This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Ethics in Gaming

edited April 2011 in Board Games
Groan. Got into a convo recently about ethical play in board games. What it comes down to is that people don't actually understand what the word ethical means. My argument is that as long as you are both A) playing by the rules and B) not motivated by an other factor outsie of winning the game, then you are always in the ethical right. What I mean is: don't cheat, and don't bring any meta factor into your play. If you are playing for second place, you are screwing up the game. If you are beating up on someone because they owe you $5, while knowlingliy passing up optimal moves, then you are messing up the game.

The opposition opinion was that certain moves make people feel bad, and that if you know they are expecting you to not play a certain way because of that, then it is unethical to do so. Unless you have turned this expectation into a house rule, I say these softies shouldn't be at the table.
«13

Comments

  • If you are playing for second place, you are screwing up the game.
    If you are knowingly mathematically eliminated from first place, but not yet so eliminated from second place, then playing for second place is just fine.

    But, if you are playing for second place, when you could still win, you're griefing.
    The opposition opinion was that certain moves make people feel bad, and that if you know they are expecting you to not play a certain way because of that, then it is unethical to do so.
    They're pretty wrong. They can play that way if they want, but they aren't competing. Is it unethical to hit the ball really, really hard in baseball?

    Unless all players explicitly agree to an unambiguous house rule, it is never binding.
  • edited April 2011
    Groan. Got into a convo recently about ethical play in board games. What it comes down to is that people don't actually understand what the word ethical means. My argument is that as long as you are both A) playing by the rules and B) not motivated by an other factor outsie of winning the game, then you are always in the ethical right. What I mean is: don't cheat, and don't bring any meta factor into your play. If you are playing for second place, you are screwing up the game. If you are beating up on someone because they owe you $5, while knowlingliy passing up optimal moves, then you are messing up the game.

    The opposition opinion was that certain moves make people feel bad, and that if you know they are expecting you to not play a certain way because of that, then it is unethical to do so. Unless you have turned this expectation into a house rule, I say these softies shouldn't be at the table.
    Knowingly hurting someone's feelings is clearly unethical. However, if you make a move based on such a consideration, then you're also screwing things up for the other people in the game, which is also unethical. The ethical choice is whichever one causes less total harm.

    However, the long-term solution, as you said, is obvious - don't play with people who would put you in such a situation.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • edited April 2011
    That's a little too restrictive for me. There are many board games where, once you get behind, you can longer actually win. In games like those, I sometimes extract enjoyment by setting arbitrary goals.

    In Agricola, for example, I sometimes have a really powerful starting card that is hideously impractical to build. Sometimes, I say, "I will build this card. I do not know if I will secure victory, but I will build this card and attempt to win along the way."

    Where does that fall in your ethical statements? You're still ostensibly trying to win, but through very unorthodox means which are probably going to fail. But a victory through such means is most excellent.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • No, you must maximise your chances of winning.
  • There are many board games where, once you get behind, you can longer actually win.
    Games like that suck. Don't play them. Good games end at the point a winner has been decided or very soon after. If a game has winners being decided early on then it is a shitty game.
  • There are many board games where, once you get behind, you can longer actually win.
    Games like that suck. Don't play them. Good games end at the point a winner has been decided or very soon after. If a game has winners being decided early on then it is a shitty game.
    Losers being decided isn't quite the same thing as winners being decided.
  • If a game has winners being decided early on then it is a shitty game.
    Precisely. I'm talking about guaranteed loss. And yes, it happens. You fuck up. You make the wrong move. You get behind. You get screwed out of the resource you need. It does happen, even in good games.

    So how can you fault someone for alternate play where victory is impossible?
    No, you must maximise your chances of winning.
    What about trying an untested strategy? This happens quite often in T&E.; You have an idea about how it would play it, but it may depend on factors you can't control.

