Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
83 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

Terra Mystica: Fire & Ice» Forums » General

Subject: Fair play issue: it should be mandatory to maximze your points even if you can't win anymore! rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Tamino Muth
Germany
Kiel
flag msg tools
Well, I had this problem a couple of times now on Snellman and it threatens to COMPLETELY kill my fun with Terra Mystica. It's basicly a general issue that can occur in pretty much any multiplayer game. Let me bring up two examples.

1. I was playing 3-headed and it was very close between Ice Maidens and Mermaids while Dwarves would definitely end up 3rd. Then the Dwarf player decided, frankly speaking, to not give a sh... anymore and just make whatever moves he likes (he told me that after the game). The Dwarf player could've connected his whole structure by digging once and build a dwelling! He would've become 2nd place in both endgame scorings with that moves and score 10+ points more than with what he did.

This dynamic had developed over a couple of rounds. It was impossible for Ice Maidens to connect because the Dwarfes could always react to them upgrading ships. So I, playing the Mermaids, of course planned accordingly. I knew that Ice Maidens shouldn't connect because it was only possible on one red hex that Dwarves (that had digging upgraded) would, of course (so I thought), steal from them if they had the necessary ships to get there. Well, it wasn't even stealing as it was by far the best move for them.

So Ice Maidens should've ended up 3rd place in both endgame scorings and the game would've been really close. But with the Dwarves just playing extremely unfair, Ice Maidens ended up winning one endgame scoring and getting 2nd in the other. That's 18 points that got donated to them by the Dwarves while those payed 10+ for their move themselves. What should it mean to win a game if behaviour like this is allowed?

2. In another game I apparanetly pissed some player off because I took away crucial hexes from him. So he decided at one point to make bad moves that would hurt us both so that I at least wouldn't win. I mean, come on! We're playing a GAME here AGAINST each other. I simply do not understand such behaviour. In Terra Mystica of course you fight for hexes and sometimes you can get frustrated because everyone is stealing everything from you. But what kind of assho... can you be to take revenge on another player because of that? After the game I talked briefly with the player and he said that he didn't understand why I stole a certain hex from him. I explained him my reasoning and that I only did it because I thought it was the move I had to do to still have chances to win. It might have been a mistake by me, I don't know for sure, but it was obvious (imo) that I wasn't doing it to hurt him, because I was playing against another playe for the victory. If I see someone making a questianable move, I will, of course, still play my best afterwards, even if I know that this player hurt both me and himself. I guess I don't take boardgames personal. I must be a weird person.

So here's my opinion about all that: The OBVIOUS thing to do is of course that you will ALWAYS try to play your best and get the highest score possible for you. Even if you don't play for the win anymore, you have a RESPONSIBILITY AS A SPORTSMAN to not just play random moves without caring. If this would be allowed, we simply don't need the term "winner" anymore.

Of course it can sometimes happen that you just make a mistake (like I maybe have in example 2) and perhaps even the wrong player wins because of that. This can always happen and is just unfortunate then. But even if that situation occurs, why should I go into revenge mode after that? And if a player obviously doesn't care anymore and just does something random, I would go so far and not accept his move. I am thinking about editing moves like that in the future in my Snellman games. It's pretty sad that I even have to think about doing that but I simply don't see another solution if a player wants to destroy the game I'm playing.

What I simply don't understand is how even a few people can not be with me here. I mean, why would you play a game and call someone the winner if it's just dependent on one other player's opinion that he would rather like this player in front or that he just doesn't care anymore? Why would you get personally offended if a player makes a certain move?

What do you think about all that? Did you have similar experiences in the past and maybe know how to handle them?

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Spirio
Austria
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Why would you get personally offended if a player makes a certain move?


you seem personally offended by the moves those people did whistle


I can understand your frustration (I had that one settlers game, where one guy just gave all his resources to the third guy, so I would defiantly not win), but the rules never hinder people to do stupid moves so it is allowed. It's just a game. If players do that often, don't play with them any more.

