A player who does better out of taking out the third will stab and win?

Two people can turn on one, yes, but usually, one of them will do better and take the win.

Since all three players know this, it's too risky to go for the two way.

plus, if youre the small guy in a potential draw, theres no way youre going to try to fight for the game this happened to me as italy. i accepted a 3-way draw because i couldnt talk the second guy into attacking the third. ultimately, in that case its a win-win situation.

if i can narrow it down to a potential 2-way draw between me and another guy, the chance of me stabbing him and taking the win is higher.

A three way draw can happen with several combinations of centres from the balanced 12-11-11 all the way to 17-16-1. So if the leader stabs for a win thhe others have time to stop them
A two way draw has only one possible number of centres: 17-17. A one centre stab wins immediately.

Ultimately, because the argument is valid. In a three way, you have two main types:

Stalemate: on power has sixteen or seventeen centres and is stalemated. There's no way either of the other 2 players could get a 2 way or solo because they can't kill the leader, and if they attack each other, its going to be a solo for the leader.

Toing and froing: 3 powers have a roughly even power. This tends to be where the argument turns up. Essentially, if two players gang up on the third, he becomes a kingmaker, because he can choose to gift the solo to one of the two. As soon as he starts this, with best play, the kingmaker and the "non-royal" of the two allied powers will ally to stop the solo. This means that you either revert to the old toing and froing position again or you get a stalemate as per the first example. People choose not to take the risk (and added effort) in playing it out here.

If people actually try for a two way, as soon as there are only two players left who have a chance of participating in the draw, all the checks and balances go, because they may as well be at war. That's the problem- without a credible enemy, there cannot be an alliance.

To achieve a two way draw, generally one player has to get to 17 SCs and then stop and wait for the other player to eliminate whatever minor forces are left and reach 17. This of course goes against the grain for most players, who will naturally look at picking up the solo win. Cooperating towards a two-way draw is thus not a workable Dip strategy (although a 2-way draw may result from the strategy of driving to a stalemate).

gameID=11019

That's my only 2 way, and it was one where more or less both myself and France took stalemate lines without having any risk whatsoever.

gameID=11041

Autumn 1905 - All players but three are eliminated.

France, the player in the best tactical position offers the draw. Italy tells France he wants to go for the two way. France, with the better tactical position, decides to go with it, thinking that there's no way Italy will reach 18 SCs before he reaches 17.

Russia plays kingmaker, throwing the game to France to change Italy's mind.

When he does, it's too late, and France takes the solo.

This is basically what happens 9 out of 10 times two players try for the two way draw and don't turn back.

The 10th time, is TGM's example.

So, basically, the more-way draws spring from the fact that players know that two-ways are more or less unworkable and they are afraid that they won't be the one to get the solo?

That and stalemates.

Pretty much, yes. Often it is quite easy to predict who will get the solo, certainly among more experienced players, which adds to the matter by making it so that it isn't so much fear as calculation.

TGM, you've got that right! I fear your calculations much more than any potential draw or solo.

Thanks, all, for your input. Very enlightening.

For further reference, read:
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/articles/draw.htm

And even more important, by "the" Edi Birsan:
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy/articles/odd.htm