Chronicles 15 (and beyond!)

[jonahmaul]

To build on what Enternalvoid said - elements of the game discussed in the deception article is stuff that you are going to be bound to run into sooner or later. As the game becomes more competitive and brings in more competitive players the game will shift to being comfortable and fun on one side of the line and competitive amd cut throat on the other side.

I disagree completely.  I don't think there should be any difference between regular play and tournament play.  I'm competitive whenever I play but this competitiveness should not be at the expense of both players enjoying the game, whether I'm at a tournament or playing in my home with a friend.  It's nice to do well in tournaments (I won a recent tournaments held just between friends which was ace) but if it means being a douchebag then that just doesn't float for me.  I would remind somebody in a tournament setting that my model had HtK, or that they would get flips for some reasons, or that they had to take a Terrifying check and let them reconsider the action, or any number of other possibilities because playing like some of the stuff in the Deception article seems like a WAAC type of play to me which is not ok.  I see tournaments as being socialising occasions where you get to play against new/different players that also happen to have prizes attached if you happen to do well.

[rythos42]

Definitely parts of the deception article were excellent. The bits that I don't like, and unfortunately I've heard it all before from a good friend of mine whom I disagree with, are "giving your opponent advice to try to make them do what you want" and "providing only the information they ask for, and nothing else".

 

My problem with the first is that it sounds so genuine, it sounds so much like they are actually trying to help, so when it turns out it was a ploy I feel betrayed. I assume that my friends (and whether I know you yet or not, we're friends by default because we love Malifaux!) don't lie to me, so please don't do that.

 

The second is just as annoying. There is a ton of information to know in this game, and sure not telling all of this stuff marks the difference between "skilled" and "super skilled",  but I don't want someone to win because they didn't know Montresor had Terrifying, or that my Metal Gamin has Hard to Kill, I want to win because I played a better game. Someone does this to me consistently, I stop playing them. Someone asks me how many wounds that Metal Gamin has left, I tell them 2, with Hard to Kill and Armor +2, and I appreciate when they do the same. 

 

Actually, the same thing with Triggers. "I'm on 18 with an execute trigger". If I want more information, I'll ask, but if you just say "18" and I pass on cheating and you say "oh yeah, I'm executing", we're going to have words!

 

And this isn't a case of regular/tournament play, again -- I'm with the "competitive all the time" crowd. I just think there are some lines that aren't meant to be crossed, if you want to be invited back to the club again.

[Bengt]

The second is just as annoying. There is a ton of information to know in this game, and sure not telling all of this stuff marks the difference between "skilled" and "super skilled",  but I don't want someone to win because they didn't know Montresor had Terrifying, or that my Metal Gamin has Hard to Kill, I want to win because I played a better game. Someone does this to me consistently, I stop playing them. Someone asks me how many wounds that Metal Gamin has left, I tell them 2, with Hard to Kill and Armor +2, and I appreciate when they do the same. 

I really don't see why you would answer the wound question with anything but a number. I would feel like I'm being patronizing if I add unasked for information like all the models defences.

[zeeblee]

I have always found discussions on proper competitive behavior to be rather interesting; especially in wargaming communities.  Both here and in Warhammer forums you see people talking about how misleading opponents through [useless] truths is an awful behavior.  Yet if you look to other professional games (live sports, League of Legends, and even Diplomacy) you will find active deception of this sort occuring all the time (especially in Diplomacy...)  Once a player stops considering themselves to be a hobbyist and starts considering themselves to be a professional there is a shift in how much good information they will give to an opponent (less) and how much guiding information they will give (more).  In a way Malifaux is actually a lot like Poker since it involves a hand of playing cards.  You can attempt to "count cards" by keeping track of your opponent's discard to figure out the likelihood they will pop out something problematic, and you can also bluff them about the contents of your own hand (and in fact there is at least one master, Lynch, who is explicitly built to pull such a deception).  And as others have said, once you hit the competitive scene you can't expect your opponent to hold your hand for you.  Often matches between professionals aren't about how much better one is compared to the other, but about who makes the most important mistakes.  Forgetting potential triggers is one such mistake.

 

I get wanting to have a friendly game, and that's what you should aim for when in a friendly environment.  But once you hit a tournament you should only expect sportsmanship, which is not the same as friendly.  Sportsmanship is more about respecting your opponent and less about making sure they are fully informed.

