Do you role-play in MP games and why or why not?

[moderation]

Hrm yeah. I can see how for example if you were playing Dom 3 tournament, if there were such a thing that you would probably go out and research your opponents strengths and weaknesses, which would probably be considered metagaming. Of course this is probably par for the course in many competitive sports.

Okay now I'm the one who is a bit off topic as well.

[moderation]

Tuidjy said:
I declared war on all the undead/demonic nations on Turn I, promised that I would
not attack any of the 'good' nations, and attacked any neutral nation that showed
any sign of disrespect towards Lady Elena and the tenets of my religion. By
the way Ulm Reborn is a Militant Theocracy.

Tuidjy: I think what you did is actually really interesting. Now that I think about it, it might almost be necessary to have different objects than being the last pretender standing as you did. If everyone is playing out the same objective, to be the last god standing, the story isn't really that interesting. However you dress it up, the game still revolves around minimaxing and statistics. I've almost reached the conclusion that it's not even worth roleplaying this as a story because it's not really that interesting since whatever you say, you still have to kill everyone else.

However if there's some kind of scenario, a map that is designed specifically with a story in mind, then you have more options to actually get into the story. Particularly with single-player games, you actually get to be the hero of the story. When you're playing a game with 14 other competing heros, you're no longer really that heroic. Of course, I guess there is also the possibility of the big good versus evil scenario where one side is heroic and the other side is villains. But of course in a properly balanced scenarios, the villians would probably have to win about half the time.

[Aezeal]

For example, a player has forgotten to send gems/items they agreed to send (due to doing turns in a hurry), and then refuse to send the items because the player to receive them began attacking said player. If the attacking player chose to wait to receive the items before attacking, while they had been planning to attack for in game reasons, then they would be metagaming. Yet the player who forgot to send the gems/items/money now refuses to send them, because they are now being attacked by the player to receive them. They justify it by saying they won't send gems to their enemy. Yet when the gems should have been sent, the two nations were not openly enemies.

--> I disagree.. even nations could forget to send items/tribute and whatnot to another nation, it could be forgotten, but usually some economic reason would delay the transmission I guess. If the other nation then declared war it's only natural not to repay debts, in fact all merchants from that nation would be locked up and their goods taken..

bad example IMHO

[Omnirizon]

perhaps it is a bad example.

But it is hard to imagine how to fit a player forgetting to send items into the roleplayed illusion. Assuming they genuinely forgot, it can be something like "the latest caravan was held up" or "our royal ambassador is an absent minded dunce who forgot his bags before he left for your capital" or something like that. It fits fairly well into an imaginable event. When a player forgets to do something 2 or 3 turns in a row, it is hard to imagine how it could be fit into the roleplay without the nation just being absolutely incompetent. Can you imagine a present day nation "forgetting" to send something equivalent to magic gems (say plutonium or oil) for 3 months in a row? And it is hard to imagine how such an absolutely incompetent nation could handle tax collection or managing their armies. Yet the tax collection is automatic and players rarely forget to move armies (sending items is actually pretty easy to forget). If something like this is happening, and it is genuine forgetfulness, then it is a complete metagaming influence between the two nations. A nation may have agreed to trade with another, and then three turns after that trade may decide they are going to attack. If one player keeps forgetting to send the trade goods, then the other player's in-game decisions are being influenced by the former's out-game events. If the player who had decided to attack was forced to withhold their attacks due to the still open trade deal (only open because of out-game influence), then the metagaming is having a very powerful effect on in-game events.

If the player isn't forgetting to send the gems, and using that as an excuse, then that is also metagaming. they are using out-game to justify an in-game strategy. A nation would never say they forgot to send something, because it would be completely incompetent. A nation that doesn't have enough wherewithal to ship traded goods to neighbors obviously can't rule their own lands, they would be immediately attacked.

I guess, then, we could just fit the whole occurrence, as you suggested, into some "economic reason". But it is hard to imagine what was economically preventing gems a player has from being put on a caravan or sent with a messenger to another player's capital. And like I said, no nation that can collect its own taxes could simply "forget" to send trade goods or tribute.

The issue is a player taking responsibility for a game they can't play. I guess I have a little feeling around the whole thing because the above scenario has happened to me. If a player is having in-game issues due to inability to actually play their turns, they should do whatever they can to repair their issues affects on other player's in-game strategies.

[Cor2]

Even though I do PNP rpgs like White Wolf or DnD. I often feel like I lack the imagination (or I am too lazy) to Roleplay in Dominions. I need to give it a shot sometime.

[Aezeal]

Omnirizon: the king/emperor/pretender didn't want to put signatures on royal decree's this month so he went hunting... all administration had to wait a month

or just the age old excuse: burocracy (?)

I don't consider that a real meta game problem really.. it's what you should expect, or keep in mind at least.

[Omnirizon]

I like it, I like it. The king forgets to sign. His empire his crumbling under corruption as his court picks everything apart out from under him, embezalling(sp?) royal trade goods, filling their own pockets before fleeing to other lands. leaving the peasantry to suffer the burden of an incompetent, irresponsible king.

[Agrajag]

Bureaucracy, Embezzling.
Firefox now comes with a pretty awesome dictionary that automatically checks everything you type in a textbox type field

[Dedas]

Why can't there be incompetent or just plain dumb rulers?

Good and effective administration might not be present in slothful or turmoil dominion.

When I'm playing a more or less "good" ruler I can find that it serves my purposes (and is thematically right) to just plain stall any deal. Sometimes even seizing the whole shipment without payment from the naive ruler I'm trading with. Perhaps that's what you get for trading with a diabolic demon lord whose rule is based on just corruption and lies.

I will of course face the consequences of that kind action, but it won't be so bad when I'm am mightier than they.

Other times I play a virtuous and humanitarian prince who only think good of everyone and cannot lie or deceive.

[Omnirizon]

Agrajag said:
Bureaucracy, Embezzling.
Firefox now comes with a pretty awesome dictionary that automatically checks everything you type in a textbox type field

the logic of the autocorrect on firefox isn't that keen. for the misspelling I had it kept returning "embellishing", with no option in the list of the correct spelling for "embezzling." I tried a couple different words, even using the double "z". The issue, I think, is I had the vowel following the z's, and firefox was getting thrown off by that.

I hate to say it, but the microsoft autocorrect is far superior.