Is it ok to break a deal?

I personally have never broken a deal on purpose, but Dad and a few others i know have. At our storyline tourney me, Dad, Rob Treasure, Michael Eikler and Paul Reed Bowens from bath were in the final. Rob was playing his Tyler deck, based on the principle that the Archon and Templar rush actions are not repeat actions, so you can rush as many times as you want and with freak drive it is quite scary. Dads deck was a new derange, malki dementia deck with big vamps.(Im sure dad or mike or someone will post the whole thing, but to cut to the chase..) Tyler was diablarizing a vamp,one of mike E's who was Robs preadator, Mike's preadator was dad. rob asked for dads votes in the bloodhunt, dad said yes BUT when it comes to it he doesent, he votes Rob dies, so.... A few facts .Rob would probably do the same to dad .Rob had done it before .Dad definitely won because of it what do you think?

In message <781efc5b.02111...@posting.google.com>, anklebiter <ankle...@talk21.com> writes: > Tyler was diablarizing a vamp,one of mike E's who was Robs >preadator, Mike's preadator was dad. rob asked for dads votes in the >bloodhunt, dad said yes BUT when it comes to it he doesent, he votes >Rob dies, so.... > > A few facts >.Rob would probably do the same to dad >.Rob had done it before Both of these are true. Rob would sell his own mother to win at Jyhad. >.Dad definitely won because of it Definitely won? Well, that depends. He definitely went on to win from there, but would it have been *impossible* for him to win if he'd kept the bargain and saved Rob. That's very different. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F She twirled a lock of hair around her forefinger and smiled B457CA213D7E6 faintly. "Actually, I'd settle for a small Greek." 68C3695D623D5D

> Tyler was diablarizing a vamp,one of mike E's who was Robs >preadator, Mike's preadator was dad. rob asked for dads votes in the >bloodhunt, dad said yes BUT when it comes to it he doesent, he votes >Rob dies, so.... > > A few facts >.Rob would probably do the same to dad Then why would a deal ever take place? >.Rob had done it before Then why would a deal ever take place? >.Dad definitely won because of it Irrelevant. >what do you think? People who are known to break deals should expect others to do the same. Why bother making a deal with someone who is known for breaking deals? Why not just point out the play you think is best for yourself and let them decide whether they do it or not? As for "ok", there's nothing binding about deals.

In message <20021110170910...@mb-fd.aol.com>, Curevei <cur...@aol.commetal> writes: >>.Rob would probably do the same to dad > >Then why would a deal ever take place? > >>.Rob had done it before > >Then why would a deal ever take place? Because it is sometimes in people's best interests to do things, even though they know there's a chance their fingers will get burned. In the short term, making a deal with the devil might help me out. And if he thinks he can outsmart me (which he very probably can), he'll go along with it for that time too. People aren't, unfortunately, walking examples of The Prisoner's Dilemma. They do unpredictable things. [ quoted text not captured ]

ankle...@talk21.com (anklebiter) wrote in message news:<781efc5b.02111...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] there was a big discussion about this a couple weeks back that was started by one of the players in my playgroup (the city's prince, actually). around here (well, in the whole quebec province), if you break a deal, it will follow you for a *very* long time, and people probably won't want to make deals with you anymore. and we all know how important deals are in vtes. so people make it a point never to break a deal. but there are obviously other ways to go about... i'm actually curious how it would be here if people broke deals like they do elsewhere. i can plainly understand why people would break deals. if it wins you the game, or puts in a position to very likely do so, i think it's just normal to do so. it's just a different way of playing, and when you're accustomed to it, you just have to remember that the deal you just made could be broken at any moment. while we're at it, i think there's another kind of 'deal' we see around here: threats. i'm probably the one most known for it in my group, since i almost exclusively play combat (i want to shift the metagame away from stealth/vote/bloat and S&B, or beat it into their heads till they get it :P) i'm curious as to the ratio of bluff/serious threats you see in your playgroups. what kind of threats do you make, and what is the desired effect? will you do as you said, even if it could unbalance the game (like putting someone in a bad situation by having too few pool or vamps to possibly survive). i once said to someone playing a bleed deck "for every pool you make me lose this turn, i'm going to torp one of your vamps". the guy thought i was just bluffing and bled me with a govern for 3. on my turn, i torped all 3 of his vamps... while this was obviously a bit of overracting, it did help to enforce my reputation as a non-bluffer. because of this and a lot of other game situations, people will always fear me when i threatenthem because they know i never bluff (actually, sometimes i do, although very seldomly, but i can get away with it for this same reason) do you threaten people only when you play combat or with other decks as well? when someone is playing politics and i have an intercept deck i will often threaten of blocking their vote if they do any damage on me. when playing combat, it obviously involves their vamps vs. my pool. you could also do the same with vote i guess (i'll banish your vamp if you bleed me this turn, and so on) well, i'm sure we'll see a lot of discussion on this, and i'm eager to see what other people's playgroups look like. my two cents, mif (fav clan: potence)

"MiF" <zar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:40d56764.02111...@posting.google.com... > ankle...@talk21.com (anklebiter) wrote in message news:<781efc5b.02111...@posting.google.com>... It's good to see fellow Canadians sticking to their deals. In the Ottawa area, I would say that the deals are held by the frequent players in our group, even if they are bad for them. If you don't know enough to see a bad deal, you keep it and see the consequences. If find it makes you a better player and you learn something (like what a bad deal does to the game). I also find that the majority of tournaments we have where we have non locals coming in also respect the non-deal breaking attitude. My attitude is that I will never enter a deal with a player that has screwed me once. They will offer you the world but it means nothing so how can you take them seriously? Mark Allen

"anklebiter" <ankle...@talk21.com> wrote in message news:781efc5b.02111...@posting.google.com... [snippity snip] >(Im sure dad or > mike or someone will post the whole thing, but to cut to the chase..) Indeed > Tyler was diablarizing a vamp,one of mike E's who was Robs > preadator, Mike's preadator was dad. rob asked for dads votes in the > bloodhunt, dad said yes BUT when it comes to it he doesent, he votes > Rob dies, so.... > > A few facts > .Rob would probably do the same to dad > .Rob had done it before 2nd true, 1st...... i'm not sure these days. Short term vs. long term gains for me now. > .Dad definitely won because of it 110% true, I had a truely giant killing hand. Lack of minions on the table (7 at the time of the altercation IIRC ??) would have made easy dinner for Tyler. > what do you think? I'll tell you what I think. I think I was understandably pissed at the time but it was a perfectly fair move and more power to your pop. On reflection in the car home (passing a 12 mile tailback going the other way) and as an aside, I remembered making a conscious decision a couple of years ago (around the LoP time) to try to 'mend' my reputation by keeping deals (shock) and being generally a slightly better loser. James has always had the potential to switch playstyles and capitalise on a good opportunity, (10/10 for your poker face by the way man :o) no big deal, please forgive the pun. That said you could freaking whistle for your lift home after that muck :o) You go down that road though and you have to be prepared to face the consequences, I am one dude who knows that more than most. Good luck making deals in the future James, this will stay with you for a while unfortunately. I'll write more later but have to go to work now... BOOOOO Rob

On 10 Nov 2002 11:22:15 -0800, anklebiter wrote: > Tyler was diablarizing a vamp,one of mike E's who was Robs >preadator, Mike's preadator was dad. rob asked for dads votes in the >bloodhunt, dad said yes BUT when it comes to it he doesent, he votes >Rob dies, so.... >what do you think? There are at least three ways to look at this: a) GAME. Their actions were ultra vires as the game provides no mechanics for such negotiation. Rob's action was like asking your father what cards he was holding. Without a card effect such as Tortured Confession or Monocle of Clarity, such talk is just empty noise. b) LAW. I am not sure if there are any relevant UK statutes but I believe that there are two relevant principles of common law: i) For a contract to exist, both parties must receive something. Rob wanted immunity from the bloodhunt. It's not clear what consideration your father was to receive in return. Arguably, Rob was asking your father for his opinion on how he would behave. Because he was not paying for this opinion and because your father had no duty of care to Rob, Rob had no recourse when the opinion proved to be wrong. ii) Gaming contracts are not enforceable in law. This is because gaming is frivolous and addictive and so is against the public interest. And, of course, "de minimus non curat lex" (the law does not concern itself with trifles). c) MORALITY. In these secular days, this is mostly a matter of personal preference. In this context, the game encourages one to follow the morality of the blood-sucking fiends that one is role-playing. Which clan was your father playing? How honourable are they? How highly do they prize the Eye of Hazimel? Absent such special factors, I'd say that Rob's vampire committed the vile act of diablerie, suffered the traditional sanction of vampire society and that this was entirely proper. Should his cries of "entrapment" have been considered a mitigating circumstance and grounds for mercy? I doubt it. He still should have known better. Andrew

ankle...@talk21.com (anklebiter) wrote in message news:<781efc5b.02111...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I'm all for it. :) I did something similar in our Storyline in Eindhoven: The table had collapsed to three players, me (Gangrel w. dom toolbox), my prey (toreador sniper rifle intercept), and my predator (malk S&B). My predator had a smallcap in torpor, that wanted to crawl out. My prey asks me (since I have the tiebreaking vote) whether, if he wakes and blockes with his 2-blood doll, sniper rifle'd anson, whether I will help him with the blood hunt. I pretend to think and say "sure". My prey blocks, the bloodhunt is called, and I waste my prey's anson by voting in favor of the bloodhunt. (My predator would go on to win the game anyway, as expected, but like this I had a meagre chance of ousting my prey before that happened, as opposed to certain death.) In my opinion, if players try to stick to deals all the time, always, you get some really forced play, and there's never a threat or uncertainty. If players occasionally break a deal, that's fine with me. Can't do it too often, though, or you'll never get anyone to agree with you again. Tobias Deventer

