?>> Yeah. If i'm playing, say, Hero Quest (which i might add gets very
> dusty sitting in a garage for 2 years), does that make me a goblin
> murderer?
>
> If i am playing Risk am i a genociderer?
Exactly.
> (that sounded more like a brewed beverage than a bad thing, but hey....)
;)
--
Bye,
Daneel
For the most part I'll stick a deal made, unless for whatever reason
breaking that deal would give me a VP or win me the game.
--
Colin "Eryx" Goodman
Samedi Primogen
Cambridge UK
http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.html
"wumpus" <wum...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1111475433.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> My experience is that the 'no-dealbreaking' school of thought arises
> from the clique structure of many (most?) playgroups. A bunch of
> people play together for years (and probably over many different
> games): they all know each other and what to expect from each other.
> There is no unexpected dealbreaking (unless they're really good
players
> and/or friends), so there is no real point in dealbreaking. At some
> point this gets codified into the social pressure structures of the
> group.
I can see what you're saying. In my own group, on the other hand, the
people who have played together for years pretty much *do* all break
deals (or at least would to win a game). Our social pressure structure
is oriented more toward discouraging people from ever trusting that a
deal will be kept even if they could be ousted if it were broken.
What's interesting here is that a couple people recently joined our
playgroup from elsewhere and come from the deal-keeping school of VTES
play - they were shocked (shocked!) the first time they saw a deal
broken in a casual game. I don't know if there will be any "resolution"
per se of this difference of expectations - we existing
non-deal-trusting players did try at least once to make the case for
not-trusting being a more fun way to play VTES, but I don't think the
new-to-us players seemed very receptive at the time.
> Unfortunately this structure is self-reinforcing, as it is difficult
to
> win at all under these conditions (you against the table), and thus it
> is difficult to develop any influence. If stranger X never wins,
then,
> 1) he's clearly the weakest link, so what can he possibly offer, and
2)
> boy would it be embarrasing to lose to him, so everyone does whatever
> they can to avoid his winning, if it looks at all like a possibility.
>
> (This is less true for 'real' new players, at least to an extent -
they
> usually get a kind of 'honeymoon' to learn the game _and_ integrate
> into the group.)
This seems fairly accurate to me, and it's an interesting topic. The
other thing I've observed is that some people appear to have noticeably
more of a knack for games like VTES than other people do. That is, some
people relatively quickly get the hang of the flow of a VTES game and
how games are won and lost, while others seem to have a much harder time
reaching a level of comfort with the game where decisions and
game-state-reading become intuitive to them. I don't think I've come up
yet with any good ideas on how to make it easier for people who find it
more difficult, though.
That's probably quite a digression from where you were going with that,
sorry. :-)
> Anyway, this is getting more tearful and whiny and personal than I
> wanted it. Maybe it's just a coincidence that the playgroups I've
been
> in have been very anti-dealbreaking (though it sounds like Chicago has
> moved on from that - Howdy, John 'n' Eric! - interestingly at a point
> where the structure for V:TES fell apart and then reintegrated across
a
> bunch of playgroups...)? I guess I'd be interested to know whether
> dealbreaking is generally an advanced or aquired trait of playgroups,
> or if some groups have just been that way all along? Is dealbreaking
a
> conspiracy foisted onto a hapless V:TES playing population by way of
an
> r.g.t-c.jyhad Usenet meme? If so, can I get some more around here?
> Other helpful suggestions for breaking the dealkeeping virus?
I wonder if it is? Way back in days of yore, I seem to remember
deal-keeping being the law of the land (at least the land I played on).
That parallels the 4-card-limit rules that I played with in days of
antiquity. In both cases, it's very possible that it was the Inter-web
that eventually enlightened me/us. (Certainly that's what it was on the
NCL front; I'm not as sure about the deal-breaking concept.)
Josh
way back college boy asked to a high school dance
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo wrote:
> The end result is that inbetween the silent majority lie the best
> players, the ones which I suspect would break deals to win if they
> played in a different environment and never advocated in the
> "dealbreaking is EVIL!" camp. At most, they keep deals because they
> don't make stupid ones. These are the guys and girl on the top of the
> city's Ranking. :)
I think that this is the real advantage of a deal-breaking environment.
People are forced to not make stupid deals: or at least they try not
to.
If the only thing preventing a deal being broken is a social environment
then it is a stupid deal. A good deal is one that both players will
keep, because it is in their (in-game) interest to do so - even though
they could break it.
