Defeat Before Dismemberment - rules discussion

[unmerged(18425)]

Of course you can FAL, what you should have done was:

When I specified what I considered my obligation about FRA vs VEN you should have read it carefully and noted that it did not cover the same are that you had just told me not to do. Why did I not merely say "Yes", and what was it that I referred to in my statement" was questions you should have asked yourself. Then you would have asked me something like
"Daniel, you are not allowed to enter Venetian land, nor try to take back provinces presently under Venetian control. Say "I understand" if you do".

Then I would have understood (and incidentally immediately left the game but that is another story).

It is extremely important that the GM takes charge in situations like this and makes sure all parties have understood. That can always be done.

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.
I literally said in game: 'daniel isn't allowed to besiege back'.

If you manage to misunderstand or miss that, it's your own fault. I did my job as a GM when I typed the sentence: 'daniel isn't allowed to besiege back'.

I can't analyse all reactions of all involved players in detail to double check if they understood me correctly. However, the players only need to double check the messages of one GM. If they don't understand or agree, they can pause and ask for clarification. That's more reasonabe to expect.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

You see the big difference I assume.

Yep I do and the rule has been altered as proposed.

Well, I think I can praise myself that only four rule issues were raised by Daniel

One day I will start a new campaign and Daniel A will be baffled: For it has perfect rules!

 

[unmerged(6147)]

So you say FAL should have analysed your responses in the in-game chat to the letter, but you on the other hand are not required to read his instructions just as carefully? I find that just plainly a childish evasion tactic Daniel...

How can I see things I do not see. :wacko: As I tell you I was probably writing my message to you when he wrote his message. I was talking to you. I did not pay any attention to anyone else in the game log. I had paused the game just to be sure we did not have any misunderstanding you and me - pausing always makes people irritated and it was important this conversation ended as quickly as possible.

If you fail to understand that it is the duty of the GM to make sure the players understands when he issues a rule you need to go back to school. As FAL was focussing on the question he had no trouble making sure he could fulfil that duty. Do you understand it? It is not very complicated.

The player also has a responsibility to follow the game log - although no exact defintion of the extent of that duty exists. But it may happen to anyone he does not see a message from the GM and then there is nothing he can do about it. And that is a fact that the GM must take into consideration and therefore make sure the player has understood.

Now this is basic to human communication Ozzeh;

If you want to make sure another person understands a message you are sending then go on and do that. You cannot merely trust the receiver has seen it.

It was exactly what I tried to do as you could see in the game log. I tried to formulate with my own words how I had understood my promise to you. FAL did not do that, he never got a confirmation from me that I had seen his message.

Your comment shows that you are not analysing the problem with your intellect but instead still are emotionally upset since yesterday.

That you now call this "childish evasion tactic" is serious. I expect you to take back what you said now that you have had my help to analyse the situation.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.
I literally said in game: 'daniel isn't allowed to besiege back'.

If you manage to misunderstand that, it's your own fault. I did my job as a GM when I typed the sentence: 'daniel isn't allowed to besiege back'.

I can't analyse all reactions of all involved players in detail to double check if they understood me correctly. However, the players only need to double check the messages of one GM. If they don't understand or agree, they can pause and ask for clarification. That's more reasonabe to expect.

As you can see in my response to Ozzeh it is your obligation not only to issue necessary rule statements but also make sure the one it is intended for has seen it. You shall not doublecheck anything. You shall check.

As you can see from my response to Ozzeh I was never even aware you took part in the discussion.

These are simple things. You are just now making Elio-like errors FAL.

If ever you are put as a kind of boss in RL you will realise it is a heavy burden. It is your responsibility to make sure everything goes right. Well, you are the boss when you are GM.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Yep I do and the rule has been altered as proposed.

Well, I think I can praise myself that only four rule issues were raised by Daniel

One day I will start a new campaign and Daniel A will be baffled: For it has perfect rules!

That will be the day I will open a bottle of champagne then FAL

 

[unmerged(18425)]

As you can see in my response to Ozzeh it is your obligation not only to issue necessary rule statements but also make sure the one it is intended for has seen it. You shall not doublecheck anything. You shall check.

As you can see from my response to Ozzeh I was never even aware you took part in the discussion.

I cite the log here so we all know where we are talking about:

name = "Ozzeh (Venice) :daniel are you ok if we hold this position like this? need to have dinner "
name = "Daniel A (France) :I do not undertstand"
name = "Daniel A (France) :what do you mean Ozzeh"
name = "Ozzeh (Venice) :I mean not attack my troops"
name = "Ozzeh (Venice) :since I will not be here "
name = "FAL (England) :ten you need to abandon your current sieges ozzeh"
name = "Ozzeh (Venice) :welll"
name = "Ozzeh (Venice) k fine"
name = "Daniel A (France) :YOU ARE SIEGINByou are siegine"
name = "FAL (England) :since that will be free WS otherwise"
name = "Ozzeh (Venice) :I will stop all sieges if I go"
name = "FAL (England): okay ozzeh will abandon current sieges"
name = "FAL (England) :daniel isn't allowed to besiege back"
name = "Ozzeh (Venice): once I go"
name = "Daniel A (France) :if you leave french territory I will not attack you"
name = "FAL (England) :understood daniel:"

To be perfectly honest:

If I check the log now I indeed say it's clear that you missed my sentence. That can happen. But that is not my fault. And I disagree that I need to double check this. In crowded multiplayer games I can and will not check the reactions of all players involved to this detail.

