"Good Diplomacy" and "Bad Diplomacy"

verraeter/traitor is a good game in this point. you always have the option to switch sides, but it isn't always in your best interests.

Jur wrote:

verraeter/traitor is a good game in this point. you always have the option to switch sides, but it isn't always in your best interests.

Verrater is OK, but too prone to tipping into a 4-0 alliance. No one gets any points, it's suicide to turn traitor against the other 3, so the game sort of locks up. It has some neat ideas, though...and wasn't it the pioneer of the "role selection" that we see in lots of games today?

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.

Boy oh boy, this forum is starting to sound more and more like Fortress: Eurotrash every day. (LOL) Now we're wanting the mechanics of the game to legislate the level of diplomacy in the game??? And anything less is unsatisfactory? Just so someone doesn't have hurt feelings after you mess with them and then they ruin your game?

How well you handle that is diplomacy and negotiation in a nutshell, Tom!

---

For everyone else: This attempt to pigeon-hole the level of diplomacy in a game is a bit of a farce. I do see the validity of the points being made. But why can't there simply be differences in the levels of diplomacy a game offers? Why does one have to "fail" just because it leaves more to the discretion of the players?

Why can't you turn to your friends and say: "Hey, do we want to go no-holds barred tonight? Let's make it crazy!" (i.e Diplomacy, Risk) "Or do we want to play with a game that has some level of restricted diplomacy?"

Why can't there be choice? And to say Diplomacy is dated... well, I disagree with that. (Steve Weeks, get your nutty rear-end in here and help me with this!) Next, someone is going to start using the term "elegant" to describe their favorite diplomacy game mechanic. (LOL)

Gary Sax wrote:

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.

You call it a flaw. I call that a built in "advanced difficulty" level. : )

Count Orlok wrote:

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?

No, I'm saying that there's a reason that player stopped playing the game and turned to simply ruin yours. If you've given him reason to pick on you then you may not have played the game very well.

Now, I realize that some people just aren't emotionally cut out for this kind of game. They suck to play with -- don't invite them if you can manage it. But skilled diplomats deal with these losers all the time. They need to be treated differently, need to be cajoled and more actively managed. You can look at this as a task beneath you, or as an evil game of sinister control. That is diplomacy and I will fully admit that I am not very good at it.

Sag.

Edit -- It appears Ryan is 12 minutes ahead of me in the thought process, but I will capitulate to Diplomacy's length. Playing to a set time or number of remaining players is a reasonable compromise. A friend recently suggested playing only to 9 and I like that idea too. Diplomacy's strength is that its rules are just so simple. The rest is left to the skills of the players. No structure, no restrictions. God help you if you get into it with a bunch of salesmen.

Sagrilarus wrote:

Count Orlok wrote:

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?

No, I'm saying that there's a reason that player stopped playing the game and turned to simply ruin yours. If you've given him reason to pick on you then you may not have played the game very well.

Now, I realize that some people just aren't emotionally cut out for this kind of game. They suck to play with -- don't invite them if you can manage it. But skilled diplomats deal with these losers all the time. They need to be treated differently, need to be cajoled and more actively managed. You can look at this as a task beneath you, or as an evil game of sinister control. That is diplomacy and I will fully admit that I am not very good at it.

Sag.

+1 Votes. Perfectly said.

Sagrilarus wrote:
Edit -- It appears Ryan is 12 minutes ahead of me in the thought process, but I will capitulate to Diplomacy's length. Playing to a set time or number of remaining players is a reasonable compromise. A friend recently suggested playing only to 9 and I like that idea too. Diplomacy's strength is that its rules are just so simple. The rest is left to the skills of the players. No structure, no restrictions. God help you if you get into it with a bunch of salesmen.

Sag, which is almost exactly my career path...(LOL) And a lot of my friends are salespeople too. Diplomacy and Type "A" personalities... soooo much fun!

---

Anyway:

With regard to a tangible example of what I am talking about: Every time I sit down and play Risk with the boys, I always seem to partner with a friend of mine. Every time he promises me he won't screw me over.... and every single time he does anyway when he sees that we are becoming the dominant players on the board.

He just can't resist the temptation. It's what he does. (LOL)

The WHOLE rest of the game, I spend all of my time mercilessly attacking, cajoling and reducing him to rubble... right before I get eliminated.

We both always wind up getting just killed and never win.... but we wind up having just TONS of fun along the way.

Like one of you said earlier: It's just a game. : )

My problem is getting together *just the guys*...so games like Diplomacy, Shogun and Risk don't get out too often. About 2/3 of the people who show up at our house on any given Game Night are women. (sigh)

But hey, its a great problem to have! (LOL)

Cheers. : )

Boy oh boy, this forum is starting to sound more and more like Fortress: Eurotrash every day. (LOL) Now we're wanting the mechanics of the game to legislate the level of diplomacy in the game??? And anything less is unsatisfactory? Just so someone doesn't have hurt feelings after you mess with them and then they ruin your game?

Thanks for missing the point of this thread. These are the types of comments that have been washing out any meaningful discussion on this site. Is it not the the third or fourth post where I steer the conversation away from that?

This is not a thread about the game diplomacy but diplomacy within games. This is about mechanics and implementations of diplomacy within games, not decrying games as "euro". Yeah, that game Here I Stand sure is "euro". Fuck off if that's what you're going to bring to the table - no interest here for that sort of sentiment.

Back to the discussion.

Vampire/Jyhad is a great game for diplomacy. Especially when you hit the sweet spot with five players, two-natural enemies and two-natural allies. Although one major flaw, is there isn't a lot of material you can use as bartering between players. This can stifle some negotiation, but it can be interesting trying to lock up that last vote you need for your referendum.

Another type of mechanic that's interesting for diplomacy comes from Medieval. Not a great game, but a fun one. A player can call a crusade which other players can levy money for, the payoff being they receive a share with the leading crusading getting the largest. People don't want to help you, but they sure want to profit from your successes! I guess it's sort of the same in games like Settlers where you can be "generous" to make sure that strategic road blocks in another foe.

Count Orlok wrote:

Thanks for missing the point of this thread. These are the types of comments that have been washing out any meaningful discussion on this site. Is it not the the third or fourth post where I steer the conversation away from that?

This is not a thread about the game diplomacy but diplomacy within games. This is about mechanics and implementations of diplomacy within games, not decrying games as "euro". Yeah, that game Here I Stand sure is "euro". Fuck off if that's what you're going to bring to the table - no interest here for that sort of sentiment.

Ryan's statement seems to nail the question at the end of your original post. He's disagreeing with you, but he's right on-topic. I think he's also right.

"Lighten up Francis."

Sag.