big post, eh digitsu

Metagaming, the vessel into which we pour all our prejudices about fair play.

really big post, or he? forgot.

I think we should be debating about the 3 lines under the topic...

Given these new interwebs thingy that we have in modern times, the topic of metagaming takes on new aspects, ones which the diplomacy game of our fathers could not have imagined.

Strictly speaking, metagaming just means carrying over tactics, strategies, or advantages, from outside the game (meta) into the game. In the most benign of senses, this is not necessarily considered cheating. For instance, at a poker game amoungst friends, if you happen to know that one player is a nervous wreck when pressured, using this to your advantage is just part of the game. But some things that are brought in from the outside ARE considered cheating. Using the same analogy, if you had a friend standing behind a player, and giving you signs about what was in his hand. This sort of outside information, is not allowed and considered highly unsportsmanlike.

So, along the same vein, we have metagaming in Dip. While distrusting or attacking a player who pissed you off in a previous game, is technically metagaming, its of the sort on the lighter side of the grey area. Sure, its unsportsmanlike, but in the same vein as talking while somebody is teeing off in golf.

So the question I pose you all is this. Weigh in with your thoughts on why this is or is not considered metagaming:

Player A and Player B are tenuous allies in a game.
Player B is the top dog in terms of centers, and has a 3 center lead over the next player
Player A stabs Player B
Player B gets really pissed as per normal.
Player C upto this point, a neutral to A and B, is announced to be on vacation, and looks to CD.
Player B, seeing the opportunity, recruits a close friend, a noob to join the instant player C CDs
Player B who is presently at a severe disadvantage in the game due to player As expert stab and tactical brilliance, then gets the help of player C, who is the neighboring neutral of Player A, who does not communicate with anyone but player B.
Player B also closes off all communications with A.
Player C fights a tactically illogical fight with A to the benefit of B, completely oblivious with the rest of the board.
Player D wins by casually walking into Player Cs backside.

Metagaming? Fair? or Cheating?

noob slaves are a dime a dozen :P

Unsportsmanlike? LOL

Does anyone here play Diplomacy, or is it gran's tea and cakes hour for the lot of you?

i like tea and cakes. acomist, where are my tea and cakes? bring them to me at once!!

this is just what we do while waiting for people to finalize their moves!
@acosmist, so is that a vote for it being cheating?

fair, i mean crappy and equivalent to player A creating a second account to take over the game in terms of the effect on he game, but i guess if player C is not a multi-accounter then it is within the rules.

It is really hard to tell, which is something i have some difficulty with in a game i run. I'd hate to spend my time tracking multis. So I'd advise TPB to shun this behvaiour. Get your friends to play, but only so you can have a fun game against them...

Recruiting a friend to take over a CD in a game you are in with the expectation that your friend will work towards helping you out is meta gaming IMHO.

Seeing a good position go CD and telling a friend about it with no expectations of your friend allying with you would not be meta gaming. Even if having that country not in CD is beneficial to you. For example, you are England and Turkey goes CD. That sucks so you ask someone to take Turkey over just to keep A/I/R from getting easy centers. I don't see that as meta gaming.

Clarification, none of the players are multis.
The question can be simplified to this (apologies for being too verbose before)

If you are getting beaten in a game fair and square, can you recruit a friend, who barely plays, just to join and be your henchmen in order to ally against your enemy in an existing game.

I personally am with Alderian, as long as the recruitment does not involve premedition of the noob being recruitment that he is to join and help you out.

In my case study, that is exactly what happens. The noob does not make any moves to do anything except to fight the enemy of player B. The noob is not really playing the game (does not participate in any real diplomacy, nor heeds any requests to protect his own backside against Player C, which is obviously and clearly going to win)

So essentially, recruiting a "tool" akin to a brainless robot, to take over a CD and to help you extract revenge on your antagonizers in a game, with no intention on winning.

Not strictly multi-accounting, but heck, pretty darned closed to being one in the practical sense.

Anyway, the reason I ask, is because there are those on this board who do not believe that this is metagaming, and it is an okay thing to do. So I just wanted a poll, so that I can use this thread as evidence one way or another.

No lol its pretty much a rude thing to do. While you can't get caught... its pretty weak if thats what you do. Here's what's not metagaming: Tracking down your opponents in RL and threatening to kill them unless they surrender.

jk... lol

Well, in certain cases you can get caught... like say, for instance if all the parties know each other in real life.

Players B and C in the example are obviously metagaming, yes, because they have agreed in real life to co-operate in the game. Their agreement is based on their real-life friendship which is an external factor to the game. Kudos to imaginary player D for his win.

Clearly this is cheating. Closer to multi than meta-gaming - but that's not really important.

I didn't even have to read this thread (but I did) to know this was metagaming. Just about everything is in my book...

Your proposed scenario woul dbe unacceptable metagaming to me, digitsu. It would be no different than joining together in an unbreakable alliance.

Joining together in an unbreakable alliance. Hmm at first I agreed to that statement while reading it. But then I thought of many examples where there are unbreakable allainces. For instance:
2 experienced players going for a draw. Neither is sloppy enough to screw up both are benefiting from the alliance. Both are going for the potential last minute stab if an opportunity presents itself.

A noob and an experienced player. Noob doesn't have the guts nor the brains to go it alone. Experienced player promised to leave the noob alive for total fealty.

Prearranged allainces where the subordinate is a subordinate to the superior on real life as well. Say a boss in a company brings his subordinate in with the intent to help him in the game. Subordinate doesn't really care about the game, but cares about pleasing the boss in real life.

The first 2 cases are grey. The last seems like obvious cheating but some on this board and reading this thread don't think so.

This fine example would be meta-gaming in my oppinion.

I just have a few comments.
Why does player A only communicate with player B?? This is diplomacy.

Player C goes on vacation, then why not pause?
When someone goes CD, its always a problem for the people having made agreements with the former player. When someone goes CD in my games, even a trusted ally, then my first reaction is to protect myself and maybe take advantage. Or else you might end up sorry when someone else joins and teach you that he don't trust you or prefer to attack you without purpose or just trust one of your enemies more than you, even though this is not in his best interest.
This could have been the case, even when B and C weren't friends.

And even though I judge it as metagaming, its hard to do anything about. The fact that D wins and neither B nor C do is a small victory. When I become the victim of friends allying, then I feel I have to try and do what I can to stop them from winning, no matter the costs. But this doesn't solve the problem either.

Player A communicates with both Player B and Player C.
B ignores all commication since the stab
Comminication with Player C (before vacation) is fine.
communication with C after it is taken over by the noob is incoherent and is meaningless and sporatic. Responses, when they do come would be rhetorical in nature.

C did not pause due to suddeness of departure, and intial thought that vacation would not prevent C from playing.

Agreed, there isn't much one can do in this situation, and it may have happened naturally after a CD as you say. But the fact that B orchestrated the coupe, did so, is the point of 'bad sportsmanship, bordering on cheating' that I wished to illustrate.

digitsu, if the noob who is brought in only attacks one country and doesn't interact with the other players, then clearly that is a prearranged way of helping the player that brought them in. They may not support each other or whatnot, but the person is there to help the other player accomplish a goal. That is meta gaming.

If it was a friend being brought in to actually play the game it is meant to be played, and without prearranged agreements, that is not meta gaming.

But your example has the new player not playing the way the game is meant to be played and only being there to help his friend even if not directly and not to a win.