 

In the same vein I find WAAC (win at all costs) to be an odd insult.  It reminds me of the insult "tryhard" from League of Legends.  If you're aiming to win a game, won't you try your hardest and use any legal tool you have access to to win at all costs?

[Bengt]

Yet if you look to other professional games (live sports, League of Legends, and even Diplomacy) you will find active deception of this sort occuring all the time (especially in Diplomacy...) 

I don't think Diplomacy is a very apt comparison since that game is explicitly about deceiving the other players.

 

Can League of Legend players speak to their opponents during the game? I thought it was 3 vs 3 with closed chat channels so the teams could coordinate in secret. I guess you can still feint and stuff, but the Chronicles article was almost all about verbally manipulating your opponent.

[rythos42]

The reason is because I feel like my opponent is actually not asking "How many wounds does the Metal Gamin have?". Their actual question is "How hard is it to kill that Metal Gamin?", but they've phrased it wrong. I feel like it's also a question of expectations -- if I say "2 wounds", my opponent expects to do 2 wounds and kill it. If he does 2 wounds and I say "oh yeah, that's only 1 and it has HtK", he's going to feel lied to and that sucks. 

 

 

But on the good side of the article - everything to do with dropping Scheme markers to lie about Schemes, dealing with your hand in a certain way, considering it, not considering it, is all great tactics. (although personally I'd not say "I can't beat that" if I could -- I'm not ok with explicitly lying. I will never say that I can't beat it, because I'd rather leave that to their imagination).

[zeeblee]

I don't think Diplomacy is a very apt comparison since that game is explicitly about deceiving the other players.

 

Can League of Legend players speak to their opponents during the game? I thought it was 3 vs 3 with closed chat channels so the teams could coordinate in secret. I guess you can still feint and stuff, but the Chronicles article was almost all about verbally manipulating your opponent.

Standard League of Legends is 5v5, and there is a /all chat option to talk to your opponents.  At lower levels of play this option is usually used to complain about teammates to the opposing team (because that will help?)  Sometimes people will also issue personal challenges against opponents this way and set an ambush.  But once you hit professional play the /all option is pretty much just a place to say "GLHF" and "GG".

 

While Diplomacy is a game about deception, it is still a good example of how deception does not ruin games.  Similarly in Chess the game is arguably about misleading your opponent via gambits, and often trash talking takes the form of telling your opponent that you know exactly what his gambit is (potentially to try and get him to abandon said gambit and relieve pressure from yourself).

 

Really it doesn't sound like people have a problem with the article as a whole, but instead have problems with the "Witholding Information" and "Providing Information" sections since they are less about game mechanics and more about manipulation.  Yes, it sucks to be manipulated, but that's how games with the ability to chat function.  And the article actually does talk about how your opponent will not respond well to these methods.  Personally I found it to be a refreshingly honest look into how we actually play games, and a great resource for anyone who is inexperienced with competitive gaming and the potential misleads they may face both on the table (like scheme baiting) and off the table (verbal deception).

[Pyrflamme]

I've been thinking a bit about the Deception article and what people have been saying about it in this topic.

 

The first time I read through the Deception article, I read perhaps the first page and then skipped ahead to the next article. I'm not quite sure whether it was the tone that put me off (seemed a little too calculating) or the fact there was an uncomfortable bit of truth underpinning it.

 

Going back to it, since I want to chip in my two cents, there are elements of it that I agree with, but others that I don't particularly agree with. I'm going to draw upon my experiences playing Magic: The Gathering and Warmachine/Hordes, both of which have factors relevant to the discussion.

 

First off, I take exception at the use of "deception" as a desirable concept. To me, "deception" has an active tone to it. There are lies by omission, but you have to actively choose to omit. I don't feel good about promoting an active concept like deception. The foreword to the article has another element that I think works much better: public knowledge. Public knowledge is a much easier and more neutral concept to work with, and fits in well with the concept of hidden knowledge, also an element in Malifaux. Maximizing your understanding of the public knowledge available is a better concept to run with than deception.

 

The article then goes on, almost self-consciously, explaining you shouldn't be actually lying and going on and on about not feeling guilty, etc. The author really goes too much into the idea "what you're doing is considered wrong" and the article becomes more offputting for it.

