Games, Rationality, and Fairness

The Game Room
1

When I play board games, I tend to use a pretty consistent strategy. Basically, I will stay extremely loyal in any alliances I may form, but when someone wrongs me I will dedicate myself to destroying them. The grim strategy, more or less. Since I tend to play with the same groups of people, the idea is to build up a reputation that will serve me well in future games. I am willing to act irrationally within one game to help my chances in later games. I can’t honestly say it’s worked out all that well for me, but I consider it to be a reasonable strategy and its effectiveness is besides the point.

Most people are fine with it, but on a couple occasions people have objected to it. Basically, they say that it is unfair. When people sit down to play a game, they should set their goal as winning that game. Having a player who acts irrationally within the context of that game spoils it for everyone else. Usually, this objection comes after they have been the target of one of my grims, despite my having explicitly told them what I would do. I would argue that when playing a game the players are always judging the actions of other players based on previous encounters. That is an inescapable part of the game and therefor building a useful reputation is no different from getting better in any other way.

My question to all of you is twofold. First, is my strategy unfair? Is it part of the implied rules when playing a game that each player will treat the contest independently? I use board games to lay out the question, but it could be readily expanded for other less obvious contests. Secondly, on a more personal level, would you be less inclined to play with a player using this strategy? I’ve been considering dropping it because it seems to annoy some people.

2

I would consider that stupidly petty and be unlikely to play games with you again. There are frequently times in games where the only play has the effect of “wronging” an opponent. If that opponent then proceeds to play in such a way as to try to simply punish the offender and not win the game, then (s)he is not playing the game.

That is carrying a grudge, and if you would do it in a game, then I would suspect that you would do it in life. And, since I play board games with my friends, I would be suspect of the relationship outside of the game.

I will, however, play in such a way that moves are not necessarily the most beneficial to me, but are aimed at knocking back the leader.

Mods: Should this move to the Game Room?

3

While I’d consider that a bit petty, it really wouldn’t bother me unless you carried it outside the game or into the next game, when I would consider you unbalanced and probably end the relationship. Mostly I’d just consider it fair warning that if I was to ally with you, I’d better keep my end up. Since I’m not the kind to screw over my allies, it’s unlikely to be an issue with ME.

Frankly, I’d rather see that than a consistent table full of people who can NEVER be trusted to keep their word. I’d definitely worry about those people out of the game.

Unless we’re playing Illuminati! of course, in which you’d be a damned fool to trust anything anyone says. :stuck_out_tongue:

4

Funny, but one of the largest, nastiest arguments I’ve ever participated in was because of using the same strategy. During a Risk gme I had a non-aggression pact with a neighbor, who then attacked me because she needed a card for that turn and didn’t think she could get it from one of the opposing alliance.

I loaded all my armies up on the border and crippled her fatally the turn after.

It was ugly. Very very ugly. The game never finished, and we never did find all of the army pieces that wound up flung around the room.

She had the same stance as the folks in your games who have objected - that is, there’s no point in playing the game if you’re not playing to win. She was just a lot more vocal (and throwy) about it.

5

But even within the context of that one single game, such a threat can be valuable to you (the MAD principle, as applied to Diplomacy, Risk, or what-have-you). If she knows that she will suffer a massive counter-response to her initial betrayal, and knows this, it can have a significant deterring effect on any such possible moves against you.

6

Can you give a couple of concrete examples of how your use of this strategy might play out, using a couple of different games?

7

Man, I’d hate to play Sorry! with you… of course I hate that game with a passion anyway and refuse to play it. Because I’m a horrible HORRIBLE loser and knowing that someone was specifically singling me out to actively try and make me lose just makes me blow my stack. And yes, I’m so bad I can’t even play Candyland with my nieces because it’s SO hard to not lose my temper when I lose.

8

This is a reasonable approach if you’re playing against people who are equally serious about gaming as you are. But if you’re going up against casual gamers, then you shouldn’t be surprised if they complain. It sounds like your problem is that you’re not adjusting your style of play towards the expectations of other members of the group.

9

Many competitive board games are designed under the assumption that the player is attempting to obtain the most favorable outcome at any particular decision point. By engaging in this sort of metagame, you may cause the game to become imbalanced and render the competition pointless. Why bother to play a game if you have no hope of succeeding because someone is determined to undermine your position at all costs?

