Setting Expectations in Full Diplomacy Games

[HeadHoncho]

Two points of agreement and two points of disagreement with you, JF.

1) I really like the concept of the Gentleman's Agreement and may start using it myself.
2) I also think the game-long NAP concept should start to sunset, and I may stop using it myself.

On the flip side...

1) NAP renewal is important, and if someone declines to renew or even goes silent, I'd definitely receive that as an early warning.
2) I would also receive it very negatively if someone lied to my face about a NAP and broke it on the first turn.

EDIT: To clarify, I would receive lying to my face about a NAP and breaking it on the first turn very negatively under the existing "when in Rome" player convention of everyone honoring their agreements. I obviously wouldn't if we ever moved to a more Diplomacy-like convention.

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

I generally strive to maintain any/all agreements that I make in a game and I assume that the other player will as well. However, I'm also well aware that both myself and the other player may at any time break the agreement if it is my/their best interest to gain a significant advantage and/or believe it will lead to victory in the long run.

As such, I don't tend to make many agreements as I like to have more freedom to "maneuver" in the game; but will when I think it advantageous or just buy me more time. But I bear no ill will to the player personally (outside of the game) who breaks his agreements; I assume its a rational in-game decision to help them win. And I would hope that they don't get angry with me on a personal level if/when I break our agreement to achieve the win.

In the next game, the same player I betrayed in game A, may be my best ally in game B and vice versa. All between-player diplomacy is "reset" (at least in my mind) when I start a new game and the kingdom persona I adopted in game A may be radically opposite from my kingdom personae in game B. Of course, I may be a bit more untrusting of a player that betrayed me previously and I would assume they would do the same for me if I was the betrayer but I'm not going to rail on them in the Forums. It's a game; somebody's going to win, everyone else is going to lose. Best not to get your panties in a bunch and get angry over a game that's supposed to be fun. Recognize that making and breaking agreements is just another wonderful aspect of the game and often you'll come out on the short end of the stick.

[Ry Vor]

I generally strive to maintain any/all agreements that I make in a game and I assume that the other player will as well.  However, I'm also well aware that both myself and the other player may at any time break the agreement if it is my/their best interest to gain a significant advantage and/or believe it will lead to victory in the long run.

As such, I don't tend to make many agreements as I like to have more freedom to "maneuver" in the game; but will when I think it advantageous or just buy me more time.  But I bear no ill will to the player personally (outside of the game) who breaks his agreements; I assume its a rational in-game decision to help them win.  And I would hope that they don't get angry with me on a personal level if/when I break our agreement to achieve the win.

 In the next game, the same player I betrayed in game A, may be my best ally in game B and vice versa.  All between-player diplomacy is "reset" (at least in my mind) when I start a new game and the kingdom persona I adopted in game A may be radically opposite from my kingdom personae in game B.  Of course, I may be a bit more untrusting of a player that betrayed me previously and I would assume they would do the same for me if I was the betrayer but I'm not going to rail on them in the Forums.  It's a game; somebody's going to win, everyone else is going to lose.  Best not to get your panties in a bunch and get angry over a game that's supposed to be fun.  Recognize that making and breaking agreements is just another wonderful aspect of the game and often you'll come out on the short end of the stick.

Geez.  I'm agreeing again.  I may need to make an appointment.

[HeadHoncho]

Would it be worth trying in a game? A "no harm no foul no crying no grudges" full diplomacy game, or alternatively perhaps with the forum-only communication concept Vulkar floated? Might be interesting to see all of the correspondence in a game, but none of it could be completely relied on or trusted.

EDIT: Would also drive more forum traffic, and could even be a potential primer for people on negotiations.

[DuPont]

Let me say in no uncertain terms that I truly loathe what diplomacy has become in this game. It seems more of a chore than anything and it the primary reason I seek anonymous or warlords games for the most part. I will play some diplomacy games but my preferred style is to contact only those people I have a current need to. But this means that you will eventually get attacked - usually by a tag team - and when you try to organized a counter-attack, you will find that anybody who could have aided you has been goaded into a NAP by your attackers. And it's like some of these NAPs and agreements were negotiated by lawyers.
I honestly don't have the time for it - I can play a lot more games by going with anonymous. And I don't have to put up with all the drama and gang-banging.

[Rogal]

I wont mention the player who gave me write ups of most of the players, but his analyst was pretty on the mark.  In summery you have different classes of players when you get into diplomacy.  Some players are like dealing with the Ferengi and some are lawyers who you need to understand every letter of the agreement.  Players sometimes can be honorable and some are lost all honer to win one game.  Players can be classed into working relationships that are locked and others who run teams that are passive and/or aggressive.  Players use the boards to help with their diplomacy and others use it to keep the game fun.  Three on one is perfectly acceptable to some and others shun it, but the question remains that 3 vs 1 is interpreted differently by each player.  I

I like Anon games for they can act more like a chess game.  Diplomacy games can be fun as well, for that element that your a king and have influence over a fantasy empire is a throw back to old role playing games.  I wish I could give an answer on how to fix the issues that seem to spring up every couple of months for the players might be different, but the argument seems to be the same.

[DuPont]

Now I want to know what that write up says about me...

