Are you a deal breaker ?

Hello all, Here, in Quebec city, (and mostly in all the cities of the province of Quebec) when a player strike a deal with an other player, the players did not break the deal, even when the other player has done is part of his deal and it can be easy to oust him. Why we do that ? Because a player that break a deal will lost mostly if not all hope of have a deal again with other players in the city and even in the other cities of Quebec since the players are in contact via the web and the mailling list. To have a reputation for being a deal breaker here is something that will pursue you for a long time. What is the dealing metagame in the others cities ? And is it different when dealing for split of table ? (Here, no, but elsewhere, it's maybe different) Thank you for your help, Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis V:EKN Québec : http://veknquebec.web-page.net

>kha...@hotmail.com wrote: >Here, in Quebec city, (and mostly in all the cities of the province of >Quebec) when a player strike a deal with an other player, the players >did not break the deal, even when the other player has done is part of >his deal and it can be easy to oust him. >What is the dealing metagame in the others cities ? Here in DC, it's much the opposite. Everyone breaks deals sometimes and everyone expects their deals to be broken. Well, everyone SHOULD expect that, some people are still a bit naive. I won't name anyone in particular but you know who you are, Colin :). For the most part, we know when a deal is going to be kept. For instance, if someone can win by breaking a deal, they're going to break it. I don't fault them for that. Most of the time, deals are adhered to if they benefit both players (such as "I'll vote for you if you rescue me"). However, one-sided deals (such as "don't do anything to me and I won't rush you") are usually broken at some point because there's no incentive to keep them, you can't win by not hurting your prey. I consider this to be a good thing, because it makes us more cunning and conniving players and makes our games more interesting. Deal making, bluffing, back-stabbing, and trash talking are big parts of this game, and, in my opinion, that's what makes it so much fun. Jason

On 2 Oct 2002, Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis wrote: > Why we do that ? Because a player that break a deal will lost mostly > if not all hope of have a deal again with other players in the city > and even in the other cities of Quebec since the players are in > contact via the web and the mailling list. To have a reputation for > being a deal breaker here is something that will pursue you for a long > time. > > What is the dealing metagame in the others cities ? We have a few people who make it a point to never, ever break deals. They claim to do it for strategic reasons. Then there are a few others who are known deal breakers. Actually, there's just one guy and he only breaks deals he makes with me, historically, but you know how it is once you've picked up a rep. The odd thing is, I still make deals with this player. I didn't for a few weeks, when the sting of the oust was still fresh in my mind (and let me say that he did break the deal for the oust). But the game goes on, and I don't really ever make sweeping deals anyway. My theory is that he'll break a deal with me because he knows I'm not going to cry like some big baby about what a big meany he is and how we're not friends anymore over a friggin card game. Besides, I *like* to see people break deals. I think it's a good thing. There's nothing I hate more than seeing two players make some nebulous I-love-you-man alliance, especially when they are sitting next to each other. I mean, it's allowed within the rules, mostly, but it just gets on my nerves. David Cherryholmes Prince of Durham, NC

Jason wrote: >> kha...@hotmail.com wrote: >> Here, in Quebec city, (and mostly in all the cities of the province >> of Quebec) when a player strike a deal with an other player, the >> players did not break the deal, even when the other player has done >> is part of his deal and it can be easy to oust him. >> What is the dealing metagame in the others cities ? > > Here in DC, it's much the opposite. Everyone breaks deals sometimes > and everyone expects their deals to be broken. Well, everyone SHOULD > expect that, some people are still a bit naive. I won't name anyone > in particular but you know who you are, Colin :). > Can I help it that I am a trusting soul? Unused to the rough treatment, I repond by trusting more. Maybe someday I will learn how to break deals of my own. ; ) > I consider this to be a good thing, because it makes us more cunning > and conniving players and makes our games more interesting. Deal > making, bluffing, back-stabbing, and trash talking are big parts of > this game, and, in my opinion, that's what makes it so much fun. The point is that you shouldn't have 'honor' keep you from getting vps. Ousting your prey is the point of the game, you will gain more vps by breaking the right deals at the right time, then you would if you kept every deal. For example, in a game with Jason above, I made a deal where he would vote to save Spider Killer if I diablerized one of my predator's minions. If he hadn't voted to burn I would have seriously screwed him on the next turn. That fact that that was a very stupid deal for me to make gives Jason all the more reason to agree and then backstab me. Even when you know people will backstab you, if it benefits them, there are still a lot of deals that get made. I don't see the benefit, vp wise, from keeping every deal you accept as a point of honor. Colin Riggs you can trust me, really

dcij...@aol.comNOSPAM (Jason) wrote in message news:<20021002140226...@mb-fc.aol.com>... > >kha...@hotmail.com wrote: > >Here, in Quebec city, (and mostly in all the cities of the province of > >Quebec) when a player strike a deal with an other player, the players > >did not break the deal, even when the other player has done is part of > >his deal and it can be easy to oust him. > >What is the dealing metagame in the others cities ? > > Here in DC, it's much the opposite. Everyone breaks deals sometimes and > everyone expects their deals to be broken. Well, everyone SHOULD expect that, > some people are still a bit naive. I won't name anyone in particular but you > know who you are, Colin :). > > For the most part, we know when a deal is going to be kept. For instance, if > someone can win by breaking a deal, they're going to break it. I don't fault > them for that. Most of the time, deals are adhered to if they benefit both > players (such as "I'll vote for you if you rescue me"). However, one-sided > deals (such as "don't do anything to me and I won't rush you") are usually > broken at some point because there's no incentive to keep them, you can't win > by not hurting your prey. This is (for me anyway) the ONLY situation where one CAN walk away from breaking a deal, and still retain respect. I commonly break deals when I can win by doing so. Some people have it ingrained in their heads that you never break a deal, ever; and some have stopped playing altogether because of dealbreaking. (which "apparently" I am the only one in Toronto that does) It's entirely in the spirit of the game, and should exist and be integral to how the game is played. Plus it makes for a hell of a lot more intrigue. Besides, the dealbreakers are announced at every game, in every city, before any cards are even played. I like that. Notice tho, only by the "valiant defenders of the Deal-Keepers." "i never break a deal, ever." <--- how many times ya hear that one? One last thought - imagine Jyhad without it. (shudder) jds [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:53:07 -0400, "Colin Riggs" <colin...@yahoo.com> wrote: >The point is that you shouldn't have 'honor' keep you from getting vps. >Ousting your prey is the point of the game, you will gain more vps by >breaking the right deals at the right time, then you would if you kept every >deal. In fact, it's not a question of 'honor' that keep me from breaking a deal. It's a strategic move to not break a deal. Why ? Because if I break a deal, yes, maybe I will win the game, but I will lost the power to negociate deals in the futur. Someone said in that tread that he have done deal again with a deal breaker. Here, it's not that way (at least for now). The only player that I know that have done deal breaking in the past will not do deal again in Quebec city because the majority of the player know that he is not a dealer to trust. The deal breaking that he have done was last year... Maybe we are just to strong to remember treachery ? ;-) It's interesting to have informations about what happen in other cities. What is the situation in the other cities ? Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis the curious Setite [ quoted text not captured ]

>It's interesting to have informations about what happen in other >cities. What is the situation in the other cities ? We got into a philosophical argument about this at one point. I consider it unresolved locally. Deals get broken by some folks, but I haven't noticed any meaningful effect on tournament results. Ostracization for dealbreaking is way down. A couple players in the past were affected by the perception of them as dealbreakers. Now, it's mostly joked about.

