-
This is not an invitation for a flame, or trolling. I just want to try to say why I find this game deeply unsatisfying, even though I had extremely high expectations for it. Actually, I consider this a very elegantly designed wargame with clean mechanisms and involving gameplay, and yet I would never suggest playing it nor would my friends. In fact, it hardly gets mentioned anymore. Why? Well..
1) It always creates bad feelings in a group. I didn't play many sessions of Diplomacy, but in a few I've had, it always created an aura of negativity. And I'm not talking just about backstabbing - Diplomacy just seems to kill the atmosphere. While in some games cutthroat gaming creates tension and excitement, here somehow it creates anger and frustration. Me, I don't care about winning or losing, but fun and entertainment should be a priority.
2) It simply lasts too long. I can take long games. If I have the time, it doesn't matter if I play a few sessions of shorter games or one satisfying long game. But Diplomacy somehow has always overstayed its welcome. Whatever initial enthusiasm has arisen always flattened down midway and it felt the game was playing us instead of the other way around. What's worse, the loss of enthusiasm is highly contagious - it's very hard to get into the negotitation phase when you plainly see the other player just dying to say "Yeah, whatever."
3) The rules. I know, I know. They are brilliantly designed. They are a classic example of how tbe war game rules should work - no randomness, no luck, nice clean mechanisms. However, I must say that I always found the order execution phase like a chore, a necessary evil which stops the game until the next phase. Btw, I'm not talking about the phase where you proclaim all the orders openly - that CAN get kinda exciting - but rather the phase when you have to untangle all those orders and solve the tricky bits yourself. Diplomacy is one of rare boardgames where I would rather play an electronic version where a computer would just display the final resolution of the orders, instead of me having to do all that work.
4) It needs a LOT of players but from a (very) small subset of gamers. I like games that are adaptable to many mentalities and different number of players. Light gamers, heavy gamers, non-gamers, eurogamers, wargamers - it's always nice when you can find a game that almost every subgroup can at least half-enjoy. However, Diplomacy (much like Go, btw) seems to need its own subgroup - Diplomacy gamers. What's worse, you always have to find a bunch of those - no, sorry, one or two won't cut it. You need to find six of those, and THEN find time and place for the game itself. Simply too much work.
5) It works better when not played on board. There, and don't you try to tell otherwise. A PBEM Diplomacy is a much preferred, more natural and enjoyable way to play it. But, wait, I wanted to play a BOARDGAME! You know, a board, a bunch of friends having a good time... I mean, if a game works better in a non-boardgaming environment, then why bother playing it AS a boardgame?
-
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
-
Different people have different preferences, hmm?
Some people get negative about other players when playing Diplomacy. They shouldn't play it. There are plenty of people who can handle the game as a game without getting negative. Four hours is a comfortable length for a game: if you don't play with a time limit then you may find it takes more than you have set aside, but you should set a time limit (or arrange for a setup where you don't need one). The rules are also a matter of taste. The fact it needs 7 players to shine does reduce the frequency of plays, but its a fault in common with several other great games. Its easy to teach anyhow. As for being better played by email, if you have the time and the setting for a proper face-to-face game I would say that is beter than email. But anyway, who says playing a boardgame by email is not playing a boardgame? Its not as if we're using the computer as more than a glorified message carrier...
-
Get up, get up, get up, get down, fall over.
United Kingdom
Bolton
Lancashire
-
I disagree with you (well except maybe with point 5) but you make a good case and make it eloquently. You get a
 from me.
-
Ryan Johnson
United States
Independence
Missouri
-
I really can't argue with any of your points.
PBEM is an alright experience if there are not huge swings in experience amoung players.
My group played our latest game last spring at a gaming weekend in the ozarks. We had 1 moderator, and 7 players. We took turns inbetween sessions of other games, and completed the game in one day. My group isn't full of hardcore wargamers so there was some very chaotic play... but all in all, it was an enjoyable game... not the best of the weekend, but still ok.
-
marc lecours
Canada
ottawa
ontario
-
I compare two backstabbing games: Intrigue and Diplomacy
In both games you double cross other players but in Diplomacy the emotions run much higher and there are more bad feelings. I believe that the main difference between the two is the investment in time. Diplomacy is a much longer game. All long games are a big investment in your time and thus your emotions. You play your position for more hours and you get emotionally attached to the outcome of the game. In intrigue I don't really care that much if I get double crossed. The game will end 20 minutes after the cdouble cross anyways and it was fun to be double crossed. In Diplomacy I spend 2 hours building up the italian position and then suddenly my ally stabs me in the back and my whole position crumbles.NO fun at all.
