About deals and withdrawing

Question is: is it bad that a deal where E scores GW 2.5 in order to give 1 VP to D?

Bad for who? It could be bad for E too "keep" a non-existent deal that reduces his total V.P.'s by 1.5

Is it worth changing the tournament rules?

No

Some people (usually the same that thinks that D should try ousting E and die in the process) miss that psychologic point. Why on earth does D want his VP?

D has presumably been trying to get his V.P. (oust E) for over an hour. What possible reason is there for him to help E (likely a higher sead) get in the finals?

Why doesn't he die?

Because he is hoping his prey who has been able to stop all game long will be his prey again in the finals?

Why doesn't he take pleasure in being crushed and denied his chances?

Denied by E.

Because he plays to win. Without fighting spirit, the game would be dull.

1 V.P. is not a win. Now, IF E chose to honor the deal and D waited for E to deplete his library/hand and then take it to him, that would be playing to win.

I for one would not make the deal, because I do not believe anyone would honor it.

Ankha wrote:

. Without fighting spirit, the game would be dull.

There so much to say about this last sentence...

Is crawling through a whole game to get one vp in the end what you really call " fighting spirit" ?

So, I'm about to sum up what some of you said.
be warned, it maybe the longest post of the vekn universe !

Ankha wrote:

I'm a bit tired of explaining over and over during games how a deal based on withdrawal can be achieved, so I'll do it here.

First of all, it's not dirty doing that. The goal of the game being to have the GW or at least score the more VPs as possible, agreeing to deal with someone in order to get more VP than you could expect by not dealing with him is in the spirit of the game.

Ok, why the need in the first place to explaine it's not dirty ? Is it because it somewhat counter intuitive to decide to play to make someone else win ?
Again, I am just asking a question, being devil's advocate. I like this game as much as you do.
Then, you claim that dealing is the spirit of the game. I tend to disagree. If it's the spirit of the game, why is there no printed card that is specifically about deals ? I think the "small deals" like "you rescue me, if i try to block una" which bound the players during one or two turns, are great. But the deals that bounds 2 players toward splitting the table are a fabrication of tournament players.
They do not exist in the original game. They developped at some point because some influential players needed it. At first, there was a lot of discussion about collusion, "I make an alliance with this guy from my playgroup", because it's easier than to rely on a stranger. Then, the practice spread and evolved a bit, so most "strong players" tended to rely on them. They are not the spirit of the game, but they became a standard in tournaments, which I think is a different thing.

Ankha wrote:

For my part, *I* find unsportsmanlike not to act according the goal of the game which is to "accumulate the most victory points" (rulebook, chapter 1). Such a player is unreliable and spoils the game, just like any player who doesn't play to win.

In the contrary, I think a players that does not want to risk anything and deals spoils the game. Ok, you have a fighting prey.
choice 1 : you make a deal, he gains 3, you gain 2.
choice 2 : you ask for rescue, you drain his blood, you block with empty vamps so he cannot taste... Until he eventually he deck runs out of steam.

that, my friend, is better for the game. Players playing theirs decks. Players outwitting their opponents in their quest for the game win.

the problem with those deals that chose a king and a servant : they destroy normal interaction. You look at a v:tes table seconds after a deal, suddelny you see people bleeding, rushing, shifting cross table.
You may have, by influencing the right vamps, discarded the right cards, a perfect defense for your predator and prey, but someone who is supposedly a temporary ally now steals 10 pool from you and there is nothing you can do.
You may try to prevent that by drawing and using resources from your deck, but they may then not be present when you want to strike your predator or prey.

So, most deals are negating what is the heart of v:tes : deck building and clever choice of actions. The game is now something like diplomacy, where your silver tongue is better than your deck. This is something i regret, and it why i don't really want to go to tournaments anymore. Again, it's a personnal opinion.

Ankha wrote:

The only case where I could agree with you is when the player accepting the deal is a bad player manipulated by the other player that is *wrongly* convinced he can't do more points just by himself. But this is no more or no less than the displeasure of playing with a bad player.

You still did not answer : where do you draw the line ?

Any good player can convince a "lesser" player (god i hate those terms) into dealing with him. It's good to have a puppet on the table, but when did it become the main goal of v:tes ?

