Casual PBEM (Full & playing)

[RicoRico]

Just my 2 cents:

My ideal game would be that no one in the game would feel cheated afterwards.
Perhaps in new games it should be explicitely stated to what extent written intentions or explicit pacts are binding, to avoid disappointments for players.

I personally prefer pacts to be binding, as it allows for more efficient planning and a more steady growth, even though role-playing wise it might be very unwise to trust a nation that in principle has no other interest than global domination.

Of course, Marignon's role playing as a 'deceptive' nation may very well leave him short of allies this game, be it short term or long term ;-)

[Evilhomer]

I usually try to be somewhat true to the theme that my nation has. For me it would be very hard to be at peace with Ermor as marignon.

[johnarryn]

Thanks, Evilhomer, for bringing up something I had meant to point out... I never promised not to attack Ermor... in fact, I never even said I wouldn't attack him in the next turn. What I said was that "We have no interest in conflict at this time." Boom. That is all.

To respond to RicoRico, perhaps it would be ok to have a game where explicit pacts were binding. Personally, when I make an explicit pact, I follow it - I have never violated a pact that was specific for a number of turns, etc. I think what is important is that players not assume that a pact exists unless it is explicitly said. I also think diplmacy (and deception) is a part of what makes games like Dominions3, Risk, or even Diplomacy the game fun... its why I like playing MP.

And, if we want to get into the nitty-gritty of roleplaying Marignon, my justification is that in terms of the Dom3 world, Marignon has a very good reason to kill Ermor, regardless of if they have to lie to do it...

Cue in-character:
"Ermor is a nation of evil heritics that must be purified by flame. The Grand Masters will do whatever is necessary to purge the world of Ermor's taint, before it spreads and leads to our downfall."

[Sorlakind]

RicoRico said:
Just my 2 cents:

My ideal game would be that no one in the game would feel cheated afterwards.
Perhaps in new games it should be explicitely stated to what extent written intentions or explicit pacts are binding, to avoid disappointments for players.

I personally prefer pacts to be binding, as it allows for more efficient planning and a more steady growth, even though role-playing wise it might be very unwise to trust a nation that in principle has no other interest than global domination.

Of course, Marignon's role playing as a 'deceptive' nation may very well leave him short of allies this game, be it short term or long term ;-)

Personally, I would never (ok, in principle, never) play such a game where pacts were binding.

The distinction between the in-game persona and the actual 3d person behind it *must* be kept. Of course, if some nation goes the cheating/lying route, than this will impact on the reputation of its player and it will follow him through to other games - but there is no way around that. It is a whole different business when someone goes from calling the leader of a nation a liar or that he has a small dick or has bad breath to transfering those insults to the actual person role-playing the nation.

From what I have read, johnarryn acted purely in-game and calling him (the person) a liar and a cheater is bringing down the level of the game. Ermor was (somehow) deceived? Tough luck - it comes with the territory.

[FrankTrollman]

Deleted.

[johnarryn]

Frank,
At no point did I say I was not going to attack Ermor. Stop claiming that is what I said. As Marignon, I said something that misled you, potentially, but I certainly never said that I would not attack Ermor...

We all have complaints about what happens to use in the game. I'm sure Vanheim isnt thrilled you took advantage of him staling for several turns to prosecute a war against him.

I don't really know what you mean by my diplomacy being "suspect", but the other players will be able to make up their own minds, I think.

Anyhow, I would appreciate it if you stopped calling me a liar.

[GameExtremist]

Well, Marignon didn't make any formal binding agreements with Ermor (and please to stop this becoming personal - although it has gone that way a little we should use the nation names). I see the game (dom3) as having a heavy rp aspect to it - but hey thats me, one game I might be your bosom buddy if I think the RP is justified or the exact opposite i'll tuen on you like a stray dog...depending on the "feel" of that nation, the pretender and what my scales are.