You could shorten Diplomacy to a 10 minute game: Everyone starts with 3 production tokens. Each country is allowed one attack if they have 3 or 4 production tokens. On turn one France writes down who he will attack between Germany, Italy and England. Everyone reveals at the same time. For each attack against you, your country loses one production token and the attacker gains one. This would shorten the game so much that no one would care, there would be no hard feelings and the game would not be fun.
The strength and weakness of Diplomacy is the emotional comitment because of the length of the game. Any player who thinks that Diplomacy is a war game is in for a disappointment. Yes a good tactician can slow down an attack against his country and can attack other nations more efficiently. But convincing others to help you and not to attack you is what this game is all about. This means that your results in Diplomacy depend on decisions of others and not so much your own.
Some people complain about kingmaking near the end of some games. In Diplomacy kingmaking occurs right from the start of the game and never lets up.
I like Diplomacy, but it takes pretty thick skin not to get frustrated at others who decide that your country should be the fist to die.
You may want to try "a game of thrones". It has some of the elements of Diplomacy but with more bells and whistles. Somehow in "a game of thrones" you feel slightly more in control of your nation's success.
-
Curt Carpenter
United States
Washington
-
I used to love playing Diplomacy. But I can no longer tolerate it for approximately the same reasons. Nowadays, Wallenstein and A Game of Thrones scratch the same itch, but for me do so much better, and are completable in a single sitting.
-
Thaadd Powell
United States
Wisconsin
-
We refer to it in my gaming circle as 'The Friends-Killing Game'. We only get one game or so year in, but it's a good day of gaming. I have the Colonial Diplomacy version, with an expanded map, to mix things up.
All depends on what you enjoy.
-
Lance McMillan
United States
Lakebay
Washington
-
While most of your points are valid, at least on a superficial level, I don't agree with you. Diplomacy is a wonderful game. As Philip notes, a lot depends on what you're looking for in a game. With the right group who have the proper mindset, Dippy can be great fun; without those conditions, it can be horrible.
I do think, however, that the game tends to work best in a more drawn out fashion than the standard "sit down and play a game" format. In addition to PBM/PBEM sessions, I've most commonly played it in games that ran over an extended period of time, usually executing one move a day (or sometimes two); even weekly moves seem to work nicely. I've had enormous success with this format even with non-gamers (I've played it both at school and at work in this manner),
Frankly, the biggest issue I have with Diplomacy is one you don't even mention: player elimination. It's not uncommon for some players to have their positions very early on in the game (within the first 5-8 turns), leaving them to sit around for quite a long time waiting for the game to conclude so they can start another game. This is one reason that not locking everyone into a single session version of the game tends to work best.
-
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
-
A Game of Thrones does not have a formal diplomacy phase and its resource allocation is quite random. I find Here I Stand to be a comparable experience to Diplomacy: its has a formal diplomacy phase at the beginning of the turn and although it is both much more complex and owes more to random elements, the two combine to give some similarity of feel. Here I Stand also plays well by email, and I would play it over diplomacy, but it doesn't cater for 7 players, so with 7 of us wanting that particular diplomacy feel the original (or a close variant like Baron Von Powell's 1900) may well be a good choice.
-
Tom Shydler
United States
Las Vegas
Nevada
-
Sadly, I could not agree more with your dead-on characterizations. The game is brilliantly elegant, yet too long. Fascinating, yet deadly to social relationships. Ironically, many of the lessons of the game are true to real life....perhaps that is why it is difficult to stay enthusiastic over many playings.
-
Dan Kochis
United States
Springfield
Virginia
-
I would like to play this game at least once now that I own my own copy. Unfortunately, per item 4, it is very difficult to find people to play. I suppose the driving force for me is similar to the same driving force that has me sitting through a bad movie, "I want my money's worth."
-
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
-
baba44713 wrote: In fact, it hardly gets mentioned anymore.