In a tournament however this is a real issue and the term "Kingsmaker" exists because of this
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Frank Hamrick
United States
Rocky Mount
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Orion Hegenomy wrote:
Well, I had this problem a couple of times now on Snellman and it threatens to COMPLETELY kill my fun with Terra Mystica. It's basicly a general issue that can occur in pretty much any multiplayer game. Let me bring up two examples.

1. I was playing 3-headed and it was very close between Ice Maidens and Mermaids while Dwarves would definitely end up 3rd. Then the Dwarf player decided, frankly speaking, to not give a sh... anymore and just make whatever moves he likes (he told me that after the game). The Dwarf player could've connected his whole structure by digging once and build a dwelling! He would've become 2nd place in both endgame scorings with that moves and score 10+ points more than with what he did.

This dynamic had developed over a couple of rounds. It was impossible for Ice Maidens to connect because the Dwarfes could always react to them upgrading ships. So I, playing the Mermaids, of course planned accordingly. I knew that Ice Maidens shouldn't connect because it was only possible on one red hex that Dwarves (that had digging upgraded) would, of course (so I thought), steal from them if they had the necessary ships to get there. Well, it wasn't even stealing as it was by far the best move for them.

So Ice Maidens should've ended up 3rd place in both endgame scorings and the game would've been really close. But with the Dwarves just playing extremely unfair, Ice Maidens ended up winning one endgame scoring and getting 2nd in the other. That's 18 points that got donated to them by the Dwarves while those payed 10+ for their move themselves. What should it mean to win a game if behaviour like this is allowed?

2. In another game I apparanetly pissed some player off because I took away crucial hexes from him. So he decided at one point to make bad moves that would hurt us both so that I at least wouldn't win. I mean, come on! We're playing a GAME here AGAINST each other. I simply do not understand such behaviour. In Terra Mystica of course you fight for hexes and sometimes you can get frustrated because everyone is stealing everything from you. But what kind of assho... can you be to take revenge on another player because of that? After the game I talked briefly with the player and he said that he didn't understand why I stole a certain hex from him. I explained him my reasoning and that I only did it because I thought it was the move I had to do to still have chances to win. It might have been a mistake by me, I don't know for sure, but it was obvious (imo) that I wasn't doing it to hurt him, because I was playing against another playe for the victory. If I see someone making a questianable move, I will, of course, still play my best afterwards, even if I know that this player hurt both me and himself. I guess I don't take boardgames personal. I must be a weird person.

So here's my opinion about all that: The OBVIOUS thing to do is of course that you will ALWAYS try to play your best and get the highest score possible for you. Even if you don't play for the win anymore, you have a RESPONSIBILITY AS A SPORTSMAN to not just play random moves without caring. If this would be allowed, we simply don't need the term "winner" anymore.

Of course it can sometimes happen that you just make a mistake (like I maybe have in example 2) and perhaps even the wrong player wins because of that. This can always happen and is just unfortunate then. But even if that situation occurs, why should I go into revenge mode after that? And if a player obviously doesn't care anymore and just does something random, I would go so far and not accept his move. I am thinking about editing moves like that in the future in my Snellman games. It's pretty sad that I even have to think about doing that but I simply don't see another solution if a player wants to destroy the game I'm playing.

What I simply don't understand is how even a few people can not be with me here. I mean, why would you play a game and call someone the winner if it's just dependent on one other player's opinion that he would rather like this player in front or that he just doesn't care anymore? Why would you get personally offended if a player makes a certain move?

What do you think about all that? Did you have similar experiences in the past and maybe know how to handle them?



Interestingly, the same thing happened in my last game. I (player A) was fighting with Player B for the largest connected group for end-game scoring. Player C realized he was out of the game (could not win), but could link up two of his groups and tie me for the largest connected group, but to do so would make it impossible for Player B to then tie me. So, he did nothing. As result, Player B was able to tie me for the largest group on his last move. As a result, he beat me by one point. Had C connected his two groups he would have finished second and Player B would be third.

