"Good Diplomacy" and "Bad Diplomacy"

The machinations of diplomacy can be an interesting dynamic in any game, and can fun and exhilarating when it is wielded well and adds another level to the game. However, it seems that diplomacy is a two-edged sword, where a game can be ruined by a vindictive or whiny player.

I used to really enjoy games with negotiations, and they went really well with my game group. But they've become vindictive and frustrating; not a single game seems to go by without a player getting knocked from the top of the totem and deciding to simply ruin the game for everyone else.

Subsequently, I've moved further and further away from games that are so open to allow abuses. I've come to enjoy games using a stronger structure to prevent abuse like Here I Stand, where players have to give resources to declare war, can't turn on alliances shortly after they're formed and can't throw everything against the leader right away. One I do with the game had, was more on the board that could be used to negotiate.

So how do you guys feel about diplomacy in 'trash games (or war games)? Do you feel like it makes them more interesting? Do you prefer a constrained or free flowing system?

You'll get a lot of responses along the lines of "don't play games with poor sports who want to ruin the game for everyone else." You've raised a good point, though. It ties into the recent discussion about player elimination, too. Player elimination may even be NECESSARY in some diplomacy games, since it prevents players with no hope of winning from playing kingmaker.

I love diplomacy in games. But so far I have not experienced the "bad" diplomacy you describe. We have been playing a lot of Warrior Knights decently and despite all of us being very vindicative and unforgiving, the game doesn't allow you to constantly pour shit on someone. If you are the head of the church, you can throw bad things until you get out of faith. If you send all of your nobles to raze one players cities, others will be burning your ass while you are busy.
Cosmic Encounter is full of negotiation but the fate deck keeps all vengeance in fates hands.
In The HellGame you are busy with your own agendas and you barely have time to fight one front war.

I see that it could be a problem but I think our group manages it well, there is always someone taking the whipping but he knows that next time someone else will be at his shoes. I guess we just love this game trashing (but so far it didn't get to ruining the game for someone).

Well, let's avoid the "get a new game group" type of comments.

I'm more interested in experiences with diplomacy in games, how it works well and how it doesn't. I'm also interested in games that steer diplomacy or constrict it from metagaming rivalries.

I think part of the problem is that, when you get screwed in a negotiation, it kind of is personal. Not that in the sense they're doing it because they don't like you, but because, if you got screwed, that player chose to screw you. After all, if they had been required to screw you, then obviously you never would have made the deal in the first place. So you feel like a sucker. It's very natural to want to get back at that person. In fact, it's the opposite that is unnatural. It's probably why negotiation games are such a small niche in what is already a niche market.

Rules that constrict tend to alleviate that issue somewhat. Having a certain amount of resources to expend on screwing someone just feels less personal, in the sense that it's an obvious waste if they're not used--even if they're used against you. Not being free to act as a kingmaker (or at least being limited) after you've been screwed helps. And a traitor mechanic frees the player from this problem entirely, because now it's his job to screw you, and almost everyone will accept that.

I like when the diplomacy isn't forced by some artificial mechanism but by the gameplay itself. Like in my favourite Pax Romana (Greece, Rome, Carthage and East struggling for power). If you beat someone real hard just because he did something to you, you are going to make his neighbour much stronger and he then becomes hard to stop. So you can push your opponent a bit but then it's better to make him pay you taxes or something like that. On the other hand I love Cosmic Encounter's shifting alliances and negotiating.
Diplomacy was very well done in Jyhad in my opinion. You could only attack the player to your left but if you wiped him too quickly when he didn't have enough time to take his prey down a little, you could be facing a problem. You also had to cooperate with the other players (those who weren't your prey or predator) but again - with limits as they could become your prey or predator in a few turns.

The way I play games, almost all multiplayer games are diplomacy/negotiation games, even something like Munchkin. If you're not cajoling, threatening, and schmoozing the other players at the table, I think you're missing out a on a lot of the fun.

That said, there is a tendency for the "bad" diplomacy to happen in games where genuine backstabbing is permitted. The way I look at it, not pissing the other players off to the point where taking you down becomes the new object of the game is just another strategy you need to pursue when you sit down to play these things.

Also, don't be afraid to use the phrase "Dude, it's just a game" early and often.

A quality game system has a way to punish players who backstab too much. That is where classic Diplomacy fails and games like Empires in Arms succeed - Pissing the other players off will burn you in a well designed diplomacy game, as it should.

hancock.tom wrote:

A quality game system has a way to punish players who backstab too much. That is where classic Diplomacy fails and games like Empires in Arms succeed - Pissing the other players off will burn you in a well designed diplomacy game, as it should.

I think this is point I've been trying to get to. The game system needs to reinforce a degree of order, and when this order is disrupted by some heinous and pointless backstabbing, it needs to be punished. There should be the ability to backstab, but it should be a risky one in which the pay-off may not be worth the effort.

Aside from Diplomacy, which I've never played, can you point to some games where backstabbing isn't risky business?

mjl1783 wrote:

Aside from Diplomacy, which I've never played, can you point to some games where backstabbing isn't risky business?

