Setting Expectations in Full Diplomacy Games

[HeadHoncho]

Rick, my turn to agree with you.

There is an additional element (among many) that I'd like to highlight, that is the "sixth sense" tingling of danger that you develop in Diplomacy, where your strong ally is about to backstab you, and so you preemptively move to counter. It is a glorious exercise in gauging human nature and sensing where you're vulnerable tactically and strategically. I bet orders like 360 and some of the HP divinations will get a lot more use in a "no holds barred" negotiation game.

Basically, it requires you to judge when a player will keep his word because it's in his mutual self-interest to do so, and when you become just too tempting of a target to pass up.

[DuPont]

Ry Vor, I actually tend to prefer the 'gunboat' version of Diplomacy, anyway.

[Rogal]

You then open the game to players coming in with premade teams instead of a group of players all starting together on a diplomatic playing field.  It will not be fun joining a new game and you already have players gunning for you before turn 0 arrives.

[Ry Vor]

You then open the game to players coming in with premade teams instead of a group of players all starting together on a diplomatic playing field.  It will not be fun joining a new game and you already have players gunning for you before turn 0 arrives.

Not sure why that would be.  Anonymous is a new format, Alamaze went along for about 25 years without it. 

I will say again, my favorite format is Magic, the team game, so you communicate vigorously with your teammates, but don't correspond with the other players, other than perhaps dropping hints via High Council issues.

Its been a good day on the forum.  I'm signing off for hopefully 8 hours or so. 

[HeadHoncho]

Rogal, not sure how that danger is any different from one that exists now. And even if some players decide to act unsportsmanlike and do that, there is greater freedom to break that alliance apart under a "no holds barred" regime than if everyone says, "Oh, we all have game-long NAPs with each other, so I guess we can't do anything against each other." Under classic Diplomacy, an alliance only lasts as long as it's mutually beneficial, and the temptation to stab increases as the game continues and SVC and Rex start to come into reach.

"No holds barred" doesn't mean all standards of decency and sportsmanship go out the window, or that cheating is allowed. It just means words are words and deeds are deeds, and a promise is only as good as the paper it's written on, and that the response to a backstab is to ruefully shake your head and adapt, and not necessarily go to the forum.

Oh, and LT, thanks so much for your input and even being open-minded about it, even though it isn't your most preferred concept. Really appreciate that!

[Madmardigan]

You then open the game to players coming in with premade teams instead of a group of players all starting together on a diplomatic playing field.  It will not be fun joining a new game and you already have players gunning for you before turn 0 arrives.

Not sure why that would be.  Anonymous is a new format, Alamaze went along for about 25 years without it. 

I will say again, my favorite format is Magic, the team game, so you communicate vigorously with your teammates, but don't correspond with the other players, other than perhaps dropping hints via High Council issues.

Its been a good day on the forum.  I'm signing off for hopefully 8 hours or so. 

Magic and Warlords get my vote for best formats.

[Madmardigan]

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.

I like this idea of 'resetting'.  I think more of us should adopt it between games.  

[Madmardigan]

Ry Vor, I actually tend to prefer the 'gunboat' version of Diplomacy, anyway.

Rick will probably delete my account for this, but 'Gunboat' could become another type of variant 

[Rogal]

Maybe if we put some disclaimers on some of the diplomacy alamaze games as guidelines on how and what to expect on a game, no new rules though.  For example " This is a classic game with full diplomacy, no holds barred", or "This is an honor bound game, attacks of 3 vs 1 or greater  are highly discouraged, please limit your NAP's for players will remember them beyond this game"  "some other ideas I can think of".  Just a thought.

[Lord Thanatos]

Rogal, not sure how that danger is any different from one that exists now. And even if some players decide to act unsportsmanlike and do that, there is greater freedom to break that alliance apart under a "no holds barred" regime than if everyone says, "Oh, we all have game-long NAPs with each other, so I guess we can't do anything against each other." Under classic Diplomacy, an alliance only lasts as long as it's mutually beneficial, and the temptation to stab increases as the game continues and SVC and Rex start to come into reach.

"No holds barred" doesn't mean all standards of decency and sportsmanship go out the window, or that cheating is allowed. It just means words are words and deeds are deeds, and a promise is only as good as the paper it's written on, and that the response to a backstab is to ruefully shake your head and adapt, and not necessarily go to the forum.

Oh, and LT, thanks so much for your input and even being open-minded about it, even though it isn't your most preferred concept. Really appreciate that!

I am a huge fan of letting players know in advance what type of format they are joining.  Then we can choose whether to participate.

Thanks for the kind words.