Colin Riggs wrote: > > Jason wrote: > >> kha...@hotmail.com wrote: > >> Here, in Quebec city, (and mostly in all the cities of the province > >> of Quebec) when a player strike a deal with an other player, the > >> players did not break the deal, even when the other player has done > >> is part of his deal and it can be easy to oust him. ... > > Here in DC, it's much the opposite. Everyone breaks deals sometimes > > and everyone expects their deals to be broken. ... > > I consider this to be a good thing, because it makes us more cunning > > and conniving players and makes our games more interesting. Deal > > making, bluffing, back-stabbing, and trash talking are big parts of > > this game, and, in my opinion, that's what makes it so much fun. In some ways, it would seem to be the opposite as one would be foolhardy to ever make any deals that involved the type of trust the original poster was talking about. If you know you're going to have to trust your deal- partner to keep his end of the deal after you've already done your part and you no longer possess a "stick" - in THIS game, that is - then there's no reason to ever cut such a deal. Obviously, you can't have fun with a part of the game that simply doesn't exist. I think you're talking about something different then the original poster. You're talking about deals that can only work as long as the partners have chains tied to one another they can yank - and woe to the guy whose chain breaks first. I have nothing against that. I'm just pointing out that it's a different subject than what the other guy started out with. > The point is that you shouldn't have 'honor' keep you from getting vps. > Ousting your prey is the point of the game, you will gain more vps by > breaking the right deals at the right time, then you would if you kept every > deal. Maybe, maybe not. If the players you play with are similar to to those in the original posters city, you actually DO gain more VPs in the long run. Just not not necessarily in the game in which you hold up your deal. > I don't see the benefit, vp wise, from > keeping every deal you accept as a point of honor. You don't?!? It's really pretty simple: no one will make the type of deal that you need to keep as a point of honor unless you're known for keeping them. They can be incredibly value deals sometimes. Of course, if no one in your city ever makes them in any event, then I see your point. It's not the same everywhere, obviously. Fred

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20021002223021...@mb-fc.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Basically, only make deals from a position of strength. If you make a deal with your predator, they WILL break it. Best bet if you're in a weak position is get someone cross table to make a deal with your predator to keep yourself alive though usually this will fail as well. Jeff

Personally, I try not to break deals. I have been on the receiving end of a broken deal once, and it screwed me royally (never let your grandprey get a Prince even if its to stop votes from your prey, allegedly! He went on to sweep the table, so maybe he played right). I try to make deals that last 1-2 turns max (I do this, you do that. Deal over.) That way, it is sometimes more difficult to break. The old, leave me alone and I won't rush/bleed/backwards KRC you, never works as long as you want it to. In Cambridge, we rarely get deals broken, however, with some of our guys, we rarely get deals made. They would rather not see themselves in a position where they owe a favour, or could end up being weaker than someone else. (Boons are often not worth owing, V:TM should teach you that!) Just my 10p worth Andy "Slytherin" Brown VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge SET awakens, watch out all non-believers

kha...@hotmail.com (Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis) wrote in message news:<38b3422c.02100...@posting.google.com>... > Hello all, > > Here, in Quebec city, (and mostly in all the cities of the province of > Quebec) when a player strike a deal with an other player, the players > did not break the deal, even when the other player has done is part of > his deal and it can be easy to oust him. > > [snip] > What is the dealing metagame in the others cities ? In our playgroup we don't break deals (when we feel the urge to break some we play diplomacy or junta or republic of Rome!). The effect of this "attitude" is that every deal we do is a time limit deal: "i'll block that vote and kill leandro if you don't bleed me for 4 turns....i'll give you two.....three.....done." It is difficult for both dealers evaluate the impact of a short-term agreement this way and keeps the players free to play. Andrea

kha...@hotmail.com (Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis) wrote in message news:<38b3422c.02100...@posting.google.com>... > Hello all, > > Here, in Quebec city, (and mostly in all the cities of the province of > Quebec) when a player strike a deal with an other player, the players > did not break the deal, even when the other player has done is part of > his deal and it can be easy to oust him. > > Why we do that ? Because a player that break a deal will lost mostly > if not all hope of have a deal again with other players in the city > and even in the other cities of Quebec since the players are in > contact via the web and the mailling list. To have a reputation for > being a deal breaker here is something that will pursue you for a long > time. > > What is the dealing metagame in the others cities ? > > And is it different when dealing for split of table ? > (Here, no, but elsewhere, it's maybe different) > IMO, there is a big difference to actually breaking a deal (around here this is only done when it can give you a win) or 'corrupting' the deal by acting on the exact wording of it (wich we do often). Reps are not a big issue here, unless you break a deal in a way that doesn't give you any benefits, the stupid deal breaker. If someone offers you a deal that gives you a changce to oust him, why not take it and subsequently oust the sucker? It's a perfect fit thematically: ancient Methuselahs are not creatures of honor. If you can make a deal (wich makes him vulnerable) with someone and he takes it, why not use the advantage you created? In short, Trust No-one further than you can throw him :-)

Andy Brown <a...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<3D9BE73A...@sanger.ac.uk>... > Personally, I try not to break deals. I have been on the > receiving end of a broken deal once, and it screwed me > royally (never let your grandprey get a Prince even if > its to stop votes from your prey, allegedly! He went on > to sweep the table, so maybe he played right). Hell yeah, I played right, and I'd do it again if it meant sweeping a table. Don't see what the big deal is myself. Everyone should stop being so damn trusting. If you assume that any deal you make is gonna be broken, you can take steps to avoid these worst case scenarios. What has to be remembered is that players who make deals, will do so because they want to do well. And if they see an opening where they can screw you over, hell, why not. It's usually too late to do anything about it by then anyway... Just live by the motto 'Do unto others as they would do unto you. But do it first'... Marty P.S. What's up with this f*cking posting shite. Took me half a dozen bloody attempts...

Andy Brown <a...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<3D9BE73A...@sanger.ac.uk>... > Personally, I try not to break deals. I have been on the > receiving end of a broken deal once, and it screwed me > royally (never let your grandprey get a Prince even if > its to stop votes from your prey, allegedly! He went on > to sweep the table, so maybe he played right). Hell yeah, I played right, and I'd do it again if it meant sweeping a [ quoted text not captured ]

kha...@hotmail.com (Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis) wrote in message news:<38b3422c.02100...@posting.google.com>... Here in columbus there are a few deals. Not bleeding me this turn if I rush so and so, etc... What gets me upset is that there's not enough deal breaking... why are we keeping these deals if it means victory for us? But I feel intimidated to not break my deals... Forget it... from now on, I'm not going to be afraid of breaking my deals. Its a game, and it has no enforcmentof deals in it. So there. ~SV

Richard Labrecque wrote: > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:53:07 -0400, "Colin Riggs" > <colin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> The point is that you shouldn't have 'honor' keep you from getting >> vps. Ousting your prey is the point of the game, you will gain more >> vps by breaking the right deals at the right time, then you would if >> you kept every deal. > > In fact, it's not a question of 'honor' that keep me from breaking a > deal. It's a strategic move to not break a deal. Why ? Because if I > break a deal, yes, maybe I will win the game, but I will lost the > power to negociate deals in the futur. I guess that is the difference. Because here, almost everyone will break a deal if the advantage is great enough. Since almost everyone is breaking deals, and deals still have to be made, the types of deals have changed. Like a rescue pact of usually a good deal to keep, or assigning the vote damage a certain agreed upon way. Or one person saying they won't bleed, in so that they won't get rushed. They usually wait to bleed until they are really prepared, or when they can kill the rusher. Our deals are smaller in scope, because we know that we can't expect someone else to do something that is not in their best interest. Colin Riggs I never break deals, and I never lie

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't know, its not like people don't offer me deals, now. Of course I stand out as a paragon of honor compared to the rest of the deal-breakers here. ;) I guess I just don't understand the type of deals that are being offered in other cities. We only keep deals here that benefit both parties, and you can only rarely trust someone not to get a victory point. > >> I don't see the benefit, vp wise, from >> keeping every deal you accept as a point of honor. > > You don't?!? It's really pretty simple: no one will make the type of > deal that you need to keep as a point of honor unless you're known > for keeping them. They can be incredibly value deals sometimes. Of > course, if no one in your city ever makes them in any event, then I > see your point. It's not the same everywhere, obviously. True, but people will usually offer deals that benefit both of us, or at least they do here. What are these deals where people are giving away vps? I don't really think that deals in other cities are any different. I think ours just expire faster. I also think that gaming to gain people's trust, so that they will help you more in future games is any more appropriate then being super retaliatory when someone screws you. Sure it might give you a reputation where people won't sens dep you cross table, but so will kicking people's ass outside the game. They are both a form of metagaming that takes away from the each individual game. Colin Riggs

