I wouldn't agree with neither of the examples given by CountArach. The first example is about multiaccounting, which is pure cheating & rather different from metagaming. The second example can be agreed only, if we add some elements to this - at given form, it's not automatically metagaming.

Basic idea of metagaming is, that Your decisions in game are affected by the factors, which are not derived from the game. For example - if You ally someone just because he is Your friend (You are afraid of his frowning IRL) or You ally someone because You owe him some money IRL, or vice versa - You attack someone because You got beaten by him at school etc. Just allying Your friend, if it makes sense in the game (for instance as Turkey & Russia can be effective allies), is not metagaming.

I think it's a confusing term which means whatever someone wants it to mean. In my view, any alliance which is to all intents unbreakable is cheating (unless agreed by all players prior to the game) - whether it is because the same person controls two countries, or it is two friends or relatives playing as a team, or one player "returning a favour" or fulfilling a bargain from another game.

Obviously there is a continuum of breakability there, and the lower end is where the boundaries blur. For instance, if I play a successful alliance with Player B in one game, and end up with Player B in another game, I will be inclined to trust him and ally with him again. The reason it isn't cheating is because if circumstances are right and I have an opportunity to gain an advantage, I would stab him without compunction. Something a "metagamer" definitely would never do to himself, and would probably never do to his friend/brother/bargain-buddy.

A situation: A country has 12 SCs and looks likely to win the game in the next few turns. You have 3 SCs but are well placed to hinder the powerful country and perhaps could even prevent him from winning. Is it metagaming to ally with your powerful neighbour knowing that you might finish the game with 6 or 7 SCs, rather than try to bring him down and risk losing all your SCs?

No, that is playing within the rules of the game (of this site), trying to maximize your points output.

It's not metagaming, it's not cheating, but it isn't something I would encourage. Helping another player to win goes against all sense and logic in most circumstances, the only time it is justified is where there are two strong countries and stopping one winning is effectively helping the other to win. If your only option is to help decide who wins, make it the guy who has treated you the most fairly.

It is (or at least should be!) the duty of every player to try to win the game themselves, and if they cannot do that, to keep the game going as long as possible stopping anyone else winning.

Having said that, there is an exception: if one country has behaved really appallingly towards you, you are perfectly justified in throwing everything you have at bringing him down or at least frustrating him, regardless of how that affects the chances of other players on the board. Suicide vendettas are the ultimate sanction, and totally within the spirit of Diplomacy!

I'd just like to say that I've never come across a forum like this where almost every post is articulate and well thought out. This whole site seems to be a haven of goodness amongst the usual dross of the Internet. I know there are some implementation problems with the game itself, but I also know that Kestas works really hard to minimise them. Viva PHPDiplomacy...

I have thoughts contrary to noodlebugs, i believe that in mythagos example it is completely justified to ally with the winning player in order to make or break even on points.

Although it is certainly better to try and win yourself i think that it is just as justified working towards second place and a healthy share of the points!

Players willing to settle for second place are no use to me which is why I advocated a hefty win bonus. If you're not in it to win it, then there's no incentive to ally with anyone or stop anyone, and games which should remain competitive become pointless processions as everyone just protects what they've got rather than taking any risks.

Death or glory! Nothing in between.

> Death or glory! Nothing in between.
Which is fine in a home game where there's one game going on at a time, not so good when you can just drop a game and enter another if you think you're losing. But let's not start this up again..

That's surrendering, just as much as helping another player win. No player with any sense of honour or pride in his reputation would do that. And players with no honour or pride will always find themselves marginalised.

If You were outnumbered and about to be destroyed is it not within the game's rules to submit yourself as a vassal to another player and move however he tells you? Just as long as you move at your own accord just staying with the agreement. While this scenario might seem like metagaming wouldn't this actually be an elaborate agreement. The game rules say you can write up private treaties in the form of alliances or pacts etc..

I suggest metagaming does not exist only the perception of one does. When 2 countries ally themselves anywhere on the board at any time for any reason is that not only an alliance. I suggest these "metagame" alliances are only very strong alliances which are rare in a game like this and thus perceived as a form of cheating.

Otto, your example is not metagaming, because it's conditions are inside the game. It would be metagaming if in exchange for your survival in one game, became a vassal of the player in another game. This is metagaming because you are becoming the vassal of a player based on factors outside that individual game.

Metagame alliances are percieved to be a form of cheating, only because it offers an unfair advantage to certain players, and often dictates the exact turnout of a game before it has even begun. Preconceived alliances and hostilities are metagaming.

mythago's situation is caused by this scoring system.

England and her former Western Territories have developed close ties since they all fought for Autonomy. In fact you can say that for the last 100+ years the United States, Canada, Australia and the UK are pretty damn friendly. As friends, was it "cheating" for Australia, Canada, and the US to aide and ultimately ally with the UK during the last world war? was it "cheating" for the UK to support the US against the Taliban and Al Queda? Should Hitler have demanded that Churchhill and Rosevelt have their accounts deleted and not be allowed to play because of their existing national friendship at the start of the war? And on a side note, do you think anyone ever suspected that Germany and Italy were both being controlled by the same person with dual logins?

Diplomacy differs itself from other strategy games in that it relies on human nature to takes it's coarse for the most part, and is governed by a rules base that is really more of a guideline.. human nature is to do what is in ones best interest, and to trust your friends over strangers.. but as life and this game will teach you human nature is also to f^ck your buddy if necessary or if it's in your best interest.

