Casual PBEM (Full & playing)

[Ewierl]

Deception is an important part, but so is a reputation for truth.

There's a difference between carrying grudges and knowing someone's reputation.

In a system like Dominions where diplomacy is only enforced by trust, earning and keeping trust is necessary. If I thought my neighbors weren't going to keep their word, I wouldn't bother much with treaties. If someone is a loyal and true ally in "many" games, that's very different from being one in "every" game.

Of course, there is a difference between lying and misleading. That's why I always ask people to make explicit statements and pacts... if they say "I have no interest in X", that doesn't actually mean they aren't going to do X. But if they say "I'm not going to attack any provinces beyond this line," then you know exactly what they have and haven't promised to do.

Did Marignon explicitly violate their word, break any promises or pacts? What do each of you say? The rest of the world needs to know...

[Teraswaerto]

Like Ewierl said, there is a big difference in saying "I have no intention of attacking you" and "I agree to a NAP for the next 10 turns", etc.

Treaties should be stated explicitly, and then agreed upon. Breaking such a treaty is one thing, and misleading someone with diplomatic communications is another.

[johnarryn]

Well, I agree with you in part, Ewierl. I think having a good reputation is part of a game... at the same time, I feel it is necessary to again stress the difference between a person and their in-game nation/persona... certainly if a person is consistently untrustworthy and just a jerk, other people might mistrust them. However, using deception in a game is not, I think a reason to distrust everything that person does.

I also like your point about explicit pacts... people who have encountered me in other games may have noticed that I make very very explicit pacts most of the time, because I want to be able to say when and how a pact has been violated, if that happens. I deliberately made my diplomacy with Frank vague because I planned to attack him... more importantly, I feel he read into my words and decided I had "promised" not to attack him, when in fact I had done no such thing.

Anyhow, perhaps i'm just being touchy about my pride or somesuch. I will let other people judge as they wish, although I reserve the right to defend myself =)

[Dedas]

I fully agree with Johnarryn in what he is saying. You may ask why I agree? The answer is because I want to role play when playing this game (and others), and that means not involving my real persona. This is a freedom.
Yes, you can get a reputation as a "player" as not being trustworthy. And the most obvious cause of this would be that you do not keep any promises in any games you play. And as people aren't stupid they see a pattern. The solution is of course to not create this pattern. Try different roles in different games. Then people will understand that you are the role playing type and accept that in this game you are trustworthy and in the other you are not.

Cheers!

[Manuk]

Ok, the misleading thing could be it. But next time in this game Johnarryn tells someone he will do something that someone will have a hard time believing him. I personally don't like to mislead or anything because I want to be believed.
I don't think that he breaked a pact but still it's almost the same thing at the end.

[FrankTrollman]

Deleted.

[Evilhomer]

Strictly speaking he said he had no intrest attacking you at that time, he didn't say anything about later turns, not even one turn later.

[johnarryn]

Frank,

When I send a PM to someone saying:

"We have no interest in conflict with you at this time, preferring to engage our enemies on our southern border. However, we do wish to claim the independant provinces near your great city... should you wish to come to some agreement concerning the releasing of these provinces to you at a later date, we would be happy to consider this."

I feel it is fairly obvious that this in an in-character message... generally i dont refer to myself in the plural "we", nor do I have a southern border with any enemies, except maybe people from New Jersey. So I feel like I was making it plain that this was in-character.

As they say "let he who has never told a lie cast the first stone" (or something similar). Im guessing that almost everyone who has played this game has sent a diplomatic message where they have misled someone, or not told the whole truth...

I feel like Frank is making a mountain out of a molehill because I sunk his chances of making a come back this game. I totally understand if he is angry... it sucked starting next to Vanheim, and then having Marignon pile on was the straw that broke the camel's back. So i'm sorry about that, but not only did I promise Vanheim help (a promise which I kept, by the way), but I didnt relish a resurgent Ermor immediately on my border.

Anyhow, I apologize to Frank for the surprise attack, it wasnt terribly nice... but we are playing a game after all. Anyhow, feel free not to trust me in the future if that is what will give you satisfaction.

[RicoRico]

Just my 2 cents:

My ideal game would be that no one in the game would feel cheated afterwards.
Perhaps in new games it should be explicitely stated to what extent written intentions or explicit pacts are binding, to avoid disappointments for players.

I personally prefer pacts to be binding, as it allows for more efficient planning and a more steady growth, even though role-playing wise it might be very unwise to trust a nation that in principle has no other interest than global domination.

Of course, Marignon's role playing as a 'deceptive' nation may very well leave him short of allies this game, be it short term or long term ;-)

[Evilhomer]

I usually try to be somewhat true to the theme that my nation has. For me it would be very hard to be at peace with Ermor as marignon.