| A Call to Arms! - Sean2010 (Jul 29, 2014, 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.[Reply] |
| 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. |
| DC501 - Fall 1903 - Operations (Jul 28, 2014, 7:57 pm) |
Well, a big year comes to a close, and so too, unfortunately, does the government of Austria, who is left with no supply centers at the end of Fall's events. I would like to thank
Peter for playing in my first game as a GM on DC! In the rest of the world, after a flurry of fighting in the Balkans between Russia and Turkey, they manage to fight
themselves to a standstill, with no territory changing hands, even with Italy lending a hand to Moscow. In Europe, England has thrown in on the side of the French to stop the German advance, but to no avail. England now finds itself a target as the Germans open a second front, and the island nation now finds itself host to the forces of all three powers. Deadline for Winter 1903 is July 31st. Builds/Disbands Austria: Disbands 2 - no SC's held, removed from game England: Disbands 2 France: Builds 1 Germany: Builds 2 Italy: Builds 2 Russia: Builds 1 Austria
A Galicia - Warsaw (*Bounce*)
A Trieste - Vienna (*Dislodged*) England
F English Channel Supports A Brest (*Cut*)
A London - Yorkshire
F Skagerrak - North Sea France
A Brest Hold (*Disbanded*)
A Gascony - Marseilles (*Bounce*)
F North Atlantic Ocean - Liverpool
A Spain - Marseilles (*Bounce*) Germany
F Belgium - English Channel (*Fails*)
A Burgundy - Gascony (*Fails*)
F Helgoland Bight -
Denmark
A Munich - Burgundy (*Fails*)
F North Sea - Edinburgh
A Paris - Brest
A Picardy Supports A Paris - Brest Italy
A Budapest Supports A Vienna - Serbia (*Void*)
F Greece - Bulgaria(sc) (*Fails*)
F Ionian Sea - Tyrrhenian Sea
A Serbia Supports F Rumania
A Tyrolia Supports A Venice - Trieste
A Venice - Trieste Russia
A Finland - Sweden
A Moscow - Sevastopol (*Fails*)
F Norway Hold
F Rumania Supports A Moscow - Sevastopol (*Cut*)
A Ukraine - Warsaw (*Bounce*)
A Vienna Supports A Budapest (*Cut*) Turkey
A Armenia Supports A Sevastopol
F Black Sea Supports A Bulgaria - Rumania
A Bulgaria - Rumania (*Fails*)
F Constantinople - Aegean Sea
A Sevastopol Supports A Bulgaria - Rumania (*Cut*)[Reply] |
| 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. |
| Realpolitik bug? - vegas_iwish (Jul 28, 2014, 10:30 am) |
I was nearly crucified when I disbanded some units forced to ret when players did not send in orders in my 1st DW Yahoo games 15 yrs ago. "It's different online". Had already been doing the bit for 26 yrs or so by then which meant a momentum had built up for following the written rules which has never stopped  [Reply] |
| Realpolitik bug? - trezdk (Jul 27, 2014, 9:17 pm) |
Actually it is our house rules that are different from the standard rules.
The normal board version of Diplomacy says that a unit without orders are dislodged if forced to retreat, so it is not a bug in RP.[Reply] |
| Realpolitik bug? (Help & Suggestions) vegas_iwish Jul 28, 10:30 am |
| I was nearly crucified when I disbanded some units forced to ret when players did not send in orders in my 1st DW Yahoo games 15 yrs ago. "It's different online". Had already been doing the bit for 26 yrs or so by then which meant a momentum had built up for following the written rules which has never stopped |
| 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? |
| DC501 - Spring 1903 - Operations (Jul 22, 2014, 8:04 pm) |
Yes, it's a difference between the official rules, which say any NMR results in CD, and the DC rules, which require two consecutive NMRs. I suppose I thought Realpolitik was created for DC and followed its rules, not the official. Lesson learned.
On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 9:03 AM, Scott Troemel wrote:
I don't know that I'd blame RP for this one. There are those who believe that if you NMR you NMRfor the entire season which means retreats are off the board. I think that may actually be in the rules,
I'm just not sure of the exact wording.
Made me look. LOL. Here it is:I checked the 1976
edition and the 2000 edition of the rules. The wording is slightly different, but
not enough to change the meaning at all.
Under Civil Disorder:If a player leaves a game, or fails to
submit orders in a given spring or fall season, it is assumed that the civil government in his country has collapsed. His units hold in place but do not support each other. If they are
dislodged they are disbanded. It goes on, but that's the relevant part.
So, RP is, in fact, correct in it's adjudication.