I would not personally want to play with folks that use such a tit-for-tat strategy. It would ruin the game for me if I constantly had to wonder whether an opponent felt slighted by a strategic choice I had made. It’s a game; I just want to play, compete for its own sake, and have a little fun. I’m not out to get anyone.

10

I absolutely agree here. I think this is a solid strategy because, while it’s designed in an indefinite sequence of games, it works inside of a single game as well. The problem is, though, that board games, especially like Risk or Monopoly, can take a long time and losing because someone was acting out a “vendetta” can make you feel like you wasted a lot of time.

That said, strictly speaking, using the Risk example that welby gave, it may have been optimal not to retaliate because it may have ultimately weakened you elsewhere. However, the point not taken into account is that if you back down on your promise that time, then it’s entirely possible that later in the game you could end up in the same situation and someone else could determine with reasonable certainty that, in a case where it would be suboptimal for you to counter-attack, then he could betray you relatively safely. If he thought the chances were high that you would retaliate and cripple him, then he would then be less likely to do it.

Like ultrafilter said, I would probably avoid using this sort of strategy with people unless they’re serious players, or casual players who are already familiar with your reputation and, thus, you are unlikely to actually have to act on it.
As for whether it’s fair, I suppose that really depends. If you’re not playing all out to win the current game, that could be unfair, but it really depends on your goal. In a series like a poker tournament, obviously it makes sense to play for the long term goal because that may include hundreds of hands where losing a couple to establish that reputation is easily outweighed by some big wins or bluffs later on. In a game like Risk where a single iteration can last hours and you’re not likely to play a whole lot, the long term strategy loses a lot of it’s utility because losing a couple games for a small edge in future ones that may not actually affect those outcomes, or even for a couple wins is likely to come out to be neutral or even a negative. So, I’d say it’s fair if the people you’re playing with agree with the said goal of this strategy to win the most games; but for casual players, the goal is generally just to win THIS game, and so it actually can affect major mechanics in a negative way when you’re forced to not play for a win.
Finally, would I play with you? It depends. I’m not a big fan of Risk, I’ve played maybe once or twice in my life; so it a case like that, I may too find it frustrating. However, I do implore a similar strategy in games I do play, and there’s been debate about how fair that is: I play mafia, many games here on the Dope, and there’s been discussion about my multi-game strategy of changing style is fair or not because it has sometimes hurt my team within the context of a single game (eg, picking an anti-town style and having a pro-town role).

11

I am a very competitive gamer. While I’ve dabbled in this strategy in my youth, I now avoid it for several reasons:

  1. Being so predictable is a weakness.

  2. Many games practically force a player to set another player back – imagine trying to hold the Queen of Spades in a Hearts game and aim it at a specific player – usually you’re much safer dumping it on whatever poor slob it lands on at random. The penalty to player A is too high for him to worry about player B’s fetishistic pronouncement. Nobody wants the Queen (in normal circumstances)… which leads us to the next point:

  3. If EVERYONE adopts this strategy, the game becomes impossible. You are essentially saying you and your needs alone are special; mess with another player but not you!

  4. Because of item 3 above, the strategy carries an air of overdramatic posturing; I felt too much like a sweaty madman holding a knife and screaming “Don’t F*CK with me, man! I’ll DO IT!”. I don’t want to be that guy.

Don’t get me wrong; sometimes I’ll genially pick on a given opponent or turn a perceived slight into a running joke, but it’s not predictable, it’s not laid out as a warning in advance, and it’s very much not emotionally charged or serious.

12

Garula, I say let’s get together and game sometime. I’m almost the exact same way. I used to play a lot of multiplayer Age of Empires back in the day, and I employed a similar strategy to the one you use. I’d be steadfastly loyal to my allies, providing them with resources (even if I were low myself) under the expectation that they’d throw their army behind mine if I were attacked by the enemy. If I were turned on by an ally, then I’d be hellbent on destroying their army and salting the land beneath their civilization. Say what you will about my personality, but at that point even a “traditional victory” (i.e. playing the game “rationally” [whatever that means]) is unsavory unless it is subsequent to annihilating traitor who was a former ally.

I think this is because, in my mind, if I win in a rational way, hey, it’s just a game. But for some reason, if there’s a turncoat in an alliance it becomes personal (to me).

13

I don’t think a lot of these responses are understanding what the OP is doing.

