From: fred_s@netcom.com (Frederick Scott)
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Organization: Nerds On Parade
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 07:14:07 GMT

shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham) writes: 

>In article <1993Jan7.204921.25192@netcom.com> fred_s@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) writes:
>>The term "meta-gaming" was used to refer to an action which might be
>>counter-productive in a given game but might, in the long run, gain an
>>advantage for the "meta-gamer" in such a way as to permit him to win more
>>games overall.  The question: is "meta-gaming" ethical?
>>
>>Some thought no, you ought to play each and every game to win that game and
>>only that game - as if you were never going to play another game with these
>>same opponents again.
>
>My views exactly (after all, most game simulate one-time events where there
>is little chance of building inter-game reputation), but that does not 
>mean that ultimatum strategies are unwarranted or necessarilly ruin games.

The trouble is, you may believe this is the only "ethical point of view", but
what do you do when playing against another player who doesn't agree?  And I
think there are a lot of players who don't agree with this.  I'm one of them,
although by and large I don't think it affects my play very often - I tend to
agree with those who feel vengence is a tool left for last resort, and should
only be used when the provocation is awfully damn clear.  (Or in situations
where it's easy to be vengeful - e.g. near the end of a game when you've been
granted the power to decide who wins and who loses and one of the candiates
has been very good or very bad to you over the course of the game.)

>>Some thought yes, arguing that any tool (within the rules of a game) at your
>>disposal for winning is fair game, including forging a reputation for
>>vengenance.
>
>[So, if I agree to do my utmost to help you win "this" (many-players) game
>in return for similar consideration from you "next time" - as covertly as
>possible - is that legit? I think not! Even though all I am doind is forging
>a reputation for being "pro-Fred"!]

I will say one thing about this.  I DO NOT believe grudges should be carried
from one game to the next, or favors, either.  I am very much against this.
My reasoning is that if you, as a player, have been asked to join a game in
which you know one (or more) of the other players is biased against you - or
biased for one of the other players - then you don't have an *equal* chance
to win that particular game so WHY SHOULD YOU PLAY AT ALL???  I wouldn't
play in such a game and I wouldn't expect others to, either.  Therefore, since
multi-game grudges or favors tend to decrease participation in gaming, I am
against them and will argue this point ad naseum - don't bother me with it.

However, this is not the same thing as forging a reputation as a vengeful
player, which can be done in the absence of maintaining grudges or repaying
between games.

>It all depends on the game played and the style of the game group.

Actually, I do agree with this, as a matter of common sense.  Since I
frequently play Empires At Arms, a game requiring great commitment and
dependence on a lot of players over a long time - I would HATE to see a
personality conflict arising from such vengence destroy a game which seven
players have invested long periods of time in.  For this reason, I will
always discourage players from being too vengeful too early in EiA.

Fred