| A Call to Arms! - Corrino (Jul 28, 2014, 1:21 pm) |
I'd been trying to recall this quote for a while, and then today it popped up again on a BGG thread about winning and losing.
From Reiner Knizia, noted board game designer:
"The goal is to win but it is the goal that is important not the winning."[Reply] |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Sean2010 Jul 29, 12:00 am |
"The goal is to win but it is the goal that is important not the winning."
To me, it's challenge, fun, and intrigue while you're trying to meet the objective. Unless I'm misunderstanding the quote, it seems par or at least apt. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) charlesf Jul 29, 04:32 am |
Indeed. If our enjoyment were tied to winning, Diplomacy would be a masochistic exercise (since the whole setup makes winning rather rare).
But the direction of our game ought to be none other than victory. The tough challenge. Rather than the path of least resistance.
It's how the game is meant to be played. And it can only truly shine if everyone subscribes to this.
Incendentally, I've designed my variants (1648, 1936) with an eye towards promoting soloism. The victory conditions are much lower than Standard's 50%+1. Indeed in the 9-player 1648, it (currently) clocks in at 25.8%.
So I'm dangling the solo carrot very much in front of players. Whittling down the board in favour of a draw becomes a dangerous prospect, as such efforts will nudge players ever closer to the magic solo number.
And with powers threatening a solo much earlier, this also creates greater diplomatic instability.
This has me wondering: How would Standard play if say the victory criterion were set at say 12 SCs...? |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Sean2010 Jul 29, 11:48 am |
This has me wondering: How would Standard play if say the victory criterion were set at say 12 SCs...?
Hm, one of the geographic aspects I enjoy about Diplomacy is that it utilizes the geographic choke-points. Sure, they increase the chances of a stalemate, but they are an intricate part of geopolitics.
I'm not sure how I like lower victory conditions as 12 in Standard doesn't even control the map by defacto. 18 is largely the stalemateline +1 or so and defacto control of the map.
And with powers threatening a solo much earlier, this also creates greater diplomatic instability.
Personally, I don't like Milan because it takes away from the Austrian-Italian relations. It takes much more negotiation, and the very thing that creates trust rapidly is also a key to treachery or the stab. I think Milan trades geopolitical instability for geopolitical stability.
It also emphasizes the threat a conquerer from either side can utilize that adds to the instability.
Personally, I don't see it as a masochist exercise; I see it as an objective with a high challenging standard.
I will say that dangling the carrot in variants certainly would help players to be weary of momentum-tempo, balance of power, and etc. |
| A Call to Arms! - FuzzyLogic (Jul 24, 2014, 9:03 am) |
1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game.
I can see both sides of this, and naturally I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Sure there are many reasons to play a game other than purely to win.
There's the obvious things like "to have fun" or "to engage in social company".
But of course you could have fun with friends sitting in a circle drawing hearts and puppies. So it raises the question of if all you want to do is have fun, then why play a game? A game comes with some objectives of its own. Namely -- the goal of the game itself as defined by the rulebook.
Let's look at an example that's pretty off the wall. Bowling. Sure the goal is to get the best score you can. But in a social setting it has not been unheard of for someone to do a silly thing like bowl backwards, play w the bumbers, etc. These things are all counter to winning in the strict sense, but they complement the moment, the fun, or whatever the group is doing.
Is it wrong? No not really. Among friends the win itself often is secondary to the experience. If it's a tournament perhaps you approach it with a little more seriousness, but then you are declaring your seriousness by your play in a less social setting.
I'll get kind of annoyed if I play games and ppl take them too seriously... like stacking their money so you can't count it, or constantly referring to the game manual for technicalities. Sometimes progressing the game and having a good time trumps repeatedly breaking it to look things up. If two players on opposite ends of this spectrum play against each other, it can be frustrating.
So where does online Diplomacy fall in that range of playing games for the social aspect vs playing games purely to win? This perception will vary for every player. I'd say for me a pointer on the scale would be around 70% to the strict / win side. That is I usually play to get the best result I can, but I also play to have fun.
Also you have to be flexible. Yes ultimately the goal is to win... but given you often cannot win, there are secondary goals. For example if you are stabbed early on, you might face elimination. Well before you can win you have to get back in the game, and to get back in the game you have to not die. So little things like "staying alive" trump winning, even if you risk someone else winning. Goals like "remaining viable" and "ensuring a place in a draw" are not unreasonable, for you have to get to the midgame before you can win.
3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am.... If they want to experience Diplomacy at its finest, yes, they should.
This is debatable. Yes everyone should play to accomplish the goals of the game... but we all have friends right? Surely you play boardgames against them? My wife and I will bite each others head off in a game cuz we enjoy the competition aspect... but that is a personality trait of ours and is not the same in everyone. In a board game should I only attack her because I know she wants to win, or should I attack other players equally, or what? All these things are simply decided by the social dynamic... that social dynamic cannot be removed so as to play a game as if we were all robots.
4. The premise that carebearism (I'm going to call this the "empathic" approach from now on) could not be a strategy in its own right. ... It's an imbecilic strategy. A strategy's merit should be judged by whether it meets the object of the game, i.e. winning.
I agree here. A strategy is good if it wins often, bad if it doesn't. Carebearism does work for me pretty well. I tend to make allies and trust allies, often doing for them before they'll do for me... this builds favors, trust. OTOH I also get stabbed a lot and wiped out early by being too trusting. But it works enough for me that I do it often.
6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable.
I think flexible play is more important than consistent play. Sometimes you need to carebear. Sometimes you need to stab. Sometimes you need placate. So moreso than employing a strategy of your own, the importance is on identifying the strategy being employed by others to utilize that information to better yourself by being able to deal with all of them.
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum.
Clearly each game does not. We are people, people remember things. Trust, styles, tendencies, etc are all things you should learn about your fellow players. I wouldn't stab someone in one game because I was stabbed by them in the past, but I would certainly try to use what I know of them from past games to predict their actions in the next game.
If someone promises to keep you alive as a pawn... and you agree, and then they immediately wipe you out. And then a similar situation comes up in the next game, should really not use what you've learned in the past to help you choose? This is the most basic strategy of war... you learn from the past.[Reply] |
| A Call to Arms! - Sean2010 (Jul 23, 2014, 11:02 pm) |
Hello Corrino,
I'll try being succinct myself
1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game. -> What other motivations might people have for playing Diplomacy on this forum other than the "high" they get from winning the game?
Playing to win is not the same as winning at all costs. Your clarification reads closer to winning at all costs...
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo." -> Given the low probability of soloing (1:7 in Standard; 1:19 or worse in Haven) and my own premise that most diplomats are not clinical masochists, is it possible that people are internally redefining what they count as a win?
Solos are the main objective; draws state the players wanted to end the game that once would have made the player with the most centers win according to the 1976 copyright rulebook.
Diplomacy focuses its challenge, fun, and intrigue between the elements generalized to negotiations and unit movements of strategy and tactics.
3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am. -> Do you really want to play with 6 clones of yourself? From a practical perspective, are you better off cursing your opponent's "imbecilic" approach or trying to understand it and use it to your advantage?
Playing to win means you're attempting to win the game by achieving the objective. Winning at all costs are also more prune to take winning to mean everything to the point of cheating in most games.
Frankly, it doesn't bother me; I'll take it as a challenge in its own right. I'd do what I could. Then again, I would have to be quiet about 6 other Sean2010s running around. We might decide to clone each clone 7 times for 77 times. (Couldn't resist, Corrino).
4. The premise that carebearism (I'm going to call this the "empathic" approach from now on) could not be a strategy in its own right. -> There is an old song (and older bible verse) that begins "For every season...." Why limit your options?
I don't see carebearism's playing for reputation for future games as a strategy... Reminds me of Age of Conquest where I watched a player and his clanmates attack a player after picking 3 of his 4 neighbors for only canceling an non-negotiated alliance 20 games ago through 10 games straight when I inquired into it during the 10th game.
5. The premise that empathic play is necessarily easy or boring. -> Do you know the story of the fox and the grapes?
Not that I recall knowing... Carebearism does make for static games. Reputations tend to be determined by the other players, and it's not always what one intitially was aiming for.
6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable. -> If I KNOW that you always take the same approach, with the same goal, how is that an advantage for you?
Do you mean playing style opposed to approach?
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum. -> When people ask you to forget the past, do you think they're modest or that they're hiding something?
It's actually considered unacceptable by the Deluxe Diplomacy Rulebook and Strategy guide that external and pre-game relations aren't supposed to carry. Strengths, weaknesses, and personality, which I view under playing style, and dependability that I view as orders opposed to NMRs.
Establish trust by x and x, border guard to keep honest, and try to avoid making yourself vulnerable to being a catalyst of an alliance shift.
And yourself?[Reply] |
| A Call to Arms! - Corrino (Jul 23, 2014, 1:14 pm) |
Hi Charles.
No, I'm not in advertising, but I think I would have been good at it. I definitely think I could have "won" advertising, but then I would have felt bad about it all the time.
Cheers,
Chris[Reply] |
| A Call to Arms! - Corrino (Jul 23, 2014, 1:03 pm) |
I honestly would prefer clarification on the other premises before I add my 2 cents to them.
Hi, Sean. Yes, I know these were left a little vague. I did that on purpose, the point being to prod people to focus on the assumptions they are making which may be limiting both their success and enjoyment of the hobby.
But since you asked, I'll see what I can do to help by posing a question for each premise.
1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game. -> What other motivations might people have for playing Diplomacy on this forum other than the "high" they get from winning the game?
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo." -> Given the low probability of soloing (1:7 in Standard; 1:19 or worse in Haven) and my own premise that most diplomats are not clinical masochists, is it possible that people are internally redefining what they count as a win?
3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am. -> Do you really want to play with 6 clones of yourself? From a practical perspective, are you better off cursing your opponent's "imbecilic" approach or trying to understand it and use it to your advantage?