I'd rather have a bad player playing his deck badly, than a bad player playing his deck for another, more experienced player. But again, it's a personal opinion.

Non-existant user wrote:

Here are two possible options:

1) Get rid of withdrawing altogether. It adds nothing to the game and is never used except in table splitting deals. There is a reason it was downgraded to 0.5VPs in the tournament rules.
2) Change the PTW rules to force a player to maximise his VPs even if he has the GW, so that the duel must always be played out. That would actually fit the tournament definition of winning better since VPs are a part of tournament scoring. 1GW5 is better than 1GW3, that should reflect in the PTW definition. Table splitting deals would still be possible, but everyone in the deal would have to earn their own VPs by ousting non-cooperative preys.

for 1) the withdraw rule has already been weakened a bit. Of course it has to do with the fact that the rule, intended for a single methuselah use, has been a bit corrupted by the tournament players themselves. So is it incorrect to say that dealmaking has already changed the rules we play for tournaments ? Judge for yourself.

for 2) It may be a good idea to force people to fight it out and play their decks.

Suoli wrote:

This should tell you that many players strongly feel that, at it's heart, V:TES is a game of table politics. Not because it gets them cheap wins but because it's fun, intriguing and adds an exponential layer of depth to the game.

I am ok with this. Politics is already a large part of the game ! The deals rule creates an artificial layer that adds something interesting, but retracts a lot from the main game. the social aspect of V:tes is present, but does it have to negate the card game that happens at the same time ?
Let's develop further ....

Suoli wrote:

A player with a "prey-is-to-the-left" mentality only has to interact with the players next to him. A table politician, on the other hand, has to not only interact with every player at the table but recognize who and how those players are or should be interacting with each other as well.

But what is so bad with "prey is to the left" (and i guess "predator is to the right" ) mentality ? There are players whith this mentality, who are also capable of making very good choices, who interacts with other players ingame a lot, but still consider that their source of VP is ousting their prey. They are playing the game the way it is designed, don't they ?
I think you are sticking the "prey-is-to-the-left" label on bad players and think they are bad because of this mentality. Like in "I know i am ousted next turn but i want to beatdown me prey's monçada 'cause he's ugly" . In this vision, the dealmaking would be the mark of the great players, because they can understand things beyond the card that lies on the table.
I think this vision is not really serious. Because there are a lot of "bad" players who also do deals. there are a lot of "good players" who are not really into deals.

Accepting deals and/or kingmaking has nothing to do with a player's ability. I saw very good players accept losing deals, where they could have beaten the hell out of their prey for fear of putting efforts and thinking into something that had 50% risk to fail.

Suoli wrote:

I feel doing well in this area is the defining feature of a good tournament player, as it can even the odds against getting randomly screwed by table seating or, conversely, deal with table hate when you're clearly in the strongest position. If this element was removed, games would probably be dictated less by players and more by seating and deck strength than they are now.

The deals, as you say it subtly, comes most of the times from good players that cannot accept being screwed by table seating. Is there any way those people could question themselves about what their deck is capable of doing or not ? I was half joking when i wrote that " it's easier to put no combat defense and 8 parity or so, hoping to deal your way out, than trying to build a solid and balanced deck." (i put quotes, but it's not very accurate, sorry.)

The game, even without deals, is dictated by players by definition : they all bring their own deck. There is way to cope with your own lackings in the deckbuilding department : talk your way out. The tournament rules effectively allows good players to do that. Hell, I did it myself. But instead of splitting table, you can just deal no aggression turns, no bleed = no rush and so on. Why the need to frustrate other players just because you cannot adapt the metagame ? It's one of the very thing that baffles me (the other being the hatred for lutz )

It's difficult to accept one's fate when seating between a tupdog and Ozmo, but sometimes it's just where you seat. Build accordingly, and maybe your deck will be a bit less strong, but you'll have reasonnable chances at winning -or at least you are not forced to kingmaking.

Suoli wrote:

Of course, many players hold the opposite view and I have nothing but respect for them. If someone doesn't want to negotiate(...)
I'd even encourage trying it themselves to see what they're missing out on. If they still don't like it, discuss the issue with the playgroup and try to find some sort of compromise. For example, I would object to legislating crosstable dealing out of the game but have no strong feelings one way or the other about withdrawing.