Hey! wake up! Life isn't fair! It's only a game! Of course we here in Barcelona break deals, and of course sometimes keep them, it depends on the kind of deal you are considering... In fact, our metagame has been always to sow discord and resentment. The rancor usually longs for a game or two, but we are used to forgive and forget... We understand it's only a game and every game circumstances are different, so we deal with treacherous people as well as with truthful ones... So, my advice is as follows: break deals if it could help you to save your ass! or simply break deals if it could make angry an innocent one at the other side of the table! Resentment is good and funny! Remember: The primary objective in the game is to sow rancor. BM kha...@hotmail.com (Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis) wrote in message news:<38b3422c.02100...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ]

kha...@hotmail.com (Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis) wrote in message news:<38b3422c.02100...@posting.google.com>... > Hello all, > > What is the dealing metagame in the others cities ? > Around here, deals get broken, although rarely. The general understanding is that a deal is typically honored, however if one of the participants is dumb enough to 'bare his throat', it is almost obligatory that the other deal participant make him pay for his foolishness. Example, two Rush decks sit adjacent, and agree on a 'don't mess with each other' until endgame deal. If the prey of that deal pair influences down to four pool, and taps out against their prey with no Wake shown to date, then there's just about a foregone understanding that said player trusts the deal a bit too much, and should be ousted for it. Hope that kind of captures the feel of dealmaking here... DaveZ Atom Weaver

Rule #1: If someone else is making the deal, they are getting more out of the deal, kept or broken, than you are. Rule #2: You are not clever or powerful enough to make a deal sufficiently to your benefit. I let those rules guide my dealing and dealbreaking ;) -- Ever so amused, John "Dorrinal" McGlynn "Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis" <kha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:38b3422c.02100...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

>colin...@yahoo.com wrote: <snip> >Colin Riggs >I never break deals, and I never lie Liar!! You always break deals. And cheat. Jason the cheating phase is over

>><colin...@yahoo.com> wrote: >kha...@hotmail.com wrote: >>The point is that you shouldn't have 'honor' keep you from getting vps. >>Ousting your prey is the point of the game, you will gain more vps by >>breaking the right deals at the right time, then you would if you kept every >>deal. >In fact, it's not a question of 'honor' that keep me from breaking a >deal. It's a strategic move to not break a deal. Why ? Because if I >break a deal, yes, maybe I will win the game, but I will lost the >power to negociate deals in the futur. But if everyone breaks deals sometimes, this isn't an issue. You will learn to make better deals and you will be able to recognize when a deal might be broken. Then you will be better prepared for when that happens. Maybe you should try breaking a few deals. Who knows, you might even like it. It feels good to be bad. :) >Maybe we are just to strong to remember treachery ? ;-) What fun could V:TES possibly be without treachery? Jason

Colin Riggs wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > I think you're talking about something different then the original > > poster. You're talking about deals that can only work as long as the > > partners have chains tied to one another they can yank - and woe to > > the guy whose chain breaks first. I have nothing against that. I'm > > just pointing out that it's a different subject than what the other > > guy started out with. ... > > If the players you play with are similar to to > > those in the original posters city, you actually DO gain more VPs in > > the long run. Just not not necessarily in the game in which you hold > > up your deal. > > I don't know, its not like people don't offer me deals, now. Of course I > stand out as a paragon of honor compared to the rest of the deal-breakers > here. ;) I guess I just don't understand the type of deals that are being > offered in other cities. We only keep deals here that benefit both parties, > and you can only rarely trust someone not to get a victory point. I was talking about deals that benefit both parties. However, if a situation dictates that one player must put out first and trust the other NOT to take a victory point later in consideration for the immediate action, then the ability to make the deal hinges on whether the second player can be trusted or not. In your locality, it sounds as if few if any players would keep that deal and knowing that, no one would even consider entering into such a deal. > True, but people will usually offer deals that benefit both of us, or at > least they do here. What are these deals where people are giving away vps? For instance, a Brujah rush combat deck has a prey with lots of fortitude but little intercept and an !Malk predator with lots of Kindred Spirits bleed cards but who is basically at the rush combat deck's mercy. Mr. Rush can say, "Hey, bleed my prey out for me and I'll lay down for you at the end of the game. Continue just bleeding me now and I'll destroy you." The people in your city can't make that deal because no one would trust Mr. Rush to keep it. However, it would be in both of their interests to do so as neither the Mr. Rush nor the !Malk player is likely to get the first oust without doing something like that. It sounds as if people in the original posters city might be able to do it since they have reputations for keeping such deals. > I also think that gaming to gain people's trust, so that they will help you > more in future games is any more appropriate then being super retaliatory > when someone screws you. Sure it might give you a reputation where people > won't sens dep you cross table, but so will kicking people's ass outside the > game. They are both a form of metagaming that takes away from the each > individual game. Metagaming is an unresolved philosophical question in multiplayer gaming and always has been. It's impossible to eliminate no matter what you do. Your reputation in certain respects will unquestionably affect how players in later games behave towards you. The only issue is how far one will go to create the reputation they want to bring to the table. "Kicking people's asses outside the game" might well be illegal and/or immoral depending on what you're talking about. Hauling grudges from one game to the next will negatively affect future gaming and thus (IMO) is self-defeating if the ultimate goal of gaming is to have fun. However, one DOES have a reputation for how one plays a game whether one likes it or not. I can certainly understand how players might decide to tend and nurture that reputation in a positive way, like trees in orchard. Fred

As a general rule I don't break deals. I'm not idealogically opposed to breaking deals - basically I'm a pragmatist by nature. But I *do* value a reputation for keeping them (don't know if I have such a rep!) and I admit that it's partly pride that motivates me. In general I won't offer a deal that I intend to break, or accept one that I believe either party will break (unless I'm in desperate straits anyway). For these reasons it's pretty unlikely that I'll deal with my predator or prey. Just about every deal is a once-only affair ("Don't block the Rumours of Gehenna action and I'll give you an extra master phase action") or for a specific time (one turn, two turns, whatever). This makes them much easier to keep without risking the game. I don't have any personal ill-will towards anyone who breaks a deal, but if they do so consistency then that does influence decisions. Tournaments are a different matter. If breaking a deal can get someone a VP, then by all means they should do so. I consider tournaments to be different conditions to social play. james o'rance