4. The premise that carebearism (I'm going to call this the "empathic" approach from now on) could not be a strategy in its own right. -> There is an old song (and older bible verse) that begins "For every season...." Why limit your options?
5. The premise that empathic play is necessarily easy or boring. -> Do you know the story of the fox and the grapes?
6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable. -> If I KNOW that you always take the same approach, with the same goal, how is that an advantage for you?
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum. -> When people ask you to forget the past, do you think they're modest or that they're hiding something?[Reply] |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Sean2010 Jul 23, 11:02 pm |
Hello Corrino,
I'll try being succinct myself
1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game. -> What other motivations might people have for playing Diplomacy on this forum other than the "high" they get from winning the game?
Playing to win is not the same as winning at all costs. Your clarification reads closer to winning at all costs...
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo." -> Given the low probability of soloing (1:7 in Standard; 1:19 or worse in Haven) and my own premise that most diplomats are not clinical masochists, is it possible that people are internally redefining what they count as a win?
Solos are the main objective; draws state the players wanted to end the game that once would have made the player with the most centers win according to the 1976 copyright rulebook.
Diplomacy focuses its challenge, fun, and intrigue between the elements generalized to negotiations and unit movements of strategy and tactics.
3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am. -> Do you really want to play with 6 clones of yourself? From a practical perspective, are you better off cursing your opponent's "imbecilic" approach or trying to understand it and use it to your advantage?
Playing to win means you're attempting to win the game by achieving the objective. Winning at all costs are also more prune to take winning to mean everything to the point of cheating in most games.
Frankly, it doesn't bother me; I'll take it as a challenge in its own right. I'd do what I could. Then again, I would have to be quiet about 6 other Sean2010s running around. We might decide to clone each clone 7 times for 77 times. (Couldn't resist, Corrino).
4. The premise that carebearism (I'm going to call this the "empathic" approach from now on) could not be a strategy in its own right. -> There is an old song (and older bible verse) that begins "For every season...." Why limit your options?
I don't see carebearism's playing for reputation for future games as a strategy... Reminds me of Age of Conquest where I watched a player and his clanmates attack a player after picking 3 of his 4 neighbors for only canceling an non-negotiated alliance 20 games ago through 10 games straight when I inquired into it during the 10th game.
5. The premise that empathic play is necessarily easy or boring. -> Do you know the story of the fox and the grapes?
Not that I recall knowing... Carebearism does make for static games. Reputations tend to be determined by the other players, and it's not always what one intitially was aiming for.
6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable. -> If I KNOW that you always take the same approach, with the same goal, how is that an advantage for you?
Do you mean playing style opposed to approach?
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum. -> When people ask you to forget the past, do you think they're modest or that they're hiding something?
It's actually considered unacceptable by the Deluxe Diplomacy Rulebook and Strategy guide that external and pre-game relations aren't supposed to carry. Strengths, weaknesses, and personality, which I view under playing style, and dependability that I view as orders opposed to NMRs.
Establish trust by x and x, border guard to keep honest, and try to avoid making yourself vulnerable to being a catalyst of an alliance shift.
And yourself? |
| A Call to Arms! - charlesf (Jul 22, 2014, 6:52 pm) |
1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game.
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo."
Let me quote the rulebook, 4th edition:
OBJECT OF THE GAME
As soon as one Great Power controls 18 supply centers, it is said to have gained control of Europe. The player representing that Great Power is the winner.
There you have it. Solo equals win. Winning is the object of the game.
I know some ignore that. With all the adverse consequences I have described. That's after all why I issued this call to arms!
3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am.
If they want to experience Diplomacy at its finest, yes, they should.
4. The premise that carebearism (I'm going to call this the "empathic" approach from now on) could not be a strategy in its own right.
It's an imbecilic strategy. A strategy's merit should be judged by whether it meets the object of the game, i.e. winning.
Since pure carebearism discards that possibility, it's a total clusterf*ck.
Carebearism and NMRing are IMO the two banes of the pbem hobby.
For it is written:
Thou shalt not carebear!
5. The premise that empathic play is necessarily easy or boring.
I enjoy this euphemism you introduced.
Are you in advertising? 
6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable.
A winning attitude would be a good start.
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum.
I try to approach each game in that manner.[Reply] |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Corrino Jul 23, 01:14 pm |
Hi Charles.
No, I'm not in advertising, but I think I would have been good at it. I definitely think I could have "won" advertising, but then I would have felt bad about it all the time.
Cheers,
Chris |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) FuzzyLogic Jul 24, 09:03 am |
1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game.
I can see both sides of this, and naturally I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Sure there are many reasons to play a game other than purely to win.
There's the obvious things like "to have fun" or "to engage in social company".
But of course you could have fun with friends sitting in a circle drawing hearts and puppies. So it raises the question of if all you want to do is have fun, then why play a game? A game comes with some objectives of its own. Namely -- the goal of the game itself as defined by the rulebook.
Let's look at an example that's pretty off the wall. Bowling. Sure the goal is to get the best score you can. But in a social setting it has not been unheard of for someone to do a silly thing like bowl backwards, play w the bumbers, etc. These things are all counter to winning in the strict sense, but they complement the moment, the fun, or whatever the group is doing.
Is it wrong? No not really. Among friends the win itself often is secondary to the experience. If it's a tournament perhaps you approach it with a little more seriousness, but then you are declaring your seriousness by your play in a less social setting.
I'll get kind of annoyed if I play games and ppl take them too seriously... like stacking their money so you can't count it, or constantly referring to the game manual for technicalities. Sometimes progressing the game and having a good time trumps repeatedly breaking it to look things up. If two players on opposite ends of this spectrum play against each other, it can be frustrating.
So where does online Diplomacy fall in that range of playing games for the social aspect vs playing games purely to win? This perception will vary for every player. I'd say for me a pointer on the scale would be around 70% to the strict / win side. That is I usually play to get the best result I can, but I also play to have fun.
Also you have to be flexible. Yes ultimately the goal is to win... but given you often cannot win, there are secondary goals. For example if you are stabbed early on, you might face elimination. Well before you can win you have to get back in the game, and to get back in the game you have to not die. So little things like "staying alive" trump winning, even if you risk someone else winning. Goals like "remaining viable" and "ensuring a place in a draw" are not unreasonable, for you have to get to the midgame before you can win.
3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am.... If they want to experience Diplomacy at its finest, yes, they should.
This is debatable. Yes everyone should play to accomplish the goals of the game... but we all have friends right? Surely you play boardgames against them? My wife and I will bite each others head off in a game cuz we enjoy the competition aspect... but that is a personality trait of ours and is not the same in everyone. In a board game should I only attack her because I know she wants to win, or should I attack other players equally, or what? All these things are simply decided by the social dynamic... that social dynamic cannot be removed so as to play a game as if we were all robots.
4. The premise that carebearism (I'm going to call this the "empathic" approach from now on) could not be a strategy in its own right. ... It's an imbecilic strategy. A strategy's merit should be judged by whether it meets the object of the game, i.e. winning.
I agree here. A strategy is good if it wins often, bad if it doesn't. Carebearism does work for me pretty well. I tend to make allies and trust allies, often doing for them before they'll do for me... this builds favors, trust. OTOH I also get stabbed a lot and wiped out early by being too trusting. But it works enough for me that I do it often.
6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable.
I think flexible play is more important than consistent play. Sometimes you need to carebear. Sometimes you need to stab. Sometimes you need placate. So moreso than employing a strategy of your own, the importance is on identifying the strategy being employed by others to utilize that information to better yourself by being able to deal with all of them.
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum.
Clearly each game does not. We are people, people remember things. Trust, styles, tendencies, etc are all things you should learn about your fellow players. I wouldn't stab someone in one game because I was stabbed by them in the past, but I would certainly try to use what I know of them from past games to predict their actions in the next game.
If someone promises to keep you alive as a pawn... and you agree, and then they immediately wipe you out. And then a similar situation comes up in the next game, should really not use what you've learned in the past to help you choose? This is the most basic strategy of war... you learn from the past. |
| A Call to Arms! - Sean2010 (Jul 22, 2014, 6:08 pm) |
I'm looking to kindle debate. Your thoughts?
If I may, I would like more information on these premises. The only premises right now that I feel comfortable tackling are:
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo."
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum.
So, if it's possible, I'd like clarification on the other premises, and I'll answer these two.
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo."
The main short-game objective is to solo by acquiring the 18 centers for defacto control and thus conquest of the map board. It should probably be noted in the 1976 copyright rulebook; the short game does not offer draws. When the players agree to end the game, the player who has the most centers is declared the winner.
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum.
This premise centers on the subjective allowance of being able to bring notes of strengths, weaknesses, playing style, dependability, and personality.
I view strengths and weaknesses and personality as part of playing style. I only view dependability as dependable in sending in orders.
It truly depends on where external and pre-game relationships are viewed.
I honestly would prefer clarification on the other premises before I add my 2 cents to them.[Reply] |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Corrino Jul 23, 01:03 pm |
I honestly would prefer clarification on the other premises before I add my 2 cents to them.
Hi, Sean. Yes, I know these were left a little vague. I did that on purpose, the point being to prod people to focus on the assumptions they are making which may be limiting both their success and enjoyment of the hobby.
But since you asked, I'll see what I can do to help by posing a question for each premise.
1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game. -> What other motivations might people have for playing Diplomacy on this forum other than the "high" they get from winning the game?
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo." -> Given the low probability of soloing (1:7 in Standard; 1:19 or worse in Haven) and my own premise that most diplomats are not clinical masochists, is it possible that people are internally redefining what they count as a win?
3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am. -> Do you really want to play with 6 clones of yourself? From a practical perspective, are you better off cursing your opponent's "imbecilic" approach or trying to understand it and use it to your advantage?
4. The premise that carebearism (I'm going to call this the "empathic" approach from now on) could not be a strategy in its own right. -> There is an old song (and older bible verse) that begins "For every season...." Why limit your options?