The rules can be selected here iplomacy Rules
Diplomacy Rules Diplomacy Rules Early
draft of the Rules (when the game was still called Realpolitik) (c) 1958 Allan
B. Calhamer PDF File (424 Kb) Diplomacy
Rules (c) 1959...View on www.diplomacy-archi...Preview by Yahoo
On Monday, July 21, 2014 11:52 PM, John Smith wrote:
Ok gentlemen, we have a small adjustment, although this one can be blamed on the Realpolitik tool, which
I was under the impression was infallible. Turns out, it is not. The adjustment is thankfully minor, England should have been able to retreat from the North Sea rather than be disbanded, and he has retreated to Skagerrak. Map is attached. [Reply] |
| 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? |
| DC489 Russian Game End Statement - Cartesian (Jul 22, 2014, 9:45 am) |
[Reply] |
| DC489 Russian Game End Statement - bret_pollack (Jul 22, 2014, 9:23 am) |
[Reply] |
| DC501 - Spring 1903 - packrat (Jul 22, 2014, 8:03 am) |
I don't know that I'd blame RP for this one. There are those who believe that if you NMR you NMRfor the entire season which means retreats are off the board. I think that may actually be in the rules,
I'm just not sure of the exact wording.
Made me look. LOL. Here it is:I checked the 1976 edition and the 2000 edition of the rules. The wording is slightly different, but
not enough to change the meaning at all.
Under Civil Disorder:If a player leaves a game, or fails to
submit orders in a given spring or fall season, it is assumed that the civil government in his country has collapsed. His units hold in place but do not support each other. If they are
dislodged they are disbanded. It goes on, but that's the relevant part.
So, RP is, in fact, correct in it's adjudication.
The rules can be selected hereiplomacy Rules
Diplomacy Rules Diplomacy Rules Early
draft of the Rules (when the game was still called Realpolitik) (c) 1958 Allan
B. Calhamer PDF File (424 Kb) Diplomacy
Rules (c) 1959...View on www.diplomacy-archi...Preview by Yahoo
On Monday, July 21, 2014 11:52 PM, John Smith wrote:
Ok gentlemen, we have a small adjustment, although this one can be blamed on the Realpolitik tool, which
I was under the impression was infallible. Turns out, it is not. The adjustment is thankfully minor, England should have been able to retreat from the North Sea rather than be disbanded, and he has retreated to Skagerrak. Map is attached. [Reply] |
| DC501 - Spring 1903 - Operations (Jul 21, 2014, 10:52 pm) |
| Ok gentlemen, we have a small adjustment, although this one can be blamed on the Realpolitik tool, which I was under the impression was infallible. Turns out, it is not. The adjustment is thankfully minor, England should have been able to retreat from the North Sea rather than be disbanded, and he has retreated to Skagerrak. Map is attached. [Reply] |
| Realpolitik bug? - FuzzyLogic (Jul 21, 2014, 10:46 pm) |
Yep. Known bug. RP will disband a dislodged unit that had no orders, which is contrary to our accepted house rules. You got it right, you just go put in a Hold order for the unit instead.
I've seen an occasional GM use the rule that an unordered unit will disband if dislodged, but only if it's in his or her house rules as our standard is to not do that.[Reply] |
| Realpolitik bug? (Help & Suggestions) trezdk Jul 27, 09:17 pm |
Actually it is our house rules that are different from the standard rules.
The normal board version of Diplomacy says that a unit without orders are dislodged if forced to retreat, so it is not a bug in RP. |
| Realpolitik bug? (Help & Suggestions) vegas_iwish Jul 28, 10:30 am |
| I was nearly crucified when I disbanded some units forced to ret when players did not send in orders in my 1st DW Yahoo games 15 yrs ago. "It's different online". Had already been doing the bit for 26 yrs or so by then which meant a momentum had built up for following the written rules which has never stopped |
| Realpolitik bug? - Operations (Jul 21, 2014, 10:37 pm) |
I had an NMR on a Spring turn in a game I'm running, and one of his units was dislodged. For some reason, Realpolitik was making the unit disband. The power was not in CD, he had turned in the previous Fall and Winter turns, so not sure why this is. I had to go back and redo the turn putting in "hold" orders for the player instead of NMR, and then the unit was able to retreat from the dislodge.
Any thoughts on this? Is this a known bug in Realpolitik?[Reply] |
| Realpolitik bug? (Help & Suggestions) FuzzyLogic Jul 21, 10:46 pm |
Yep. Known bug. RP will disband a dislodged unit that had no orders, which is contrary to our accepted house rules. You got it right, you just go put in a Hold order for the unit instead.
I've seen an occasional GM use the rule that an unordered unit will disband if dislodged, but only if it's in his or her house rules as our standard is to not do that. |
| Realpolitik bug? (Help & Suggestions) trezdk Jul 27, 09:17 pm |
Actually it is our house rules that are different from the standard rules.
