Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
Look, "hohum" nappers have a tactical advantage in the game - but I think they should at least be willing to meet the "no break" nappers half way. Just say up front in the game I'm a hohum napper.
|
You could apply the same to the no break nappers. Again though, it's all about setting out the expectations for the game before you start playing. If I'm in a game where NAP's are unbreakable then I'm going to have a different criteria for signing a NAP than I am in a game where I'm free to break a NAP at any point, for obvious reasons. It's no fun for any player to suddenly find out the rules are different to what they thought mid-way through the game.
Quote:
|
I would say the anger is compounded because efforts to compile a list of either "ho hum" nappers or "no break" nappers have been disallowed (aka threads frozen).
|
If nobody has stated beforehand that NAPS are unbreakable then you can't blame a player for thinking otherwise; after all there's no recognition in the game for diplomacy. The same applies in reverse naturally. In both cases the fault isn't necessarily with the player, it's the fault of all players involved in the game for not agreeing beforehand how diplomacy would be handled. Of course, in a case where the rules have been agreed and a player still breaks them then the host should take action, but I'm not sure that would be a matter for the forum.
Quote:
|
But seriously, what is wrong with a sticky thread
|
Too much bait for flaming. We can't verify whether someone should be pilloried for breaking a nap or whether it's a case of sour grapes or a simple misunderstanding. You'd have nothing but arguments and accusations as a result of it.
A better solution would simply be to ask the person hosting or looking to get the game together to state in the description what level of political intrigue is expected. As long as everyone is aware when joining the game whether to expect NAPS to be broken, permanent or not then they have no cause to complain.