Comparative gaming styles

[breakinglight11]

There will be BSCF at my house tonight. That is cool, although I'm not sure I'm feeling up to that much social interaction. Depending on my ability to pretend to be a human being tonight, I may have to go hide in my room. If I can manage to behave like a real person, however, perhaps I shall try to get a game of Small World going.

I heard that at WPI, when Small World is played it is considered standard practice to make diplomatic agreements with other players. At Brandeis, we tend to be geared much more toward pure strategy when we play. If the right move is not immediately obvious, everyone around the table with discuss what the most advantageous move given the situation is, regardless of what other player it may hurt, and countless times I have heard someone advise their opponent to attack they themselves because it is objectively the best move.

I find this hilarious given WPI versus Brandeis larping style. At Brandeis we are the diplomats, the ones who sit around in a circle holding hands trying to find some way to work things out, while I have found WPI larpers to be more ruthless, oriented more towards the win-condition than finding some compromise. The reversal of that situation I find very funny.

Comments

[witticaster.livejournal.com]

It's not quite a reversal, though. In that scenario we're still all working together and helping each other rather than focusing on winning. I've never seen WPIers play Small World, but I'd wager that those diplomatic agreements are less about hand holding and more about "I know I can take you if I need to, so let's gang up on the others and crush them, and then I will win." It might be called diplomacy, but it can still be purely strategic and goal-motivated.

[breakinglight11.livejournal.com]

Heh, excellent point. We're still more geared toward helping each other, and the WPI diplomacy is pretty self-serving. When you look at it that way, it's not all that different from the typical larp styles at all. :-)

[londo.livejournal.com]

Have you ever larped at MIT? It's an experience.

Also, what witticaster said.

[breakinglight11.livejournal.com]

Heh, no, but I've heard stories! :-)

[darkoni]

I've played larps at MIT. It can be pretty ruthless.

[valleyviolet.livejournal.com]

I have a friend who told me something very parallel about Diplomacy (which is obviously older and simpler that what you describe, but sounds similar given that I haven't played Small World). I've only played Diplomacy once and I swore I'd never play it again because I had such an absolutely miserable experience. People were exceedingly cutthroat and mercenary with their alliances.

When I told him this he was surprised because his friends play in more of a collaborative style. They do someetimes form alliances, but from your description it sounds a lot more like the Brandeis players with an additional, laid back, "well, we're just playing a game for fun, don't take it too personal" attitude.

I would find it interesting to learn what starts both play styles in motion, since there seems to be some sort of basic human parallel.

[pezzonovante.livejournal.com]

FWIW, an awful lot of the games I play at WPI go the way you describe Brandeis games going. It's far more common if there's a strong experience or skill differential, but it does happen a lot. For example, If I'm introducing someone to Dominion, I'd give them strategic advice to help them understand how the game tends to work. But I'd never give londo advice on what to do in Dominion, even if he were stumped. I doubt I'd be able to say anything he couldn't come up with himself.

Also, what witticaster said. Picking a good ally is just as strategic as your moves on the board.

[darkoni]

I have an old friend who would habitually tell people better moves, even if they are detrimental to himself, because he is such a strategist that he can't help himself. He just wants to see the most strategic move happen.