Exacerbated by, not caused by.

The key word is "risk" losing all your supply centres. If your gambit is successful, and you bring your enemy down you could actually end up with more supply centres AND possibly even a chance of winning.

Too many players are defeatist, and while yes there are some circumstances where nothing you do will change the outcome, I have been involved in many games where players down to their last 1 or 2 units have been built up again into contenders. In fact, these sort of countries often make great allies because they have nothing to lose, and are grateful for your help in building them up again. Ironically, considering my argument that you shouldn't help another player win, such players have helped me win on numerous occasions! I'm not sure whether to encourage or discourage this sort of thing...

Anyway, my advice to big countries is to take little countries under your wing, help them become strong again, because if more people are helped back from hopeless positions, maybe more people will stick with games (and fight to the end) in the future. Which is good for everyone.

In response to the debate about whether or not becoming a vassal state is wrong i would say this.

A players first duty is to try and win, a players second duty is to survive.

Seeing as you have no chance to try and win when you have been destroyed it is complying with the first duty to become a vassal state.

ANYTHING that helps you achieve either goal, including letting another power win if it means you survive, is completely justified in my eyes.

And berlinerkindl made some very good points there!

berlinerkindl: lol, nice example, but we're trying to find who's the best player. if you have a premade alliance you're more likely to win, aren't you?

Locke: really?

aoe:

Certainly, i think that its no problem at all. Especially with the new points system, where there is a clear advantage to surviving. Thats not to say that i dont try my utmost to win but i think that negotiating a defeat is absoluetly fine.

I'm afraid thats as far as my liberalism regarding the rules goes, im absolutely against multi-accounting and playing with a friend that you have no intention of stabbing. I also happen to think that everyone should view every new game and completely fresh and ignore any grievences from previous games!

In fact, apart from my belief that becoming a vassal state is fine i'm probably one of the more traditional players on the site!

aoe: there are many variables that make up the probability you are looking for.. yes I would think that if you have a pre-existing arrangement going in you are more likely to win than if you did not. However, that is assuming noone else in the game has any similar arrangements, and that your cohorts all honor your arrangement. All in all, it doesn't matter.. if the variables line up properly you will win. if you negotiate and compromise as needed you can overcome even pre-made alliances..

and referring back to my example... England entered the war w/ solid friends behind her that did come to her aide, and while costly, the war ended in her favor.. germany also entered the war with agreements and treaties, she broke every one of them, and the nation was literally DRAWN AND QUARTED because of it..

perhaps we should debate the practicality of being honorable in your alliances -vs- backstabbing for a single SC gain..

that should have been Quartered not Quarted.. I am not trying to infer that the german state was reduced to a 946 milliliter volume of liquid... =-P

berlinerkindl, that's a good analogy, but I don't see it like that. Your example differs from the game of Diplomacy because Diplomacy has set end conditions, whereas the world is ongoing, and things don't abruptly stop once a player has captured more than half of the supply centres. If I were to compare the world to Diplomacy, I'd say that all of our world's history is just a single ongoing Diplomacy game, that hasn't ended.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that Diplomacy was not created so that everyone could play out the exact history of WWI, but so that people could play with it, and pretend that history's preconceived alliances had no bearing on it's outcome.

Like any other game or sport, people don't appreciate it if it's rigged, and that's what metagaming is like. It's like rigging the game. It makes playing the game futile, and not worth a player's time.

noone has ever captures and maintained 18 supply center's, not since the roman empire and the ming dynasty, and the playing field has gotten bigger.. but after those two great nations did, their regions of the globe were in relative peace, or at least pretty stable until Christianity was introduced to the Romans, and until western Europe starting trafficking opium to the Chinese.

all that aside my actual point was.. diplomacy is just a game with loose rules it was designed as, and is regarded even to this day to be, the most realistic strategy game due to it's lack of a rule strict rule set. Regular diplomacy games do not always end with a clear victor, often actually they don't. Not all diplomacy games stop at 18 SCs, that's just a general sanity saving stopping point. But no matter how good it is, it is not real life I agree, in real life we would be old men sending young men off to die over our inability to compromise. That is the reality of war, diplomacy should be more about compromising and understanding, and less on domination (IMHO). Players who learn to compromise, to give and accept support dominate as a general rule.. players who do not require to win every game seem to be winning more now than those who have to drive for a clear victory everytime.. that's because those players who don't have to win are negotiating the game through the political side of diplomacy and building alliances, and when you identify someone you can work with, why not work with them when you encounter them in other games? i sometimes do, sometimes don't.

i was using that analogy to illustrate this point in a historical context.. a similar context the original game was modeled after. I was not trying to say that anyone should play only based on historical alliances.. that wouldn't be a game, it would be a re-enactment.

About playing for a win or for survival:
I do not think you should have preconceived rules what other people should do or else they are ... - they will behave as they wish. Your task is to get to know how they think about the game - just ask them. Any situation you create on the board, and in the mind of your opponents, is as good as you made it. If you did not foresee a psychological reaction - one more experience under your belt.
All this of course applies to a game with a symmetric, balanced start. But soon enough, the symmetry will spontaneously break, and that is the game.

That is exactly my experience from live games... Whenever a new player was invited to one of our houses to take part in a game, they were really quite respectful... The better/older the friend though, the sooner you could expect the knives to appear...