Rule 0 or Playing Within the Spirit of the Game

mutagen wrote: Some truths transcend game rules. If a game defines a winner, it also defines a not-winner. Around where I come from we call the not-winners -- losers (and other vile things). I suppose a more nuanced table might call them participants, or co-players, or some other, but that is bullshit. Another truth: If everybody is a loser, than nobody is. Games are free to contravene these truths, but nobody will take this seriously.

My goal in a game is to be the winner. Failing that, my goal is to nullify the winner. Role play or simulation just doesn't enter into it. These goals, very reasonable IMHO, might mean making everybody the loser. If this is a legitimate game state, I don't think it is reasonble to call somebody an asshole for taking it.

But no worries, I'm not a psychopath. If everybody is really into the role-play, I'll just drink my beer and shut the hell up.

But I won't be playing your game again.

I agree with all of the above, unless the game is a true co-op, where everybody wins or everybody loses. In that specific case, if everybody is a loser, then everybody is a loser, so tanking a co-op game on purpose should be avoided. That's just taking a steaming dump on the fun.

wkover wrote: A longer game is a totally different story. Tanking a game after playing for 2-3 hours is beyond the limit of proper human behavior, most likely. People have too much invested in the game at that point.

That's what makes Republic of Rome tick. It is not a cooperative game. It's a political game. I might even describe it as fringing on sociopathic in its design. When you've been playing for 2-3 hours and Malloc throws that option out on the table the threat has some real weight to it. It's a little like "Diplomacy Syndrome". When you get backstabbed by your ally in hour 5 of Diplomacy it sucks. Same goes for Republic of Rome. In games like these you always need a contingency plan. It's a feature, and I love it.

repoman wrote: In the specific example of Malloc's Republic of Rome game, I still stand behind his play as being within the spirit of the game. I suggest that the proper response would have been for the rest of the table to appease him at the time of demand and then collectively agree to never allow him into a position where he could make that threat again. See, in RoR it isn't arbitrarily decided who gets put into power. It happens through player decisions and that is the huge difference between it and Dead of Winter.

Bingo. Also, in Republic of Rome you aren't really trying to save Rome. You're trying to win. In Dead of Winter survival is the ultimate goal and even if you can't win you can help others win, which would be a horrible way to play Republic of Rome. Archipelago is somewhere in between two, which is probably the reason some people have so much trouble wrapping their head around it.

Shellhead wrote: I would love to play Junta some day. Thanks to a post here at F:AT, I picked up an inexpensive West End edition several years ago, but still can't get it on the table.

I almost went out to Minneapolis last week, and I ~~LOVE~~ Junta.

I disagree with the premise that every game provides binary winner or loser positions.

Dead of Winter: If you can't see the value in helping the rest of the colony win, even if it causes you to lose, you just might be one sad sack. In a hypothetical situation where every colony player except you wins due to personal goals, then you are technically a loser but you can at least take solace in the help you provided. If you are in that situation and choose to tank the game for everybody instead then you're both a loser and something more foul.

Maybe "Rule 0" boils down to "Why are you playing the game?" I'm playing to have fun, sometimes meet people, and usually enjoy the company of people whose company I enjoy. Doesn't mean I won't be a dick sometimes, but I'll be a dick when the game provides context for it and not because of sour grapes.

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Shellhead wrote: I would love to play Junta some day. Thanks to a post here at F:AT, I picked up an inexpensive West End edition several years ago, but still can't get it on the table.

I almost went out to Minneapolis last week, and I ~~LOVE~~ Junta.

I'm totally up for Junta and me wife is on board too. Let's do this.

Rule sqrt(-1): If you had fun without doing so at the expense of everyone else at the table then you win.

wadenels wrote:

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Shellhead wrote: I would love to play Junta some day. Thanks to a post here at F:AT, I picked up an inexpensive West End edition several years ago, but still can't get it on the table.

I almost went out to Minneapolis last week, and I ~~LOVE~~ Junta.

I'm totally up for Junta and me wife is on board too. Let's do this.

Me too, but I hear the game practically needs a full table of seven.

mutagen wrote: Another truth: If everybody is a loser, than nobody is.

Well... the designer of every pure coop game in existence (LOTR board game, Ghost Stories, etc.) would argue that 'everyone loses' and 'everyone wins' are two completely different things.

Still, I agree with many of your non-psychopathic responses.

Edit: Sniped by Shellhead...

wadenels wrote: Dead of Winter: If you can't see the value in helping the rest of the colony win, even if it causes you to lose, you just might be one sad sack.

This sounds like a role-playing argument, though. I'm a crazy gamer, not a role player.

If I were really in a zombie apocalypse, sure, I would help the colony. If zombies were really an issue, though, I would not be on F:AT discussing semi-coop games endlessly.

I might just sleep a lot. Not sure.

Well... the designer of every pure coop game in existence (LOTR board game, Ghost Stories, etc.) would argue that 'everyone loses' and 'everyone wins' are two completely different things.

Marginally I suppose. You can only lose if somebody wins. If that somebody is a piece of cardboard, it just doesn't sound like much of a loss.

If you had fun without doing so at the expense of everyone else at the table then you win.

Just to sound like less of a psychopath. We all play these games to have fun. Nobody gets paid to win that I am aware of. I think we are just trying to establish the point at which competitive play becomes douchebaggery, and apparently that level is a lot higher for me than others. That doesn't mean I haven't calibrated a move based upon how much fun it would be for the table, but a game that consistently requires that sort of effort sounds exhausting, and ceases to be a game for me. I would just rather do something else.

Hmmmmm. I'm not sure that made me sound like any less of a psychopath.