Not sure which part you're referencing, but you're right that in the status phase you score in initiative order. However, typically the in-line to win is speaker order as Imperial, despite being last in initiative lets you score "first" by scoring in the action phase before the status. Similarly, usually the speaker takes the lowest initiative possible, meaning the cards are picked Imperial, Leadership, Diplo, etc. so it sort of functions as a scoring in speaker order.
Love this analysis, and it is good advice for how to navigate different player's end-game expectations. After reading it, I've found myself to be a very relational player. I will actively make endgame deals that favor someone who was a good neighbor to me all game, or even to another underdog that I find myself rooting for. I even have a strong bias towards players who chose a weaker faction out of respect. On the other hand, if someone was manipulative during the game or is winning because their faction carried them, I will be strongly inclined to enact my view of justice on them. If I've had a relationally neutral game, I will make end-game moves that simply add to the drama of the space opera. Let's roll the dice!
I think of the Dice Rollers instead as Meta-Gamers. They are the most likely to winslay if they think it'll make the game more fun or to have a better story to tell. They also will take into account players' experience when deciding what to do; they might win-slay a more experienced player to let a newer player win, but are unlikely to do the opposite.
That's a good point. I've always thought of "meta-gaming" in the RPG context, but I think you're right that they certainly aim to tell a good story. In my mind, focusing on player experience might be more of a "relational player" move though, as its often motivated by trying to make sure everyone has a good time and the relationship between players, as opposed to having a hard and fast "principle" the way Dice Rollers *sort of* do.
I think you're right - they are more of a relational player, though everyone's a bit of a relational player since TI is a political game at heart. In terms of handling them though, they fall somewhere between the two - once you're in a game with them you can treat them like relational players, but during setup there are ways to affect their "principles" (pick a weaker faction/slice).
You don't score in speaker order tho. You score in initiative
Not sure which part you're referencing, but you're right that in the status phase you score in initiative order. However, typically the in-line to win is speaker order as Imperial, despite being last in initiative lets you score "first" by scoring in the action phase before the status. Similarly, usually the speaker takes the lowest initiative possible, meaning the cards are picked Imperial, Leadership, Diplo, etc. so it sort of functions as a scoring in speaker order.
Love this analysis, and it is good advice for how to navigate different player's end-game expectations. After reading it, I've found myself to be a very relational player. I will actively make endgame deals that favor someone who was a good neighbor to me all game, or even to another underdog that I find myself rooting for. I even have a strong bias towards players who chose a weaker faction out of respect. On the other hand, if someone was manipulative during the game or is winning because their faction carried them, I will be strongly inclined to enact my view of justice on them. If I've had a relationally neutral game, I will make end-game moves that simply add to the drama of the space opera. Let's roll the dice!
I think of the Dice Rollers instead as Meta-Gamers. They are the most likely to winslay if they think it'll make the game more fun or to have a better story to tell. They also will take into account players' experience when deciding what to do; they might win-slay a more experienced player to let a newer player win, but are unlikely to do the opposite.
That's a good point. I've always thought of "meta-gaming" in the RPG context, but I think you're right that they certainly aim to tell a good story. In my mind, focusing on player experience might be more of a "relational player" move though, as its often motivated by trying to make sure everyone has a good time and the relationship between players, as opposed to having a hard and fast "principle" the way Dice Rollers *sort of* do.
I think you're right - they are more of a relational player, though everyone's a bit of a relational player since TI is a political game at heart. In terms of handling them though, they fall somewhere between the two - once you're in a game with them you can treat them like relational players, but during setup there are ways to affect their "principles" (pick a weaker faction/slice).