5. The premise that empathic play is necessarily easy or boring. -> Do you know the story of the fox and the grapes?
6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable. -> If I KNOW that you always take the same approach, with the same goal, how is that an advantage for you?
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum. -> When people ask you to forget the past, do you think they're modest or that they're hiding something? |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Sean2010 Jul 23, 11:02 pm |
Hello Corrino,
I'll try being succinct myself
1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game. -> What other motivations might people have for playing Diplomacy on this forum other than the "high" they get from winning the game?
Playing to win is not the same as winning at all costs. Your clarification reads closer to winning at all costs...
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo." -> Given the low probability of soloing (1:7 in Standard; 1:19 or worse in Haven) and my own premise that most diplomats are not clinical masochists, is it possible that people are internally redefining what they count as a win?
Solos are the main objective; draws state the players wanted to end the game that once would have made the player with the most centers win according to the 1976 copyright rulebook.
Diplomacy focuses its challenge, fun, and intrigue between the elements generalized to negotiations and unit movements of strategy and tactics.
3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am. -> Do you really want to play with 6 clones of yourself? From a practical perspective, are you better off cursing your opponent's "imbecilic" approach or trying to understand it and use it to your advantage?
Playing to win means you're attempting to win the game by achieving the objective. Winning at all costs are also more prune to take winning to mean everything to the point of cheating in most games.
Frankly, it doesn't bother me; I'll take it as a challenge in its own right. I'd do what I could. Then again, I would have to be quiet about 6 other Sean2010s running around. We might decide to clone each clone 7 times for 77 times. (Couldn't resist, Corrino).
4. The premise that carebearism (I'm going to call this the "empathic" approach from now on) could not be a strategy in its own right. -> There is an old song (and older bible verse) that begins "For every season...." Why limit your options?
I don't see carebearism's playing for reputation for future games as a strategy... Reminds me of Age of Conquest where I watched a player and his clanmates attack a player after picking 3 of his 4 neighbors for only canceling an non-negotiated alliance 20 games ago through 10 games straight when I inquired into it during the 10th game.
5. The premise that empathic play is necessarily easy or boring. -> Do you know the story of the fox and the grapes?
Not that I recall knowing... Carebearism does make for static games. Reputations tend to be determined by the other players, and it's not always what one intitially was aiming for.
6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable. -> If I KNOW that you always take the same approach, with the same goal, how is that an advantage for you?
Do you mean playing style opposed to approach?
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum. -> When people ask you to forget the past, do you think they're modest or that they're hiding something?
It's actually considered unacceptable by the Deluxe Diplomacy Rulebook and Strategy guide that external and pre-game relations aren't supposed to carry. Strengths, weaknesses, and personality, which I view under playing style, and dependability that I view as orders opposed to NMRs.
Establish trust by x and x, border guard to keep honest, and try to avoid making yourself vulnerable to being a catalyst of an alliance shift.
And yourself? |
| A Call to Arms! - Corrino (Jul 21, 2014, 1:53 pm) |
I have been working hard to ignore this post but I find that I keep coming back to it. It piques my curiosity. I know that I disagree with much of what Charles said but I was attracted to the passion with which he said it. I was disappointed not to see more than a couple of "I agrees" before the thread devolved into side comments about war games.
So, in the interest of, well, my interest, I'm going to risk blowing my cover (and waking the sleeping trolls - shhhh...) and offer a few contrary ideas for your consideration.
To wit, Charles, I believe that many of your conclusions are flawed because many of your initial premises, as common as they may be, are, nevertheless, mistaken.
To wit:
1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game.
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo."
3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am.
4. The premise that carebearism (I'm going to call this the "empathic" approach from now on) could not be a strategy in its own right.
5. The premise that empathic play is necessarily easy or boring.
6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable.
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum.
Those who know me here know that I can be long-winded. Let me surprise all those people by stopping right here. I'm looking to kindle debate. Your thoughts?
Chris
aka Corrino[Reply] |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Sean2010 Jul 22, 06:08 pm |
I'm looking to kindle debate. Your thoughts?
If I may, I would like more information on these premises. The only premises right now that I feel comfortable tackling are:
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo."
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum.
So, if it's possible, I'd like clarification on the other premises, and I'll answer these two.
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo."
The main short-game objective is to solo by acquiring the 18 centers for defacto control and thus conquest of the map board. It should probably be noted in the 1976 copyright rulebook; the short game does not offer draws. When the players agree to end the game, the player who has the most centers is declared the winner.
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum.
This premise centers on the subjective allowance of being able to bring notes of strengths, weaknesses, playing style, dependability, and personality.
I view strengths and weaknesses and personality as part of playing style. I only view dependability as dependable in sending in orders.
It truly depends on where external and pre-game relationships are viewed.
I honestly would prefer clarification on the other premises before I add my 2 cents to them. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Corrino Jul 23, 01:03 pm |
I honestly would prefer clarification on the other premises before I add my 2 cents to them.
Hi, Sean. Yes, I know these were left a little vague. I did that on purpose, the point being to prod people to focus on the assumptions they are making which may be limiting both their success and enjoyment of the hobby.
But since you asked, I'll see what I can do to help by posing a question for each premise.
1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game. -> What other motivations might people have for playing Diplomacy on this forum other than the "high" they get from winning the game?
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo." -> Given the low probability of soloing (1:7 in Standard; 1:19 or worse in Haven) and my own premise that most diplomats are not clinical masochists, is it possible that people are internally redefining what they count as a win?
3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am. -> Do you really want to play with 6 clones of yourself? From a practical perspective, are you better off cursing your opponent's "imbecilic" approach or trying to understand it and use it to your advantage?
4. The premise that carebearism (I'm going to call this the "empathic" approach from now on) could not be a strategy in its own right. -> There is an old song (and older bible verse) that begins "For every season...." Why limit your options?
5. The premise that empathic play is necessarily easy or boring. -> Do you know the story of the fox and the grapes?
6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable. -> If I KNOW that you always take the same approach, with the same goal, how is that an advantage for you?
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum. -> When people ask you to forget the past, do you think they're modest or that they're hiding something? |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Sean2010 Jul 23, 11:02 pm |
Hello Corrino,
I'll try being succinct myself
1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game. -> What other motivations might people have for playing Diplomacy on this forum other than the "high" they get from winning the game?
Playing to win is not the same as winning at all costs. Your clarification reads closer to winning at all costs...
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo." -> Given the low probability of soloing (1:7 in Standard; 1:19 or worse in Haven) and my own premise that most diplomats are not clinical masochists, is it possible that people are internally redefining what they count as a win?
Solos are the main objective; draws state the players wanted to end the game that once would have made the player with the most centers win according to the 1976 copyright rulebook.
Diplomacy focuses its challenge, fun, and intrigue between the elements generalized to negotiations and unit movements of strategy and tactics.
3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am. -> Do you really want to play with 6 clones of yourself? From a practical perspective, are you better off cursing your opponent's "imbecilic" approach or trying to understand it and use it to your advantage?
Playing to win means you're attempting to win the game by achieving the objective. Winning at all costs are also more prune to take winning to mean everything to the point of cheating in most games.
Frankly, it doesn't bother me; I'll take it as a challenge in its own right. I'd do what I could. Then again, I would have to be quiet about 6 other Sean2010s running around. We might decide to clone each clone 7 times for 77 times. (Couldn't resist, Corrino).
4. The premise that carebearism (I'm going to call this the "empathic" approach from now on) could not be a strategy in its own right. -> There is an old song (and older bible verse) that begins "For every season...." Why limit your options?
I don't see carebearism's playing for reputation for future games as a strategy... Reminds me of Age of Conquest where I watched a player and his clanmates attack a player after picking 3 of his 4 neighbors for only canceling an non-negotiated alliance 20 games ago through 10 games straight when I inquired into it during the 10th game.
5. The premise that empathic play is necessarily easy or boring. -> Do you know the story of the fox and the grapes?
Not that I recall knowing... Carebearism does make for static games. Reputations tend to be determined by the other players, and it's not always what one intitially was aiming for.
6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable. -> If I KNOW that you always take the same approach, with the same goal, how is that an advantage for you?
Do you mean playing style opposed to approach?
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum. -> When people ask you to forget the past, do you think they're modest or that they're hiding something?
It's actually considered unacceptable by the Deluxe Diplomacy Rulebook and Strategy guide that external and pre-game relations aren't supposed to carry. Strengths, weaknesses, and personality, which I view under playing style, and dependability that I view as orders opposed to NMRs.
Establish trust by x and x, border guard to keep honest, and try to avoid making yourself vulnerable to being a catalyst of an alliance shift.
And yourself? |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) charlesf Jul 22, 06:52 pm |
1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game.
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo."
Let me quote the rulebook, 4th edition:
OBJECT OF THE GAME
As soon as one Great Power controls 18 supply centers, it is said to have gained control of Europe. The player representing that Great Power is the winner.
There you have it. Solo equals win. Winning is the object of the game.
I know some ignore that. With all the adverse consequences I have described. That's after all why I issued this call to arms!
3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am.
If they want to experience Diplomacy at its finest, yes, they should.
4. The premise that carebearism (I'm going to call this the "empathic" approach from now on) could not be a strategy in its own right.
It's an imbecilic strategy. A strategy's merit should be judged by whether it meets the object of the game, i.e. winning.
Since pure carebearism discards that possibility, it's a total clusterf*ck.
Carebearism and NMRing are IMO the two banes of the pbem hobby.
For it is written:
Thou shalt not carebear!
5. The premise that empathic play is necessarily easy or boring.
I enjoy this euphemism you introduced.
Are you in advertising?
6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable.
A winning attitude would be a good start.
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum.
I try to approach each game in that manner. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Corrino Jul 23, 01:14 pm |
Hi Charles.
No, I'm not in advertising, but I think I would have been good at it. I definitely think I could have "won" advertising, but then I would have felt bad about it all the time.
Cheers,
Chris |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) FuzzyLogic Jul 24, 09:03 am |
1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game.
