Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
22 Posts

Rising Sun» Forums » General

Subject: Lying and backstabbing in Rising Sun rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
I am pretty curious about lying in the game. Is this allowed? Like say for example you are the mandate player who can choose a mandate. And you can negotiate with your "ally" or perhaps even your none allies. Say they pay you for playing a specific mandate. And you don't play this, will you loose honor?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate Parkes
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Velorian wrote:
I am pretty curious about lying in the game. Is this allowed? Like say for example you are the mandate player who can choose a mandate. And you can negotiate with your "ally" or perhaps even your none allies. Say they pay you for playing a specific mandate. And you don't play this, will you loose honor?


As far as I can tell, you're allowed to lie about your intentions or take money for something and then not do it.

There doesn't really NEED to be a rule against this kind of behavior. The cost for a blantant lie is a total loss of credibility, which is crippling in a negotiation driven game.

And after the first time you take money for something and don't do it, all the other player has to say in the future is "do it first, THEN I'll pay you."
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John E
United States
Cary
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Eldil wrote:
And after the first time you take money for something and don't do it, all the other player has to say in the future is "do it first, THEN I'll pay you."


And then don't hold your breath waiting for your payment afterwards
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mr. Octavius
Canada
Chilliwack
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You'll get away with doing it once. Ever.

If you sell the first mandate you play in Spring to someone, then play something else after they pay you, no one is going to try negotiating anything with you for the rest of the game. Or the next game. Or the game after that...

Reputation is an important part of negotiation. If you make an agreement for later in the round and then change your mind, you might be able to convince some people that the board situation caused things to change. If you blatantly lie to someone you will not do well as no one will bother making deals with you again.

If you've been mostly trustworthy all game, then back stab the leader in Autumn to go for the win, depending on the group you might get away with that. (Until Autumn rolls around in your next play)
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Niall Smyth
Japan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Almost all games involving negotiation need a rule that current deals are binding, ones that reference the future are not. I played City Of Horror once without that, and it fell to pieces.

I'd be amazed if the rule book for this didn't say something like that.

So pay someone now to choose a Mandate, fine. Pay them to choose one later? We shall see.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Blake Bush
msg tools
poshniallo wrote:
Almost all games involving negotiation need a rule that current deals are binding, ones that reference the future are not. I played City Of Horror once without that, and it fell to pieces.

I'd be amazed if the rule book for this didn't say something like that.

So pay someone now to choose a Mandate, fine. Pay them to choose one later? We shall see.


I don't see a need for a rule like that. It's a self correcting problem.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Sampson
United States
Bothell
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dracilic wrote:
poshniallo wrote:
Almost all games involving negotiation need a rule that current deals are binding, ones that reference the future are not. I played City Of Horror once without that, and it fell to pieces.

I'd be amazed if the rule book for this didn't say something like that.

So pay someone now to choose a Mandate, fine. Pay them to choose one later? We shall see.


I don't see a need for a rule like that. It's a self correcting problem.
I agree. Such a rule would completely ruin Cosmic Encounter.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C M
msg tools
mbmb
Dracilic wrote:
poshniallo wrote:
Almost all games involving negotiation need a rule that current deals are binding, ones that reference the future are not. I played City Of Horror once without that, and it fell to pieces.

I'd be amazed if the rule book for this didn't say something like that.

So pay someone now to choose a Mandate, fine. Pay them to choose one later? We shall see.


I don't see a need for a rule like that. It's a self correcting problem.


To some extent. With some groups if certain immediate deals fall through there might not be a game still being played though. Like if two players agree to trade a coin for a ronin and one player backs out after getting the coin, but before handing over the ronin. I could see that game falling apart with some of the people I've played games with.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Courtight
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
When your playing a game and you need protocols for exchange.

First I put the coin on the table, then you put the ronin on the table.
We slide tokens towards each other, slowly. Then slowly lift your hand off you old token and play it on you own.

Really. No game needs this.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron Knees
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Maybe you could mid game, make a time to meet the other player down a dark hall way, wearing sunglasses and smoking a ciggarette. Open a suit case revealing the coins and then say "did you bring the stuff?"
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Scott
United States
Evanston
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
JJJBonez wrote:
Maybe you could mid game, make a time to meet the other player down a dark hall way, wearing sunglasses and smoking a ciggarette. Open a suit case revealing the coins and then say "did you bring the stuff?"


I am amused by this vignette. More please.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron Knees
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Stately Wayne wrote:
JJJBonez wrote:
Maybe you could mid game, make a time to meet the other player down a dark hall way, wearing sunglasses and smoking a ciggarette. Open a suit case revealing the coins and then say "did you bring the stuff?"


