[OT] The Art of Winning Games

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Self Control is and illusion. The effect you are actually describing is an effect of peer pressure and so depends heavily on the folk to which you peer. After all, I call it Self Control when I get my inhibitions under control enough to do the sorts of things that rid one of one's virginity.

while my morales and my actions may be influenced by the people i'm around, there's plenty of times when those people are not around. if nothing else, i'm pretty sure i could find some private time in the bathroom - and clean up after myself.

[Slynky]

Originally posted by Stone Mill:
If you'll allow, I'll stick more to the "winning games" topic, rather than winning and losing in real life, which is somewhat subjective and relative to personal experience and the situation.

When it comes to playing games, I enage with the attitude that I'm going try and win; giving my opponents hell by leveraging any legal asset at hand.

I find they appreciate me for it, as much as I love someone throwing their best at me.

I'll stick to the topic as well:

I agree with the "King". I'll add another thought, though, since I have a suspicion this thread started as a result of the Mediocrity posting (and because this thread seems civil enough):

I don't believe in doing ANYTHING legal, though, because I prefer to have my reputation follow me from game to game. I don't believe in dropping any kind of treaty the same turn as I attack. I don't believe in, for example, agreeing to 5 turn notice of impending attack when dropping a treaty with someone and then attacking before the 5 turns is up. Why? Winning is not as important as keeping my reputation. What reputation is that? One that follows me from game to game. I want anyone I have a treaty with to know they can trust what I agree to in future games. That's just me. I just want people to know they have a treaty they can depend on and if they know the way I play, then they will know they can trust what I say and I wan't jeopardize that for a siingle win in a single game and put future games at risk. Those who have played with me also know I don't mind taking a "backseat" in an alliance. I did it in the infamous "Challenge" game. I had planned to do it with Lord Chane in Mediocrity (but the attack came and Lord Chane dropped the game keeping the Stellar Manipulation ships we had built for deep attacks). And who knows what roll I'll take in Anklebiters (it's still shaping up) but I want people to know what they can expect from my reputation.

As to other people who disagree...that's up to them. They may make and break treaties as they see fit for that game. All it means to me is that THEIR reputation has followed them to any game I find myself in with them. While I realize (according to a poll I conducted some time back) that some people do things like that from game to game and don't carry the events from one game to another but I find it hard to trust those kinds of people when I find them in a future game. Just me. Perhaps I'm wrong but it's just my personality.

In the end, it's just a game, they are most always fun, and I don't really get angry when someone plays in a way I don't agree with. I just remember them for future games.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Slynky:
I don't believe in doing ANYTHING legal, though, because I prefer to have my reputation follow me from game to game.

What happens is people confuse doing this with being honorable. It's not being honorable, per se, it is more of a metagame behavior aimed at winning you more games.

I do the same thing, mostly. I'll "backstab" someone who irks me, but I won't go back on my word. For me, making a T&R agreement with someone, for example, does not include with it any promise to not attack the same turn it is dropped. However, if I had made a "gentleman's" pact with that person, such as the five-turn warning you mentioned, then I will always wait the five turns, for the reasons you state (reputation).

[Fyron]

While I realize (according to a poll I conducted some time back) that some people do things like that from game to game and don't carry the events from one game to another but I find it hard to trust those kinds of people when I find them in a future game. Just me. Perhaps I'm wrong but it's just my personality.

This is where "roleplay" aspects come into play... some people actually use those empire description fields to good purpose. I am one of those people. I find that roleplaying my empire rather than just treating it as a stale wargame adds whole new levels of fun, especially when others do so as well. If I am playing an "evil" race in a game, I will make that clear, and have no compulsions about backstabbing and all that stuff; it goes right along with an evil race. But in the next game, I might be playing a "good" race, and would not do anything of the sort.

[Slynky]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

While I realize (according to a poll I conducted some time back) that some people do things like that from game to game and don't carry the events from one game to another but I find it hard to trust those kinds of people when I find them in a future game. Just me. Perhaps I'm wrong but it's just my personality.

This is where "roleplay" aspects come into play... some people actually use those empire description fields to good purpose. I am one of those people. I find that roleplaying my empire rather than just treating it as a stale wargame adds whole new levels of fun, especially when others do so as well. If I am playing an "evil" race in a game, I will make that clear, and have no compulsions about backstabbing and all that stuff; it goes right along with an evil race. But in the next game, I might be playing a "good" race, and would not do anything of the sort.

---

And I think this is one of the things I was referring to. I remember chatting in the poll thread I referred to about the dimension of roll-playing. I can certainly understand that. For instance, in a "Star Trek" RP game, I can understand that when make a treaty with the Romulans (for instance), it's for convenience and that THAT convenience may disappear at any turn. But, just as I know about these various races from movies (or from the descriptions people fill in on their descriptions), and the fact that a game is billed as a roll-playing game, I can understand and accept people are playing a character and NOT themselves (per se). I trust Lord Chane to a "T" but if I found myself in a roll-playing game with him and he was playing the Ferengi, I'd always be watching my back because I know it wasn't Lord Chane playing the empire but that it was the Ferengi.

I was referring to games not of that genre. Games where I rely on how that real person plays from game to game.

[Fyron]

Some people treat every game that way though...

[Slynky]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Some people treat every game that way though...

Which is why I "log" events and remember those kinds of people... . I just want to remember when I see certain names that I'm really playing with (or against) the Klingons...hehe.