Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: 22 Mar 2001, 11:41 pm

Post 03 Jan 2014, 12:34 am

Hey folks.

I played in a tournament game recently, where I made a deal to split the board with two other players, so that we (at least two of us) could advance together to the next round.

But as we neared the point where we had planned to end, I noticed that a solo victory was within my grasp, and I took it. My belief was that I should honor the spirit of the game (this being a diplomacy tournament after all) over and above the mechanics of the tourney.

However, my chief ally challenged this view, saying that many people (himself included) were playing by the terms of the tournament, which included a stipulation to get a certain number of points to advance to a higher division. He rightly pointed out that we both could have topped the board and advanced to round two without my gratuitous grasp for glory, and that since my victory robbed him of all his points, that in short it was a bit of a dick move (my paraphrasing).

I've been thinking this over since then, and frankly I'm not entirely sure what I would do if the same situation came up again. So I figured I'd post the question here, and crowd source some opinions from my wiser (than me) peers, to help me align my Diplomacy compass.

Should I be playing the tournament, or the game?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 03 Jan 2014, 10:08 am

I say you play the game primarily.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 03 Jan 2014, 10:21 am

Game first. Tourney is in mind for the second place person. If you have to make a choice between people, make the second place person be an ally.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Jan 2014, 11:22 am

It is not exactly clear whether you gained some benefit from achieving a solo above that which you would have got for splitting the board. Obviously, if there was a benefit then there clearly would be no issue with taking the solo. Otherwise, I would note that diplomacy players clearly alter their play in tournaments in order to get guaranteed point results. On the other hand, solos are not that common. I think it depends on how artificial I thought the result was. If I thought the solo result was sort of an artificially contrived tournament result and I am not getting any benefit from it in the tournament, then I am not taking it. On the other hand, I am taking any solo that I earn-- they are too hard to get.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 03 Jan 2014, 12:47 pm

Well, a tournament should reward solos. I think RG does in a way, as overall points scores will look good, even if only the last round is used to decide which division you are in (personally I would say it would be better to take the last two rounds, or to have two rounds a year with the same divisions and then do promotion/relegation, but it's not my tournament to direct). Ideally, a tournament should be about a series of games, and the better you play those games, the better you should do in the tournament. Similarly, If the tournament rules affect the way games are played, it needs to be done with great care so as not to spoil the games themselves. A bunch of arranged draws are not so fun.

Generally I would say the game over the tournament. It's not healthy to meta-game or to take grudges over. Of course, whether the same players (or onlookers) will trust you again, and particularly whether they'd trust you to stick to an end-game agreement is up to them going forward.

Mind you, if you play more FTF, and get to know people you play with, you will find that the 'pros' will generally try to get a solo as soon as possible, and know that everyone is on the lookout to ensure they can't do it.

[disclosure - I GM'd the game Reuben was in]
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: 22 Mar 2001, 11:41 pm

Post 03 Jan 2014, 1:49 pm

Good thoughts gentlemen.

Freeman makes a couple of interesting points:

1) Was there "benefit" to taking the solo?

Clearly, I thought so. Insomuch that the victory conditions for a game of diplomacy were met, and I derived satisfaction from winning a game as per the rules. Obviously though, there would also have been very real benefit from leaving it alone, hence the discussion.

2) How "artificial" was the result?

This is the exact concern that my (ex) ally presented after the deed. And I agree — this was not your average game. There was a bitter feud over an external issue, a replacement player in a key position turned the game on it's head, we were hit head on by two major family holidays, and the fact of the tournament mindset itself is (now) obvious. I can't say that I'm particularly proud of the solo as it stands, though I think that this is besides the point.

(And a discussion for another thread perhaps, but I would consider proposing that ALL solos are to some extent artificial.)
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: 22 Mar 2001, 11:41 pm

Post 03 Jan 2014, 2:13 pm

It seems to me that the crux of the matter is the gamer's intentions (and gaming style) before they enter the field.

As is the case in any game, it makes the most sense when all players are trying to achieve the same goal, because when those intentions are at odds, how can anyone be satisfied with a win?

The interesting thing I find with the hobby in general is that (tourney or not) there are always players with different priorities beyond the primary objective, and part of the game is learning how to read that. For instance, some people will ALWAYS play to try and stop a solo. Others will play on for revenge, or a "survival credit".

These secondary motives are all fine. The differences are all part of being human. I'm just now discovering that we're not all the same when it comes to the primary objective either. And that is a problem in any game.

Round 2 should be fun. :)
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 06 Jan 2014, 11:55 am

If you gain any benefit, then go for the maximum benefit.

This reminds me of something from years and years ago (not related but let me share my story)
Way back when, during one of my earlier NWO or WW4 games (those games are designed to be won by a coalition group voted upon by others) one player had made plans to end the game in a big alliance and the game was drawing near to that end, suddenly the leader of that group stabbed everyone in an attempt to get a solo victory. The end result to him was a win either way, he screwed his allies and screwed the games GM by requiring extra turns now be played out simply because this person wanted a solo, to his EGO it meant more. Since that time, the games rules were re-written to state the game would ONLY be won by a coalition group.

If you get zero benefit, then your ego is not worth the fallout. I have no room for "ego" play to WIN by all means, and play to get the most points if that is part of the tourney. But when you have no difference other than your own ego, then by all means take a back seat to your ego!
...and by "YOU" I am not referring to Reuben! This is referring to any and all reading this!
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 06 Jan 2014, 12:01 pm

FYI,
My "priorities" always change depending on the situation.
First off I play to have fun!
Winning is more fun so I also always play to WIN.
If I have to stab someone for a WIN, then it has to be done and 90% of the time a stab will come, but shy of grabbing a sure fire win, I will probably not stab.

once the win is out of my grasp, that's where things get interesting!
I want REVENGE, how best to get that revenge? I want to do my best to make sure the person who stabbed me does not win, I will usually prefer to now help a loyal ally win even if it means my losing or even this ally grabbing a solo. Sometimes it's just kamikazee on the person who stabbed me, but one thing is for certain (even in a tourney game where survival matters) I could give a rats ass about "survival"! The win is out of my hands, survival means squat!
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 02 Feb 2014, 3:38 am

What's the one thing a boxing ref will always say at the beginning of a bout ? "Protect yourself at all times". That goes for games of Diplomacy too, and your partner should have remembered it.