 

Moving on, the author breaks the types of deception into three sections: lying, withholding information, and providing information to influence decisions. He already firmly precluded lying earlier and in this section, so we'll move on.

 

I object to withholding information, not only on ethical grounds, but as far as promoting enjoyable gameplay for both yourself and your opponent. The example he cites specifically, and which other people in the thread have also mentioned, was defensive abilities on a model. He does mention that "gotchaing" your opponent could make them feel bad, but there's also the issue that they're going to become far more information-seeking in future. For example, if someone asks me how many wounds my Rail Worker has, I'll probably summarize "X wounds, Hard To Kill, Armor 1, Def Tome Trigger for 2 additional reduction." It's not particularly wordy and gives my opponent information, but consider the alternative: I "gotcha" my opponent, and the next time they want to make an attack, one of two things happen:

 

1) They start playing 20 questions, and it won't just stop at "What defensive abilities does that model have?" They're also probably going to pose a specific question about triggers (what if I personally opine that triggers don't quite count as a proper defensive ability?) or ways that model has to heal. That exchange is going to take longer than if I had just snapped off defensive abilities in the first place.

2) They come over to my side of the table to read my card, probably taking a bit of time to make sure they know what's up, then return to their side of the board and begin their decision making proper.

 

I may have gotten an edge in the first instance, but my opponent no longer trusts me to provide them with relevant information, and so I now have to deal with either extended questioning or extra time for them to inspect my cards, which is going to turn into a soul-sucking experience over the course of a match. Meanwhile, my opponent is going to be thinking "would it kill this jerk to just tell me what's out in the open?"

 

Of course, as a player who came to Malifaux from another system, I'm aware that pretty much every model has some sort of defensive ability, and the first indication that my opponent is not being entirely forthcoming with me, will send me straight to either 20 questions or card inspection, with the same outcome that I and they have to spend a good portion of the game in an almost interrogative fashion, metaphorically pulling teeth to make sure I know what I'm getting into.

 

By contrast, in Warmachine/Hordes, I find my opponents are quite willing to volunteer their DEF/ARM/special abilities so I know what's going on. Similarly, in Magic, my opponents are required by the rules to clarify the board state and keep it clarified, as well as maintain clarity in event sequencing. There are unknown elements in both (dice rolling, hidden hand/library), but everything that is public knowledge is kept clear at all times.

 

Moving on to the providing information to influence decisions: I don't necessarily buy this as a good strategy or gameplay promoter. If you start providing such tips as mentioned, one of two things is likely to happen:

 

1) Your opponent thinks "it's a trap!" and proceeds to ignore your suggestions.

2) Your opponent thinks "how helpful!", follows your suggestion, and proceeds to suffer your counterstroke, realizing "he tricked me!".

 

In either case, I really feel like your opponent is going to start consciously shutting out your talk during the match, because they can't really trust whether or not what you're saying is valid, with conversation devolving into terse acknowledgements and statements. Reverse psychology isn't necessarily always going to work either.

 

 

As for the "Ways to deceive" section, I think hidden schemes and control hands are reasonable ways to cast doubt in your opponent's mind. Say you have an unrevealed scheme, A Line In The Sand and Power Ritual both in play, and two scheme markers close to each other but one on the midline and one in the corner. Which one does your opponent go for? If they pick the wrong one, they waste AP and possibly a whole activation. Similarly, they have to gamble whether or not I've got that 13 in my hand, ready to squish their make-or-break attack/tactical action. And the best part is, you don't really have to actively mess with your opponent, they just have to face the risks inherent in hidden information.

 

 

Overall, having played Magic for ~14 years and Warmachine/Hordes for about 3.5, I've grown steadily less enthused about the success rates in actively trying to deceive my opponent, and frankly it tends to result in more stressful gamestates for both of us. I prefer to have the public knowledge well laid out, and let the opponent waver on the unspoken hidden elements. I think an article focused entirely on piercing your opponents' deception would have been more positive and helpful to the community.

[Pyrflamme]

I guess I should say something positive about Chronicles too. The fiction is always great, I'm really starting to get into Malifaux fiction. Teaser images for what surely must be future models are always welcome too, if only for drooling and speculation. I haven't played TtB but I appreciate the general sentiment of providing free content for it. Tactics and painting are always nice for a new perspective, either logistically or visually.

[RatsInTheWalls]

Sorry to interrupt the far more interesting discussion of gaming ethics.

