From: joltman@raisin-nut.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:44:18 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: raisin-nut.ai.mit.edu

In article <1993Jan8.164534.18287@oz.plymouth.edu>, sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan) writes:
|> Of course, not all country leaders are either, but I still think you
|> would have a harder time mobilizing an entire country to a spite war,
|> unless it really stood to gain something.  On the other hand, look at
|>   - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu

That may depend on the type of government and people.  If nukes are involved,
the person in the losing position is often willing to cripple his enemy even
if that means he will be wasted in return and there are certainly some
dictators that would probably do the same.  One the knows knows that it will
be inevitably destroyed by the enemy, it suddenly has nothing to lose and
crippling the enemy or throwing power to a not-so-bitter enemy to ensure that
the arch-enemy also eventually is destroyed becomes a viable alternative.  The
only reason this doesn't happen in the real world is because the country in
the bad position usually doesn't have the power that the losing country in most
games does (things may change if/when nukes become more common in the real
world).

Another case where this happens is in elections when the #3 runner can throw
his votes to either #1 or #2 (depending on who gives him the better deal) even
if both of them are his enemies.

I remember different situation where some friends of mine and I started
playing a new version of Monopoly called "Beyond Boardwalk."  This game took
a lot of the luck out of the game, but make the railroads quite powerful
(perhaps too powerful).   I proceeded to win several games in a row by paying
seemingly exhorbitant prices for railroads and making extremely attractive
deals to players with the remaining few railroads (there were 6 with the new
rules incl. W.W. & Elec. Co.).  I eventually stopped playing when the anti-
Rail-Baron pact was formed and I was effectively playing 1 vs. 5 because no
one would let a R.R. get into my hands.  They would often pool their money
together to keep a R.R. out of my hands.  Was cashing in on the strength of
the railroads unethical?  In the middle game it would often involve giving
great deals to players in losing positions.  Suppose I offer a guy in a bad
position MUCH more than the value of the R.R. ($1000 was not that uncommon).
What should he do?  The problem with this game was that it made railroads
worth much more to someone who had another R.R. or two so that he could
afford to pay much more for it.  For example, one guy has 4 R.R.'s and another
guy has 1 R.R. and no one else has any and one of the guys with no R.R.'s
lands on the remaining R.R. with little money to spend.   The guys with no
R.R.'s may only be willing to pay $100 for one R.R., but the guy with 4 may
be willing to pay $1000.

Hmm...  Should we blame the rules or the players who take advantage of defects
in the rules?   I think we should just let nature take its course and let
whatever happens happen.  If the players want to allow themselves to be menaced
by a player who plays "unethically" or "out of character" they have no one to
complain to.   If the players want to alter the rules (if this is a viable
solution) to prevent this type of play (e.g. changing the railroad rules), that's
fine, too.  If they want to carve the poor sucker up in future games until he
wises up or simply exclude him from games altogether until the hint sinks in,
great.  Each situation will be different because different games have different
flaws and different groups of players have different expectations from the
game.  Some flaws may be impossible to eliminate with a simple rule change.
Some players may expect the players to assume their role in the game and to play
"in character" while others may say "anything within the rules is fair game."  In
the latter case you may want to try other measures such as playing with teams
(2 vs. 2, 3 vs. 3) to eliminate the incentive to suicide on another player or
handing the game to your friend (the enemy of your enemy) since there are only
two sides/teams.  Axis & Allies has this element already, but this could also
be incorporated into a game such as Titan (one of my personal favorites, in case
you haven't noticed).

-Andy

================================================================
=             T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)              =
=                                                              =
= This user does not believe in smiley faces.  Insert your own =
================================================================