Setting Expectations in Full Diplomacy Games

[HeadHoncho]

In an effort to improve the community, I thought it would be interesting to have a discussion on expectations of conduct in full diplomacy games.

When I rejoined Alamaze a bit after the relaunch, I was surprised at how strongly the community seemed to feel about holding to non-aggression pacts. This is because in the old days, with 3x5 cards and phone calls, it was a completely freewheeling game where everything was Machiavellian like the classic board game, Diplomacy. I really love that board game, and I enjoyed the feel of the old Alamaze.

Fast forward to today, to the reality of Internet life and instant communication, and the importance of reputation in a small gaming community. Everyone seemed to be insistent that every promise or assurance was binding or else your name would be mud in the community. I saw that dynamic and decided that rather than try to change Rome, I would act like the Romans, and to this day, I have never broken an agreement since the relaunch.

But I wonder if this attitude has resulted in a less exciting, more stagnant, and most of all, heightened expectations of behavior that have resulted in too-strong reactions and hurt feelings?

I often tell people this is a great game, but it's just a game. I love it but could survive without it, and although a particular game result might grate on me a bit, you shrug and move on.

Is it worth trying to change Rome, perhaps? If we stopped expecting everyone to obey the letter and spirit of every agreement or promise, could it result in a healthier environment? I honestly don't know the answer to this. Diplomacy is an incredible board game, but even with the expectation that every player on the board could well turn out to be a treacherous backstabber, there are still some hurt feelings at times. But they do seem more rare, and the typical response to the offended parties are that it's just a game, and backstabs are to be expected, and that you should suck it up and move on.

I guess after seeing lots of arguments develop over the strict reading of an agreement, or the expected spirit of an agreement, or broken words resulting in strong emotion and decisions not to play certain formats or even the game at all any more, I'm wondering if it's worth trying a different way. By tamping down on expectations, maybe that's one way to foster a more casual and less intense environment?

Like I said, I don't have any answers here, and none of this is a criticism of anyone, I'm just floating it for discussion since that's what we do here.

[Lord Alz]

I Think.... I repeat I feel (note opinion) is that in the old game the community was very large and burning a bridge / scalding a player on the hard fire of betrayal was common. I know back then I was very wary of any agreement and I felt if you betray me once it was your fault, betray me twice it was my fault. I assumed all agreements were worth the paper they were written on just like in real war. "chamberlain, Peace in our Time..." there are many examples. Moving forward with a small community I feel it is important to amortize short term gains for the longer. By longer I mean games over time. Its more important to me to keep that game integrity over the short term gratification of betrayal. That does not mean that a cleverly crafted agreement that might be taken out of context is off the table. When I came back to this community for the 2nd time, this is the 3rd time. LT advised me to take care and evaluate agreements, they may seem to say one thing and really mean another. This was FoR and I never forgot that, a NAP until 3 regions is achieved has little real value if your intention is to get out of a NAP before a victory in a SVC game. It is a clever lawyer trick to get you to close your eyes a bit. It will only hurt once I promise.... just the tip for a second.... you understand correct. In Diplomacy backstabbing was everywhere, it was a basic construct. It makes you feel a bit dirty as you victory dance over you fallen and enraged buddy, but he is fact still your buddy and those wounds heal fast. In Alamaze I will carry a grudge and plan accordingly, we are all virtual friends here and everyone is familiar with how brave someone is in a virtual world. Not sure I answered the question but as long as I want to keep my agreements kept, I will keep mine.

[Lord Diamond]

In my full diplomacy games, I tried getting away from alliances and NAPs. If I did ally, it was usually with someone across the map and was for information and trade. Instead, I started asking for what I called a 'Gentleman's Peace'. No wordsmithing and no lawyer needed. All it means is that we agree not to take any hostile actions against one another without giving 24 hours notice of hostile intent.

It worked anazingly well and seemed to leave all parties feeling good about the deal. It really just prevents a sneak attack from an unexpected quarter.

[Ry Vor]

Head Honcho and I have had our disagreements, but I think that was one of the best posts we've had.  I completely agree.  As I have written before, Diplomacy was an inspiration, I often bid up the intrigue aspect of Alamaze, but it does seem the players in general do not embrace that.  The anonymous format that is the most popular at this point completely eliminates it, although I acknowledge it streamlines preparing a turn. Its a puzzle - I introduced a concept recently called Independence, restricting alliances and trading, but really got no feedback on that.

