tstorm823 wrote: ↑5 months ago
If there's a fault in this, it's only that they have the wrong words to describe it. Everyone does politics, it's inherent in multiplayer settings, even without saying a word.
Agreed. Well, except for the "only" part.
What they ought to say is that they don't appreciate collusion or coercion.
Honestly we're talking primarily about games from ~8 years ago so I don't remember exactly what I did in each individual game to get targeted. So I can't say for sure whether I got targeted in any particular game simply for revealing an answer (the original topic of conversation, and something I did a lot back then) or if I made verbal deals, or whatever else. Though based on your terminology I'd assume you'd consider revealing an answer as "coercion" since there is an implied threat regardless of whether you outright say "I will use this on you if you do something I don't like", so regardless of what specifically I did in any particular game it would still presumably fit your description.
But then, there's also the exact same implied threat in playing an on-board answer like GEA (or say,
Seal of Doom), and I'm assuming that merely playing a card doesn't mean you're engaging in supposed "coercion", so maybe you'd better tell me where you think the line is.
But their instincts are right. If you started trying to convince people to make plays they otherwise wouldn't, using words rather than game actions, you'd be my primary target. If you intend to manipulate other players resources, the threat assessment associated with their resources is coming back at you in return.
Maybe you'd better clarify what exactly you're going to do in this theoretical game. Okay, let's say I reveal a counterspell in an attempt to generally slow people down for fear of being countered. Previously you said, once you have some important spell(s) you need to cast, you'd force out the counter based on the psychological read that I probably have only one answer and am trying to get more bang for buck out of it. Now it seems like you're saying you're going to target me regardless of game state because I'm "using words rather than game actions" to "convince people to make plays they otherwise wouldn't". Unless you think the line is
literally using words? So saying "I have a counterspell and I'll use it if someone does something I really don't like" is bad, but revealing the counterspell and implying the exact same thing is okay? Idk, you tell me where the line is.
Personally I would say coercion and collusion are just part of the nature of a FFA game. If you have a bunch of walls, that's a threat that you'll block someone's attacks, and so will probably send that attack elsewhere. If two players pass a
Humble Defector back and forth because the other player remains the biggest threat, that's collusion. Words aren't necessary for any of this.
Your previous assessment seemed much better to me. This one seems simplistic. Making deals and threats isn't mind control, just because someone is doing overtly political stuff doesn't mean they suddenly have complete control over someone else's resources. If they're offering bad deals or making empty threats, you have just as much of a voice to convince the other person not to accept them on that basis, or to make counteroffers yourself. And even if they're making good deals that can't be countered just by pointing out that they're a bad deal for the recipient, their "control" only lasts for as long, and to the degree, that they continue to be good. i.e. "I'll give you three hippos if you don't attack me this turn" doesn't give the political player the power to force the attacks at someone else, and 3 hippos may stop being a sufficient payment by the next turn. Any offer, no matter how great, will eventually stop being a sufficient payment at some point in a FFA game.
But to return to the top of your post - "they have the wrong words to describe it". Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying this whole time. Their justification, both external and presumably internal, is "politics bad". Their justification lacks understanding and is, at face value, illogical.
However, and again my point from the beginning, is that there IS an underlying logic to it, even if that logic isn't conscious. Much the same way that a bird preferring a brightly colored mate isn't logicking out "bright colors indicate better health which indicates our offspring will have more success", but that is nevertheless the underlying logic behind their unreasoned decision. The birds that choose the colorful mates reproduce more consistently, and thus preferring colorful mates is "learned" by the species over generations. The "politics bad" player has probably came up against other people doing similar political maneuvers, lost to them in a way they found confusing and frustrating, and thus learned over games that other people doing overt politics is likely to lead to bad outcomes for them, and become antagonistic to it. If they had a greater understanding they could decipher what it was about the political maneuvers that caused them to lose, and use that knowledge to come out ahead in future - in the same way that the bird, if it fully understood why a brightly colored mate was preferrable, could make a rational choice for an optimal mate. But complete understanding is difficult, for people and for birds, so the more Pavlovian "this thing resulted in a negative outcome, therefore it's bad" rationalization will suffice to get a partial benefit at a much lower cognitive cost.
That's how a lot of stuff goes in a game this complex, btw. I myself am very much the bird in plenty of other situations. I have no doubt that many, many play patterns I personally engage in have been learned by something happening in a game, it turning out badly, and then me unconsciously developing a bias against it (or vice versa) without me consciously understanding why it was bad (or good). The longer I play, the more I play primarily from vibes tbh.
