by thatmarkguy
trimoe19 wrote:
Rob and myself decided that since it was the final game and the results determining who would get to name the world it would be best to let Jason win thus resulting in a tie and forcing more games to be played to name the world.
Aside from the deviation from the rules... assuming the 'play on until the tie is broken' rule was understood to be the house rule in play and thus you had a legitimate tangible reason to want to create a tie scenario that might eventually award you the campaign win....
...did you decide to work together over the table as part of the game, or did you decide to work together in secret before the game even began?
In almost any multiplayer game, any secret prearranged agreement between two players who are otherwise assumed to be adversaries to one another in the game is taboo.
Now, in Risk Legacy, as far as I'm concerned, there is no allowance for secrets of this sort. If you and your buddy decide over the table"If we let him hold South America he gets to name the continent, so how about we declare total war on him and not attack one another and make sure he doesn't get the campaign win?" - that's great, that's fair game, and I had much the same happen to me in my campaign (which is largely why I am now in a three way tie for the lead in my campaign rather than outright leader. There has also been a game I overtly threw to a last-placer because I would rather the win go to a last-placer than my leaderboard rivals).
That's the game. Over the table, overt politics, including that game and the overarching campaign metagame. But not secret between-games conspiracies.