I'm voting you for that post next game we share.

Whether that vote will mean anything will be a whole different question.

@Zinger:

Since when do we take a player as being serious as opposed to having fun by participating in the endgame banter and making such a statement? Officially it was a loss for Fable. Fable says he won. Pretty sure no one needs to have the rules on how you win in the game explained to them.

To be clear, I'm not sure why people are up in arms as though Fable is utterly asserting that he, as per the game's rules, won. Fable knows he lost, but as far as he is concerned he won through his teammate still winning. Good for him.


@Mown:

No, since no game is being played that statement of mine is in no way telling people how to play. It is literally a statement that it is poor taste to tell others how to play. If we were playing a game and I said that, then I would agree with you.

Player defined objectives are ultimately what matters. As long as the player is having fun, good for them. If they are having fun at the expense of others, still good for them and woe to those who are in the way.

Even though the last was directed at Rag, it goes without saying that you're talking about "common courtesy" in a game rife with deception, backstabbing, etc. I mean, if you want to set yourself up to be disappointed, then more power to you.

How and why is that an important distinction? You are telling others how to play in any given game. This is like the most baffling thing I've ever seen you say. I only even said it as a joke, but damn man, stop drawing arbitrary lines.
And then generalize the statement so that it's not specific to the game in the very same paragraph you do it, thus making it apply to this scenario.

Games operate on failure states, and without, it ceases to be a game.
However, thank you for expressing exactly what about the behavior I dislike so much.

It's directed at a lot of people.
I don't see what backstabbing and deception has to do with players not pursuing the goal of the game, there's no relation between those concepts, unless you want to deceive and backstab the game designer.

Did fable do something that he wouldn't have done if he wanted to win?

He claimed he betrayed the democrats because he felt like it, and that he was ok with dying as a result because ragnarokio won.

An alternate interpretation is that he left the alliance because he fell for KoD's deception, and this is just him trying to save face by not admitting he screwed up.

It is important because you were in error saying what you said concerning my statement.

Obviously I can't tell someone how to play a game if I'm not currently playing a game. Not so obvious is that it is purely a statement as opposed to a command/instruction/what have you that orders a player.

Also also, you're incorrect since you can't apply what I said to *any* game. I trust I don't have to construct an example to exemplify this (especially since it is erroneous in the first place to assume such an all encompassing idea as you did).

More baffling than not understanding why I wouldn't side with Rome?



I'll stop drawing arbitrary lines as soon as you stop caring about said arbitrary lines.

The game still operates despite players pursuing other goals. If you dislike it, then oh well.

The game never stated a particular path as to how players get to the goal. It only shows the goal. How the players get there is up to them. If you want more control in your game, impose more restrictions. Go so far as to even ban certain "types" of players from playing in games to prevent what you dislike so much.

fable did nothing he wouldn't have done if he wanted to play to cat's win condition.

Mown's complaint is that some players are seeing the goal, and then completely ignoring it and walking three blocks in the opposite direction to get some ice cream, which he sees as poor sportsmanship during a race.

I understand his complaint.

At the end of the day it is still going to be a game to be played how the players wish to play. He'll just have to be content with being disappointed or however he wants to feel.

if he complains enough something might happen and he can be content with that

Rubik is running a 3rd epistemology mafia game. I'll be participating, so you all will be able to get revenge on me for giving you **** roles. If you're interested, the signups are here: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=15988

You can't tell someone how to play a game if you're not currently playing a game? Have you like, never read the youtube or twitch comments on a gaming channel? What about any walkthrough? I'll even do it now: "Don't vote any mafia games you play."
I don't see a meaningful distinction between demanding behavior of players as opposed to making moral assertions about said behavior.

No instances come to mind where your statement could not be applicable, even if it might be a ridiculous statement. Not that it's relevant, since a context is to be assumed.

A difference in morality is more easily accepted than one in rationality.

Are you telling me that you only construe double standards when interacting with people who don't like them? Do you shape all your interactions with the intent of spite?

Debatable.

"Dying was part of the plan" is a pretty far-fetched way to "get there".
Also, I believe in human's potential for betterment.

It's not that great of an analogue because the guy getting ice cream doesn't influence any of the other competitors.

its like there is a race and everyone has been training to run as fast as possible and they all respect each other's devotion except one guy starts the race by tackling another guy and tearing out his jugular vein and another person trips over that guy and the rest of the people end up racing normally but they can't help feel bad for the people who devoted themselves to the race but ended up either dead or tripping over a dying guy

Oh I doubt that. Especially with me around.



@Mown:

I'm sorry you're unable to see the heart of the matter. It goes without saying though that none of the examples you listed are what I'm doing in any context.

How about a design game where the player is at liberty to decide different elements to their heart's content. Telling them to not tell others how to play in that game isn't applicable. An example exists so it can't be *any* game as far as I'm concerned.

Seems like a matter of perspective to me.

Yes and yes. I wouldn't be much of a backstabber if I didn't.



I don't see it as being really debatable. As long as the game is being played it will operate. The moment you stop playing the game, it stops operating.

Perhaps the person never intended to get there. Or maybe they realized their chances of getting there were minimal and planned for an outcome they'd prefer to see happen. Winning isn't everything.

It's the only thing.



Course that's where backstabbing, not being courteous, etc etc come into play. I, too, believe in humanity's potential to better themselves. How they better themselves is something else entirely.

Wouldn't be a fun game if you couldn't influence other competitors.

@Rag:

That's why you get the authorities involved and punish the person who committed those heinous acts.

unfortunately there's no rule in the rulebook that says a racer can't bite another racer's jugular vein off

its simply a matter of sportsmanship

It's a matter of perspective.

what is considered proper sportsmanship among one group of sportsmen may not be in another

Mario Kart.

possibilityverse