Oh boy, it's my time to shine. This is going to have a pretty long answer...

When you're talking about the rulebooks, you need to remember that they were never made for any kind of tournament play, and so points aren't really a consideration. The 'draw' result wasn't clearly defined by the rulebook for some time due to this, and although more recent rulebooks clarify it a little, most face-to-face tournament directors ignore the scoring section completely and instead use scoring systems developed by other tournament directors. You'll also see (if you read all this) that no online site follows any rulebook correctly either - we'll come to that later.



The 1959 Rulebook (the very first edition) specified that 'If no player gets a majority [of the pieces on the board] during the time set aside for play, all players who still have pieces on the board draw.' It's definitely considered better than a loss, because it's specified separately that eliminated players are considered to have lost in the event of a draw, and it's also clear that it isn't as good a result as a win, as the win condition is also stated separately - but that's as specific as it gets.

It should be noted that at this point, the win condition for the game was having the majority of the pieces on the board - not 18 supply centers. You could have 18 and not win if you hadn't built enough units, and likewise you could win with fewer than 18 if other people didn't have enough units on the board. This was the victory condition until the 1971 Rulebook changed it to 18 SCs.

However, that initial reasoning that pieces are what matters, not Supply Centers, is still followed in the draw conditions of the more recent rulebooks. But I'm jumping ahead of myself here - let's move on to the next edition, in 1961.


The 1961 Rulebook removed the concept of a draw altogether, probably because of the ambiguity and the fact that Calhamer never liked the 'Carebear' approach that including the draw result caused. It stated simply that either the game would be played until a player won in the normal way (having the majority of pieces on the board) or a variation called the 'Short Game' could be played, in which case after an agreed number of years, the player with the most pieces on the board would be declared the winner. This was the official ruleset for a decade, until the 1971 edition.


The 1971 rulebook reintroduced the concept of a draw, and was the first rulebook to be more specific on what that meant - by specifying that players with pieces on the board share *equally* in a draw. This is where what we call Draw-Size Scoring originated, although webDiplomacy adjudicates it slightly differently, using supply centers rather than pieces.

However, this rulebook also keeps in the idea of the 'Short Game' variation as a separate option, with exactly the same rules as 1961. To see why that is, you need to look at the ways the game was being played at the time - Calhamer had originally designed it as a Play By Mail game (as made clear in his RealPolitik rules from 1958) and although the rulebook had been changed before its release in '59 to make clear it was a face-to-face board game, presumably to aid its sales, it was seeing a huge amount of PBM play. As such, the rulebook needed to account for both PBM and FtF play - PBM would almost always be played to a stalemate or victory, and FtF would be played to a time limit. Draw-Sized Scoring made little sense for a Face to Face game, because under a time limit, players would have to decide whether to play for a better draw (by focusing on eliminations) or for their own victory (by focusing on picking up supply centers) - so DSS was put into the rulebook for PBM games, and the 'Short Game' rules were kept for Face to Face.

The 1971 rules for draws/victories were kept the same for 3 more versions - 1976, 1982, and 1992 - before finally being changed in the most recent edition, 2000, to remove the 'Short Game' variation. As such, DSS (with pieces considered instead of Supply Centers) is the only 'official' drawing system at the moment.

Technically, nothing after the 1959 edition specifically mentions a draw being separate to a loss, but they do state that every player with pieces on the board shares in the draw - which implies that the draw is more valuable than the result attained by the eliminated players.

Nice,Meme.
Although we all know that sharing in a draw means sharing in a 1st place loss.

Fascinating Meme, although why do you say that ABC intended the game to be played by mail?

I had understood that Boardman et al "invented' PBM out if the Chess hobby and that ABC hadn't considered that before.

http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/rulebooks/1958draft1.pdf

This is a 1958 edition rulebook of RealPolitik (Diplomacy's predecessor). Note in the first paragraph it states "Communications between players are by private written message only."

I guess it never explicitly states that those communications happen by mail, I assumed was what it implied. I could be mistaken on that, though. Regardless, the idea seems to have been scrapped as the 1959 edition makes it very clear that speech is the intended method of communication.

Cheers Cap'n :)

Thanks Captain.. Although I cannot but feel anything that is not a win is a loss. It's all too often that one comes up against a couple of care bears. Can we please go back to 1961.

Personally, I think the high probability of the game ending in a draw and the difficulty of achieving a solo win without a grievous error by the defending players is the essence of what I like about the classic diplomacy map, and Diplomacy in general.

