POLL: Backstabbing

[Pax]

Originally posted by Stone Mill:
Very interesting topic. very interesting questions.

I suggest you all become a bit more familiar with Machiavelli.

This game is about war, really, (unless someone has defined other game purposes). And good players play to win.

Funny. I thought good players played games to have fun. Winning isn't everything, you know.

When a player does "backstab," you better believe it is remembered, and even carried over into other games. That player will get a reputation for being "dirty" or maybe "ruthless." You will think twice before exposing yourself to them again. That is human nature, no matter how hard we try to be objective.

Feh. Remind me ... NEVER to play a game of SE4 against you.

If you can't seperate player from character, then IMO, you have no business playing anything more advanced than checkers, except against an AI.

That is the unwritten rule that ties us together as gamers; we don't want to get a bad rep for being deceptive and sneaky (some would say clever)... yet it is very much part of the game. So we do it with some sort of honor.

As a gamer, what I expect is, noone will cheat; THAT, I remember from game to game.

But the actions of a RACE, do not speak to the actions of that PLAYER. And actions in one game do not speak to actions in another, unless that player is so singularly unimaginative as to only be able to create one race, in terms of behavior (if that many).

[narf poit chez BOOM]

i consider all treaties severable with a reasonable advance warning.
and any hostile action, which means action which will probably result in damage to me or my allies, which doesn't include reasonable survalience, ie, not survalience of core systems, is grounds for war. however, there's no sense in overeacting till i find out wether it was an accident or not.
mines in my space, spreading rumors or making a treaty and not honering it means war.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Pax:
Funny. I thought good players played games to have fun. Winning isn't everything, you know.

Gee thanks for telling us that for the 100th time. IMO anyone that claims they do not try to win is kidding themselves. You know it is possible to play to win and for fun at the same time.

As far as holding a grudge from game to game I think everyone tries not to do that. But really, if player A wins your trust and then uses sneaky tactics to stab you in the back in game 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc are you seriously going to trust him in the next game?

Originally posted by Pax:
unless that player is so singularly unimaginative as to only be able to create one race, in terms of behavior (if that many).

Just because a player may player the same race from game to game does not mean they lack imagination. An BTW SE4 is a not really a role playing game. (and yes I know some choose to play it that way but many do not. Try role playing a King of the Hill game)

And suggesting that a player who has contributed as much as Stone Mill has "no business" playing the game is just downright insulting.

[ June 06, 2003, 12:21: Message edited by: DavidG ]

[Stone Mill]

Originally posted by Pax:
Feh. Remind me ... NEVER to play a game of SE4 against you.

If you can't seperate player from character, then IMO, you have no business playing anything more advanced than checkers, except against an AI.

Yikes! I guess I may be insulted... but rather I think it is a case of our understanding of what is backstabbing and the points we both were trying to make.

First let me say clearly that my policy is to enter every game with a clean slate, to win, and to have fun. I also strive to play with a great deal of character.

But- Ah-ha! I've think got you to prove my point, Pax! My entire point is that as objective as you try to be, you are still human. Deny it if you please, but you will remember that player who has "backstabbed" you, and on a subconscious or conscious level, you will be cautioned about leaving yourself vulnerable to them again.

You don't seem to be able to separate your emotions from this message board. You refusing to play me is based on a general impression... were you as close to being objective as you claim, that should not matter. They player list assigned to a game should be of no consequence.

What you are talking about is striving toward an ideal: that every game can be played purely without prior history, prejudice, or learning. Some players may come close to this ideal, but we all have a nature to deal with. Humans are complex animals. You have no control over this, nor can PBW enforce it.

Players have a right to see who is assigned to a game, and decide to play in the game based on things like:
1. experience level of the players
2. how long it takes them it to upload turns (slow or fast)
3. whether that player is a risk to bail out suddenly
4. whether that player has cheated or perhaps is suspect
5. whether that player is obviously carrying a vendetta against you (do you just turn the other cheek and ignore someone who is always gunning for you because you are "roleplaying"?)

Prior knowledge is part of learning... Scouting out oponents can be crucial (at least in KOTH). For instance, Played a game against a good Talisman player, and waited for him to unload his strategy and kick butt. You lost... but next time you are going to do something about it... that is certainly carrying over into the next game, isn't it? It has nothing to do with roleplaying and race details. If you don't adjust, this game will be quite boring, as that player's tactics will incinerate you time after time.)

