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?