If you want to treat losses and draws equally, then I don't want to play with you. If you do not value a draw, I predict that you will play the game as a crazy, nihilist asshole once it becomes apparent that you cannot solo win, (and you will NOT solo win 90%+ of the time).

If this is you, you better keep it to yourself if you're playing with me. I try to sense who these players are and get them eliminated as fast as possible. Such players can never be trusted, backstab over nothing, refuse to cooperate in setting up a stalemate line, throw the game, etc. Often these antics are apparently IMMEDIATELY because players who take this attitude make extremely aggressive, risky play right at the start, often attacking multiple players at once, and then start behaving like a spoiled child when these stupid antics quickly fail. I think "good riddance," or else "I told you so" when other players didn't perceive this and let this type of player survival more than a few turns.

I always feel like a draw is a glorified lose.

A draw is like sex without orgasm all that effort for no real reward. Sure it might feel good even great but ultimately you want to finish the game..

:-)

BTW awesome explaination Captain ohh my captain...

Against good players, a solo is quite difficult. While a solo is the ultimate goal, generally it is the result of poor play by one or more losers instead of brilliant play by the victor. In some ways I prefer a hard fought draw against competent opposition to a solo gained because a neighbor CDs at an advantageous time.

Totally agree with sword. There is value in people thinking that you're a carebear, at the very least. Anyone who claims romanticist is just begging to have an example made out of them.

There's often very little glory in a draw, but an awful lot of satisfaction in stopping the other bastard from winning. As such not all draws are equal. A six-way draw in a live game that never gets going is a waste of an hour. A three-way agreed from year one in which no one challenges for the solo is a waste of time on a par with watching a Lost box-set, lying in a coma, or learning Welsh. A five-way that stops holds Russia at 17 centres and leaves him spitting venom into global, on the other hand, is magnificent.

Obviously an outright win is the desired goal, but it's not always possible.

I don't believe in two-way draws. Not in the moral sense, but in the Tooth Fairy sense. They tend to collapse into outright wins. I wouldn't agree to one unless I was pretty sure I could turn it into a win. If I can't, the other player can. Maybe I need to learn stalemate lines better, I dunno.

A three-way draw is a stable end condition for the fewest possible number of players. A table full of players who are okay with a three-way is a snake pit. Don't let the "carebear" label fool you. We're vicious, and our end state is enticing.

@ swordsman. Yep, I've been called a crazy, nihilist asshole, but only by care bears.

I much prefer a solo (obviously) but it is definitely important to pretend that you want to help the other person.

I am reading a book by Dale Carnegie called "How to Win Friends and Influence People." There is a chapter about convincing people to help you by showing them what they get out of the relationship. Pretending to be a care bear is a good strategy for this.

@TooCool

I feel like your thinking is sloppy here. From your comments, I get the impression that you think there are only 2 kinds of players: "Care Bears" who go out of their way to play for draws, and "asshole" players who consider loss/survival/draw to be equal game results. If this is not what you think, then I apologize for patronizing you in what follows.

I am ruthless, and frequently attempt solo wins, even at the cost of occasionally ending up with an unnecesary loss. I do not set out to play for draws, so I do not think it is fair to categorize my style as "Care Bear." However, I do consider a draw to be BETTER than an elimination or a survive, and will attempt to force a draw that includes myself if a solo win for me is not possible.

The play style I describe as "crazy, nihilist asshole" - a description you seem to embrace - arises when players do not value a draw. Experienced Diplomacy players such as myself can often sense this style of play early on, and consider it a grave threat for the reasons I previously described. The "asshole" style is NOT the same as being willing to go for a solo win - it means becoming a nihilist once a solo win isn't possible (which becomes close to certain in 90%+ of games within only a few years).

Clearing up your apparent misconception that there are only 2 types of players - "assholes" such as yourself and defining "Care Bear" as everyone who isn't an "asshole" - might improve your play.

I would hesitate before giving TooCool advice to improve his play. He's hard enough to beat already :p.

Thank you Octavious. Although so many have called me an asshole so often, I think there must be a good reason for it. :)

I GET NOWHERE UNLESS THE TEAM WINS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy3MtznDeqg&t=2s

No one will ever claim to be a Romanticist in a game, until it doesn't matter.

@Swordsnan - I don't agree with you about eliminating the "assholes" from the board. It's usually this kind of players that could give you a solo :-)

Thanks everyone, and especially Capt', for all the input. I do find draws larger than 3 to be extremely frustrating. It's getting worse as I get older and have less time to devote to 'fun' things :-)

I think the play by mail comparison to Chess goes deeper. The games are very similar including the Draw/Stalemate aspect. Thanks again.... - Stab you later