POLL: Backstabbing

[Tnarg]

What for the most part makes the game interesting is Role Played races. One can be an evil mischieveous race peddeling filth through out the galaxy, and then turn their strategy around in another game being the Pope.

If one plays the game in the same style in every game, another player can learn their strategy and in a sense that is a form of "knowing thy enemy" intelligence/espionage which could be in that grey area of backstabbing.

Now in games where it is established that role playing is welcome, I don't think that this should reflect on the actual player no matter what he/she/it does, short of cheating.

It's a game and it is a simulation of diplomacy and war. And if anyone can say that their is honesty and fuzzy stuffed bears in real diplomacy and war, I would love to hear it.

[Krsqk]

In a typical free-for-all game, I expect to be backstabbed frequently. I tend to have several "layers" of trust, pushing as many as possible toward the outside. If a player backstabs without reason to break their word, I will note it and be more wary of allying with them in other games, but I will not take it out on them in another game.

In a roleplaying game, I expect that people will live up to their race's reputation--hopefully they've filled in their race history, etc., and are fairly discernible up front. Backstabbing is expected when it fits in with the race, or when circumstances have pushed an alliance apart. I don't expect that the same player will RP the same way in another game, and don't take it out on them in other games.

I think the big problem is when players aren't satisfied to take knowledge of other players with them to the next game, and carry grudges instead. If someone breaks an alliance, you'll know better next time. Until then, it is only a game, after all.

[Pax]

First off, let me respond to this post by Slynky.

Originally posted by Slynky:
This is one of the grey areas that couldn't be explained well in the short span of the question. For that, I apologize.

Wronged....OK...

You are allied and your optics discover a stealth/cloaked ship from one of your alies deep in your territory. Is that being wronged? Should you drop the alliance immediately and begin an attack? Or should you tell him to leave? And should you consider this action hostile? After all, it was in stealth mode? SO, is that wronged?

That is entirely dependant on why the ship is there, my relationship with that ally, the "character"/persona of the race I am playing (I *always* RP my race, at least as far as actions, if not mannerisms and speech patterns. ) ... and so on.

It also depends on who else is in that system; if it's a border system, shared between me and neighbor A (with whom I am at peace), then Neighbor B (with whom I am allied) might want to keep a surreptitious eye on A (with whom he has almost no contact).

Your ally colonizes planets in "your" space...Is that being wronged?

Depends on the wording of our intersettlement-and-alliance policy, if any, and wether or not he ASKED first. Absent such a treaty, and absent such a request -- I issue a "request" that that ally immediately vacate thatw orld, or, offer me "sufficient" compensation for ceding sovereignty over said world(s) to them.

[b]Or, a big fleet enters "your" space. Is it headed to a destination that you can believe doesn't worry you? Did he give advance notice or just show up?[/qb]

A big fleet showing up, without notice, and which I did not expect to see ... is every bit as much MY fault as the ally's; I should have had forward observers on "his" side of our border, just as I'd expect him to have just on "my" side. One of the ways I like to best come to trust someone, is to each let the other cross one system into the other's space, and park a single, out-of-the-way satellite to give "eyes" just the other side of the border Wormholes.

If I wasn't allowed to do that, and a fleet suddenly shows up, then I make (additional) preparations for defense, and SHADOW the fleet ... but unless the fleet's intentions become crystal clear, I won't strike pre-emptively.

Well, not normally. Some of the races I play are absolute psychopaths, and they'll attack just for the FUN of it.

Did you agree on gifts of tech and he doesn't fulfill his agreements?

That's breach of contract, and a violation of the attached treat(-y/-ies); he has already backstabbed, so a comensurate response is appropriate.

In that case, immediate expulsion form your space of all unapproved assets, termination of any T&R or other higher treaties, and so on.

War, however, might be an over-reaction, depending on the scale of the theft (you should never GIFT a huge amount of tech to someone you cannot trust 110%, anyway; that's what TRADES are for -- outside of a team environment, anyway).

...

Now, with that said, my answers were:

In general, do you believe "backstabbing" is just part of the game?"

Yes; absolutely.

If you "backstab" someone, do you worry about your "reputation" in PBW?

No; anyone that holds that sort of a grudge, isn't someone I'd care to game with again, anyway.

Would you be more likely to "backstab" in a rollplaying game?

Yes ... because, for me, there's nothing BUT a role-playing SE4 game.

Would you be more likely to "backstab" if you had a T&R agreement?

No; the level of treaty has little or nothing to do with the odds of treachery happening. Only the character of the race I am playing, and the in-game history of the race potentially being betrayed.

Would you be more likely to "backstab" if you had a NA agreement?

No; see above.

Would you "backstab" if you had a Partnership agreement?

Yes, absolutely, if the action was in-character.

Do you consider it permissable to "backstab" an ally whom you feel wronged you?

Yes, as I understand your question. Then again, I don't think it's honestly POSSIBLE to betray someone who has wronged you ... only to overreact (see above).

You have 3 allies. 2 of them suggest you drop the other and attack. Do you?

No, not just because I was asked to.

When you are "backstabbed", do you remember & carry it to the next game w/ them?

Absolutely not!!! That would make me the sort of person I refuse to play with ... !

Do you find it OK to "backstab" with an explanation or a # or turns warning?