I can see both sides of this, and naturally I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Sure there are many reasons to play a game other than purely to win.
There's the obvious things like "to have fun" or "to engage in social company".
But of course you could have fun with friends sitting in a circle drawing hearts and puppies. So it raises the question of if all you want to do is have fun, then why play a game? A game comes with some objectives of its own. Namely -- the goal of the game itself as defined by the rulebook.
Let's look at an example that's pretty off the wall. Bowling. Sure the goal is to get the best score you can. But in a social setting it has not been unheard of for someone to do a silly thing like bowl backwards, play w the bumbers, etc. These things are all counter to winning in the strict sense, but they complement the moment, the fun, or whatever the group is doing.
Is it wrong? No not really. Among friends the win itself often is secondary to the experience. If it's a tournament perhaps you approach it with a little more seriousness, but then you are declaring your seriousness by your play in a less social setting.
I'll get kind of annoyed if I play games and ppl take them too seriously... like stacking their money so you can't count it, or constantly referring to the game manual for technicalities. Sometimes progressing the game and having a good time trumps repeatedly breaking it to look things up. If two players on opposite ends of this spectrum play against each other, it can be frustrating.
So where does online Diplomacy fall in that range of playing games for the social aspect vs playing games purely to win? This perception will vary for every player. I'd say for me a pointer on the scale would be around 70% to the strict / win side. That is I usually play to get the best result I can, but I also play to have fun.
Also you have to be flexible. Yes ultimately the goal is to win... but given you often cannot win, there are secondary goals. For example if you are stabbed early on, you might face elimination. Well before you can win you have to get back in the game, and to get back in the game you have to not die. So little things like "staying alive" trump winning, even if you risk someone else winning. Goals like "remaining viable" and "ensuring a place in a draw" are not unreasonable, for you have to get to the midgame before you can win.
3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am.... If they want to experience Diplomacy at its finest, yes, they should.
This is debatable. Yes everyone should play to accomplish the goals of the game... but we all have friends right? Surely you play boardgames against them? My wife and I will bite each others head off in a game cuz we enjoy the competition aspect... but that is a personality trait of ours and is not the same in everyone. In a board game should I only attack her because I know she wants to win, or should I attack other players equally, or what? All these things are simply decided by the social dynamic... that social dynamic cannot be removed so as to play a game as if we were all robots.
4. The premise that carebearism (I'm going to call this the "empathic" approach from now on) could not be a strategy in its own right. ... It's an imbecilic strategy. A strategy's merit should be judged by whether it meets the object of the game, i.e. winning.
I agree here. A strategy is good if it wins often, bad if it doesn't. Carebearism does work for me pretty well. I tend to make allies and trust allies, often doing for them before they'll do for me... this builds favors, trust. OTOH I also get stabbed a lot and wiped out early by being too trusting. But it works enough for me that I do it often.
6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable.
I think flexible play is more important than consistent play. Sometimes you need to carebear. Sometimes you need to stab. Sometimes you need placate. So moreso than employing a strategy of your own, the importance is on identifying the strategy being employed by others to utilize that information to better yourself by being able to deal with all of them.
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum.
Clearly each game does not. We are people, people remember things. Trust, styles, tendencies, etc are all things you should learn about your fellow players. I wouldn't stab someone in one game because I was stabbed by them in the past, but I would certainly try to use what I know of them from past games to predict their actions in the next game.
If someone promises to keep you alive as a pawn... and you agree, and then they immediately wipe you out. And then a similar situation comes up in the next game, should really not use what you've learned in the past to help you choose? This is the most basic strategy of war... you learn from the past. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Corrino Jul 28, 01:21 pm |
I'd been trying to recall this quote for a while, and then today it popped up again on a BGG thread about winning and losing.
From Reiner Knizia, noted board game designer:
"The goal is to win but it is the goal that is important not the winning." |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Sean2010 Jul 29, 12:00 am |
"The goal is to win but it is the goal that is important not the winning."
To me, it's challenge, fun, and intrigue while you're trying to meet the objective. Unless I'm misunderstanding the quote, it seems par or at least apt. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) charlesf Jul 29, 04:32 am |
Indeed. If our enjoyment were tied to winning, Diplomacy would be a masochistic exercise (since the whole setup makes winning rather rare).
But the direction of our game ought to be none other than victory. The tough challenge. Rather than the path of least resistance.
It's how the game is meant to be played. And it can only truly shine if everyone subscribes to this.
Incendentally, I've designed my variants (1648, 1936) with an eye towards promoting soloism. The victory conditions are much lower than Standard's 50%+1. Indeed in the 9-player 1648, it (currently) clocks in at 25.8%.
So I'm dangling the solo carrot very much in front of players. Whittling down the board in favour of a draw becomes a dangerous prospect, as such efforts will nudge players ever closer to the magic solo number.
And with powers threatening a solo much earlier, this also creates greater diplomatic instability.
This has me wondering: How would Standard play if say the victory criterion were set at say 12 SCs...? |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Sean2010 Jul 29, 11:48 am |
This has me wondering: How would Standard play if say the victory criterion were set at say 12 SCs...?
Hm, one of the geographic aspects I enjoy about Diplomacy is that it utilizes the geographic choke-points. Sure, they increase the chances of a stalemate, but they are an intricate part of geopolitics.
I'm not sure how I like lower victory conditions as 12 in Standard doesn't even control the map by defacto. 18 is largely the stalemateline +1 or so and defacto control of the map.
And with powers threatening a solo much earlier, this also creates greater diplomatic instability.
Personally, I don't like Milan because it takes away from the Austrian-Italian relations. It takes much more negotiation, and the very thing that creates trust rapidly is also a key to treachery or the stab. I think Milan trades geopolitical instability for geopolitical stability.
It also emphasizes the threat a conquerer from either side can utilize that adds to the instability.
Personally, I don't see it as a masochist exercise; I see it as an objective with a high challenging standard.
I will say that dangling the carrot in variants certainly would help players to be weary of momentum-tempo, balance of power, and etc. |
| A Call to Arms! - vegas_iwish (Jul 12, 2014, 7:02 pm) |
| You clearly did not live throught the 1st (&only) golden age of wargaming 35-40 ys ago. Far more choice & far better games. It might be better now than in mid-80s but wargaming died long before even that time under D&D/ASLfolks not having the time. So many games now based on cards & other gimmicks. Dip was not considered a wargame due to its total lack of realism (4.9 on a scale of 10 at the time which was generous. Average 6.5 or so). Games like Frederick the Great & Panzerarmee Afrika came out in S&T as mag games - unreal! Community (non-dip) in the 100s of thousands not the 10s of thousands. No long-timer would ever make such a point. Your past is not the true past. Last line dead wrong as SSI computer wargames even have not been surpassed today for realism/quality. Better graphics mean zip. [Reply] |
| A Call to Arms! - Operations (Jul 09, 2014, 12:05 pm) |
| I don't know if it would be considered a "war game", but I miss playing Junta. I played it a lot in college, and haven't played it since. [Reply] |
| A Call to Arms! - charlesf (Jul 09, 2014, 7:39 am) |
I'd say rumours of wargaming's demise are greatly exaggerated!
I'd say we're experiencing the second golden age of wargaming. Look at the immense catalogue of terrific recent wargames. Look at the vibrancy of the community.
Sure, a print-run today might only be in the 2000-5000 spectrum. But many more wargames are produced per year than in the past. Consumer choice has never been better.[Reply] |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Operations Jul 09, 12:05 pm |
| I don't know if it would be considered a "war game", but I miss playing Junta. I played it a lot in college, and haven't played it since. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) vegas_iwish Jul 12, 07:02 pm |
| You clearly did not live throught the 1st (&only) golden age of wargaming 35-40 ys ago. Far more choice & far better games. It might be better now than in mid-80s but wargaming died long before even that time under D&D/ASLfolks not having the time. So many games now based on cards & other gimmicks. Dip was not considered a wargame due to its total lack of realism (4.9 on a scale of 10 at the time which was generous. Average 6.5 or so). Games like Frederick the Great & Panzerarmee Afrika came out in S&T as mag games - unreal! Community (non-dip) in the 100s of thousands not the 10s of thousands. No long-timer would ever make such a point. Your past is not the true past. Last line dead wrong as SSI computer wargames even have not been surpassed today for realism/quality. Better graphics mean zip. |
| A Call to Arms! - Sean2010 (Jul 08, 2014, 3:10 pm) |
I personally start every game with the intention to solo. I never set out to split with anyone, and consider it a grudging last resort.
Solo should be what we as players strive for. Shared Monarchies should be a last resort.
If everyone were to adopt a drawist outlook, games would be horribly boring. Carebearism.
Shared Monarchism certainly can develop into carebearism, and this mostly centers upon players viewing their career reputation of their playing style more important, or otherwise prune to play the last game opposed to a new game. The most important reputation is a player's dependenability to submit orders, and one really shouldn't strive to becoming predictable.
That's why the sometimes voiced sentiment of "I'm working towards a draw, but will go for the solo if the opportunity arises" has got it all backwards.
I agree. If you're working towards a draw, you're inevitably not only not looking for a solo; you're working against yourself. Solos take work and rarely if ever grants an opportunity by chance; it truly does take work and improvising to accomplish.[Reply] |
| Game limit? - FuzzyLogic (Jul 08, 2014, 8:46 am) |
Lots of good stuff in here Charles.
Yes, that's the basic policy. Newbies get one game until they complete it, and when they do they can join as many as they want until they abandon at which point we put them back to the one game limit.
I'll add that in my hayday I was playing in 6-7 games and GM'ing as many at the same time. But that was in a time before kids, and now really w all the time that goes to them and other stuff, I really don't do more than a couple games. But if there are eager new players out there I'm happy to have them get their fill.
