Tuesday, December 26, 2006


Blogsters, please advise.
When playing the popular global domination board game risk (that's right I said global domination BOARD GAME)It's fine to make pacts and deals isn't it?
And it's even finer to smash those pacts into smithereens as your forces roll into Eygpt to seize control. Right?
And the whole point of the game is to continue a southward onslaught into East Africa and beyond. Yeah? Pacts are there to be torn up in the heat of global confrontation.

So why did my opponent get so upset by my 'cheating' that he stormed away from the table and sulked in the next room?

And my opponent was a man in his twenties.

"we had a pact".

I'm not making this up.

He had to be coaxed back to the table with the promise (brokered by another player I might add, I was not going anywhere near any UN negotiations) of restarting the game from scratch. I made it my sole game plan to wipe his forces from the face of the earth. This I did with some help from his (please dump him) soon to be ex girlfriend.
Of course, it was nothing personal.

Did i miss something? I mean, we were playing Risk.


jamie said...

i'm with you - in a game where only 1 player can win, all alliances should be considered tenuous at best.

Anonymous said...

Be the Bismarck,
Weasel Von Mettinich