Question about diplomacy

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by licker

Or just realize that playing with these iron clad NAPs makes for rather boring games all around.

YMMV

Well, one thing I find terribly boring, is to end 60 hours worth of my gaming time, with a lie. Maybe it's just my upbringing. My father backstabbed in a game of MULE when I was 12. I was clearly winning until he did so.

What did I learn from that? Don't betray your friends, because that's f***ed up. I consider the people here (largely) as friends. This is a friendly game here, not high stakes poker. Don't give your word if you don't mean it - it makes people not like you - and who wants to play a game for 3 months with someone that they don't like....?


Trust me, I understand the cutthroat style "logic". I just don't agree that it applies in THIS community.

[Dedas]

It doesn't apply to the community, it applies to the game.

In the game you play to win. To do this you use what means you have at your disposal (except cheating), because that is the goal of the game.

On the forum you make friends and obey the forum rules. To do this you respect your fellow forumites, and that includes being honest and keeping your word - just as you would do in the real world.

A game of Dominions 3 = a tiny universe with its own clearly stated rules (the game code). Here you play someone else (a pretender).

The Forum = Part of the real world with similar rules and laws. Here you are yourself.

Cheers!

[WingedDog]

Maybe administrator of the game should post NAP rules in the game thread to avoid such disputes, so those who honor NAP and those who always deceive, backstab, lure into a trap and expect the same from the others play separate games.

[llamabeast]

I think that's really a very good idea. The main reason for the disagreements is that people are working on different assumptions about how honor applies in a game. If, however, people signed up to a game in which it was specified that NAPs should not be broken, I would be very surprised if anyone broke one. In other games, where it was specified that Machiavellian politics should be used, people could hardly be upset if they were backstabbed.

[Kuritza]

By the way, in one of my first games I was approached by another player who offered an alliance against third party. It was a 'nap until the war against Pythium is over'.
Just a few turns later he attacked me, with all my troops at Pythiums border. He explained that he never entered the war against Pythium in the first place, hence his word didnt bind him.
Was I angry? Hell I was. But I understood him. It was wicked, and it was veeeery far-stretched, but such things happen - all is fair in love and war. Of course, words are to be kept - otherwise they wont be believed next time. But sometimes curcumstances do apply, 'all is fair in love and war'.
But of course, when you have a victory almost in your grasp, its hard not to get mad at the one who tries to thwart you.

[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.

[Poopsi]

Well, one thing I find terribly boring, is to end 60 hours worth of my gaming time, with a lie. Maybe it's just my upbringing. My father backstabbed in a game of MULE when I was 12. I was clearly winning until he did so.

What did I learn from that? Don't betray your friends, because that's f***ed up.

Actually, I´d say the actual lesson to be learned from there is "Trust noone".

[Crust]

I don't really see how you can get around the reputation thing no matter what. Even if there are no "house rules" against breaking your word someone known for following agreements will be in a different position when it comes to diplomacy than someone known to backstab at the first opportunity.

[Dedas]

Originally Posted by Crust

I don't really see how you can get around the reputation thing no matter what. Even if there are no "house rules" against breaking your word someone known for following agreements will be in a different position when it comes to diplomacy than someone known to backstab at the first opportunity.

Then that person probably deserves it because backstabbing at first opportunity doesn't sound like a good strategy. Everything that makes you predictable is bad in that sense.

[Tifone]

Keeping in mind that this is a GAME, I'd break my word without fearing ripercussion on my REAL honour lol - expecially if I find funny to roleplay my race of crazy everburning daemons and I see a small-mid-long term advantage in playing the bastard. And I would find it funny to be betrayed too, shame on me for trusting those slimy lizard ppl ^_^

If *obviously* the house rules permit this, as I would hope ^^