 

Interesting to see such different opinions on my Outcasts article this month!  

 

As always, I appreciate the feedback, both negative and positive. I have a good half dozen ideas for future articles, but if there's anything in particular you want to see then I'm happy to take suggestions. I can't promise I'd do an article on them of course - I'm not going to write about anything I don't feel I'm knowledgeable enough on!

 

I felt like it was shallow because much of the article was just information read of the cards in an exited tone.  While this has its place, interesting interactions that readers may not have thought about are more helpful.  For example, you suggest making your own shooters Tormented to use with Sympathy of the Damned, which goes beyond talking about the most obvious use of the ability, but your discussion of Hamlin's crew just points out Gnaw destroys scheme markers and Wretches can hurt Blighted models.  The first example makes for a more interesting read, while the latter only helps if you have never checked out the crew before.  "Wretched Rats" was a much more engaging article for just this reason.  Compare it to your Hamlin discussion in this article and you'll see exactly what I mean.

[rythos42]

Really like something Pyrflamme said -- "board state". I would like to play Malifaux as though, at all times, everyone knows everything that is public knowledge. Because this isn't actually possible in all cases, I do my best to ensure that public knowledge is known when it is relevant. 

 

At the same time...I will occasionally mention something important at the beginning of the game, and ...uhh...not mention it again. So maybe I'm not as awesome a person as I think I am.  

[SpectreEliteGaming]

@Johanmaul - Competitive fun and casual fun are just not compatible - I just simply refuse to believe it - these are conflicting modes of play. In a perfect world it would be great if they were but the fact is - if you are in a tournament and you are helping your opponent you are hurting yourself. These are two totally different mindsets. If your goal is to "be nice" and "have fun" you are not playing competitively. Of course you can say, "I can win without being deceptive and taking advantage of my opponent" - and that's nice, good for you - but in the end you are still handicapping yourself.

And this isn't neccesarily a "douchebag" situation. I am extremely competitive but I am sociable enough to not come off as a snotty neckbeard. Pretend for a moment that you aren't " the nice guy gamer" - what if you are a hardcore tournament player who does all his research and is sick of scrubs showing up to a tournament asking a million questions and clearly having no idea what they are doing... in a masters tournament. Or maybe you're sick of those annoying casual players who intentionally play so stupid "for fun" that they give away free differential and you lose a spot because you've been playing all the conpetitive players in your matchups.

Point is, if you think and play a particular way there is always going to be another particular type of person who you dislike.

Your opponent is responsible for themself, you're not supposed to be looking out for them.

A major part of deception that I do is that i seem so friendly and social that people don't really know that I am playing as cut throat as I am... and most of the time they never catch on. Taking advantage of that and punishing the opponent for their mistakes is what I find "fun" - a person who plays like this should not be automatically considered to be "tourney douchebag" just because he's not "playing nice." Chances are, that douchebag probably thinks of you as a casual scrub and this cycle of in-group stereotypical stupidity never ends.

[jonahmaul]

Again I disagree with you Spectre.  I also think you are conflating two completely different issues - using deception and players who don't know the rules.  I agree with you that people should know the rules and should play properly at tournaments as outside of specific tournaments designed for learning the game tournaments are not the place to learn how to play (though they are places to get better at the game).

 

I don't agree that there's any distinction between casual fun and competitive fun.  You can play competitively and be friendly, they are not mutual exclusive.  Playing competitively to me means hiring the right crew for the strats/schemes available, playing to those strats/schemes, knowing your own crew and knowing your opponents (which does not mean knowing every single thing about every single model in the game).  Not actively using what I consider as unsavoury deception tactics in order to win.  Personally I think that if people need to use these forms of tactics to win then they are not as good at playing as they claim and I would certainly not want to play them again.  If this was the mentality of all people at tournaments it would put me off the tournament scene completely.  Not using these tactics is not actively helping your opponent (unless you consider telling them everything as regards to a models defence when they ask about wounds as being helping them) but if you think that's hurting myself at a tournament then so be it, I would much rather do that and take my chances at winning/losing using the regular rules to win and end up having a more enjoyable game.

 

That's my two pence/cents on the matter.  I suspect we will need to agree to disagree and if you prefer to play the way that is discussed in the deception article then it's entirely up to you, I'm not claiming there to be any right or wrong way to play (and as before it's certainly not cheating, even if I think they're unsavoury tactics), but it's not the way to play in my opinion, nor a way I would play.

