Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
35137 2
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
January 27, 2020
20816 0
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
August 12, 2019
7404 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 19, 2023
3964 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 14, 2023
3486 0
Hot

Mycelia Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 12, 2023
2074 0
O
oliverkinne
December 07, 2023
2582 0

River Wild Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 05, 2023
2250 0
O
oliverkinne
November 30, 2023
2494 0
J
Jackwraith
November 29, 2023
3009 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
November 28, 2023
1971 0
S
Spitfireixa
October 24, 2023
3690 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
October 17, 2023
2618 0
O
oliverkinne
October 10, 2023
2460 0
O
oliverkinne
October 09, 2023
2288 0
O
oliverkinne
October 06, 2023
2504 0

Outback Crossing Review

Board Game Reviews
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

× Talk about the latest and greatest AT, and the Classics.

Rule 0 or Playing Within the Spirit of the Game

More
22 Oct 2014 21:52 - 22 Oct 2014 22:00 #189130 by repoman
This is sort of a carry over from another thread.Death and Taxis put up a post in reference to Dead of Winter that some in his group, who are not traitors, will tank the colony if they feel they can't meet their secret objective, opting to have everyone lose if they can't win.

I responded that I thought such play was in effect a breach of the un written contact that we agree to when we sit down at the table which is to play within the spirit of the game. That is, the players play to win and that in a game such as Dead of Winter a partial win, that is the colony survives but personal goal is un met, is better than a total loss. Also the traitor must attempt to meet his goals rather than just tank the colony.

If there is a weakness in Dead of Winter it is that it is very brittle in this regard. It is very easy to tank the colony if that is your sole objective.

In contrast, I point out a game of Republic of Rome, a semi co-op in which there is only one winner, that I played with Malloc and some others at WBC. in the game Malloc was in a position to tank Rome. He demanded that the other players pay him tribute or else that is just what he would do. The other players refused to pay and he followed through on his promise. Rome fell and the game was over.

Some felt that this was a bullshit play. They looked at it as a breach of the contract. I don't think it was. The differences being that his statement "Pay up or else" was not a secret. He made his intention clear. The players then knowingly gambled on how sincere his promise was. They had the the opportunity to avert the tanking if the chose to. So when they called his bluff and he let Rome fall that was still in the spirit of the game. ( if he had been paid and still tanked Rome that would have been a violation)

The point of the post is to see if others agree that this contact does exist and if and when it has been or could be breached.
Last edit: 22 Oct 2014 22:00 by repoman.
The following user(s) said Thank You: scissors, Gary Sax

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Oct 2014 22:04 - 22 Oct 2014 22:09 #189132 by Sagrilarus
Hell yes.

And that's Malloc for you. He's all in and knows how to work the room. And I'd argue that it's not just that he was completely honest with his gambit that made it legit, but that it's also the nature of the game and the era it's portraying to pull that kind of maneuver. Nero burned the frikkin' city to make room for monuments. In a clash for power threatening to pull the plug is certainly in the mix.

The question that remains is where the line is drawn in Dead of Winter. I can't speak to that as I haven't played.

S.
Last edit: 22 Oct 2014 22:09 by Sagrilarus.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Oct 2014 22:08 - 22 Oct 2014 22:16 #189133 by DeletedUser
I don't think that such a social contract should be needed in Dead of Winter. I think the personal/team objective mechanic in Dead of Winter is shaky and can and will be improved upon. It's a good idea that hasn't been fully realised yet.