The normal board version of Diplomacy says that a unit without orders are dislodged if forced to retreat, so it is not a bug in RP. |
| Realpolitik bug? (Help & Suggestions) vegas_iwish Jul 28, 10:30 am |
| I was nearly crucified when I disbanded some units forced to ret when players did not send in orders in my 1st DW Yahoo games 15 yrs ago. "It's different online". Had already been doing the bit for 26 yrs or so by then which meant a momentum had built up for following the written rules which has never stopped |
| DC501 - Spring 1903 - Operations (Jul 21, 2014, 7:46 pm) |
The battle continues to rage as we move into 1903.. Sevastopol wins the blue ribbon in the contest for most contested piece of
land in the region as nearly the full force of the Russian and Turkish military descends upon it. When the smoke clears, it is Turkey which has control, and also still holds the Black Sea. Having acquired a taste for fine French cuisine over the Winter, German troops pay no heed to the new French Premiere's warnings and instead press their attack, marching into the French capital. In the North, Germany and Russia join together to roll back the English fleets, whose orders seem to have gotten locked up in Parliament. With no word from London on what to do, the confused North Sea fleet is scattered to the four winds. Deadline for Fall 1903 is July 28th. Austria
A Budapest Supports A Vienna - Trieste (*Dislodged* - can only retreat to Galicia, so ordered)
A Vienna - Trieste England
NMR France
A Brest Supports A Marseilles - Gascony
A Marseilles - Gascony
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - North Atlantic Ocean
A
Portugal - Spain Germany
A Belgium - Picardy
A Berlin - Munich
F Denmark - North Sea
F Holland - Belgium
F Kiel - Helgoland Bight
A Munich - Burgundy
A Paris Supports A Belgium - Picardy Italy
F Greece Hold
F Naples - Ionian Sea
A Rome - Venice
A Serbia Supports A Trieste - Budapest
A Trieste - Budapest
A Venice - Tyrolia Russia A Galicia - Vienna
A Moscow Supports F Rumania - Sevastopol
F Norway Supports F Denmark - North Sea
F Rumania - Sevastopol (*Fails*)
A St Petersburg - Finland
A Ukraine Supports F Rumania - Sevastopol Turkey
F Black Sea Supports A Sevastopol - Rumania
A Bulgaria Supports A Sevastopol - Rumania
F Constantinople Holds
A Sevastopol - Rumania (*Fails*)
A Smyrna - Armenia[Reply] |
| DC501 - Spring 1903 (dc501) Operations Jul 21, 10:52 pm |
| Ok gentlemen, we have a small adjustment, although this one can be blamed on the Realpolitik tool, which I was under the impression was infallible. Turns out, it is not. The adjustment is thankfully minor, England should have been able to retreat from the North Sea rather than be disbanded, and he has retreated to Skagerrak. Map is attached. |
| DC501 - Spring 1903 (dc501) packrat Jul 22, 08:03 am |
I don't know that I'd blame RP for this one. There are those who believe that if you NMR you NMRfor the entire season which means retreats are off the board. I think that may actually be in the rules,
I'm just not sure of the exact wording.
Made me look. LOL. Here it is:I checked the 1976 edition and the 2000 edition of the rules. The wording is slightly different, but
not enough to change the meaning at all.
Under Civil Disorder:If a player leaves a game, or fails to
submit orders in a given spring or fall season, it is assumed that the civil government in his country has collapsed. His units hold in place but do not support each other. If they are
dislodged they are disbanded. It goes on, but that's the relevant part.
So, RP is, in fact, correct in it's adjudication.
The rules can be selected hereiplomacy Rules
Diplomacy Rules Diplomacy Rules Early
draft of the Rules (when the game was still called Realpolitik) (c) 1958 Allan
B. Calhamer PDF File (424 Kb) Diplomacy
Rules (c) 1959...View on www.diplomacy-archi...Preview by Yahoo
On Monday, July 21, 2014 11:52 PM, John Smith wrote:
Ok gentlemen, we have a small adjustment, although this one can be blamed on the Realpolitik tool, which
I was under the impression was infallible. Turns out, it is not. The adjustment is thankfully minor, England should have been able to retreat from the North Sea rather than be disbanded, and he has retreated to Skagerrak. Map is attached. |
| DC501 - Spring 1903 (dc501) Operations Jul 22, 08:04 pm |
Yes, it's a difference between the official rules, which say any NMR results in CD, and the DC rules, which require two consecutive NMRs. I suppose I thought Realpolitik was created for DC and followed its rules, not the official. Lesson learned.