Because this site doesn't cater to fans of that type of game, much like it poorly caters to the wargaming crowd, the party game crowd or the pure abstract game crowd to name a few. Diplomacy was in print until very recently, one of the longer commercial print runs for any game. That indicates a strong and steady base rate of sales. There are Diplomacy fans out there, and there a lot of them.
What you write above is a summary of personal preferences, preferences that are not shared by all gamers and are clearly not shared by Diplomacy fans. They have different values and presumably want different things from their gaming. In fact a few of the points you cite, such as the effect of the game on social atmosphere, the priority of fun and entertainment, the level of commitment involved etc are aspects that also draw players to the game.
To hit a few points in particular:
Quote: Diplomacy is one of rare boardgames where I would rather play an electronic version where a computer would just display the final resolution of the orders, instead of me having to do all that work.
This is one of the few points where I agree with you. For this reason I'd only play using one of the judge applications -- which has the advantage of keeping a public log of the game as well. However in fairness, complicated situations arise rarely, most resolutions are obvious and the order resolution phase in face-to-face games once the player's have a bit of experience rarely lasts more than a minute or two.
Quote: I like games that are adaptable to many mentalities and different number of players. Light gamers, heavy gamers, non-gamers, eurogamers, wargamers - it's always nice when you can find a game that almost every subgroup can at least half-enjoy.
I start at the other end. These are games I like. What players can I get to play them that would deliver a good gaming experience and when and how often can I do that and what are the costs?
Quote: However, Diplomacy (much like Go, btw) seems to need its own subgroup - Diplomacy gamers. What's worse, you always have to find a bunch of those - no, sorry, one or two won't cut it. You need to find six of those, and THEN find time and place for the game itself. Simply too much work.
This is a question of commitment. Is the game worth the expense it levies? This question is present with any game, but particularly so with any particularly deep or involved game. The same applies to the 18XX, most wargames, Chess and Go (as you note) and Shogi, the other major market abstracts, etc. They are all best with people of like mind, they take a lot of time (investment and commitment), and there are relatively few people out there who fit the description. If you think the value is there, and many do, you'll gladly pay the cost. If you don't, you won't.
To give a personal example: In a few days I expect to be spending 10-14 straight hours playing 18C2C. I expect to lose and to lose badly. In fact in game terms I expect to have a fairly miserable time and yet I'm looking forward to this eagerly. I'm interested in the game, I value the experience and education it will provide and the costs (time, travel $$$, vacation days spent etc) is acceptable. I'm prepared and willing to make that level of commitment to the game. The investment and commitment required to gain the meagre profit of playing 18C2C with a bunch of bloodthirsty sharks is acceptable to me. I feel that I come out ahead.
Anything of notable value takes effort. If you want that quality you're going to have to pay for it. If it isn't that important to you, you won't pay. If it is that important, you will gladly pay. TANSTAAFL. You get what you pay for. Every choice has a price.
Quote: But, wait, I wanted to play a BOARDGAME! You know, a board, a bunch of friends having a good time... I mean, if a game works better in a non-boardgaming environment, then why bother playing it AS a boardgame?
Diplomacy really isn't a board game in the social sense. Sure, it involves a board, but that's really ancillary. The board is there only to serve as a record of the current deployments. The game doesn't take place among a set of players clustered around a table in the standard sense of board and card games. The game takes place in the heads of players secreted away, negotiating in corners and remote rooms and hallways. The board is just a touchstone that is periodically returned to. The actual game occurs in the remote places. At this level Diplomacy isn't a social game and if you're looking for a social game then you have the wrong expectations and you're in the wrong place. Horses for courses.
As for electronic versus face-to-face: they're fundamentally different games. Some prefer one, some prefer the other. Many I know consider the online game to be strictly inferior, but adore the face-to-face game (some of these are the same people who hold a Diplomacy party at their house every other weekend). Others are the reverse. Pick whichever suits your preferences.
-
Greg Fleischman
United States
Brookfield
Illinois
-
Diplomacy made for a memorable day with my wife and our 4 kids (2 daughters and 2 sons--we have another daughter but she was only 3 at the time) about 7 years ago. They were in their teens at the time (now they're in their twenties) and our oldest son wanted to play it bad enough that he read all the rules and examples.