--
* lehrbuch (lehr...@gmail.com)
On 21 Mar 2005 09:28:08 -0800, "Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org>
scrawled:
>Right. Gotta keep the two separate. I wonder what it is about V:TES
>that has created such a high tendency for people to confuse in-game
>deal-breaking/deal-keeping with "outer world" morality. Do other games
>that allow in-game dishonesty have similar problems?
Yeah. If i'm playing, say, Hero Quest (which i might add gets very
dusty sitting in a garage for 2 years), does that make me a goblin
murderer?
If i am playing Risk am i a genociderer? (that sounded more like a
brewed beverage than a bad thing, but hey....)
salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Joshua Duffin wrote:
> What's interesting here is that a couple people recently joined our
> playgroup from elsewhere and come from the deal-keeping school of VTES
> play - they were shocked (shocked!) the first time they saw a deal
> broken in a casual game.
The really funny part was that it was Colin breaking the deal. Duh. Even
the table saw that coming.
The story I like to recall is a few sessions before the vile deal-breaking
occurred, the players in question were informed that we don't have any
stupid house rules (other than the cheating phase, of course) to
supplement the rulebook and v:ekn tournament rules that we normally sort
of follow in casual play. The players swore to never trust us.
About ten minutes later, I got one of them to agree to some complicated
deal where I ousted my prey and then conceded. It was just exactly the
kind of deal I could've broken (but didn't because that particular game
was already at about two hours and I was eager to start a new one).
Matt Morgan
Wes wrote:
> Integrity and honour are nice selling points... but cross-table offers of
> intercept are often more highly-valued in times of desperation.
Man, if I didn't already have a sweet sig, I'd snag this one.
--
David Cherryholmes
david.che...@gmail.com
"OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you
happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)"
-- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:55:38 GMT, "Colin Goodman"
<colin.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>For the most part I'll stick a deal made, unless for whatever reason
>breaking that deal would give me a VP or win me the game.
What concerns me is that in our environment this sort of thing would
be *less* tolerated than any other type of dealbreaking - because it's
dealbreaking to win.
A lot of stress is put on the fact that this game is not for "money
prize seekers" like *that other one*, but some seem to think that this
fact automatically strips any desire to win from others - or to
actually find fun in trying to win.
The end result is that inbetween the silent majority lie the best
players, the ones which I suspect would break deals to win if they
played in a different environment and never advocated in the
"dealbreaking is EVIL!" camp. At most, they keep deals because they
don't make stupid ones. These are the guys and girl on the top of the
city's Ranking. :)
best,
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/
Howdy Josh,
> The
> other thing I've observed is that some people appear to have
noticeably
> more of a knack for games like VTES than other people do. That is,
some
> people relatively quickly get the hang of the flow of a VTES game and
> how games are won and lost, while others seem to have a much harder
time
> reaching a level of comfort with the game where decisions and
> game-state-reading become intuitive to them. I don't think I've come
up
> yet with any good ideas on how to make it easier for people who find
it
> more difficult, though.
>
> That's probably quite a digression from where you were going with
that,
> sorry. :-)
Actually, it's pretty germane to my experience. I'm pretty clearly in
the latter camp, which, I suspect, is part of why V:TES is so
interesting to me. I've been very good at a number of games, including
other card games (but notably not including chess or Diplomacy), but
V:TES is still quite difficult for me. I've always been more of a
designer and tactician than diplomat or strategist, so it's hardly
surprising that V:TES would be challenging for me, in both senses of
the word.
Of course, I probably have a total of like, 100-200 games to my name
(an ungodly percentage of which are tournament games), spread over five
years, so I can hardly claim to be terribly practiced or experienced -
just well read and researched. I get lost in the details of ousting my
prey/not dying most games. (It doesn't help that I am bored by most of
the 'power' deck archetypes, and seem to be particularly unlucky...)
Still, I harbor the fantasy that, with more practice and perhaps a more
compatible playgroup, I could become much better (at V:TES, and maybe
at some of the V:TES related life skills, like diplomacy and dealing
and making whole outfits out of black clothing).
Thanks for the reply,
Alex
"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote
>>> Integrity and honour are nice selling points... but cross-table offers of
>> intercept are often more highly-valued in times of desperation.>
> Man, if I didn't already have a sweet sig, I'd snag this one.
Your current one is much better, it's true.
But thanks! :)
Cheers,
WES
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:58:33 +1200, lehrbuch <lehr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I was debating it yesterday with one of the players mentioned above -
one in the top of the city's ranking.