[Lord Alz]

lol me too.... I would guess either JF or LT did that list. My money is on JF

[Lord Thanatos]

Let me say in no uncertain terms that I truly loathe what diplomacy has become in this game. It seems more of a chore than anything and it the primary reason I seek anonymous or warlords games for the most part. I will play some diplomacy games but my preferred style is to contact only those people I have a current need to. But this means that you will eventually get attacked - usually by a tag team - and when you try to organized a counter-attack, you will find that anybody who could have aided you has been goaded into a NAP by your attackers. And it's like some of these NAPs and agreements were negotiated by lawyers.
I honestly don't have the time for it - I can play a lot more games by going with anonymous. And I don't have to put up with all the drama and gang-banging.

I just got home after a 14 hour day and see that many of my favorite people are having an interesting discussion on one of my favorite topics: Alamaze!

I will endeavor to add a few of my initial thoughts from my tired brain . . .

I completely agree with DuPont (above).

Game-long NAPs are my admittedly lazy approach to the least-appealing aspect of Alamaze - diplomacy.  I generally just say, "You want game-long peace or not?"  The answer is either yes, no, or silence.  I take a "yes" at face value and any other response is tantamount to a declaration of war -- maybe not immediately, but eventually.  This is about as much diplomacy as I value.  The Gray Mouser (and others) do not like game-long NAPs so I generally have no agreement at all with The Gray Mouser (and others with his same opinion).  This is okay with both of us.  It does not mean we have to be enemies but it definitely means we are not going to be allies.

Also, I usually find one player in the contest that I trust completely (Lord Diamond was first, many others are now on that list) and make a "full alliance" which includes exchanging turn results every turn.  Exchanging turn results reduces the length of emails to share information and enables each of us to be fully supportive of our ally.  A "full alliance" means what Lord Diamond explained to me in the first FoR game we ever allied in, "I will do everything in my power to make certain one of us wins; a win for you is as good as a win for me."

Sometimes other players will send a detailed breakdown of their expectations for an agreement.  I usually ignore all this nonsense unless we are in the mid- to late-game where what we are truly negotiating is whether there will be assistance or hindrance for the player(s) in the strongest position to win the contest.  Those who have dealt with me the longest usually just ask, "Will you help me stop _______________ from winning?"  If I say "yes" they send whatever information they think I need and leave me to my own devices, trusting I will do all I am capable of.  If I say "no" they usually understand I have a NAP and will not break such.

Am I capable of deception, deceit, and duplicity?  There might have even been a class on such in law school? [Ethics - everything forbidden is essentially deception, deceit, and duplicity.]  Is there any enjoyment in such?  Not for me.  I spend all day every day negotiating with attorneys and others; please, please let me have a break during my free time enjoyments!

To me, there are really only two things I ask in a diplomacy game and both have been impossible to achieve.  First, do NOT under any circumstances engage in a 3 v 1 attack (see UN + GI + WA versus TR in 183 and now UN + GN + GI + WA + EL + WI versus RA in 183).  Second, do NOT break your agreements (misunderstandings sometimes happen and can usually be worked out). A game-long NAP seems like the easiest possible agreement to understand and, therefore, the easiest possible agreement to live up to.  Nevertheless, it is the extremely rare full diplomacy game where neither of these two hated occurences transpire . . .

So, should we do as HeadHoncho suggests and simply throw in the towel regarding expecting our fellow players to live up to agreements and, in fact, value "backstabbing" as a desirable game mechanic?  Let us posit that such becomes acceptable.  The first time a player does backstab me I would be a fool not to remember this for the future.  If enough players backstab so that when a new game is started 100% of the players are in my memory as having engaged in "backstabbing" the only rational response is to not make agreements with any of them.  Once we reach the point where it makes no rational sense to make an agreement with anyone else then we might as well play anonymous contests.  Because, in addition to thumbs, humans have to ability to engage in abstract reasoning we have already jumped to the end of this particular path and started offering the ever-so-popular anonymous contests already.

I do not know whether what HeadHoncho and Ry Vor are advocating will make for an enjoyable contest.  But because I value and appreciate both of those personas I guess I am willing to give it a try in a specific format so long as everyone knows in advance that backstabbing is encouraged in the game.  But if we do this, then every player will know that backstabbing is inevitable and most rational players will severely limit the agreements they make and, viola, we are right back to an anonymous type contest.

Why don't we try the public Forum-only-diplomacy game suggested by one of our newer players?  That is definitely intriguing to me!

[Ry Vor]

LT, I guess you have not played the board game Diplomacy.  As I have said, that was an inspiration and is the best example I can think of as to how to introduce intrigue into the game.  In Diplomacy, pretty much every game, someone "backstabs", it is expected.  Then after the fact, there is rationale, but no one is surprised, stunned, rage quits over it.  It is part of the game, actually a focus of the game.  You negotiate really with everyone each turn, and you need to make deals that would make it dumb for them to attack you.  You don't have "game long NAP".  You want to stir up trouble on the other parts of the map, and keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.  I don't know, maybe I am just infatuated with intrigue as perhaps the most exciting aspect of a game.  Anonymous removes this.  To acknowledge the other side of the coin, it can be burdensome to do all the diplomacy each turn, and to perhaps form alliances to avoid the 3 v 1.  I think the main point I am trying to make is that taking out the intrigue from Alamaze contests is dumbing the game down from its potential.