I often send a very open-ended beginning message to try to see what page other powers are on before I show too much of my hand, the exception being post-1901 things like, "I beg of you, Italy, PLEASE help me with Turkey."

"Diplomacy is the art of letting someone have your way." - Daniele Vare

I usually talk with people and try make them come with an offer I want. This way they are more commited to it.

I disagree Onar, if everyone had that philosophy, nothing would get done. I tend to play the leader when I play and offer ideas and suggestions and call for others to input their ideas.

I think I'm just more comfortable being the follower, so to speak. I go in as a blank slate, and see where the board takes me. I think it's a more dynamic approach, and I just wanted thoughts on that play style

I think it is definitely an advantage to be the initiator. Ask and ye shall receive.
During the first year, in most games, two versus one situations usually form all over the board. For example E/G versu F or R/T versu A. Or even better its three versus one such as Russia/Turkey/Italy all ganging up on Austria. The key of course is not to be the power that is ganged up on. And if you are lucky enough to have two allies, you need to be seen as the *real* ally by both powers.
But the best way to put yourself in that position is to be offering some definite ideas. In Diplomacy you have to constantly nudge the game in the direction you want it to move. Of course you have to convince other players that your ideas are to their advantage, and you have to listen to their ideas too - but offering ideas is a great way of getting that dialogue happening.

Generic opening strategy:
1. Make peace with everyone right off the bat.
2. Determine what everyone else is likely to do.
3. Identify the chump.
4. Stab the chump.

Onar - I agree with you. I usually see where the board takes me as well. Many times I see that my initial thoughts/plans were completely changed anyway once I found out who was really willing to ally for real and who was the 'player' looking to switch sides. Though I still get caught offguard on many occasions, I find the dynamics of the game easier to follow if I allow the board to direct my next move instead of my mind.

Lately, I've been sticking with a credo that Lando taught me in a gunboat SoW.

Don't open aggressive to anyone, wait to see what's on the board in Autumn 1901 before determining where your fortunes lay. Of course, that has some failures. But it's overall good advice.

Sacred - definitely good advice. That is, unless you're Italy in which case you have to have a plan from spring 1901 or you might be dead by spring 1902. Other than that, I completely agree with you.

Then again, if you're Italy you're probably going to be dead by spring 1903 anyway! LOL

Man, fuck Italy.

Another benefit of waiting for someone to come to you is, of course, you know who wants to work with you. If you're france, and germany sends you a load of press at the beginning of the turn, you know he's most-likely wanting to be your ally. (I'd assume this works better with a face-to-face situation than online).

I don't know about all that, I've found that I've been betrayed more by the big talkers than by the "DMZ Sil Pru no Swe bounce?" crowd.

Sacred - I'd love to say F*&K Italy too, but unfortunately I frequently get stuck with it!

I get stuck with it on occasion, and I maintain that viewpoint throughout. "Whee, I get to make nominal gains while keeping massive paranoia against Austria and France while I wait to get steamrolled by Turkey. AGAIN."

Funny, I kind of like playing Italy.

@Onar: "... it might be better to wait for someone else to approach you with an idea, rather than approaching someone else to discuss something."

Let's compare the strategies: waiter veruses initiator
Imagine E, F and G.
E and F are both waiters. G is an initiator.
G suggests to F that they should both attack England. G also suggests to E that the both should attack France. G might also talk to Russia and see if he is interested in anti-England strategy, and talks to Italy to see if he wants to join in an attack on France.
Meanwhile E and F play wait and see. Neither knows what the other will do, but both know that G has made a definite offer. All things being equal both are more likely to end up up siding with G than with each other.
Germany of course doesn't have to be committed to either strategy. Germany is also able to play wait and see. He makes plans with both F and E, and then waits to see what Italy and Russia do.
So really being proactive gives the best of both worlds - you can go with flow or you can direct the flow. You can choose whichever offers the best deal.
Meanwhile France doesn't know what England really wants and vice-versa - and that leads to doubt and mistrust. France might think "why hasn't England suggested to attack Germany? Is it because he already has a deal with Germany. I better make sure that doesn't happen. I'll assure Germany that I will go with his plan."
Meanwhile England is having similar paranoid thoughts about France.

In FTF game, I always try to pull everybody aside just so I can get a feel for who everyone is. You get so much more information from body language, intonation, etc. Also, if you talk to everyone all the time, the other players have a harder time pinning down your deals.

I think spyman is spot on here, but there seems to be some interesting variants to his scenario. If for example only one of the three is a waiter he might be in a better position, due to him being able to choose more freely from his neighbours propositions, while the initiators might be more vary of each other as both has a more agressive diplomatic style.

But I often find that being a waiter gives far to much power to the initiator, who gets to present and discuss his plans (who of obvious reasons probably favour him more) when it is your own plans of conquest that should be the point of discussion. As an extension of spymasters example above, imagine a board where all players except one are waiters: That player would dominate and control the game all by himself, and a solo wouldn't be far off.