It just kind of ruined a very competitive game of TM for me.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tamino Muth
Germany
Kiel
flag msg tools
Jack Spirio wrote:
Quote:
Why would you get personally offended if a player makes a certain move?


you seem personally offended by the moves those people did whistle


I can understand your frustration (I had that one settlers game, where one guy just gave all his resources to the third guy, so I would defiantly not win), but the rules never hinder people to do stupid moves so it is allowed. It's just a game. If players do that often, don't play with them any more.

In a tournament however this is a real issue and the term "Kingsmaker" exists because of this


"you seem personally offended by the moves those people did "

Well, I suspected that someone would say that. I disagree though. It's not the point that I'm sad and frustrated, because some people don't understand sportsmanship. I want to describe a problem and hear sugestions on how to handel such an issue.

"It's just a game."

You can always say "xy is only xy" and it's absolutely unproductive for any discussion. If someone is excited about the new Star Wars movie you can say "well, it's just Star Wars, who cares?" but many people, myself included, will not say that it's "just" Star Wars. Posting in a forum dedicated to boardgames, I assumed that we agreed that boardgames are not just "whatever". If we wouldn't care about them, we probably wouldn't come to this site in the first place.

"If players do that often, don't play with them any more."

In real life I, of course, I only play with people that are fun to play with. The most remarkable thing is that usually it's exactly that kind of players that are always loudly saying: "I am playing just for fun!" that destroy games by bad behaviour. Fun doesn't mean just making random moves and see what happens or fighting out personal vendettas with others. Maybe some people even think that annoying others is the most fun you can get out of a board game but I will say, call me arrogant, that I simply know better. I know how much fun a game can be if you play with people who care for the game itself and play fair and competitive. There is no way that someone who casually plays Monopoly "because those other games are too complicated" with other people that don't care will have as much fun as I have playing Agricola or Le Havre in my group. Sure, people are different and prefer very different ways of approaching life - and still I'm absolutely sure that caring about a game, its rules and sportsmanship will lead to way more fun than the opposite.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Orion Hegenomy wrote:
"you seem personally offended by the moves those people did "

Well, I suspected that someone would say that. I disagree though. It's not the point that I'm sad and frustrated, because some people don't understand sportsmanship. I want to describe a problem and hear sugestions on how to handel such an issue.


First start by realizing that it's not a question of sportsmanship. It's a question of preferences, and of shared understanding (or lack thereof) of what the players are doing at the table together.

As for suggestions on what to do, it's quite simple conceptually: agree beforehand with your opponents what sorts of things are cool do to in situations like that (e.g. once you realize you're not going to win), and what isn't. If you can't agree, then don't play with them. As I said: (conceptually) simple.

Quote:
"If players do that often, don't play with them any more."

In real life I, of course, I only play with people that are fun to play with. The most remarkable thing is that usually it's exactly that kind of players that are always loudly saying: "I am playing just for fun!" that destroy games by bad behaviour. Fun doesn't mean just making random moves and see what happens or fighting out personal vendettas with others.


Back to shared understanding. Stop assuming you know what fun means for other people.

Quote:
Maybe some people even think that annoying others is the most fun you can get out of a board game but I will say, call me arrogant, that I simply know better.


Yes, assuming you know better than others what they will enjoy at any given time is near-to-the-height of arrogance.
10 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Michaud
United States
Longwood
Florida
flag msg tools
On-Line Want List Generator - Hopefully Making Math Trades a Little Bit Easier
badge
Captain Kirk, Captain Picard, Captain Sisko, Captain Janeway, Captain Archer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Fair play issue: it should be mandatory to maximize your points even if you can't win anymore!
Orion Hegenomy wrote:
Fair play issue: it should be mandatory to maximize your points even if you can't win anymore!

I'm confused why you posted this in a given game's forum and not "general gaming" as wouldn't this apply to any game (except of course where you want the fewest points to win)??

your post was too verbose but I'm guessing you are referring to "king makers", if so see....

http://tinyurl.com/pz9ahk6
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Thompson
United States
Homewood
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Play for money. It makes everyone more predictable.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tamino Muth
Germany
Kiel
flag msg tools
Well, Jason, your post has a quite an arrogant feel to it as well. I understand what you are saying though and often times you are surely right. One cannot just always assume that he knows better what others understand as fun - but it also doesn't work the other way around. You can call me arrogant again right here, because I will tell you now that I study phliosophy and that I dealt with this thought process quite a bit in other contexts. That's why I feel I maybe know more about it than others. Again, arrogance of course.

