Slynky's Demise

[AMF]

Well, yes, no, and yes.

I mean, I admit, that what I am saying is symptomatic of not being able to totally separate gaming from reality. And, yes, that is a bad thing, I would say.

But it isn't monolithic nor is it universal. For example, as to the former, in SE4, when at war, I regularly "murder" billions of digitized aliens when I glass worlds - something that I would never do in real life, even if I had the ability and the justification. So, there is a point at which my personality/ethics/whatnot do not apply and points in which they do. And I think that they apply when I am dealing with other people and I have a choice. Theoretically, I could draw a utility curve which would plot my reluctance to backstab against the cost of doing so and clearly at some point it would behoove me to backstab if the cost were too great to not do so. But, this is just a game, and so it is highly unlikely the cost will ever reach that point. If, however, we were talking about real life then it might be reached much earlier.

As to the second point, my "game ethics" are not universal - as Alneyan pointed out, when I play Poker (and I do, and I've got a pretty good poker face) there is no space at all for anything other than straight up gaming. the AH game Diplomacy is the same way - the very structure of the game makes it zero-sum and betrayal inevitable - in fact, necessary. SE4 is also, *pretty much* the same way due to the limited space, the bounded tech, and the general Malthusian construct it is based on. However, I *think* my point (and I am no longer entirely sure here) is that Se4 does *not* necessarily have to be that way.

Hence my greater enjoyment of the RPG style SE4 games than the "standard" conquer the universe ones. Really, I beleive that it is true that if one plays with a style that is geared only to the latter, then you'll eventually come to a point where the game really is just a very complex giant spreadsheet with random factors.

That's how it got to be with me before I discovered PBW. I played against the AI to such an extent that I got bored. Now, I enjoyed it for years but after a while I was just playing a giant spreadsheet.

With humans, it doesn't have to be that way. Humans engage in *politics* and role-playing, both of which I find quite enjoyable.

It's always a bLast for me to test my basic political outlook (something akin to neo-liberal institutionalism with hard-core waltzian neo-realism and neo-classical realism thrown together) against other political "styles" - when one mode of political thought meets another mode, what happens? Do they change each other? Will the realist always win out? I think it's fascinating. And then, throw in the role-playing aspects and unpredictability of humans into it, and it gets to be a downright stunning exercise in politics. I love it.

Alarik

geoschmo said:
Do you play Poker? Do you tell your opponents what cards you have? Do you bet when you have nothing in the hopes that they will fold? It's called a bluff, but it's a lie.

Do you play chess? Do you announce to your opponent that you plans ahead of time? Do you move your Bishop into a position to take one piece when in fact you are trying to take another? It's called a feint, but it's a lie. If your opponent unknowingly makes a move that puts an valuable piece at risk do you point it out to him? If you don't you are being less then honest. Perhaps you can parse this and say you aren't lying, but it's semantics.

If you are having trouble with your concience when you've done nothing wrong, or getting upset at what other players do to you when they've done nothing wrong, it's because as I said, you cannot separate what happens in the game from what is out of the game.

It's a game.