Penfold said:

...if only we were able to do this with tournaments.

I think that's the thing. I fully enjoy melee with my group of players during non-competitive play. ie, non-tournament. We have a blast. We make deals we trash the leaders we taunt players with zero characters in play as "trying out the vaunted new Characterless Melee deck we've been hearing about." Our favorite format is civil war, a format that highly encourages making deals because the power level should be pretty equal.

That being said, how you play melee with your own group should be fun. if it isn't, maybe melee isn't for you folks! We have zero memory between games except who won usually. And if it's obvious they aren't running the same deck then all is fair again. We play with some of the favor plots. We play with a LOT of resets and control but, that's just us.

Penfold said:

Often times people use the books as a parallel for behavior in the game. You are sounding like Eddard complaining that Littlefinger won't play by his "rules."

Maester_LUke said:

I sound like I'm complaining? Hrm, I'm pretty sure I'm Littlefinger here reminding Sansa that that the world does not conform to meet her expectations, it just is. You can accept it and work with that and get the most out of it, or you can complain about how unfair it all is. The world (game) doesn't care one way or another.

To me this just sounds so contrary to the idea of claiming the throne from rival Houses. When I play Melee, I do only those things that I feel are in my best interest. There is no concrete code. I will help someone when I want the benefit, or when I believe their temporary allegiance will help me in the near future, but I never feel obligated to return the favor.

At a certain point you have to look at everyone and say "We're all trying to win." At that point, favors become a matter of benefitting you without giving your opponents too much help.

You know, like if you were actually trying to gain the throne I think Melee represents this struggle rather brilliantly.

Penfold said:

>>Poor use of the word "you" on my part, Penfold. I was referring to the OP. I think I deleted the portion of my post where I was also quoting from him.<<

To get back to the topic, I noticed hencook referenced "I'm glad that the outside world isn't doing the same as our group. The main problem is that we want to win, and therefore we will play lame (exchanging favors). If we have to play lame to win, then who wants to play anymore?"

How does "exchanging favors" = playing lame, especially since you reference enjoying TI3? What about that game's mechanics better supports diplomacy? I find war games even more likely to generate backstabbing... even outside of something like Diplomacy. In a game of Risk!, I once made a non-aggression pact that I eventually broke without warning when my "partner" had such a successfully run on a 3rd party that I knew that I would be defeated when the pact was over. Is it "immoral" to break your word "in game" if it's the only way to ensure survival in a single winner scenario? Will my friends hold this against me in the next game? Probably. Will this alter their expectation of my word in everyday life? Unlikely. Will they be less likely to trust me with a knife if we're stranded on a desert island with no other sources of food? Definitely. >

"Instead the effects are lasting, and your peace/favor treaties lower in value."

In your example, you mention getting the short term congrats at the expense of the long term value of your word in "deals" down the road. Isn't that part of the open market on your word? Doesn't that reflect the reality of life (and A Song of Ice and Fire)? When I make a deal, I have the choice to adhere to it or not, and I had the choice to make it with plans to adhere to it or not. Two of the four possibilities show consistency of intent and action. If I made a deal intending to break it (Littlefinger), and you choose against this option when the potential consequences appear larger than you had foreseen. Other times you may have to break a deal you full well expected to keep (Robb's marriage contract)... but you are forced to evaluate the long term effects of doing so and whether it's worth the short term game. If, as you say, we have no choice of "memory" between games (you're playing not just the players' decks, their skills, but against your estimation of the worth of their words, something represented outside the rules) then this calculation happens every time we make a deal/pact/agreement, and every time we have to choose to honor it.

"We can't ERASE our memory and say "hmm should I deal with Hencook or efidm? Oh yeah I have to forget the fact that hencook honors his deals and efidm keeps breaking them"."

In my Risk! example, you assume everyone will act with the same behavior in all games? Do people ever RP their houses? (Starks are honorable, Bara are brash, Lanni are sly and Martell are prickly?)

Are you divorcing the possibility of not complying with making an agreement (willfully or not)? You might say, I will military them next turn, but the you are left with no opportunity to attack them, (Supporting Title, knelt or icon-stripped characters), is that a fault of the deal? I guess it seems like this stuff is self-enforcing outside the rules, since making/breaking deals are beyond the purview of the rules. I don't want to be too contrarian, but I wish I could watch one of your games... or see how my play-style interacted with yours. I typically couch my advice in terms that "I am trying to win the game myself, but here's what I see i your best play, and why. Particularly if it's in my favor... but I like to think that being an transparent conniver counts for more than aggrements potentially written in butter. If you're worried about getting back-stabbed, demand (or only agree to) deals that require your opponent to act in good faith first. Assuming you've proven yourself, then they should be willing to comply, right?

As clu mentioned (we play together) sometimes melee just doesn't suit people, or with a certain group of players. Play and enjoy what you like. I still want to try out 2 v 2 some more... I haven't had much opportunity. Do you play with planned teams (so your decks synergize) or random pairings?

___

I don't think I'd enjoy playing under those rules (but if you guys have fun with them, I'm not going to cross the ocean to try to prevent you from using them ), because I like the idea that in AGoT, no player is eliminated. Also, the claiming power effects are much weaker than in the original game (since you're only getting advantage over 1 opponent instead of all 3. It likely makes the games longer as well, which isn't desirable in my opinion (melee games being long enough).