So here's what I wanted to say (simply put): If someone tells you that the most fun in the world is annoying other people in a game, then this surely can be true for him. But it only CAN be true for him. It would be just as arrogant from him to assume that he, himself, EXCLUSIVELY knows what's the most fun he could possibly have with a game. If I talked to someone who played hundreds of different games and then, after carefully reflecting all of his memories, comes to the conclusion that he prefers to make random moves in a game to annoy people over anything else he experienced in gaming and that that's the most fun he ever got out of it, than I will accept that as his opinion.

But it happens way too often unfortunately that someone simply doesn't know what he's talking about, because he lacks experience. Just as I have only my perspective, he has only his. If I see someone who has basicly only played Monopoly and Uno his whole life and "who just wants to play for fun" while he claims that's it's the most fun to treat other players unfair and disrespectful, I will simply not accept that. I have yet to meet a person who is a dedicated board game player and doesn't give a shit about sprotsmanship. In my experience, it's always casual players who think that it's the most fun to not care. And yes, I personally think that they are wrong. That they simply don't know - most of them, not all - what a good game really has to offer.

Let me give you another example. Who do you think will get more out of the music he listens to: a dedicated jazz musician or someone who casually listens to the charts while he drives to work? If both people would tell you that they EXACTLY know what kind of music is the best for them personally, would you really say that both people equally know that (for themselves)? I wouldn't. Even if someone has loads of fun listening to commercial pop music, there is no way in the world that this person feels the same quality of musical enjoyment in this music than a dedicated professinoal musician.

And I'd say a simlar thing about pretty much everything else in live, even board games. It's not that I'm too stupid or arrogant to not have thought about this and I'm just saying "I know better!". My honest opinion, which still can be false of course, is simply that people who don't give a shit about sportsmanship are not the kind of people that a truely loving gamers. My whole life has shown me that. These people don't know how to enjoy a game and that's why they start playing against others because that's the only thing they can "achieve". Again, I'm not accepting this as an equal opinion to mine. I love playing table tennis, others love badminton which I find extremely boring. That's fine, to each his own. But I also love playing board games competetively and if I compare that to another person's preference to just play random bullshit moves over the board because he is pissed off, then I will not accept that as an equal gaming preference, because this person ,in most cases, has simply not experienced board games in their full spectrum to know what they really offer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Orion Hegenomy wrote:
If someone tells you that the most fun in the world is annoying other people in a game, then this surely can be true for him. But it only CAN be true for him. It would be just as arrogant from him to assume that he, himself, EXCLUSIVELY knows what's the most fun he could possibly have with a game.


Doesn't matter. Unless I think he's actively lying, I assume that "annoying other people in a game" is what is the most fun in the world for him as he exists right now. The fact that he could possibly discover something else to be more fun does not create a moral obligation for him to pursue it.

And so if you want him to play a certain way (for what I largely perceive to be self-interested reasons), it is incumbent upon you to make the request of him. Appealing to some outside, "objective" labelling of "sportsmanship" is not likely to be effective, nor is it clearly correct.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tamino Muth
Germany
Kiel
flag msg tools
JeffyJeff wrote:
Orion Hegenomy wrote:
Fair play issue: it should be mandatory to maximize your points even if you can't win anymore!

I'm confused why you posted this in a given game's forum and not "general gaming" as wouldn't this apply to any game (except of course where you want the fewest points to win)??

your post was too verbose but I'm guessing you are referring to "king makers", if so see....

http://tinyurl.com/pz9ahk6


I posted my thread here because I was looking for suggestions on how to handle this so called king making in Terra Mystica. I play this game mostly online and so I can't always choose my fellow players.

