Re: Removing personality from Diplomacy?

From: scotia@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jennifer Scott)

Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 05:15:20 +0000

In article <2k3gmb$qo@tang.ccr-p.ida.org>,
David desJardins <desj@ccr-p.ida.org> wrote:
>Rich Skrenta <skrenta@summit.novell.com> writes:
>> Forgive my ignorance, but I just don't see the appeal of anonymous PBM.
>> I thought the whole point was being in a game with lots of interesting
>> people, working out cool negotiations with them, roleplaying your
>> characters, etc.
>
>Well, surely you know that that's not the point for everyone.  I think
>you are deliberately being a little naive.  First of all, anyone who
>plays Diplomacy (the game we are talking about in rec.games.diplomacy,
>right?) by "roleplaying" probably gets what that person deserves---i.e.,
>losing.  Diplomacy is simply not a roleplaying game nor is it very
>conducive to that.

I disagree. One can play diplomacy in one of two ways: from the
military tactical viewpoint or from the diplomatic viewpoint (ala
alliances, balance of power, true negotiations mixed with a little
tactical)  The purely tacitcal way is boring IMHO. Playing the
diplomatic way is much more fun and interesting. The best way
to do this is through a little role playing. Granted if one
assumes a pompous holier-than-thou character, one deserves what
one gets. However, playing the role of a mythical figure that you
create provides amusement and allows more real diplomacy.

When two powers diplome like real diplomats, ie with all the nicities
and polite requests and long explantations of plans, they form a much
stronger alliance than the players that only exchange the 'you go
here, I'll go there' messages. These in depth negotiations do
require an aspect of role playing.  IMO diplomacy is conducive
to role playing. I mean the game requires you to make friends;
no country can get very far without friends. Roleplaying, ie
assuming the role of a king (or queen :) or prime minister, allows you
to form alliances quicker that last longer. In one of my games
I recently ordered a unit to an unsound tactical area, but it
allowed me to influence the diplomacy in the area, which was of
vital importance to my survival. If this game was of the tactical
type, the other poweres would have thought 'boy, is she an idiot'.
However, since it is of the diplomatic type, I was included in
a lot of the diplomatic negiations concerning that area, which
allowed me to make a better decision about what to do with my
other units, because I was able to learn what these powers
were doing elsewhere.

Jen

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer R. Scott     | Do not follow where the path may lead, go instead
                      | where there is no path and make a trail.
scotia@nwu.edu        |
jen@thor.isp.nwu.edu  |                                        -Anonymous
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go often to the house of thy friend,
                For weeds choke the unused path.
                                                       - Emerson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Re: Removing personality from Diplomacy?
keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Schneider)
Fri, 18 Feb 1994 05:48:29 +0000
Re: Removing personality from Diplomacy?
skrenta@summit.novell.com (Rich Skrenta)
Fri, 18 Feb 1994 14:15:08 +0000
Re: Removing personality from Diplomacy?
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Fri, 18 Feb 1994 22:49:47 +0000