As for Ermor being in a tight spot...sheesh! I subbed into this game in two turns I have a large undead force putting my back to the wall,(not ranting - just telling my side of things) Truely I don't think Ermor is in a bad situation at all if things go their way with Vanheim (that would be me : ( ).

Game on and have fun!

[Morkilus]

Frank: I can understand you being upset, but you have absolutely no basis to call a PLAYER a liar. If you feel the need to write insults, suit it up in a sufficient in-character diatrabe, sort of like this:

Originally posted by Ygorl
Ygorl's goodwill towards Suli-Krom, Vlesthrot, and the people of Vanheim had been magnificent. He set aside his own desires in an attempt to protect a path to the sea for the weaker nation, and even ceded to Vanheim one province in exchange for the right to keep another with Suli-Krom's "goodwill". When this campaign was unsuccessful, due to the rapid growth of Ermor, he relinquished his claim on that land as well. He did this even before the passage of the so-called "Safe Territory" amendment, under no compulsion but the compulsion of his generous hearts. Later, he supported Suli-Krom in his bid for Vice Chairwyrm of the Council, still under the belief that this wyrm had hearts to match Ygorl's.

Some time after the emergence of the dwarves of Vanheim, the great Lord Ygorl inquired if he might have a hammer or two from the short smith-folk in consideration of his past efforts and gifts on behalf of the fledgling Vanheim. Instead of the expected joy at an opportunity to repay past kindness, Vanheim sent an envoy bearing ugly words: "Past favors do not buy present gifts", he said. "Your temples on my borders offend me," he said. The entire nation of Man was thunderstruck... Such an entirely foreign notion was unexpected from their neighbors that until that moment had seemed nearly brothers.

When the beneficent Ygorl replied that he was not the only one with temples in the area, and that he needed his temples to ensure belief in his divinity against the potent faith of Ermor and the vile miasma oozing from the cesspool that was C'tis, and that in fact Ygorl's temples could serve to moderate the impact of these other temples on the faith of the questionable Einheres, Vlesthrot seemed able to grasp Ygorl's divne wisdom. He agreed that Ygorl's temples were reasonable. "Remember, though, your past kindness bought you nothing. Your good works mean nothing. If you want hammers, you will have to pay for them!" He offered to sell Ygorl two such hammers for four hundred pounds of gold; certainly a reasonable price, but hardly a just acknowledgement given all that Ygorl had done for Vanheim when Vanheim was still struggling to make it in this world.

Digging into the records, it seems that the magnanimous Lord Ygorl accepted. He had money for only one hammer on hand, and said that he was sending it immediately and would purchase the second hammer a month or two later. The first hammer arrived two months after Ygorl sent the money; two months later, Ygorl sent the gold for a second. The gold was returned, with a note from some insultingly low-placed peon in the Vanheim government saying that the price had gone up.

Apparently, the mighty Lord Ygorl replied in frustrated disbelief that a supposed "friend" could be so disgustingly duplicitous, dishonest, and greedy. Another niggling worm responded (apparently the prophet of Suli-Krom had better things to do than to converse with the "mere" Lord of Man) that we had been too slow in sending the gold, and that other nations been purchasing hammers for more than the price that they had offered us; and so they were rescinding the offer! They might sell some hammers for an increased price, but they wanted us to let them come through the lands we had given them and burn down our temples in our own land because they bordered the land we had given them! This makes me burn for so many reasons that it's not even worth writing them all down! They should be obvious to any decent readers, and any other kind of readers probably wouldn't understand anyway. Who makes a deal and then breaks it out of sheerest avarice? Especially in this manner, and with this kind of history behind it?

Aww.. I had so much fun with this game, though I learned very little about actually playing Dominions

[Manuk]

It's been an incident so strange in one of my provinces (caelum). Seems that a large group of feminist activists, motivated but a known nation, atacked my province and attempted against the life our deity himself. Not only they dangered the life of that gracious creature but we had our female population reduced.
(the latter is even a more serious offense to many of caelian citizens)
Perhaps such malevolent creatures are asking us to pay them a short visit to civilize them.