In message <64E5C101739158A1.0F5CA118...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: >a) GAME. Their actions were ultra vires as the game provides no >mechanics for such negotiation. Yes, they do. Rulings over-ride the base rules. LSJ has provided many rulings on this. Your persistent, erroneous assertions are trollish, Andrew, and utterly beneath you. Anyone would think you wanted to look utterly foolish and contemptible, the way you blather nonsense like this. If you have nothing intelligent to add to an argument - and since you have most definitely been around for LSJ's rulings on this in the past, one must either assume you have chronic amnesia or are utterly stupid - please do not add it. Your trolling isn't helpful, no matter how much it may let you have a quick wank in front of the monitor. I hope they're very satisfying. By your repeated, blatant, foolish trolling, no player is allowed to breathe during matches. Now, could you please fuck off and stop posting intentionally misleading, well, no, *lying* crap? Were you to attempt this nonsense in a tournament, you would be in violation of 114 - Misrepresentation. However, since it is clearly intentional misrepresentation - since you have been given the correct rulings on this many, many times - and would be intentionally misrepresenting such, we would escalate - as per the rules - to 160. 160's only noted punishments are Game Loss and Disqualification without Prize. This is under the section "Cheating". Andrew Davidson. Liar and cheat. So, now we know, eh? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Rob Treasure" <r.tre...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<aqnmbn$fp9$1...@helle.btinternet.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Cheers, man! > > That said you could freaking whistle for your lift home after that muck :o) Fair enough, there was no reason for you to hang around after that particular bit of sleaze. > > You go down that road though and you have to be prepared to face the > consequences, I am one dude who knows that more than most. Good luck making > deals in the future James, this will stay with you for a while > unfortunately. Yeah, but hey, no-one makes deals with me anymore amyway. There's this weird perception that deals with me always work out in my favour. > > I'll write more later but have to go to work now... BOOOOO And i have to take Michael E to the airport. i have your prizes, Rob - shall i give them to you on Wednesday? > > Rob

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message > > Tyler was diablarizing a vamp,one of mike E's who was Robs > >preadator, Mike's preadator was dad. rob asked for dads votes in the > >bloodhunt, dad said yes BUT when it comes to it he doesent, he votes > >Rob dies, so.... > > > > A few facts > >.Rob would probably do the same to dad > >.Rob had done it before > > Both of these are true. Rob would sell his own mother to win at Jyhad. Easy Mr. Coupe, easy. > >.Dad definitely won because of it > > Definitely won? Well, that depends. He definitely went on to win from > there, but would it have been *impossible* for him to win if he'd kept > the bargain and saved Rob. > > That's very different. He had been a very bad man up until then as well. I had a lovely For skillcard for Tyler to stop any Obedience nonsense from James and had the perfect hand to take down 3-5 minions. Most of which would have been James' :o) No disrespect to any of the other players but there was not much in the way of combat / anything else to trouble me on the whole table. Really was one of those I win / he wins situations. Not sure if James realised the utterly pivotal nature of the deed but I would best liken it to the Watford Turbo Arika final of last year, you MUST remember that James :o) Rob

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <64E5C101739158A1.0F5CA118...@lp.airnew > s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: > >a) GAME. Their actions were ultra vires as the game provides no > >mechanics for such negotiation. > > Yes, they do. Rulings over-ride the base rules. LSJ has provided many > rulings on this. Easy, James. In this case, I believe Andrew was stating things correctly. The enforcement of the deal (i.e., the regulation of "their actions" with regard to the deal) is, in fact, beyond the power of the rules. The rules do not regulate deals. That is, players are free to make and to break deals. That is, the deals are worth only the value of the breathe that spoke them. That is, as Andrew says: "such talk is just empty noise." -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

In message <a0c24b2e.02111...@posting.google.com>, rob treasure <rob.tr...@btinternet.com> writes: >Not sure if James >realised the utterly pivotal nature of the deed but I would best liken >it to the Watford Turbo Arika final of last year, you MUST remember >that James :o) Oh, now that was superbly amusing. Mostly because it went: Rob: "Look, you're going to kill me, so I'm going to kill her first." Francois: "No deal." Rob kills Arika. Francois: "I'll make a deal!" Rob looks at Francois' pool and ready region. Rob wonders what this deal is going to be made with. Judge wonders similar. From where I stood, the deck had so focused on the Turbo-Arika, it didn't have combat defence etc. for when someone came at it. It couldn't really afford to, for the hand jam. So it was basically going to go boom, with any of the combat decks. Matt Green was thinking similar if Rob didn't do it, as they discussed this out loud, trying to work out who should do what to avoid the whole table getting trashed. Rob, as Francois' prey, was in the best position to do something that worked for him and for the whole table, as I recall. I'm trying to remember details beyond that, though, and my brain isn't functioning properly. Any clues? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3DCFAA3E...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >The enforcement of the deal (i.e., the regulation of "their actions" with >regard to the deal) is, in fact, beyond the power of the rules. "the game provides no mechanics for such negotiation." Repeated rulings, which add to the base rules, mean that such negotiation *is* provided for. It's not enforced, but *negotiation* is provided for. It is not about the *regulation* of the actions, it is the allowance for the negotiation in the first place. People are allowed to make deals. Unless you wish to over-turn many multiple rulings you have made and tell us that we cannot negotiate during the game, for which you have provided many rulings in the past, which in and of themselves provide the necessary mechanics, however loosely. If there were no mechanics for negotiation, it could never happen. It does, there are. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3DCFAA3E...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > wolf.com> writes: > >The enforcement of the deal (i.e., the regulation of "their actions" with > >regard to the deal) is, in fact, beyond the power of the rules. > > "the game provides no mechanics for such negotiation." > > Repeated rulings, which add to the base rules, mean that such > negotiation *is* provided for. It's not enforced, but *negotiation* is > provided for. It is not about the *regulation* of the actions, it is > the allowance for the negotiation in the first place. People are > allowed to make deals. > > Unless you wish to over-turn many multiple rulings you have made and > tell us that we cannot negotiate during the game, for which you have > provided many rulings in the past, which in and of themselves provide > the necessary mechanics, however loosely. > > If there were no mechanics for negotiation, it could never happen. It > does, there are. I may be splitting hairs here, but there are no mechanics provided by the rules for the deals. No time frame restrictions, no structure restrictions, no term restrictions, and no enforcement restrictions. "Deal" is just the term used to describe certain forms of table talk. All table talk has no governing mechanics or restrictions from the rules (except for illegal activity like threats and unsportsmanlike activity like bribery). You say that the absence of a restrive mechanism is itself a mechanism provided by the rules. I don't see it that way. But no matter, the point is that it is not clearly a troll to say so. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3DCFB988...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >I may be splitting hairs here, but there are no mechanics provided by the >rules for the deals. You have provided many rulings, which add to the rules[0], in the past about how deals are made, how the judge may intervene in deal making, how a player may tell someone to stop badgering them because that's stalling and so forth. I am unsure why you now wish to tell us you have not provided us with mechanics for handling deal-making, as opposed to deal breaking or deal enforcing, through the many rulings you have issued, providing mechanics for handling lots of different bits of deal-making. If they're not explicitly allowing, ratifying and providing mechanics for how deals can and can't be made, I don't know what they're doing. e.g.: >I do think is not > legal under VEKN tournament rules. "Paying back favors? No. Making (and honoring) deals (or not) based on some idea of trustworthiness of a given player (which may be impacted by a reputation as a deal-breaker)? Yes." [LSJ 20020206] Similarly: >But if >the original deal was made in the proper spirit, then a player should >not be required to break it just because he finds it no longer in his >interest. "Correct. This has been brought up before and received the same answer then as well (from me)." [Also LSJ 20020206] So we get a ruling on how a deal must be made in the proper spirit (i.e. to the mutual, in game benefit (or with prizes involved in the final)). If these don't provide mechanics for establishing when you can and can't make deals, and how they should be made, what are they? Small brown ornamental kittens? Traffic wardens? Hairdressers? [0] If we wish to separate the rules from the rulings, things become fairly tedious. At that point, lots of things are off the cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

