From: shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham)
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 03:55:29 GMT

IN THIS POST I WILL DEAL WITH THE GAMEMANSHIP ASPECT OF THE ISSUE.
I WILL DEAL WITH THE MATHEMATICS OF IT IN ANOTHER POST.

In article <1993Jan7.204921.25192@netcom.com> fred_s@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) writes:
>cracicot@us.oracle.com writes: 
>
>>I have a moderately philosophical question for all you net-folk.
>>
>>Is it a reasonable game action (in game of your choice) to threaten
>>someone as follows, then carry through if they call your bluff:
>>
>>"If you don't do/refrain-from action X, I will spend the rest of
>> the game making you do as badly as possible.  I don't care how
>> badly it wrecks my position."
>
>This question was argued at length on r.g.b. approximately 14-15 months
>ago in the form of the "meta-gaming" question.  (Somebody brought up an

 [...stuff about Cosmic Encounters deleted...]

>that's what he did - ultimate vengenance.)  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.
(see other post)

>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"!]

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

In our game groups, for instance, such strategies are frowned upon in Titan, 
understood in Diplomacy, and normal in Nuke-War. We never forbid making
such threats or carrying them out. Players who do would be invited back,
and their action would not be retaliated against in future games. However, as
it is "undignified" to capitulate to an ultimatum that appears unwarranted
(for instance "offensive" as opposed to "defensive" threats), players in our
group refuse to capitulate. As this is a well known fact amongst us, carrying
out "unwarranted" threats is known to be a losing play. Making threats with
no intentions of carrying them out (bluffs), is considered a fair tactic in
all games. Of course, in games where such threats are frowned upon, they carry
little wight as players often believe the threat to be a bluff. We even have a
term for threats that are believed to be a bluff - we call them "Flexes" 
(like flexing one's muscle to make assailants think again - usually to little
effect).

>Personally, I agree with a lot of the posters whose responses I've seen that
>feel it's fair and reasonable for a player to commit vengeful acts if they've
>a mind to.  In some cases, I think it's a wise strategy.

Agreed.

>I also agree with those who've said it can be overused.  If this person always
>goes off on a hair-trigger or constantly wants too much from those he threatens
>(a particular habit of less-mature personalities), sooner or later in the game
>someone is going to stand up to him and he'll lose *every* game.  If this is
>the sort of person you're playing with, I might point out to you that it's a
>perfectly legitimate strategy to manuaver to get into his good graces and then
>just wait for the time bomb to explode on some *else*.
>
>Fred

In our group, the refusal of all players to do "undignified" capitulations, is
a powerfull enough counter-incentive. Nonetheless, when new (or immature)
players appear to use above strategy offensively, it is a legitimate strategy
to take advantage of the situation in a manner similar to the one you pointed
out.
Actually, what does happen - is that as players avoid the "time-bomb"
player, that player gains a deceptively good position. When, that player is
gradually "ganged-up" on (because he is leading, not his strategy), he tends to
avoid "exploding" as he think he still has excellent chances of winning.
Eventually, he would realize his position isn't as good as it used to be, and
might consider "exploding". But by then there is enough blame to go around!
if the player still chooses to "explode", the victim is likely to be randomly
choosen. (Note that one's chance of winning increases when another player
"explodes" on a random victim, so player rarely object or feel cheated))



Dan Shoham               shoham@ll.mit.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The view presented are not necessarily those of my employer, etc.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood Street
Lexington Massachusetts, 02173-9108
Office B-373
617-981-3515
------------------------------------------------------------------------