I am amused by this vignette. More please.
The other player hesitates for what feels like the entire length of the game night, before finally replying "how do I know it's all there?". Keeping a straight face, knowing that the majority of the coins are counterfeit, you exhale a swirling smoke cloud towards their face causing them to squint in discomfort. You throw the butt down onto the carpet, absent regard to the persons home you've been invited to. A twisting stub with your foot prevents a potential house fire. "It's all there!" You lean closer "you'll have to trust me". To your surprise, the other player doesn't seem fazed in the slightest from your intimadation. Then you hear the sound of a toilet flushing "You didn't come alone!?" You say in shock. The other player grins...
10 
 Thumb up
2.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Scott
United States
Evanston
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jesse Marzel
Israel
flag msg tools
Avatar
Velorian wrote:
I am pretty curious about lying in the game. Is this allowed? Like say for example you are the mandate player who can choose a mandate. And you can negotiate with your "ally" or perhaps even your none allies. Say they pay you for playing a specific mandate. And you don't play this, will you loose honor?


Our general rule is that everything within the "take-back window*" is binding, but everything after that isn't. So if you tell someone "Give me 1 coin and I'll move my figure here" it's binding, but if you tell someone "move your guy out and I'll move mine when it's my turn" than it isn't.

*anything you'd reasonably allow a player to take back - IE, no new information has been reveled, no rolls were made, no other player has reveled his evil scheme, etc.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mr. Octavius
Canada
Chilliwack
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cormor321 wrote:
Dracilic wrote:
poshniallo wrote:
Almost all games involving negotiation need a rule that current deals are binding, ones that reference the future are not. I played City Of Horror once without that, and it fell to pieces.

I'd be amazed if the rule book for this didn't say something like that.

So pay someone now to choose a Mandate, fine. Pay them to choose one later? We shall see.


I don't see a need for a rule like that. It's a self correcting problem.


To some extent. With some groups if certain immediate deals fall through there might not be a game still being played though. Like if two players agree to trade a coin for a ronin and one player backs out after getting the coin, but before handing over the ronin. I could see that game falling apart with some of the people I've played games with.


Still a self correcting problem. I wouldn't want to play this kind of game with people who a) wouldn't follow through on an immediate deal and b) would refuse to continue playing if a deal fell through. If the game falls apart it solves my problem as I am no longer playing this kind of game with those kind of people.

Seriously, this is like saying "what's to stop a player secretly changing their dice faces in Roll for the Galaxy?" Nothing, The solution is not to play with those kind of people.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mr. Octavius
Canada
Chilliwack
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
JJJBonez wrote:
Stately Wayne wrote:
JJJBonez wrote:
Maybe you could mid game, make a time to meet the other player down a dark hall way, wearing sunglasses and smoking a ciggarette. Open a suit case revealing the coins and then say "did you bring the stuff?"


I am amused by this vignette. More please.
The other player hesitates for what feels like the entire length of the game night, before finally replying "how do I know it's all there?". Keeping a straight face, knowing that the majority of the coins are counterfeit, you exhale a swirling smoke cloud towards their face causing them to squint in discomfort. You throw the butt down onto the carpet, absent regard to the persons home you've been invited to. A twisting stub with your foot prevents a potential house fire. "It's all there!" You lean closer "you'll have to trust me". To your surprise, the other player doesn't seem fazed in the slightest from your intimadation. Then you hear the sound of a toilet flushing "You didn't come alone!?" You say in shock. The other player grins...


Dread fills you as the door slowly opens, and out steps the leader of the Dragonfly Clan, casually twirling a card in his hand. "You should know by now you can't get away from me," he says "I'm everywhere."
You almost laugh with relief. "You allied with the Dragonfly? You know he has no honor, he's working with the Oni!"
"Dragonfly," you call out calmly "I seem to be having some trouble moving this coin. Perhaps you'd like to improve you fortunes?"
The grin slowly fades from the other player's face as he sees what is written on the card Dragonfly is twirling... 'Betray'.

-Elsewhere-

Two players sit at a table. Rising Sun is out between, the game already in progress. The players look around the room, then back to each other. Finally one speaks up; "Where the hell did everyone go?"
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Woodson
United States
Centerton
Arkansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
ras2124 wrote:
Dracilic wrote:
poshniallo wrote:
Almost all games involving negotiation need a rule that current deals are binding, ones that reference the future are not. I played City Of Horror once without that, and it fell to pieces.

I'd be amazed if the rule book for this didn't say something like that.

So pay someone now to choose a Mandate, fine. Pay them to choose one later? We shall see.


I don't see a need for a rule like that. It's a self correcting problem.
I agree. Such a rule would completely ruin Cosmic Encounter.


However, in Cosmic, if you are going to negotiate and say that you will give them your highest encounter card, and then you both play a negotiate card then you 'must' give your opponent your highest card. If you don't you have cheated, but I am not sure what your consequence is. However you can negotiate before you play encounter cards and then lie and break every promise at that time. S, that rule is either implicitely or explicitly in Cosmic Encounter and helps keep the game in check.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
In a game built around themes of betrayals, I agree that no long-term deals should be binding. That said, I'd prefer my games didn't turn into sleight-of-hand contests, with one player poised to drop a coin into the other player's waiting hand as that player's *other* hand is poised to release the miniature he was moving, per the agreement. Which one releases first, and which one chooses not to, a microsecond later? So I'd absolutely go for a house rule that says that "immediate" exchange agreements ("I'll pay you a coin now if you don't place your Shinto on this Kami this turn") are binding, but longer term agreements ("I'll pay you ten coins now if you *never* place your Shinto on this Kami for the rest of the game") are not (ie, past the current turn).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Scott
United States
Evanston
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Maebon wrote:

-Elsewhere-

Two players sit at a table. Rising Sun is out between, the game already in progress. The players look around the room, then back to each other. Finally one speaks up; "Where the hell did everyone go?"


