Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is where "roleplay" aspects come into play... some people actually use those empire description fields to good purpose. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I am one of those people. I find that roleplaying my empire rather than just treating it as a stale wargame adds whole new levels of fun, especially when others do so as well. If I am playing an "evil" race in a game, I will make that clear, and have no compulsions about backstabbing and all that stuff; it goes right along with an evil race. But in the next game, I might be playing a "good" race, and would not do anything of the sort.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is where "roleplay" aspects come into play... some people actually use those empire description fields to good purpose. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I am one of those people. I find that roleplaying my empire rather than just treating it as a stale wargame adds whole new levels of fun, especially when others do so as well. If I am playing an "evil" race in a game, I will make that clear, and have no compulsions about backstabbing and all that stuff; it goes right along with an evil race. But in the next game, I might be playing a "good" race, and would not do anything of the sort. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And I think this is one of the things I was referring to. I remember chatting in the poll thread I referred to about the dimension of roll-playing. I can certainly understand that. For instance, in a "Star Trek" RP game, I can understand that when make a treaty with the Romulans (for instance), it's for convenience and that THAT convenience may disappear at any turn. But, just as I know about these various races from movies (or from the descriptions people fill in on their descriptions), and the fact that a game is billed as a roll-playing game, I can understand and accept people are playing a character and NOT themselves (per se). I trust Lord Chane to a "T" but if I found myself in a roll-playing game with him and he was playing the Ferengi, I'd always be watching my back because I know it wasn't Lord Chane playing the empire but that it was the Ferengi.

I was referring to games not of that genre. Games where I rely on how that real person plays from game to game.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

Some people treat every game that way though... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

Puke : Interestingly enough, many Brazilian tribes practiced cannibalism, before the Portuguese arrived and Banned it. Which gives rise to one of my pet phrases : "Yes, tradition and cultural roots are a wonderful thing, let's revive the customs of our ancestors and go eat all the foreigners."

Puke again : that's the reason why fiction and games exist (or at least my opinion of it), but of course they have gone on to be much more.

Loser : There were wargames before HG Wells (although he may have invented the commercial wargame), but the irony is still there. As is the fact that Monopoly was invented by a socialist who wanted to portray the evils of capitalism.

Narf : self-control goes so much against all our species survival instincts that it is almost a form of violence against oneself. So-called 'safe sex', on the other hand, does not really solve the problem either because there is a part of us that wants children, not just sex. It's interesting to see what society has come up with to appease the parental instinct in an overcrowded world : pets, consumerism, concentration of the population in cities where living space is scarce and the growing perception that sex is an end in itself. Wait, I remember a book that described a society like that, it was called 'Brave New World'.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which is why I "log" events and remember those kinds of people... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif . I just want to remember when I see certain names that I'm really playing with (or against) the Klingons...hehe.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Depending on what state you live in it might be better to just kill them. Check and see if you have a Make My Day law. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Self Control is and illusion. The effect you are actually describing is an effect of peer pressure and so depends heavily on the folk to which you peer. After all, I call it Self Control when I get my inhibitions under control enough to do the sorts of things that rid one of one's virginity. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That would be Batu Khan.

Thanks for the link Erax. You've definitely got me there. It's often said these days that we are moving closer to Brave New World than 1984, but I'm fairly sure both of them were good Self-Preventing Prophecies.

[ December 11, 2003, 12:39: Message edited by: Loser ]

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

Yep. In one of the games I am currently playing I am evil and in trouble. I have tons of things to colonize but can't due to diplomatic troubles on the other side with a bunch of other players due to treaty violations on my part mostly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

In another I am about to get into trouble because of being the good guy and the need to uphold my treaty obligations even to an empire that it will be a struggle to support against the attackers.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

I play every game to win. Not that I mind losing, I certainly do my share of it, but I play every game, and from the begining to the end of every game to win.

I have no objection to breaking a treaty or even pulling a sneak attack on a current ally. I can't remember once ever making a deal with another player in a game and promising anything other then to do my best to work with him to win. If I have, I probably shouldn't have because I likely would have turned on them if I felt it suited my purposes at the time.

Allies are only good if they are helping me to win. If an ally is strong enough and doing a good job he is helping me win and he will stay my ally. If he is weak, or I find another ally that can help me more to win I will switch allies. Or if my ally becomes too strong, I may switch, if I think it will help me to win.

I always assume every ally is planning on doing the same to me. I expect every turn they may turn on me if I am no longer serving their purposes. So I try to stay strong and suit their purposes. I want them to think always I am stronger than them, but not so much stronger that I am a threat to them. Only strong enough that I am more usefull as an ally then as an enemy.

I don't like sharing too much with my allies, because everything I give him is something he will use against me eventually. I know this because everything they give me I will use agaisnt them eventually.

I want my enemies and my allies weak. I want my allies only strong enough so that together we are stronger then my enemies.

And I don't keep track of who has broken treaties with me in past games. I have enough trouble keeping track of my enemies and allies in the game, I don't need to waste effort keeping track of who was my enemy in a previous game.

I don't mind losing, but I can't not try to win, or I don't enjoy playing. Even in a role play game, I will role play and try to win. Afterall, who can concieve of a race of beings that wishes to be exterminated? It may be possible, but I doubt they would survive to achieve spaceflight. And if they did, I wouldn't want to role play them.

All of this may not make me a very good ally, and probably costs me a few games. But I prefer it this way. I think it makes things more interesting.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

Some VERY good points, Geo. But I know (I think) you like multi-player games a lot http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif . For THAT dimension.

I would add (or disagree with) some points (humbly):

If I were your ally and I were weaker than you AND the game was a "one victor" game, I think you'd be better off sharing your tech with me and letting me do my best to help you to a final victory. You see, when I'm in a game where it's Last man standing and I can see that I am the weakest in the alliance, my goal is to help the others win. And, I think, they have a better chance of winning WITH my "pathetic" help than having to spend "energy" and time taking me out just to get my planets or colonies. After all, if I have the same tech, I can build the same ships as you and help defend warp points that you attack through, or spend time on producing minerals (etc.) and gifting them to you, or getting that opener you can't spend the EB time on while you are on the offensive. In fact there are MANY things a weak ally can do to help. In my opinion, though weak, I'm more useful as a weak ally than the time it takes to remove me. I could be wrong (and naive) as I rarely spend time thinking about "removing" a weak ally.

Though I may be in an alliance where I have no chance of of being the Last man standing, I gain my extra game satisfaction by helping my alliance as best as I can to "their" victory. In games like that, I would hope and expect my allies to understand this and understand it's better in the long run to "keep" me than spend the time to "throw" me away.

I do the same for any ally I have a partnership with. And I like knowing (hoping) that any partner I have knows this about me and trusts me implicitely.

Re: [OT] The Art of Winning Games
 

Heh. When I roleplay I don't think about it in terms of winning or losing but in meeting the goals of the race. If I can reach and maintain those goals then I consider myself to have won.

One race may lend itself very well to conquest and eliminating everyone else. Another may be for peace across the galaxy.

It makes for some interesting goals and greatly different gameplay game to game. If I stuck to the same basic stuff each game I would rapidly get bored. So I have to change things around for myself in each game.