Junta pretty much fits that bill.

But they've become vindictive and frustrating; not a single game seems to go by without a player getting knocked from the top of the totem and deciding to simply ruin the game for everyone else.

That's pretty much what diplomacy is about, whether it's in a game or in the real world. Real diplomacy is about unseating someone without taking a beating from doing it, or even blame. That's how you win. If you've made a game-long enemy you've lost for good reason.

Sag.

Damn! See? I haven't played Junta yet either, though I've always wanted to. But I'm with you, Sag. That's the name of the game, so to speak. If hurt feelings and angry, vindictive players ruin the game for you, maybe diplomacy games aren't really your thing.

mjl1783 wrote:

Damn! See? I haven't played Junta yet either, though I've always wanted to. But I'm with you, Sag. That's the name of the game, so to speak. If hurt feelings and angry, vindictive players ruin the game for you, maybe diplomacy games aren't really your thing.

No, no. That's not it. I enjoy games with diplomacy, but not all. I'm trying to figure out why - hence the thread. I feel like some games use the concept well, while some are twisted by it. Sometimes fun, not always. Hence why I didn't entitle the thread "diplomacy in games sucks" and why I'm trying to ask about delineations between them.

So are you trying to say that all diplomacy is welcome? You don't mind when a player stops trying to play the game, and turns to simply ruin yours? There's a difference between wheeling and dealing and openly disregarding the game for taking down another player. That's pretty irritating.

I completely agree. I appreciate Diplomacy as a game for the innovation it brought to the genre--but at this point I probably wouldn't play it again. The map is fairly poorly designed and there are stalemate points. There's also the boringness that is Diplomacy when you get down to 4 or especially 3 players. I think most of the fun people have ever had with Diplomacy was in the early stages when there are so many plans going on at once and often delightfully perverse moves for multiple players. Barnes had a good post on this about playing Dip recently and I totally agree with him. Diplomacy is a game that has completely shown its age. For me, there are far better games that learn the lesson of Diplomacy's flaws.

I like a lot more structure. Specifically, one of my main beefs with Diplomacy is that there is absolutely no way to bank any rewards or to recognize good play throughout the game short of end outcome. HIS is a good example of the type of game I like--plenty of wheeling and dealing and huge swings in fortune. BUT Here I Stand also allows you to bank points. So if I win a war, I get a War Winner VP that no one will be able to take from me. While obviously many euros have gone the opposite way, the old "Fight for 2nd to last place!" problem, I still can't get into especially diplomatic games that run the opposite. I need some sort of timer on the game.

But that's not really my big beef about diplomacy games, I think that they can be good without bankable progress. I need more structure, more recognition of the quality of my play in the game besides winning and but especially more things to negotiate about. Another beef I have with many Diplomacy types is that negotiation is incredibly fluid but very blunt. There are no different grades of things to negotiate over. You can't give someone a little something for a little something else or at least it's very difficult. In general, it's usually huge stabs or direct armed cooperation. In HIS, by contrast, I can negotiate multiple little agreements with card plays and card swaps IN ADDITION to big moves like stabs and war decs. This also facilitates negotiation because you have a way to incrementally sweeten and unsweeten deals with items in a way you can't in Diplomacy.

Anyway, good OP, I totally agree with you. I love diplomacy games, but I like to have more structure, more things to negotiate over and often some way to in some way bank points that can't be stolen. The point banking also makes the game end in a finite amount of time in a way that Diplomacy rarely does.

So are you trying to say that all diplomacy is welcome? You don't mind when a player stops trying to play the game, and turns to simply ruin yours?

It's hard for a person to ruin a game for me. It's possible, but it usually requires them to do something that's inconsiderate and rude in real life. As far as I'm concerned with regards to what you're describing, anything goes as long as it stays in the game where it belongs.

If I'm playing a game, and someone has decided to throw away any chance at victory simply to make sure that I don't win, then I probably did something to them earlier in the game to get them to that point. That's why I usually try not to be too much of a scumbag about it when I do break an alliance. I'll simply tell them something like "2 turns from now, you and I are no longer BFF, so get ready. You knew this had to happen eventually, and at least I'm giving you a heads up, so don't even start bitching about it. Nothin' personal." Or, if I think someone's about to pull a screw job on me, I'll tell them "Dude, this is a shot accross your bow. You do what I think you're about to, and it's war. I'm not going to get angry, but you will not win this game if I have anything to say about it, so you'd better be sure it's worth it. Just letting you know."

So, no, I don't really mind it that much. You can't stab somebody in the back and expect it not to chap their ass.

Another beef I have with many Diplomacy types is that negotiation is incredibly fluid but very blunt. There are no different grades of things to negotiate over. You can't give someone a little something for a little something else or at least it's very difficult. In general, it's usually huge stabs or direct armed cooperation.

This is an excellent point, and I think when you look at many of the AT favorites that feature negotiation, like Dune and TI:3, you'll see that it has a lot to do with the nuances of the negotiation. It's not so much a question of "what do I have to fear from you if we don't ally?" but rather "what can you offer me if we do?" That, to me, makes for a much more interesting game.