Re: Olympia: Disasters

From: morrow@gandalf.rutgers.edu (John Morrow)

Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0000

cedman@tucson.princeton.edu (Carl F. Edman) writes:
>BtA is an unusually nasty piece of work, I'll admit.  He regards most
>nobles outside of his alliance as food at best and pests to be
>exterminated at worst.  He is also easily the most powerful single noble
>in the game.  But then have you ever read a good pulp fantasy novel (the
>standard to which I think Olympia style games should aspire) without
>characters like this ?  If there weren't nobles worth hating, wouldn't
>the game be rather boring ?  And if they weren't powerful, how long do
>you think they would last ?

I don't disagree.  I have absolutely no problem with players playing
their positions however they want.  And I certainly enjoy a good
villian (sorry but my vote for "Best Villian" goes to Dr. Pain in
Olympia I).

But using pulp fantasy novels as an example, isn't it also true that
in such novels that such characters are generally defeated by the end?
And if they are not defeated (i.e. if not killed, removed from any
power), isn't it generally considered a tragedy (if the good guys are
killed off) or a bad serial (if the status quo is maintained forever)?
:-)

Oh, it isn't your fault and I don't blame you.  I'm simply trying to
point out why your "winning" might be frustrating at best and a
spoiler at worst to many people.  Not many people read novels where
such characters "win" or are not defeated.  Even fewer people go to
see movies like that.

>Apart from that let's please not lose the distinction between the game
>and the real world.  There are several players in Olympia whose nobles
>I've killed and who have killed mine, whom I'd be perfectly delighted to
>have as allies in G2.

While I agree, in spirit, that there is a distinction between the game
and the real world (at least with regard to getting angry with someone
over what they do in the game), there is no avoiding looking beyond
the units in a game to the player behind them.  If the *players* is
willing to lie in one instance, there is every reason to believe they
will lie in another.  This is the moral of the classic "The boy who
cried wolf" story and you see the same thing, even between friends, in
board games and role-playing games.  You can get over that but it
takes an awful lot of truth to cancel out even one significant lie.

If you really want people to give you a "fair shake", always be honest
because your honesty, above all else, will carry between games.  Trust
is the hardest thing to build up and the easiest thing to destroy
since all people have to judge you by in a PBEM game is your words via
e-mail and The Times.

That doesn't mean you can't play an EVIL character and kill 5 newbies
just for sticking their noses out of Imperial City.  It does mean that
you shouldn't sucker them onto a ship by lying, strand them, and come
back to eat their brains.  It means that you shouldn't promise them
safe passage and then attack them.  It also means that you shouldn't
innocently claim you were defending yourself or that you didn't do it
when you did.  Be evil and admit to what you are doing.  This is
certainly "in character" for the "pulp fantasy novels" you cite above.

>Not likely.  One of the few redeeming traits of BtA is that he has
>always been completely loyal to his allies in all his games.

It isn't so much a matter of honor or loyalty as truth.  If you are
willing to lie to non-allies, they have little reason to trust you
(and, perhaps, every reason to exterminate you) in any game where they
aren't your ally.  It is this very distinction that is part of the
problem.  If you treat "in" and "out" factions differently on a
regular basis, you have to expect them to notice.

Trust is something you earn as a *player* as well as as game units
because *players* need to establish if the e-mail and other info
comming from you is true or not and they have nothing but your words
and past actions to go on.  Clearly you see that, even if you are
selective with who you build trust with since I suspect your situation
would be a bit different if you had lied to an ally in even one game
in the past.  If you want everyone to take you at your word, you need
to be honest to everyone -- not nice but honest, or at the very least
silent.  If you're not, how are players supposed to know of you are
telling the truth or lying if they aren't your ally?

BTW, feel free to play however you want.  That's your choice.  Just
take this as a suggestion.

John Morrow

References

Olympia: Disasters
rcb@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Robert Christopher Butchko)
Wed, 26 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia: Disasters
cedman@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Carl F. Edman)
Fri, 28 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia: Disasters
brumm@wcpj2.chemie.uni-wuppertal.de (Martin Brumm)
Sun, 30 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia: Disasters
cedman@tucson.princeton.edu (Carl F. Edman)
Tue, 01 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Olympia: Disasters
rcb@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Robert Christopher Butchko)
Wed, 26 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia: Disasters
cedman@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Carl F. Edman)
Fri, 28 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia: Disasters
brumm@wcpj2.chemie.uni-wuppertal.de (Martin Brumm)
Sun, 30 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Olympia: Disasters
cedman@tucson.princeton.edu (Carl F. Edman)
Tue, 01 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0000