Maybe if we stick to that idea, the "sleaze day/tournament" could be a
good solution (if artificial) after all. Even if some refrain from
making deals or breaking them, they'd feel exposed to the notion that
even in a deal-breaking-free environment deals do happen and are
usually kept. I'll try to flesh out the idea (maybe tied to some BYOS
notion).
[ quoted text not captured ]
Daneel wrote:
>
> If you are a dealbreaking player with lots of experience, you know
> when to break your deals to gain the most of them. Giving you an
edge.
>
> Oh, wait, it must be experience that gives you an edge. Hmm.
>
isn´t it bleeding, esteem and regaining the upper hand the ways tog et
the edge??
and i'll do my best to post more seriously from now on...
cheers
Luciano "Baital" de Sampaio
VEKN Anarch Baron de Curitiba
VEKN Baali Clan Newsletter Editor
"The_Baital" <subve...@gmail.com> wrote
Daneel wrote:
>
> If you are a dealbreaking player with lots of experience, you know
> when to break your deals to gain the most of them. Giving you an
edge.
>
> Oh, wait, it must be experience that gives you an edge. Hmm.
Unfortunately, my news server never shows anything posted by Daneel. I see
responses to his posts, but never any posts by him. This used to also happen
with Flux and Reyda.
So, I don't know if Daneel was talking to me, or what.
Cheers,
WES
"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote in message
news:f4s041t4ha64b8tqe...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:55:38 GMT, "Colin Goodman"
> <colin.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>For the most part I'll stick a deal made, unless for whatever reason
>>breaking that deal would give me a VP or win me the game.>
> What concerns me is that in our environment this sort of thing would
> be *less* tolerated than any other type of dealbreaking - because it's
> dealbreaking to win.
But isn't the point, that you are playing to win? Especially in a
tournament.
I'll give you an example, though I forget the exact terms of the deal (this
game was like 2-3 years ago).
My prey made a deal that I would not bleed him for a couple turns in return
for X (as said I forget what X was, but the deal was sound). However, in
order to do what he wanted he left himself tapped out and on about 3 pool.
It was well within my ability to bleed that amount and gain the VP, so even
though I had made the deal, I decided that it was in my best interest to
bleed him out and get that VP. Which I did.
The point is that deals are a good part of the game, but they are not the be
all and end all of a game. If you can gain VP from dealbreaking do it. LSJ
and the rules say that in all instances you should be playing to win and
maximise VP.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Colin Goodman wrote:
> I'll give you an example, though I forget the exact terms of the deal
> (this game was like 2-3 years ago).
>
> My prey made a deal that I would not bleed him for a couple turns in
> return for X (as said I forget what X was, but the deal was sound).
> However, in order to do what he wanted he left himself tapped out and on
> about 3 pool. It was well within my ability to bleed that amount and gain
> the VP, so even though I had made the deal, I decided that it was in my
> best interest to bleed him out and get that VP. Which I did.
>
> The point is that deals are a good part of the game, but they are not the
> be all and end all of a game. If you can gain VP from dealbreaking do it.
> LSJ and the rules say that in all instances you should be playing to win
> and maximise VP.
Personally, I dislike dealmaking because it's the #1 source of hard-to-judge
tuornament tangles. But it's part of the game, so I have to live with it.
It's also apparently very metagame-dependent, I remember some people who
were at last year's euro championships semi-complaining about French
players who pretty much did nothing but try to form deals in between almost
any action, seriously slowing the game down and raising concerns of
intentional stalling. Over here, "shut up and play!" is an often-heard
comment ;)
But I digress. My question relates to the tale above: if player A has made a
deal with player B, and subsequently sees a chance to oust that player (and
break the deal), is player A obligated to do so? Or does the deal allow a
player to suspend the "play to maximize VPs" rule?
More exactly, if I'm playing at a tournament table and something like the
above happens, can I call the judge over and force player A to bleed player
B out? Or if I'm judge, should I force stuff like that?
Like I said, I'm not fond of deals. Situations where a player makes
questionable deals are very hard to judge and can easily cause personal
grievances.
//Petri
"Petri Wessman" <nos...@orava.org> wrote in message news:Dpg0e.2226$X67...@reader1.news.jippii.net...
> But I digress. My question relates to the tale above: if player A has made a
> deal with player B, and subsequently sees a chance to oust that player (and
> break the deal), is player A obligated to do so? Or does the deal allow a
> player to suspend the "play to maximize VPs" rule?