He is NOT singling players out who target him. He’s singling players out *who he forms an alliance with *and then target him. Knocking one of his pieces out in Sorry! isn’t going to trigger him - unless you’re playing some sort of weird alliance-forming variant I’ve never heard of. Some examples of what he IS doing:

Monopoly: Garula and Nancy agree to not charge each other rent for 3 turns. After using her 3 free landings, he lands on her hotelled Boardwalk. She decides to charge him the full amount. He gives everyone else a free pass, and goes exclusively after her.

Risk: Garula and Scott agree to an alliance, forming a non-aggression pact between Europe and Asia, securing for both of them the bonus without having to defend the territories. A few rounds later, Scott doesn’t see the opportunity to gain a card (the opposition is built up too high around his territory), and decides to knock out Garula’s Ukraine. Penis ensues.

14

In games like Risk or (especially) Diplomacy, alliances are very useful - but it’s important that players remember that they’re ultimately adversaries. All alliances will eventually end - and ideally the triggers for this will be agreed upon (explicitly or implicitly) between the players making it.

So in situations like those described by the OP - under what situations is the alliance envisioned to end? Elimination of all other players? Even then, one guy can start positioning his forces to clobber his soon-to-be-former ally without actually attacking. Does that count as betrayal?

15

I think, strategy-wise, however you want to play you should go right ahead and play, as long as its consistent with the rules of the game. If someone wants to play Vendetta–hey, an enemy spy is an enemy spy only until discovered; then, they are your spy.

And it’s only a game, right?

However… this abomination above… this… not charging rent… that is more forbidden than Luxury Tax money under Free Parking! foaming Anyone playing this False Monopoly at a game I’m playing is likely to catch a Reading Railroad-shuriken right where it counts! RAWR!

16

Yeah, I was also wondering: assume your allies don’t attack you, and instead all of the Allies’ opponents are wiped from existence.

What happens then?

17

Honestly, this seems a bit too close to sandbagging to me. It sounds a bit like a pool shark playing badly on purpose (“irrationally”) to lure in a mark, then mysteriously playing much better when cash or even just bragging rights are on the line.

I can see why friends or even just casual players wouldn’t be OK with sandbagging.

18

I play a lot of board games and my strategy varies between them.

In Diplomacy, the OP’s strategy is known as ‘Armoured Duck’. I think it is likely to be unsuccesful because:

  • the best games of Diplomacy are where alliances are broken/switched more than once (games where there are life-long alliances are boring)
  • if you do double-cross an ‘Armoured Duck’, you make sure it’s fatal enough
  • players can be reluctant to ally with an ‘Armoured Duck’
  • an ‘Armoured Duck’ tends to get upset and then play worse

I will double-cross in Diplomacy, but I will hope that later I can offer a new alliance (which I could easily stick to). I will also ‘forgive’ double-crosses on me.

In 18xx railway games, I will stick completely to my agreements.
This game is close to pure skill and a mutually-beneficial agreement can be the difference between winning and coming in the middle.
There’s no need to double-cross.

19

I see nothing wrong with this strategy as long as it stays in-game. Be aware, though, that it will not only make people reluctant to backstab you in future games; it will make them reluctant to ally with you in the first place!

I usually make my alliances with specific goals and expectations. “Okay, Garula, let’s team up and wipe ButtUglyStupidDog off the board. Then we break the alliance.” We shake hands. We do what we said we’re going to do. You break your word, I hit you with everything I’ve got. If possible, I’ll talk someone else into helping me nuke you into a pile of molten slag.

I can deal with other players attacking me. That’s why we’re playing the game, for goodness’ sake. I can deal with them allying with each other to take me out. Again, if they view me as a dangerous opponent and figure it’ll take two of them working together to beat me, I take that as a complement. But if you tell me you’re going to be on my side and you backstab me, that pisses me off.

This sentence coming from someone named AngelSoft makes me snicker.

I have done that quite a few times. My general strategy in multi-player games is to take out the most dangerous opponent first. I’ve hurt myself a few times holding back the queen waiting for the opportunity to slam the right player with it, but it’s also paid off in spades (pun intended).

That’s the whole point. You form an alliance specifically to wipe out everyone else. Then, since the game has but one winner, you break the alliance and go after each other.

20

Moving thread from IMHO to The Game Room.