Yet another PTW question

Ector wrote:
> In my playgroup we frequently stumble on the following situation: when
> some players start to negotiate about a table-splitting deal, the other
> players quickly determine that WITH THAT DEAL active they won't be able
> to get any VPs. So, they are trying to get included into that deal,
> even for 1VP.

Here is my question about this. Why are people making such deals in
what is presumably casual play (i.e. non tournament play, where no one
is playing for money and no one is keeping track of VPs for any purpose
other than bragging rights. And maybe a beer.) Like, I am generally
fundamentally opposed to table splitting deals in any situation in
VTES, competition or no. But at least in a competetive play situation,
where you are playing for money (money being code for "prizes of some
type") and game wins/VPs are being kept track of for purposes of
winning money and or getting rating points (assuming you care about
such things), I can understand why people broker and accept such deals.
Personally, I rarely have anything to do with such deals, and generally
actively try and undermine such deals when other people make them
(although I have been known to, in the end game when there is only me
and another guy, bargain to mutually withdraw rather than fight it out
to the bitter end). But at least I understand where they come from.

Now I may be misunderstanding you, and this question may come from the
context of a tournament. But if not, why are people making such deals?
Isn't it best for everyone, in such play situations, to simply play the
game, see if you win or lose, and if you win, great, if you lose, ok,
and in either case, just play another game?

Like, this is in no way a criticism, but I'm trying to understand other
people's play groups, I guess--like my local play group, when playing
"casually" (i.e. we are having a general play night of VTES with
nothing on the line), no one ever makes any deals at all other than the
general quid pro quo kinda "hey, rescue my guy from torpor and I'll
help you pass your next vote" deal. Likely, no one would ever consider
brokering a table split deal.

-Peter
 >> Stay informed about: Yet another PTW question 

pdb6.TakeThisOut@lightlink.com wrote:
> Like, this is in no way a criticism, but I'm trying to understand other
> people's play groups, I guess--like my local play group, when playing
> "casually" (i.e. we are having a general play night of VTES with
> nothing on the line), no one ever makes any deals at all other than the
> general quid pro quo kinda "hey, rescue my guy from torpor and I'll
> help you pass your next vote" deal. Likely, no one would ever consider
> brokering a table split deal.

That would be the same in our play group as well (London for the
record), we pretty much just do a few little deals like the one you
mentioned but no table deals.

Occasionally we see a deal of some kind in a three player game, to see
if two players can take out one strong player or something like that
just to keep the game interesting for everyone but that would be about
it. Not much fun to be ousted in 20 minutes and then watch the other
two players fight it out for an hour after all
 >> Stay informed about: Yet another PTW question 

Ector wrote:
> AFAIK, the current rulings about PTW sound like this:
> * A player must try to achieve GW if he has reasonable chances to get
> it.
> * If the player has no reasonable chances to get GW, he must try to get
> the maximum number of VPs (i.e. 2VPs if he has reasonable chances to
> get them, or 1VP otherwise).

Hello everyone! I'm from the same playgroup as Ector's.

I want to ask LSJ about the detail explanation and interpretation of
the rules quoted above, because we faced with some situations when it
took place a table-splitting in the FINAL play of the tournament. There
are some players that understand this rule exactly as it is and don't
make any exceptions for the final game (and what is important, the
judge shares this opinion). So when somebody concludes that Game Win is
unreachable for him he initiate the table-splitting in order to receive
at least one or two Victory Points (I'll be damned if I know what for!
In final, VP without GW is useless). He motivates those deal with the
mentioned rules - "I can't reach GW so I'll maximize my VP". Judge
accept this deal. Of course, the others have no choice but to make
another table-splitting deal and game quickly collapse into
confrontation of two quasi-commands...or, if the first player made
2-2-1 deal with two players, another two players quickly lose the game.

Please, explain to me, is it normal? Do everyone should seek for the
table-splitting (and destabilize the game) if the chance of receiving
GW is minor? Is it legal for him to give away that minor chance and try
to receive at least a couple of VPs even in final game?
 >> Stay informed about: Yet another PTW question 

Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2006, LSJ wrote:
>
> Ector, if you like I can furnish you with an anecdote or two, but you can
> probably imagine how it works. Next time you see one of these table
> splits, suggest to the other players they form an alliance to break up the
> split.
>
> Matt Morgan

You know, the ramarkable detail is that Ector is one of those who
usually proposes such a table-splitting deals "in order to maximize
VPs". ))
 >> Stay informed about: Yet another PTW question 

Allionarr wrote:
> I want to ask LSJ about the detail explanation and interpretation of
> the rules quoted above, because we faced with some situations when it
> took place a table-splitting in the FINAL play of the tournament. There
> are some players that understand this rule exactly as it is and don't
> make any exceptions for the final game (and what is important, the
> judge shares this opinion). So when somebody concludes that Game Win is
> unreachable for him he initiate the table-splitting in order to receive
> at least one or two Victory Points (I'll be damned if I know what for!
> In final, VP without GW is useless). He motivates those deal with the

This is key -- in a "final", players are more inherently playing to
win, since not doing so is pointless.

> mentioned rules - "I can't reach GW so I'll maximize my VP". Judge
> accept this deal. Of course, the others have no choice but to make
> another table-splitting deal and game quickly collapse into
> confrontation of two quasi-commands...or, if the first player made
> 2-2-1 deal with two players, another two players quickly lose the game.

.... with the understanding that one of the 2VP players is actually
playing for the game win, since the tie in a final round will be broken
rather than allowed to stand as a tie.