No suspension, but there is an allowance for a legaly-made deal.
If making the deal with the intention of honoring conformed to
"play to win" at the time it was made, then the rules allow the
deal to be honored (the alternative would effectively elimate
deal-making, as nearly all deals would have to be broken by
application of the play-to-win rules).
Google "deal legally-made honor author:LSJ" for more.
--
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:21:52 -0500, "Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net>
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
In this specific case, I recall it was a response to my statement that
an artificial environment of honoring deals just serves to give
experienced players an edge.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:38:01 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> "Petri Wessman" <nos...@orava.org> wrote in message
> news:Dpg0e.2226$X67...@reader1.news.jippii.net...>> But I digress. My question relates to the tale above: if player A has
>> made a
>> deal with player B, and subsequently sees a chance to oust that player
>> (and
>> break the deal), is player A obligated to do so? Or does the deal allow
>> a
>> player to suspend the "play to maximize VPs" rule?>
> No suspension, but there is an allowance for a legaly-made deal.
>
> If making the deal with the intention of honoring conformed to
> "play to win" at the time it was made, then the rules allow the
> deal to be honored (the alternative would effectively elimate
> deal-making, as nearly all deals would have to be broken by
> application of the play-to-win rules).
Nitpick: even if the deal was made with the explicit intention
of breaking it later, it still allows the party who made the
deal to abide by it, provided of course that it was legally
made. If, like, the situation at the table changes, and the
deal is suddenly a good alternative.
--
Bye,
Daneel
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:41:02 GMT, "Colin Goodman"
<colin.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote in message
>news:f4s041t4ha64b8tqe...@4ax.com...>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:55:38 GMT, "Colin Goodman"
>> <colin.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>For the most part I'll stick a deal made, unless for whatever reason
>>>breaking that deal would give me a VP or win me the game.>>
>> What concerns me is that in our environment this sort of thing would
>> be *less* tolerated than any other type of dealbreaking - because it's
>> dealbreaking to win.>
>But isn't the point, that you are playing to win? Especially in a
>tournament.
Of course it is. But then there's the cultural/metagame difference sto
cope with. V:TES players around here like to see themselves as
hobbysts (does that word exist?) who play for the sole purpose of
having fun - i.e., beating other people's minions with no plan to
damage pool, play clan X because they like them in the RPG material,
play because it's a chance to meet others and such. Winning is almost
treated as a random consequence (note that it's not a coincidence the
top players are the ones who know better and are able to balance all
aspects).
I'm fine with those reasons for playing this game - they're *some* of
the reasons why I play V:tES and no other CCG. I play indie clans
mainly because they represent which "faction" I like the most in the
RPG, and so on. I just fail to see why these factors have to hinder
trying to win.
Maybe it's a in-game transposition of the general third world mindset.
When one's perception of society is blurred by an historical
background of dictatorship, poor country managing, mischief and all
the factors associated with the banana republic stereotype, one tends
to see being successful as a logical consequence of being
corrupt/wicked/parasite or somesuch. No matter it's been 20 years
since the last dictator fell out of the picture and how many
progresses we're having - some notions are still way too buried in the
collective unconscious. People still generally see winners as the bad
guys - if he's rich, me must have done something *wrong*, and things
like that.
(man, this is as far a stretch as it gets, but maybe there's some
logic in it).
>I'll give you an example, though I forget the exact terms of the deal (this
>game was like 2-3 years ago).
>
>My prey made a deal that I would not bleed him for a couple turns in return
>for X (as said I forget what X was, but the deal was sound). However, in
>order to do what he wanted he left himself tapped out and on about 3 pool.
>It was well within my ability to bleed that amount and gain the VP, so even
>though I had made the deal, I decided that it was in my best interest to
>bleed him out and get that VP. Which I did.
>
>The point is that deals are a good part of the game, but they are not the be
>all and end all of a game. If you can gain VP from dealbreaking do it. LSJ
>and the rules say that in all instances you should be playing to win and
>maximise VP.
That is similar to an example I used some time ago when the subject
was brought up first. At the time I didn't possess enough knowledge
about the rules to note that there's nothing wrong in breaking deals -
I was much more concerned on how one could not be allowed to jump out
of a bad situation in a game just because he realized too late how bad
it was.
So far the problem is to maintain the debate on a rational level.
Everytime examples like this one you provided are passed along, the
general response is that dealbreaking strips out the fun of playing.