And obviously I agree regarding the human touch. Diplomacy is inherently a board game to me, not an automated system that you sign up for and submit moves to. I enjoy the personal aspect, so I put the time into games here. Yeah there are bigger sites out there but they don't appeal to me. Then again I don't like playing 18xx via a spreadsheet or D&D (aka WOW) on the computer. These things to me started as friends getting together to have fun w a game and that's how I'll always look at them.
Hopefully there's a lot of traditional interest for a long time to come. Refer your friends everyone![Reply] |
| A Call to Arms! - FuzzyLogic (Jul 08, 2014, 8:32 am) |
Survivals are not given to anyone... For DC purposes, Survival is merely a descriptive result which indicates someone lost a game but was still in control of at least one supply center. i.e. they either lost to a solo or conceded a draw not including them. This is compared to eliminated, in which one was actually eliminated and had no impact on the ending of the game. I don't think anyone plays to survive. That's like playing chess to be checkmated but still have some pieces left. It's still a loss and is treated as such. The two different loss results are there so when you look at your stats, you can see in how many games you lost by elimination and how many games you lost while still active. It's an interesting stat but not much more than that.
It is ridiculous how much folks value survival let alone draws. The fact survivals are given even if solo occurs just means there should be more solos as less reason to stop them. Calhamer would be furious (met him a time or 2 back in Mass). Been running games for 40 yrs (as wargaming largely died out) & that's the way the game has gone. You've gotten more folks with less knowledge/feel for history/realism so more & more just a way to pass time for them. [Reply] |
| A Call to Arms! - vegas_iwish (Jul 05, 2014, 9:28 pm) |
| It is ridiculous how much folks value survival let alone draws. The fact survivals are given even if solo occurs just means there should be more solos as less reason to stop them. Calhamer would be furious (met him a time or 2 back in Mass). Been running games for 40 yrs (as wargaming largely died out) & that's the way the game has gone. You've gotten more folks with less knowledge/feel for history/realism so more & more just a way to pass time for them. [Reply] |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) FuzzyLogic Jul 08, 08:32 am |
Survivals are not given to anyone... For DC purposes, Survival is merely a descriptive result which indicates someone lost a game but was still in control of at least one supply center. i.e. they either lost to a solo or conceded a draw not including them. This is compared to eliminated, in which one was actually eliminated and had no impact on the ending of the game. I don't think anyone plays to survive. That's like playing chess to be checkmated but still have some pieces left. It's still a loss and is treated as such. The two different loss results are there so when you look at your stats, you can see in how many games you lost by elimination and how many games you lost while still active. It's an interesting stat but not much more than that.
It is ridiculous how much folks value survival let alone draws. The fact survivals are given even if solo occurs just means there should be more solos as less reason to stop them. Calhamer would be furious (met him a time or 2 back in Mass). Been running games for 40 yrs (as wargaming largely died out) & that's the way the game has gone. You've gotten more folks with less knowledge/feel for history/realism so more & more just a way to pass time for them. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) charlesf Jul 09, 07:39 am |
I'd say rumours of wargaming's demise are greatly exaggerated!
I'd say we're experiencing the second golden age of wargaming. Look at the immense catalogue of terrific recent wargames. Look at the vibrancy of the community.
Sure, a print-run today might only be in the 2000-5000 spectrum. But many more wargames are produced per year than in the past. Consumer choice has never been better. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Operations Jul 09, 12:05 pm |
| I don't know if it would be considered a "war game", but I miss playing Junta. I played it a lot in college, and haven't played it since. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) vegas_iwish Jul 12, 07:02 pm |
| You clearly did not live throught the 1st (&only) golden age of wargaming 35-40 ys ago. Far more choice & far better games. It might be better now than in mid-80s but wargaming died long before even that time under D&D/ASLfolks not having the time. So many games now based on cards & other gimmicks. Dip was not considered a wargame due to its total lack of realism (4.9 on a scale of 10 at the time which was generous. Average 6.5 or so). Games like Frederick the Great & Panzerarmee Afrika came out in S&T as mag games - unreal! Community (non-dip) in the 100s of thousands not the 10s of thousands. No long-timer would ever make such a point. Your past is not the true past. Last line dead wrong as SSI computer wargames even have not been surpassed today for realism/quality. Better graphics mean zip. |
| A Call to Arms! - Operations (Jul 05, 2014, 4:47 pm) |
| I personally start every game with the intention to solo. I never set out to split with anyone, and consider it a grudging last resort. I guess I can understand the thought process of some that a steady gain of mid-range points is better for their ranking than a reach for a solo that could end in a knock-out, but that policy is not for me. [Reply] |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) vegas_iwish Jul 05, 09:28 pm |
| It is ridiculous how much folks value survival let alone draws. The fact survivals are given even if solo occurs just means there should be more solos as less reason to stop them. Calhamer would be furious (met him a time or 2 back in Mass). Been running games for 40 yrs (as wargaming largely died out) & that's the way the game has gone. You've gotten more folks with less knowledge/feel for history/realism so more & more just a way to pass time for them. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) FuzzyLogic Jul 08, 08:32 am |
Survivals are not given to anyone... For DC purposes, Survival is merely a descriptive result which indicates someone lost a game but was still in control of at least one supply center. i.e. they either lost to a solo or conceded a draw not including them. This is compared to eliminated, in which one was actually eliminated and had no impact on the ending of the game. I don't think anyone plays to survive. That's like playing chess to be checkmated but still have some pieces left. It's still a loss and is treated as such. The two different loss results are there so when you look at your stats, you can see in how many games you lost by elimination and how many games you lost while still active. It's an interesting stat but not much more than that.
It is ridiculous how much folks value survival let alone draws. The fact survivals are given even if solo occurs just means there should be more solos as less reason to stop them. Calhamer would be furious (met him a time or 2 back in Mass). Been running games for 40 yrs (as wargaming largely died out) & that's the way the game has gone. You've gotten more folks with less knowledge/feel for history/realism so more & more just a way to pass time for them. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) charlesf Jul 09, 07:39 am |
I'd say rumours of wargaming's demise are greatly exaggerated!
I'd say we're experiencing the second golden age of wargaming. Look at the immense catalogue of terrific recent wargames. Look at the vibrancy of the community.
Sure, a print-run today might only be in the 2000-5000 spectrum. But many more wargames are produced per year than in the past. Consumer choice has never been better. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Operations Jul 09, 12:05 pm |
| I don't know if it would be considered a "war game", but I miss playing Junta. I played it a lot in college, and haven't played it since. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) vegas_iwish Jul 12, 07:02 pm |
| You clearly did not live throught the 1st (&only) golden age of wargaming 35-40 ys ago. Far more choice & far better games. It might be better now than in mid-80s but wargaming died long before even that time under D&D/ASLfolks not having the time. So many games now based on cards & other gimmicks. Dip was not considered a wargame due to its total lack of realism (4.9 on a scale of 10 at the time which was generous. Average 6.5 or so). Games like Frederick the Great & Panzerarmee Afrika came out in S&T as mag games - unreal! Community (non-dip) in the 100s of thousands not the 10s of thousands. No long-timer would ever make such a point. Your past is not the true past. Last line dead wrong as SSI computer wargames even have not been surpassed today for realism/quality. Better graphics mean zip. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Sean2010 Jul 08, 03:10 pm |
I personally start every game with the intention to solo. I never set out to split with anyone, and consider it a grudging last resort.
Solo should be what we as players strive for. Shared Monarchies should be a last resort.
If everyone were to adopt a drawist outlook, games would be horribly boring. Carebearism.
Shared Monarchism certainly can develop into carebearism, and this mostly centers upon players viewing their career reputation of their playing style more important, or otherwise prune to play the last game opposed to a new game. The most important reputation is a player's dependenability to submit orders, and one really shouldn't strive to becoming predictable.
That's why the sometimes voiced sentiment of "I'm working towards a draw, but will go for the solo if the opportunity arises" has got it all backwards.
I agree. If you're working towards a draw, you're inevitably not only not looking for a solo; you're working against yourself. Solos take work and rarely if ever grants an opportunity by chance; it truly does take work and improvising to accomplish. |
| Game limit? - Operations (Jul 03, 2014, 6:45 pm) |
Yes, I absolutely agree. I would never join a game just to let it slide, not only in respect to the other players, but due to the fact I wouldn't want to give myself that reputation here.
At the moment, my goal is just to try out all the other variants available. Before I started playing here, I had only played live games in college on the standard map. I had never even heard of other maps or rule sets.
Right now, I'm signed up for a standard rules Aegean map, a standard-standard, and the Haven game being run by FuzzyLogic (which I just had to try), plus the standard game I'm GMing. I am sticking to strictly standard-standard games as a GM for a good while, at least until I've *played* another map or variant enough times to have a grasp of it. Just thinking of how complex it must be to run this Haven map *with* Fog of War rules makes my teeth ache. Definite hats off to FuzzyLogic.[Reply] |
| Game limit? - charlesf (Jul 03, 2014, 9:12 am) |
I'd say if you can handle all those games well - both now and in the months to come! - I see no reason why not.
But let me explain by "handling them well". In my book, that'd mean that every single game gets as much investment from you than what you'd be putting into merely one, if you were playing that exclusively. In other words, four games would require four times the effort.
I happen to believe players ought to keep up a regular correspondence with each and every other power on a board. If not, one's not putting an optimum effort into a game. One would be leaving considerable potential untapped. Now, in my experience (especially in my capacity as a GM) by no means all players meet that standard. But those who do, do much better than those who do not!
So I'd recommend asking yourself whether you meet the following criteria in your existing games:
Am I writing everyone regularly?
Do I answer mails promptly and substantively? (Caveat: Unless I do not WANT to, for tactical reasons).
Am I building a rapport with everyone involved?
Am I sufficiently studying the map? Not just my "little corner", but examining matters much farther afield?
Am I trying to shape the dynamics of regions on the board other than my own? Am I playing "the whole board", so to speak? (I believe this is critical to good play).
In short, am I giving my best?
In addition:
Will I be able to meet the standard I expect of myself now and in the many weeks and months to come?