Thanks for the link. To be honest, I'm rather astonished by some people's views that are pro king making. I had to read a couple posts multiple times and was just sad on how superficial you could perceive board games. Yes, king making situations can not be fully gotten rid of but why should that mean that one shouldn't at least try to make them less significant. Don't we want to compete within a game a not in a way that I use a game as a tool to get revenge on someone? Why should that be fun and, more importantly, why should I even play a game then? I could just as well insult the person or punch him in the face if it's only about personal issues.

It can't be any different than this: Play as good as you can and with your best cognitive effort and try to win. If you can't do that (anymore), try to end up 2nd, 3rd... (and so on) or, for some games, maximize your points. You cannot start messing around and ruin the game for everyone else. Doing something else would basicly be cheating, as you arbitrarily manipulate the outcome of the game.

jasonwocky wrote:
Orion Hegenomy wrote:
If someone tells you that the most fun in the world is annoying other people in a game, then this surely can be true for him. But it only CAN be true for him. It would be just as arrogant from him to assume that he, himself, EXCLUSIVELY knows what's the most fun he could possibly have with a game.


Doesn't matter. Unless I think he's actively lying, I assume that "annoying other people in a game" is what is the most fun in the world for him as he exists right now. The fact that he could possibly discover something else to be more fun does not create a moral obligation for him to pursue it.

And so if you want him to play a certain way (for what I largely perceive to be self-interested reasons), it is incumbent upon you to make the request of him. Appealing to some outside, "objective" labelling of "sportsmanship" is not likely to be effective, nor is it clearly correct.


Concerning your first paragraph: that's a good point. In what way he has or doesn't have a moral obligation to pursue his possibly "true" or "objective" preferences in the context of board games is surely a little more complicated to fathom than it is in the conext of political philosophy :-)

to your second paragraph: Well, it's not completely arbitrary what can be considered sportsmanship. That's super difficult though. If I play hockey and beat the sh... out of someone with the bat, I can't just say that I perceive this as acceptable behaviour as a part of the game. Of course, in this case it would also violate the law but even if it wouldn't, you can't just for yourself proclaim what you consider fair and what not. Common sense is the important term here. For board games, that's hard to figure out I guess as so many people play for so many reasons. But this quote I found in the old king maker thread pretty much says it all. A certain Richard Irving wrote in 2005:

"What a kingmaker does is no longer strive for the win--but decides which other player does. He or she is breaking the implicit social contract of the game (everyone trying their best to win) and letting down the other players in the game.

Giving your best effort and losing is perfectly OK. Not giving your best and giving the game to someone else (even me) disgusts me. The crowned winner knows his win wasn't earned. The uncrowned (not-)winner knows it was taken from him for no ther reason than spite."

"implicit social contract" is a great way of paraphrasing what I mean.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Derry Salewski
United States
Augusta
Maine
flag msg tools
badge
I'm only happy when it rains...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
People aren't really pro king making.

They're just apathetic to complaints of what happens in multiplayer games online with strangers.

Make friends and play with them.

Play two player games.

Lower your tilting threshold.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Büttner-Zimmermann
Germany
München
Bavaria
flag msg tools
badge
Wiggle It!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I even know people in person, who will play only to hinder you winning, if you made a move that hindered them winning (reasonable or not!).

After all, most board games are interactive, which means: you interact with people, and people have emotions.
They are NOT bots or AI players, which only play reasonable and without emotions.

Cross one player and he might have fun crossing you.
Complain about that, and it might be even more fun.

On the table, I wouldn't play again with that player.
Online? Well, just start a new game...
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon David
United States
Los Angeles
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
To be honest, if I am in a game I cannot win by any means, I am just looking to get out of it as quickly as possible so I can get into another game. That means taking far less time then I would typically take in the game just to move it along.

That being said, I do not do this in tournaments unless it is beneficial to me.

People play for fun and I am competitive but if I can't win, then I'm just looking for something else to do with my time.