We set up on our back porch. It was a beautiful day outside, so most of our between-turn conferences were held mostly on the lawn. Everyone got into the game so much that we had to limit the conference times to 15 minutes. What was interesting about the game was the different roles the kids assumed. The oldest son basically betrayed everyone  to try to get an early leg up. The youngest daughter was thoroughly honest  , following through on all agreements. Neither survived through the end of the game, but both stuck around to give their comments.
The very interesting thing about this is that neither my wife nor the kids were die-hard gamers. My wife was and is impatient with anything more complicated than Scrabble. Our sons had to be cajoled into playing games while our youngest daughter could take them or leave them. It was somewhat of a fluke, the one son wanting to play Diplomacy at all, much less wanting to actually read the rules! Only our oldest daughter doesn't have to be persuaded to play games.
Based on this I make two off-the-wall statements about Diplomacy:
1. It is an outdoor game.
2. It is a game for non-gamers.
We never played again--it was difficult to get them all at the same place for a long enough stretch of time. However, that single game lives large in our memory. We will try it again someday...
-
Curt Carpenter
United States
Washington
-
Philip Thomas wrote: A Game of Thrones does not have a formal diplomacy phase...
Yet another reason I prefer it over Diplomacy.
-
Nick Case
England
Epsom
Surrey
-
I don't like liver but I don't expect a web site to persuade me otherwise.
However the good news is the Geek might be mellowing, there was a time a mail like this would have been flayed alive.
-
Steve M
United States
Lubbock
Texas
-
So you like Eurogames without direct, unfiltered player conflict and with highly rule constrained interactions. Direct conflict in games is fun for me, personally. It doesn't have to break friendships; just with *your* gamegroup it does. You also don't like player elimination or long games. Ok. That's good for you. Sounds like you're completely at home on BGG, enjoy your time, many other people on this site agree with you.
But I think your characterization of this game as without an large audience is sorely mistaken, however. I might even hazard to guess that there are more diplomacy gamers around than almost every designer game on BGG. This game sold huge, for a long time and there are large web resources dedicated to its discussion and from my own anecdotal experience people who would never be caught dead playing ticket to ride or puerto rico play this game routinely--several tech forums I frequent always have at least one game going on. These are people who don't and wouldn't play eurogames.
I do completely agree with you about this playing better by e-mail. It plays extremely well by e-mail and I would never play the game in person. I don't think this is a problem at all. Many BSW people argue that so does Puerto Rico. I think CDGs may play better online PBeM. So it's not alone and I don't see how this is a problem.
-
-
Lancer4321 wrote:
Frankly, the biggest issue I have with Diplomacy is one you don't even mention: player elimination.
Funnily enough, I don't mind player elimination. Usually. In fact, I think that a constant chance of getting eliminated can make a gaming experience much more interesting and intense. Also, the satisfaction of getting to be "the last man standing" can be much greater then the purely mathematical victory of having the most points.
Player elimination for me is bad only in two cases:
1) When ONE and only ONE player can get eliminated quickly while others get to play for a prolonged period of time. If more players get eliminated they at least can play a side-game or hang out or something, being a sole eliminated player makes you feel like crap.
2) When the game takes so long that staying around after getting eliminated is really not an option. This is just plain bad manners.
And yes, Diplomacy makes player elimination a bit harder then it should. I dig up a friend I didn't hear from in months, I convince him to commit one weekend to a game of Diplomacy (come on, for nostalgic reasons, it will be great), he comes and it's all great, catching up and everything, we start the game, he gets backstabbed in the first hour and that's it, so long, thanks for the snacks, see ya. Oops.
-
-
garysax wrote: Direct conflict in games is fun for me, personally. It doesn't have to break friendships; just with *your* gamegroup it does.
Fully agree. I discovered Eurogames six months ago & now own 10-12. We play weekly (same group, including wife, usually 4-5 people for Puerto Rico, Power Grid, Yspahan, Ticket to Ride) and there are always tensions arising and insults flying, yet they never remain after the games. I'd even say gaming experience is healthier and more complete if it includes the ingame tensions and insults, but then everyone is able and willing to assume them and talk about them as part of commenting the game outcome and each's strategies, which should be standard in a friend group, Diplomacy not being an exception to this.
I haven't played yet Diplomacy although I'm eager to, after reading many reviews, being fascinated by both the theme and the implementation, and having just purchased a new one (in french, by Asmodée) which looks great. I'm having a tough time though to gather 2 extra people among our friends (5 regular gamers, 2 casual gamers) to make the optimal 7. Probably will have to wait for summer weekend and garden, ensuring in the meantime everyone has a basic understanding of the tactical rules...