    Many many many great games require calculated risk-taking. You have to make a decision as to what you think will give you the best chance of success without actually knowing whether or not you will succeed. Can you be faulted if your decision wound up being wrong?
  • So how can you fault someone for alternate play where victory is impossible?
    I don't. I fault the game. Even games I don't like, such as Age of Steam, kick people out of the game once they have no chance to survive. They make their time somewhere else instead of ruining the game for the remaining players.
  • If you are knowingly mathematically eliminated from first place, but not yet so eliminated from second place, then playing for second place is just fine.

    But, if you are playing for second place, when you could still win, you're griefing.
    Indeed.
    Unless the game has an explicitly specified payoff matrix, first place is worth infinitely more than second place is worth infinitely more than third place, etc.
    i.e. 0.1(or rather epsilon)% chance of first place > 100% chance of second place
  • So how can you fault someone for alternate play where victory is impossible?
    Again, the game is at fault for allowing it without eliminating them or ending in a timely manner. If you move to alternate utility, you stand a real chance of sabotaging a competent player and ruining the remaining test of skill.
    What about trying an untested strategy? This happens quite often in T&E.; You have an idea about how it would play it, but it may depend on factors you can't control.
    You're still trying to win, even if you end up failing. The point is you're still trying to win.
  • edited April 2011
    What about trying an untested strategy? This happens quite often in T&E.; You have an idea about how it would play it, but it may depend on factors you can't control.

    Many many many great games require calculated risk-taking. You have to make a decision as to what you think will give you the best chance of success without actually knowing whether or not you will succeed. Can you be faulted if your decision wound up being wrong?
    Hey, I'm not saying we have to be perfect risk calculators. If we were, games would be a lot less interesting ;)
    The point is that you make the move which, to the best of your knowledge, maximises your chances of winning. You can be faulted for an obvious miscalculation, but you're not being faulted for being unethical, merely stupid.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • So how can you fault someone for alternate play where victory is impossible?
    Again, the game is at fault for allowing it without eliminating them or ending in a timely manner. If you move to alternate utility, you stand a real chance of sabotaging a competent player and ruining the remaining test of skill.
    These games definitely make the lines blurry. (Yes they are crap games but sometimes they find their way to the table.) They bring in meta-gaming from the start. If you know that people are going to be eliminated and become kingmakers, you better start kissing ass from round 1! With these "effective elimination" games, it's almost impossible not to drag some external factor in, which is precisely WHY they are crap.
  • edited April 2011
    I don't. I fault the game.
    Fair enough.

    So how about a game where your best-laid plans gang aft agley? You just get stomped. From an ethical standpoint, you've tried to win, but failed. You might be placed in a situation where you can't win, not because of poor design but because of bad play.

    So should a bad player continue with a strategy that won't allow them to win? Or do they instead try to learn the game a little better? Try out different moves to see what effect they'll have in play?

    I'm still not convinced that soldiering on when everyone else is going to win is the "right" thing to do. What about the value to other players of dealing with an unexpected turn of events? You might get pissed off and say, "But you ruined my gameplay!" Well, maybe your strategy wasn't as sound as you think, or maybe you learn to adapt your playstyle in the face of a new challenge.

    Mind you, I'm not talking about "picking a winner." I'm not talking about just giving your shit away to other people. I'm talking about picking a valid game mechanic and exploring it with the intent to better your position, but not necessarily win.
    With these "effective elimination" games, it's almost impossible not to drag some external factor in, which is precisely WHY they are crap.
    I disagree. I've played the kingmaking game before, and my decision is solely based on which person I can help with what I have, but not help too much. No external factors need apply.

    If the players are bringing in external crap, they're definitely at fault. The game is the game. Leave it that way.
    The point is that you make the move which, to the best of your knowledge, maximises your chances of winning. You can be faulted for an obvious miscalculation, but you're not being faulted for being unethical, merely stupid.
    You're still trying to win, even if you end up failing. The point is you're still trying to win.
    OK, that's more clear to me.

    How about this? Does "playing to win" necessarily mean that you must take first place? Or does "playing to win" mean "playing to beat someone?"

