At the end of the day, it is only a game (unless you are playing for money).

I don't think it is unethical in the slightest, if you look at diplomacy history plenty of games end in draws, often times engineered that way by the allied players.

pathetic is a better word than unethical.

Many of us (myself included) feel it's untrue to the spirit of the game; many others believe it's an appropriate way to treat the point system as a game in itself, and each "game" as a round in a very long tournament where second place still wins you some points.

That's why I'd love it if everyone could pick which way they saw it and say so on their profile, so per-game players could organize games with only other per-game players, and per-point players could do the same.

Hopefully, if you created a game named "Everyone plays for first," point-players would stay away. Or you could create a game with the minimum bid, and watch everyone else rack up major points while you secretly feel bitter that your opinion about the game leads to you looking like a noob. Then you can go use a chess program to cheat at Yahoo chess to work off the stress.

Well, historically, most postal and F2F tournament play ended up with draws, solo wins were the minority.

I agree with Nick. I should first state that I was the winner that the 10+ SC player was allied with.
There are different play styles. Some say that the game is amoral. Others (like me) think that a reputation for honesty is a commodity valuable in itself. This perspective comes from playing Diplomacy over a period of time with a group of friends where a reputation for honesty was more valuable than gold. On the internet, however, it may be thought that taking reputations for backstabbing/honesty from one game to another as unfair...
My secondary point is that I think it is ok to play with a reputation in mind. I think that is what the second place player was primarily doing, and not necessarily just going for points.
My main point is this: there are lots of different ways of playing the game. I accept that other people play to for the win, others play for the points, others play to build friendships. Different people can and should take different things from the game.

> if you are 10+ SCs and allied with the leading player, is
> playing for second ethical?

It's playing to lose. It certainly depends on the situation, what the other remaining players are doing/willing to do etc. But if you are enabling someone else's win just so that you can keep your 10 SD then yes I'd say its unethical. Again, there is the caveat that you might have a reason for helping the winner - perhaps the 3rd player backstabbed you earlier and your out to get them, etc. But when it comes down it, playing for 2nd is playing to lose.

> does it change the intended dynamic of the game? ie, is
> the game design itself hindered when one player forfeits the
> opportunity for victory?

YES YES YES.

> My main point is this: there are lots of different ways of
> playing the game. I accept that other people play to for the
> win, others play for the points, others play to build
> friendships. Different people can and should take different
> things from the game.

I think you're confusing concepts. People have different reasons for playing: thrill of victory, enjoyable pastime, hanging out with friends, etc. BUT the goal of the game is to win. Different personalities may go about winning in different ways - backstabbing vs honesty, but they should be trying to win regardless.

>This perspective comes from playing Diplomacy over a
> period of time with a group of friends where a reputation for
> honesty was more valuable than gold.

It sounds like you saying that when you play with that group that you never break your word in order to build trust between people over the course of a number of games. To me that is the worst sort of meta-gaming. To some degree it's inevitable to carry over feelings, good or bad, for another player into the next game. The statement, "I'm going to honor our alliance, even though it means I lose just so that next game you'll be more likely to trust me and help me win", however, is entirely inappropriate.

amen

The concept of winning is also a moveable feast. Some people consider it a victory to finish runner up, some consider it a victory merely to survive. And depending on the circumstances of each particular game, there may be justification. My gripe is that it's very hard to rally people with that attitude into working with other players to stop someone else from winning. What's in it for them? - their game is already "won" and their only priority is for a REAL winner to end the game before things change again. Logically, they will almost always support the player closest to winning.

As for what dangermouse said, if you twist the statement around a little you get the same meaning: "I'm going to stab you for a limited gain in this game and hope that you forget all about it in the next one." If a stab isn't going to help me win, I'd rather bank the goodwill; it's up to the other guy whether he cashes it or not.

Amen to noddlebug. Its fairly difficult to forget a juicy stab, its also fairly difficult to forget goodwill.

