A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.

[alansmithee]

Originally Posted by thejeff

Am I missing something? Giving someone the last VP he needs to win is obviously game ending, but giving away your last VP doesn't change anything for you, does it? Many VP games start with one in each capital, but some don't. In that case the game starts with no one having any VPs.
I'd assumed through out this discussion that talk of giving away your last VP was really just bad phrasing for giving the last VP needed to win. Was it not?

Yeah, I worded that badly. To my knowledge, you don't lose w/o victory points.

[Frozen Lama]

well you could also jsut ban VP giving specifically, if you feel that that is KM and gem giving isn't

[WraithLord]

Originally Posted by Frozen Lama

well you could also jsut ban VP giving specifically, if you feel that that is KM and gem giving isn't

Agree. Yet I see this as possible source of resentment as well.
Say nation A leads over nation B and is candidate to win. They are duking it our while a bunch of lesser nations are out of the conflict. Yet they keep pumping B with gems/items/income. B ends up winning and A that knows nothing about what happened get his hand on the turn files. I can imagine A player feeling any of ,,,, etc. This can escalate into pure ugliness.
I say, either you go all the way or you don't even try. Leaving loopholes is not good.

[archaeolept]

Giving gems or gold to a nation is an old and generally accepted practice, in most cases. I'm not sure i've ever seen it give a victory to a recipient, though that would certainly be possible. For the most part, gems are given to help fight a common cause, or to a combatant most likely to be able to halt the player deemed most likely to win, or to prop up some failing nation. Even then, it doesn't tend to have such over-weening effects. As such, only in very rare instances would it be king-making, as almost always no king is made. Claiming that giving gems or gold to someone is somehow worse than throwing a winning vp strikes me as pretty close to absurd. I would suggest that players will easily be able to consider their own past games as to this matter.

King-making as it does exist in Dominions is mostly when allies remain loyal to one side, even when that side (ie. the strongest nation on that side, most relevantly) is prevailing. This happens - but at least there is a long war, and the continual possibility that the allied nations might change their side.

When there is an agreement between two parties such that the one in effect grants his vps to the other, there is no realistic way to work against this, within the confines of the rules of the game. Hence, why it has traditionally been known as "throwing" the game.

These various scenarios are not at all equivalent, and have never been taken as being so on these forums, among hundreds of games that have been played. Surely it was not some stroke of genius that recently created the idea of one nation giving winning vps to another. Why has this not (to my knowledge, at least in a real game with experienced players) ever happened before on these boards? Is it really just the case that no one has ever thought of it, or that no one has ever had the amazing diplomatic acumen to have persuaded some other player?

Has any experienced player here ever even tried such a thing? Why not? No game has even felt it necessary to consider whether such actions are legitimate, and so either specifically deny or allow giving away winning vps. The argument seems to be based on the claim that any possible legalistic interpretation of what may be allowed to win has to be specifically denied in a games OP. Has it really come to this?

I would think that the majority of games listed in the HoF thread could just have easily been turned around if only a couple of the losing players had been smart enough to band together in doing so. Perhaps one player could do it for the other in one game, and receive his proper reward in an other - This too would be legal; certainly it has never been banned behaviour in any game's OP. This is clearly not how it is best for games of Dominions to be played.

[Micah]

It's true that the domes are in normal caster order, but it's not too hard to get a few different casters in on the act and use casters at the front and back of the casting order. Since you are ending the game you don't need to worry about saving any gems, so dropping 10 or more domes isn't unreasonable, likewise, the attacker doesn't really need to keep any forces in reserve because the 3rd party will be a turn behind them in any assaults on the attacker's VPs, so they can have their entire army present at the final VP, or half their army split among 2 VPs, etc.

Regardless, the uncertainty of losing units in the attack force makes a proper counterattack virtually impossible, since you don't know if the unit you have set to cast a vital buff will get knocked out of your combat group, or the unit that's casting astral travel with all of your chaff, etc. I would much rather an opponent got a few turns' worth of bonus gems than running into that situation, at least then I have some time to deal with it instead of facing an immediate end to the game unless I make what would normally be a terrible tactical blunder (splintering my army on a bunch of domes) AND pull it off successfully. It is, realistically speaking, not able to be countered.

As to people throwing in the towel early and unbalancing the game...well, that's why I stick to vet games, I have no interest in dealing with that sort of behavior. I don't think it makes for a compelling argument about what the community standards should be, since those sorts of actions are pretty universally frowned upon.

[archaeolept]

Originally Posted by Micah

As to people throwing in the towel early and unbalancing the game...well, that's why I stick to vet games, I have no interest in dealing with that sort of behavior. I don't think it makes for a compelling argument about what the community standards should be, since those sorts of actions are pretty universally frowned upon.

Unhappily, that is surely not sufficient, as was clearly demonstrated

[WraithLord]

Micah/DonC/Archae, thank you for presenting your opinions so clearly. Although I still disagree with the distinction you make between different KM acts I can now better relate to your position.
I also agree with Archae, this discussion and the game that sparked it has proved that this distinction is not universal.
Some would see *all* KM acts as a valid manifestation of diplomacy and claim that all is fair in love and war while others would frown upon the KM act of VP giving.
My suggestion to players reading this thread is to make the ground rules clear from the start and when in doubt do your best to respect the feelings of ppl who may frown upon VP giving. Either refrain from doing that or declare your intentions in the game thread and follow according to ensuing discussion. This is just a game after all and I think we should all strive that it be as much fun as possible for all players

[DonCorazon]

Thats my point llama. No more words needed.

[Sombre]

Legit technically but definitely frowned up. Hence the need for some clarification of unspoken 'rules'. I personally thought that one would be pretty clear, but there are a couple of dissenting voices.

You certainly can't cover /everything/ in game rules. As I've said a few times on IRC if you are forced to make a laundry list of rules every game, you're not playing with the right people.

[Gandalf Parker]

As an RPGer Id also love to see how a pantheon (hierarchy of gods) lays out at the end. Not just 1st, 2nd, 3rd but what god and his titles is the chief god, what god and titles is second, what god and titles is third. It would be interesting to see a god of air, god of water, god of death in 1/2/3 as that would be fairly standard. But the variations would be fun to see also.