On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 9:03 AM, Scott Troemel wrote:
I don't know that I'd blame RP for this one. There are those who believe that if you NMR you NMRfor the entire season which means retreats are off the board. I think that may actually be in the rules,
I'm just not sure of the exact wording.
Made me look. LOL. Here it is:I checked the 1976
edition and the 2000 edition of the rules. The wording is slightly different, but
not enough to change the meaning at all.
Under Civil Disorder:If a player leaves a game, or fails to
submit orders in a given spring or fall season, it is assumed that the civil government in his country has collapsed. His units hold in place but do not support each other. If they are
dislodged they are disbanded. It goes on, but that's the relevant part.
So, RP is, in fact, correct in it's adjudication.
The rules can be selected hereiplomacy Rules
Diplomacy Rules Diplomacy Rules Early
draft of the Rules (when the game was still called Realpolitik) (c) 1958 Allan
B. Calhamer PDF File (424 Kb) Diplomacy
Rules (c) 1959...View on www.diplomacy-archi...Preview by Yahoo
On Monday, July 21, 2014 11:52 PM, John Smith wrote:
Ok gentlemen, we have a small adjustment, although this one can be blamed on the Realpolitik tool, which
I was under the impression was infallible. Turns out, it is not. The adjustment is thankfully minor, England should have been able to retreat from the North Sea rather than be disbanded, and he has retreated to Skagerrak. Map is attached. |
| 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. |
| DC503 Winter 1901 - Zoterik (Jul 19, 2014, 9:16 am) |
[Reply] |
| DC495 Aegean - Spring 301 - Zoterik (Jul 17, 2014, 2:29 pm) |
[Reply] |
| DC503 - Fall 1901 - Zoterik (Jul 15, 2014, 11:41 pm) |
[Reply] |
| DC501 - Winter 1902 - packrat (Jul 14, 2014, 3:50 pm) |
Greetings All!
The newly remodeled French embassies are now open and fully staffed. Please file yourdocuments of surrender with the receptionist as you enter. You
will find that the new Frenchgoverment will be taking a MUCH more proactive role in what happens within our borders.
To that end - we would certainly appreciate the Kaiser rolling his forces back home in order to
avoid his sight seeing expedition being taken as an act of war and dealt with accordingly. Tour
guides will be made available to ensure your staff boards the trains heading in the proper direction.Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this regard.
On Sunday, July 13, 2014 11:58 PM, John Smith wrote:
Ok, that was quick and painless! Thanks and welcome to the new Prime Minister of France, Scott. Here is his info and
the Winter builds/disbands. Name ID LocationScott Troemel packrat Fort Wayne, IN, USA Deadline for Spring 1903 is July 21st. England Disband A Finland France Build A BrestBuild A Marseilles Germany Build F Kiel
Build A Berlin
Build A Munich Italy Build F NaplesBuild A Rome Russia Build A Moscow Turkey Build F Con
Build A Smy [Reply] |
| DC501 - Winter 1902 - Operations (Jul 13, 2014, 10:58 pm) |
Ok, that was quick and painless! Thanks and welcome to the new Prime Minister of France, Scott. Here is his info and
the Winter builds/disbands. Name ID LocationScott Troemel packrat Fort Wayne, IN, USA Deadline for Spring 1903 is July 21st. England Disband A Finland France Build A BrestBuild A Marseilles Germany Build F Kiel
Build A Berlin
Build A Munich Italy Build F NaplesBuild A Rome Russia Build A Moscow Turkey Build F Con
Build A Smy [Reply] |
| DC501 - Winter 1902 (dc501) packrat Jul 14, 03:50 pm |
Greetings All!
The newly remodeled French embassies are now open and fully staffed. Please file yourdocuments of surrender with the receptionist as you enter. You
will find that the new Frenchgoverment will be taking a MUCH more proactive role in what happens within our borders.
To that end - we would certainly appreciate the Kaiser rolling his forces back home in order to
avoid his sight seeing expedition being taken as an act of war and dealt with accordingly. Tour
guides will be made available to ensure your staff boards the trains heading in the proper direction.Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this regard.
On Sunday, July 13, 2014 11:58 PM, John Smith wrote:
Ok, that was quick and painless! Thanks and welcome to the new Prime Minister of France, Scott. Here is his info and
the Winter builds/disbands. Name ID LocationScott Troemel packrat Fort Wayne, IN, USA Deadline for Spring 1903 is July 21st. England Disband A Finland France Build A BrestBuild A Marseilles Germany Build F Kiel
Build A Berlin
Build A Munich Italy Build F NaplesBuild A Rome Russia Build A Moscow Turkey Build F Con
Build A Smy |
