Re: On diplomacy and neutral nations

From: Tim Booth <TBooth@publications.usyd.edu.au>

Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0000

Mark G Jaede wrote:
>
> Greetings all.

Greetings to all as well,

> In an attempt to find a superior discussion topic to one which shall
> remain nameless, I submit the following. I will be speaking in terms of
> MEPBM, but the problems I describe could arise in any game wherein
> inter-player diplomacy exists, especially if there is some an element of
> "neutral" nations being courted by two or more alliances.

And I shall talk about it from the point of view of Galaxy, which has
elements of this, although not to such an organised degree.
>
> Here's the basic problem I have encountered. Some players seem to be
> unable to separate the personal from the game aspects of diplomacy, and
> to become personally offended when things don't go their way.

Then they have probably never experienced a true "role playing game".
IMHO and experience, any one who has played an RPG of any sort, from
D&* through to more sophisicated live action RPG or MUDS, has learnt
that
the actions of a nation/character/race are *not* the actions of
a particular person. In Galaxy, any alliance is open to being broken
*at* *any* *time*, especially if your ally is looking weak
or is being gobbled up by someone else. I've played in a fair number of
games, and many other people I know have played in the same games...
For some reason, it is expected that a doublecross may occur, and I've
yet
to have anyone with some background tell me I was unfair when I
stabbed them... the only people who have ever been annoyed were
new people who expected everyone to give them  a better than even
break... however, to directly reply to your examples:

>
> Example 1: "You're calling me a liar."

Most people aren't this direct in Galaxy.

>
> Example 2: "I never attacked you, why are you attacking me?" In ME,

Heh heh... unfortunately, to be expected in Galaxy... secret is in the
timing (likewise for Diplomacy).

>
> Example 3: "You lied to me." This one is more complicated. Outright

Aaah... yes, misdirection and misinformation are a lot more subtle,
and underused. Mind you, when you look at the outright tactical side
of Galaxy, some people feel that any communication is unecessary...
however, I note most of these players get wiped out in the mid-game
by loose coalitions of players who do talk... most of the people
I play Galaxy with that I've actually met (ie 4) prefer to be
an uneasy partner in an alliance with people who communicate, than
being in *anything* except war with those that don't....

Anyway. not playing any true RPG's on the net, that's my experience
and opinion :-)

Yours

Webko
Galaxy and Diplomacy player

References

On diplomacy and neutral nations
Mark G Jaede <jaede@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Sat, 09 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0000