POLL: Backstabbing

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Pax:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidG:
No you lost. You may have had fun but you lost. It's going to be pretty hard to have a relevant discussion if you are going to make up your own definitions for words.

I refute that. Again, define "win" -- for you, seemingly, it must mean "make everyone else lose".

---

Do you not own a dictionary? Are you unaware of the victory conditions option in the game? If you play a game of chess and lose your king you have lost the game. You may have had fun doing it but you lost. If you are playing a game of Se4 on Last man standing rules then yes the object is to make everyone else lose. This does NOT mean you are trying to make the game no fun for them. Why are you trying to turn a desire to win into something evil and nasty? It is the object of the game in most SE4 games I have played.

[Gryphin]

Win = Have Fun
Win = Two Hav Phun (My Preferance)
Win = Concour the quadrant
Win = Enjoy concouring the quadrant

We can all look it up in the dictionary.
Here we define it for ourselves.
At that point there is nothing to discus.

I guess when all is said and done it comes down to:
If your ally broke a treaty
Would you feel it was wrong or just part of the game?
Will you ever trust them again in another game
Will you try to get even in another game

About the best I feel you can do is agree in advance how to cancel treatys. If the other player will not agree, (in which case you can't trust them), or if they break the agrement you pretty much have your answer.
Since I have not been and don't think I will be in this situation
Is This all idealistic spectulation?
or
An Unbiased suggesiton?

I susspect many will think I have over simplyfied.

[DavidG]

Win = Have Fun
Lose = Have Fun
Therefore: Win = Lose

I apologize if it seems like I'm going on a rant here but I don't understand why some people seem to want to vilianize a desire to win. Most games have rules that define who the winner is. You won't see the Maple Leafs losing the 7th game of the Stanley Cup 10-1 and then have the ref say 'oh wait they had more fun so they win'

In SE4 the rules often say the Last empire alive wins. So I try to make this my empire. Is that really a bad thing?

Personaly I think everyone trys to win in SE4 even if they won't admit it to themselves. I've played the Prirates in a P&N game which is pretty tough to win at (and I didn't) but I still tried to win. Yes I had fun but I did not win the game.

[Chronon]

Has anyone here ever played Avalon Hill's Diplomacy? Now there is a game that truly rewards backstabbing (it's almost impossible to win without backstabbing at least one player in the game). It used to be my favorite game, but I don't play it anymore because too many of my friends took it personally when they got backstabbed, and it started to carry over into real life. In comparison, I find the group of players on PBW quite honorable and forthright. Yes, backstabs do happen, but in my experience Partnerships really mean something in SE4. I find that very refreshing.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Gryphin:
I guess when all is said and done it comes down to:
If your ally broke a treaty
Would you feel it was wrong or just part of the game?
Will you ever trust them again in another game?
Will you try to get even in another game?

- always just part of the game

- yes for sure (but if he does it another dozen times then probably not)

- the first time no, the second time probably not, the third time.... I think it is like Stone Mill said. You try to start with a clean slate but if you are up against a player who has betrayed you a dozen times before are you really going to trust him again? You may take actions in game that your role played trusting empire would but you as a player would no doubt have those previous betrayals in the back of your mind.

[Slynky]

Originally posted by Chronon:
Has anyone here ever played Avalon Hill's Diplomacy? Now there is a game that truly rewards backstabbing (it's almost impossible to win without backstabbing at least one player in the game). It used to be my favorite game, but I don't play it anymore because too many of my friends took it personally when they got backstabbed, and it started to carry over into real life. In comparison, I find the group of players on PBW quite honorable and forthright. Yes, backstabs do happen, but in my experience Partnerships really mean something in SE4. I find that very refreshing.

Yep...lonnnnng time ago. And, you are right. Hence the name of the game.

[Pax]

Originally posted by DavidG:
Do you not own a dictionary? Are you unaware of the victory conditions option in the game? If you play a game of chess and lose your king you have lost the game.

