Date: 2008-09-08 05:35 pm (UTC)
Come to think of it, there's several games I've played with sci-fi geeks (at CUSFS) and social geeks (at Alex Churchill's) and non-geeks (with Trinity friends), but not with maths geeks (which you'd think would be my natural home :) )

2) Trades. Immediate trades should certainly be binding.

That's my argument. But I felt sure some people would disagree. Possibly even delight in surprising people by breaking that...

There's also a strong incentive to make long-term trades binding;

Agreed. It's obviously best to keep and enforce all (or at least almost all) agreements, else no-one can make any agreements at all. (cf. Real life ;))

OTOH, there is an amount of "how much is this social contract within this particular game, and how much is outside"? I think it's normally implicit which. Reneging over a trade for a small item is just petty. Stabbing an ally in the back at the last minute has advantages (cf. prisoner's dilemma) -- it's generally clear in advance if that's part of the game or not.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org

Active Recent Entries