When you've been around PBW for a while, you get an understanding of who the good players are, and who to be on-guard for during a game. That's just plain natural and intelligent.

I've been in KOTH and PBW games since inception, an I love nothing more that my opponent doing their VERY BEST against me; playing to win... to take me out. It it obvious by my Posts that I love nothing more than to share tactics and strategy to make players better. Becuase when the challenge is stepped up, the game is more fun. Plain and simple.

When you play checkers, do you play to win, or just move the pieces around in random directions?

If we ever have a convention, I'd buy every opponent I've ever had a beer and shake his hand. That includes you Pax. That is separating player from character.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Stone Mill:
Yikes! I guess I may be insulted... but rather I think it is a case of our understanding of what is backstabbing and the points we both were trying to make.

First let me say clearly that my policy is to enter every game with a clean slate, to win, and to have fun. I also strive to play with a great deal of character.

Um. That's not what you said; not even close. You said:

When a player does "backstab," you better believe it is remembered, and even carried over into other games.

Your "clean slate" reference is in direct contradiction of the quote above.

But- Ah-ha! I've think got you to prove my point, Pax! My entire point is that as objective as you try to be, you are still human. Deny it if you please, but you will remember that player who has "backstabbed" you, and on a subconscious or conscious level, you will be cautioned about leaving yourself vulnerable to them again.

No, actually, you're not right. I make a conscious decision NOT to act on any suspicions I may have about a *player*, period. My actions within a game are based solely on history within THAT game. Nothing extraneous intrudes.

My general strategies develop and grow from game to game, but that's an entirely different level, and isn't what we're discussing here.

You don't seem to be able to separate your emotions from this message board. You refusing to play me is based on a general impression...

My statement was in direct response to your declaration:

When a player does "backstab," you better believe it is remembered, and even carried over into other games. That player will get a reputation for being "dirty" or maybe "ruthless." You will think twice before exposing yourself to them again. That is human nature, no matter how hard we try to be objective.

That clearly indicates you're the sort of player I *don't* want to play against. It's just a game. As long as the other player didn't CHEAT, then past games are a seperate issue, and shouldn't color my in-game actions and reactions at all.

were you as close to being objective as you claim, that should not matter. They player list assigned to a game should be of no consequence.

I never said I was objective. I said, I don't let the actions a player's race takes in Game A, affect my responses to the same player's race in Game B.

Players have a right to see who is assigned to a game, and decide to play in the game based on things like:
1. experience level of the players
2. how long it takes them it to upload turns (slow or fast)
3. whether that player is a risk to bail out suddenly
4. whether that player has cheated or perhaps is suspect
5. whether that player is obviously carrying a vendetta against you (do you just turn the other cheek and ignore someone who is always gunning for you because you are "roleplaying"?)

None of those preclude what I said. If someone is carrying a vendetta against me form other games -- they aren't the sort of people I care to play with. I'm not IN the game and making in-game responses based on other games, THEY are -- and I consider that a form of (mild) cheating.

Prior knowledge is part of learning... Scouting out oponents can be crucial (at least in KOTH).

You will note, KotH isn't my style of game(s), so I'm not playing in it.

For instance, Played a game against a good Talisman player, and waited for him to unload his strategy and kick butt. You lost... but next time you are going to do something about it... that is certainly carrying over into the next game, isn't it? It has nothing to do with roleplaying and race details. If you don't adjust, this game will be quite boring, as that player's tactics will incinerate you time after time.)

What I would learn is, to always be prepared for the Talisman from ANY religious race; to look and see which races, if any, are religious.

But that looking-and-preparing would be based on information within the game ... not on the player, and his or her past games on PBW.

It's the religious race that matters, not the player himself.

I've been in KOTH and PBW games since inception, an I love nothing more that my opponent doing their VERY BEST against me; playing to win... to take me out. It it obvious by my Posts that I love nothing more than to share tactics and strategy to make players better. Becuase when the challenge is stepped up, the game is more fun. Plain and simple.

Obviously, you love the destination more than the journey.

