Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.

From: markiel@callisto.pas.rochester.edu (Andrew Markiel)

Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1993 12:20:57 +0000

In article <21jod4INNbcl@hoss.usl.com> skrenta@usl.com (Rich Skrenta) writes:
>desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
>> why a player who plays _skillfully_ merits such a reward, if it is one,
>> and the player who does not play skillfully does not.  If it really is a
>> lot of fun to have a big empire and know lots of secrets, why not let
>> everyone do it?  Or pick those who do randomly?
>
>You can't seriously be suggesting that the player who carefully reads
>the rules, plots his strategy, and coordinates well with other players,
>should have the same probability of doing well as one who submits
>random commands to the server?
>
Well, you are equating "doing well" with "having a big empire and
knowing lots of secrets". I think that you just thought David was
saying something he wasn't. (By the way, insert big IMHO's all the
way through this post).

>> In fact, I think it sounds a little sick to play games to have *power*
>> over others.
>
>Oh, come on.  The whole point of empire building games is to model economic,
>military and political power.  If you can't influence other players, what's
>the point?
>
There's a difference between influencing other players, and playing the
game specifically to influence other players. The first is a means to
acheive a goal, the second is a goal in itself. Playing a game just to
be able to exert force over other players is, I would agree with David,
a bit sick.

>I think it's a bit excessive to characterize the gleam in the armchair
>Napolean's eye as "sick".  But that's a personal value judgement of yours.
>Some people think D&D or games of chance are evil.  Wargames have often
>been criticized as promoting aggressive behavior.  However, for many
>players, being able to hurt other players is important -- it's what gives
>the game meaning.
>
I'm going to assume you don't mean this the way it sounds. I don't think
many players actually play to screw other people's positions. Rather,
people play to achieve some goal, and they do whatever is necessary
(within the game) to acheive that, and if that means eliminating someone,
then so be it.

Personally, I play games to see how clever I can be in manipulating
the game state to a victory condition, while other people try to be
more clever in doing the same. How my actions affect the other players
is only of importance in relation to the victory condition. If I can win
without eliminating someone, then there is no reason to do so, nor is
there any point in playing if there is no challenge or uncertainty.

>So let's sketch the ideal David DesJardins game:
>
>	Each turn, each player has an equal probability for
>	success, regardless of what he does (or perhaps, what
>	the other players do.)
>
I think you're being unfair here. I think his point (at least mine)
is that "success" is only in reaching the goal, not in having it. Thus,
being in a powerful position has no intrinsic value over being in a
weak position, except that it defines how well you are doing (and, may
offer greater choices in what to do). The only really interesting part
of the game is in improving your position; being really strong and beating
up on weaker players is only of interest to people with weak egos.

>	Players have little influence over one another's positions.
>
Again, only that influencing other people is a means, not a goal.

>	Investment in positions is minimal, so players feel
>	little loss simply walking away from the game.
>
Hmm. From your context, I assume you imply this is a bad thing. I
happen to play all of my games this way, so I don't see the problem.
(Of course, I also don't do any roleplaying, so that may influence
the way I see things).

>	The expert has little advantage over the new player.
>
Well, it's certainly uninteresting when experts and new players are
pitted directly against each other, because (unless being an expert
gives little advantage) the expert crushes the beginner, and then
what was the point in playing? So, somehow you have to arrange things
so that really good people aren't fighting real beginners, or the
game will suck for both of them.

>
>--
>Rich Skrenta <skrenta@usl.com>

-Andrew
markiel@callisto.pas.rochester.edu

References

Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Fri, 09 Jul 1993 03:35:06 +0000
Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
skrenta@usl.com (Rich Skrenta)
Fri, 09 Jul 1993 12:30:28 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Fri, 09 Jul 1993 03:35:06 +0000
Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
skrenta@usl.com (Rich Skrenta)
Fri, 09 Jul 1993 12:30:28 +0000