The Nature of Alliances

[Gothmog]

18. The Indecisive turncoat
A player who has a definite grip on his strategy...and his strategy is to change back and forth between about 5-7 different strategies, often changing several times every turn. He'll be pointing in one direction after the first conversation, then in another after a second conversation and a third the next time. He'll either crash and burn rather swiftly or (more rarely) keep the others confused and guessing to such a degree that he's (almost unintentionally) able to pull off a win.

 

[unmerged(33591)]

The Pinocchio:

A player who has been YOUR faithful puppet, doing what is best for you, even to his detriment, for much of the game. Suddenly, someone has 'cut his strings', and he is stabbing you big time, because now 'he's a real boy'!. Chances are, one of the other players has been able to subvert him.

(Otherwise known as the Aniken, converted to the dark side).

 

[unmerged(33591)]

The MacArthur:

An absolutely brilliant tactician who makes brilliant orders, but is rarely able to rise to dominance because he ignores the big political picture as he focuses on his local objectives, regardless of evolving situations elsewhere. This one is very, very quick to point out all of the flaws in YOUR orders once they are adjudicated.


The Richelieu:

Is a genius in manipulating the other players into doing what he wants in such a way that you don't even know that you are doing it. Very skilled at triggering wars between two neighbors, and then stepping in to mop up both, but in such a way as both sides think he is doing each of them a failure. Enjoys a very high solo percentage, and often solos without getting anyone mad at him. This one will almost always still be around if the game ends in a draw. (This is the one I would like to emulate).


The Jerry Lewis:

Tries to emulate the Richelieu, but can't quite pull it off. Instead, he demonstrates such a series of vaudeville pratfalls that he is wiped out instead. (This is the one I often emulate)

 

[donagel]

These are more negotiaition styles than player types:

The Gossip:
The player who is constantly telling you what other players are doing and how you should or should not respond. Is the best friend to everyone but is willing to let YOU in on the secret. This "he said/she said" player never likes to be pressed on anything s/he is thinking or doing.

The poor man's actor: (my personal least favorite)
The player who insists on you calling them Arch Duke Ferdinan or whatever persona he has to be. Tends to speak in flowery, long-winded, page length missives that need to be deciphered rather than read. If you say "please just call me Bob" he is offended and will let you and the other players know that you are disrepecting the game itself.

 

[unmerged(47351)]

I think there are three major classes of players in the game ... all of the ones mentioned above could be subsets under one or more of them. [and all are perfectly OK... there is no right and wrong]

Realist: This person looks at the game in its entirety and plans accordingly. This person does not get confused about the actual names of the countries, or the words "armies" and "fleets." They understand that their 6 opponents might be anything from liars to those that can't stand liar's, from those that know its only a game to those that will take everything personally, from those who want to role play and those that don't. They see all of these things as "part of the game" and try and work out how to use them to advantage. The realist will completely adjust the way they play the game in friendly face-to-face games, versus playing in a league with a rating system. To them they are almost two different games with different rules.

The "My Reality" Player. These players tend to have a more fixed view of how the game should be played -- it tends to more in line with the rules of the game and that each game is an independent event. When something doesn't fit with this view they say the other players are unreasonable or just don't understand the game. They make statements like "Its only a game", "If you can't take it you shouldn't play", "Backstabbing is part of the game, you shouldn't take it personally." They think that people who hold a grudge across multiple games are stupid, that people who always hate a particularly country should be banned. That people who will never trust someone who has lied to them should not be allowed to play in the game. They don't see why they shouldn't be able to stab a person in one game and be allies with them in a another and an enemy of them in a third when all the games are being played at the same time. Basically, they believe that all people should abide by their playing style and that if their playing style doesn't succeed its the problem of these strange people who shouldn't be hurt, shoutn't whine, should realize its only a game. The "My Reality Player" never seems to be able to say to themselves "these people are the way they are and they are playing the game so I should adjust my strategy to win in this community."

The "Tactician". These are people that really never quite feel comfortable with the negotiating side of the game, whether to trust people or not, how to deal with long term relationships from game to game, the importance of not making enemies. The tactician can survive in the occassional face-to-face game, but rarely does well in a community of diplomacy players that are playing in a number of games a the same time. They just don't get the human dynamics that go on when you are playing in multiple games at the same time and many of the same players are in all the games.

Obviously things are not so "black and white" as I paint above. There is no such thing as the perfect realist. Its rare to see very extreme cases of the "My reality" player, although I have run into them. The Tactician is more common, but many tactician's recognize their problem and adjust my forming strong alliances.

The "My Reality" type is in many ways the strangest -- at its most extreme they will do things that any normal person will realize are going to really hurt them. Examples include, calling people idiots and morons on a message board and somehow thinking that the person will still ally with them in a game.