 

Hope everybody had a great Christmas and got some new toy soldiers

[Da Git]

I mostly read the Chronicals for the folowing (in order):

Stories - love them, new characters, old characters, masters, mooks, it's all good!  I'd also kind of like to see these stories expanded upon... any chance for a novel in the future?

Tactics articles - I'm a gamer! Also missed the bat rep in this one.

Art - see stories!

Painted stuff - you guys make me look bad but sexy painted models are great, missed the gallery!

 

Thanks guys, love you long time for providing such an awesome free Chronicals!  More of the above would be amazing!

[Tadow2]

I would like to see the Chronicles show things that are coming out. Future models and sculpts. Things that are in the works. What are the upcoming releases for the next three months? I think this will help get some excitement for upcoming products. Just include a notice saying times for release are tentative and items shows are works in progress. I feel like I never know what Wyrd is doing when it comes to the upcoming months.

[jonahmaul]

Slight threadmancy!  Just been reading through the Gaining Grounds rules and came across this bit in the sportsmanship section:

 

'When asked, players should provide the information and statistics for models as well as any relevant public information.  Players must be open and honest about the rules of their models'

 

For me this is something that expressly forbids keeping things like HtW/HtK/Explosions on death etc. etc. a secret but deception.  Perhaps people think it can be ignored because it is in the Sportsmanship section but for me this is the most important part of a tournament pack.

[SpectreEliteGaming]

Ressers can't even resist bringing threads back to life

All things considered the problem with sportsmanship is that its a huuuuuge grey area too. What if Player A says "Hey! You never said it was HtK" - Player B says 1) "you never asked/too bad" oooooor (using deception or a legit oopsydaisy) " 2) "Yeah... totally forgot til now/I just saw it... but game state has changed, hard to go back now."

Who's to say he was/wasn't being deceptive for sure? Also, if I am going to a tournament and I want to be extremely competitive I will bring all the cards myself (arsenal decks) so that if I am surprised its my own damn fault. In casual, who cares do whatever - but a tournament is a tournament - if I am more knowledgeable and make less mistakes than you - I deserve to win.

Afterall, If you look out for yourself you can't be deceived and the art to deception is that your opponent doesn't know you did it.

Put on your best smile and pretend you're just as forgetful I betcha if we played you'd think I was a real nice guy - which makes me even more of an ass, maybe?

[moxypoo]

I have to agree with Spectreelitegaming. 

 

If you're in a competitive setting you do everything possible short of outright cheating to win.  At a tournament, the entire point is to win - nothing else.  In my eyes, the sort of deception discussed in the article is perfectly permissible behavior in a tournament setting, because it's entirely your opponent's fault that s/he doesn't know your models' rules (since the rules are available to everyone).  To use an example from earlier in this thread, if I had a metal gamin with 2 Wds remaining, and my opponent asked, "How many Wds does that metal gamin have left?" then I would say "two" and nothing else.  They asked me a specific question, and I replied with a specific answer.

 

The article (and the rulebook, I think) specifically says that all cards are common knowledge; therefore, you can read your opponent's cards at any time.  If the theoretical opponent was really asking, "how hard is that metal gamin to kill?" I would reply with an equally vague answer, like "it'll probably take 2 or 3 attacks."   They should just ask to read the card instead.  Basically, if you get deceived in this way it's entirely your own fault, because you can read your opponent's cards at any time.  I find it an odd idea that your opponent should freely give you information you didn't ask for in a competitive setting, just like I wouldn't expect a baseball pitcher to tell me what pitches he's going to throw.

 

 

Outside of a tournament, this becomes a little more nebulous.  My main opponent and I play against each other like this even in our friendly pick up games, but we tone it down a lot when playing against our other, less knowledgeable friends.  I'll often remind opponents of abilities they forget in games like this, especially if we're just playing to hang out and have some beers.  It seems much more play group specific in these cases.

 

Slight threadmancy!  Just been reading through the Gaining Grounds rules and came across this bit in the sportsmanship section:

 

'When asked, players should provide the information and statistics for models as well as any relevant public information.  Players must be open and honest about the rules of their models'

 

For me this is something that expressly forbids keeping things like HtW/HtK/Explosions on death etc. etc. a secret but deception.  Perhaps people think it can be ignored because it is in the Sportsmanship section but for me this is the most important part of a tournament pack.