If you pass that test (or whatever other reasonable criteria you happen to have), what's to stop you from joining an additional game?
Perhaps it'd also be useful considering at what stage one's present game(s) is/are at. Opening and mid-game stages require more negotiations than your typical endgame with few powers left. I'd say, if playing in multiple games, it'd be a good idea if they were at different stages.
Now, I suppose most veteran dippers have overcommitted at some point during their hobby involvement (myself very much included!). Having learnt that lesson, they tend to be more careful about how many games they play. Many limit themselves to one or two.
Quality over quantity.
As for myself, I've found that I cannot competently (following my above criteria) in more than 1-2 games. (Currently I'm playing in zero games. But I mean to join one in the coming weeks.)
As for GMing, I'm currently running a 1648 variant game. I hope I'm doing a decent job, but especially having been on holiday for an extended period (with spotty internet access) was a challenge.
In any case, I feel I have quite enough on my plate with one single game! (Unless adjucating etc were automated as on the judges). I however have a strong preference for the non-judge format. I had been away from the hobby for 4 years before recruiting here for my present 1648 game. It appears that not such mammoth sites such as playdiplomacy totally dwarf such communities as ours here. These are now a special niche. More so than in the past.
My sense is this special niche promises a more enjoyable game experience. I like the human touch. The longer deadlines. Indeed, I abhore the playdiplomacy practice of deadlines being unalterable simply because the system does away with GMs. I feel games NEED GMs.
BTW, I read on the playdiplomacy forums a former newbie relating how he joined 20-30 games at the same time. He was overwhelmed and then NMR-abandoned all of them. Crazy. I take too many newbies join too many games in an initial burst of enthusiasm and naivety only to then discover that they've sorely overcommitted.
IIRC, newbies on this site are by default barred from playing in more than one game. The restriction may be waved (say for certified veterans who are new to the community). But it strikes me as a sound basic policy.
Thoughts?
Charles[Reply] |
| Game limit? (Community) Operations Jul 03, 06:45 pm |
Yes, I absolutely agree. I would never join a game just to let it slide, not only in respect to the other players, but due to the fact I wouldn't want to give myself that reputation here.
At the moment, my goal is just to try out all the other variants available. Before I started playing here, I had only played live games in college on the standard map. I had never even heard of other maps or rule sets.
Right now, I'm signed up for a standard rules Aegean map, a standard-standard, and the Haven game being run by FuzzyLogic (which I just had to try), plus the standard game I'm GMing. I am sticking to strictly standard-standard games as a GM for a good while, at least until I've *played* another map or variant enough times to have a grasp of it. Just thinking of how complex it must be to run this Haven map *with* Fog of War rules makes my teeth ache. Definite hats off to FuzzyLogic. |
| Game limit? (Community) FuzzyLogic Jul 08, 08:46 am |
Lots of good stuff in here Charles.
Yes, that's the basic policy. Newbies get one game until they complete it, and when they do they can join as many as they want until they abandon at which point we put them back to the one game limit.
I'll add that in my hayday I was playing in 6-7 games and GM'ing as many at the same time. But that was in a time before kids, and now really w all the time that goes to them and other stuff, I really don't do more than a couple games. But if there are eager new players out there I'm happy to have them get their fill.
And obviously I agree regarding the human touch. Diplomacy is inherently a board game to me, not an automated system that you sign up for and submit moves to. I enjoy the personal aspect, so I put the time into games here. Yeah there are bigger sites out there but they don't appeal to me. Then again I don't like playing 18xx via a spreadsheet or D&D (aka WOW) on the computer. These things to me started as friends getting together to have fun w a game and that's how I'll always look at them.
Hopefully there's a lot of traditional interest for a long time to come. Refer your friends everyone! |
| A Call to Arms! - charlesf (Jul 03, 2014, 8:37 am) |
If everyone were to adopt a drawist outlook, games would be horribly boring. Carebearism.
Ambition spices things up. Makes for more lively dynamics. Diplomatic constellations shifting and changing constantly. Drawism leads to static alliances. That's why one actually owes it to one's fellow-players to show morale, ambition!
A good player will give his best. And giving his best means maximising his chances of winning. Chances are, he'll experience a thrilling game. He's willing to take risks. He'll prove a fighter. He won't pick the easy way. The path of least resistance.
Someone who has strong drawist inclinations is unlikely to take on tough challenges. He'll choose the path of least resistance.
That's why the sometimes voiced sentiment of "I'm working towards a draw, but will go for the solo if the opportunity arises" has got it all backwards. If you're working towards a draw, you'll be in league with several other big guys. You'll join them in taking out the weak guys. But that is precisely the course that works against one's chances of soloing! Someone who aims for the solo has an active interest in keeping the board weak, fractured and divided. Often the (relative) minnows are his greatest asset. Be it as grateful allies or as soft targets for the last few SCs.
The one who doesn't strive for the solo in a purposeful fashion, defeats himself on day one. He may pride himself for having got lots of SCs by the end of the game. But it's empty pride. For he has never given the game his all. He's chosen the least path of resistance. Quite frankly, I'd rate such a performance below someone's who strove for a solo from day one, made hard decisions, took risks that - ultimately - got him eliminated.
The drawist grown fat on SCs defeated himself. He never gave his all. Promoted circumstances detrimental to his soloing chances.
As far as I'm concerned, not the one's who got eliminated (or just survived) in a game ending in a draw did worst. No, it's the ones who have many SCs to their name. They're the ones most defeated by a draw. For they're closest to the prize. And it was denied to them.
And if they never meant to go strongly for that prize? Well, they're doubly defeated. By the others, but especially by themselves. I'd rate that as a quite shameful performance. Whatever the tactical acumen shown along the way. The grand strategy being self-defeating and the height of timidity!
You owe it to yourself and your fellow-players to seek to win. This really shouldn't be so hard or controversial.
I challenge you: Can anyone deny this?[Reply] |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Operations Jul 05, 04:47 pm |
| I personally start every game with the intention to solo. I never set out to split with anyone, and consider it a grudging last resort. I guess I can understand the thought process of some that a steady gain of mid-range points is better for their ranking than a reach for a solo that could end in a knock-out, but that policy is not for me. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) vegas_iwish Jul 05, 09:28 pm |
| It is ridiculous how much folks value survival let alone draws. The fact survivals are given even if solo occurs just means there should be more solos as less reason to stop them. Calhamer would be furious (met him a time or 2 back in Mass). Been running games for 40 yrs (as wargaming largely died out) & that's the way the game has gone. You've gotten more folks with less knowledge/feel for history/realism so more & more just a way to pass time for them. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) FuzzyLogic Jul 08, 08:32 am |
Survivals are not given to anyone... For DC purposes, Survival is merely a descriptive result which indicates someone lost a game but was still in control of at least one supply center. i.e. they either lost to a solo or conceded a draw not including them. This is compared to eliminated, in which one was actually eliminated and had no impact on the ending of the game. I don't think anyone plays to survive. That's like playing chess to be checkmated but still have some pieces left. It's still a loss and is treated as such. The two different loss results are there so when you look at your stats, you can see in how many games you lost by elimination and how many games you lost while still active. It's an interesting stat but not much more than that.
It is ridiculous how much folks value survival let alone draws. The fact survivals are given even if solo occurs just means there should be more solos as less reason to stop them. Calhamer would be furious (met him a time or 2 back in Mass). Been running games for 40 yrs (as wargaming largely died out) & that's the way the game has gone. You've gotten more folks with less knowledge/feel for history/realism so more & more just a way to pass time for them. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) charlesf Jul 09, 07:39 am |
I'd say rumours of wargaming's demise are greatly exaggerated!
I'd say we're experiencing the second golden age of wargaming. Look at the immense catalogue of terrific recent wargames. Look at the vibrancy of the community.
Sure, a print-run today might only be in the 2000-5000 spectrum. But many more wargames are produced per year than in the past. Consumer choice has never been better. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Operations Jul 09, 12:05 pm |
| I don't know if it would be considered a "war game", but I miss playing Junta. I played it a lot in college, and haven't played it since. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) vegas_iwish Jul 12, 07:02 pm |
| You clearly did not live throught the 1st (&only) golden age of wargaming 35-40 ys ago. Far more choice & far better games. It might be better now than in mid-80s but wargaming died long before even that time under D&D/ASLfolks not having the time. So many games now based on cards & other gimmicks. Dip was not considered a wargame due to its total lack of realism (4.9 on a scale of 10 at the time which was generous. Average 6.5 or so). Games like Frederick the Great & Panzerarmee Afrika came out in S&T as mag games - unreal! Community (non-dip) in the 100s of thousands not the 10s of thousands. No long-timer would ever make such a point. Your past is not the true past. Last line dead wrong as SSI computer wargames even have not been surpassed today for realism/quality. Better graphics mean zip. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Sean2010 Jul 08, 03:10 pm |
I personally start every game with the intention to solo. I never set out to split with anyone, and consider it a grudging last resort.
Solo should be what we as players strive for. Shared Monarchies should be a last resort.
If everyone were to adopt a drawist outlook, games would be horribly boring. Carebearism.
Shared Monarchism certainly can develop into carebearism, and this mostly centers upon players viewing their career reputation of their playing style more important, or otherwise prune to play the last game opposed to a new game. The most important reputation is a player's dependenability to submit orders, and one really shouldn't strive to becoming predictable.
That's why the sometimes voiced sentiment of "I'm working towards a draw, but will go for the solo if the opportunity arises" has got it all backwards.
I agree. If you're working towards a draw, you're inevitably not only not looking for a solo; you're working against yourself. Solos take work and rarely if ever grants an opportunity by chance; it truly does take work and improvising to accomplish. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Corrino Jul 21, 01:53 pm |
I have been working hard to ignore this post but I find that I keep coming back to it. It piques my curiosity. I know that I disagree with much of what Charles said but I was attracted to the passion with which he said it. I was disappointed not to see more than a couple of "I agrees" before the thread devolved into side comments about war games.