TWIST!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
C M
msg tools
mbmb
Maebon wrote:
cormor321 wrote:
Dracilic wrote:
poshniallo wrote:
Almost all games involving negotiation need a rule that current deals are binding, ones that reference the future are not. I played City Of Horror once without that, and it fell to pieces.

I'd be amazed if the rule book for this didn't say something like that.

So pay someone now to choose a Mandate, fine. Pay them to choose one later? We shall see.


I don't see a need for a rule like that. It's a self correcting problem.


To some extent. With some groups if certain immediate deals fall through there might not be a game still being played though. Like if two players agree to trade a coin for a ronin and one player backs out after getting the coin, but before handing over the ronin. I could see that game falling apart with some of the people I've played games with.


Still a self correcting problem. I wouldn't want to play this kind of game with people who a) wouldn't follow through on an immediate deal and b) would refuse to continue playing if a deal fell through. If the game falls apart it solves my problem as I am no longer playing this kind of game with those kind of people.

Seriously, this is like saying "what's to stop a player secretly changing their dice faces in Roll for the Galaxy?" Nothing, The solution is not to play with those kind of people.


Well, I would say it's the rule saying you can't change the dice faces that keeps people from changing them.

It seems like you're saying you don't need that type of rule in the rule book because you play by it without it being written down... Why not just spend the line in the rule book to avoid a potential problem that doesn't need to be there?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mr. Octavius
Canada
Chilliwack
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cormor321 wrote:
Maebon wrote:
cormor321 wrote:
Dracilic wrote:
poshniallo wrote:
Almost all games involving negotiation need a rule that current deals are binding, ones that reference the future are not. I played City Of Horror once without that, and it fell to pieces.

I'd be amazed if the rule book for this didn't say something like that.

So pay someone now to choose a Mandate, fine. Pay them to choose one later? We shall see.


I don't see a need for a rule like that. It's a self correcting problem.


To some extent. With some groups if certain immediate deals fall through there might not be a game still being played though. Like if two players agree to trade a coin for a ronin and one player backs out after getting the coin, but before handing over the ronin. I could see that game falling apart with some of the people I've played games with.


Still a self correcting problem. I wouldn't want to play this kind of game with people who a) wouldn't follow through on an immediate deal and b) would refuse to continue playing if a deal fell through. If the game falls apart it solves my problem as I am no longer playing this kind of game with those kind of people.

Seriously, this is like saying "what's to stop a player secretly changing their dice faces in Roll for the Galaxy?" Nothing, The solution is not to play with those kind of people.


Well, I would say it's the rule saying you can't change the dice faces that keeps people from changing them.

It seems like you're saying you don't need that type of rule in the rule book because you play by it without it being written down... Why not just spend the line in the rule book to avoid a potential problem that doesn't need to be there?


Out of curiosity I quickly skimmed the rules for RftG and I don't think the rule book actually says anywhere that players are not allowed to change the facing of their dice once rolled. They even have a special section for etiquette and it's not mentioned. It's such a basic understanding of how games work that at no point in the rule book do they bother to spell out "You cannot change the face of your dice" anymore than "you cannot spend more credits than you have."

Not every possible interpretation of the rules need to be in the book, it just clutters the rules with nonsense no one actually needs. Rule books are better off trying to make the intent of the rules clear, rather than trying to cover every rules lawyery edge case. The later just makes the rules bulky, less readable, and gives the munchkins more fuel for bending them. ("The rule book clearly gives examples for A, B, C, and D, so because they don't mention E it must be okay.")
If someone sells me a ronin for a coin, takes my coin and immediately says "I've changed my mind," that is a type of person I'm not going to be playing games with. It doesn't matter if I could point to a rule that says they're not allowed to do that, I still won't be playing with that person again.

That said, the rule book for RS isn't even available yet so we don't know what's in there and what's not.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron McKenzie
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Comparison to Cosmic doesn't quite hold up for a few reasons.

Playing Negotiate is not strictly worse than playing attack, regardless of what your opponent does. On the other hand. giving someone a coin in exchange for nothing strictly worsens your position.

Furthermore, the Encounter cards are revealed simultaneously in Cosmic, so either play might say one thing and do another. If it's a case of "I'll give you one coin if you do X" then only one player is taking a risk that the deal might not be honored.

I think it's just fine to rule that deals you can carry out must be carried out while future promises aren't binding. That's how it is ruled in New Angeles and it works very well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.