As the designer, I struggle between what I want to do, and what the players want.  I have seen the hyper-sensitivity to any perceived slight in game, out of game, etc.  I just have to adjust to that reality, which diminishes going to new places.

That said, I think The Choosing will rock you.  Stay tuned. 

[Madmardigan]

Head Honcho and I have had our disagreements, but I think that was one of the best posts we've had.  I completely agree.  As I have written before, Diplomacy was an inspiration, I often bid up the intrigue aspect of Alamaze, but it does seem the players in general do not embrace that.  The anonymous format that is the most popular at this point completely eliminates it, although I acknowledge it streamlines preparing a turn.  Its a puzzle - I introduced a concept recently called Independence, restricting alliances and trading, but really got no feedback on that.

As the designer, I struggle between what I want to do, and what the players want.  I have seen the hyper-sensitivity to any perceived slight in game, out of game, etc.  I just have to adjust to that reality, which diminishes going to new places.

That said, I think The Choosing will rock you.  Stay tuned. 

Head Honcho - great post and I could not agree with you more.  Alamaze is just a game and should be treated as such.  I personally would love to play more to the 'spirit' of the kingdoms.  The Warlord should be evil, the Darkelves treacherous, the Rangers noble, the Red Dragons a bully etc...  Obviously these kingdoms do not need to go these defined ways, but it would help when making agreements with them.  Great benefits could be had from working with the BL, but if I turn my back on him for even a second I may be turned into a charred snack. I believe this could add to the game more than take away from it.   

Having said that, the games I most remember our my first Primeval chatting/planning and learning under JumpingFist and Panda and the banter and sarcasm of Dusi as the RD/DW we took it to everyone else.  Now I have the chance to learn from Morgan Kane and LT in a Magic contest. Whatever the outcome, I know I am in for a good time and lots and lots of emails.  In my opinion, games where diplomacy/communication takes place are the tops and the anon games just feel hollow in comparison. 

Finally, let me leave you with a quote from a legendary coach.  I believe it sums up my feelings best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0spFY1I2NQ

[Ry Vor]

LOL on the 5 second youtube!  Meanwhile, i again completely agree with Madmardigan.  I know, its weird for me to keep agreeing.  Not enough sleep I suppose. 

[Madmardigan]

Ahh and don't forget about this scene...  

Vakidis and Corndogs!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJVF7fWZRMg


This movie improves with each viewing.  

[HeadHoncho]

Thanks, Rick.

Part of the reason for my suggestion is that I've seen between a half-dozen and a dozen of these arguments, and they all tend to break down as follows, ultimately unproductively.

1) Player A accuses Player B of breaking an agreement.

2a) Player B insists Player A misunderstood the agreement.
2b) Player B claims Player A broke the spirit of the agreement first.
2c) Player B argues he is in fact acting within the letter or the spirit of the agreement.

3) Player A: "Did not!"

4) Player B: "Did so!"

5) Player A: "Here's proof!"

6) Player B: "Your proof is incomplete/inaccurate/out-of-context/forged!"

7) Player A: "Is not!"

8) Player B: "Is so!"

9) Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

10) Everyone else: I lost track or stopped caring after step 2, but I now have a generally more negative view of both Player A and Player B as an oathbreaker/crybaby/deceiver/stickler/hypersensitive.

[Jumpingfist]

Ha. Been on all three sides of that exchange many times.

I also think GAPs are under used and actually do a lot of good leaving options open late in the game. I have done many 10 turn NAPs with a GAP to automatically follow after the NAP ends. Newer players I even make it a 2 turn notice GAP.

I would love to see the Game long NAP go away

Also the asking to extend a 10 turn nap around turn 8. It is like your asking if I should get ready to attack you or not

As for new and old. I have always been a very honest player and had written many names down of would be deal breakers in the old days. I personally like players being forced to be more honest but think it is carried away sometimes. I remember A player getting put through the ringers on what seemed to me like a grey area. To me it should be considered acceptable to break a nap within the first turn of making it. sure you may get your name on the untrusted list but should not have to be the walk of shame. To many players us NAPs to position the board me included. But in the end it adds to the making of mega alliances.

Ok well that was a lot of random thought

[Ry Vor]

No, not rambling - that was pretty good. 

The Gray Mouser tells me all players are different: some really like to lawyer it up, some are always seeking "Game Long NAP". He says he enjoyed his deals with Dusi (The Deliverer) which were generally about one unspecific sentence but communicated an understanding.  Something like, "Stay out of Arcania and I'll stay out of Runnimede."  Seemed to work pretty well, no forum drama, no accusations.