EDIT: I haven't taken the time to see whether the designer has commented on this aspect of the game or not, but I would be curious to know whether he agrees with your take Repo and whether the tanking the game option was considered during playtesting. Perhaps he sees this as a completely valid option and just one more challenge for the winner(s) to overcome.
Last edit: 22 Oct 2014 22:16 by DeletedUser.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Oct 2014 22:30 - 22 Oct 2014 22:34 #189134 by Gary Sax
This was basically the gist of that post I wrote in the boardgame thread this weekend (I submitted it as an article as well). I think the Malloc story is essentially consistent with rational play (i.e. Knizia's play to win as the objective). Unless enough of your uncertainty to win covers zero, you're not going to actually tank. The other players at the table misjudged Malloc's threat to tank. But you can imagine a situation where Malloc says "I'm not going to win, Rome is going down, pay up" and everyone looks and him and goes, tank that motherfucker, you've got a decent chance to win... then he doesn't end the game. Because he still perceives himself at a substantial positive win percentage, so it was all a ruse.
Last edit: 22 Oct 2014 22:34 by Gary Sax.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 Oct 2014 22:45 - 22 Oct 2014 23:05 #189136 by Jexik
This and similar questions have been the most heated debates on DoW over on BGG.

What do you do when you don't think you can win?

Most people were with you, repoman, at least for DoW. There was a vocal minority that said that it's better to have a tie than to lose in a game with a bunch of winners. Others said, "just RP what you think your characters would do." It seems like the designers haven't weighed in on this on purpose, because I think it comes down to your group's consensus. I'd have to go back and look to see if Jon commented in any of those long threads.* Isaac hasn't been on the forums at all.

If people play to tank, well, be ready for a colony victory to be exceedingly rare.

*Edit:

In this thread , Jon makes two comments, saying that the guy should have shot for his objective from the first turn, and there's a link to him saying that he has failed a crisis before even when he was a good guy.

Here is the original monster thread , which was started before most people even had the game.

jgilmour wrote: If you decide to start sinking the game, and there is a betrayer, aren't you just kingmaking for them betrayer?

Most Objectives you can control when they end (within the time limit). So doing things to not move the objective forward is perfectly acceptable, and instead using your resources to complete your own objective.

You should start working on your own objective right out of the gate.

DOW is a meta-cooperative game. We are coining this new term because it's not like existing cooperative games, there are differences. You do all need to work together, or the main goal will not be completed. But you also have to focus on your own secret objective. If you ignore your secret objective, then at some point decide to start working on it, you may find it is too late.

I in no way, want to tell you how to enjoy a game. Play it however you want to enjoy it. I can tell you how it was intended to be enjoyed. Don't get me wrong, we've house ruled plenty of games, but I fully suggest trying any game several times the way it was designed before house ruling it.

Doing what is best for you, Vs what is best for the group is a theme that we play on quite a bit in this game. It's a theme that runs deep through the best zombie media (and other media as well, such as Lost, Lord of the Flies, etc).

My friend Raid1280 said it best when he said (I'm paraphrasing here) "The thing about this game is how much it tells you about yourself, and the people you are playing with". I like seeing the guys that early on in the design process said that "If I can't win I am going to take the game, 100% of the time" doing the exact opposite. I got to play the finished game with my good friend Earl, who would say that same thing. And I watched him sacrifice himself so the group could win. That is something I love about this game. It is so immersive that you stop playing it to win, and start playing it for the shared experience. I'm not a fan of talking about a game I worked on in these terms, but I think it's important in this context. I still want to play (and just watch) this after literally hundreds of plays because of how much fun it is to watch the people at the table go on this journey, that is different every single time.

I'm sure I haven't necessarily "Answered" the questions from this thread, but I hope that I gave you some perspective on them.


And here's what I said at the time, after playing it once.

I like to win games, but I also like to keep playing them. Throwing the game to the traitor when one of your stated objectives is to achieve the main objective seems more like kingmaking, and would likely make people not want to play with that person. No one should feel they have a cheap win if you helped them complete an objective that your card told you to complete.

You can introduce the concept of relative positions, but this is not the olympics. There are no medals. There is no race. The game has winners and losers. If you are guaranteed a loss, and cause more people to lose with you, you don't stop losing. I think the game is already hard enough (I've only played it once, and there was a betrayer), without everyone going crazy in the last round killing everyone because they think they can't complete their secret objective.

It's one thing to put your secret objective ahead of the needs of the colony, but it's quite another to do something that also eliminates your own chance of winning to make more people lose with you. I think the way out of this hypothetical situation is to work harder on your own personal objective earlier in the game.

I wonder if it would break any laws to create a "diet coke victory" microbadge?


Some of the kingmaking language is there because that thread was called "Kingmaking vs. Improving Position." This guy's stance was that non-betrayers who weren't going to win should tank the main objective to end in a tie, and to do otherwise would be kingmaking other colony members.
Last edit: 22 Oct 2014 23:05 by Jexik.
The following user(s) said Thank You: DeletedUser

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
23 Oct 2014 00:56 - 23 Oct 2014 00:57 #189138 by VonTush
A game where you have to invoke Rule: 0 more often than not is bad design.
Not to say that I'm in favor of being a dick, but a game that is volatile to where you have to remind people to play within The Spirit of the Game is bad design.

I long to be in that spot that Malloc was in...That is playing the game because he's now influenced how people think about any future games with him. A brilliant play!
Last edit: 23 Oct 2014 00:57 by VonTush.
The following user(s) said Thank You: DukeofChutney

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
23 Oct 2014 01:29 #189139 by Jexik
In the other thread people brought up Panic Station. This isn't as bad as that because playing against the spirit of the game (letting yourself get infected right away) actually makes you win.

Playing against the spirit of the game in Dead of Winter just means you want to lose. Most games, Dead of Winter included, assume that you want to win. The only difference between this and the guy that builds zero settlements in Catan is that it doesn't cause other people to lose. (But if he purposefully makes awful trades he can kingmake).

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
23 Oct 2014 02:15 - 23 Oct 2014 02:26 #189140 by Calandale
I'd say the RoR example is just as bad.

In fact, the rules support this. There is no
'losing' the game except via Rome falling.

There are three states,
the one which one is in from the beginning of play, winning,
and losing. The state transition for losing requires the fall
of Rome. That for winning is also clearly expressed.
No state change from not-winning to losing is made in the rules
for when someone wins. Losing RoR is not some sort of 'tie';
it is the worst result possible.


There's a tradition that this builds on from games of the era -
looking to Canadian Civil War, which very clearly expresses
the difference. Though no semi-coop, CCW provides a state
transition for winning (through normal means) and one which
can force other players to lose, without there being any winner.
That losing transition also does not move every player necessarily into it.
So, depending on how the game ends, you could have one winner, or multiple
(and perhaps all) losers.
Last edit: 23 Oct 2014 02:26 by Calandale.
The following user(s) said Thank You: dragonstout

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
23 Oct 2014 02:20 - 23 Oct 2014 02:22 #189141 by Calandale

Sagrilarus wrote: Hell yes.

And that's Malloc for you. He's all in and knows how to work the room. And I'd argue that it's not just that he was completely honest with his gambit that made it legit, but that it's also the nature of the game and the era it's portraying to pull that kind of maneuver. Nero burned the frikkin' city to make room for monuments. In a clash for power threatening to pull the plug is certainly in the mix.



I cannot think of a single instance where anyone in the Republic seriously put it at risk, outside of the types of mechanisms explicitly contained in the game (trying to convert it into something more stable - and then only starting in the Marian era).

Certainly any Roman doing what is proposed here would have been thrown off the Tarpeian Rock.
The populace simply wouldn't have accepted it.

So basically, this is completely playing against both the spirit of the game,
in addition to adding new rules interpretations equating losing to the state
of not winning.
Last edit: 23 Oct 2014 02:22 by Calandale.
The following user(s) said Thank You: dragonstout

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
23 Oct 2014 08:02 #189143 by Sevej

VonTush wrote: A game where you have to invoke Rule: 0 more often than not is bad design.
Not to say that I'm in favor of being a dick, but a game that is volatile to where you have to remind people to play within The Spirit of the Game is bad design.