Frederick Scott wrote: > Colin Riggs wrote: >> >> Frederick Scott wrote: <snip> > ... >>> If the players you play with are similar to to >>> those in the original posters city, you actually DO gain more VPs in >>> the long run. Just not not necessarily in the game in which you >>> hold up your deal. >> >> I don't know, its not like people don't offer me deals, now. Of >> course I stand out as a paragon of honor compared to the rest of the >> deal-breakers here. ;) I guess I just don't understand the type of >> deals that are being offered in other cities. We only keep deals >> here that benefit both parties, and you can only rarely trust >> someone not to get a victory point. > > I was talking about deals that benefit both parties. However, if a > situation dictates that one player must put out first and trust the > other NOT to take a victory point later in consideration for the > immediate action, then the ability to make the deal hinges on whether > the second player can be trusted or not. In your locality, it sounds > as if few if any players would keep that deal and knowing that, no > one would even consider entering into such a deal. IMO you should not be able to trust someone to not do what is best for them. It is bad play to not get a victory point when you can. The times when it is worth delaying a vp for a deal are obvious, I would think, to both players and therefore the deal would be kept. Take this situation. Weenie Potence (1vp) preying on 1 cap computer hack (1vp) preying on Malk stealth bleed. Malk stealth bleed only has one minion, due to rushing, and 14 pool, weenie potence has 5 pool and four minions, and 1 cap has 10 minions and 12 pool. The weenie Potence deck is offering to rush with all his minions on this turn if the Malk deck agrees not to oust him. This is worth it for the Malk deck, and worth keeping also, because he needs weenie potence for a chance at a game win. But next turn, who knows what will happen? Probably someone would get backstabbed, if the deal was made. > >> True, but people will usually offer deals that benefit both of us, >> or at least they do here. What are these deals where people are >> giving away vps? > > For instance, a Brujah rush combat deck has a prey with lots of > fortitude but little intercept and an !Malk predator with lots of > Kindred Spirits bleed cards but who is basically at the rush combat > deck's mercy. Mr. Rush can say, "Hey, bleed my prey out for me and > I'll lay down for you at the end of the game. Continue just bleeding > me now and I'll destroy you." The people in your city can't make > that deal because no one would trust Mr. Rush to keep it. However, > it would be in both of their interests to do so as neither the Mr. > Rush nor the !Malk player is likely to get the first oust without > doing something like that. It sounds as if people in the original > posters city might be able to do it since they have reputations for > keeping such deals. Why would such a deal be of any use to the !malk deck or the rush deck? There is only 1 table win, and it doesn't help the !malk deck if their prey has 6 more pool and a vp, unless they are going to oust them directly after that. And if that is the deal, then why would the rush deck make it? If the rush deck can't get the game win because they are going to let the !malk deck oust them, then it is a bad deal. What the !malk deck should do in this situation, is agree, bleed the rush deck's prey a little bit, but not enough to oust, get out more vampires, and actually take a shot at winning the table by ousting the rush deck. What the rush deck should do is bleed around the fortitude, and wait for them to run out, and not die by killing the !malk decks vampires when needed. I guess I have a game win or bust philosophy. > >> I also think that gaming to gain people's trust, so that they will >> help you more in future games is any more appropriate then being >> super retaliatory when someone screws you. Sure it might give you a >> reputation where people won't sens dep you cross table, but so will >> kicking people's ass outside the game. They are both a form of >> metagaming that takes away from the each individual game. > > Metagaming is an unresolved philosophical question in multiplayer > gaming and always has been. It's impossible to eliminate no matter > what you do. Your reputation in certain respects will unquestionably > affect how players in later games behave towards you. The only issue > is how far one will go to create the reputation they want to bring to > the table. "Kicking people's asses outside the game" might well be > illegal and/or immoral depending on what you're talking about. > Hauling grudges from one game to the next will negatively affect > future gaming and thus (IMO) is self-defeating if the ultimate goal > of gaming is to have fun. However, one DOES have a reputation for > how one plays a game whether one likes it or not. I can certainly > understand how players might decide to tend and nurture that > reputation in a positive way, like trees in orchard. > But if they nuture their reputations at the expense of any vps or gws then they aren't playing to win as much as they could be. I don't advocate lying and scheming as a way to play, because then no one will ever trust you, and its effectiveness will peter out. Even if you can totally manipulate everyone on the table one game, and snark all sorts of advantages that you would not otherwise have through dealbreaking, that trick isn't going to work more than once. Or shouldn't, in any case. Nurturing a reputation of someone who will break deals to win, but keep them in other cases where the cost is not too high, is a better way to gain vps. It is at least flexible, whereas the honor at all costs philosophy is not. Colin Riggs honor at all costs! except when honor is inconvenient.

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3D9BCAAC...@removethis.com... > Colin Riggs wrote: > > The point is that you shouldn't have 'honor' keep you from getting vps. > > Ousting your prey is the point of the game, you will gain more vps by > > breaking the right deals at the right time, then you would if you kept every > > deal. > > Maybe, maybe not. If the players you play with are similar to to those in the > original posters city, you actually DO gain more VPs in the long run. Just not > not necessarily in the game in which you hold up your deal. I don't think that can be true. VPs are a zero-sum commodity. If you're getting more, somebody else is getting less. This argument seems to me to suppose that, if you make "strong" deals and they're always kept, people will help you get more VPs than you would get if you didn't make those deals. This can, I think, only work if there is some kind of "cartel" of dealmaking members who deal with each other to beat the non-members. Otherwise what can *they* get out of helping *you* get more VPs? If they're getting more VPs too, where are those extra VPs coming from? Cooperative play? What is this, team VTES? :-) > > I don't see the benefit, vp wise, from > > keeping every deal you accept as a point of honor. > > You don't?!? It's really pretty simple: no one will make the type of deal that > you need to keep as a point of honor unless you're known for keeping them. They > can be incredibly value deals sometimes. Of course, if no one in your city ever > makes them in any event, then I see your point. It's not the same everywhere, > obviously. It kind of seems to me like this sort of deal would inevitably escalate to the point of not being useful. If you try to make a deal with someone that they'll help you get a VP, your prey has all the incentive in the world to top your offer. (If they have nothing to offer, you shouldn't need help to oust them, right?) Repeat until no one is trying to oust their own prey, but only help other people oust theirs... Josh sometimes you just have to quit looking places other than the left

My circle of VTES fanatics has strict rules about breaking deals. NEVER do it. No one's been brave enough to break any deals so far, but if they were it's pretty much expected that no one would ever deal with them again. At the same time, we are pretty good about making sure that all deals are carefully defined with little sub-definitions and everything. We're hyper-technical about keeping our words (is a bounce an "offensive action" ?) and structure careful deals. One of my favourites was a deal I made with my predator: "I'll kill off (as in destroy, not torpor) his (my grandpredator's) two best bleeders if Leonardo the Mortician takes five actions to give a minion of my choice 1 blood." That ended up winning me the game, it did. Of course, three of us are lawyers. -Legendre

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3D9C663F...@removethis.com... > Colin Riggs wrote: > > > > True, but people will usually offer deals that benefit both of us, or at > > least they do here. What are these deals where people are giving away vps? > > For instance, a Brujah rush combat deck has a prey with lots of fortitude > but little intercept and an !Malk predator with lots of Kindred Spirits > bleed cards but who is basically at the rush combat deck's mercy. Mr. Rush > can say, "Hey, bleed my prey out for me and I'll lay down for you at the > end of the game. Continue just bleeding me now and I'll destroy you." The > people in your city can't make that deal because no one would trust Mr. Rush > to keep it. However, it would be in both of their interests to do so as > neither the Mr. Rush nor the !Malk player is likely to get the first oust > without doing something like that. It sounds as if people in the original > posters city might be able to do it since they have reputations for keeping > such deals. How is it ever going to be in the rush deck's interest to roll over? He can destroy the !Malk now; he'd be able to destroy him later. He's suggesting that the !Malk should join a pact-of-two so that he (the Brujah) can win and the !Malk can take second. Besides that the !Malk is therefore not playing to win (in my estimation at least), doesn't this force the other three players to form a pact against them? And why would they expect to be able to beat the other three without question? To me, it seems generally more enjoyable to play VTES as a "mostly every player for him-or-herself" game rather than a "okay, form up teams and let's divvy up VPs" game. Occasions of teamwork certainly pop up, especially in the four-player phase of a game, but long-term cooperation is, well, not only distasteful (to me) but also I think counterproductive to any one person's goal of winning. Unless you like settling for second place. Ah, well. There's a reason Richard Garfield tried to design this game to not have *too* much cross-table interaction, and in a lot of places where that concept was discarded (eg Kindred Spirits bleeds) it was probably a Really Bad Idea. Josh oompa loompa doompady-do

>Rule #1: >If someone else is making the deal, they are getting more out of the deal, >kept or broken, than you are. > >Rule #2: >You are not clever or powerful enough to make a deal sufficiently to your >benefit. > >I let those rules guide my dealing and dealbreaking I'm going to make a basic assumption - people aren't stupid. What is the point of making a deal? Obviously, to get an advantage over one or more other players. Why would someone accept a deal? Obviously, because your partner would also gain some advantage over one or more other players. Everything else being equal, those who make more deals do better than those who don't. You may gain nothing against one player but gain against everyone else. The incentive, therefore, is to encourage people to deal with you more than anyone else. They will only do so if they trust you more than everyone else. As long as players act rationally, there's every reason to not break deals. But, when have players always acted rationally?

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20021003154712...@mb-mr.aol.com... > I'm going to make a basic assumption - people aren't stupid. Too much of an assumption, I think. Sure, people won't intentionally do stupid things, but you don't have to be an idiot to be fooled or misled or just mistaken about what's good for you. > What is the point of making a deal? Obviously, to get an advantage > over one or more other players. > > Why would someone accept a deal? Obviously, because your partner > would also gain some advantage over one or more other players. Sure. > Everything else being equal, those who make more deals do better than > those who don't. You may gain nothing against one player but gain > against everyone else. > > The incentive, therefore, is to encourage people to deal with you more > than anyone else. They will only do so if they trust you more than > everyone else. This seems too generalized to me. You have to not only be the most trusted but also always have something to offer, to be the recipient of the most deals all the time. And people, assuming they want to win, will be less willing to make deals that strengthen the person they perceive as already being ahead in the game than the less-strong players. > As long as players act rationally, there's every reason to not break > deals. But, when have players always acted rationally? Even defining what "rational" is here seems impossible to me. These terms - and the arguments based on them - feel far too abstract to apply usefully to the actual events in VTES games. Josh teamwork?

Here in Lansing my playgroup has two pretty distinct groups of people. The first group (which I am part of) doesn't break a deal (except when playing my anarch troublemaker deck(as as to be "in character") and the second group is known deal breakers. Deals are made between groups however the terms offered to group 2 are never as valuable as the group 1-1 deals or at least require the group 2 player to ante up first. When deals are broken "spite" is built up which can effect deals for the rest of the game, night, a couple weeks, or longer. For example my Assimite deck has a contract in it which has (in pen) that it must be played on another players vampire if that player is playing.(Don't actually rememeber what he did) I have also found that since I started playing my anarch deck (which states it is not trustworthy) and broken deals and made deals that are lets say 1 sided. (Such as selling Leandro via succubus club so I could pay for my own anarch revolt to my prey then malkavian dementing him that turn and bleeding out my prey using him) That I have had trouble getting as good of deals for both players as I could have in the past. Paul [ quoted text not captured ]

Colin Riggs wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > Colin Riggs wrote: > >> > >> Frederick Scott wrote: > > I was talking about deals that benefit both parties. However, if a > > situation dictates that one player must put out first and trust the > > other NOT to take a victory point later in consideration for the > > immediate action, then the ability to make the deal hinges on whether > > the second player can be trusted or not. In your locality, it sounds > > as if few if any players would keep that deal and knowing that, no > > one would even consider entering into such a deal. > > IMO you should not be able to trust someone to not do what is best for > them. It is bad play to not get a victory point when you can. Well, that's just your opinion. It is not supported by any game rule. In fact, AFAICT, there really *isn't* a way to write a rule in a multiplayer game to avoid such behavior unless you empower a judge to start playing a player's game for him - which misses the point of having individual players play. So you need to accept the fact that whether you like it or not, metagaming is inevitably part of most multiplayer games, the possible exceptions being games where it's difficult to make such deals for other reasons. > >> What are these deals where people are giving away vps? > > > > For instance, a Brujah rush combat deck has a prey with lots of > > fortitude but little intercept and an !Malk predator with lots of > > Kindred Spirits bleed cards but who is basically at the rush combat > > deck's mercy. Mr. Rush can say, "Hey, bleed my prey out for me and > > I'll lay down for you at the end of the game. Continue just bleeding > > me now and I'll destroy you." The people in your city can't make > > that deal because no one would trust Mr. Rush to keep it. However, > > it would be in both of their interests to do so as neither the Mr. > > Rush nor the !Malk player is likely to get the first oust without > > doing something like that. It sounds as if people in the original > > posters city might be able to do it since they have reputations for > > keeping such deals. > > Why would such a deal be of any use to the !malk deck or the rush deck? > There is only 1 table win, and it doesn't help the !malk deck if their prey > has 6 more pool and a vp, unless they are going to oust them directly after > that. And if that is the deal, then why would the rush deck make it? This was all explained in the example. Without the deal, the rush combat deck will never get by the fortitude deck, ergo 0 VPs - EVER. But he might as well destroy the !Malk player who would otherwise take him out without much effort, both to delay his eventual demise (i.e., you never know what might happen if you hang on) and to put some force behind his threat to do so. Ergo 0 vps for the anti-Malk. > If the > rush deck can't get the game win because they are going to let the !malk > deck oust them, then it is a bad deal. The game win thing doesn't matter either way. They both get VPs WITH the deal. They neither one of them get a single VP without the deal. Which is better? It doesn't matter if one or other does or doesn't wind up with a game win, although I'm sure it would behoove them to negotiate about that point if they can. Frankly, you're quibbling here. These situations come up from time whether you wish to accept it or not. > I guess I have a game win or bust philosophy. That's fine. You may, someday, find that you didn't get into the finals of a tournament for lack of VPs as much as lack of an extra game win, in which case you might wish to rethink your philosophy. But I'm not trying to convince you one philosophy or another is better. I'm merely trying to point out that your's is not the only viable way to look at the situation. > > Metagaming is an unresolved philosophical question in multiplayer > > gaming and always has been. It's impossible to eliminate no matter > > what you do. Your reputation in certain respects will unquestionably > > affect how players in later games behave towards you. The only issue > > is how far one will go to create the reputation they want to bring to > > the table. "Kicking people's asses outside the game" might well be > > illegal and/or immoral depending on what you're talking about. > > Hauling grudges from one game to the next will negatively affect > > future gaming and thus (IMO) is self-defeating if the ultimate goal > > of gaming is to have fun. However, one DOES have a reputation for > > how one plays a game whether one likes it or not. I can certainly > > understand how players might decide to tend and nurture that > > reputation in a positive way, like trees in orchard. > > > > But if they nuture their reputations at the expense of any vps or gws then > they aren't playing to win as much as they could be. To the contrary, the opposite could be said to be true. If you give up a VP or a game win today but your nobility insures that you're in a much better position to obtain them in the future, you may well be optimizing the number of VPs and game wins you get over time. Therefore, if you doublecross someone today and get a cheap game win, you may very well NOT be playing to win as much as you could be. > Nurturing a reputation of someone who will break deals to win, but keep them > in other cases where the cost is not too high, is a better way to gain vps. I don't think that can be proved straight out. I think it depends on how the players you typically play with behave. In some localities, I strongly believe the opposite could be true. > It is at least flexible, whereas the honor at all costs philosophy is not. I'm really confused about what this has to do with flexibility. If you choose to go for the doublecross in the situation where someone made a deal with you for prior considerations and are depending on you to keep it when they're helpless, then you cast your die just as much as someone who inevitably choose to keep the deal. Your reputation for keeping such deals is hosed so you have absolutely nothing to gain by keeping them in the future. Basically, in that situation there's no avoiding the fact that _whatever_ you do is a permanent thing - so neither choice can be said to be any more flexible than the other. By the way, the point of keeping such deals is not "honor at all costs". This has nothing to do with "honor". It has to do with the practical benefits of maintaining a reputation for keeping deals when no in-game retribution is possible. Fred

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message > news:3D9BCAAC...@removethis.com... > >If the players you play with are similar to to those in the > > original posters city, you actually DO gain more VPs in the long run. > Just not not necessarily in the game in which you hold up your deal. > > I don't think that can be true. VPs are a zero-sum commodity. If > you're getting more, somebody else is getting less. Sure. That would be the other two or three players in the game who are not party to the deal. > This argument > seems to me to suppose that, if you make "strong" deals and they're > always kept, people will help you get more VPs than you would get > if you didn't make those deals. And you will help whichever individual player helps you, correct. > This can, I think, only work if > there is some kind of "cartel" of dealmaking members who deal with > each other to beat the non-members. Nope. It works fine whenever a situation comes up that involves two players both benefiting from a specific type of deal. That type of deal is one where one of them has to trust the other to keep his end of the bargain at a time when the former no longer holds any threat over the latter. > Otherwise what can *they* get > out of helping *you* get more VPs? Important considerations before that time comes up. In my example with Colin, it would be having the !Malk bleed out the rush decks prey for him, something he couldn't do himself. > If they're getting more VPs > too, where are those extra VPs coming from? The other two or three players. > It kind of seems to me like this sort of deal would inevitably > escalate to the point of not being useful. If you try to make > a deal with someone that they'll help you get a VP, your prey > has all the incentive in the world to top your offer. If he can do so. The thing you may not be seeing is that all of this tends to depend on specific situations that work or don't work for any two players cooperating. In fact, I think the potential for cooperation of this nature is often hard to recognize when it's there (how does the Brujah rush combat deck even know he can't get past his prey until he actually tries for a while?) and often such potential simply isn't there at all. That's probably another reason you don't see it much where you play. If player's aren't open to looking for the possibilities and you already know it's pointless when you find them (since your opponents can't be trusted to keep the deals they'd have to keep to make them worthwhile and they know you won't), why even look for them? If you don't look for them, you won't see them. But to answer your question, if your prey can find a way to top the other guy's offer and can be trusted to keep _his_ deal, then why not take it? I'm not sure how this disproves what I'm saying. > If they > have nothing to offer, you shouldn't need help to oust them, > right? Uh, no. I'm really not sure how you came to that conclusion. It's quite possible to be in a situation where you hold a hammer over everyone's head in a game but your prey's. And they may, in turn, be vulnerable to someone else - as per my example to Colin. Fred