> Please, explain to me, is it normal? Do everyone should seek for the
> table-splitting (and destabilize the game) if the chance of receiving
> GW is minor? Is it legal for him to give away that minor chance and try
> to receive at least a couple of VPs even in final game?

It is not normal in a final if "minor" is merely "small, but
reasonable".

Of course, once a finalist cannot reasonably expect that achieving a GW
is possible, he may find it advantageous to make a deal to improve his
expected final standing (coming in third is better than coming in
fifth).
 >> Stay informed about: Yet another PTW question 

LSJ wrote:
> Of course, once a finalist cannot reasonably expect that achieving a GW
> is possible, he may find it advantageous to make a deal to improve his
> expected final standing (coming in third is better than coming in
> fifth).
But when he makes a deal with somebody, he gives those player an
advantage relatively to other players. If they won't make another
table-splitting - everyone of them would be in disadvantage. If they'll
make a deal - two of them lose their chance to receive GW. So isn't
this destabilization too much price for possibility of one player to
recieve a couple of VPs?
 >> Stay informed about: Yet another PTW question 

On Fri, 26 May 2006, LSJ wrote:

> Or the three other players could also make their own deal (excluding
> the two instigators), instead of rewarding the instigators, as well.

This works. It's a great way to break up a table split deal. In fact, if
the three non-instigating players are on the ball and can do simple math
(3 vs. 2), early table split deals should never work.

Ector, if you like I can furnish you with an anecdote or two, but you can
probably imagine how it works. Next time you see one of these table
splits, suggest to the other players they form an alliance to break up the
split. The original instigators will quickly backpedal and the deal will
often become so confused that people just go back to plan A: bleed prey.

By the way, a deal that results in 2:2:1 can only be legal if all three of
those players have no chance of a game win. How often can that really
happen?

Matt Morgan
 >> Stay informed about: Yet another PTW question 

pdb6.TakeThisOut@lightlink.com wrote:
> Here is my question about this. Why are people making such deals in
> what is presumably casual play (i.e. non tournament play, where no one
> is playing for money and no one is keeping track of VPs for any purpose
> other than bragging rights. And maybe a beer.)

Simple reason. We (in Franfurt, Germany) play every game like a
tournament game to train ourselves for tournament play and because we
think it is more fun. And you dont have to decide special cases because
"it is all fun" like taking forgotten pool for the edge or playing an
illegal deck. We play by the (tournament) rules, period (including time
limit).

But still we have three exceptions in casual play:
- We allow proxies. To really have decks like they could be in
tournaments.
- In three player games we usually dont deal (at the beginning),
because that gets stupid.
- In six player games we play "X=number of methuselah" is maximum 5 and
use a time limit of 2,5h.

Frank
 >> Stay informed about: Yet another PTW question 

@ all

Dont forget: Breaking deals kills bad deals and is therefore good for
the game.
 >> Stay informed about: Yet another PTW question 

x5mofr DeleteThis @gmx.de wrote:
> Simple reason. We (in Franfurt, Germany) play every game like a
> tournament game to train ourselves for tournament play and because we
> think it is more fun. And you dont have to decide special cases because
> "it is all fun" like taking forgotten pool for the edge or playing an
> illegal deck. We play by the (tournament) rules, period (including time
> limit).

Sure. But it isn't like you can benefit from practicing making table
split deals. Like, it is certainly a good plan to play with strict
rules and all to get in the habit and whatever, but making table split
deals isn't something that benefits from practice. And is likely to
irriate friends.

-Peter
 >> Stay informed about: Yet another PTW question 

On Fri, 26 May 2006, Matthew T. Morgan wrote:

> On Fri, 26 May 2006, LSJ wrote:
>
>> Or the three other players could also make their own deal (excluding
>> the two instigators), instead of rewarding the instigators, as well.
>
> This works. It's a great way to break up a table split deal. In fact, if
> the three non-instigating players are on the ball and can do simple math (3
> vs. 2), early table split deals should never work.
>

I'm not really sure that it would. Most of the table split deals I've seen
look a lot like this:

The player who's probably going to come in second forges a table split
deal with the player who's probably going to come in first, trying to
trick him into changing positions. In this case, the remaining players
already have a de facto deal, since they're all going to be ousted anyway.

--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
 >> Stay informed about: Yet another PTW question 

LSJ wrote:

> This is key -- in a "final", players are more inherently playing to
> win, since not doing so is pointless.

You forgot "in theory". In reality, the situation is quite different.

Don't make me break out the sig!

--

David Cherryholmes
 >> Stay informed about: Yet another PTW question 

On Fri, 26 May 2006, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote:

> On Fri, 26 May 2006, Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 May 2006, LSJ wrote:
>>
>>> Or the three other players could also make their own deal (excluding
>>> the two instigators), instead of rewarding the instigators, as well.
>>
>> This works. It's a great way to break up a table split deal. In fact, if
>> the three non-instigating players are on the ball and can do simple math (3
>> vs. 2), early table split deals should never work.
>>
>
> I'm not really sure that it would. Most of the table split deals I've seen
> look a lot like this:

Not really sure what would?

> The player who's probably going to come in second forges a table split deal
> with the player who's probably going to come in first, trying to trick him
> into changing positions. In this case, the remaining players already have a
> de facto deal, since they're all going to be ousted anyway.

I don't understand what you're saying. A de facto deal is meaningless
unless the players are actually cooperating, like rescuing one another
from torpor, voting for each others referenda, etc. If the three players
not involved in the deal just continue to play their games and wind up
ousted by the instigators, then the de facto deal isn't worth crud.

Matt Morgan
 >> Stay informed about: Yet another PTW question