I long to be in that spot that Malloc was in...That is playing the game because he's now influenced how people think about any future games with him. A brilliant play!


This. I agree with this. I mean... Battlestar Galactica and The Resistance work without Rule 0.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
23 Oct 2014 08:33 #189145 by Legomancer
Rule -1: Most gamers are dicks and you need to account for that. If your game can be broken by players being dicks, then you have a problem. "Don't be a dick" isn't a solution because see rule -1.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
23 Oct 2014 08:39 #189146 by ThirstyMan
I was playing in that game with Malloc and I didn't feel it was a dick move.

More like well within the spirit of a backstabbing wheeler dealer game. Doesn't need a Rule 0 just pick your friends better.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
23 Oct 2014 10:15 #189154 by Ska_baron
I feel like picking your friends better (that you play game with anyway) IS the real Rule 0.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Saul Goodman

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
23 Oct 2014 10:31 - 23 Oct 2014 10:33 #189159 by Shellhead
The best game designs don't require a Rule 0 because the structure of the game provides enough motivation to play the game as intended. And yeah, the worst players can still undermine the best designs. I've played games with a lot of different people over the years, including family, friends, acquaintances, and total strangers. I've seen drunkenness, various forms of drug-induced impairment, temper tantrums, cheating, and lots of arguments.

And I've had my own frustrations with people not playing in the spirit of the game. Spartacus is a great game, but there is always some joker who wants to know what happens if they refuse to fight in the arena and just run around and around in circles. And there was this guy who thought it was funny to drag out games of Shadowfist as long as possible with a deck designed for that specific purpose. Even I have occasionally tanked a game when I realized that an unenjoyable game might end quicker if I deliberately played outside the spirit of the game.

In the end, I firmly believe that the point of playing a game is to have fun. And yet fun can be subjective, and different concepts of fun may come into conflict at the table. Some people have very rigid definitions of how to play a game. You must play to win. No king-making. No intentionally tanking the game. No helping your significant other. To hell with that. As long as they aren't breaking the written rules of the game, people should be free to play as they see fit. And if other people don't like it, they should play with different people in the future.

There was a married couple that I played board games with regularly up until a few years ago. One time, we were playing Arkham Horror, and we were up against Y'Golonac, who moves up the Doom Track faster whenever somebody draws a tome. The wife was using an obsolete strategy of fishing for Elder Signs at the Curiousity Shoppe, even though I warned her about all the tomes in the Unique Item deck. After she drew tomes on consecutive turns there, I scolded her. So she moved to the Library (or maybe it was Ye Olde Magick Shoppe) instead, even though I warned her about drawing tomes from encounters there. Sure enough, she found two more tomes, sending us into Final Battle long before we were ready. We lost, and I criticized her for causing us to lose. She was playing the game wrong. And now she and her husband don't play games with me anymore, because I took the game too seriously and made the game Not Fun anymore. I try to keep that in mind these days, and focus more on fun and less on proper play.
Last edit: 23 Oct 2014 10:33 by Shellhead. Reason: tomes not turns
The following user(s) said Thank You: wadenels

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
23 Oct 2014 10:35 - 23 Oct 2014 10:36 #189162 by Gary Sax
You guys bring up a major issue---these games DEPEND on you playing without a metagame. They work if there's no metagame emphasizing the triviality of winning vs. reputational considerations for future games. If, hypothetically, winning at Archipelago meant you live and losing meant you die, the only tanking that happens is when people legitimately perceive they have 0 probability of winning. Other players have to make sure no one perceives a 0 chance of winning and could be indifferent between all losing and continuing to play. So the only "rule 0" that is really necessary is that all players are focused on winning in this game with the expectation of no future games.

To the extent that no gamer is truly 100% without meta, the more these games become meta the more all of this goes completely out the window.
Last edit: 23 Oct 2014 10:36 by Gary Sax.
The following user(s) said Thank You: dragonstout

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.262 seconds