I expect the players to read all what the GM says with full attention.

If you check the above log, it appears that you only paid attention to what Ozzeh said and only responded to him and ignored me, the GM. That's your own fault.

It is your responsibility to make sure everything goes right. Well, you are the boss when you are GM.

Yes I agree that I am responsible everything goes right. However, this is not kindergarten either, my responsibility ends somewhere.

A player can always claim he didn't saw my GM messages. That can be true, or it cannot be true. I will afterall not know if the player is lying or not. (And no, I don't think you lied).

Therefore my rule is: "I said it in game. That you missed my message is bad luck. Shit happens. Now, obey the GM."

 

[unmerged(38752)]

I was in the process of writing a long response to Daniel but FAL pretty much covered it all

I think its the player's responsibility to read messages in the game log. I also hope to change your attitude towards the game log a bit... it is just so annoying that anytime we wish to draw your attention we have to type lines and lines of ducat signs.

 

[unmerged(6147)]

Read my posts for God's sake Ozzeh. I explicitly agree that it is also a player's obligation to read the game log. But anyone may miss to do such a thing and thus the sender of the message must make sure does not happen if he really believes it is important. And only he can do that because it is only he that 100% sure knows he sent it.

For the 2nd time I tell you FAL: I do not ask you to double check, I only ask you to check.

And, if anyone of you institute a rule saying the player must read all that is written in the game log, then I am out of the game. So far I know of no such rule. But as I said, even if such a rule existed that would not guarantee it would always be adhered to by the players. Anyone, especially during wars, may miss some message and I am happy to see you FAL recognising this fact.

What is the use saying "I am the GM and if you not see my messages that is your fault" - and implictly "your problem" as it appears you do FAL. It was primarily Ozzeh's problem when I did not see your message, not mine. And that kind of situation is ugly to solve afterwards. What kind of compensations shall be handed out? There is almost bound to be bad feelings afterwards (luckily we are not having perm nations in this game so no one really cares but the discussion is not about that particular game). Just look at Ozzehs posts, he is not in balance even today, 12 hours later.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

For the 2nd time I tell you FAL: I do not ask you to double check, I only ask you to check.

Okay, my bad.
But I did check it. If you read the log I responded to you with 'understood Daniel'. I did this because you said you would not attack Ozzeh. I thus assumed you understood my in game message.

If you read the log now, doesn't it appear that you flatly ignored all of my messages and only concentrated at those of Ozzeh, Daniel? Where does the player responsibility start then?

And, if anyone of you institute a rule saying the player must read all that is written in the game log, then I am out of the game.

You need to read what the GM says, not *all* of the log. And you even only need to read the GM messages during war time when the game is paused. That is not too much to ask, is it?

I am not the kind of guy who just says something in the middle of a war and expect all players to notice it. The game will be paused.

Anyone, especially during wars, may miss some message and I am happy to see you FAL recognising this fact.

I adhere the fact that you can miss messages. That happens to the best of us.
What I am saying is that you in this case didn't spend *any* attention to my messages, despite me being the GM, despite the game being paused.
I say that in these circumstances it's the players responsibility to pay attention to the GM and thus it's your problem if you miss his messages.

What is the use saying "I am the GM and if you not see my messages that is your fault" - and implictly "your problem" as it appears you do FAL.

I cannot make in game rules in an efficient way if I don't use this "your problem" as a rule.

How would you handle players who simply lie and say they missed the GM ingame messages and violated his in game rules after he made them?

 

[unmerged(18425)]

I will make this the 'rule discussion thread' and make a new game thread. Since this one is being buried.

 

[Norrefeldt]

I think the rules look very promising and I'd like to know if you have decided on, or have any opinions on edits.
I'm not very fond of having a lot of selling of provinces done in edits, since it's only for those with weak nerves and no stamina for risking things in wars. Yet, I find it very common that games have them, and I have started to think it's just another sign of the degeneration of todays youth.

So, what have you planned?

 

[unmerged(6147)]

How would you handle players who simply lie and say they missed the GM ingame messages and violated his in game rules after he made them?

If it was an important message I would make sure they noticed it. I already gave an example a few posts above when I wrote

"When I specified what I considered my obligation about FRA vs VEN you should have read it carefully and noted that it did not cover the same area that you had just told me not to do. Why did I not merely say "Yes", and what was it that I referred to in my statement" was questions you should have asked yourself. Then you would have asked me something like
"Daniel, you are not allowed to enter Venetian land, nor try to take back provinces presently under Venetian control. Say "I understand" if you do"."

 

[unmerged(6147)]

If you read the log now, doesn't it appear that you flatly ignored all of my messages and only concentrated at those of Ozzeh,

Yep, I have exactly written that this what was happened. I wrote to Ozzeh:

"As I tell you I was probably writing my message to you when he wrote his message. I was talking to you. I did not pay any attention to anyone else in the game log. I had paused the game just to be sure we did not have any misunderstanding you and me - pausing always makes people irritated and it was important this conversation ended as quickly as possible."

