Overlords - Game Thread. (playing)

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by rdonj

Welcome aboard, twobits I am confused though, what do you mean by diplomacy parameters?

Just wondering if there were any restrictions on diplomacy, like in a RAND game or something. Or whether you're anticipating groups of "normals" to try to gang up on selected "overlords", or that "overlords" might collect one or more "normal" 'minor allies' or such.

[Squirrelloid]

I think diplomacy is essential to this style of game. Defeating overlords is going to require normal cooperation.

[rdonj]

Oh, no, there will be no restrictions on diplomacy. Overlords and normals may feel free to interact as they wish. As overlords will control the bulk of the gem income in the game, I strongly suspect that there will be both groups of normals who band together to try to bring them down, and normals who do business with the overlords to get things they need. Neither of those outcomes is undesirable from my point of view. And I agree with squirrel, even another overlord would have trouble taking out an overlord without normal intervention. And to do it while not being killed by whatever normals were around him? That would take some doing without effective diplomacy.

Also, I think diplomacy in this game should be machiavellian (backstabbing allowed), thematically speaking. The overlords are the devil, and if you make a deal with the devil, you have to expect he is going to betray you in the end. Besides if diplomacy was not machiavellian it could lead to scenarios where a player could take victory virtually unopposed due to standing NAPs, which would be easier than normal due to the relatively easy victory conditions of this game.

Hopefully this is not too controversial of a decision, unfortunately I forgot to mention it in the first post. Bad form I suppose, I always forget to mention diplomacy.

[Squirrelloid]

IMHO, diplomacy is always allowed and machiavellian unless specified otherwise.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

IMHO, diplomacy is always allowed and machiavellian unless specified otherwise.

That's what I figured, but with a lot of games going the RAND route these days, I just wanted to check And yes, let's make sure it's Machiavellian - I hate having my hands tied by rules-lawyers!

So maybe that should be made clear, if that's the way we want it - deal breaking and back-stabbing are perfectly fine, should perhaps be positively encouraged, and should have absolutely no out-game consequences (so what happens in Overlords stays in Overlords ).

[rdonj]

Added a short blurb to the OP to help clarify the situation.

[namad]

I am not willing to abide by an agreement to selectively not remember who has lied to me and who has not.

If you lie to me, I will remember you have lied to me. I won't expect any sort of retribution or punishment, but I certainly won't promise to forget it occurred forever.



meh, fine i'll play... I've never held a grudge against anyone who has lied to me, but I will certainly remember it happening if you do, and perhaps be less confident in what you say to me for years to come.

[Squirrelloid]

I'm not sure machiavellian diplomacy means no out of game consequences. A player's reputation is built on such things. And its not just backstabbing or lack thereof - a player who behaves erratically may find others less willing to deal with him. Worse, a player who backstabs seemingly at random will be much less likely to be trusted than one who backstabs for clear reasons - ie, predictability in backstabbing gives other players a reasonable expectation of when you might or might not do so.

[Sombre]

There have been a few threads about this (NAPs being binding, or reputations carryng over etc).

IIRC there was no consensus on the 'default' so it's always good to be specific.

[Calahan]

If a game states specifically that back-stabbing is to be expected, and that Machiavellian types of play and NAP's are accepted (and even encouraged) in that game, then that should be enough to ensure anything that happens within that game, stays strictly in that game alone.

If a game fails to state this info regarding NAP's etc, or states that NAP's are binding, then there is a case to be made for a players general reputation in future games to be harmed by their actions in that game (such as backstabbing).

But I think it is completely out of line to hold personal grudges against a player, or to mark their reputation as untrustworthy, for backstabbing etc. in games where it specifically states it is to be expected. It is just another rule of that game, and there should be no post-game repercussions for any player who is simply acting within the rules of the game.

If you don't like the thought of being back-stabbed, then don't sign up for games where it is an option. And if it isn't stated clearly in the rules at the sign-up stage, then make a point to ask the admin of that game about it before signing up.