Adjudication on a NAP -edited please comment again

[Karlem]

You treach someone once, your mistake. You treach someone twice, his mistake . (Probably a very bad translation from spanish)

At least I check forums for user IDs and verify his NAP background before really commiting myself.

[Chris_Byler]

I think Saxon has a point. Part of the player culture of Diplomacy is that lying and treachery are part of the game, just like part of the culture of poker is that bluffing is part of the game. Nobody would refuse to play poker against someone who lied about his cards, and only an idiot would refuse to play Diplomacy against someone who lied about his plans.

Dominions' current MP scene doesn't have that dimension and I think that diminishes it. The presence of multi-game reputations and grudges and players who would rather preserve their "honor" than get ahead in the game they are actually playing right now changes the nature of the game, and IMO, not for the better.

[Aezeal]

btw you can always play under another name

[vfb]

Karlem said:
You treach someone once, your mistake. You treach someone twice, his mistake . (Probably a very bad translation from spanish)

At least I check forums for user IDs and verify his NAP background before really commiting myself.

Doesn't it go like this?

"Treach me once, shame on — shame on you. Treach me — you can't get treached again."

[Hoplosternum]

I am not sure how much of the game Diplomacy you have played - but unless you were playing 'blind' or against people you have never met and would not meeet again reputations were very important. And they did not stop back stabbing or make the game 'nice'.

The whole craft of the game was to gather allies so you could take out enemies without having to worry about all your flanks. Then you turned on one of your allies. But you didn't really need surprise if things were working well. He would be engaged elsewhere and could not fight both you and his current opponent. You could afford to give notice that your agreement was over (although no formal NAPs were involved in games I played) and it was obvious to everyone what was happening a turn or two before that as you repositioned your forces.

In games were people simply lied to each other all the time people tended to simply fall out. Outside of the game to. And I associate such games with very young, immature players.

Most people are understandably upset when they get ganged up on or when their (ex) allies attack them. But if later you can see why it happened and it makes it easier to take. A good stab is rarely a surprise in either Dom3 or Diplomacy. In hindsight while you may not like it you can see why it happened.

Most of us are playing for fun. If you are really desperate to win play single player! Continual lying and duplicity in mp - unless everyone knows that beforehand - will just reduce the enjoyment and skill for most of us. This goes dor Dom 3 and Diplomacy.

I don't think Zenphos had a NAP in this example but I think the general honouring of NAPs here is a good thing. I doubt the mp community would last for long without it. Most of us would have better things to do. I've played a lot of boardgames with Diplomacy as well as Diplomacy and no group of players lasts for long as friends or players in a free for all, say anything, do anything atmosphere.

[fantasma]

The point of backstabbing is that the gain has to be really big and obvious that it will work out. Say you backstab an ally to gain /some/ advantage and are not killing him outright is usually a bad idea because you are sure to make a permanent enemy in the game that will eventually convince others to gang on you.

Therefore, it is usually better to keep your 'honorable' face and rather take advantage of dubious contracts, find some excuses why you had to attack or the like. You should always look like the good guy, even though you plotted your neighbours into fighting each other because you didn't want to attack straight away.

I think it is a good idea to roleplay the pretender god. The more convincing you play, the less out-of-game consequences this will have on your reputation, I think, or at least hope.

[Agema]

I agree reputations are important.

I used to play board games with friends. There was one guy who always, always, betrayed people he agreed an alliance with, more often than not the first turn they'd agreed to ally. Everyone quickly knew never, ever, to make an agreement with him.

This is the real danger. There's a community here, and people play against the player. Experienced players will smash new players because it's easy territory, and players will not form NAPs with untrustworthy players. If you have have a bad reputation, you're stuffed in MP because diplomacy is so important.

Breaking NAPs can be done 'fairly', but I think the justification must be that there is a crisis situtation, such as the guy being about to get unbeatably powerful.

[gowb]

Hoplosternum said:

In games were people simply lied to each other all the time people tended to simply fall out. Outside of the game to. And I associate such games with very young, immature players.

Hahaha, are you serious?? Anyone who would fall out with friends over a game is an idiot. We lied and double-dealt with each other all the time in Diplomacy games in my circle of friends and had no problems separating the game from real life...a problem a bunch of people on this forum have apparently

[zenphos]

Hmmmmmm,

A couple of points I think I should make in response.
1. I like roleplaying and don't want to drop it. Have no problem with inflammatory language if I am about to invade someone and already knew he spoke good english.
2. I am not trying to fix this situation, not interested in resolving it and know what the deal was.
3. I always automatically take offense when someone says, no offense, because generally it means they are about to say something offensive and I find it saves time all around, for instance if I say no offence but the topic of this post is "Adjudication on a NAP" not "Sanctimonious preaching about a NAP" is it then not offensive?. Also I did not want to do better at communicating and was looking for someone to attack so when he did not respond to my PM I figured he would do. If someone stuffs up in a major battle, such as sneaking with stealthy units instead of moving, do I then pull back, unwinding my plans for the last few turns so he can have another go or do I keep going with my plans of invasion. What then is the difference in diplomacy?
Or if I had replied with NAP3 no good for me but I will commit to a NAP4 would that constitute acceptance of the agreement by both parties? Would my opponent then have been bound to an agreement to give me 4 turns warning? And if not then what is the difference when I respond with a NAP2 request?
Sorry for the length of the post, and the slightly inflammatory language, but I do not like being judged or lectured to by someone who is not aware of all the facts.

[Endoperez]

While roleplaying is generally good, few out-of-character sentences don't hurt anyone, and can be enough to assert the situation to both parties. I think that's what Saxon was saying, and that's a very good rule of thumb IMO.