So, in the interest of, well, my interest, I'm going to risk blowing my cover (and waking the sleeping trolls - shhhh...) and offer a few contrary ideas for your consideration.
To wit, Charles, I believe that many of your conclusions are flawed because many of your initial premises, as common as they may be, are, nevertheless, mistaken.
To wit:
1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game.
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo."
3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am.
4. The premise that carebearism (I'm going to call this the "empathic" approach from now on) could not be a strategy in its own right.
5. The premise that empathic play is necessarily easy or boring.
6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable.
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum.
Those who know me here know that I can be long-winded. Let me surprise all those people by stopping right here. I'm looking to kindle debate. Your thoughts?
Chris
aka Corrino |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Sean2010 Jul 22, 06:08 pm |
I'm looking to kindle debate. Your thoughts?
If I may, I would like more information on these premises. The only premises right now that I feel comfortable tackling are:
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo."
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum.
So, if it's possible, I'd like clarification on the other premises, and I'll answer these two.
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo."
The main short-game objective is to solo by acquiring the 18 centers for defacto control and thus conquest of the map board. It should probably be noted in the 1976 copyright rulebook; the short game does not offer draws. When the players agree to end the game, the player who has the most centers is declared the winner.
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum.
This premise centers on the subjective allowance of being able to bring notes of strengths, weaknesses, playing style, dependability, and personality.
I view strengths and weaknesses and personality as part of playing style. I only view dependability as dependable in sending in orders.
It truly depends on where external and pre-game relationships are viewed.
I honestly would prefer clarification on the other premises before I add my 2 cents to them. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Corrino Jul 23, 01:03 pm |
I honestly would prefer clarification on the other premises before I add my 2 cents to them.
Hi, Sean. Yes, I know these were left a little vague. I did that on purpose, the point being to prod people to focus on the assumptions they are making which may be limiting both their success and enjoyment of the hobby.
But since you asked, I'll see what I can do to help by posing a question for each premise.
1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game. -> What other motivations might people have for playing Diplomacy on this forum other than the "high" they get from winning the game?
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo." -> Given the low probability of soloing (1:7 in Standard; 1:19 or worse in Haven) and my own premise that most diplomats are not clinical masochists, is it possible that people are internally redefining what they count as a win?
3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am. -> Do you really want to play with 6 clones of yourself? From a practical perspective, are you better off cursing your opponent's "imbecilic" approach or trying to understand it and use it to your advantage?
4. The premise that carebearism (I'm going to call this the "empathic" approach from now on) could not be a strategy in its own right. -> There is an old song (and older bible verse) that begins "For every season...." Why limit your options?
5. The premise that empathic play is necessarily easy or boring. -> Do you know the story of the fox and the grapes?
6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable. -> If I KNOW that you always take the same approach, with the same goal, how is that an advantage for you?
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum. -> When people ask you to forget the past, do you think they're modest or that they're hiding something? |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Sean2010 Jul 23, 11:02 pm |
Hello Corrino,
I'll try being succinct myself
1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game. -> What other motivations might people have for playing Diplomacy on this forum other than the "high" they get from winning the game?
Playing to win is not the same as winning at all costs. Your clarification reads closer to winning at all costs...
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo." -> Given the low probability of soloing (1:7 in Standard; 1:19 or worse in Haven) and my own premise that most diplomats are not clinical masochists, is it possible that people are internally redefining what they count as a win?
Solos are the main objective; draws state the players wanted to end the game that once would have made the player with the most centers win according to the 1976 copyright rulebook.
Diplomacy focuses its challenge, fun, and intrigue between the elements generalized to negotiations and unit movements of strategy and tactics.
3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am. -> Do you really want to play with 6 clones of yourself? From a practical perspective, are you better off cursing your opponent's "imbecilic" approach or trying to understand it and use it to your advantage?
Playing to win means you're attempting to win the game by achieving the objective. Winning at all costs are also more prune to take winning to mean everything to the point of cheating in most games.
Frankly, it doesn't bother me; I'll take it as a challenge in its own right. I'd do what I could. Then again, I would have to be quiet about 6 other Sean2010s running around. We might decide to clone each clone 7 times for 77 times. (Couldn't resist, Corrino).
4. The premise that carebearism (I'm going to call this the "empathic" approach from now on) could not be a strategy in its own right. -> There is an old song (and older bible verse) that begins "For every season...." Why limit your options?
I don't see carebearism's playing for reputation for future games as a strategy... Reminds me of Age of Conquest where I watched a player and his clanmates attack a player after picking 3 of his 4 neighbors for only canceling an non-negotiated alliance 20 games ago through 10 games straight when I inquired into it during the 10th game.
5. The premise that empathic play is necessarily easy or boring. -> Do you know the story of the fox and the grapes?
Not that I recall knowing... Carebearism does make for static games. Reputations tend to be determined by the other players, and it's not always what one intitially was aiming for.
6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable. -> If I KNOW that you always take the same approach, with the same goal, how is that an advantage for you?
Do you mean playing style opposed to approach?
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum. -> When people ask you to forget the past, do you think they're modest or that they're hiding something?
It's actually considered unacceptable by the Deluxe Diplomacy Rulebook and Strategy guide that external and pre-game relations aren't supposed to carry. Strengths, weaknesses, and personality, which I view under playing style, and dependability that I view as orders opposed to NMRs.
Establish trust by x and x, border guard to keep honest, and try to avoid making yourself vulnerable to being a catalyst of an alliance shift.
And yourself? |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) charlesf Jul 22, 06:52 pm |
1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game.
2. The premise that the only definition of win is "solo."
Let me quote the rulebook, 4th edition:
OBJECT OF THE GAME
As soon as one Great Power controls 18 supply centers, it is said to have gained control of Europe. The player representing that Great Power is the winner.
There you have it. Solo equals win. Winning is the object of the game.
I know some ignore that. With all the adverse consequences I have described. That's after all why I issued this call to arms!
3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am.
If they want to experience Diplomacy at its finest, yes, they should.
4. The premise that carebearism (I'm going to call this the "empathic" approach from now on) could not be a strategy in its own right.
It's an imbecilic strategy. A strategy's merit should be judged by whether it meets the object of the game, i.e. winning.
Since pure carebearism discards that possibility, it's a total clusterf*ck.
Carebearism and NMRing are IMO the two banes of the pbem hobby.
For it is written:
Thou shalt not carebear!
5. The premise that empathic play is necessarily easy or boring.
I enjoy this euphemism you introduced.
Are you in advertising?
6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable.
A winning attitude would be a good start.
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum.
I try to approach each game in that manner. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Corrino Jul 23, 01:14 pm |
Hi Charles.
No, I'm not in advertising, but I think I would have been good at it. I definitely think I could have "won" advertising, but then I would have felt bad about it all the time.
Cheers,
Chris |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) FuzzyLogic Jul 24, 09:03 am |
1. The premise that the only reason people play Diplomacy is to win the game.
I can see both sides of this, and naturally I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Sure there are many reasons to play a game other than purely to win.
There's the obvious things like "to have fun" or "to engage in social company".
But of course you could have fun with friends sitting in a circle drawing hearts and puppies. So it raises the question of if all you want to do is have fun, then why play a game? A game comes with some objectives of its own. Namely -- the goal of the game itself as defined by the rulebook.
Let's look at an example that's pretty off the wall. Bowling. Sure the goal is to get the best score you can. But in a social setting it has not been unheard of for someone to do a silly thing like bowl backwards, play w the bumbers, etc. These things are all counter to winning in the strict sense, but they complement the moment, the fun, or whatever the group is doing.
Is it wrong? No not really. Among friends the win itself often is secondary to the experience. If it's a tournament perhaps you approach it with a little more seriousness, but then you are declaring your seriousness by your play in a less social setting.
I'll get kind of annoyed if I play games and ppl take them too seriously... like stacking their money so you can't count it, or constantly referring to the game manual for technicalities. Sometimes progressing the game and having a good time trumps repeatedly breaking it to look things up. If two players on opposite ends of this spectrum play against each other, it can be frustrating.
So where does online Diplomacy fall in that range of playing games for the social aspect vs playing games purely to win? This perception will vary for every player. I'd say for me a pointer on the scale would be around 70% to the strict / win side. That is I usually play to get the best result I can, but I also play to have fun.
Also you have to be flexible. Yes ultimately the goal is to win... but given you often cannot win, there are secondary goals. For example if you are stabbed early on, you might face elimination. Well before you can win you have to get back in the game, and to get back in the game you have to not die. So little things like "staying alive" trump winning, even if you risk someone else winning. Goals like "remaining viable" and "ensuring a place in a draw" are not unreasonable, for you have to get to the midgame before you can win.
3. The premise that others will (or should) be playing for the same stakes as I am.... If they want to experience Diplomacy at its finest, yes, they should.
This is debatable. Yes everyone should play to accomplish the goals of the game... but we all have friends right? Surely you play boardgames against them? My wife and I will bite each others head off in a game cuz we enjoy the competition aspect... but that is a personality trait of ours and is not the same in everyone. In a board game should I only attack her because I know she wants to win, or should I attack other players equally, or what? All these things are simply decided by the social dynamic... that social dynamic cannot be removed so as to play a game as if we were all robots.
4. The premise that carebearism (I'm going to call this the "empathic" approach from now on) could not be a strategy in its own right. ... It's an imbecilic strategy. A strategy's merit should be judged by whether it meets the object of the game, i.e. winning.
I agree here. A strategy is good if it wins often, bad if it doesn't. Carebearism does work for me pretty well. I tend to make allies and trust allies, often doing for them before they'll do for me... this builds favors, trust. OTOH I also get stabbed a lot and wiped out early by being too trusting. But it works enough for me that I do it often.
