Rules-Conduct-Playing to win-and Gamy moves?

[Thermodyne]

Rules-Conduct-Playing to win

Let have a little discussion about game ethics here. If a player makes a �gamy�, but within the posted rules, move, should the Game owner be able to make a post indicating that the play had transgressed with out first contacting the player?

And, should gamy moves be normally allowed?

Situation:

Player takes over an empire knowing that it is way behind and will never be able to win. He knows this and wants to just get a little experience. He kills a few minor plants and then kills a few big fleets that come looking for satisfaction. Two much larger stronger players are at war with him. One declares war the other just takes what he wants with out doing the paper work. So there are two wars. The player makes the second war official by making the declaration. The situation is hopeless and only the kindness of others would keep the empire in the game. The player then surrenders to the player that made the war without the declaration. The intent being to let him have the �joy� of micromanaging the spoils back into productive colonies. Quite a chore in this game. That player objected to the surrender, but only to the game owner, not publicly. It can only be assumed that this player is not playing to win as is his right. But does he have the right to refuse the surrender and roll back the turn? And does the Game master have the right to post that the action was a breach (cheat) without first asking the player that surrendered about it? And if the posted rules of the game did not address the issue, can the rules be altered without the unanimous agreement of all players?

As you can guess, I am the one who made the �gamy� move. The questions are for my information as much as anything. But there is still a matter of a post that implied that I had committed a breach. IMHO that is a serious accusation that should be addressed. This is not a case of a player surrendering to an ally as has been discussed before. The intent was along the lines of �be careful what you ask for (take), because you might get more than you bargained for. And the questions are as above,

1) What are the normal limits on Gamy moves not covered by rule?
2) Can a player refuse surrender as in not play to win?
3) And what are the limits of a game owner�s right as far as posting on the actions of the players.

I had intended to work this out by email, but I can only assume that the lack of a reply to my Last email indicates that the party does not feel that I deserve the respect of a continued discussion.

[Phoenix-D]

Actually the lack of reply means the problem is solved- the recipint of the surrender is gifting me the planets and such. No harm no foul.

Its generally considered bad form to surrender to someone you're not actively fighting, and IIRC he had tried to make peace so that would count (or did in his mind anyway)

New request for SE5, though: surrender really should have a "no" response.

[PvK]

I don't think there is a way to refuse a surrender, which is a bit annoying. I think the game master should ideally say if there are any restrictions on surrender - otherwise there won't be, strictly speaking. But not everyone is perfect, and game masters can decided that something is unfair or unfun even if they didn't spell it out. I think it comes down to the style of the game master and the tastes of all the players. Different players like and dislike different things.

Issues with surrender have gotten people upset before. The clasic scenario is A declares war on B and starts to win, and then player B surrenders to player C, and player A gets mad. That's the way the game works, and player C can't refuse the surrender. Some people don't think this makes sense, while others think it's fine. It's best if the issue is spelled out in the rules for a PBW game. If they aren't, then generally the game's program defines what the rules are, but can be overridden by the game master.

PvK

[Erax]

Thermo, let me see if I understood this. You were being attacked by two enemies and you surrendered to one of them. The guy you surrendered to doesn't want to allow it. Is that it ?

I would understand it if the other guy protested your surrender, but the one you surrendered TO ? How does your move harm him ? If he doesn't want to micromanage your planets he can just let them rot and he won't be any worse off than if you had surrendered to your other enemy.

So unless this is a 'role-playing' kind of game, I see no reason why he should be upset with you.

On a more general level, 'gamy' moves cannot usually be prevented. They are a flaw in the system, no one should be blamed individually for them (even if they spoil an entire game). The players and the GM should take their lumps, wise up and make new rules for their next games. Rolling back a turn, in any kind of game, will usually cause a LOT more resentment than it cures.

[Fyron]

Rolling back a turn, in any kind of game, will usually cause a LOT more resentment than it cures.

That is not true. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Rolling back the turn to undo the wrong actions causes less resentment than allowing them to stand.

[PvK]

Again it depends on the players. Some players hate to see anything "wrong" happen. Other hate to re-do turns and see events "un-done".

PvK

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Actually the lack of reply means the problem is solved- the recipint of the surrender is gifting me the planets and such. No harm no foul.

Its generally considered bad form to surrender to someone you're not actively fighting, and IIRC he had tried to make peace so that would count (or did in his mind anyway)

New request for SE5, though: surrender really should have a "no" response.

I assumed that is what would occurred, and have no problem with it. And for the record, it was his taking of a stack of planets that pushed the population over the edge. To attack and take what you want and then say OK I'm done will in no way end a war. He got what he needed at my expence, as was his right. Just as it is my right to say that we were still at war. But there is still the issue of the content of the post that was made upon halting the game. Just working out the issue does not address this. And the reply that I was in �no position to make demands� as regards to my reputation was very foolish. I am still of the opinion that no rule was broken and that the game owner acted in very poor judgment and executed his responsibilities in a reprehensible, lazy fashion. I would have assumed that I would have gotten an email enquiry before he posted. �Surrendered to an empire that was not attacking him�, which was not true. He had attacked and done the harm that broke the camels back. And the editorial �I feel that this would not be fair to continue on� indicates that he decided that it was a cheat with out so much as asking me what was on my mind. I have no idea of what was occurring behind the curtain, but it stinks of �out of game� management.

Also, I think it would be good to discuss gamy moves, and see how people feel about them.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by PvK:
Again it depends on the players. Some players hate to see anything "wrong" happen. Other hate to re-do turns and see events "un-done".

PvK

I hate having to re-do turns too, you know. But, sometimes it is necessary.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by Erax:
Thermo, let me see if I understood this. You were being attacked by two enemies and you surrendered to one of them. The guy you surrendered to doesn't want to allow it. Is that it ?

I would understand it if the other guy protested your surrender, but the one you surrendered TO ? How does your move harm him ? If he doesn't want to micromanage your planets he can just let them rot and he won't be any worse off than if you had surrendered to your other enemy.

So unless this is a 'role-playing' kind of game, I see no reason why he should be upset with you.

On a more general level, 'gamy' moves cannot usually be prevented. They are a flaw in the system, no one should be blamed individually for them (even if they spoil an entire game). The players and the GM should take their lumps, wise up and make new rules for their next games. Rolling back a turn, in any kind of game, will usually cause a LOT more resentment than it cures.

Yes, but with conditions. He had taken what he wanted (captured a planet) without declaring war. I then declared the war, as it already existed by action. Don�t get me wrong. Any player in the game could have killed me any time they wanted. My main ***** is that a judgment was made to hold the game and a post was made in the game header that was a) not accurate and b) indicated that what I did was a breech of rule or game conduct bad enough to halt the game. There was no rule, and I am unaware of it being a breech, such as surrendering to an ally. And when I protested loudly by email, I was quite frankly, blown off. The post remains and my Last email is unanswered. So here we are.

[Phoenix-D]

Fyron, you'd hate it even more in this game. I'm the fourth place player; I have two ringworlds, a sphereworld, and more in various stages of construction, over 5 million resources being spent per turn, and over 700 construction ques..