>freds64_at_...@removethis.com wrote: >For instance, a Brujah rush combat deck has a prey with lots of fortitude >but little intercept and an !Malk predator with lots of Kindred Spirits >bleed cards but who is basically at the rush combat deck's mercy. Mr. Rush >can say, "Hey, bleed my prey out for me and I'll lay down for you at >the >end of the game. Continue just bleeding me now and I'll destroy you." The >people in your city can't make that deal because no one would trust Mr. Rush >to keep it. However, it would be in both of their interests to do so as >neither the Mr. Rush nor the !Malk >player is likely to get the first oust >without doing something like that. It sounds as if people in the original >posters city might be able to do it since they have reputations for keeping >such deals. To me, this seems like exactly the kind of deal the !Malk player should break. He can plink away at his Brujah prey a little while still keeping the deal. This is where bluffing comes in. He tells his prey "I need to bleed you for 1 to cycle stealth and draw more Kindred Spirits" when actually he's holding all his real bleed cards for the right time. When the Brujah is in range, break the deal and oust in one turn. Then oust the fortitude deck he's been bleeding all along. Then probably go on to get a game win. From the Brujah's perspective, if the !Malk holds up his end of the deal the Brujah can also break it and not roll over, thus possibly getting a game win. This just looks like a deal that was made to be broken. While it might be good for both of them in the short term, it simply doesn't make either of them win. Jason

In article <20021003154712...@mb-mr.aol.com>, Curevei <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote: >I'm going to make a basic assumption - people aren't stupid. All too often, this assumption will be false. Not because players are generally cretins, but because even smart people make stupid decisions sometimes. A big part of being smart is being stupid less often than everyone else, as Einstein remarked. But less often != never. I've made my share of foolish deals and bad game decisions. >What is the point of making a deal? Obviously, to get an advantage over one or >more other players. > >Why would someone accept a deal? Obviously, because your partner would also >gain some advantage over one or more other players. Right. The spirit of capitalism triumphs again, as the free and fair exchange of services comes to the fore. Or something. >Everything else being equal, those who make more deals do better than those who >don't. You may gain nothing against one player but gain against everyone else. > >The incentive, therefore, is to encourage people to deal with you more than >anyone else. They will only do so if they trust you more than everyone else. Solid premises, but I must disagree with your conclusion. Being trusted more does not lead to more 'commerce;' you can be the most trusted fellow at the table, but if you have little to offer, you cannot make deals, but a fellow who is less trusted, but has large favors to dispense, can compel dealmaking even in the face of mistrust, because the size of the favor is worth the risk. I would argue that, to make the most deals, you need to be the person at the table with the most 'liquid' resources, where 'liquid' is defined as 'freely directable to another player,' such as Rushing their enemy's minons, Dementation bleeds at their prey, or vote terms. If you bring the most to market, you'll make the most transactions. >As long as players act rationally, there's every reason to not break deals. >But, when have players always acted rationally? Well, there you go. We are all trapped in a maze of our own foolishness. gomi -- Blood, guts, guns, cuts Knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts

>> I'm going to make a basic assumption - people aren't stupid. > >Too much of an assumption, I think. Sure, people won't intentionally >do stupid things, but you don't have to be an idiot to be fooled or >misled or just mistaken about what's good for you. If people aren't stupid, then this should average out. >> Everything else being equal, those who make more deals do better than >> those who don't. You may gain nothing against one player but gain >> against everyone else. >> >> The incentive, therefore, is to encourage people to deal with you more >> than anyone else. They will only do so if they trust you more than >> everyone else. > >This seems too generalized to me. You have to not only be the most >trusted but also always have something to offer, to be the recipient >of the most deals all the time. And people, assuming they want to >win, will be less willing to make deals that strengthen the person >they perceive as already being ahead in the game than the less-strong >players. If you don't assume everything else is equal, how would you ever draw any conclusions? If you want to say someone is more likely to deal with a political deck than a weenie bleed deck, go ahead. But, that's an unrelated variable to how dealbreaking affects people's decisions to make deals. >> As long as players act rationally, there's every reason to not break >> deals. But, when have players always acted rationally? > >Even defining what "rational" is here seems impossible to me. These >terms - and the arguments based on them - feel far too abstract to >apply usefully to the actual events in VTES games When it's not possible to analyze a single dealmaking decision, except maybe if you are at the game and are able to stop the play, seems to me all you have left is abstractions. Seems to me that people break deals because they are guessing that a short term benefit outweighs the long term benefit of having people be more receptive to dealing with you. For most players, the long term benefit is going to overwhelm the short by weight of numbers: the number of instances of dealmaking consideration far outweighing the number of times breaking a deal is of value. There is the exceptional player, of course. I was hanging around at a con when a game was played where a first time V:TESer broke a deal and won easily because of it. His point? "If I'm never going to play the game again, why do I care?" It was quite amusing.

dcij...@aol.comNOSPAM (Jason) wrote in message news:<20021002140226...@mb-fc.aol.com>... Most are pretty good about keeping their deals around here, (Except for DAVE BRERETON...Volker will have his revenge!) even if it might not seem like they are. ie: my Tor prey was rather upset when I promised I wouldn't rush his blood doll again next turn so that he would give me a few pool in a parity shift, but then I of course foul blooded the doll when it hunted at 0 blood. Its all in how you word the deal of course. :)

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20021003204003...@mb-mo.aol.com... [I wrote] > >Too much of an assumption, I think. Sure, people won't intentionally > >do stupid things, but you don't have to be an idiot to be fooled or > >misled or just mistaken about what's good for you. > > If people aren't stupid, then this should average out. Only if you assume that all people are equally un-stupid. An overly optimistic assumption, it seems to me. :-) > If you don't assume everything else is equal, how would you ever draw any > conclusions? If you want to say someone is more likely to deal with a > political deck than a weenie bleed deck, go ahead. But, that's an unrelated > variable to how dealbreaking affects people's decisions to make deals. OK, fine. I guess I'm not used to people using "everything else being equal" as literal forced equality rather than a filler phrase. :-) > When it's not possible to analyze a single dealmaking decision, except maybe if > you are at the game and are able to stop the play, seems to me all you have > left is abstractions. Yeah, and that bothers me. :-) My feeling is that they're too vague to be useful. > Seems to me that people break deals because they are guessing that a short term > benefit outweighs the long term benefit of having people be more receptive to > dealing with you. For most players, the long term benefit is going to > overwhelm the short by weight of numbers: the number of instances of > dealmaking consideration far outweighing the number of times breaking a deal is > of value. Here's my thesis, thinking out loud (ie somewhat unexamined): If it's profitable to make deals in VTES that rely on having "trust to the point of death", the game is flawed in that respect. To the extent that cooperation between predator and prey in ousting other players is rewarded, the basic premise of the game is being undermined. It's supposed to be an individual game, not a team game. There were mechanics and incentives devised to try to reduce the ability and desire of other players to play kingmaker (in a general sense, not necessarily literally making someone else directly win), and if they're not strong enough to get people to not do it, the game design has failed. In my off-the-top-of-my-head opinion, this game is fun only when taken seriously (in that all the players are trying to win) but not *too* seriously (because the multiplayer interference-possibilities of the game make hyper-competitive play impractical, in my opinion). Treating deals as sacred because of long-term benefits of having "a trustworthy reputation" is, to me, taking the game too seriously. I may be talking out of both sides of my mouth here, I don't know. If I am, feel free to point it out. Josh die of thirst or drink up from the poisoned well

