Has anyone here come away from a game of Diplomacy, or seen someone else come away, with a feeling that they were unrightly screwed. Have arguements or such broken out?  I know there is a local yearly (or more often?) weekend of Diplomacy put on by a boardgaming group. I've never attended though so I don't know if these are bastions of yelling matches and things coming to blows or if everyone seems to get that it is just a game and they will eventually get lied to.

So please, share your experiences both positive and negative.

Oh hell yes!  We set up an online game.  Russia and Germany (I think) united to totally screw Turkey on their way to taking over the rest of the globe.  The guy playing Turkey was first-timer and already a big whiny baby when it comes to all kinds of games and he had a full-internet meltdown where he was convinced that the players of Russia and Germany had conspired ahead of time (even though we had random country assignment).  They (Russia and Germany) were friends in meatspace, so it made him all the more paranoid.  The funniest thing was he kept accusing them of collusion and cheating and we kept saying "there is no cheating in Diplomacy!  That's part of the game!" but in his rage, he couldn't hear it and ended up giving up in a big huff and posting endless explanations on the blog of why he had been wronged.  It was awesome.

It is in the nature of the game that people get screwed.  So of course, when it happens to you it was unrightly so

Diplomacy is a great game.  It has extremely short and simple rules, but also incredible depth both in the on board manoeuvreing and in the personal interaction.  That said, I think it's a game best played with strangers.  If the same group plays over and over and people decide to hold grudges, then there can cease to be much point in negotiating.

Walker,

Did he have any out-of-game friends playing in the game?

I wonder if the game might expose out-of-game cliques, or the perception of them. People not staying within the game but using or percieving outside-the-game social leverage. That sounds like what that guy was fustrated about, although he also sounds like a guy that might lack the skills to play the game effectively, which would compound the issue.

P.S. I take it Austria was already beat down/out at that point in the game? Which of course makes it even more hilarious to suggest this was planned.

Quote from: wulfgarIt is in the nature of the game that people get screwed.  So of course, when it happens to you it was unrightly so

Diplomacy is a great game.  It has extremely short and simple rules, but also incredible depth both in the on board manoeuvreing and in the personal interaction.  That said, I think it's a game best played with strangers.  If the same group plays over and over and people decide to hold grudges, then there can cease to be much point in negotiating.

Ah yes, the residue of past games built up. I finally got to play a game (PbP just doesn't work for me, and never got around to hooking up for an in-person game). I won (as the Turks) playing with a couple friends and some older teenagers (one of the guy's son, and his friends).

I'm not sure how well I would fair. I did manage to win even though I was identified early as a serious contender. Nobody ever really was my ally in any extended sense and I never actually lied to anyone, though I was lied to a number of times and there was a misunderstanding about Serbia as the lack of my attacking over a couple of years had the Austrian leader thinking a one move agreement was still in effect (doh).  But if everyone had a 'long' memory that I was the "reigning champ" and had to be taken down I might find myself in a lot of trouble.

Especially if I was Germany.

I've seen that in other games before. So what happens in Diplomacy where nobody will negotiate with anyone else because of the [effectively out-of-game] grudges?  What does the game play like? Is it sort of a stalemate?

Doesn't this belong in the board games section?


On topic, never played diplomacy, but if it's anything like an Unholy alliance in monopoly, or the elven Mafia in Munchkin...yeah.

Quote from: KrakaJakDoesn't this belong in the board games section?

There is one? :keke:

There is a little blurb in the rules about sort of playing up your role as leader. As I was playing I announced all my movements as propaganda proclamations from the Turkish Sultan of Swing.  Plus I'm thinking thoughts about how to roll a Diplomacy type mechanism into an almost-RPG (or an RPG, depending or your definition of such). That's the real reason for this thread, to figure out and try to avoid some pitfalls up front. Maybe it belongs in design but I thought I'd get more traffic here.

P.S. "Unholy alliance" in Monopoly? I am unaware of that description and when I Google it I just get a bunch of hits for political claptrap.

No major hard feelings, but I once ran a game in college with something like twice-weekly moves, where a number of players just dropped out because it was taking over their lives.

I think the only way to approach Diplomacy in a healthy fashion is just to realize that it's a total game. Practically any leverage you can apply is fair game, although I think some should be explicitly excluded.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNo major hard feelings, but I once ran a game in college with something like twice-weekly moves, where a number of players just dropped out because it was taking over their lives.

They were talking for hours and hours about each move? Hunting each other down? Or was there bartering with out-of-game currency? Like "I'll wash your car/buy you a beer if you support my attack on Tuscany next move"?

I'm wondering if putting really tight time limits might not help. It'd be even better if negotiation could happen in the same room, because we basically took over the house. In small apartment, especially if it was winter outside, there would have been some serious logistical problems.