If by OK you mean legal, sure. But I don't think it's *smart* to break deals. I think that having a reputation for sticking by your word lets you cut more and better deals, resulting in more game wins despite the times when keeping your word hurts you. Add to that the pride of being honest and fair-dealing, and take into account that breaking your word is more likely to hurt feelings or anger others than keeping it. I suggest always keeping deals. I also suggest having a precise memory of the times your Dad has broken deals, and reminding others of those times loudly whenever he's trying to make a deal that will hurt you. And if keeping a deal ever screws you up, cite that as an example of your trustworthiness if anyone ever balks at making a deal with you. Keeping your word doesn't mean you can't be ruthless, after all. :)

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<64E5C101739158A1.0F5CA118...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 10 Nov 2002 11:22:15 -0800, anklebiter wrote: > > > Tyler was diablarizing a vamp,one of mike E's who was Robs > >preadator, Mike's preadator was dad. rob asked for dads votes in the > >bloodhunt, dad said yes BUT when it comes to it he doesent, he votes > >Rob dies, so.... > > >what do you think? > > There are at least three ways to look at this: Michael is at school, so i will reply on his behalf. > > a) GAME. Their actions were ultra vires as the game provides no > mechanics for such negotiation. But it doesn't forbid them. And by not forbidding, it provides the opportunity for such negotiations. Rob's action was like asking your > father what cards he was holding. This is stretching it a bit, Andrew. Without a card effect such as > Tortured Confession or Monocle of Clarity, such talk is just empty > noise. Sure, but he can still ask, and i can reply truthfully or lie, just as i wish. All the rules say is that i may not SHOW any player my cards. > > b) LAW. I am not sure if there are any relevant UK statutes but I > believe that there are two relevant principles of common law: > > i) For a contract to exist, both parties must receive something. Rob > wanted immunity from the bloodhunt. It's not clear what consideration > your father was to receive in return. Arguably, Rob was asking your > father for his opinion on how he would behave. Because he was not > paying for this opinion and because your father had no duty of care to > Rob, Rob had no recourse when the opinion proved to be wrong. > > ii) Gaming contracts are not enforceable in law. This is because > gaming is frivolous and addictive and so is against the public > interest. And, of course, "de minimus non curat lex" (the law does > not concern itself with trifles). i agree with that. > > c) MORALITY. In these secular days, this is mostly a matter of > personal preference. In this context, the game encourages one to > follow the morality of the blood-sucking fiends that one is > role-playing. Which clan was your father playing? Malkavians. How honourable are > they? Chaotic, amoral, mad. How highly do they prize the Eye of Hazimel? We LOVE it. i keep it beside my coffin so that i can squish it when i feel stressed or lonely. Absent such > special factors, I'd say that Rob's vampire committed the vile act of > diablerie, suffered the traditional sanction of vampire society and > that this was entirely proper. Should his cries of "entrapment" have > been considered a mitigating circumstance and grounds for mercy? I > doubt it. He still should have known better. > > Andrew i'ld like to make it clear that Rob did NOT moan about any of this, except maybe a little bit. Anklebiter is making a different point, about the benefits or not of making and keeping deals. i think this is partly a function of what stage you have reached in your VTES career. i used to make lots of deals and keep them all essentially to the letter. But then i ran into this weird resistance to making deals with me, based on the perception that they always go wrong for the other party. Accordingly, nowanights i still make deals if i can, and i keep to them just as long as they are still in my best interests. Because he is such a good and astute player, i almost always keep to deals with Rob. Sunday was an exception. For a more general statement of what i think about making and breaking deals, i've written quite a long article onthe subject in one of the !Gangrel NLs. Some people thought it was quite good. i could dig out the reference for anyone who wanted to read it.

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3DCFB988...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > wolf.com> writes: > >I may be splitting hairs here, but there are no mechanics provided by the > >rules for the deals. > > You have provided many rulings, which add to the rules[0], in the past > about how deals are made, What rulings restrict how deals can be made? Are your refering to the general "play to win" rule? If so, that is a restriction on play in general, not an additional rule for "deals" (i.e. table talk). > how the judge may intervene in deal making, Likewise. > how a player may tell someone to stop badgering them because that's > stalling and so forth. The rule on stalling applies in general. It is not an addition for "deals". > I am unsure why you now wish to tell us you have not provided us with > mechanics for handling deal-making, as opposed to deal breaking or deal > enforcing, through the many rulings you have issued, providing mechanics > for handling lots of different bits of deal-making. > > If they're not explicitly allowing, ratifying and providing mechanics > for how deals can and can't be made, I don't know what they're doing. Table talk is allowed. No rules are added to restrict table talk. The rules do not address the mechanisms players use to set conditions for deals, to agree to deal, to enforce deals, nor to respond to deals. > e.g.: > >I do think is not > > legal under VEKN tournament rules. > > "Paying back favors? No. > Making (and honoring) deals (or not) based on some idea > of trustworthiness of a given player (which may be > impacted by a reputation as a deal-breaker)? Yes." > [LSJ 20020206] That is: the rules do not restrict deal-making or other table-talk. > Similarly: > > >But if > >the original deal was made in the proper spirit, then a player should > >not be required to break it just because he finds it no longer in his > >interest. > > "Correct. > This has been brought up before and received the same answer then > as well (from me)." [Also LSJ 20020206] Again, the absence of a restriction. > So we get a ruling on how a deal must be made in the proper spirit (i.e. > to the mutual, in game benefit (or with prizes involved in the final)). The general "must play to win" rule, not a special rule for deals. > If these don't provide mechanics for establishing when you can and can't > make deals, and how they should be made, what are they? Small brown > ornamental kittens? Traffic wardens? Hairdressers? I don't see the thin line we're dancing around as sufficient for a vitriolic response to Andrew's post, that's all. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > From where I stood, the deck had so focused on the Turbo-Arika, it > didn't have combat defence etc. It has a handful obediences if i recall correctly.

anklebiter wrote: > Tyler was diablarizing a vamp,one of mike E's who was > Robs preadator, Mike's preadator was dad. rob asked for dads votes > in the bloodhunt, dad said yes BUT when it comes to it he doesent, > he votes Rob dies, so.... > what do you think? If your dad didn't stop the tyler madness now, he would have been the next on the list. This vampire is a major threat, especially with a coupla freak drives, she can rush and eat three vampires in a row without much difficulty. I would have done the same thing, with the extra bit of pleasure you have when you screw up someone like Rob. when a deal is somewhat an offense to your intelligence, just break it without fear for a bad reputation. Breaking it makes you look more clever than traitorous. I won't respect a deal which makes me an idiot anyway. So hail to the king, snogger of beautiful girls without distinction of creed, color or nationality baby : Legbiter =) reyda

> I'm all for it. :) > > I did something similar in our Storyline in Eindhoven: The table had > collapsed to three players, me (Gangrel w. dom toolbox), my prey > (toreador sniper rifle intercept), and my predator (malk S&B). My > predator had a smallcap in torpor, that wanted to crawl out. My prey > asks me (since I have the tiebreaking vote) whether, if he wakes and > blockes with his 2-blood doll, sniper rifle'd anson, whether I will > help him with the blood hunt. > > I pretend to think and say "sure". My prey blocks, the bloodhunt is > called, and I waste my prey's anson by voting in favor of the > bloodhunt. > > (My predator would go on to win the game anyway, as expected, but like > this I had a meagre chance of ousting my prey before that happened, as > opposed to certain death.) > > In my opinion, if players try to stick to deals all the time, always, > you get some really forced play, and there's never a threat or > uncertainty. If players occasionally break a deal, that's fine with > me. Can't do it too often, though, or you'll never get anyone to agree > with you again. > > Tobias > Deventer Hmm, nice to know that Tobias :) Dino.

