These are things which annoy me when another player does them. Sorry if there's already a thread for this:
1. Teamthink
This is when players move with the unshakeable intention of securing a draw for their 'team'. They have no intention of trying for 18 centres, and sometimes such players seem to believe that it is possible to win an 'allied victory'. Several things upset me at this point:
a) They help other 'teammates' without helping themselves, causing them to play erratically (from the POV of a player who expects his opponents to try to win).
b) Their strategic worldview is rigid, and divided into clear 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. This makes negotiating with them virtually impossible.
c) If three of them team up like this in a game, they're nearly impossible to beat. Even two completely throw the balance, especially if it's Russia/Turkey. Unless the other players notice immediately and form a bloc of their own, the 'team' will get its vaunted n-way 'victory', completely destroying the competitive spirit of the game, and there's nothing you can do about it.
2. Metagaming
This is when someone plays several games as if they're one big game, and is only a problem if the players are the same from game to game. I know some people think this is just the way of things, but I feel it really spoils play. The primary examples are:
a) Grudges: 'You stabbed me in Game 1. Now we meet again in Game 105, you must PAY!'
b) Cross-game deals: 'I'll let you have Norway in Game 1, if you let me have Greece in Game 2'. If you like this kind of dealing, play 'multiple board Diplomacy' instead, in which the players are specifically arranged to give them all equal cross-board opportunities.
(However, I'd be the last person to say that once a game is over you should forget about what other players have done. If a player gets a reputation for betrayal, you should take it into account when doing deals with them, and be that much more wary. But this is a whole different story to 'punishing' them for prior misdeeds! Your opponents' moves will teach you about their playing style, but Diplomacy only functions if you accept that it is completely amoral.)
3. Intellectual laziness
This is when a player can't be bothered to think about your suggestions or consider alternatives. In face-to-face games I sometimes hear players announce 'we'll only need a couple of minutes to write orders this turn - we all know what we're doing', which I find astonishingly arrogant. I said above games should be kept separate, and furthermore every TURN is like a new game. 'War' and 'alliances' between players only exist in those players' heads, and even the game history is practically irrelevant except as a guide to players' behaviour - the only 'physical' part of the game is who controls which centres and where the units are at the moment you write your orders. While psychology is important, remember that it isn't set in stone, and you can only scratch the surface of what and how other players think.
1. Teamthink
This is when players move with the unshakeable intention of securing a draw for their 'team'. They have no intention of trying for 18 centres, and sometimes such players seem to believe that it is possible to win an 'allied victory'. Several things upset me at this point:
a) They help other 'teammates' without helping themselves, causing them to play erratically (from the POV of a player who expects his opponents to try to win).
b) Their strategic worldview is rigid, and divided into clear 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. This makes negotiating with them virtually impossible.
c) If three of them team up like this in a game, they're nearly impossible to beat. Even two completely throw the balance, especially if it's Russia/Turkey. Unless the other players notice immediately and form a bloc of their own, the 'team' will get its vaunted n-way 'victory', completely destroying the competitive spirit of the game, and there's nothing you can do about it.
2. Metagaming
This is when someone plays several games as if they're one big game, and is only a problem if the players are the same from game to game. I know some people think this is just the way of things, but I feel it really spoils play. The primary examples are:
a) Grudges: 'You stabbed me in Game 1. Now we meet again in Game 105, you must PAY!'
b) Cross-game deals: 'I'll let you have Norway in Game 1, if you let me have Greece in Game 2'. If you like this kind of dealing, play 'multiple board Diplomacy' instead, in which the players are specifically arranged to give them all equal cross-board opportunities.
(However, I'd be the last person to say that once a game is over you should forget about what other players have done. If a player gets a reputation for betrayal, you should take it into account when doing deals with them, and be that much more wary. But this is a whole different story to 'punishing' them for prior misdeeds! Your opponents' moves will teach you about their playing style, but Diplomacy only functions if you accept that it is completely amoral.)
3. Intellectual laziness
This is when a player can't be bothered to think about your suggestions or consider alternatives. In face-to-face games I sometimes hear players announce 'we'll only need a couple of minutes to write orders this turn - we all know what we're doing', which I find astonishingly arrogant. I said above games should be kept separate, and furthermore every TURN is like a new game. 'War' and 'alliances' between players only exist in those players' heads, and even the game history is practically irrelevant except as a guide to players' behaviour - the only 'physical' part of the game is who controls which centres and where the units are at the moment you write your orders. While psychology is important, remember that it isn't set in stone, and you can only scratch the surface of what and how other players think.