    For example, if you've fucked up to the point that you know you can't take first, is it ethical to say, "Well, fuck this. I'm not coming in last?"
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • edited April 2011
    For example, if you've fucked up to the point that you know you can't take first, is it ethical to say, "Well, fuck this. I'm not coming in last."
    The default should be that, if you can't take first, you aim for second as if it were first, and so forth.
    That's equivalent to what I said previously:
    Unless the game has an explicitly specified payoff matrix, first place is worth infinitely more than second place is worth infinitely more than third place, etc.
    i.e. 0.1(or rather epsilon)% chance of first place > 100% chance of second place
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • I don't. I fault the game.
    I'm talking about picking a valid game mechanic and exploring it with the intent to better your position, but not necessarily win.
    If there is uncertainty in your mind as to what moves are actually optimal, then by all means, go for it. When players feel that they are on the brink of elimination, I would expect them to pull all sorts of insane moves that are total high risk/high reward tactics.

    The problem is when you actually are eliminated, as you are pointing out. I'm honestly not sure where the line is drawn. If people sat down at a table to play one of these games, I think they are accepting the fact that once people start getting eliminated, they are going to just start doing whatever the hell they want.
  • edited April 2011
    For example, if you've fucked up to the point that you know you can't take first, is it ethical to say, "Well, fuck this. I'm not coming in last?"
    I'm gonna take the stance here that if you're definitely knocked out of first, you've got to define your own goals for what you want to achieve for the rest of the game. I couldn't fault you for any particular move, and would commend you for making moves based only on in-game stuff.
    Post edited by Matt on
  • I tend to try a variety of different strategies with games just to experiment and experience different things. Does "playing to win" refer to simply trying to accomplish the objectives set forth in your game, or does it require a person to act with the best strategy they can think of all the time?

    For example in League of Legends (think Heroes of Newerth/DOTA) I have both AP (ability power, basically spell damage), AD (attack damage, your 'autoattack'), and "Tank" strategies with most characters. For a lot of them, either AP or AD is optimal for a specific character (and further, some characters are generally considered "better" than others). I've won games specifically because I knowingly applied a suboptimal strategy and caught someone off guard, but I was just testing a theory. Similarly I've lost such games. From some perspective, I'm "griefing" my allies (and maybe my opponents?) but I don't feel any sort of guilt over it. Am I playing to win or not? At the end of the day, I'm playing to learn more about the game so that I can play it better later. In the meta-game, I'm playing to win, but individual game to game I'm trying all sorts of off-the-wall things to find information.
  • edited April 2011
    That's equivalent to what I said previously:
    Well, no, what you said first is "Always always always shoot for first." I mean, the absolute chance of taking first place is never actually zero. Sure, you could be so far behind that you can't take first place, but the guy in first might die of a heart attack. There's your chance for first!

    Sure, you could be in a position where you might technically be able to win, if you have a run of incredible luck. But it's really not rational to bank on an infinitesimal chance of winning. It's like playing the lottery.

    When are you allowed to say "I can't take first." 0.0000000000000000001% chance of victory? That's pretty much an impossible event. The uncertainty that goes into making such a calculation would be larger than that.

    So there has to be a point at which you must consider it ethical for someone to give up on first. Where is that line?
    I'm gonna take the stance here that if you're definitely knocked out of first, you've got to define your own goals for what you want to achieve for the rest of the game. I couldn't fault you for any particular move, and would commend you for making moves based only on in-game stuff.
    That's my stance as well. The first goal is to achieve victory. If you can't achieve victory, I would say your next goal should be "figure out some aspects of the game that will improve my chance of victory in future games." That is the ethical thing for a competitive gamer to do. If you can't win now, hone your skills.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • I tend to try a variety of different strategies with games just to experiment and experience different things. Does "playing to win" refer to simply trying to accomplish the objectives set forth in your game, or does it require a person to act with the best strategy they can think of all the time?
    If an alternate strategy is actually worth your time to explore, then you truly don't know if it is better or worse than what you deem to be the "best" strategy. If there's uncertainty there, nobody can blame you for not taking the optimal move simply because you don't know what it is. That's just you being human.
  • You play to the best of your own knowledge and ability. You can't be faulted for making a stupid trade in Settlers if you didn't know any better.
  • You play to the best of your own knowledge and ability. You can't be faulted for making a stupid trade in Settlers if you didn't know any better.
    Greg Hartman should be the line for ethical play.
  • You play to the best of your own knowledge and ability. You can't be faulted for making a stupid trade in Settlers if you didn't know any better.
    Greg Hartman should be the line for ethical play.
    Again, I don't think it's unethical. It's just unsportsmanlike.
  • Again, I don't think it's unethical. It's just unsportsmanlike.
    Hmmmm. I'm not sure I follow the distinction there. "Sportsmanship" is by definition a code of ethics.
  • RymRym
    edited April 2011
    "Playing to win" literally means "playing to maximize contextual utility." If the agreed-upon utility of a game is, say, victory points, then all players must attempt to acquire as many victory points as possible by whatever means necessary.