In article <JmFz9.50686$MGm1....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, alle...@rogers.com says... > > It's good to see fellow Canadians sticking to their deals. In the Ottawa > area, I would say that the deals are held by the frequent players in our > group, even if they are bad for them. If you don't know enough to see a bad > deal, you keep it and see the consequences. If find it makes you a better > player and you learn something (like what a bad deal does to the game). I don't know about "fellow Canadians sticking to their deals". I find that in the games I've played, both at Fandom in Ottawa and over in Hull, that people are rarely, if ever, in the mood to make deals. It's just not something I've ever really seen at the table. And if they are made, they're usually the threat type of deals where there's no upside for one player, just "stay out of my way or else". Nobody seems to understand the need to step on a person who's running away with the game or leave a weak player alone to develop. I think the fanatic deal-keeping attitude of the Quebec players borders on disturbing. It's just a freakin' game, you guys! I broke a deal once at the 2001 Qualifier and you'd think I took a whizz on Princess Di's grave from the reactions of the other players! To be fair, it was a "keep the deal or get ousted" situation, which to me nullifies any hint of a deal currently in play. > also find that the majority of tournaments we have where we have non locals > coming in also respect the non-deal breaking attitude. My attitude is that I > will never enter a deal with a player that has screwed me once. They will > offer you the world but it means nothing so how can you take them seriously? Well, that's a bit of a prissy attitude Mark, honestly. So you'd rather let a perfectly good game go to shit rather than make a deal with someone, even if it's for survival or to obviously balance the table? Wow. That's too bad - very limiting for you in your games. I say unless someone's a totally devious lying bugger where you know they'll NEVER keep a deal, treat each game as a new thing. If you're approached to make a deal, consider it in terms of the EXISTING game; if it makes sense, make the deal. Otherwise, don't. It's quite easy to teach a group the folly of fanatical dealkeeping. Just do totally obnoxious cross-table stuff that destabilizes the whole game and force them to make deals with you. More importantly, tell the players WHY you're doing this. If they don't want to play, then you have an idea as to how serious they are about playing versus being "honourable". If they're that stuck on being "honourable", tell them to stop playing VTES and come over to play Legend of the Five Rings for a while. :)

>while we're at it, i think there's another kind of 'deal' we see >around here: threats. i'm probably the one most known for it in my >group, since i almost exclusively play combat (i want to shift the >metagame away from stealth/vote/bloat and S&B, or beat it into their >heads till they get it :P) > >i'm curious as to the ratio of bluff/serious threats you see in your >playgroups. what kind of threats do you make, and what is the desired >effect? will you do as you said, even if it could unbalance the game >(like putting someone in a bad situation by having too few pool or >vamps to possibly survive). Certain players make threats often. I rarely do. If people play well, no verbalizing of a threat is necessary. If not, then I find their threats to be that much more reason to screw with them to get them off the table. Of course, you have to carry through on threats. >i once said to someone playing a bleed deck "for every pool you make >me lose this turn, i'm going to torp one of your vamps". the guy >thought i was just bluffing and bled me with a govern for 3. on my >turn, i torped all 3 of his vamps... while this was obviously a bit of >overracting, it did help to enforce my reputation as a non-bluffer. >because of this and a lot of other game situations, people will always >fear me when i threatenthem because they know i never bluff >(actually, sometimes i do, although very seldomly, but i can get away >with it for this same reason) Reputation, okay. But, why bother making that specific threat in the first place if it wasn't good play? Could have just punked someone and pointed out that you needed to relieve pressure on you. Making a point is not sufficient cause for sabotaging a game. >do you threaten people only when you play combat or with other decks >as well? when someone is playing politics and i have an intercept deck >i will often threaten of blocking their vote if they do any damage on >me. when playing combat, it obviously involves their vamps vs. my >pool. you could also do the same with vote i guess (i'll banish your >vamp if you bleed me this turn, and so on) I think it's obvious to make more threats when playing a deck that has controllish aspects - combat, vote, intercept. But, if the players are reasonably perceptive, threats should be unnecessary. Overall, I see threatening as a wash, as often as it gets someone to do what you want it causes someone to call your "bluff".

James Coupe wrote: > Both of these are true. Rob would sell his own mother to win at Jyhad. ...and Dominate does it all, too. :-P Obviously, Mr. Coupe is also not above exaggerations to prove a point. Btw, James, is it also lying when you do it or only when NJL members do it? Noal

"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3dcff782$0$28929$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net... > anklebiter wrote: > > Tyler was diablarizing a vamp,one of mike E's who was > > Robs preadator, Mike's preadator was dad. rob asked for dads votes > > in the bloodhunt, dad said yes BUT when it comes to it he doesent, > > he votes Rob dies, so.... > > > what do you think? > > If your dad didn't stop the tyler madness now, he would have been the next > on the list. This vampire is a major threat, especially with a coupla freak > drives, she can rush and eat three vampires in a row without much > difficulty. > I would have done the same thing, with the extra bit of pleasure you have > when you screw up someone like Rob. Right, whatever, thanks. Look foward to playing against you again. > when a deal is somewhat an offense to your intelligence, just break it > without fear for a bad reputation. Breaking it makes you look more clever > than traitorous. I won't respect a deal which makes me an idiot anyway. Errrr, OK. Someone translate please ? Rob

"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3dcff58d$0$26500$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net... [ quoted text not captured ] You don't, it had no combat defence at all. None. Deck could not afford to be jammed up. Rob

"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3dcff782$0$28929$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] <sob> just for that, i promise not to snog/shag ANYONE, no matter HOW beautiful or foreign, who is, or pretends to be, your girlfriend [unless you want me to, of course ;-)] > > reyda O, and thanks for the tip about Baldur's gate II. i DID get it for Anklebiter's birthday, and he IS enjoying it.

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.02111...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Hey Noal, aren't you supposed to be sorta mellow and all after your handfasting? Congratulations on that anyway, good to see you are your old self, and commiserations to our unmarried sisters! However, is it fair to pick on james as anti-NJL? i've always found him to be receptive to reasoned argument/dissent, and during the 7/7 discontent when you and i were on the same side, nay, essentially indistinguishable until you split, he wasn't abusive to either of us, nor to our few public friends [many were]. O, and, dominate DOES do it all [IMO] ;-)

[ quoted text not captured ] with a clever use of Distraction, it avoids handjam easily =)

Rob Treasure wrote: >> I would have done the same thing, with the extra bit of pleasure >> you have when you screw up someone like Rob. > > Right, whatever, thanks. Look foward to playing against you again. Winning over a better player, i meant =p no offense here ! if we ever meet in a game i'll do my best to gain more vp than you do ;) >> when a deal is somewhat an offense to your intelligence, just >> break it without fear for a bad reputation. Breaking it makes you >> look more clever than traitorous. I won't respect a deal which >> makes me an idiot anyway. > > Errrr, OK. Someone translate please ? english is not my first language, you know it... Here is what i try to explain : It is clear that letting Tyler live now means to face her later. So when you've got a golden opportunity like this - especially when the player controlling tyler thinks you're stupid enough to not see the danger in her diablerie madness - you've *got* to kill her during the blood hunt ! I may even had that by killing a Tyler, a Theo Bell or a Lambach this way you are maximizing your vp's ;) reyda

On 11 Nov 2002 19:32:58 GMT, cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote: >Certain players make threats often. I rarely do. If people play well, no >verbalizing of a threat is necessary. If not, then I find their threats to be >that much more reason to screw with them to get them off the table. > >Of course, you have to carry through on threats. but people don't always see things the same way that you do. and if threatening someone does indeed buy you a turn, then all the better for you. (ie: don't bleed me or i'll torp one of your vamps). of course, that means that i'll probably still torp one of my pred's vamps even if he doesn't bleed me (if i think it's necessary for me to survive), but sometimes the threat is enough to discourage him for pressuring you and turns his attention towards his own predator instead for some time, and that's obviously a good thing. and him bleeding you in the first place probably wasn't a bad move by any means. but otoh, if he didn't take my threat seriously and still bled me with everything he had, i wouldn't have any other choice but to torp his vamps till he couldn't bleed me anymore, so yes, in a way, i have to force him into submission. of course, not bleeding me (still assuming he has a bleed deck) means he can't win, for now, but maybe something will happen that will let him oust me later (or someone could switch places, etc.) > >Reputation, okay. But, why bother making that specific threat in the first >place if it wasn't good play? Could have just punked someone and pointed out >that you needed to relieve pressure on you. Making a point is not sufficient >cause for sabotaging a game. like i tried explaining above, if a threat is ridiculously unbalancing, i probably won't materialize it to the fullest extent, as that would just be bad for me, period. you're better keeping your reputation as a good but ruthless player than someone who just rushes blindlessly and torps everyone for pitiful reasons. and in the case of that very example i gave, well sure i wrecked my predator's game, but that also means that i was able to relieve all pressure off me, and i was also able to torp most of my grand-pred's vamps, thus rebalancing the table (it's what i usually do, if i think someone is getting too strong, i'll rush to level things, even if it's cross-table, as long as i think it will help balance the table). of course, sometimes you go overboard and have to compensate afterwards, like in my previous example, but that's how you learn to play combat decks, imo. nowadays, if i'm prey to a bleed deck, i'll torp the first vamp my pred brings out and tell him i'll torp some more if he bleeds me too much. and reasonable players will always understand my message and won't bleed me too much, so i don't have to hurt them too much by torping all their vamps. > >I think it's obvious to make more threats when playing a deck that has >controllish aspects - combat, vote, intercept. > >But, if the players are reasonably perceptive, threats should be unnecessary. >Overall, I see threatening as a wash, as often as it gets someone to do what >you want it causes someone to call your "bluff". thus the importance of following through with your threats, but also of making reasonably realistic threats, and ones that aren't too destabilizing to the game. since i almost never bluff, my threats will always work, and people eventually understand how to deal with me and i don't even have to threaten them anymore, they'll instead propose a deal right away and we can go on with it. MiF (should i take anger management classes?)