Some players just don't really like it. They feel they are playing something else, like "chatting and kingmaking over a v:tes game".

I did deals in the past. I was never satisfied with the outcome.
I was never happy that someone else fed me the vps by cross table shennanigans.
I was never happy to play for losing either.
I think deals became a standard in tournament games for wrong reasons, and maybe it's time to change it and reward players for playing the original game.

Ankha wrote:

You can't win because your predator has a deck that screws yours? Your predator has crashed on your vampires and is now dead while you struggle to survive? There's always a possibility to deal, bargain, make clever choices.
"Your prey is on the left, bwaaaah, kill it" is the exact opposite of that, and can be very annoying (especially when it brings nothing to the player crashing himself on his prey while his predator just wait for the moment to strike and take 2 VPs).

As usual, you are presenting that as "clever choice". Of course, surviving is a clever choice in any game !

But at some point, you can also claim that pour pred played well, did good metagame choices, and maybe should win his vp ? That's sportsmanship too, isn't it ?
I think the kingmaking derives from the "let's win at all cost" mentality, that made some good natured players left vtes. Sometime, yes, you seem doomed to lose. You can still try to fight it out, and wait at 2 pools with your wakes and delaying tactics in hand, because you never know : so many things happen during other methuselahs turns ! vampires get banned, bleeds get deflected, fame get contested...
For me it's what I call fighting spirit. Fighting spirit is about fighting to win against all odds. Not selling your soul, not making someone else win.

There is a difference between "my predator has mad good choices and made a good deck during this game, but i will try my best to survive" and "ok, my predator screwed me, I am going to use all my resources so someone else wins so he gains nothing out of his clever choices". And I really mean it.

Oh, and again, presenting "prey is on the left" as if it's a bad thing : as i wrote above, it's the very essence of the game.

Ankha wrote:

Some people (usually the same that thinks that D should try ousting E and die in the process) miss that psychologic point. Why on earth does D want his VP? Why doesn't he die? Why doesn't he take pleasure in being crushed and denied his chances?
Because he plays to win. Without fighting spirit, the game would be dull.

Please do not imply that D is masochistic because he refuses a deal. that's bad argumentation, really.
when you say "because he plays to win", you are a bit lying : he plays to gain 1 or 2 VP, but not winning. He still plays for losing, and that's the truth.

Non-existant user wrote:

Ankha wrote:

Question is: is it bad that a deal where E scores GW 2.5 in order to give 1 VP to D?
Is it worth changing the tournament rules?

The problem is not E giving away a VP, it is E and D not fighting it out when they are the only ones left. It is a bad thing that the game is not played to the end and it is worth correcting. If it wasn't, then why cancel deals in the duel in the first place?

That's also a good point. If they changed the rules of dealing to void deals, they can also change it to reward players who play according to the golden tenets of v:tes.


I know I have no real solution yet, but in android:netrunner we use prestige point for duels, and then to decide in the case of a tie, the "fighting" spirit is counted this way : how many agenda points we scored / let our opponent score.

So maybe we should use what Jeff suggested (game win only of last man standing) plus "jyhad points" if you oust your prey yourself. This kind of thing.

I am searching, but would anyone be interested by experimental rules ?

Reyda wrote:

I am ok with this. Politics is already a large part of the game ! The deals rule creates an artificial layer that adds something interesting, but retracts a lot from the main game. the social aspect of V:tes is present, but does it have to negate the card game that happens at the same time ?
Let's develop further ....

I don't agree that it detracts from the game more than it adds to it or that it negates the card game.

Suoli wrote:

A player with a "prey-is-to-the-left" mentality only has to interact with the players next to him. A table politician, on the other hand, has to not only interact with every player at the table but recognize who and how those players are or should be interacting with each other as well.

But what is so bad with "prey is to the left" (and i guess "predator is to the right" ) mentality ? There are players whith this mentality, who are also capable of making very good choices, who interacts with other players ingame a lot, but still consider that their source of VP is ousting their prey.

Did I say it's bad? Good for them if they get a kick out of it. I don't. Playing like that is too one dimensional for my tastes, for reasons I've already explained.

They are playing the game the way it is designed, don't they ?