 

In response to this, I would just give them the card to read.  That way, it cannot be my fault for them forgetting a Metal Gamin has hard to kill.  I think the lesson here is to always ask to read the card instead of just asking for specific information

[jonahmaul]

In response to this, I would just give them the card to read.  That way, it cannot be my fault for them forgetting a Metal Gamin has hard to kill.  I think the lesson here is to always ask to read the card instead of just asking for specific information

I agree that giving the card is

 

Ressers can't even resist bringing threads back to life

That be true!

 

In response to this, I would just give them the card to read.  That way, it cannot be my fault for them forgetting a Metal Gamin has hard to kill.  I think the lesson here is to always ask to read the card instead of just asking for specific information

I think giving cards is a great plan and usually I ask my opponents if I can read their cards and will offer mine.  Then I agree it's totally your own/their fault if they've missed something (though passing cards should include upgrades!).  But I think the Deception article is very much dissuading doing this.  But if an opponent asks for information such as how many wounds I think that all relevant information should be offered.  As does the Gaining Ground rules apparently!

 

As an aside - it's nice that this conversation has been conducted in a pleasant manner with people respecting other people's views.  Too many threads on forums turn into 'no you are completely wrong, you're such an idiot if you don't see it my way etc. etc.'

[SpiralngCadavr]

If someone wins because they didn't say a model had an ability when asked, they've won due to misinformation/lack of knowledge, not skill.

 

It's why I can't stand Heroclix's emphasis on encyclopedic knowledge of hidden information in their competitive system (while I've played a few casual games with friends' collections and enjoyed the basic mechanics).

 

What I like about Malifaux is that everything except bluffing stuff (ex: hand, schemes, what you're trying to get done) is essentially public knowledge. It isn't to say that I think you should volunteer information if a player gets overconfident or w/e and doesn't take something into account and doesn't ask about it, but I do think that winning by omitting knowledge the other player should have access to (and reasonably asked about) is really not in the spirit of the game. I'd be irritated if that happened in a competitive setting, and moreso in a casual one where there's nothing at stake except personal pride. I'd prefer to win by strategy than by my opponent not knowing the situation.

[rythos42]

The baseball analogy falls apart, I think. The pitch that is being thrown is a tactical decision being made, it's more akin to choosing which Scheme you're playing. 

 

(I don't baseball at all...) It's more like the batter not knowing if it's 3 strikes or 2 before he's out. (And obviously it's stupid if he didn't know...) Whereas the Metal Gamin thing is a problem because there's a ton of information in Malifaux and I think it's silly to expect (as SC says) encyclopedic knowledge of every card.

[moxypoo]

The baseball analogy falls apart, I think. The pitch that is being thrown is a tactical decision being made, it's more akin to choosing which Scheme you're playing. 

 

(I don't baseball at all...) It's more like the batter not knowing if it's 3 strikes or 2 before he's out. (And obviously it's stupid if he didn't know...) Whereas the Metal Gamin thing is a problem because there's a ton of information in Malifaux and I think it's silly to expect (as SC says) encyclopedic knowledge of every card.

Sports analogies probably aren't the best since there will always be unknown information and you simply have to take your best guess.   However, any professional athlete watches video of his opponents so he/she can go into the game with the maximum possible knowledge of the opponent.  This is the same as having broad knowledge of all the cards in Malifaux - I agree that it's silly to expect people to memorize every card.  But, since all the information on the card is public knowledge, you should never be deceived in this way (which ties into my response to SC...)

 

If someone wins because they didn't say a model had an ability when asked, they've won due to misinformation/lack of knowledge, not skill.

I partially agree with this.  Obviously if your opponent lies, that's cheating.  If your opponent omits potentially useful information, then it's entirely your own fault that you didn't ask to read the card.  I've lost games before, because I forgot a model had Terrifying or Armor or something else, but I don't expect my opponent to tell me these things.  In my opinion, part of the skill required in tabletop gaming is knowing the capabilities of your opponent's crew; since all cards are public knowledge, there is absolutely know excuse for not knowing these capabilities.

 

On a side note, I started a new thread to take this discussion to, because I thought it would be useful to have a central location to discuss all things about deception and sportsmanship in tabletop gaming.

 

Link