In response to Lord Chane. First, my game philosophy is more like Geoschmo's but I have full respect for L C's views.
Quote:
...would not ally with him if I knew that he viewed alliances as transient and was planning my demise...
|
To all players in my PBW games: You are all my enemies! Any alliance is an alliance of convenience! Like chess or poker, they are all my adversaries, all shows of friendliness are purely temporary.
On the flip side, I fully expect my allies to do unto me as I would do unto them. I enter every game thinking they all have it in for me... and they do! Or at least they should.
Quote:
It makes me wonder what they're like at work.
|
At work, we
are on the same team! In SEIV we are all opponents.
In case that wasn't crystal clear, at work we are a team striving toward the same goal, in play we are opponents striving for
opposing goals.
Quote:
How can I ever trust a player once that player has betrayed me in a game?
|
You can't. Even if he has never betrayed you, you can't!
Quote:
Every future interaction with them, in or out of the game, will leave me wondering whether I'm being duped, used, merely a means to an end.
|
Of course! Kinda like real life, isn't it. I have no doubt my boss is using me.
Quote:
By what means can I tell that this time he's going to play me straight and not stick a knife in my back?
|
Actually the predicability of familiar players is one reason I prefer playing with unfamiliar ones: I don't know what he's going to do, when he's going to do it or how well he's going to do it. Much more interesting.
I reiterate, SEIV, poker, chess are all one when deciding who my enemies are.