rob.tr...@btinternet.com (rob treasure) wrote in message news:<a0c24b2e.02111...@posting.google.com>... > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message > > > > Tyler was diablarizing a vamp,one of mike E's who was Robs > > >preadator, Mike's preadator was dad. rob asked for dads votes in the > > >bloodhunt, dad said yes BUT when it comes to it he doesent, he votes > > >Rob dies, so.... > > > > > > A few facts > > >.Rob would probably do the same to dad > > >.Rob had done it before > > > > Both of these are true. Rob would sell his own mother to win at Jyhad. > > Easy Mr. Coupe, easy. Yeah, Rob wouldn't sell his own Mother [at least, not for cheap] for ANY old game of Jyhad. i expect a scale of prices and services could be established for any given game, though. And, attractive though she may be, i bet MY mother is a LOT prettier than Rob's, so Ask About Our Low Prices First. > > > >.Dad definitely won because of it > > > > Definitely won? Well, that depends. He definitely went on to win from > > there, but would it have been *impossible* for him to win if he'd kept > > the bargain and saved Rob. > > > > That's very different. > > He had been a very bad man up until then as well. Blush, simper ;-) O you are AWFUL ... but i LIKE you ... I had a lovely For > skillcard for Tyler to stop any Obedience nonsense from James and had > the perfect hand to take down 3-5 minions. Most of which would have > been James' :o) > No disrespect to any of the other players but there was not much in > the way of combat / anything else to trouble me on the whole table. > Really was one of those I win / he wins situations. Not sure if James > realised the utterly pivotal nature of the deed Sure, i could see that, even if i couldn't see your hand. We talked about the deck before hand, remember? > but I would best liken > it to the Watford Turbo Arika final of last year, you MUST remember > that James :o) james C, right? i didn't get to that final but IIRC that was the one you had to throw yourself in the way of the turbo-mincer to stop Francois winning, and Tony IIRC was the beneficiary of your sacrifice [though Tony is a fine player, funny guy, good writer and general winder-up of colonials ;-) so deserves any success he attains]. i get the point you are making in that case - no good options, final throw kinda thing. > > > Rob

On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 19:01:28 GMT, sha...@magma.ca (Sean Harvey) wrote: >In article <JmFz9.50686$MGm1....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, >alle...@rogers.com says... >> >> It's good to see fellow Canadians sticking to their deals. In the Ottawa >> area, I would say that the deals are held by the frequent players in our >> group, even if they are bad for them. If you don't know enough to see a bad >> deal, you keep it and see the consequences. If find it makes you a better >> player and you learn something (like what a bad deal does to the game). > >I don't know about "fellow Canadians sticking to their deals". I find >that in the games I've played, both at Fandom in Ottawa and over in Hull, >that people are rarely, if ever, in the mood to make deals. It's just not >something I've ever really seen at the table. And if they are made, >they're usually the threat type of deals where there's no upside for one >player, just "stay out of my way or else". Nobody seems to understand the >need to step on a person who's running away with the game or leave a weak >player alone to develop. well i guess it depends on your environment. over here, it's almost the opposite, if someone looks too strong, he can expect the table to almost gang up on him. so you have to keep a low profile until the moment is right. that, or look so unbeatable that everyone won't even bother to step in front of you. >I think the fanatic deal-keeping attitude of the Quebec players borders >on disturbing. It's just a freakin' game, you guys! I broke a deal once >at the 2001 Qualifier and you'd think I took a whizz on Princess Di's >grave from the reactions of the other players! To be fair, it was a "keep >the deal or get ousted" situation, which to me nullifies any hint of a >deal currently in play. actually, i wouldn't really mind someone whizzing on princess di's grave so much as someone breaking a deal in vtes ; ) i might be wrong on this, but you were the one playing toreador vote & bloat, right? i don't know what game you are referring to, but if you are the person i think you are, i remember there was an argument in our game involving you... but i don't remember the details at all, so i can't really comment on that. like someone else said, it's all a matter of reputation. if you break a deal, people won't trust you and won't want to make deals with you anymore. and deal-making is really important in vtes. i guess it's a matter of what deals you break, too. always honing your part of the deal has the side-effect that you have to learn how to deal effectively, the hard way. if you make a deal and realize you got screwed, well it's your fault, and you won't make the same mistake in the future. if you break a deal but it wins you a game is another story, though. i think because people don't break deals here means that we see more manipulation in deal-making. in a way, people compensate for the fact that they won't break their deals by using subtle differences in the wording and in the interpretation (boy, wouldn't we make good lawyers? :P). example: at the CE pre-release event i was playing brujah and my predator malkavian. i was already hitting on him hard and he was being bled by another malkavian so things weren't looking good for him. he had just brought out cornelius ottavio and pulse'd him (that's a natural 4 bleed vamp we're talking about now). so on my turn i torped him, fearing an eventual major pool loss at his hands. my predator whined that he couldn't play his game and that he wanted to rescue cornelius and be able to do something with him at least. so i told him i wouldn't put him in torpor as long as he didn't bleed me. he agreed, rescued ottavio and finished his turn. on my turn i called an anathema on him, rushed and he burned, but didn't go to torpor : ) (and i gained 8 pool). i kept my part of the deal but my predator obviously got hosed. it also shows other kinds of deals you can make that aren't as restrictive: do (or don't do) x, while y holds true. barring the fact that i anathema'ed him, he could've bled me with ottavio (a good thing to do if it had enabled him to oust the same turn), but that would have put an end to our agreement, all without breaking any deal, though. >> also find that the majority of tournaments we have where we have non locals >> coming in also respect the non-deal breaking attitude. My attitude is that I >> will never enter a deal with a player that has screwed me once. They will >> offer you the world but it means nothing so how can you take them seriously? > >Well, that's a bit of a prissy attitude Mark, honestly. So you'd rather >let a perfectly good game go to shit rather than make a deal with >someone, even if it's for survival or to obviously balance the table? >Wow. That's too bad - very limiting for you in your games. > >I say unless someone's a totally devious lying bugger where you know >they'll NEVER keep a deal, treat each game as a new thing. If you're >approached to make a deal, consider it in terms of the EXISTING game; if >it makes sense, make the deal. Otherwise, don't. > >It's quite easy to teach a group the folly of fanatical dealkeeping. Just >do totally obnoxious cross-table stuff that destabilizes the whole game >and force them to make deals with you. More importantly, tell the players >WHY you're doing this. If they don't want to play, then you have an idea >as to how serious they are about playing versus being "honourable". If >they're that stuck on being "honourable", tell them to stop playing VTES >and come over to play Legend of the Five Rings for a while. :) how can you FORCE someone to make a deal with you? "don't bleed your prey or i'll crush-table rush you for no reason?" if you do that kind of deal, it won't show them how stupid fanatically keeping deals is bad, it will just entice them to gang up on you and show you that stupid cross-table actions aren't good, either. and i don't think mark was saying that he'd rather die than make a deal with someone who's broke a deal once in the past... (i know i wouldn't) and don't tell me you wouldn't mind someone breaking an important deal on you. like in the portsmouth tourney, i'm sure Rob must've felt a bit of anger when Legbiter double-crossed him, even if it was the right move, and it was to be expected. so i think it's obvious why people would get all jumpy here about someone breaking a deal. and once you've been burned by someone, you're reluctant to try it again, even if there's quite an incentive to do so. it's easier to think of every game as a new one if people don't mind breaking deals every now and then. but it also means that deals don't have the same significance. they're more of a short-term agreement that will last as long as both parties are happy with it. different place, different rules, and while it probably seems weird to others the way we do things around here, i think it's good too, and does have interesting sides to it. i'm also curious as to how it would be if people started breaking deals here... i might have to try it some time ; ) just my two (canadian) cents, MiF