I have not achieved victory, you are absolutely right on that account.

But, if I enjoyed the game, and learned something from my loss ... then I have, indeed, won.

You may have had fun doing it but you lost.

To insist this, means you can only percieve mechanics-based victory as a "win", and anythign less as a "loss". Victory for it's own sake is not something I consider fun, and so, not something I would count as a "win".

If you are playing a game of Se4 on Last man standing rules then yes the object is to make everyone else lose. This does NOT mean you are trying to make the game no fun for them. Why are you trying to turn a desire to win into something evil and nasty? It is the object of the game in most SE4 games I have played.

Ah, but one does not have to achieve the object of the game, in order to win, if one roleplays, and enjoys doing so!

I'm not turning the desire to achieve objective victory into a bad, villainous thing.

Why, on the other hand, are you insisting only objective victories count as "winning", when subjective victory should count every bit as much?

Originally posted by DavidG:
Win = Have Fun
Lose = Have Fun
Therefore: Win = Lose

Absolutely incorrect. Try it this way:

Win = have fun.
Lose = not have fun.
Therefor, Win = Not Lose.

I apologize if it seems like I'm going on a rant here but I don't understand why some people seem to want to vilianize a desire to win.

Noone here is. Instead, you are trying to trivialise alternate definitions of "winning", which take into account purely personal objectives, rather than the singular, outside objective(s) of the game setup itself.

Most games have rules that define who the winner is. You won't see the Maple Leafs losing the 7th game of the Stanley Cup 10-1 and then have the ref say 'oh wait they had more fun so they win'

BEcause, despite what people will tell you, professional sports isn't really about having fun; it's about making money, and teams that achieve nonsubjective victories make more money.

In SE4 the rules often say the Last empire alive wins. So I try to make this my empire. Is that really a bad thing?

As long as you have fun doing so, and don't try to purposefully deny enjoyment ot others ... no, not at all. Again, that' the beauty of the way I define "win" -- you can have your win, and I can still have mine. At the same time!

Personaly I think everyone trys to win in SE4 even if they won't admit it to themselves. I've played the Prirates in a P&N game which is pretty tough to win at (and I didn't) but I still tried to win. Yes I had fun but I did not win the game.

Do I try to accomplish the static goals and objectives set forth in the SE4 game itself? Of course.

But to me, I win from turn 0, so long as I enjoy pursuing that static, external goal, within the confines of the persona I have selected for my race.

Now, as for your quip, above, about owning a dictionary:

From the Mirriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com):
Main Entry: 1win
Pronunciation: 'win
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): won /'w&n/; win·ning
Etymology: Middle English winnen, from Old English winnan to struggle; akin to Old High German winnan to struggle and probably to Latin venus sexual desire, charm, Sanskrit vanas desire, vanoti he strives for
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses
1 a : to get possession of by effort or fortune b : to obtain by work : EARN
2 a : to gain in or as if in battle or contest b : to be the victor in
3 a : to make friendly or favorable to oneself or to one's cause -- often used with over b : to induce to accept oneself in marriage
4 a : to obtain (as ore, coal, or clay) by mining b : to prepare (as a vein or bed) for regular mining c : to recover (as metal) from ore
5 : to reach by expenditure of effort
intransitive senses
1 : to gain the victory in a contest : SUCCEED
2 : to succeed in arriving at a place or a state
- win·less /'win-l&s/ adjective
- win·na·ble /'wi-n&-b&l/ adjective

Pay especial attention to the definitions I put in bold. You adhere solely to the first of the two -- absolute victory in the contest that is SE4.

I, on the other hand, adhere mostly but not exclusively to the second. I consider myself to have won, if I arrive (as early as possible) in a state of enjoyment with the game.

The fun part is, if I enjoy 100 turns of the game, I could see it as having won that game 100 times.

So; why must you insist that my vision of "winning" is any less valid than yours? Over-competitiveness, perhaps?

[ June 07, 2003, 07:29: Message edited by: Pax ]