Page 2 of 2

Re: Devious GM AAR

PostPosted: 31 Dec 2015, 22:26
by asudevil
Versailles was my first rule...I knew I was going to do it...but Im not a detail oriented person like that...so it said country...and I just rolled with it (especially the ones I cut / pasted from the last game)

And I wanted the game to be playable

Your shift last game made it almost impossible to build until much later in the game...which lost a lot of the fun (for me at least in that game)...Jeg helped with rules...so I wasn't totally alone. Ill slowly think of other ideas...but the balance is the hard part...you throw a plague to kill 1/3rd of the units...that just sucks...

I tried to limit the suckiness by allowing the neutral builds...and the disband-rebuild rule

And the rule where all unoccupied SCs become occupied/neutral...just SUCKS

And then the convoluted issue. I had a hard time getting the wording right NOT with all the other random rules...I know that oil petrol one was a terrible rule and was badly implemented...I tried to limit that.

So I think part of this was the GMs goal...I wanted the game to be fun and playable...not just being beat over the head with annoying crap. So the rule changes were trying to twist strategy...not completely flip it around every time where you really have no chance but to hope a rule works ok for you. Then its a lucky crapshoot who wins...not someone who can roll with the punches, but still momentum helps.

Re: Devious GM AAR

PostPosted: 31 Dec 2015, 22:55
by marsman57
I think that's a good philosophy honestly. I wasn't necessarily complaining when I said you weren't as mean, but just noting that I expect you were going to be given the subtitle to the game. :)

I agree overall that shorter rules are better normally. Adding too much text increases the chances of ambiguity.

I wish you had included my engineer rule though. I spent so much time on that rule and no one ever built one last game. :)

Re: Devious GM AAR

PostPosted: 31 Dec 2015, 22:58
by asudevil
marsman57 wrote:I think that's a good philosophy honestly. I wasn't necessarily complaining when I said you weren't as mean, but just noting that I expect you were going to be given the subtitle to the game. :)

I agree overall that shorter rules are better normally. Adding too much text increases the chances of ambiguity.

I wish you had included my engineer rule though. I spent so much time on that rule and no one ever built one last game. :)


Honestly, I can't see a time I would WANT to.

And badder and meaner...was more just to give it a different title..

Re: Devious GM AAR

PostPosted: 31 Dec 2015, 23:56
by EpicDim
So I think part of this was the GMs goal...I wanted the game to be fun and playable...not just being beat over the head with annoying crap. So the rule changes were trying to twist strategy...not completely flip it around every time where you really have no chance but to hope a rule works ok for you. Then its a lucky crapshoot who wins...not someone who can roll with the punches, but still momentum helps.


I think you succeeded with "fun and playable". My "criticism" about rules working with others was intended to give you something to improve on next time and not a bash. I did like how the rules worked together as a theme. The kamikaze coming out right before the zombies in order to help with them, then the "cavalry" coming to help. Although with diplomacy players (or at least this group), it was more about how can the cavalry be used to stop the leader and less about killing zombies. :)

I still can't figure out how you convinced sjg11 it was a good idea to stab me when you were the obvious leader.


This was really his choice, I was of course talking to him after every move, but he was trying to stay neutral, what pushed him over the edge was that he was trapped between Germany (in Turkey) and Spain and if he and you started being successful against me, you would just pincer him out of existence. With me there was a much safer border. I was also offering him multiple SCs and willing to help into them.

I was torn if you were serious about the 2-way or not EpicDim. I figured you wanted to solo, but if you saw it out of reach and you thought the rules would let a 2-way happen if it was something like 1/3 England, 1/3 Germany, 1/3 Spain; then I might be able to get up to 1/2 Germany+Spain before you realized. Too bad we never got to find out.


You would have too. I might have stabbed before you got to 1/2, but it most likely would have been too late for me to stop you since I truly believed it had to be one nation. And I don't know where I picked up that notion, I've been hunting for it in Versailles rules sites and can't find where I read it. I must have just made it up in my head.

And yes, some could say I'm pedantic about rules. I'm a rules lawyer and it's my pet peeve when situations are ambiguous in rules. Many a game (not just diplomacy) has been ruined by two players with different readings of the same rule coming to different conclusions and it taints the outcome. I don't want to win a game because someone doesn't understand the rules. I want to win because I used the rules better in the given situation.

Re: Devious GM AAR

PostPosted: 01 Jan 2016, 00:15
by asudevil
Epic...I can't begin to tell you how glad I am you were in this game to help with rules clarifications and keeping everything else straight even better (much better) than I did

And I know what you meant...didn't take it as a bash. Its hard to make things mean...fair...balanced...playable...I went for the last 3...ignored the first.

Re: Devious GM AAR

PostPosted: 17 Jan 2016, 04:04
by Gooderian
In short, this was my game:
I was Turkey, again. And again, that was quite literally. I had to once again fight my way through Central Europe to my home SCs, but this time I did succeed. Didn´t last long though, the evil brits pushed me out.

What followed next was a few years running around Central Europe, hoping to get allies to help me back in.

I came close, if it wasn´t for the damm spiders who took me down with them.