What confuses me is where anyone thinks ethics should be in a game about backstabbing evil vampires? I will lie and cheat to win (and I have). I will avoid breaking deals unnecessarily, but the only deal in V:Tes that any players should feel the need to stick to is the mutually beneficial one. For those whining about the lack of rules controlling dealmaking take a look at the diplomacy boardgame for a guide. The diplomacy phase is the most important part of that game, and yet the rules for it basically consist of: "Promise whatever ya want. Say whatever you can get away with. Lie and Cheat if necessay". Deal making needs no rules because you can never rules-lawyer something so fluid. The ruling that people need to be maximizing their VP in tourneys is the only rule that really applies, and even then I dislike that rule. If I'm in a losing situation and somebody who is playing a deck thats really annoyed me offers me a deal, I would certainly screw that person over. When it looks like I've been going down, I've done things to jack up the guy who took me down. We cannot divorce our emotions from the game - ask professional poker players. Deal making rules, but don't get too upset if ya get shafted - unless of course the guy shafting you is honestly screwing himself out of a sweet deal. In which case yell at him :-)

"Mike McDonald" <swcru...@email.com> wrote in message news:b504c5f0.02111...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Why, after reading this, anyone would ever make any deal with you on any level is beyond me. Feel free to comment, if you can restrain the flame. Thanks for telling me how you spell your name, btw. Kevin M. "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

dgarcia...@hotmail.com (Nova_Arpad) wrote in message news:<7785c31c.02111...@posting.google.com>... <snip> > > In my opinion, if players try to stick to deals all the time, always, > > you get some really forced play, and there's never a threat or > > uncertainty. If players occasionally break a deal, that's fine with > > me. Can't do it too often, though, or you'll never get anyone to agree > > with you again. > > > > Tobias > > Deventer > > Hmm, nice to know that Tobias :) > Frankly, Dino, as far as I'm concerned, there's not enough cross-table balancing and dealing in our games in the Netherlands. So, there's also little deal breaking. Normally, I would not break deals: I have my own business, I understand all about creating mutual win-win situations. But sometimes someone just opens themselves up in a, dare I say it, reckless move, and there's no use not exploiting it. In the Netherlands, there's an amount of 'helping' your cross-table ally, and the Belgians are showing us all about cross-table rushing etc., but fairly often players at Dutch tables are very prey-focused, leaving the larger table alone. (Maybe they are in finals... I should really start making it to the finals and stop bringing half-cooked decks). Note that I don't mean 'helping your buddies from city X' with dealing, balancing, and helping, which I thought there was sometimes a bit too much of, but it seems to be lessening now. :) But the Dutch Tournament scene is really flourishing, so I shouldn't complain... Tobias Deventer

"Mike McDonald" <swcru...@email.com> wrote > > What confuses me is where anyone thinks ethics should be in a game > about backstabbing evil vampires? I will lie and cheat to win (and I > have). I don't really care if someone lies to me when they make a deal (I have done this also)... but *cheating* is a different matter. I'm not sure that is exactly what you meant though. You may have been referring only to cheating when deal-making. I hope so anyway. It is true that V:tES is about backstabbing evil vampires and that the players represent Methuselahs, who are essentially the baddest backstabbers of the bunch. But the only reason we as players may be lying when we make a deal is because there's no reason not to, and not because the game's theme is about backstabbing evil vampires. If a game were the exact same as V:tES mechanic-wise but thematically it was about... oh I dunno... heroic robots who are incapable of telling a lie... we would probably still lie when it came to making deals (and Isaac Asimov would turn in his grave, but I digress...) If you *were* referring to cheating in order to win by the way, I really think you may want to re-examine what you're doing and why. Does this mean that if you played the RPG version of this game you would fake your dice rolls and pretend you had stats that you didn't? The ethics of your character (or Methuselah in V:tES) should not mean that *your* ethics as a player need to be compromised. But I'm going to assume that's *not* what you meant. Cheers, WES

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message de news: xII3GKtz...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <a0c24b2e.02111...@posting.google.com>, rob > treasure <rob.tr...@btinternet.com> writes: > >Not sure if James > >realised the utterly pivotal nature of the deed but I would best liken > >it to the Watford Turbo Arika final of last year, you MUST remember > >that James :o) > > Oh, now that was superbly amusing. > > Mostly because it went: > > Rob: "Look, you're going to kill me, so I'm going to kill her first." > Francois: "No deal." > Rob kills Arika. > Francois: "I'll make a deal!" no, that's wrong. I never said that sentence after Arika's death. > Rob looks at Francois' pool and ready region. > Rob wonders what this deal is going to be made with. > Judge wonders similar. > > > From where I stood, the deck had so focused on the Turbo-Arika, it > didn't have combat defence etc. for when someone came at it. It > couldn't really afford to, for the hand jam. So it was basically going > to go boom, with any of the combat decks. Matt Green was thinking > similar if Rob didn't do it, as they discussed this out loud, trying to > work out who should do what to avoid the whole table getting trashed. > Rob, as Francois' prey, was in the best position to do something that > worked for him and for the whole table, as I recall. > > > I'm trying to remember details beyond that, though, and my brain isn't > functioning properly. Any clues? IIRC, the deal attempt was a little bit different. Turn four, Arika is in my controled region. First player rushes Arika, nine blood left on her. Second player calls a Free States Rants, six blood left. THIRD player (not my prey at all), Rob, explains me that my deck scares him, so if I can't propose a fair deal to Rob, Rob is going to kill Arika. I asked Rob if he plays deflections in his deck, so I could launch the Arika trick until I arrive to Rob, then I stop, I let him gain a victory point, th en I finish the table. He said me that he plays not enough deflection. I can't propose him such a deal, nor I can't propose Rob a 3-2 in his favor, that's a lose deal, right ? That's the reason why I said I coundn't offer him a deal. Rob kills Arika. The fourth player was playing a weenie 4-cap dominate, he easily ousted me in two turns, and he won the final with 4 VP... At Watford, I didn't pack ANY Obedience, it was abusively focused in sweep a table in ONE turn. I think Rob did the only thing that could stop me in the final. When he rushed Arika, I had the perfect hand to launch Arika. That's the reason why I packed 10 Obedience the next time I played it. It didn't work as good as this time anymore. I didn't tried to make a deal with no Arika, in fact, I didn't tried to deal with anyone at Watford except Rob because he offered me the possibility to. I never said "I'll make a deal!" when Arika was burned in the final. The only thing I could do was to offer Rob the victory (3-2 deal) when Arika was alive. I couldn't propose such a deal, that could be considered collusion, because it's a lose deal, right ? Right ? François [ quoted text not captured ]

"reyda" > >> > >>> From where I stood, the deck had so focused on the Turbo-Arika, it > >>> didn't have combat defence etc. > >> > >> It has a handful obediences if i recall correctly. > > > > You don't, it had no combat defence at all. None. Deck could not > > afford to be jammed up. > > with a clever use of Distraction, it avoids handjam easily =) I was SOOO impressed with that use of Distraction. An absolute stroke of genius. Rob

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3DCFE9AB...@white-wolf.com>... > James Coupe wrote: <Snip all this anger, if you're interested in reading it all, just take a look> Not sure why you've taken this so much to heart James, but I think I have to agree with what Andrew said as well. There IS nothing in the rules saying deals must be adhered to, anyone is free to talk as much as they want (as long as it's not a stalling tactic) and attempt to make whatever deals they want. However, NOTHING binds them to these deals - except perhaps morality - so Andrew saying that it was nothing more than empty noise is correct. Now I'd be the first to back you up when Andrew says something to obviously start an arguement, and I do find him incredibly difficult to get on with on my best day, however, I think in this case you need to chill out a little and maybe move over to de-caf or something. Marty

"rob treasure" <rob.tr...@btinternet.com> a écrit dans le message de news: a0c24b2e.02111...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] thanks =)) > > Rob

