Casual PBEM (Full & playing)

[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.

[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."

[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."

[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.