Where does the player responsibility start then?

I don't know. As I wrote:

"The player also has a responsibility to follow the game log - although no exact defintion of the extent of that duty exists."

The bottom line is that when it is an important message the GM - or anyone sending such a message - must try to make sure all involved really see the message.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

If it was an important message I would make sure they noticed it. I already gave an example a few posts above when I wrote

Well, I can only say that I don't think your example is workable when you GM a session. Theoretically it is, practically not. At least not for me. It would require too much energy. I try to do my best everyone understands what I say. But I refuse to be guilty if players miss my messages.

Nevertheless Daniel, you played a good amount of sessions under my benevolent rulership. Do you accept the way I GM games or not? If not, feel free to leave, though I would be sad to see you go.

By the way,
I have no problems with giving you more attention than I did last time, when I say something important to you. Since I know you have trouble with following the chat.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

So, what have you planned?

I plan to not do other edits, but the reparation of bugs and/or AI controlship of a nation after a session.

No edit deals between players will be done. I don't want to be too busy as a GM. Do it ingame if you must swap provinces.

 

[Tonioz]

*** skipped ***

 

[HolisticGod]

FAL,

I assume since I'm willing to do the edits, inter-session transfers will be allowed as we discussed on ICQ.

On the other sily issues in discussion here, the one thing I can say I agree with absolutely is that this isn't kindergarten. It's the responsibility of players to show up on time, get their own subs, fix their own technical issues, pay attention to the thread and the log, post edit requests that are made over ICQ or in-game and so on and so on. It's easy to forget this D), but virtually everybody playing this game is an adult. Virtually everybody playing this game is a college student or college graduate, and many have or are working on shiny post-graduate degrees. We have wives, girlfriends, children, pets, jobs, mortgages, taxes, complicated routes designed to convince ourselves that we're avoiding traffic when we're not and an active and ever higher cholesterol count. We even eat our vegetables and wipe our shoes on the mat when we get home.

But from the moment we say "in" we turn into helpless, selfish, screaming children, all running to the GM with shouts of "Mommy!" and "He pushed me!"

Much of the time, EU II feels less like an historical simulation and deeply esoteric political and economic wargame than a giant virtual jungle gym.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

FAL,

I assume since I'm willing to do the edits, inter-session transfers will be allowed as we discussed on ICQ.

Yep, the only one against it was Norrefelt and he isn't in the game. If you like to do edit the province swaps, be my guest

Much of the time, EU II feels less like an historical simulation and deeply esoteric political and economic wargame than a giant virtual jungle gym.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Debate about a different anti-vassal rule beause of the manpower bug, started by Fredrick in the game thread:
--------------------------

But you need to define clearly what you mean with MP.

1. Yearly MP?
2. MP pool max?
3. Current MP pool (the one seen in the stats)

I mean the max MP pool and yes, that requires loading as the country to check it.

DIFFICULT TO DA WITHIN 20 YEARS

But it may be difficult for the big nations to be able to DA in 20 years. First they must time their DV/FV to a start of the session and then they have to wait until less than the magical 30 years we all believe is an undocumented feature. But on the other hand: if you have e.g. 50+ yearly MP you will be much bigger than the one you want to DA so that may still be possible.

Yep, the nations who really must DA in ~20 years are the high manpower nations, which will have little problems with DAing minor AI nations.

THE NECESSITY OF ADAPTING
[...]

In contrast to you, I don't want 'AI spice' for another 100-150 years, because I want to maximise human interaction between countries. That will only happen when there is few room to expand in AI territory and countries share a border with each other.

A muscovy that can only expand very slow because of the anti-vassal rule, will take a long time before it can interact with other human countries, simply because it shall want to finish the AI first. This is true for many other countries too.
This will mean less human-human wars.

I think that our preferences differ in this aspect.

[...] It makes it more difficult to get richer and larger. It makes it more difficult to choose tactics. It is a bigger challenge!

Agreed, but as I said, I don't want such a slow expansion (as in, it takes longer before humans are ready to fight each other) in this game.

What I really think Fredrik wants is to quickly get rid of the AI to enable player versus player wars with is his cup of tea.

And so do I

That's the reason I agreed with Fredrick.

What do I suggest? Don't know. If we want to get rid of the vassal-bug we need some kind of rule and I see no big problem with the current one but I can live with the new suggestion as well, at least if it refers to the MP pool and not the yearly MP.

It does refer to the pool, so I take it that you agree with the proposal, apart of your problems with Fredrick's way of reasoning?

 

[unmerged(6147)]

It does refer to the pool, so I take it that you agree with the proposal, apart of your problems with Fredrick's way of reasoning?

Yeah it is certainly OK with me. MP pool of 50 makes the suggested rule benefitting the really small nations with low MP which in my view is OK in any game. Even Venice will be above 50 in the pool soon I think.

And I have no comments whatsoever on your comments We have different views on some basic principles and we have both stated them clearly. No reason to add anything.