Fiasco wrote:(I hope Mith doesn't mind me starting this. It came up in the other thread.)
He asked us to start topics that we thought were worth discussing, so if he minds, it's his own damn fault.
Normally, players are assumed to maximize their probability of winning in the current game. This goal conflicts with other possible goals, such as punishing or rewarding players for certain types of behavior, or establishing a pattern of one's own behavior to refer to in future games. Pursuing these other goals at the expense of winning in the current game is called "metagaming".
I disagree with this definition and characterization of metagaming. I'll spend more time on this later (after work, if my HoneyDo list isn't too big.)
An example of metagaming is the "Lynch All Liars" rule.
Lynch All Liars is more than just a meta game ploy, but one of it's big reasons for use is that it is one.
Assume someone was caught in a lie. Assume you're an innocent townie, and for whatever reason, you think the liar was probably also an innocent townie. Lynching him may cost the town the game. However, lynching him will also dissuade future townie lies.
What's the ethical thing to do here?
WHY do you think he was an innocent townie? LAL is a mindset to help you deal with this situation. In games, I assume all players will play to the best of their ability and that their ability is comparable to my own. It keeps me from making silly moves in the hopes of trapping a weaker player, since I don't want to rely on things like that. With that assumption, you have to assume that the other player is using your hesitation against you and therefore, is probably scum.
You are assuming that the player is stupid. "Stupid or scum" was a common phrase once upon a time. I decided I didn't want to assume anyone was stupid, so I therefore assume they are scum.
I'm going to take an unpopular opinion and say
Lynch All Liars is bad
, and
metagaming is bad
in general.
I disagree, obvoiusly. I think you CANNOT avoid meta gaming. Yes, it sucks when you get killed N1 every time, but it's cyclic. Eventually, people will stop killing you N1 for any number of reasons.
You have a duty toward your fellow players to maximize your team's chances of winning in the game you are currently in.
Within reason. Clearly, you shouldn't cheat to do so. So what are your boundry conditions? Is using outside information legit?
If you're interested in modifying people's behavior in future games, in-game mechanisms like lynching are not a legitimate way to do so. The only legitimate way to change people's behavior in future games is by convincing them your way is better. (Maybe we should make all new players read a list of the top ten dumb newbie mistakes, for example.) (Obviously, you'd still lynch most liars, because most liars are scum.)
I'm not sure, though. I just changed my mind on this. Thoughts?
So if we talk about LAL, the behaviour modification is simply a wonderful side effect. You shouldn't LAL because it will change behavior (I should change how I wrote that piece up. Punishing bad play is a side effect, not the reason.)
I
should LAL because despite
my
instincts, Liars are almost always scum.
This is a huge topic. I'll try to write more later.
-JEEP