Quote:
RicoRico said:
Just my 2 cents:
My ideal game would be that no one in the game would feel cheated afterwards.
Perhaps in new games it should be explicitely stated to what extent written intentions or explicit pacts are binding, to avoid disappointments for players.
I personally prefer pacts to be binding, as it allows for more efficient planning and a more steady growth, even though role-playing wise it might be very unwise to trust a nation that in principle has no other interest than global domination.
Of course, Marignon's role playing as a 'deceptive' nation may very well leave him short of allies this game, be it short term or long term ;-)
|
Personally, I would never (ok, in principle, never) play such a game where pacts were binding.
The distinction between the in-game persona and the actual 3d person behind it *must* be kept. Of course, if some nation goes the cheating/lying route, than this will impact on the reputation of its player and it will follow him through to other games - but there is no way around that. It is a whole different business when someone goes from calling the leader of a nation a liar or that he has a small dick or has bad breath to transfering those insults to the actual person role-playing the nation.
From what I have read, johnarryn acted purely in-game and calling him (the person) a liar and a cheater is bringing down the level of the game. Ermor was (somehow) deceived? Tough luck - it comes with the territory.