Reply To: Diplomacy

[blinky465 17028xp 1]

I tried Diplomacy and it very much put me in mind of the now de-funct (and “hilariously-titled”) Japser Carrott gameshow “Golden Balls” (bear with me). The show was taken off TV once one of the contestants discovered how to “break” the format – in that they concluded that *how they behaved* had absolutely no consequence on whether they were successful or not, only what the other player did.

To those unfamiliar with this paricular highlight in UK TV programming, the basic premise in the final round was that two players had to decide whether to “split” the prize money or “steal” it. If one person said “steal” while the other said “split” the “stealer” got to keep the lot, the one willing to share got nothing. If both said “split” the prize money was shared. If both said “steal” they both went home with nothing.

In hindsight (and once the broken game mechanic was revealed) it was a pointless “game” – it didn’t matter which options the eventual winner of the money made, only that they got their opponent to act they way they wanted them to. Nobody who wanted to steal the pot could ever be talked into splitting it (since if they genuinely believed the other person wanted to split, why not take the whole lot for yourself? But by agreeing to split, you’d end up with nothing if they did, indeed steal).

In short, one clever little sausage discovered that convincing the other player that they should split was not the aim – the idea was to convince them that, no matter what, you were going to steal the pot. Players would then “bargain” to “settle the debt” outside of the game environment (with the eventual “stealer” giving half the prize money outside of the game format, thus ensuring nobody would lose).

I felt, playing Diplomacy, like one of Jasper Carrott’s puppets (in early editions of the game, the “discussion” between players at the end of the game was a little forced, and a bit pointless). Eventually, I concluded that what I did bared little difference on my success (or failure) – it was more that rather than trying to convince others to change their behaviour, making it clear that you were determined to go ahead with your plan, irrespective of outcome or penalty, was a more successful tactic.

As a result, I found playing the game “like a dick” was the only way to play. And if you didn’t, you had to allow someone else to “play like a dick” else the whole thing felt a bit flat and pointless. And like @athelstane I didn’t particularly enjoy either.

Don’t get me wrong, I love social interaction games (hey, who doesn’t love a game of poker amongst friends?). I just felt that once you conclude that at least one person “being a dick” is the only way the game progresses, it feels like the game itself is a bit broken. Maybe I just played it with the wrong people? Or maybe, like GoldenBalls, once the trick to winning is revealed, it stops being such a “great game” after all?