Previous posters had some great suggestions... maybe you should consider them. I know that you would be posting like this in every game of TM you were in with me if I was no longer capable of winning the game(unless I was going to set some personal record with a particular race).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Burigo
Italy
Belluno
flag msg tools
designer
badge
“Don't try the paranormal until you know what's normal.” - Granny Weatherwax
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Terra Mystica is a game with complete information. The uncertainty of the outcome only comes from the opaqueness of opponents' behavior.

Take it into account when planning your moves. Don't be confident that an opponent is going to make the move or tactical decision you would make in his shoes. Minimize the chances of being in a situation where someone may bash the leader or kingmake. Read your opponents and try to figure out if the person you are making a vexing move against is a vindictive one; could you afford a retaliation?

Some people don't differentiate between a 2nd place and a last place: to them the game i lost in both cases).
If an opponent realizes that he could not win, then he may have lost incentives so expect any type of behavior from him.
He could play for maximizing his points (your expected behavior); but he also could continue play for trying new moves or tactics; or he could continue playing just to watch how the game rolls out (maybe throwing a coup de théâtre in); or he can continue with the purpose of vexing the player that he likes less (kingmaking or simply being a jerk).

My suggestion is: don't try to change their behavior (especially if you play online), but use your knowledge of their behavior to your advantage.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthias Reitberger
Germany
Nürnberg
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I see two different cases:

1. A player does not make optimal moves or what you think would be optimal moves. He might not analyze a game very deep if he has already lost or try to reach goals he can't reach in an attempt to turn tables. He might try something that will normally fail but might bring him back in contest if opponents make mistakes.

2. If you hurt me I hurt you. You can play that way, often both players involved will contest for last place.
I was close to doing that when a engineer took act6 and turned G6 to green just afte I had turned it to black with a cult bonus dig.
It was a round with dwelling scoring and I was playing the Darklings. I had 2 prists and was planning to build G6, F7, E10 and an I8.
The Engeneer had BON1 and was planing to build G6 and H8. My firsts reaction was dig2 build G6. After some consideration I took act4 and built H7 and I10, clerly the better move.
Would you blame me if I had taken G6?
I think I had every right to do it.
He was pressing his look by using act6 in such a way, could have used the digs safely on the central continent. And it wasn't a good move for him anyway. He came in last I ended up second.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert
Germany
Bocholt
flag msg tools
badge
I paid 100 Geek Gold so that you can read this! :-)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you expect people to soldier on in a game after you've hurt them (whether "objectively" or just "in their distorted view of the world"), you're expecting too much. "Quid pro quo" or "tis for tat" is a common (and often successful) approach to a lot of situation in life, including gaming. "You hurt me a bit, so I hurt you a bit" - maybe you learn from it for the rest of this game, or for our next game(s). Or maybe you don't learn anything and just whine about the retaliation.

Tell me: Why should somebody who feels that you pushed him/her to last place continue to play neutrally? If he/she does, you'll learn that doing so is a successful strategy, which the person you hurt certainly doesn't want you to learn. We all know that if two players quarrel in TM, the other players will earn the spoils and win. In my view, one (fortunately tiny) part of any TM game is to avoid a move which looks like it's more aimed at hurting another player than helping yourself, in order to avoid retaliation.

Now of course many a player ends up on last place not because of some other player's move (perhaps perceived as malicious), but simply because of playing worse etc. That player could still decide the game one way or the other - by action or by inaction. I find it particularly problematic to accuse somebody of throwing the game by inaction. If the loser-but-potential-decider does nothing to stop another player from achieving X, then most likely it's apathy, not malice. Or the player decided that since the fun of doing well is out of reach, he/she'll draw fun from achieving <insert non-VP optimizing goal here>. VP optimization is not a god-given goal - actually the snellman ranking system doesn't care for your VP, just for your position, and the tournament has VP only as a secondary criterion.

Another thought: If somebody throws a game to me, I'm likely to attribute it to my skill combined with luck - I may not even notice that I did well due to the conscious decision of another player. If somebody throws a game to a competitor, I get upset because "I earned to win, but some evil bastard costed me the game" . In my recollection, I'm much more likely to remember the latter cases than the former, so what probably is a 50:50 may seem to me like a 20:80.

