The other day a friend and I were talking about our game group and play styles, and here's what we came up with. (Talking generally about multi-player world-domination-type games like Twilight Imperium, A Game of Thrones, etc.)

Opportunistic. If you attack this player, they will only attack you back if it advances their position in the game. (That is, whether or not you attack them has little or no effect on their decision-making process.)

Vindictive. If you attack this player, knocking you down becomes more important to them than winning.

Irrational. Players who don't generally fit into either pattern--e.g. player A, who's going to attack player B regardless of player B's actions during the game. But irrational players are hard to figure out, so that's the last time they'll be mentioned here.

Is it generally agreed that opportunistic players are the ones you want to play with, and the kind you strive to be yourself?

I seem to recall reading threads here where people have defended the vindictive approach: sure, the first few games may be rough, but once you establish a reputation as the wrong guy to attack, people will leave you the hell alone, which greatly improves your chances of winning. (Am I misremembering that? Anyone want to argue that side?)

When dealing with vindictive players, my first thought is that you can't be swayed by the knowledge that a given player is vindictive. That is, if your best move would be to attack player A if they were opportunistic, then you're obligated to attack them even if you know they're vindictive. To do otherwise would be to reward game-throwing behavior, and that's no good! We don't negotiate with terrorists!

My second thought is that, by attacking a player who is known to be vindictive, aren't you yourself throwing the game, and thereby failing to play opportunistically? I don't think so; you can only be responsible for your own choices, and if some other player is going to use you as an excuse to throw the game, that's their choice. Besides, just because you "know" someone is vindictive, that doesn't mean that this won't be the game where they start playing to win!

Also, I saw a recent thread about systems for tracking player rankings across multiple games ( http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/164453); does giving a long-term consequence for throwing a game tend to decrease vindictiveness? Or does it mean the meta-game leader is marked for doom before each game even starts? (For the first question, I can see the argument that it would increase vindictiveness, by making it more effective: no one wants to sacrifice their ranking just to show the vindictive player the error of their ways!)

I would have thought that if you attack a known vindictive player, you make sure you do it properly so that they don't get a chance to be vindictive (in this game). Otherwise, then you are potentially running a bit of a risk.

And how do you spot the Opportunistically Vindictive. This is the player who is not normally vindictive, but if they are down and and almost out decide that they have have nothing (more) to lose by being vindictive?

I am of the opinion that there are few if any irrational players. Seemingly irrational players are often simply motivated by things normal people aren't.

The desire to try odd strategies, they desire to not attack their friend, they think it's funny to confuse other players, they've made it their personnal goal to control all the purple territories, are but of few of the reasons I have heard for seemingly irrational behavior. If you can get a feel for what motivates an odd player you can better avoid, or manipulate his actions, rarely will his actions be completely unpredictable.

I just like attacking the player that whines the most...

Nothing funnier than watching someone go into a fit of rage screaming about why on earth you would attack them when it's the very act of them having a whinge that makes the little voice at the back of my head go 'I win!'...

I'm all three. Fear me.

There was a guy in our gaming group ( a very good player BTW) who played like this and always made the statement that if anyone attacked him then his sole aim of the game from that point in was revenge.

I counted this by stating that if he anyone makes a statement like the above or shows signs of doing playing in that style, I would spend all my turns attacking him....it appeared to work as others joined the common cause

Reminds me of a game of Mall of Horror.

Not for me. The opportunistic approach seems appropriate in game with indirect interaction, such as most euros. I prefer what you call "vindictive" (I'd say reasonable) players in a wargame.

If you are playing a wargame and start a war, it seems a bit strange not to expect your opponent to fight back. If they don't, then you can just do it again, now with the advantage of whatever you took.

My opinion is that you should be very careful before starting a conflict and make sure you have the advantage in the long run.

I totally fit into this category, but only under certain situations. It really depends on who I am playing with. But if I get in a mood I'll do stuff that makes no sense just to do it. I have been referred to as "chaos incarnate" before. BUT, with a tamer crowd I'll behave and play more conventionally. So I think it really makes a huge difference on the crowd your playing with, and probably the game as well.

I think this sums up the "irrational" approach! I totally agree

edit: one quote too many removed.

What stuns me, is people who don't expect to be attacked back and scream "vindictive" when their victim chooses to fight. I have seen this numerous times. I especially abhor it when that same person explains how it is not in my benefit to retaliate as I am "throwing the game." The implication being that they know the superior strategy I'm blowing it. Unless I'm brand new to a game, I generally don't take my opponent's "advice" too seriously.

While the initial concern might be legitimate, I find vindictive, "throwing the game," and whining to be way too subjective terms to accurately judge who the real wiener is.

Some people play the vindictive card to prevent counterattacks.

I used to play with a guy who made it very clear "I won't stab you in Diplomacy and as long as you don't stab me we'll be fine, if you attack me and we don't have alliance, no biggie. But if you ever stab me in the game I will make it my goal to bring you down in this game, and wont make a deal with you in future games."

In the same group of players we had a guy who often annoyed me by telling people how to play their games and being generally abrasive. I tried to start each game towards neutral with him, but eventually I just snapped and decided that my only goal in the game was not winning, but making sure he didn't.

Although it's not common to see amongst experienced gamers, another kind of player that totally angers me is the Shut Up and Turn Over player.
This usually involves metagame relations. It's the player who, being obviously attacked and menaced by somebody who scares him, or who has a great influence over him, just holds back, follows the instructions, turns over and attacks somebody else. I hate that.