To bypass this I'd have to show them that part of the fun is trying to
win, and sometimes it seems like I'd need to be a psychiatrist running
group therapy to overcome deep colletive, social traumas.
Agh, sometimes I get hysterical, yes.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <opsn3q98...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu>
writes:
>Nitpick: even if the deal was made with the explicit intention
> of breaking it later, it still allows the party who made the
> deal to abide by it, provided of course that it was legally
> made. If, like, the situation at the table changes, and the
> deal is suddenly a good alternative.
At that point, the fact that there was an earlier illegal deal isn't
relevant. By doing something that is in their own interests (taking the
course of action suggested by the deal), the player is playing to win.
There's no real need to bring in the earlier bad deal to this situation.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:33:13 -0500, "Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net>
wrote:
>"Fabio "Sooner"" <fabio_...@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote
>
><snip>>
>Just a suggestion... why not have a special "fun day" where people are
>actually *encouraged* to break deals and such? Call it "Sleaze Day" or
>something. Make sure people realize it is just for that day and that it's
>just for fun. My feeling is that if people stop taking deal-breaking so
>seriously in the short run then perhaps these attitudes will eventually fade
>away in the long run.
Follow-up to the suggestion.
I've just added a new Limited event to happen at my house.
Since we usually play at a store on Saturdays unless when we have
tournaments on the same weekend (usually on Sundays), I'll run a
Limited new type of event on every Friday night before a "real"
tourney. Is is called V:TES Roleplay Day.
It will be handled like a normal tournament, except for these factors:
- "entry fee" is just a common card. of course, anyone can contribute
with any card he wishes, but I don't expect to see more than one or
two odd uncommons in there. These will build up to a prize box to be
used later. I'll include promos in the box when available.
- players are encouraged to, hm, roleplay. Mostly it is restricted to
dialogue and actions against predator or prey, since the Play to Win
rule is still being observed (of course, cross-table play does not
constitute itself in violation, but when acting cross-table the Play
to Win rule is still to be applied. That means a random given
"roleplay-based" decision is still under the Play to Win rule, like
Assamites torporizing cross-table Tremere just because they hate them
on the RPG, and will be penalized if it is not tied to a game-state
situation).
- deal breaking is acceptable. at the worst scenario, I'm the judge
and this is my house, so nobody is allowed to act against
deal-breakers without a good game-state reason. I'm also trying to
stress that deal-breaking in this Limited tournament must not be
considered a reason for players to conclude that player X or Y is
going to break deals on regular casual play or sancioned tournaments.
Hope with time this will make people attent to the deals they make,
and therefore be less concerned about others breaking deals than they
are now.
The winner of the tournament will gain a booster pack and maybe a
special promo. Other players will choose a card from the prize box, in
this order:
- the best "roleplayer" as voted by the participants.
- the most "bastard" deal-breaker, judged by me, according to
accomplishment (GW/VPs/anything gained through breaking the deal) and
roleplaying significance (say, a Ravnos breaking a non-aggression deal
to steal an Assault Rifle and using it to torporize his prey's minions
is better than a Ventrue simply bleeding a tapped out prey for no VP).
Of course this is totally subjective, but is has to be, since it adds
a "fun" factor to deal-breaking. Giving players the chance to vote on
the "best deal-breaking" could result in collusion at this stage. I
expect princes to side with the idea to form some sort of jury next
editions.
- second player
- third player
- fourth player
- fifth player.
If the "best roleplayer" and "most bastard player" are among the top
5, they choose one card for their "roleplaying" accomplishment and a
second one only after all other prized players (so if the "most
bastard" ends up second place, he chooses a card after the "best
roleplayer" and a second one after the fifth place, and so on).
If the idea works, I'm sure something will surface to turn this into a
Build Your Own Storyline series.
I expect players to initially refuse to accept deals, but with time
they will think better and see how the deal-breaking possibility
doesn't preclude nobody from *keeping* deals if they're made in the
best interests of all involved. Once we reach that point, I expect
things to happen outside V:TES Roleplay Day.
best,
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Clan Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now)
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/
"Fabio "Sooner"" <fabio_...@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote
>
> I expect players to initially refuse to accept deals, but with time
> they will think better and see how the deal-breaking possibility
> doesn't preclude nobody from *keeping* deals if they're made in the
> best interests of all involved. Once we reach that point, I expect
> things to happen outside V:TES Roleplay Day.
Cool! Let us know how it turns out, ok?
Cheers,
WES