Frederick Scott wrote: > Colin Riggs wrote: >> >> Frederick Scott wrote: >>> Colin Riggs wrote: >>>> >>>> Frederick Scott wrote: >>> I was talking about deals that benefit both parties. However, if a >>> situation dictates that one player must put out first and trust the >>> other NOT to take a victory point later in consideration for the >>> immediate action, then the ability to make the deal hinges on >>> whether the second player can be trusted or not. In your locality, >>> it sounds as if few if any players would keep that deal and knowing >>> that, no one would even consider entering into such a deal. >> >> IMO you should not be able to trust someone to not do what is best >> for them. It is bad play to not get a victory point when you can. > > Well, that's just your opinion. It is not supported by any game > rule. In fact, AFAICT, there really *isn't* a way to write a rule in > a multiplayer game to avoid such behavior unless you empower a judge > to start playing a player's game for him - which misses the point of > having individual players play. Right, isn't that what 'IMO' means? Who was talking about rules? I was saying that it is more effective to get the vps when you can. Not that everyone should be forced to by some rule. Where did you get that from? > So you need to accept the fact that > whether you like it or not, metagaming is inevitably part of most > multiplayer games, the possible exceptions being games where it's > difficult to make such deals for other reasons. Ok. Where did I say that Metagaming shouldn't be part of a multiplayer game? Metagaming is part of every game even the "games where it's difficult to make such deals for other reasons." Did you mean to write deals? If so I still agree with you, and I still wasn't saying that they don't belong in games. I don't know where you pulled those paragraphs you wrote from, they don't seem to follow from what I said. > >>>> What are these deals where people are giving away vps? >>> >>> For instance, a Brujah rush combat deck has a prey with lots of >>> fortitude but little intercept and an !Malk predator with lots of >>> Kindred Spirits bleed cards but who is basically at the rush combat >>> deck's mercy. Mr. Rush can say, "Hey, bleed my prey out for me and >>> I'll lay down for you at the end of the game. Continue just >>> bleeding me now and I'll destroy you." The people in your city >>> can't make that deal because no one would trust Mr. Rush to keep >>> it. However, it would be in both of their interests to do so as >>> neither the Mr. Rush nor the !Malk player is likely to get the >>> first oust without doing something like that. It sounds as if >>> people in the original posters city might be able to do it since >>> they have reputations for keeping such deals. >> >> Why would such a deal be of any use to the !malk deck or the rush >> deck? There is only 1 table win, and it doesn't help the !malk deck >> if their prey has 6 more pool and a vp, unless they are going to >> oust them directly after that. And if that is the deal, then why >> would the rush deck make it? > > This was all explained in the example. Without the deal, the rush > combat deck will never get by the fortitude deck, ergo 0 VPs - EVER. > But he might as well destroy the !Malk player who would otherwise > take him out without much effort, both to delay his eventual demise > (i.e., you never know what might happen if you hang on) and to put > some force behind his threat to do so. Ergo 0 vps for the anti-Malk. Why would the Rush deck always be screwed by the fortitude deck? What does it matter that the for guy prevents his damage. It just becomes a bleed race. And the forititude deck will eventually run out, unless they are playing around 25 prevention cards, and even then you might catch them without it. Now, if it is a for/pro poke deck or something, then yeah the POT deck is reasonably screwed. Ok, we'll assume the pot deck is completely screwed and shouldn't even try. For the sake of your example. > > >> If the >> rush deck can't get the game win because they are going to let the >> !malk deck oust them, then it is a bad deal. > > The game win thing doesn't matter either way. They both get VPs WITH > the deal. They neither one of them get a single VP without the deal. > Which is better? It doesn't matter if one or other does or doesn't > wind up with a game win, although I'm sure it would behoove them to > negotiate about that point if they can. > > Frankly, you're quibbling here. These situations come up from time > whether you wish to accept it or not. Ok. We disagree. I think there is usually some way to wait around for a good chance to come up. And I would much rather go for that then settle for such a deal. I suppose partially because I think it would be silly to expect the rush deck to keep the deal. > >> I guess I have a game win or bust philosophy. > > That's fine. You may, someday, find that you didn't get into the > finals of a tournament for lack of VPs as much as lack of an extra > game win, in which case you might wish to rethink your philosophy. > But I'm not trying to convince you one philosophy or another is > better. I'm merely trying to point out that your's is not the only > viable way to look at the situation. I see your point. There are other ways to look at the situation. I have not gotten into the Finals of a tournament because of vps. Of course vps are good. I don't see deals where you give up any chance of getting a Game Win as a way that I want to play. I realise that other people may disagree, and that their reasons are equally valid. > >>> Metagaming is an unresolved philosophical question in multiplayer >>> gaming and always has been. It's impossible to eliminate no matter >>> what you do. Your reputation in certain respects will >>> unquestionably affect how players in later games behave towards >>> you. The only issue is how far one will go to create the >>> reputation they want to bring to the table. "Kicking people's >>> asses outside the game" might well be illegal and/or immoral >>> depending on what you're talking about. Hauling grudges from one >>> game to the next will negatively affect future gaming and thus >>> (IMO) is self-defeating if the ultimate goal of gaming is to have >>> fun. However, one DOES have a reputation for how one plays a game >>> whether one likes it or not. I can certainly understand how >>> players might decide to tend and nurture that reputation in a >>> positive way, like trees in orchard. >>> >> >> But if they nuture their reputations at the expense of any vps or >> gws then they aren't playing to win as much as they could be. > > To the contrary, the opposite could be said to be true. If you give > up a VP or a game win today but your nobility insures that you're in > a much better position to obtain them in the future, you may well be > optimizing the number of VPs and game wins you get over time. > Therefore, if you doublecross someone today and get a cheap game win, > you may very well NOT be playing to win as much as you could be. I think that the deals where vps are given away are very rare. You are probably right that I would see them more if I could learn to trust, and if I had a reputation of being amiable to those sorts of deals. Since I think those sorts of deals are rare, there is very little chance of gaining vps from keeping a spot-free reputation. > >> Nurturing a reputation of someone who will break deals to win, but >> keep them in other cases where the cost is not too high, is a better >> way to gain vps. > > I don't think that can be proved straight out. I think it depends on > how the players you typically play with behave. In some localities, > I strongly believe the opposite could be true. > >> It is at least flexible, whereas the honor at all costs philosophy >> is not. > > I'm really confused about what this has to do with flexibility. If > you choose to go for the doublecross in the situation where someone > made a deal with you for prior considerations and are depending on > you to keep it when they're helpless, then you cast your die just as > much as someone who inevitably choose to keep the deal. Your > reputation for keeping such deals is hosed so you have absolutely > nothing to gain by keeping them in the future. Basically, in that > situation there's no avoiding the fact that _whatever_ you do is a > permanent thing - so neither choice can be said to be any more > flexible than the other. If you are known as someone who keeps minor deals, but that you shouldn't turn your back to, then people will make minor deals with you. Things like rescue pacts, stray vote damage for votes, etc... Those deals should only be broken when they really count in a particular game. I regard keeping some deals, and breaking others as more flexible than either break all deals, or keeping all deals. What we are discussing doesn't have much to do with flexibility, that was a random point I threw in at the end to show my bias against keeping deals, I guess. Let's drop it unless you think flexibility is important to this discussion. > > By the way, the point of keeping such deals is not "honor at all > costs". This has nothing to do with "honor". It has to do with the > practical benefits of maintaining a reputation for keeping deals when > no in-game retribution is possible. > Ok. I think our difference is that I don't see the possibility of people giving me vps via deals. People giving me vps is one of the few things that could make up for losing vps. I think that most of the people who keep deals all the time, do it partially out of a sense of honor. You might not think of it that way, and it is not that way in every case, but that is what I have heard described elsewhere in this thread. Colin Riggs

