As the title says, I'm interested in a discussion of sportsmanship. I think the simplest protocol for sportsmanship is to always play your best, no matter how poorly or otherwise you're doing. Aside from this, I'm curious about the ways in which a player can deliberately cause other players to lose. There are a few obvious ways in Catan, but if discussion of other games is allowed, I think that'd be useful since I want to see analysis of whether this is ever reasonably justified.
After playing some Catan on BGA for a bit I was reminded of how I used to play games in high school. I'll use Risk as an example. If I got into a position where it seemed clear I was losing the game, I would threaten to lose the game for people who attacked me. I was able to cause people who were winning to lose on occasion by doing this – by sacrificing my remaining units to soften them up. People were not happy, but I thought it was clever at the time.
This makes sense from a realistic, game-theoretical perspective where survival is the goal, but these are board games and it's accepted that there will only be one winner. If you're not going to win anyway, is it then bad sportsmanship to influence games in this way?
I've noticed in Catan that sometimes someone will put the robber on someone – myself included - even though they were clearly losing and had poor prospects relative to another player. My attitude in high-school would have been to cause someone doing that to me to lose the game because playing in this way is saying that said opponent is also not interested in winning – else they would have blocked the optimal opponent. As such, one could argue that helping the “enemy of your enemy” to win is no different.
If one chooses to do this in Catan, you can either do “sacrifice trades” to help another opponent win or else develop in a way that's not to your advantage but to the disadvantage of the person who blocked you.
There are a few problems with this, however. One is that your assessment may be misguided. If you're losing with poor prospects and are blocked then rather than a much better off and/or currently winning player then maybe the person who blocked you hoped you had a resource the other opponent/s didn't. Or perhaps your assessment of your chances is wrong and you're more of a threat than your think. Or perhaps the opponent is trying to neutralize you thinking they'll have an easier time with fewer legitimate competitors. But let's assume your assessment is correct – there was no rational reason to block you. Well, someone could have simply made a mistake - or they're trying to play “more fair” by distributing the robber. Can sabotaging the game for the person who blocked you be justified given these uncertainties? If so, then where do you draw the line to help someone else win? You could punish someone for any reason – for not doing whatever you desire – not just “kicking you while you're down”. This obviously ruins the game, however. Are there circumstances where such behavior enhances a game, however?
I'm going to follow the “always play your best protocol” and not try to help others win no matter my position, which could otherwise be hard to detect if not done in an extreme manner – just a couple of bad trades or one bad development.
Anyway – can anyone think of any justification for violating the sportsmanship protocol I stated in Catan or any other game? I'm sure there are some games, however, where this kind of behavior is an expected mechanic – how relevant is that topic relevant to this one?
After playing some Catan on BGA for a bit I was reminded of how I used to play games in high school. I'll use Risk as an example. If I got into a position where it seemed clear I was losing the game, I would threaten to lose the game for people who attacked me. I was able to cause people who were winning to lose on occasion by doing this – by sacrificing my remaining units to soften them up. People were not happy, but I thought it was clever at the time.
This makes sense from a realistic, game-theoretical perspective where survival is the goal, but these are board games and it's accepted that there will only be one winner. If you're not going to win anyway, is it then bad sportsmanship to influence games in this way?
I've noticed in Catan that sometimes someone will put the robber on someone – myself included - even though they were clearly losing and had poor prospects relative to another player. My attitude in high-school would have been to cause someone doing that to me to lose the game because playing in this way is saying that said opponent is also not interested in winning – else they would have blocked the optimal opponent. As such, one could argue that helping the “enemy of your enemy” to win is no different.
If one chooses to do this in Catan, you can either do “sacrifice trades” to help another opponent win or else develop in a way that's not to your advantage but to the disadvantage of the person who blocked you.
There are a few problems with this, however. One is that your assessment may be misguided. If you're losing with poor prospects and are blocked then rather than a much better off and/or currently winning player then maybe the person who blocked you hoped you had a resource the other opponent/s didn't. Or perhaps your assessment of your chances is wrong and you're more of a threat than your think. Or perhaps the opponent is trying to neutralize you thinking they'll have an easier time with fewer legitimate competitors. But let's assume your assessment is correct – there was no rational reason to block you. Well, someone could have simply made a mistake - or they're trying to play “more fair” by distributing the robber. Can sabotaging the game for the person who blocked you be justified given these uncertainties? If so, then where do you draw the line to help someone else win? You could punish someone for any reason – for not doing whatever you desire – not just “kicking you while you're down”. This obviously ruins the game, however. Are there circumstances where such behavior enhances a game, however?
I'm going to follow the “always play your best protocol” and not try to help others win no matter my position, which could otherwise be hard to detect if not done in an extreme manner – just a couple of bad trades or one bad development.
Anyway – can anyone think of any justification for violating the sportsmanship protocol I stated in Catan or any other game? I'm sure there are some games, however, where this kind of behavior is an expected mechanic – how relevant is that topic relevant to this one?