Kevin M. wrote: > "Mike McDonald" <swcru...@email.com> wrote in message (snip) >> Deal making needs no rules because >> you can never rules-lawyer something so fluid. The ruling that >> people need to be maximizing their VP in tourneys is the only rule >> that really applies, and even then I dislike that rule. >> We cannot divorce our >> emotions from the game - ask professional poker players. > Why, after reading this, anyone would ever make any deal with you > on any level is beyond me. Feel free to comment, if you can > restrain the flame. I will. Mike seems perfectly honnest and his insight about the game is the same as mine. More power to us =)

[ quoted text not captured ] You guys are very bad. Deal breaking is strictly NOT okay. If you can't be trusted to keep a deal, then why make deals at all? I would never, and have never, broken a deal or lied. Everyone who agrees with what I say should deal only with me, from now on. Colin Riggs

legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote: > dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote: > > James Coupe wrote: > > > Both of these are true. Rob would sell his own mother to win at Jyhad. > > > > ...and Dominate does it all, too. :-P Obviously, Mr. Coupe is also not > > above exaggerations to prove a point. Btw, James, is it also lying > > when you do it or only when NJL members do it? > > > > Noal > > Hey Noal, aren't you supposed to be sorta mellow and all after your > handfasting? Congratulations on that anyway, good to see you are your > old self, and commiserations to our unmarried sisters! Me? Mellow? Heh. You're married. You know how much stress a wedding (esp. one that was planned and executed within a month) causes and it has to be vented somewhere. Killing monsters in Diablo 2 is only so satisfying, after all. > However, is it fair to pick on james as anti-NJL? Yes, very much so. In this case, I was pointing out how hypocritical he was during the whole "Dominate Does It All" thread when he, quite literally, called Bernie a liar for using exaggeration to make a point. > i've always found him to be receptive to reasoned argument/dissent, In that case, I'm not sure which one of he has fooled, esp. when you take into consideration the thread in question. > and during the 7/7 discontent when you and i were on the same side, > nay, essentially indistinguishable until you split, he wasn't abusive to > either of us, nor to our few public friends [many were]. I'd have to do a google search to look up his comments back then, but I really don't care enough to. The person he is today is distasteful enough. In the last couple of years he's been much more obnoxious than Andrew has ever been. The "usenet ettiquette cop" shtick, for example, was completely uncalled for. > O, and, dominate DOES do it all [IMO] ;-) Better be careful. James might call you a liar, too. ;-) Regards, Noal

you're the man who plays Baali ? aren't you ? you want to be trusted ? MOUAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA Arpeges (never trust me) "Colin Riggs" <colin...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news: aqrq0j$co7tl$1...@ID-146737.news.dfncis.de... [ quoted text not captured ]

Well - I saw someone above say he would never make a deal with me. The key to what I was seeing was making the *right* deal. If you make a deal in which its in my best interests to backstab you then of course I'm going to do it (silly you for not thinking that). But believe it or not on the balance I keep my word far more times than I don't - mostly because deals are 2 way things. The right deal in Vampire is a mutually beneficial one. Quite often these deals are even unspoken! I've used the rumor mill to give intercept to my predator and prey in order to help them. I've pulled other guys vamps out of torpor, or voted in a referendum in a strange way to help someone else. But ultimately all these actions are motivated out of self interest. I want to win the game. I want to be the sole survivor. Anyone who plays Vampire and gets shafted in a deal and then complains about it needs to reread the rulebook: "Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by rival methuselahs". You are not there to role-play to the stem of the asparagus. You are there to have fun (it is far more fun to me to lose a closely fought game with pungent mutilation all round, than to win a game by walking over everyone). Make no mistake - the only deals that I judge worthwhile are ones I percieve will help me win the game. If you can make a deal with me that fulfills that criteria with you too, then we have a deal!

> I don't really care if someone lies to me when they make a deal (I have done > this also)... but *cheating* is a different matter. I'm not sure that is > exactly what you meant though. You may have been referring only to cheating > when deal-making. I hope so anyway. > Oh Absolutely. I am not condoning cheating in any way shape or form - Although I believe the emphasis some people put on the "deals must be made to maximize VPs" rule seems to nullify quite human feelings and situations. For example: Player A has been screwing over player B unmercifully. Player B is tottering on the edge of collapse, but not totally out of the game. Player C offers B a deal where he will help B waste player A but its likely the end result will also result in Bs ousting too. Now quite often players emotions in this situation will make player B WANT to make the deal that will screw over the guy who has been annoying the hell out of him. Strictly speaking though this deal is against the rules (Player B has a chance for VPs by staying alive and not sacrificing himself to oust player A). Either way though, breaking the rules of the game is wrong. As I pointed out in my first post though this has no bearing on deal making - like diplomacy the only rules for deal making are *use at your own risk*

<much snippage> > I didn't tried to make a deal with no Arika, in fact, I didn't tried to deal > with anyone at Watford except Rob because he offered me the possibility to. > I never said "I'll make a deal!" when Arika was burned in the final. > The only thing I could do was to offer Rob the victory (3-2 deal) when Arika > was alive. I couldn't propose such a deal, that could be considered > collusion, because it's a lose deal, right ? Right ? > > François > I wouldn't call it collusion. A 3-2 deal would be for 2 more victory points than you were looking at without it. If it's a deal to get more VP's than you were going to get, it's a good thing. I've made deals in tourneys before with my prey, where I'm going to die, but I can make it easy for my prey or I can slow him up enough that he only gets my VP. Prey lets me get a VP, I fall down, and prey and I finish up with 3 & 1 VP's, rather than 1 & 0. So even though I'm making a deal to lose, it's a deal to make my final position better. Matt

On 11 Nov 2002 08:46:47 -0800, legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote: >For a more general statement of what i think about making and breaking >deals, i've written quite a long article onthe subject in one of the >!Gangrel NLs. Some people thought it was quite good. i could dig out >the reference for anyone who wanted to read it. At least one archive location is: http://www.waste.org/~xian/geek/jyhad/strategy/deal-breaking.html Xian

<snip Mike's comments about dealbreaking> I should pipe up here since I PLAY in Mike's playgroup and have been totally screwed on multiple occasions by his deal-breaking policy (my own policy, to clarify, is that I don't make deals if I think I will have to break them, and so I always keep my end of the ones I do make.) As a previous poster noted, it has made our impression of Mike (not just mine, other players have made comments as well!), as one non-to-be-trusted under any circumstances during game play. Thus, we almost never make deals with Mike now as a consequence of this, even if we are in a position where we know a deal would be mutually beneficial. Indeed in one recent game, because of Mike's "lack of ethics," the table began excluding him during deals, to his loss, and he was ousted first (he was playing a group 3 titleless Torrie/Tzimisce viscissitude vote deck where the rest of the table had vote lock against him.) Frankly, I think Mike's nostalgia for that strategy game Diplomacy has ruined his sense of diplomacy in the collectible card game VTES; they're two separate games, the strategies behind them are not even remotely similar since in Diplomacy you MUST make alliances (and occasionally break them) to win, while in VTES you can win easily without ever making a single deal. To say nothing for the fact that implicit in the word Diplomacy is the concept of compromise, not backstabbing nastiness. I tend to try to remember, when I play, that I still have to be friends with these players outside of the game when we are all done. Mike, I think, sometimes forgets this in his enthusiasm to win. Not that I mean to trash Mike (only his dealbreaking policy) since otherwise he's a fearsome and respectable player who plays some consistently strong and interesting decks. And as a personal friend, he's one hell of a great guy. For a Kiwi. ;)

