Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Ethics in Gaming
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 
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.
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.
Comments
But, if you are playing for second place, when you could still win, you're griefing. 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.
However, the long-term solution, as you said, is obvious - don't play with people who would put you in such a situation.
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.
So how can you fault someone for alternate play where victory is impossible? 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?
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
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.
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. 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. 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?"
That's equivalent to what I said previously:
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.
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.
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? 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.
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.
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.
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.