(This is my first post in BGG; very useful thread, thanks to everyone).
-
Curt Carpenter
United States
Washington
-
There are degrees of conflict. Diplomacy is nothing like the games you mentioned. Those games and diplomacy are on opposite ends on the spectrum. Nor is Diplomacy a "Eurogame" by any stretch. But hey, welcome to the Geek!
-
Gerald Todd
United States
Pasadena
Maryland
-
PBM/PBEM
I've actually only played Diplomacy FtF twice. I've played countless games by mail (you know paper in envelopes and sent via the Post Awful) I even ran a few games through a newsletter called "The Diplomacy Tribune."
While I don't recall an overall "negative" feeling during the ftf games, or a feeling of the game being especially "long" I do agree the game is in it's element when played by mail or email.
-
-
curtc wrote: Diplomacy is nothing like the games you mentioned. Those games and diplomacy are on opposite ends on the spectrum. Nor is Diplomacy a "Eurogame" by any stretch.
I know, I know; but still want to try it, as well as Junta! (which was recently republished in France as well). Although the ones I mentioned are the ones I play most often, some friends of mine are veterans of Republic of Rome and Diplomacy, and willing to introduce us to Diplomacy (and by the way one of them "shall never play Euros", as he says).
curtc wrote: But hey, welcome to the Geek!
Thanks !
-
-
curtc wrote: There are degrees of conflict. Diplomacy is nothing like the games you mentioned. Those games and diplomacy are on opposite ends on the spectrum. Nor is Diplomacy a "Eurogame" by any stretch. But hey, welcome to the Geek!
Took the words out of my mouth. About the degrees of conflict, I mean.
I enjoy conflict, backstabbing and general mischief in my eurogames. There's something inherently satisfying in stealing one's Cathedral in Carcassonne, blocking one's route in the last second in Ticket to Ride etc. It can create bad feelings, but in cartoony "I'll have my revenge", fun kinda way. Yes, people sometimes get mad but mostly it's nothing to get too upset about.
In Diplomacy you agree with your friend you'll attack someone else, you develop an elaborate strategy, you convince him it's the best way to do it, he buys it hook, line and sinker and does exactly as agreed - only to shockingly realize that not just you totally lied to him, you actually secretly agreed with two of his friends to attack him from the back and obliterate him. This is not just regular eurogame "gotcha!" backstabbing, this is downright betrayal which can have serious out-game implications - he is effectively removed from the game which more often then not means he can pack up his things and go home, even though you made him commit a bunch of his free time to come and play the game.
Being on the receiveing end of this "conspiracy" can be quite painful. You've been lied to your face, cheated by some of your best friends and they basically kicked you out while they get to have some fun for who knows how long. Not really the same as playful stealing that Nashville-Atlanta link, now, init?
Shockingly enough, Diplomacy heavily encourages this kind of behaviour! In fact the winner is often the guy who most effectively and elaborately screwed everyone else. He gets to win, and most commonly the prize is trying to mend as many friendships as possible in following weeks . Great game, right?
Yes, I know, the game IS called Diplomacy. Probably they thought that "Diplomacy, backstabbing and betrayal" was just not that catchy a name.
-
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
-
Baba, what you call backstabbing in other games isn't backstabbing at all, merely open conflict (and low-level open conflict at that). Diplomacy allows for real backstabbing, which can be beautiful to behold.
Not that the biggest backstabber wins the game. Its been well said that the key to Diplomacy is to only make one backstab, but to make it at precisely the right time...
-
Nick Case
England
Epsom
Surrey
-
If there is a genuine need to 'mend' a friendship after a player is screwed over during a game then I have to question the level of maturity of those playing. To stomp off home because you don't like the way a game played out is the priveledge of a child, not an adult.
It may come as a bit of a shock to hard core gamers but a board game is a recreational activity, not something to confuse with the harsh realities of real life. By all means get angry if your so called friend sleeps with your wife, steals your car, or hurts your child. But if being duped and screwed over in a game of diplomacy is reason to throw your toys out of the pram then that's not the games fault, it is however a very good indicator that you need to get out more and book an extra course of therapy.
-
|
|