I know which one I'd rather have.

Good points, though as to the last sometimes you don't know if the stab will help you win. Does that mean you don't go for it?

"It sounds like you saying that when you play with that group that you never break your word in order to build trust between people over the course of a number of games. To me that is the worst sort of meta-gaming"

I didn't say I never backstab. Several people can testify to the fact that I have! And I think that its a great testiment to my play style that people I've backstabbed still give me a, err, *measure* of trust in later games. I'm just saying that I'm mindful of my reputation and that I understand when other people are, too.

"The statement, "I'm going to honor our alliance, even though it means I lose just so that next game you'll be more likely to trust me and help me win", however, is entirely inappropriate."

Dangermouse, if you are saying that a person should look at the board, consider their chances of winning with a backstab to their stronger ally, and make the right tacticial decision, I agree with you.

I agree with Noodlebug in the idea that if you stategically decide that backstabbing your stronger ally has poor chance of resulting in a win, that finishing a strong second has a lot of advantages.

But I completely disagree with the idea that if you aren't going to come in first, there is a set in stone, burning bush, Diplomacy commandment: THOU SHALT BACKSTAB HE WHO IS WINNING. There is more to strategy, and Diplomacy, then that.

I am ambivalent about the statement that "the goal of the game is to win." Well, of course it is. The goal of real life war is to win. But only Hitler and Genghis Khan win at all costs and with whatever method is available. Everyone else holds to a standard of decency. In real war, its called the Geneva conventions. In some contexts, its called sportsmanship. And to be honest, the main reason I don't want to win "at all costs" is b/c it helps me sleep better at night. I don't look down on people who do win at all costs, but its a personal decision and I like to play to a certain standard, even if it means I won't win every time I could have. Besides, to this point, playing with a level of sportsmanship has netted me 2 wins out of 4. Nothing like your record, Dangermouse, heh, but let a noobie have his idealistic delusions.

xukaiwen - you had me until the last paragraph. Maybe I'm just cynical, but "Everyone else holds to a standard of decency. In real war, its called the Geneva conventions"? Give me a break - isn't "decency" dependent on what the reactionaries in power define as acceptable? Do you think Guantanamo prison is decent? Or rending citizens of Western countries to nations we already know torture detainees? Rumsfeld actually called precision-guided bombs "humane" - was he being a decent warmonger?

ethics or "decency" is always in a continuos changes most of the times this is by convinience.

Coming from the Mahatma, that means something. But seriously, I my idealistic delusions don't fit very well with the real world. And I don't even live up to them, they just help me soothe my conscience after a particularily brilliant backstab. Heheheh. Now that's cynical.

If its possible to win, and the stab makes it more likely rather than more difficult, a stab is worth doing. But you do have to be careful that there are no other players given a clear path to victory while you are fighting a former ally. Generally if you're winning, stab. If your ally is winning, stab. If anyone else on the board is winning - stick together!

To be brutally honest, I've been involved in very few games where at the very end I have been allied with the same people from the very start: an alliance is all about mutual interest and if the game is about to end with a mutual defeat, your interests are bound to diverge. In those circumstances it becomes every man for himself, the alliance is by definition dissolved and anything that happens cannot really be described as a stab, just making the best of a bad job.

However if a stab against someone not in a winning position in and of itself gifts the game to a third party, (without the stab, you can probably stop him from winning) that is totally beyond my understanding.

I think it depends entirely on how you view the game on how much winning is important to you. Do you want to win at all costs, and does winning mean you have to defeat everyone else? Or does winning mean that you have simply improved in some way, come out better then started?