Btw. I just had another player in a tournament game spend six spades to prevent me from connecting stating that "I'm not going to win, for sure, but I couldn't let OP darklings cruise on autopilot". You bet that I'm not happy about it, but I feel that it's this person's right to do so.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tamino Muth
Germany
Kiel
flag msg tools
Well, it seems that everyone who writes two pointless or destructive sentences as an answer to my posts gets many thumbs up for them, while nobody even tries to really understand what I'm saying and basicly just replies: "don't take the game so seriously" or "try to work it into your plan that people behave like idiots". I answer a couple of different posts here.

"Terra Mystica is a game with complete information. The uncertainty of the outcome only comes from the opaqueness of opponents' behavior."

Well, the fun of Terra Mystica is trying to play the best. It's way too complicated to calculate the whole game as there are so many tiny little differences, for instance when exactly a player builds one building and you get power for it and so on. Nobody knows what is exactly the best thing to do. If that would be different, nobody would play anymore. But, and that's very important, there shouldn't be moves that are good for player to do in principle, but in reality impossible for him to perform, because another player will take revenge for it. This has nothing to do with the game itself and is a mechanism OUTSIDE of the game. I want to figure out my opponents' behaviour in a stratigical context WITHIN the game and not how they will personally or emotionally react to my move. That has nothing to do with the game.

"After all, most board games are interactive, which means: you interact with people, and people have emotions.
They are NOT bots or AI players, which only play reasonable and without emotions. "

Yes, and that's the problem in a way. Sorry, but being personally pissed because of someones move is nothing but inappropriate, childish behaviour. "Uhh, you bought the street in Monopoly that I wanted to have, now I don't want to play anymore." or "You blocked my railroad in Ticket to Ride, from now on I will only try to block you for the rest of the game." Go outside, punch each other, don't play boardgames ever again as you fail to understand what fun through competetion means.

"To be honest, if I am in a game I cannot win by any means, I am just looking to get out of it as quickly as possible so I can get into another game. That means taking far less time then I would typically take in the game just to move it along."

What you are doing is selfish and not suited for a multiplayer game. This means nothing but not being respectful to your fellow players. You are destroying the game for everyone else unless noone cares for the game in the first place. Don't you want to play well in general? Why do you only play well if it's possible for you to still win? Let's say you play chess against a way better player than yourself, then you also know you can't win. But why should that mean to not care about your moves anymore? Why even play at all then?

"You bet that I'm not happy about it, but I feel that it's this person's right to do so." [playing against one player out of frustration]

This is the main point I'm trying to make here. It's not HIS RIGHT to do so. Where do you get this conlusion from? Why should someone have the active right to be a jerk in a game. Because it's not explicitly said otherwise in the rulebook? Does the manual of Terra Mystica refer to it as being against the rules to smash the game off the table if you can't win anymore? Seriously, where is the difference in not giving a shit anymore, playing against one player because of a grudge or simply cheating or smashing the board to the floor? All these behaviours are simply working against what the game is made for. I don't see a difference in quality here, only in quantity.

We are talking about STRATEGY gmes here. In an RPG of course it would work differently as you portray a character. Do you play more wicked if you choose Darklings because it would suit them better than Mermaids? Is it "your right" to do so? Do you have a "right" to treat everyone disrespectful in a game? No. There are rules in the rulebook. You have to obey them. And ther are social rules that you have to obey just as well IF a game should still make sense to play.

You could make a philosophical discussion out of what a "right" is. Basicly, everyone has the right to do everything at any point. Why shouldn't you have a right to beat up your fellow players if they don't play as you like? There is no metaphysical rule or law against that, all rules and laws are made by humans. Nobody has to obey them, but usually you get punished by the justice system or in a social way if you behave like an idiot. So, if we want to use the term "right" in a useful way, we have to use it in the proper context and that is human made moral codexes. And just as you don't have the active right to smash the game, you do have a passive, social obligation to keep the game alive, even if it's not possible for you to still win.

