Question about diplomacy

[licker]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

If you look at my thread about RNap's - this is why I think certain globals should automatically terminate a NAP. Forge is a case in point - a longterm nap with the casting of of forge basically ensures a victory.

LIkewise, if the victory conditions are not complete annihilation, then naps should have an out, when it becomes clear that one party threatens to become dominant.

Uhh...

So why did you vote no then?

I mean you may not like how peter does things, but clearly you don't think these things are set in stone either.

I think the issue with the NAP under discussion (from the game, not the hypothetical) is that the two parties had different interpretations of what NAP means and what it takes for it to be acceptable to break an underdefined NAP.

Well more's the pity for them if they didn't set up all the caveats up front, but playing with rule lawyers sucks, and it would seem the spirit of the game should ultimately trump anyones hard feelings over this kind of an issue.

And again, the spirit of the game is try to win correct?

[Archonsod]

Originally Posted by licker

Well more's the pity for them if they didn't set up all the caveats up front,

Bang on. If you want to play with inviolate NAP's or for that matter any other house rule, whether it's no SC's or disallowing certain globals, then you should agree it with the other players beforehand. It takes less than five minutes for the host to list any house rules they want in the game, or for that matter for any number of reasonable players to agree to certain restrictions or a certain style of play, it prevents these situations occurring and usually means a much better time for all concerned. The other advantage of course is that if a player disagrees with particular restrictions they can give up their slot and let someone else play.

With other groups I play with, whether it's board games or computer games, we follow a golden rule that if no house rules or similar restrictions are announced at the start of the game then the only rules applicable are those enforced by the game. Sucks to be on the receiving end of a double cross when you thought you had a binding agreement, but at the same time it's also unfair to the other players to suddenly decide some rule applies halfway through the game (particularly when you're in a strong position).

In this situation I'd be inclined to apply said rule and say the pact can be broken this time. I'd also encourage all parties to seek clarification of such rules BEFORE starting the game next time.