Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Fief: France 1429» Forums » General

Subject: How do your games develop concerning negotiations and betrayals? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Luke
Italy
Castelbellino
Italy
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A late trend that we are seeing lately in our games is that a player allies with someone, then sticks to the alliance until the end, even if he has a good opportunity to betray the other for a solo win or for a win with someone else. They (and I) feel sorry for the betrayed person.

I don't mind if that happens every once in a while, but it's becoming a trend and the game becomes predictable. Once alliances are made the game becomes a matter of calculating what you and your partner have to do to get the needed VP, rather than negotiating your way there. That's not the spirit of the game.

The group likes bribery and negotiation and also betrayal when the game follows/forces you through the process. I.E. if you have played Warrior Knights you probably understand what I mean: each phase needs to be discussed and players influenced to do what you want them to do. That remains the same from beginning to end since the game does not allow shared victory through official alliances.

Fief is different. Shared victory is there so my friends and I won't easily betray one another. To keep things interesting I'm thinking of ways to mitigate this.

First solution: run a 5 games tournament. Shared victory 2 points. Solo victory 4 points.

Second solution: do not allow shared victory through alliances. Allow marriages but for the sole purpose of sharing benefits and seal an agreement(eg. king-queen as in a 3 player game). A friend of mine argued that this way there would be no election, since everyone would refrain from giving votes (thus titles) to somebody they are not allied with. Quick fix to this is that when elections take place, every person eligible to vote they actually have to vote FOR someone: they can't refrain from voting. This would increase the negotiations very much.

What do you think and what is your experience on the matter?
Is that even a problem for you/your group?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
neko flying
Germany
Berlin
Berlin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Soul_Guile wrote:
even if he has a good opportunity to betray the other for a solo win
That's doing it wrong. It is like refusing to take pieces in Chess because you are against violence.

Anyway, let us see your proposals.


Soul_Guile wrote:

First solution: run a 5 games tournament. Shared victory 2 points. Solo victory 4 points.
I don't think this would work. You are inviting metagaming ("if you break the alliance this game, I will kick your ass during the next game") and kingmaking (no one will ally with the current leader).

Soul_Guile wrote:
Second solution: do not allow shared victory through alliances. Allow marriages but for the sole purpose of sharing benefits and seal an agreement(eg. king-queen as in a 3 player game).
Mmmmm... you might as well be playing another game then.


Soul_Guile wrote:

What do you think and what is your experience on the matter?
Is that even a problem for you/your group?
I only play with nasty bastards, so we don't have this problem at all. But I do see how this can come with certain people or groups. The question is, if this game isn't for you, then why do you insist on playing it? It might just not be the game for you
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Palmer
Canada
Ayr
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Without adding more rules, I suggest when you play trying to kill other married lords to break up alliances. The last time I played, a lord getting killed broke an alliance. After that, another player came in with overwhelming forces and demanded they form an alliance at swordpoint. And it worked.

We have found very little in the way of betrayals within marriages - the issue is that we play with the same people, and I think people don't want to be shunned from alliances in later games. But that doesn't mean that other interesting events around alliances can't happen.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ivan Alaiz
Spain
flag msg tools
On my table games, I tend to stick with my ally to the end,it never detracted from the fun for me even if this tendency is strong in the groups I play with.

That said I feel much less obligated to my ally if the marriage is broken so breaking the marriage is a good option but I dont think this is something you can fix with rules unfortunately.

I tend to think long term, If I meet the terms I agre and dont betray, I am more likely to get an ally next turn as people know I can be trusted... and it does work for me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bret
Canada
Windsor
Ontario
flag msg tools
Go Sox Go!
badge
Dream car
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Our game group is rather the opposite.

The alliances are free flying and the Pope is a busy man. People are getting targeted for kills to break alliances, even as far as a player once purposely left a lord out in the wind to be killed because he was married and the player could get to 3 solo points by the end of the next round. Now we did not entertain this because it was going to mean we all lost but as you can imagine there is no love lost in alliances in our group.

In our most recent game I was married, divorced, and re-married only to lose to the player who I was in an alliance with.
*He divorced me to marry another player.
*The other player thought he could win alone, got it annulled.
*My original ally quickly claimed a Fief, pumped his windmills with good weather and bought the title. 3 VP in hand and we were all too far away on the board to do anything about it.

It is only a board game - live a little, break some hearts and laugh about the craziness afterwards!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max
Spain
Cantabria
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think that's a problem with the game, but with the players. Anyway, there you go: everyone puts a euro on the game box before the start of the game. If the game finish with an alliance victory, they can take half the (accumulated) money on the box, rounded down, but if only one player wins, he or she can take all the money.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andreas Johansson
Sweden
Linköping
flag msg tools
I spent 200 GG and all I got was this lousy overtext!
badge
I spent 200 GG and all I got was this lousy overtext!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mazmaz wrote:
I don't think that's a problem with the game, but with the players. Anyway, there you go: everyone puts a euro on the game box before the start of the game. If the game finish with an alliance victory, they can take half the (accumulated) money on the box, rounded down, but if only one player wins, he or she can take all the money.
It might be an interesting socio-economical study how much money you'd have to put in to meaningfully affect people's behaviour. With my group, I think €1 per person would be too little for people to play differently.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roger Reisinger
msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
This reminds me of a game of HIS I had recently. On the second turn one player spent 10 minutes making an alliance with me and talking about how to approach the coming turn. He immediately betrayed me on the first impulse. Later in thegame when he wanted to ally with me again I declined even though it would have helped me as I felt I couldnt trust him.

One other player at the game felt pretty strongly that if I couldnt forgive the betrayal that HIS is not a game I should play, but I disagree. The game itself doesnt cause you to form alliances, keep them, or betray them, that is a personal choice. The game itself is only a vehicle for you to make those types of choices.

I like alliance games and have fun playing them. I dont make alliances easily, and when I do I am fiercely loyal and will go down with the ship if needed. I think that is just as valid as betraying and backstabbing by a player who finds the opportunity to do so.

My advice to you is that your problem is the personalities you are gaming with. If you want more backstabbing and betraying in your game as you are finding the loyalist attitude is too strong, mix up the group by inviting more people who play that style of game. Personally, I'd keep playing as is... because when that demoted loyal ally decides to betray someone, it'll make a great gaming story
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
N Jones
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Ask in this thread or in Geek Mail and you'll be given 30GG for an Avatar.
badge
You are who you choose to be.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In our games the first alliance gets targeted *HARD*, and young marrieds have a hard time staying married since we kill them off. I usually wait till as close to the end to make my alliance.

Edit: I don't like to betray my alliances because it destroys my collateral for next game. I don't stab in the back... more in the face. whistle
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Marshall
United Kingdom
York
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lowecore wrote:
This reminds me of a game of HIS I had recently. On the second turn one player spent 10 minutes making an alliance with me and talking about how to approach the coming turn. He immediately betrayed me on the first impulse. Later in thegame when he wanted to ally with me again I declined even though it would have helped me as I felt I couldnt trust him.

One other player at the game felt pretty strongly that if I couldnt forgive the betrayal that HIS is not a game I should play
Another aspect to this is to lay down a marker - dick me over and you'll pay for it. Getting that message out means it's less likely to happen in the future. As in real life, you don't want people thinking you're an easy touch.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls