I appreciate your replies. I did talk explicitly with them about this before writing my comment. I learned they were committed to social manipulation, though they did agree to target me less. I like your suggestion of a handicap, and I might bring that up next time we play.
I agree that I was underestimating how fun social manipulation is. Looking back, when I play Secret Hitler online I absolutely lie all the time, just because it’s fun to sew chaos. So, I think I’m being hypocritical and annoyingly principled. Why draw the line at in-person games?[1]
I remember them repeating something like, “it’s really fun to play the social manipulation game, it’s not all about winning.” I told them (paraphrasing), “okay, but can’t you do that after following the norm for awhile, so everyone has gotten better at the game? Then you get the enjoyment of social manipulation plus the enjoyment of an interesting game!” They said they didn’t really care for that. They didn’t elaborate. My guess is their discount rate is lower, or maybe it’s more fun to manipulate people who don’t understand the game.
I did tell them that I’m probably going to just stop playing Settler’s of Catan with them. As you said, I should seek to strike a mutually beneficial deal, and I don’t think that’s actually possible here. The game is just as fun without me—maybe more fun, because the competition is gone. What selfish rational incentive is there to play a less fun game just so I can play a more fun game?
To be more charitable, the line is when with significantly less skilled players. Online Catan? Not cool. Offline SH? Not cool. Online SH? Go for it. It’s still norm breaking since players want to win, and sewing chaos hurts your team’s chances. It’s a different norm, but maybe one people care about more, and makes me a hypocrite regardless.
In principle, IF the norms are more important to you than to everyone else combined, then there should be some amount you can pay them that is higher than how much they care about the norms but lower than how much you care about them.
(In practice, finding that amount may be hard, and treating it too much like a transaction may have friendship-corroding effects.)
I appreciate your replies. I did talk explicitly with them about this before writing my comment. I learned they were committed to social manipulation, though they did agree to target me less. I like your suggestion of a handicap, and I might bring that up next time we play.
I agree that I was underestimating how fun social manipulation is. Looking back, when I play Secret Hitler online I absolutely lie all the time, just because it’s fun to sew chaos. So, I think I’m being hypocritical and annoyingly principled. Why draw the line at in-person games? [1]
I remember them repeating something like, “it’s really fun to play the social manipulation game, it’s not all about winning.” I told them (paraphrasing), “okay, but can’t you do that after following the norm for awhile, so everyone has gotten better at the game? Then you get the enjoyment of social manipulation plus the enjoyment of an interesting game!” They said they didn’t really care for that. They didn’t elaborate. My guess is their discount rate is lower, or maybe it’s more fun to manipulate people who don’t understand the game.
I did tell them that I’m probably going to just stop playing Settler’s of Catan with them. As you said, I should seek to strike a mutually beneficial deal, and I don’t think that’s actually possible here. The game is just as fun without me—maybe more fun, because the competition is gone. What selfish rational incentive is there to play a less fun game just so I can play a more fun game?
To be more charitable, the line is when with significantly less skilled players. Online Catan? Not cool. Offline SH? Not cool. Online SH? Go for it. It’s still norm breaking since players want to win, and sewing chaos hurts your team’s chances. It’s a different norm, but maybe one people care about more, and makes me a hypocrite regardless.
In principle, IF the norms are more important to you than to everyone else combined, then there should be some amount you can pay them that is higher than how much they care about the norms but lower than how much you care about them.
(In practice, finding that amount may be hard, and treating it too much like a transaction may have friendship-corroding effects.)