I was once a purely vindictive player. I was oft quoted saying, "If you attack me, I will reign destruction upon you ten fold of what you do to me." I then shortened this to "Ten Fold, baby!!!" I did this to cultivate a reputation that in any game if you were to go against me directly, even in the slightest degree, I will bring you down.

It didn't work all that well.


Nowadays, I'm opportunistic, with the occasional vindictive flair.

I agree with him up until the "future games" part. A stab in Diplomacy should be fatal (or game ending). If you just take a former ally out of contention, but leave them enough units to harm you, why shouldn't he? I'll congratulate someone for a good stab that takes me out of the game in a few turns. That's just good play.

I think a really good player will switch between both. If you are consistant then people can plan what you will do. There are times when it is good to be a little vindictive. As you stated above it can keep people away, but you can not constantly throw a win out hte window because someone attacked you.

By the way I can think of a few more types of multi-player gamers.

The tool comes to mind.- The guy who is so conflict adverse that he latches onto the 1st guy to befriend him, acts as a selfless ally never making a bold move on his own, only to be stabbed in the end giving his former ally an easy win.

-M

You forgot my persona.

Random. This player attacks for no rhyme or reason. At first it may look like that player is doing a specific strategy, only to show later that it was not and comes in dead last.

Deadly!

hm... Opportunistic, Vindictive, Irrational. Things that describe most girlfriend's actions towards their boyfriends while playing most, if it all types of games.

100% agree with your first statement. If you don't utterly destroy someone, and instead take them out of contention, you should expect them to come at you with everything they have left.

An opportunistically vindictive player is usually a vindictive player with an established reputation. They no longer need to actually BE vindictive very often, and are very successful in games partly due to this. Even in most euros, vindictiveness can easily take someone out of the running. This player will be a very effective gamer, and usually be in contention for the win at the end of the game. Many times, the "vindictiveness" promised is as much a deterrent to being attacked "because they usually win" than anything else. So, whenever someone puts them out of a game, they MUST be vindictive to prove to everyone that they aren't just bluffing. Putting yourself out in order to get revenge is just stupid.

Someone who has been put out of a game owes it to themselves to punish whoever did it. Though usually, a good gamer will force you to take a mortal blow yourself to take them out.

If you can convince someone that attacking you will not give them an overall gain you've won or at least saved yourself a bit of grief. But if you've convinced someone that you'll shrug it off then they know exactly how much attacking you is likely to pay off.

I have, on occasion, been more than willing to pull down another player because they were the one that attacked me, making it impossible for me to win. It may be seen as king making, but it's a situation that player made and it doesn't bother me if they have to reap the consequences. Even if that player is me.

If all else is equal (presumed game strength, how hard someone will be hit, whatever), or I can't possibly win, I'll often strike against the person who has most egregiously attacked me in a game. However, usually there is a best person to bring your forces against.

I agree. You should expect at the least a figurative punch to the nose for attacking someone else.

There are people that think so highly of themselves that if you deviate from their plan for you, you are playing the game wrong. (see BSW) I LOVE beating these people and knocking them off their pedestals. What's even better is when they refuse to play with anyone capable of beating them. Not only do they never face a challenge, but they get worse at games as time goes on.

It's best to assume that people will make the best possible move. If they don't, you can capitalize. If they do, you didn't lose ground because they aren't stupid.

I'm a big fan of the tit for tat strategy. Basically it is based on four main points:
1. Unless provoked, the agent will always cooperate
2. If provoked, the agent will retaliate
3. The agent is quick to forgive
4. The agent must have a good chance of competing against the opponent more than once.

I like it because it strikes a good balance as you are perfectly willing to cooperate and forgive, but at the same time you make it known you will retaliate if provoked.

Good article here on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

Yes.

I like to play with opportunistic people. I will seek and build groups like that.

I will avoid vindictive players. For me, these people spoil the game because they are not playing the game anymore. Instead of trying to win, they are playing some other game where revenge is the most important thing.

I understand and tolerate the vindictive personality as a strategy, although I will tend to find the person boorish and rude. Excessive commitment to this strategy makes you both a bad player and a lowsy human being... hence, someone not worth playing with.

Jeez Kuhrusty... at first I wondered what a thread about women was doing on the front page. But, now I see it's about gamers. Phew!

I don't think there's a way to avoid any type of gamer you mentioned and that's excellent. The vindictive approach upsets people with weak and unstable emotional fortitude but if you're normal it's easily dealt with. Just don't attack that guy unless you have the goods to go all the way with him. A major reason I enjoy having one of those in a multi-player conflict game is that if he focuses on another player then both tend to be weaker than me and become easy prey.

The irrational guy is not so common once you establish game groups with seasoned players. Most irritaional players are newbies working to figure out this crazy world of board games. Well, except for a guy from the 80's and 90's groups I played in. His name was Ken Klein... we called him "Genghis Klein" because he was always full-bore, all-out, WFO and barreled along madly towards whatever his obscure goal happened to be. Rarely was his goal to win. He was a great guy and fun to have along, but never a threat to win anything.

Even today, 15+ years after anyone has seen Genghis, when one of the guys from the old groups loses badly he'll almost always say: "Yeah, but I did have the biggest railroad!" ..... which happened to be what Genghis always said after losing yet another game of Empire Builder.

The guy from Kuwait who mentioned the tit-for-tat style has nailed what I consider to be the optimum style of play for conflict games of any sort... economic, military whatever.