[LP] Rune: Crouching Wizard, SMASHING HAMMER

[angelfromanotherpin]

So obviously you're each coming at this from different assumptions, and that's causing serious friction. I think you're both perfectly correct from your own perspectives, and I don't think either perspective is actually wrong (or wholly right).

That said, I think Sigrid's offer of a 25-75 split on the loot is a pretty reasonable compromise. That represents a substantial swing in VP (albeit only at the final tally), putting Thrain ahead both for this Encounter and the adventure so far, and respecting his position to bully. (The real loser in that scenario is Omegon, whose best hope for winning the adventure outright was a reset Sigrid and penalized-to-hell Thrain.)

Does that stain EVER expire?

The rules are not clear on this point, alas. It would come to a vote.

[SlyJohnny]

Frankly I might have been able to be less absolutist about this if, having calculated that you felt your only hope of a reasonable lead was murder, you just showed me the numbers instead of expressing it all IC. Not that it matters now, since you had your chance to take the dick route honestly and openly and you threw it away.

I dunno, I was trying to RP some reason to do it, and I thought I was pretty open about how dickish and unreasonable I was fundamentally being, what with the drunken tirade against a person that I described as a "staunch ally", and the farfetched and baseless accusations of Sigrid purposefully destroying the machine and murdering everyone, etc. But I accept that telling you the OOC reasons might've felt less like bullying or toxic manipulation.

Again, I'm sorry if the aggressive tone of my IC posts made this all a little too real; I thought by phrasing it in such a way I was making it clear that I was after selfish points and not actually having any genuine objection to the way you played, at least in so far as I would have preferred you to be gulled into accepting the duel so that I could "accidentally" kill you, or at least weaken you up so that I lost less points when I immediately backstabbed you for your remaining HP afterwards.

Maybe it's best for me to bow out here and for you guys to continue with a third player. You say you're playing very much for the Good of the Group and only accumulating VP incidentally, whereas I am definitely playing as competitively as I can, and I'm only holding back from screwing the party inasmuch as I need the party to at least limp to victory for the sake of my own VP score, and that's a fundamental disconnect in how we're approaching the social contract element of this. So even if angel interprets the rules on this occasion in such a way that it's no longer desirable for me to attack you now, I'm only going to disappoint you at some later date- allow you to die through inaction, or combat maneuver you into an enemy which finishes you off, or something.

[Thaluikhain]

So obviously you're each coming at this from different assumptions, and that's causing serious friction. I think you're both perfectly correct from your own perspectives, and I don't think either perspective is actually wrong (or wholly right).

I think part of the problem is that the story (heroes band together to fight a great evil for seemingly selfless reasons) and the game (players compete and undermine each other) don't seem to mesh very well.

[angelfromanotherpin]

I disagree. It's a face society. Your 'seemingly selfless reason' is 'I want a bigger reputation because it's literal currency,' and you compete with and undermine the others because you don't want them to have a bigger name than yours. The problem is that there isn't a consensus in the party as to what the acceptable level of competitiveness is.

Omegon seems to want a friendly competition style where everyone shows up and does their best and then everybody cheers the MVP and tries to do better next time. SlyJohnny is playing cutthroat where every point of leverage is played to the hilt. And there are certainly middle grounds where, for example, passive undermining like failing to help people is fine, but active fuckery like attacking your comrades is not, even in the edge cases where it might be worth it.

So before anything else happens, that consensus has to be reached. If that can be done with negotiation, fine; if it requires losing or replacing a player, disappointing but fine. But that's the only way forward. Otherwise the game implodes, which is to some extent also fine as a demonstration of its weaknesses.

[Omegonthesane]

...I reworded my whole thing more calmly in a time period where my browser forgot to inform me there had been new posts, but I think the broad strokes stand.

SlyJohnny: you're again misunderstanding the problem. This isn't me being so interwoven into a character I'm playing in a game that I take blatantly false insults personally. The problem is twofold: that you considered outright player murder wasn't totally beyond the pale and in direct contradiction to the setting conceit, and that you hid your intentions at all.

Make no mistake. You lied to me to try to get more VPs. You pretended that a duel for the loot would be enough when from the start you had resolved to kill me just to take the lead. You fucking lied and you can't even seem to comprehend that that was the line in the sand.

I think angel's overstating the degree of my objection to inter-party fuckery, I signed up expecting a degree of kill-stealing and rolled with the punches when the medic started demanding extra loot for actually doing his job and didn't even complain OOC when he interrupted my attempt to rescue a hostage. But I can't understand or condone being this cut-throat in a wholly competitive winner-takes-all game of Ticket to Ride or Power Grid let alone in a partially cooperative game that evokes a medium where "no party killing ever no matter what" is an axiom. How could anyone think "getting the most points in a game that doesn't have a prize" was worth lying and betraying?

(And, being willing to murder your last comrade to hog all the glory contradicts the setting conceit - what could ever redeem the name of a traitor?)

[Omegonthesane]

...I guess that means we've imploded. I'm sorry it ended that way and I don't think there's really anyone to blame for us expecting to be on the same page when we weren't.

Since presumably part of the objective was showing the weaknesses of the medium, in addition to the vulnerability to different takes on the objective of the exercise, I'd highlight the outright embrace of gaps in XP between people on a roll and people... not on a roll, which SlyJohnny cited as part of why he felt the need to kill another PC.

So basically if I pitched this to my RPG group I'd amplify the penalties for PvP and/or emphasise the benefits of ending the encounter with a high score instead of merely earning the most points, and do something to close XP gaps. Are there any obvious pitfalls I should already have realised to a system in which everyone gets XP based on the MVP's end of encounter score?