I don't know how it his with you guys but if I meet some people and play a game with them it MEANS something to me. If you go to the cinema with other people and don't like the film you watch, you should also not moan loudly and annoy everyone else. The group's interest is the most important in these cases, as you willingly took part of it. So, if you don't like the film, leave the theatre or be quiet. As you can't leave the game in most boardgames without destroying it, it's simply necessary to still ACTIVELY TAKE PART IN IT. And actively taking part does NOT mean only following the explicit rules of the rulebook. It means keeping the game alive. If you don't give a shit anymore, it just means being selfish, childish and, frankly speaking, just being an idiot.

I guess we can all agree that it is mandatory for a game to succeed that its rulebook (or previously discussed house rules) are being strictly followed. Why can't we also agree that the social rules have to be followed just as strictly to make a game succeed? After all, why is it bad to cheat in a game? Because it destroys the fun for everyone else. So, where is difference if you behave like an idiot? It just as well estroys the game for everyone.

Do I really have such a strange opinion on this matter that pretty much noone agrees with me here?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jens
Germany
Wiesbaden
flag msg tools
A man, a plan:
badge
Anal Panama
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The thing is, you can't enforce moral behavior in an online environment as you can enforce mechanical rules. So, if you don't like the way someone plays a game, avoid them in the future. You may try and confront them with your thoughts that they were acting selfishly, and maybe that'll change this behavior for the better, but that's all you can do.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tamino Muth
Germany
Kiel
flag msg tools
Vertaler wrote:
The thing is, you can't enforce moral behavior in an online environment as you can enforce mechanical rules. So, if you don't like the way someone plays a game, avoid them in the future. You may try and confront them with your thoughts that they were acting selfishly, and maybe that'll change this behavior for the better, but that's all you can do.


But would you say I have the right to not accept a move and edit it in a Snellman game as an admin?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Weber
United States
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For what it's worth, you're spot-on about sportsmanship (in any competitive event). Someone not playing to their ability until the end of the game is not honoring the game itself, their opponents or themselves. If someone plays sports as a kid, they learn this pretty early.

In the real world, if players are not so honorable, I think the suggestion of using money as incentive is a good one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthias Reitberger
Germany
Nürnberg
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Orion Hegenomy wrote:
But, and that's very important, there shouldn't be moves that are good for player to do in principle, but in reality impossible for him to perform, because another player will take revenge for it. This has nothing to do with the game itself and is a mechanism OUTSIDE of the game. I want to figure out my opponents' behaviour in a stratigical context WITHIN the game and not how they will personally or emotionally react to my move. That has nothing to do with the game.


I don't see anything outside the game.
You have to see that your covered when taking aggressive moves, if not your opponent is free to do aggressive moves himself. That's perfectly within the game.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jens
Germany
Wiesbaden
flag msg tools
A man, a plan:
badge
Anal Panama
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Orion Hegenomy wrote:
But would you say I have the right to not accept a move and edit it in a Snellman game as an admin?


That's another question. I don't think it would be considered moral to undo or prevent "immoral" behavior, especially if the morality of the action in question is debatable itself (after all, it could just be bad play; you're just assuming they did it with selfish/childish motives). The thing is, you'd still be actively forcing your will on someone else in such a case without the authority to do so.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Spirio
Austria
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Orion Hegenomy wrote:
Well, it seems that everyone who writes two pointless or destructive sentences as an answer to my posts gets many thumbs up for them, while nobody even tries to really understand what I'm saying and basicly just replies: "don't take the game so seriously" or "try to work it into your plan that people behave like idiots". I answer a couple of different posts here


I think this is because, your post seem to be a bit harsh, and you take everything personally. That way people (like me) don't really feel like supporting you, even though I understand and think similar in most points.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Olsen
United States
South Saint Paul
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Orion Hegenomy wrote:
But would you say I have the right to not accept a move and edit it in a Snellman game as an admin?


Never.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Riley Doyle
United States
Londonderry
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
Orion Hegenomy wrote:
But would you say I have the right to not accept a move and edit it in a Snellman game as an admin?


Would you be fine with someone else doing that to you?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.