QuoteI think the only way to approach Diplomacy in a healthy fashion is just to realize that it's a total game. Practically any leverage you can apply is fair game, although I think some should be explicitly excluded.

Like pulling a piece and threatening to blow the other player's nuts off if he attacks with his Army? Personally I suspect I would not appreciate "high pressure sales" techniques being used. Not certain but my gut says this shouldn't feel like someone is trying to sell me a timeshare. That is one of the most uncomfortable moments in my life, me and my ex-wife got cornered and the hucksters were double-teaming on the pressure. Then she crumbled. That was truely shitty.

No, but there are some groups of people that I haven't tried to introduce to the game as I don't think they'd take the backstabbing in stride.

Quote from: DwightI've seen that in other games before. So what happens in Diplomacy where nobody will negotiate with anyone else because of the [effectively out-of-game] grudges?  What does the game play like? Is it sort of a stalemate?

Well, it depends on how many people are in each "faction."  Usually, I've seen several teamed up against one because they believe the one to be a superior player or just don't want them to win.  There's probably a couple unaffiliated people who have never played before and don't have any past history.  So it all depends on who gets what country, and where the "undecideds" go.  Odds are though, if there are multiple players whose primary goal is your destruction, things are going to get ugly unless you have some solid allies of your own.

Quote from: DwightThey were talking for hours and hours about each move? Hunting each other down? Or was there bartering with out-of-game currency? Like "I'll wash your car/buy you a beer if you support my attack on Tuscany next move"?

Talking for hours and hours, phoning each other up, leaving notes, etc.

QuoteI'm wondering if putting really tight time limits might not help

. That would be my preference. I haven't tried postal diplomacy.

QuoteLike pulling a piece and threatening to blow the other player's nuts off if he attacks with his Army? Personally I suspect I would not appreciate "high pressure sales" techniques being used.

Yeah, I'd disallow that one. Also, generally, exchanging money, offering sex, or otherwise doing blatant real-life favors in exchange for in-game advantages. Now, smiling, being "nice", maybe even picking up the tab during a downtime conference at the burger joint...those are relatively harmless.

QuoteNot certain but my gut says this shouldn't feel like someone is trying to sell me a timeshare. That is one of the most uncomfortable moments in my life, me and my ex-wife got cornered and the hucksters were double-teaming on the pressure. Then she crumbled. That was truely shitty.

My philosophy with any multiplayer game where negotiation is a major part of play is: it's just a game. Try to win, enjoy playing, but don't get bent out of shape if you lose.

Moreover, be aware of such phenomena as:

The Kingmaker
The Kamikaze
The grudge carried over from earlier games

And reflect on the possibility that a true master takes advantage of these things, instead of complaining about them.

We had a two week break between the 2 sessions. It was pretty clear the Turkish Sultan of Swing had been named public enemy #1. I had early on mortally wounded the Italians via sea, they were the only country out at the break. Plus I had a 2-3 country lead on the other top two contenders (England and France). So it was effectively 5 against 1 as the others, except Russia, had firm alliances of one sort or another. So I didn't expect I'd survive the coming onslaught. It had taken a lot of naval power to thwart an attempted thrust by the British/French navies, so I was really ship heavy without anything I could really take with them.

It was kind of a pain to line up a time to play so I told France I'd only bother showing up if I could play her Kingmaker, I really didn't think I could win with the "Leader" bullseye on me.

Ironically France just used that as an excuse not to attack me and just didn't work with me. I kept trying but it got to the point that she'd thrown in hard with Britian. :shrug:  So I was out on my own again. But now I had a ship out in the Mid Atlantic that was suppose to be to help France take England. So rather than waste time I used it to hassle the crap out of France and England, ultimately giving me the time on the eastern front to gobble up the remains of Austria and Germany to give me the push I needed.

QuoteAnd reflect on the possibility that a true master takes advantage of these things, instead of complaining about them.

Words of wisdom indeed.

P.S. Latish in the game I offered to support France attacking Vienna just to snuff the PITA Austria that just refused to die. Of course, once it was down to England and France and Turkey, Vienna was the first French puppet dictatorship to fall to the liberating Turkish armys.

This discussion belongs in the "Electronic and Other Games" forum.

For the record, I've seen a lot of arguments over Diplomacy; i know there's certain people that I would never play that game with.

RPGPundit

Once again, I'm tempted to talk about all the bizarre events that happened when I played Diplomacy with a powerful politician. This would instantly bring down his government, which to add insult to injury is conservative.

Sigh.

I'll just say that to Elliot's brilliant list one further player type ought be added:

The guy who deliberately never wins.

Also, IMO Turkey = rawk, and anybody who wins as Germany is better than me or played with foolz.