The more complex the gaming community becomes the more successful the realist becomes. If the community has a message board the realist realizes this is just another part of the game. They avoid making enemies, they never brag about winning, they are nice to everyone, they never make personal attacks -- they realize that the message board is a source of information and a tool for propoganda. They know when to use email and when to use the message board. They know the advantages of false emails and how to use them to cause confusion.

The "My Reality" player will tell you that none of this should be part of the game. Of course they also don't win, because playing diplomacy in a email community with a message board is all about human relationships.. but isn't that what diplomacy is all about?

 

[David E. Cohen]

Savin, we've talked extensively about this sort of thing in another thread, but I do not know where I fit in, in the Realist-My Reality continuum, though I expect you would call me a "My Reality" player. I adjust, to the extent I feel it necessary, to win every game I play in, and do keep an eye on how that may effect my overall reputation, yet, except in a tournament environment, to me each game *is* a more or less independent event, since I do not play in forums which have rating systems. Some comments on your "My Reality" player class, from my personal perspective:

As far as grudges and taking things personally, it *is* only a game, and doing so, to my mind, tends to result in suboptimal play in future games. If someone wants to define purposefully playing in a suboptimal way as "stupid", I won't stop them. People who hold grudges can be annoying, but I feel more sorry for them than anything else. Besides, I know how they will play the next time I go up against them, if I do. Predictability, when it is someone else's, is something I can often take advantage of, even if it is predictable that they will not ally with me.

I know some people do hate playing particular countries, which seems a strange thing to me, but they can always play the other ones. Why, in any case, would anyone want to ban them?

I have been allied in one game, and simultaneously or in rapid succession someone's enemy/stabber/stab victim in another, on more than one occasion. For the most part, both parties have had a good laugh over it. But to win a game, sometimes (well, most of the time, in Dip) making enemies *in-game* cannot be avoided. One player I know has wiped the floor with me in each of the three games we have played, but that hasn't stopped me from being friendly with them. Both she and I realize that it could have gone the other way, but c'est la guerre. By the way, we are playing in another game together right now, and we're not fighting. Of course it is still early, she's Russia and I'm Italy, so things may change. LOL

I also agree that at times "public" diplomacy (small "d") can be very useful, for information, communications and as a propaganda tool, and how valuable disinformation can be. I have played pretty much all of my PBEM career in communities using one kind of public mail group/bulletin board or another.

I do try to avoid making out-game enemies and stay away from ad hominem attacks, but that is due as much to my own notions of civility as it is to any desire to improve my Dip reputation. Still, in any large group, some people will like each other, and others will not.

 

[unmerged(47351)]

David,

I tend to be "The Realist" I don't really see that there are any strict rules except those specifically documented in the official rules of the game. This of course means that what works well in one dip community might be a total disaster in another. I'm less excited about the mechanics and the theory of Alliances. I enjoy the challenge of adapting startegy and play style based on the personailities and unspoken rules.

But, having said that, its just the way I play diplomacy. In chess I'm a stickler for protocol and adhering to the etiquette of chess.

If you want a fun game that has raw diplomacy at its center and by its nature is based on judious stabbing, try Junta. Its the perfect game for diplomacy players who want a bit of fun in a non serious environment.

The reason why I decided that "The realist" approach works best for me in Diplomacy is that human nature is a very hard thing to dicatate. A significant percentage of the players bring bias into every game and no matter how hard they try to be unbiased, its there. For instance, when i started playing the game in the 60s it was often very hard to win with Germany and Russia. The cold war was on and the 2nd world war was still in the minds of many (Nazi). This led to being able to manipulate people.

Statements like "Crikey!! are we really going to let the bloody Nazi's win the game!! your father would never forgive you!!" could actually have a subtle impact on a player if they were from England, France, Poland., Holland, Belgium etc.

I quickly found that when I'm playing 3 games at once it is frequeently better to avoid being an ally with a player in one game and stab them in another. You coudl be an "honest enemy" but not a liar.

Just posting on the message board that

"X stabbed me in game 12 after we had agreed to a 2-way and we had been allied for 16 turns. Its not even clear he will win outright, he may just get a draw with someone else!!"

Could cause the person problems across every game they are playing.

There is the theoretical discussion of whether diplomacy would be a better game if each game was treated as an indepentent entity ... but I gave up caring since it does not seem a possibility. Its a strange game because in the end its has little to do with game mechanics and many to do with human nature.

 

[Endre Fodstad]

"The Kindergarten Stabber"
This player can only appear in smaller friend-based Diplomacy circles. At a very early, possibly the first game played, he had understood that stabs are a part of the game to a greater extent than his friends, and orchestrated a massive stab that won him the game, betraying one of the big, stable alliances amateur players often form. The result is that none of his friends will ever trust him again in Diplomacy, which ensures his position as whipping boy in the gaming circle.