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message > news:20021003204003...@mb-mo.aol.com... > Here's my thesis, thinking out loud (ie somewhat unexamined): > > If it's profitable to make deals in VTES that rely on having "trust > to the point of death", the game is flawed in that respect. > > To the extent that cooperation between predator and prey in ousting > other players is rewarded, the basic premise of the game is being > undermined. It's supposed to be an individual game, not a team game. > There were mechanics and incentives devised to try to reduce the > ability and desire of other players to play kingmaker (in a general > sense, not necessarily literally making someone else directly win), > and if they're not strong enough to get people to not do it, the > game design has failed. This, to me, seems somewhat questionable. You're making some assumptions here that I don't think were written down anywhere and therefore are not going to be assumptions other people make. It is supposed to be an individual game - but if two people can cooperate to the benefit of both, why not pursue such a strategy? What seems to be disturbing you is when cooperation continues absent the single game "yank of the chain", which either means that the player who holds up his end when he clearly has no in-game incentive to (any more) must either be doing what he's doing because of considerations of a later game or due to some other factor such as a perception of the meaning of "personal honor". You assert that such things are evidence of failed game design. But that would assume that a multiplayer game can somehow be designed which would prevent these considerations from affecting the game, which seems unlikely to me. There are multiplayer games in which such things have little or no impact but I think trying to design a game to limit or eliminate them entirely places huge constraints on how the game can work that it's probably not worthwhile. The types of game I can think of offhand that effectively do it (I'm sure there may be others) would be things like Risk, where player cooperation happens but player victory tends to be a sudden, runaway sort of thing that no one would knowingly aid once it's clear it's happening. Or card games where one's abilities to attack or not attack another's position are so extremely transitory that there's not much point making deals about them. The simple point that certain design decisions were made to limit kingmaking does not imply that dealmaking between players was intended to be verboten in general. And certainly there's no reason to assume that the designer meant to eliminate one particular type of deal - in this case a "deal to the death" - as opposed to any other type such as a deal that would be implicitly understood to be breakable in the event that no in-game consideration could prevent it. These are all metagaming questions, not so much game design decisions. Certain games are more conducive to them then others but I sure wouldn't fault such games for being badly designed. > In my off-the-top-of-my-head opinion, this game is fun only when > taken seriously (in that all the players are trying to win) but not > *too* seriously (because the multiplayer interference-possibilities > of the game make hyper-competitive play impractical, in my opinion). Sure. > Treating deals as sacred because of long-term benefits of having > "a trustworthy reputation" is, to me, taking the game too seriously. Not so sure. Or at least, you're entitled to your opinion about it as long as you understand that opinions on this matter (from what I've seen) vary widely. I've seen metagaming debates run for weeks and months on rec.games.board so it doesn't surprise me that opinions vary here. > I may be talking out of both sides of my mouth here, I don't know. Talking out of both sides of your mouth implies hypocrisy to me - taking one position one moment then changing it the instant it's no longer convenient. I've never noticed you doing that. Fred

Colin Riggs wrote: (most stuff snipped seemed to have resolved the major differences) > > I think that the deals where vps are given away are very rare. ... >I think our difference is that I don't see the possibility of people > giving me vps via deals. I just wanted to point out that I agree, "deals to the death" (as Josh calls them), giving VPs, taking VPs via deals and such are actually pretty rare - though I've noticed certain people are rather adept at discovering them. Actually, I think "reputations" tend to get tested more by opportunities to go back on more temporary/transitory deals such as, "I'll do X if you don't bleed me the next 3 turns". If you go back on it, your reputation will be somewhat trashed though how much would probably depend on whether you bleed me out with your doublecross or you're just being stupid. If you bleed me out, I'll be sure never to make the deal with you in that circumstance again - though I might still be tempted to make a less trusting deal. Either way, however, note that your reputation is affected to some extent and will affect future games. I think maybe in places like the original poster's city, if most everyone has totally pristine reputations, the reputation of one person who can't be trusted in all circumstances is a lot more noticeable than in places where everyone's a "ratfink". :-) That may affect how various different people from different places look at this issue. Fred

On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Frederick Scott wrote: > deals such as, "I'll do X if you don't bleed me the next 3 turns". This is totally an aside, but the casual way in which you seemed to offer this as an example made me wonder: is a "no 'x' for 3 turns" deal common? Around here, anything lasting that long only gets offered when it's basically that or be ousted. 3 turns is a quarter of the average game, and since dealing is more common in the later parts of the game, this is approaching parity with "never". David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu

David Cherryholmes wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Frederick Scott wrote: > > > deals such as, "I'll do X if you don't bleed me the next 3 turns". > > This is totally an aside, but the casual way in which you seemed to offer > this as an example made me wonder: is a "no 'x' for 3 turns" deal > common? Around here, anything lasting that long only gets offered when > it's basically that or be ousted. 3 turns is a quarter of the average > game, and since dealing is more common in the later parts of the game, > this is approaching parity with "never". Note that with such non-agression deals in the mix, the "average" game goes on a bit longer. -- 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/

"David Cherryholmes" <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.02100...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu... > On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Frederick Scott wrote: > > > deals such as, "I'll do X if you don't bleed me the next 3 turns". > > This is totally an aside, but the casual way in which you seemed to offer > this as an example made me wonder: is a "no 'x' for 3 turns" deal > common? Around here, anything lasting that long only gets offered when > it's basically that or be ousted. 3 turns is a quarter of the average > game, and since dealing is more common in the later parts of the game, > this is approaching parity with "never". In my group, "3 turns" is usually considered "too long" too. Even 2 turns is often refused as excessive. 1 turn (this turn vs the other person's next turn, most commonly) is more typical. In my experience, that "don't bleed me for 3 turns" deal sounds perilously close to "don't oust me for 3 turns and I'll just hope that you don't, leaving myself wide open". That is, unless you can survive having the deal broken and being bled all-out for at least a turn, it's a very risky deal to rely on (reiterating my/our DC point of view that you can't trust people to not kill you when it's within their immediate power to do so). Josh paranoid android

David Cherryholmes wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Frederick Scott wrote: > > > deals such as, "I'll do X if you don't bleed me the next 3 turns". > > This is totally an aside, but the casual way in which you seemed to offer > this as an example made me wonder: is a "no 'x' for 3 turns" deal > common? Around here, anything lasting that long only gets offered when > it's basically that or be ousted. 3 turns is a quarter of the average > game, and since dealing is more common in the later parts of the game, > this is approaching parity with "never". Yea, three turns _can_ be a long time. But it depends on the game, don't you think? Certain types of games can lapse into being somewhat a standoff while some players put up a good front to merely survive while others try to draw for the key card they think they need to break things up while yet others try to hunt/blood-doll/hunt/blood-doll/etc. long enough to bring out the next minion which will hopefully allow them to turn a corner. And so forth. Games like that, three turns can pass like nothing. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, it's definitely a YMMV kind of thing. But in my experience there may be a player or two at any given point who's flailing about like that, but the other three are just as likely to be in overdrive. Now I've definitely seen plenty of games that come down to the last two players and stagnate, but that doesn't really seem relevant to a discussion about deals. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:54:57 -0400, "Colin Riggs" <colin...@yahoo.com> wrote: >I think that most of the people who keep deals all the time, do it partially >out of a sense of honor. You might not think of it that way, and it is not >that way in every case, but that is what I have heard described elsewhere in >this thread. Since you are from a city where deal breaking is normal, I would like to know how many players that keep deal you know and how you can know why they do it ? Here, it's simply a way to continu to have the possibility to make deal. Not for a sense of honor. And I know a big numbers of players that do it that way and it's a general understanding that the only reason to keep deal is for that power to make deals. It's why, if I go to tournament outside of the province of Quebec, I will be really interested to do some deal breaking, since that will not that much kill my possibility to do deal when i will return. I think that I will not be able to convince you nor that you will convince me. But it's not realy a probleme, the discussion is very interesting. ;-) Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis V:EKN Québec : http://veknquebec.web-page.net