Casual PBEM (Full & playing)

[johnarryn]

Thanks, Evilhomer, for bringing up something I had meant to point out... I never promised not to attack Ermor... in fact, I never even said I wouldn't attack him in the next turn. What I said was that "We have no interest in conflict at this time." Boom. That is all.

To respond to RicoRico, perhaps it would be ok to have a game where explicit pacts were binding. Personally, when I make an explicit pact, I follow it - I have never violated a pact that was specific for a number of turns, etc. I think what is important is that players not assume that a pact exists unless it is explicitly said. I also think diplmacy (and deception) is a part of what makes games like Dominions3, Risk, or even Diplomacy the game fun... its why I like playing MP.

And, if we want to get into the nitty-gritty of roleplaying Marignon, my justification is that in terms of the Dom3 world, Marignon has a very good reason to kill Ermor, regardless of if they have to lie to do it...

Cue in-character:
"Ermor is a nation of evil heritics that must be purified by flame. The Grand Masters will do whatever is necessary to purge the world of Ermor's taint, before it spreads and leads to our downfall."

[Sorlakind]

RicoRico said:
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 ;-)

Personally, I would never (ok, in principle, never) play such a game where pacts were binding.

The distinction between the in-game persona and the actual 3d person behind it *must* be kept. Of course, if some nation goes the cheating/lying route, than this will impact on the reputation of its player and it will follow him through to other games - but there is no way around that. It is a whole different business when someone goes from calling the leader of a nation a liar or that he has a small dick or has bad breath to transfering those insults to the actual person role-playing the nation.

From what I have read, johnarryn acted purely in-game and calling him (the person) a liar and a cheater is bringing down the level of the game. Ermor was (somehow) deceived? Tough luck - it comes with the territory.

[FrankTrollman]

Deleted.

[Ewierl]

FrankTrollman said:It isn't even "in-character" because it's a private message to the person outside the game.

As an important aside, that claim is definitely unfair. "In-game" messages take a full turn to get anywhere, and are therefore useless for in-game diplomacy. PMs are the only viable option, unless email addresses have been publicized.

Generally, I think the "Royal We" and the content of one's signature tend to show quite clearly when a message is meant "in character."