"Ped Xing" <ped_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:51ecf271.02111...@posting.google.com... > <snip Mike's comments about dealbreaking> > Frankly, I think Mike's nostalgia for that strategy game Diplomacy has > ruined his sense of diplomacy in the collectible card game VTES; > they're two separate games, the strategies behind them are not even > remotely similar since in Diplomacy you MUST make alliances (and > occasionally break them) to win, while in VTES you can win easily > without ever making a single deal. To say nothing for the fact that > implicit in the word Diplomacy is the concept of compromise, not > backstabbing nastiness. I tend to try to remember, when I play, that I > still have to be friends with these players outside of the game when > we are all done. Mike, I think, sometimes forgets this in his > enthusiasm to win. To me, it's exactly the fact that it *is* just a game that makes it appropriate to (sometimes) break deals made within the game. That is, since nothing "real-life" is at stake, it seems to me more fun for deals not to be taken so seriously; that is, the real possibility of deals being broken makes them more risky, and therefore interesting. Josh compromised

swcru...@email.com (Mike McDonald) wrote: > Well - I saw someone above say he would never make a deal with me. > The key to what I was seeing was making the *right* deal. The problem with this statement, Mike, is that while you may mean it, you don't abide by it. So far as we in your local playgroup know, there is no "right" deal that can be made with you since we have *never* seen you keep a deal that was explicitly made. You might claim that you are just waiting for the "right" deal but your actions in-game speak otherwise. > If you make > a deal in which its in my best interests to backstab you then of > course I'm going to do it (silly you for not thinking that). Add to that, if you offer me a deal that it is in my best interests to break I will decline to make the deal to begin with. That is the element of game play you are missing. Furthermore, you need to be careful about what you consider your "best interests" where backstabing is concerned. If your policy is to break most every deal you make just because it will give you some (real or imagined) slight advantage, then *you* are being stupid in your game play, not the person you are screwing. The reason? You should *never* break a deal that doesn't hand you the game at that very moment, since the consequence is that if you break a deal but leave your opponent alive, they then have an opportunity to retaliate, and make no mistake, they will. I can give an example from our specific game play where you made such a mistake. I was playing a Ventrue/Salubri Day Op deck that wasn't pulling it's combat cards and knew I was toast if your Garrote weilding anti-Salubri rushed me. I had just had a heavy stealth bleed bounced to me from by grand predator by my predator and I was about to bounce it your way, but instead offered to bounce it back to it's original target in exchange for you not rushing my vamps with the next Haven Uncovered you drew. You agreed, but subsequently broke the deal and toporized one of my vamps. One round later I've learned my lesson about your trustworthiness and bounce a heavy stealth bleed to you (that was bounced to me) and you are ousted. I gain 6 pool, spend a round to rescue and recuperate and you are sitting off the table twiddling your thumbs. How was that smart play? In what way did you maximize your VP's there? > Quite often these deals are > even unspoken! I've used the rumor mill to give intercept to my > predator and prey in order to help them. I've pulled other guys vamps > out of torpor, or voted in a referendum in a strange way to help > someone else. I would argue an unspoken deal is not a deal at all. Throwing +1 intercept for my predator to use so that my stealth/bleed grand predator doesn't oust him and come after me, that's just playing it smart, not making a deal. Perhaps the problem is you don't understand what it means to make a deal. Deals are transactional and as such *BOTH* parties should benefit, no more one than the other. This, again, is why there is a tendency now, not to make deals with you. You seem to have forgotten that a deal works both ways. > Anyone who plays Vampire and gets shafted in a deal and > then complains about it needs to reread the rulebook: > "Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the > influence held by rival methuselahs". What???? This statement doesn't even meet the basic requirements of logic! Your quote in no way implicityly or explicitly has anything to do with deal making and breaking. I can think of situations where making no deals, or making *and keeping* 40 deals will lead to the accumulation of the most VP's. >You are not there to role-play to the stem of the asparagus. Once again, I am lost in the fog of your broken logic. At what point does refusing to break a deal (or getting upset at players that do wanton deal-breaking) correlate to pretending you're a vampire? In what way does refusing to break a deal make someone a role-player? I personally refuse to break 99.9% of the deals I make and I have NEVER EVEN PLAYED the V:TM rpg. In the end, this may be a stylistic difference. I tend to play trick decks that screw up my predator and prey by design, so I don't need to rely on deal breaking to do so. You say you play to have fun, but I submit that if you continue to insist on your policy of deal-breaking that during gameplay you will be shut out of a metagame that adds a huge dimension of enjoyment to the game. It's your loss, dude.

> Because it is sometimes in people's best interests to do things, even > though they know there's a chance their fingers will get burned. In the > short term, making a deal with the devil might help me out. And if he > thinks he can outsmart me (which he very probably can), he'll go along > with it for that time too. > > People aren't, unfortunately, walking examples of The Prisoner's > Dilemma. They do unpredictable things. I was thinking whether some kind of algorithm / strategy could be generated to cover deal breaking aspect of VTES game in order to maximize your deal payoffs. Basically deal in a game of V:TES is two players game with payoffs similar to the that of Prisoner's Dilemma* * well probably at least some (many) of them are, there are definitely exceptions which should be covered differently ** ** how differently should they be covered is not clear to me right now Now, If you make a deal with a person (in a playgroup) you do not expect to play with in foreseeable future the V:TES dealmaking game is that of (single) Prisoner's Dilemma and therefore you should act according to the best Prisoner's Dilemma strategy, whatever it is. Most of the time this is not a case. You make deals with your playgroups (persons in your playgorup) and since you play with them regulary they do remember your past betrayals (and take that into consideration when they do deals with you later) . This situation is quite identical to that of Iterative Prisoner's Dilemma where you play the game with same player (playgroup) more than once and whose optimal strategy is different from the single Prisoner's Dilemma strategy IIRC. *** ***I don't really remember what optimal strategies for Prisoner's Dilemma and Iterative Prisoner's Dilemma are (I only remember ? that they are different) , and I am lazy to do some google search on this topic. The pointing out the similarities of usual dealmaking to Iterative Prisoner's Dilemma goes to Martin Varga my long time friend and V:TES collaborator who lurks in this NG from time to time. Karol

"Karol Magda" <karol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:df69cc0d.02111...@posting.google.com... > I was thinking whether some kind of algorithm / strategy could be > generated to cover deal breaking aspect of VTES game in order to > maximize your deal payoffs. > > Basically deal in a game of V:TES is two players game with payoffs > similar to the that of Prisoner's Dilemma* > > * well probably at least some (many) of them are, there are definitely > exceptions which should be covered differently ** I think most of the times I've argued with Scott about deals, he's also argued that VTES deals are like the Prisoner's Dilemma. I'm not so sure this is an accurate view of VTES deals. In my experience, it seems like a lot of deals are not very close to Prisoner's Dilemma situations. It's not even always the case that both parties gain by keeping the deal. What I'm trying to say, I think, is that a lot of "weird" deals are offered and made in VTES, which may not have the same characteristics as "normal" deals (eg unpredictable payoffs, "letter of the deal" vs "spirit of the deal" interpretations, changing conditions that alter the usefulness of the deal, etc etc etc). Anyway, I'm not sure that this is any kind of cogent argument about how to analyze VTES deals, but I do think that the ironclad "you should keep deals with people you expect to play with more than once, because it's like an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma" claim is pretty dubious as applied to VTES. Josh imprisoned

>Now, If you make a deal with a person (in a playgroup) you do not >expect to play with in foreseeable future the V:TES dealmaking game is >that of (single) Prisoner's Dilemma and therefore you should act >according to the best Prisoner's Dilemma strategy, whatever it is. I don't think that factor of "not playing VTES with that guy any time soon" is necessarily as important due to the existence of this newsgroup and the (relative) close-knit aspect of the VTES community, which help with information sharing. Beware the treacherous Goudie! Ha ha! Yeah, you know it. I'm a bitter and vengeful person. But don't worry, I still have a grudge list several miles long to settle first (the oldest I think going back to 1st grade)... =P Halcyan 2 payback's a bitch

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20021128012648...@mb-ct.aol.com... > >Now, If you make a deal with a person (in a playgroup) you do not > >expect to play with in foreseeable future the V:TES dealmaking game is > >that of (single) Prisoner's Dilemma and therefore you should act > >according to the best Prisoner's Dilemma strategy, whatever it is. > > I don't think that factor of "not playing VTES with that guy any time soon" is > necessarily as important due to the existence of this newsgroup and the > (relative) close-knit aspect of the VTES community, which help with information > sharing. > > Beware the treacherous Goudie! LOL. > Ha ha! Yeah, you know it. I'm a bitter and vengeful person. But don't worry, I > still have a grudge list several miles long to settle first (the oldest I think > going back to 1st grade)... I'm appalled. Certainly, this must be a joke. Allow me a moment to defend my honor. I figure I've played in about 60 tournaments and, as can be attested to by all, have never broken a deal. The game in question. GenCon North Amer. Championships, round 2. As part of some arrangement, I gave Mr. Halcyan, my current prey, 3 turns with me leaving him alone. After the first turn my predator played a 1st Tradition, after my second turn, my predator played *two more* 1st Traditions. At this point, I could have left Mr. Halcyan alone and skipped my turn but it wouldn't have mattered. At best he would have been able to take one more turn. His prey had plenty of pool and there's no way he could have obtained a VP if I had let him live. I explained all of this to him and he seemed to be on board with what was about to happen. Either Darby was about to kill us both or I would take Halcyan out and maybe have a slim chance at keeping Darby at bay. I only proceeded because I thought we were of the same mind. I'm willing to chalk this up as an unfortunate misunderstanding. Maybe I'll have a chance to make it up to you in the future. :) -Robert