Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NAP Agreements
#1
I'd like a proper description of an NAP agreement to THE LETTER posted on the forums-
In all games people are offering them and then it's like they're not following through or people feel "backstabbed" and it's very ambiguous to say the least... Since it's very common for people to say, "How about we have an NAP?" -happens every game- It would be nice to have a universal understanding of what one should expect.

I'm finding that players are using the verbiage to gain advantage (which is fine) in situations to use gamesmanship (which isn't always fine) : play of questionable fairness: the use of unconventional but not strictly illegal tactics to gain an advantage in a competitive game

An example: I make an NAP with Elves player (I'm the Witchlord and vulnerable lets say)-
Next turn I ship the Troll player 60,000 gp and 50,000 f and divine all the Elf pop centers and send the info to the Troll who's launching his assault... Troll goes "What about his wizards?" so I send him the Orb of Anti Magic and Wizard Slayer...

One could argue the Witchlord is doing substantial harm to the Elf player in this scenario- They have an NAP after all...

One could argue that the Witchlord isn't doing any direct damage to the Elf so he's not breaking his word/NAP : Read Gamesmanship...

What exactly is a NAP?
Reply
#2
Thinking on it further why not post where you stand so that when you're in an NAP with another player they know what to expect from you?

Did the Elf get screwed over in the above scenario or not?

I'll say he got screwed over.
I know for sure one Imperator player will disagreeWink

Isn't it fair though to know what a player who offers you an NAP is going to do when they no longer worry about you attacking them?
Reply
#3
Some of the "verbiage" to look out for, when you're about to get messed-up in an NAP-

"It's just a game" - That means you just got straight lied to/screwed over.

"I'll try" - That means next turn you're going to be told "It's just a game".

"I tried to talk him/her out of it!" - See above.

"How about an NAP till turn 10?"- That means on turn 10 I'll be attacking you but till that time you probably have the upper hand so I need to be left alone or I'm in trouble.

"We have an NAP so ... ... ... ..." - This is when you're told what the NAP entails (after you agreed to one) by the player who's setting you up for some gamesmanship.
Reply
#4
(06-23-2013, 06:22 PM)Kalrex Wrote: Thinking on it further why not post where you stand so that when you're in an NAP with another player they know what to expect from you?

Did the Elf get screwed over in the above scenario or not?

I'll say he got screwed over.
I know for sure one Imperator player will disagreeWink

Isn't it fair though to know what a player who offers you an NAP is going to do when they no longer worry about you attacking them?

When I offer a NAP, it precludes ANY actions that would be detrimental to the other player....
Reply
#5
That's good to know William!

Note that there's another phrase, "It's ONLY a game"

This is much different than, "It's just a game"

"It's only a game" - This means that I'm aware I screwed you over, as you are, and let it drop already. End this now.
The purpose of this phrase is so as to not warn other players what they're in store for when they NAP with the player who utters it.

I think after time passes, some days or weeks, silence means tacit consent to the Witchlords actions in my description above.
Reply
#6
A rose by any other name...
The amount of "detail" required in an agreement is directly related to the amount of trust held with the player negotiations are being held with...
Reply
#7
It sounds to me like you guys make too many non-aggression pacts.
Silent One
Reply
#8
What Cipher say is correct but I think most people assume an NAP has universal meaning/rules. Hence why I started the thread.
Reply
#9
It sounds to me like you guys make too many non-aggression pacts.

I have less of them than # of games I'm presently playing. That being said you have a point.

The counter argument is this one: "Since you were so undiplomatic it's no wonder we all attacked you!" "We all" being the people who probably made too many NAP agreementsWink
Reply
#10
I think the less legalese involved in these agreements, the better.

I much prefer having a conversation with another player. Something like Player 1: "I have no desire to fight with you right now." Player 2: "Me neither." Player 1: "Cool, if circumstances change, I'll let you know before I attack you." Player 2: "Sounds good. Me, too."

The minute you have to start spelling out everything because you don't trust each other to honor the spirit of the agreement, you might as well just attack each other and get it over with.

As far as getting ganged up on by large groups of kingdoms because they've all made NAPs with themselves and have nowhere else to go, that's life. It doesn't make me want to play that way, though. I think in the long run, developing a reputation as a player who never drops games and answers aggression with disproportionate force will give a player who doesn't like big alliances enough breathing room.
Silent One
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)