I think the implication is that a rational one is expected to be a net gain over time. If is a play that works 80% of the time, it is still rational to make it even though you know it will lose the other 20%.

Pie > cake, by the way.

Hum, I'm glad my post generated all those comments, and I thank you all for it!

I see this is a hot topic and people disagree a lot over this... so I'll bring my view of the problem in:

I think trucing is a skill and is part of the game. Counter trucing is also a skill. Generally speaking, this game is about knowing how to turn the board in your favor. This is done with the dices, yes, but also a lot with the chatbox. Those who only use the dices miss a fondamental aspect of kide imho.

If there's a strong 1st and that 2nd and 3rd are neighbors, to me it's LOGICAL they should truce in order to give themselves a chance at moving up the ladder of places. Not doing so would mean only playing the dices, which is only one aspect of the game.

Now, the rest is about ethics. I find that backstabbing a truce shows bad ethics. Trucing is like making a deal: I'll help you in the hope that working together I'll gain a better place, either by winning or by being helped by you. I think the least you can do when you truce is honor it when the dices went your way, because that's what you'd want if the dices went your partner's way.

Basically, I find it stupid not to use a strategy that is part of the game (and that is present in >80% of the games), and I don't like being backstabbed so I don't backstab.

My 0.02$

Hum, when I wrote "kide" I meant kdice obviously. When I talk about truces being present >80%, I meant that "I'm cool", "I'll flag to you" are disguised truces and almost every game uses them.

I forgot to say that between the 3 forms of trucing, I MUCH prefer a real truce than a gay vflag or a desespered "I'm cool". At least those who truce show some guts and make their intents clear.

Sometimes I see games where everyone vflags to the weak 1st in the middle, when they should realise that instead of trucing the 1st they could win it by trucing the 2nd/3rd.

StormLord... terrible points. You must have no honor in real life. If you make an agreement with someone, you should honor it, even if it costs you. You are sounding like slime talking about backstabbing truces being the only rational move.

meagain... this game is not a balanced game of pure skill from the very first round. The game is thrown off-balance immediately by many factors. The starting position of your dice, the order of turns, the luck of the rolls. Luck plays a big part in how the table gets setup... often a well-played truce can actually restore some of the balance to the table and make the game more fun. Of course, there are those truces (like a 1-2 truce) where the balance is being shifted even farther, but proper counter-truces can help combat these. Sorry... but I see a game without truces being much *more* out of balance and reliant on luck.

No need for an extended reply here, since Thrax, Verm, Ma1, etc. have already eloquently and convincingly stated the correct position.

Honoring truces over flags is honorable, rational and justifiable.

End of story.

Thraxle:

"Any move that is done in a game for a specific player with the expectation of a future concession to made BY THAT SPECIFIC PLAYER in your favor."

Game 1: A does B a favour. (honours truce)
Game 2: B does A a favour. (honours truce)

As you can see, both players have honoured their truces and will continue to do so for it is both in their long term interests to do so. They are according to your definition breaking the rule of a game-to-game favour.

I think the point you were trying to make in your definition is that a specific favour can only be payed back by that specific player. Due to circumstances sometimes it's not even ever possible to payback a favour (they might not ever play again). Instead favours are 'traded' between players.

Game 1: A does B a favour.
Game 2: B does C a favour.
Game 3: C does A a favour.

So a favour is not necessarily aimed at a specific player but a group of players, you pay a favour to this group and they will pay it back. If you don't do them a favour, they won't do you a favour. This group of players who honour truces, let players fight for position etc... are a large portion of kdice players, these players are breaking the rule of no game-to-game favours. Oh yeah, i'm in that group and I break the rule.

Storm, I believe that you are being deliberately obtuse, because I don't believe that anyone can really be as dense as you are portraying yourself to be.

There is no "game to game" favor doctrine being espoused by the people who have supported honoring truces. Each game is treated as a new and separate situation, but the reputations of the players in the game will migrate from game to game. Truces are established in each game based on the relative positions of the participants on the board in each game, not based on previous "favors".

Game 1: Thraxle and Verm truce because it makes sense. Since both believe in honoring their word, they work together as a team in that game. Unfortunately, their truce is countered by the rest of the players and they get rubbed out.

Game 2: Mr. K and Verm truce because it makes sense. Thraxle organizes a counter against them, but the counter fails and Mr. K and Verm earn 1st and 2nd place and Thrax gets 6th.

Game 3: Nobody truces and Mr. K kills Verm, who gets 7th. Thrax kills Mr. K, who gets 5th. Somebody else kills Thrax, who gets 4th.

Game 4: Whatever happens, happens. Not because of pregame arrangements, but because of the layout of the board in that particular game.

The conclusion that is drawn is that each player is willing to kill or truce any of the others because it makes sense in that game. The only factor that migrates is the reputation of the player in question. Thrax, Verm and Mr. K may be willing to truce with each other because they know that each is reliable and will honor his commitment in THAT PARTICULAR GAME. On the other hand, none of them is willing to truce with you because they know that you WILL NOT, based on your reputation as a backstabber. As a result, your chance of winning is diminished because the other players know that you cannot be trusted to keep your word.

The formula here is that Honor > Opportunism. Players with a reputation for playing with honor have a better chance of higher placement from game to game than players with a reputation for opportunistic backstabbing. So, where the goal is to achieve the highest average placement over an extended series of games, playing with honor is more "rational" than playing as an opportunistic asshat.

"Thrax, Verm and Mr. K may be willing to truce with each other because they know that each is reliable and will honor his commitment in THAT PARTICULAR GAME."

Why will they honour their commitment?

Because they value their hard-earned reputations as trustworthy players more than they value the points they would earn by breaking their word in that one game.