POLL: Backstabbing

[Pax]

Originally posted by DavidG:
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.

Here's a trick for you: define "win".

The "win" I look for is a fun game. If I have fun, then I "won" -- even if my race is obliterated.

If, on the other hand, I play a perfect game, somehow wiping everyone out even with all of them united against me and at a severe economic disadvantage, but I did not have much fun in the process ... then I lost.

I cut my "more advanced than chutes and ladders" gaming teeth on RPGs; the defining principle that makes a true RPG different from all other games is, you don't play to "win", the way most people understand it.

You play to accomplish goals, none of which require you to be in conflict with the other players. All of which you choose for yourself.

And the fun happens not solely in achieving those goals, but in the striving to do so. The fun happens even if you fail to accomplish any of them ... and that's the entire point of the game.

[Stone Mill]

Well, I'm sorry to hear you still feel that way.

Esentially, we have differing opinions on human nature.

You insist that you enter the game with a clean slate. I submit that it is not entirely possible. You are human, after all. Most of this will be subconscious.

You probably don't have esp, so I don't understand how you can possibly enforce your expectations on other players, or know whether the players in your game will live up to your standard. You are setting yourself up for a lot of difficulty. Creating a hot button for someone to push.

On the other hand, I acknowledge that I don't have a major beef with it, as I can't control others. But I will be on guard about it. I admit I'm just human after all.
Clean slate is my policy, but I won't be naive and expose myself to the same mistakes against a same player twice. My guess is that you won't either, but you really can't visualize it as you are posting.

I do admit that while writing this, my thoughts are somewhat influenced by KOTH, and I am generalizing across PBW games.

[Slynky]

Hmmm, quite the lively discussion!

One thing seems to be apparent. That people believe it's more acceptable to "backstab" in a RP situation. I can understand that, you're "fulfilling" a race's expected actions. Though not getting involved in any RP SE games, I would suppose all players in such a game would know ahead of time (by race descriptions or something) the nature of the race they may be dealing with. So, you might have an inclination of just how much someone/some race had to be "watched".

On the other hand, in SE games with no RP, I think most of us are referring to making treaties (and such) with the first players we encounter. The treaties and agreements aren't RP aspects, they're tools to win the game. And, as was said previously, if a player has made agreements and then somehow taken advantage of you in an underhanded way, I think everyone "takes that to the next game" to some extent.

For you, Pax, I suspect you remember previous "backstabs" but perhaps that's as far as it goes with you. Others, I suspect, me included, also remember those who have "backstabbed" us (or possibly others). For my part, I don't make treaties with that person again. It doesn't mean I hold a grudge and will immediately attack. It just means I believe the person is less trustworthy than some other players I may encounter and I don't want to place myself in jeopardy again. Others may try again (or not). Still others may decide the person needs to be attacked. (and certainly in a multi-player game, where an empire MUST find someone to expand against, those who have done "backstabs" are usually near the top of the "hit" list )

Winning? Different definitions? Perhaps. To add a bit of levity, I'll throw in an analagy using something my sister told me once about sex (and size). She told me when a guy had a big "one", THAT was good. When a guy knew how to "work" it, THAT was good. But when a guy had a big "one" AND knew how to "work" it, it didn't get any better than that! So, to Pax, I'd say, "When you roleplay and have a really interesting game with all the interaction and such that you hoped for AND win the game, it doesn't get any better than that!" That's my way of saying I think there are various levels of winning.

[Gryphin]

I don't think I could personaly handle broken treaties without previously agreed upon steps such as:
Remove all ships from each others systems
X number of turns before ending the treaty
etc..
I guess it is a good thing I only play against hand picked people.

Some how I knew I could trust Slynky. Something about his behavior in the forum. Can't place my finger on it.

[CNCRaymond]

Those poll results are alarming at best. Your all a bunch of Back Stabbers! You scare me.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Pax:
Your "clean slate" reference is in direct contradiction of the quote above.

I think you might want to read the Posts a bit more carefully before you go on a rant. There is no contradiction here. I'd elaborate but I feel the effort would be a waste.

[ June 06, 2003, 22:43: Message edited by: DavidG ]

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Pax:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidG:
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.

Here's a trick for you: define "win".

The "win" I look for is a fun game. If I have fun, then I "won" -- even if my race is obliterated.

---

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.