6. The premise that a consistent attitude of any kind (empathic, cutthroat, whatever) is desirable.
I think flexible play is more important than consistent play. Sometimes you need to carebear. Sometimes you need to stab. Sometimes you need placate. So moreso than employing a strategy of your own, the importance is on identifying the strategy being employed by others to utilize that information to better yourself by being able to deal with all of them.
7. The premise that each game exists in a vacuum.
Clearly each game does not. We are people, people remember things. Trust, styles, tendencies, etc are all things you should learn about your fellow players. I wouldn't stab someone in one game because I was stabbed by them in the past, but I would certainly try to use what I know of them from past games to predict their actions in the next game.
If someone promises to keep you alive as a pawn... and you agree, and then they immediately wipe you out. And then a similar situation comes up in the next game, should really not use what you've learned in the past to help you choose? This is the most basic strategy of war... you learn from the past. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Corrino Jul 28, 01:21 pm |
I'd been trying to recall this quote for a while, and then today it popped up again on a BGG thread about winning and losing.
From Reiner Knizia, noted board game designer:
"The goal is to win but it is the goal that is important not the winning." |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Sean2010 Jul 29, 12:00 am |
"The goal is to win but it is the goal that is important not the winning."
To me, it's challenge, fun, and intrigue while you're trying to meet the objective. Unless I'm misunderstanding the quote, it seems par or at least apt. |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) charlesf Jul 29, 04:32 am |
Indeed. If our enjoyment were tied to winning, Diplomacy would be a masochistic exercise (since the whole setup makes winning rather rare).
But the direction of our game ought to be none other than victory. The tough challenge. Rather than the path of least resistance.
It's how the game is meant to be played. And it can only truly shine if everyone subscribes to this.
Incendentally, I've designed my variants (1648, 1936) with an eye towards promoting soloism. The victory conditions are much lower than Standard's 50%+1. Indeed in the 9-player 1648, it (currently) clocks in at 25.8%.
So I'm dangling the solo carrot very much in front of players. Whittling down the board in favour of a draw becomes a dangerous prospect, as such efforts will nudge players ever closer to the magic solo number.
And with powers threatening a solo much earlier, this also creates greater diplomatic instability.
This has me wondering: How would Standard play if say the victory criterion were set at say 12 SCs...? |
| A Call to Arms! (Community) Sean2010 Jul 29, 11:48 am |
This has me wondering: How would Standard play if say the victory criterion were set at say 12 SCs...?
Hm, one of the geographic aspects I enjoy about Diplomacy is that it utilizes the geographic choke-points. Sure, they increase the chances of a stalemate, but they are an intricate part of geopolitics.
I'm not sure how I like lower victory conditions as 12 in Standard doesn't even control the map by defacto. 18 is largely the stalemateline +1 or so and defacto control of the map.
And with powers threatening a solo much earlier, this also creates greater diplomatic instability.
Personally, I don't like Milan because it takes away from the Austrian-Italian relations. It takes much more negotiation, and the very thing that creates trust rapidly is also a key to treachery or the stab. I think Milan trades geopolitical instability for geopolitical stability.
It also emphasizes the threat a conquerer from either side can utilize that adds to the instability.
Personally, I don't see it as a masochist exercise; I see it as an objective with a high challenging standard.
I will say that dangling the carrot in variants certainly would help players to be weary of momentum-tempo, balance of power, and etc. |
| Game limit? - Operations (Jul 02, 2014, 7:49 pm) |
Is there any kind of limit, formal or informal, regarding number of games you can be active in at one time? I really like this game, and I want to try all the variants I can, and I just don't have the patience to wait months for a game to finish before I sign up for another.
Right now I'm playing one, GMing one, and signed up for two more, and I'd actually like to sign up for third which is a map I haven't played yet.
Any issues with that as long as I'm able to handle all of them?[Reply] |
| Game limit? (Community) charlesf Jul 03, 09:12 am |
I'd say if you can handle all those games well - both now and in the months to come! - I see no reason why not.
But let me explain by "handling them well". In my book, that'd mean that every single game gets as much investment from you than what you'd be putting into merely one, if you were playing that exclusively. In other words, four games would require four times the effort.
I happen to believe players ought to keep up a regular correspondence with each and every other power on a board. If not, one's not putting an optimum effort into a game. One would be leaving considerable potential untapped. Now, in my experience (especially in my capacity as a GM) by no means all players meet that standard. But those who do, do much better than those who do not!
So I'd recommend asking yourself whether you meet the following criteria in your existing games:
Am I writing everyone regularly?
Do I answer mails promptly and substantively? (Caveat: Unless I do not WANT to, for tactical reasons).
Am I building a rapport with everyone involved?
Am I sufficiently studying the map? Not just my "little corner", but examining matters much farther afield?
Am I trying to shape the dynamics of regions on the board other than my own? Am I playing "the whole board", so to speak? (I believe this is critical to good play).
In short, am I giving my best?
In addition:
Will I be able to meet the standard I expect of myself now and in the many weeks and months to come?
If you pass that test (or whatever other reasonable criteria you happen to have), what's to stop you from joining an additional game?
Perhaps it'd also be useful considering at what stage one's present game(s) is/are at. Opening and mid-game stages require more negotiations than your typical endgame with few powers left. I'd say, if playing in multiple games, it'd be a good idea if they were at different stages.
Now, I suppose most veteran dippers have overcommitted at some point during their hobby involvement (myself very much included!). Having learnt that lesson, they tend to be more careful about how many games they play. Many limit themselves to one or two.
Quality over quantity.
As for myself, I've found that I cannot competently (following my above criteria) in more than 1-2 games. (Currently I'm playing in zero games. But I mean to join one in the coming weeks.)
As for GMing, I'm currently running a 1648 variant game. I hope I'm doing a decent job, but especially having been on holiday for an extended period (with spotty internet access) was a challenge.
In any case, I feel I have quite enough on my plate with one single game! (Unless adjucating etc were automated as on the judges). I however have a strong preference for the non-judge format. I had been away from the hobby for 4 years before recruiting here for my present 1648 game. It appears that not such mammoth sites such as playdiplomacy totally dwarf such communities as ours here. These are now a special niche. More so than in the past.
My sense is this special niche promises a more enjoyable game experience. I like the human touch. The longer deadlines. Indeed, I abhore the playdiplomacy practice of deadlines being unalterable simply because the system does away with GMs. I feel games NEED GMs.
BTW, I read on the playdiplomacy forums a former newbie relating how he joined 20-30 games at the same time. He was overwhelmed and then NMR-abandoned all of them. Crazy. I take too many newbies join too many games in an initial burst of enthusiasm and naivety only to then discover that they've sorely overcommitted.
IIRC, newbies on this site are by default barred from playing in more than one game. The restriction may be waved (say for certified veterans who are new to the community). But it strikes me as a sound basic policy.
Thoughts?
Charles |
| Game limit? (Community) Operations Jul 03, 06:45 pm |
Yes, I absolutely agree. I would never join a game just to let it slide, not only in respect to the other players, but due to the fact I wouldn't want to give myself that reputation here.
At the moment, my goal is just to try out all the other variants available. Before I started playing here, I had only played live games in college on the standard map. I had never even heard of other maps or rule sets.
Right now, I'm signed up for a standard rules Aegean map, a standard-standard, and the Haven game being run by FuzzyLogic (which I just had to try), plus the standard game I'm GMing. I am sticking to strictly standard-standard games as a GM for a good while, at least until I've *played* another map or variant enough times to have a grasp of it. Just thinking of how complex it must be to run this Haven map *with* Fog of War rules makes my teeth ache. Definite hats off to FuzzyLogic. |
| Game limit? (Community) FuzzyLogic Jul 08, 08:46 am |
Lots of good stuff in here Charles.
Yes, that's the basic policy. Newbies get one game until they complete it, and when they do they can join as many as they want until they abandon at which point we put them back to the one game limit.
I'll add that in my hayday I was playing in 6-7 games and GM'ing as many at the same time. But that was in a time before kids, and now really w all the time that goes to them and other stuff, I really don't do more than a couple games. But if there are eager new players out there I'm happy to have them get their fill.
And obviously I agree regarding the human touch. Diplomacy is inherently a board game to me, not an automated system that you sign up for and submit moves to. I enjoy the personal aspect, so I put the time into games here. Yeah there are bigger sites out there but they don't appeal to me. Then again I don't like playing 18xx via a spreadsheet or D&D (aka WOW) on the computer. These things to me started as friends getting together to have fun w a game and that's how I'll always look at them.
Hopefully there's a lot of traditional interest for a long time to come. Refer your friends everyone! |
| Just saying Hello - Sean2010 (Jul 02, 2014, 12:06 am) |
Thanks, Slangers.
lol, crash refresher course comes to mind; it'll be a fun interesting game to be sure.[Reply] |
| Update of Stats? - garry.bledsoe (Jun 30, 2014, 10:52 am) |
Yeah...our bad. We haven't checked "finished" games to complete them for a bit. Will try to get that done over the next few days. Thanks for keeping us honest there.
Garry[Reply] |
| Update of Stats? - Operations (Jun 29, 2014, 4:27 am) |
| I finished playing a game back in the middle of April where I was part of a draw, but it still has "0" listed for me in the draw column in the stats. How long do game stats take to get updated? [Reply] |
| Update of Stats? (Community) garry.bledsoe Jun 30, 10:52 am |
Yeah...our bad. We haven't checked "finished" games to complete them for a bit. Will try to get that done over the next few days. Thanks for keeping us honest there.
Garry |
| Just saying Hello - Slangers (Jun 28, 2014, 6:05 am) |
| Good luck Sean- looks like the next game of standard will see you with some illustrious company. [Reply] |
| Just saying Hello (Community) Sean2010 Jul 02, 12:06 am |
Thanks, Slangers.
lol, crash refresher course comes to mind; it'll be a fun interesting game to be sure. |
| Diplomacy Article on Grantland - Godzilla (Jun 25, 2014, 11:08 am) |
| Yes, this is an excellent read. Nice to get a perspective from outside the hobby. [Reply] |