Yes; it's more honorable IMO than a surprise attack.

Besides, I try never to make treaties that don't have a built-in "warn and terminate" opt-out clause, to the effect of "this agreement can be terminated with X turns advanced notice, during which all parties will remvoe their ships from non-joint space and pursue no hostilities against the other."

[ June 06, 2003, 05:35: Message edited by: Pax ]

[Pax]

Originally posted by Stone Mill:
Very interesting topic. very interesting questions.

I suggest you all become a bit more familiar with Machiavelli.

This game is about war, really, (unless someone has defined other game purposes). And good players play to win.

Funny. I thought good players played games to have fun. Winning isn't everything, you know.

When a player does "backstab," you better believe it is remembered, and even carried over into other games. That player will get a reputation for being "dirty" or maybe "ruthless." You will think twice before exposing yourself to them again. That is human nature, no matter how hard we try to be objective.

Feh. Remind me ... NEVER to play a game of SE4 against you.

If you can't seperate player from character, then IMO, you have no business playing anything more advanced than checkers, except against an AI.

That is the unwritten rule that ties us together as gamers; we don't want to get a bad rep for being deceptive and sneaky (some would say clever)... yet it is very much part of the game. So we do it with some sort of honor.

As a gamer, what I expect is, noone will cheat; THAT, I remember from game to game.

But the actions of a RACE, do not speak to the actions of that PLAYER. And actions in one game do not speak to actions in another, unless that player is so singularly unimaginative as to only be able to create one race, in terms of behavior (if that many).

[narf poit chez BOOM]

i consider all treaties severable with a reasonable advance warning.
and any hostile action, which means action which will probably result in damage to me or my allies, which doesn't include reasonable survalience, ie, not survalience of core systems, is grounds for war. however, there's no sense in overeacting till i find out wether it was an accident or not.
mines in my space, spreading rumors or making a treaty and not honering it means war.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Pax:
Funny. I thought good players played games to have fun. Winning isn't everything, you know.

Gee thanks for telling us that for the 100th time. IMO anyone that claims they do not try to win is kidding themselves. You know it is possible to play to win and for fun at the same time.

As far as holding a grudge from game to game I think everyone tries not to do that. But really, if player A wins your trust and then uses sneaky tactics to stab you in the back in game 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc are you seriously going to trust him in the next game?

Originally posted by Pax:
unless that player is so singularly unimaginative as to only be able to create one race, in terms of behavior (if that many).

Just because a player may player the same race from game to game does not mean they lack imagination. An BTW SE4 is a not really a role playing game. (and yes I know some choose to play it that way but many do not. Try role playing a King of the Hill game)

And suggesting that a player who has contributed as much as Stone Mill has "no business" playing the game is just downright insulting.

[ June 06, 2003, 12:21: Message edited by: DavidG ]

[Stone Mill]

Originally posted by Pax:
Feh. Remind me ... NEVER to play a game of SE4 against you.

If you can't seperate player from character, then IMO, you have no business playing anything more advanced than checkers, except against an AI.

Yikes! I guess I may be insulted... but rather I think it is a case of our understanding of what is backstabbing and the points we both were trying to make.

First let me say clearly that my policy is to enter every game with a clean slate, to win, and to have fun. I also strive to play with a great deal of character.

But- Ah-ha! I've think got you to prove my point, Pax! My entire point is that as objective as you try to be, you are still human. Deny it if you please, but you will remember that player who has "backstabbed" you, and on a subconscious or conscious level, you will be cautioned about leaving yourself vulnerable to them again.

You don't seem to be able to separate your emotions from this message board. You refusing to play me is based on a general impression... were you as close to being objective as you claim, that should not matter. They player list assigned to a game should be of no consequence.

What you are talking about is striving toward an ideal: that every game can be played purely without prior history, prejudice, or learning. Some players may come close to this ideal, but we all have a nature to deal with. Humans are complex animals. You have no control over this, nor can PBW enforce it.

Players have a right to see who is assigned to a game, and decide to play in the game based on things like:
1. experience level of the players
2. how long it takes them it to upload turns (slow or fast)
3. whether that player is a risk to bail out suddenly
4. whether that player has cheated or perhaps is suspect
5. whether that player is obviously carrying a vendetta against you (do you just turn the other cheek and ignore someone who is always gunning for you because you are "roleplaying"?)

Prior knowledge is part of learning... Scouting out oponents can be crucial (at least in KOTH). For instance, Played a game against a good Talisman player, and waited for him to unload his strategy and kick butt. You lost... but next time you are going to do something about it... that is certainly carrying over into the next game, isn't it? It has nothing to do with roleplaying and race details. If you don't adjust, this game will be quite boring, as that player's tactics will incinerate you time after time.)

When you've been around PBW for a while, you get an understanding of who the good players are, and who to be on-guard for during a game. That's just plain natural and intelligent.

I've been in KOTH and PBW games since inception, an I love nothing more that my opponent doing their VERY BEST against me; playing to win... to take me out. It it obvious by my Posts that I love nothing more than to share tactics and strategy to make players better. Becuase when the challenge is stepped up, the game is more fun. Plain and simple.

When you play checkers, do you play to win, or just move the pieces around in random directions?

If we ever have a convention, I'd buy every opponent I've ever had a beer and shake his hand. That includes you Pax. That is separating player from character.