I am the opposite; I can ENJOY losing a game, as long as getting there was an interesting and entertaining process.

When you play checkers, do you play to win, or just move the pieces around in random directions?

Checkers has no persona element. There's no room to RP.

4X games have PLENTY of such room. In them, I RP ... and I play them largely to RP the race-as-a-whole.

[Pax]

Originally posted by DavidG:
Gee thanks for telling us that for the 100th time. IMO anyone that claims they do not try to win is kidding themselves. You know it is possible to play to win and for fun at the same time.

Here's a trick for you: define "win".

The "win" I look for is a fun game. If I have fun, then I "won" -- even if my race is obliterated.

If, on the other hand, I play a perfect game, somehow wiping everyone out even with all of them united against me and at a severe economic disadvantage, but I did not have much fun in the process ... then I lost.

I cut my "more advanced than chutes and ladders" gaming teeth on RPGs; the defining principle that makes a true RPG different from all other games is, you don't play to "win", the way most people understand it.

You play to accomplish goals, none of which require you to be in conflict with the other players. All of which you choose for yourself.

And the fun happens not solely in achieving those goals, but in the striving to do so. The fun happens even if you fail to accomplish any of them ... and that's the entire point of the game.

[Stone Mill]

Well, I'm sorry to hear you still feel that way.

Esentially, we have differing opinions on human nature.

You insist that you enter the game with a clean slate. I submit that it is not entirely possible. You are human, after all. Most of this will be subconscious.

You probably don't have esp, so I don't understand how you can possibly enforce your expectations on other players, or know whether the players in your game will live up to your standard. You are setting yourself up for a lot of difficulty. Creating a hot button for someone to push.

On the other hand, I acknowledge that I don't have a major beef with it, as I can't control others. But I will be on guard about it. I admit I'm just human after all.
Clean slate is my policy, but I won't be naive and expose myself to the same mistakes against a same player twice. My guess is that you won't either, but you really can't visualize it as you are posting.

I do admit that while writing this, my thoughts are somewhat influenced by KOTH, and I am generalizing across PBW games.

[Slynky]

Hmmm, quite the lively discussion!

One thing seems to be apparent. That people believe it's more acceptable to "backstab" in a RP situation. I can understand that, you're "fulfilling" a race's expected actions. Though not getting involved in any RP SE games, I would suppose all players in such a game would know ahead of time (by race descriptions or something) the nature of the race they may be dealing with. So, you might have an inclination of just how much someone/some race had to be "watched".

On the other hand, in SE games with no RP, I think most of us are referring to making treaties (and such) with the first players we encounter. The treaties and agreements aren't RP aspects, they're tools to win the game. And, as was said previously, if a player has made agreements and then somehow taken advantage of you in an underhanded way, I think everyone "takes that to the next game" to some extent.

For you, Pax, I suspect you remember previous "backstabs" but perhaps that's as far as it goes with you. Others, I suspect, me included, also remember those who have "backstabbed" us (or possibly others). For my part, I don't make treaties with that person again. It doesn't mean I hold a grudge and will immediately attack. It just means I believe the person is less trustworthy than some other players I may encounter and I don't want to place myself in jeopardy again. Others may try again (or not). Still others may decide the person needs to be attacked. (and certainly in a multi-player game, where an empire MUST find someone to expand against, those who have done "backstabs" are usually near the top of the "hit" list )

Winning? Different definitions? Perhaps. To add a bit of levity, I'll throw in an analagy using something my sister told me once about sex (and size). She told me when a guy had a big "one", THAT was good. When a guy knew how to "work" it, THAT was good. But when a guy had a big "one" AND knew how to "work" it, it didn't get any better than that! So, to Pax, I'd say, "When you roleplay and have a really interesting game with all the interaction and such that you hoped for AND win the game, it doesn't get any better than that!" That's my way of saying I think there are various levels of winning.

[Gryphin]

I don't think I could personaly handle broken treaties without previously agreed upon steps such as:
Remove all ships from each others systems
X number of turns before ending the treaty
etc..
I guess it is a good thing I only play against hand picked people.

Some how I knew I could trust Slynky. Something about his behavior in the forum. Can't place my finger on it.

[CNCRaymond]

Those poll results are alarming at best. Your all a bunch of Back Stabbers! You scare me.