    Also, I note that this is another situation where we've done a lecture on this very topic. ^_~ We have a good hour of argument to defend our position if need be, based on many more hours of planning and research.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • I tend to try a variety of different strategies with games just to experiment and experience different things. Does "playing to win" refer to simply trying to accomplish the objectives set forth in your game, or does it require a person to act with the best strategy they can think of all the time?
    If an alternate strategy is actually worth your time to explore, then you truly don't know if it is better or worse than what you deem to be the "best" strategy. If there's uncertainty there, nobody can blame you for not taking the optimal move simply because you don't know what it is. That's just you being human.
    Building nothing but (whatever the biggest sword is, infinity blade maybe?) is definitely a poor choice of strategy with a high rate of failure, but oh god is it fun if you succeed.

    In the quoted text, I'm also referring to being given a choice between a 0.5 chance of winning and an explicitely less than 0.5 chance of winning because you want more data to estimate how close to 0.5 it is.
  • Again, I don't think it's unethical. It's just unsportsmanlike.
    Hmmmm. I'm not sure I follow the distinction there. "Sportsmanship" is by definition a code of ethics.
    So you're a professional athlete. You place a bet on a game in which you are about to participate. That's unethical.

    Let's say you play a game and lose. You are a sore loser and get angry. You go and take a dump on the floor in the other team's locker room. That's not unethical, it's just unsportsmanlike. It's just poor form.
  • Again, I don't think it's unethical. It's just unsportsmanlike.
    Hmmmm. I'm not sure I follow the distinction there. "Sportsmanship" is by definition a code of ethics.
    So you're a professional athlete. You place a bet on a game in which you are about to participate. That's unethical.

    Let's say you play a game and lose. You are a sore loser and get angry. You go and take a dump on the floor in the other team's locker room. That's not unethical, it's just unsportsmanlike. It's just poor form.
    It's definitely unethical.
  • "Playing to win" literally means "playing to maximize contextual utility." If the agreed-upon utility of a game is, say, victory points, then all players must attempt to acquire as many victory points as possible by whatever means necessary.
    Typically the game will then state that whoever has the most victory points is, in fact, the winner. There's a significant difference between playing to maximize victory points, and playing to be the player with the most victory points.
  • edited April 2011
    It's possible to have two goals in a game. 1. Play to win. 2. If winning is not possible make sure Rubin or Rym loses. (depending on the game) :-p
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • edited April 2011
    Let's say you play a game and lose. You are a sore loser and get angry. You go and take a dump on the floor in the other team's locker room.
    Remind me never to invite Scott into my home to play a board game.
    In the quoted text, I'm also referring to being given a choice between a 0.5 chance of winning and an explicitely less than 0.5 chance of winning because you want more data to estimate how close to 0.5 it is.
    Hm another tricky situation. While it is definitely an essential part of mastering a game, it does fall into my extinction of playing for "outside of the game" factors even though in this instance, the factor is simply another instance of the same game. Maybe you could get this knowledge through self-study, and not need to play investigator while everyone else is trying to win?
    Post edited by Matt on
Sign In or Register to comment.