How to Play Diplomacy (part 6): Conclusions

Diplomacy is a complicated game. Now, there's an understatement! However, when learning how to play it, there is one source which can't be ignored: the creator of the game, Allan B Calhamer.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/

Philosophies

If you read anything Calhamer wrote, it seems clear that he had a certain way of playing in mind. Play to solo; if you can't solo, play to prevent any other player from soloing. The objective is to win - to solo - and the secondary objective is to draw, to prevent that other winning; nothing else matters. Stab when you have to; maintain an alliance only so long as it's useful, and keep in mind that 'useful' means until the alliance is preventing you from winning. I call this philosophy Calhamerism.

And yet, for a number of reasons, other philosophies have developed, all of which vary from the origins of the game. I will examine the varieties of philosophies in another series of posts, but it is worth summarising them here.

• Drawmongery. Drawmongers, as I've mentioned before, play to draw a game for practical reasons. These are generally to either improve the status of a player among the others in the player-base by making her seem reliable: "You can trust me, I don't stab;" or to improve a player's rating because drawing a game will usually come up with a fair result if the games are rated.
• Carebearism. Carebears also aim to draw games. This is usually because they want to meet the challenge of maintaining a game-long alliance; they enjoy drawing games. It may also be because they don't like the idea of stabbing others.
• Soloism. Soloists will only play to win, to achieve the solo. If it looks like they won't solo, they tend to lose interest. This may mean playing to do the most damage, becoming rogues; it may mean they go through their paces, simply entering orders and withdrawing from playing fully by not messaging or being very short on messaging. These two 'strategies' are about conceding the game. Alternatively, a player may well leave the game, or surrender. Soloists may well turn into an Armoured Duck, a player who simply follows a single path, no matter what else is happening; perhaps he may turn into a Kingmaker, a player who tries to help another player win.
• Positionism. This is, perhaps, a a dying philosophy; it is where a player plays to simply finish in the highest possible place, based on SC-count. As we've seen, Calhamer made it clear that this is a meaningless goal. However, where a scoring system is used which recognises positions at the end of a game, which relies on SC-count, then Positionists can be found.

Reasoning

I have been accused in the past, and will be accused in the future, of trying to force players to play a certain way. This isn't what I'm doing.

Everyone who plays Diplomacy can approach the game in any way they want. They are the person who controls their power; they are the person who can choose to play to their own philosophy. If I - or anyone else - has a differing philosophy, then I have to deal with these other philosophies in the game.

What I am doing is pointing out that any philosophy that abandons the ideals that Calhamer had for the game is an erroneous one. Simply, it's an aberration. Whatever reason you have for playing that way is based on a faulty understanding of the game, and it's my right to challenge it.

And that is all I am doing - challenging faulty ideas.

Let's say, though, that you play the way you do because your games are scored in some way. As I've said numerous times, in a tournament, for instance, you'd be foolish to not play to maximise your score. The question then becomes is a philosophy that is based on a non-Calhamerist approach the right way to maximise your score? It may seem like it, but is it?

Again, then, we come down to scoring systems. Do they mean a sensible approach to playing a game results in a change in the way players approach playing? If so, is this a good scoring system? It might be practical, but is it true to the game? Is there really no alternative system which can promote game play that is more in line with Calhamer's ideas?

Choices

What I try to do is present reasonable arguments for or against certain philosophies. What I really can't stand is the pathetic mewling that: "This is the way I want to play and you can't make me play any differently."

You're right, I can't.

But, and here's the thing, can you present a reasonable argument for the way you choose to play? Can you show where your philosophy is supported by Calhamer?

I saw someone put it this way: We don't have to play the way Calhamer wanted the game played. It's true, we don't. As I say, you can play any way you like; it is your choice. But Calhamer designed the game, and has laid out his philosophy of how it ought to be played. Surely, that counts for something?

Please, don't mewl about the way you play being the way you want to play; I already know that, or you wouldn't be playing that way! And don't moan that I'm trying to force my ideas about how Diplomacy should be played onto you. That's evasion. Defend your choice reasonably or don't try to defend it.

It's Just Your Opinion

Well done - it is. Your way of playing is your opinion, my way of playing is mine. How incisive.

As I've said, though, my opinion is based on reading Calhamer's thoughts about the game. What is your's based on? Choice? Reasoning? How nice it is to play your way? Ignorance?

My opinion has a basis. Does your's? What is that basis? Practicality? In which case, are you truly comfortable with that? My experience is that this usually isn't the case, and it is usually an excuse used to defend an otherwise indefensible approach to Dip.

Is your basis personal choice? Well, OK. Again, because it needs repeating, that is your choice. But don't whine about how I want to make you play my way; I don't. I want you to think about the way you play.

In some ways, it's analogous to religion. How many people follow a certain religion because that is the way they have been brought up to think, or the way they want to believe is right, compared to those that have carefully considered their ideas, challenged them, and found them steadfast? Often, with religion, you'll find the former outnumber the latter.

In Diplomacy you'll often find that players have simply adopted a way of playing, for whatever reason, and haven't really considered the ideas behind the game. And yet, stubbornly, they play their way because they can.

I have no respect for that type of approach. I don't have to respect your opinion, I should respect you. And if - like many religious people - you resent being challenged, tough.

Finally...

One person made a comment along this line: "I think that you're on dangerous ground when you try to quote Calhamer. We don't know exactly what he thought, and he's not around to correct us."

Sadly, he isn't. But to deny that there are clear messages in the writings Calhamer produced on his game is ridiculous.

Like anything, it may be open to interpretation. I wouldn't for a minute claim that my interpretation of what Calhamer's ideas were is faultless. But you're going to have to show me why I'm in error.

My interpretation of Calhamer's ideas about Diplomacy is based on the what remains in the Diplomacy Archive. I may have missed something. There may be something else written that I haven't accessed. If that's so, show me.

If you can't show me, then I don't accept this premise. If you can't use what Calhamer wrote to support your ideas, then I don't recognise the validity of  your 'arguments', either. 

I believe - it is my opinion - that there is a way that Diplomacy should be played. You can play the game however you want. And you don't have to justify your choice to me.

But, if you want to tell me I'm wrong, then you need to show me why I'm wrong.

And, if you want to simply say I can't make you play in any way, then don't bother. I recognise this an anticipate enjoying the challenge of playing against you anyway!

Heathley Baines (Nibbler)

Editor

The Series "How to Play Diplomacy"

Part 1: "Introduction"

Part 2: "Origins"

Part 3: "Corrections"

Part 4: "Deceptions and Betrayals"

Part 5: "Excuses"
Part 6: "Conclusions"