Keep in mind that this is a war game, and as such there are certain factors that some people may consider. For example, if i am playing diplomacy and thinking of it in a world war sense, then for me to fight off my enemies and survive, that is a victory. Was I the sole winner? No, but I was victorious. As chrispminis said, most postal play etc... ends in a draw, if you go and look up diplomacy strategy articles written by the old players, most of the games they talk about end in draws, or with some player taking "second" place as an ally. If you play this game to dominate, conquest and destroy, then second place is pathetic to you. If you play this game to be victorious, improve, and overcome, then sometimes you might just take second, sometimes you might win, and sometimes you might just survive. Is that bad? I don't think so, but that is just me. After all if i was Italy in world war 1, and had to choose to support france and and russia to beat back germany and austria, would I ally with them even if it meant that I took second place? Italy did, and they survived, thats half of what makes the game fun for me.

The points system encourages playing for second rather than risking everything for first. And playing irrationally can hopefully lead to more cooperative opponents in the future. Playing for reputation is legitimate in my mind. As long as we know the names of our opponents, playing for reputation becomes logical. If there were an option for anonymous games, playing irrationally becomes less rewarding. With a different points system, playing for second would be irrational. I think the only time a non-winner-takes-all system would work was if there was a guaranteed end date(which would also be a nice option)

I'm going to throw my hat in the ring long enough to disparage the meta-gaming comment made by Dangermouse:

"To me that is the worst sort of meta-gaming"

In order for something to truly be meta-gaming it has to be something that not everyone can do. You can't beat up my friend if he stabs you (well, I can't either, but that's beside the point). I can't buy your friend a drink if he supports me. Those are clear examples of meta-gaming. You, on the other hand have just as much opportunity as anyone else to shore up your reputation and stockpile goodwill. Just because you choose not to does not make it outside the realm of fair play. It may be meta-your game, but it isn't meta-Diplomacy.

motives for the game are part of the game itself, as long as you don't start the game with presuposed plans to lose and thereby giving certain players unfair advantages, you can do whatever you want without affecting the ethics of the game. Cut-throat and care-bear are both acceptable reasons and ways to play, and some may argue otherwise, but since both are logical arguements, you can't really say that one is right and the other wrong.

as far as the concept of individual games vs. an ongoing tournament, you would have to say that the site is set up as the latter with the points system and all. If that was changed, or there was another set of rankings based on something else, or there were games that could be played outside the ranking system(s), then things would be different.

It's very hard to play to win if everyone else is just playing to survive. Assembling a coalition against a winning player is virtually impossible in those circumstances.

I think, to be honest, playing for second is dumb, but playing for third or fourth is OK. Let me explain.
Recently I had a skilful tussle with a player called Ocire, who was playing Germany. It was his first game, no less. Anyway, I'd basically defeated him, but he'd ended up somehow with a unit in Belgium, one in Spain and one in Piedmont. The one in Spain would have taken me two turns to get rid of, since Portugal was empty too. We agreed that since him taking Portugal was an exercise in futility, he'd disband the Spain unit when it was forced to retreat. In return, I'm going to try to keep him in Belgium so that he gets some points. I think that's fair enough.
Further, we have a gentleman's agreement that should we encounter each other again, we'll ally. That's not exactly meta-gaming, is it?
In another game, I was forced back to one navy unit. The winning power has agreed to let me survive for points if I use that unit to help him, which is again fair enough.

^Actually, that's pretty much exactly what metagaming is. =/ But everything else I agree with.

I don't normally metagame in terms of holding grudges or having permanent allies. But since Ocire was such a good sport, helping me out once he'd clearly lost, I reckon I do owe him one.
Also, once I found out, having beaten him, that it was his first game, I felt bad.
Anyhoo, I'll return the favour some time.

Pretty much the whole point of Diplomacy is knowing how long to trust that alliance. The fluid alliances are one of the best things about the game. Frankly, I find someone who keeps an alliance throughout to be a bore to play with. They rarely win and effectively end up just being a pawn for someone else, giving that person almost the same advantage as if they were playing two countries.

If you are in second and still have a shot to win, I'd be disgusted if you DIDN'T backstab .. even if I were the leader In fact, if I were the leader, I'd probably backstab you as that would most often be the quickest way to nail down the win.