Who knows. Are they? Can you speak on behalf of Richard Garfield? Not that it matters. Arguments based on perceived designer intent are meaningless. Tortured Confession was designed to be played, am I playing the game wrong by using the card as a bookmark?

The only thing that matters is whether deal making as an emergent property of the game is a good thing or a glitch.

I think you are sticking the "prey-is-to-the-left" label on bad players and think they are bad because of this mentality. Like in "I know i am ousted next turn but i want to beatdown me prey's monçada 'cause he's ugly" . In this vision, the dealmaking would be the mark of the great players, because they can understand things beyond the card that lies on the table.
I think this vision is not really serious. Because there are a lot of "bad" players who also do deals. there are a lot of "good players" who are not really into deals.

How about I tell you what I think so you don't have to guess?

Refusing to make deals is a clear handicap. I don't care how good you are, you'd be better if you made deals. But that's not a point I was trying to make or discuss at length. It's not really relevant.

Suoli wrote:

I feel doing well in this area is the defining feature of a good tournament player, as it can even the odds against getting randomly screwed by table seating or, conversely, deal with table hate when you're clearly in the strongest position. If this element was removed, games would probably be dictated less by players and more by seating and deck strength than they are now.

The deals, as you say it subtly, comes most of the times from good players that cannot accept being screwed by table seating. Is there any way those people could question themselves about what their deck is capable of doing or not ? I was half joking when i wrote that " it's easier to put no combat defense and 8 parity or so, hoping to deal your way out, than trying to build a solid and balanced deck." (i put quotes, but it's not very accurate, sorry.)

I didn't say any of that, that's your own conjecture and prejudice talking again. In my experience, a strong grasp of table politics is possibly even more necessary and useful to the player in the winning position than it is to the player in the losing position.

The game, even without deals, is dictated by players by definition : they all bring their own deck. There is way to cope with your own lackings in the deckbuilding department : talk your way out. The tournament rules effectively allows good players to do that. Hell, I did it myself. But instead of splitting table, you can just deal no aggression turns, no bleed = no rush and so on.

What are we discussing here again? Deal making in general or just table splitting specifically?

Why the need to frustrate other players just because you cannot adapt the metagame ? It's one of the very thing that baffles me (the other being the hatred for lutz )

Why do you say that a deal maker can't adapt to the metagame? Is he not already adapted if he wins through deal making?

It's difficult to accept one's fate when seating between a tupdog and Ozmo, but sometimes it's just where you seat. Build accordingly, and maybe your deck will be a bit less strong, but you'll have reasonnable chances at winning -or at least you are not forced to kingmaking.

This ventures into a completely different topic. Focused vs. well-rounded decks has nothing to do with deal making.

Some players just don't really like it. They feel they are playing something else, like "chatting and kingmaking over a v:tes game".

And some players really do like it, and if it's not there they feel like they're playing something other than V:TES. If it's a huge problem for you I suppose you could try to arrange Silence of Death tournaments or something.

I think deals became a standard in tournament games for wrong reasons, and maybe it's time to change it and reward players for playing the original game.

What exactly are you implying with that? That players who make deals are playing wrong? What would give you the right to decide how the game should be played? I don't mind discussing different points of view on the issue and believe that it's even necessary. But your attitude as a whole is just plain disrespectful.

Suoli wrote:

But your attitude as a whole is just plain disrespectful.

I tried to be polite 100% of the time in the above answer.
Explain me where i was disrespectful, then I shall review and discuss your aguments.
If you don't want or cannot do it, fine, I will not adress them.

Reyda wrote:

I tried to be polite 100% of the time in the above answer.
Explain me where i was disrespectful, then I shall review and discuss your aguments.

Disrespectful is possibly a strong word for it. You were not being rude but you definitely were making some unwarranted and condescending assumptions about things like deck building ability and chose to discuss that instead of the points being actually made. I only bring this up because you yourself asked for a civil discussion.

If you don't want or cannot do it, fine, I will not adress them.

I'm not necessarily looking for a counter-argument. I just want you to acknowledge and understand that there is another completely valid position on deal making that a significant portion of the players agrees with. Not because they can't build decks, are sore losers or whatever other discrediting characteristic you might attribute to them but because they genuinely enjoy playing that way. This shouldn't be that hard to believe.