(...and not to harp on again but it bears repeating: in a world where pick up games exist, requiring an explicit social contract be hashed out is a quite large weakness in a tabletop game)

[SlyJohnny]

Make no mistake. You lied to me to try to get more VPs. You pretended that a duel for the loot would be enough when from the start you had resolved to kill me just to take the lead. You fucking lied and you can't even seem to comprehend that that was the line in the sand.

I think angel's overstating the degree of my objection to inter-party fuckery, I signed up expecting a degree of kill-stealing and rolled with the punches when the medic started demanding extra loot for actually doing his job and didn't even complain OOC when he interrupted my attempt to rescue a hostage. But I can't understand or condone being this cut-throat in a wholly competitive winner-takes-all game of Ticket to Ride or Power Grid let alone in a partially cooperative game that evokes a medium where "no party killing ever no matter what" is an axiom. How could anyone think "getting the most points in a game that doesn't have a prize" was worth lying and betraying?

The emotionality of this is honestly as baffling to me as the fact you don't think deception is appropriate for board games.

You... don't lie to people about your intentions in Power Grid? You must suck at that game really hard, because an awesome tactic when it's your turn to decide the order of plant auctions in the late game, and you can choose the power plants you don't really want but people think you'll want, and then they'll bid them up really high and you'll eliminate the other wealthy players early. and then you can pick the one that you want and get it for a steal, with absolutely no opposition.

Do you not play Secret Hitler? Or any hidden role games? Have you ever played Battlestar Galactica and had a Cylon player manage to trick everyone into putting your character in the brig rather than them, and then, like, started shouting really loud, and everyone present acted like you were the asshole, and you've been confused about why up until this very moment?

[Omegonthesane]

Make no mistake. You lied to me to try to get more VPs. You pretended that a duel for the loot would be enough when from the start you had resolved to kill me just to take the lead. You fucking lied and you can't even seem to comprehend that that was the line in the sand.

I think angel's overstating the degree of my objection to inter-party fuckery, I signed up expecting a degree of kill-stealing and rolled with the punches when the medic started demanding extra loot for actually doing his job and didn't even complain OOC when he interrupted my attempt to rescue a hostage. But I can't understand or condone being this cut-throat in a wholly competitive winner-takes-all game of Ticket to Ride or Power Grid let alone in a partially cooperative game that evokes a medium where "no party killing ever no matter what" is an axiom. How could anyone think "getting the most points in a game that doesn't have a prize" was worth lying and betraying?

The emotionality of this is honestly as baffling to me as the fact you don't think deception is appropriate for board games.

You... don't lie to people about your intentions in Power Grid? You must suck at that game really hard, because an awesome tactic when it's your turn to decide the order of plant auctions in the late game, and you can choose the power plants you don't really want but people think you'll want, and then they'll bid them up really high and you'll eliminate the other wealthy players early. and then you can pick the one that you want and get it for a steal, with absolutely no opposition.

Lying is generally inappropriate in all situations and should not be done except to prevent a greater harm. Doesn't have to be much of a harm, to avoid an unwanted social interaction would be enough of a stake, but that you consider it OK to lie over no stakes is a massive red flag. Because at the end of the day a game should be an entertaining diversion, not another fucking minefield to sap my will to live.

Do you not play Secret Hitler? Or any hidden role games?

One, those are a different category to conventional board games by definition. The pitch is straightforward and up-front about the fact that lying is part of the game mechanics. It'd be like asking why I don't think punching someone in the god damn face is OK in tobogganing when it's OK in boxing (ETA: or when the person being punched is in the middle of demonstrating that they are a Nazi). Or asking why I don't think pulling my dick out is appropriate at dinner when it's appropriate during sex.

Two, even then you are lying to deceive your opponents instead of your comrades. The fascists in Secret Hitler are not trying to con the other fascists, the werewolves in Mafia are not trying to con their fellow werewolves. This does not compare to lying in order to harm someone nominally on the same side within the context of the game.

[angelfromanotherpin]

I'm with Sly on this. Seems like a weird personal hangup.

[Omegonthesane]

Wanting a break from lies and duplicity is a weird personal hangup now. OK.

[angelfromanotherpin]

See, that's the thing: I don't need 'a break' from lies and duplicity because I have a healthy environment where that's not really a concern. I worked at a gaming store for many years, and I have literally never seen someone with a response that's even similar to yours on this subject.

So yeah, it occurs as the weird personal hangup of a person who has been subjected to a specific trauma. Like the guy who we couldn't make explosion sounds around because he'd been in the 'Nam.

[Omegonthesane]

...When you put it that way, I guess I could point at the years of being gaslit and defamed at a larp group during uni which I'm already sure fucked with my actual grades, or the gaslighting from the stepmother, or any of the office bullshit from my old job that was approaching 5 years when I quit.

But, now I think about it, I can't remember a time when I've flipped out this hard about deception in a tabletop RPG, indeed I can't even remember a time when it even came up and wasn't "meant" to like in Secret Hitler. Though I remember feeling good about being able to win Chaos in the Old World as Khorne while openly and honestly announcing and explaining all my plans.

So I'm still left confused why everyone would seem basically OK with lying to teammates about anything in any context, but I guess that falls into the earlier miscommunication of how apparently not everyone looks at a "D&D but with points" set up and sees the other PCs as "brothers in arms" as opposed to "the real enemy compared to whom our actual enemies are just set dressing".