Quote:
Originally Posted by licker
I'm thinking that you run the risk of turning players away from certain games by how you define the NAP restrictions up front. Maybe that's the point? But I don't know if you want to create this kind of schism amongst the smallish community.
|
Definitely, but I think you're exaggerating the effects. We're not making a life choice here; simply because you use inviolate NAPS in one game doesn't mean you're next game can't be a free for all political fray
It's no different from choosing a map, era or mod for the game. Some players won't play simply because they're not in the mood for that particular choice at the time, others will join because it's exactly what they're looking for. Either way, it's basic courtesy to inform them beforehand so they can decide for themselves. I'm more than willing to believe that the average player is capable of distinguishing between a game where NAPS are expected to be inviolate and one in which they aren't, and modify their behaviour accordingly.
It's also why I think a NAP list is unnecessary. To me, if the players have already agreed NAPS should be inviolate in the game and someone breaks that then they are cheating, and should be treat accordingly (kicked from the game). Like I said though, without specifying at the start of the game that diplomacy was going to be fixed then it's unfair to suddenly decide they apply mid-way through the game.
And to go back to a bit:
Quote:
|
Because there is no way to tell whether you are currently playing the sneaky weasel Moloch or the honorable dragon in the current game. For all I know, you could be playing the sneaky weasel dragon all the time.
|
That's the point. The idea is that you try and work out from current behaviour what his strategy is and plan accordingly. Referring to an external list of past behaviour is the same as using spoilers though :P
It's back to what I said above. If the host had already stated no backstabbing then I'm pretty sure Llamabeast is capable of following that rule even if he has just played a treacherous hag in his previous game. If the host has decided he wants the politicking to make Machiavelli look naive then judging whether a player can be trusted or not is part of the strategy, and thinking a player is going to stick to the same strategy in every such game is probably a fatal mistake ...