Lewis Pulsipher:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The heart of Diplomacy is negotiation between seven players... Telling someone how to negotiate well is a difficult task. A person’s attitude toward life and toward the game have a strong, immeasurable, and probably unalterable effect on how, and how well, he or she negotiates in any wargame."

"When you begin a game, you must first learn something about each of your opponents. Sometimes you will know quite a bit to begin with, but you can also ask people who know the opponent better than you do. You want to know if your opponent is generally reliable or not, what his objective is, whether he is a classical or romantic player, and whether or not he is good at negotiation, strategy, and tactics. (This is a controversial point, insofar as some players -- usually the notoriously erratic and unreliable -- say that a player’s previous record should have no effect on the game. The more you know about another player, however, the better you’ll be able to predict his actions. It would require a peculiar view of life for a player to knowingly ally with someone who has never abided by an agreement in 20 games! Similarly, you have little to gain by offering a draw to a player who would “rather die than draw." However much some players like to pretend that they really are government leaders and that World War I is happening just this once, most Diplomacy players recognize that it is an abstract game of skill and act accordingly.)"

"Novice players, urged on by the rulebook introduction, usually believe that the winner will be the player who lies, cheats, and backstabs most effectively. Perhaps if you never play more than once with the same people and never acquire a reputation, this would be true. In the long run, players learn to treat liars and backstabbers as enemies. Why invite disaster in an already difficult game?"

"For one person to do well in a game with six competitors, some cooperation is necessary. Cooperation is easier and more effective between those who can rely upon one another. An expert player rarely lies, and then only because the lie is likely to radically improve his position. He prefers to say nothing, to change the subject, to speak of inconsequential things, rather than lie. When he agrees to an alliance of some kind he usually abides by the agreement... He wants to be known as a reliable player because this will make other players more willing to cooperate with him."

"Some players say that only mutual self-interest should determine whether an agreement is kept or a lie told. When the agreement is no longer in one player’s interest he should break it. In the short term this might also be true (though a lie or backstab early in a game will certainly be remembered to the end of that game, often to the detriment of the perpetrator). The expert player looks at the long term, because few people play just one game of Diplomacy. It is in his interest to maintain agreements and avoid lying in order to establish a reputation for reliability. No altruism is involved. (Incidentally, a reliable player is less often on the receiving end of an emotional barrage from an angry player -- no small gain.)"

"Whether a player’s style is “classical” or “romantic” is tricky to define. Briefly, the classical player carefully maximizes his minimum gain. He pays attention to detail and prefers to patiently let the other players lose by making mistakes, rather than trying to force them to make mistakes. He tends to like stable alliances and steady conflict in the game. He tends to be reliable and good at tactics. The romantic is more flamboyant, taking calculated risks to force his enemies into mistakes, trying to defeat them psychologically before they are defeated physically on the board. (Many players give up playable positions because they’re convinced that they’ve lost.) He tries to maximize his maximum gain, at the cost of increasing potential loss. He can be unpredictable, relying on surprise and the Great Stab for victory. Tending to be an unreliable ally and a sometimes sloppy tactician, he likes fluid, rapidly changing alliances and conflicts."

"It is only a game, and betrayal is a part of it. If you are stabbed or someone lies to you, anger will do you no good. What you can do is make sure your antagonist regrets his action, with the idea that next time, he’ll remember and won’t do it again."


Len Lakofka:
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Diplomatically, then, you attempt to create an atmosphere in which you can accomplish three goals: (1) survive, (2) draw, and (3) win. Note that winning Is not the first goal. If you play to win (without securing your position first) and then something does go wrong with your first alliance, you may have doomed yourself."

"There is nothing immoral or even dishonest about lying in a game designed for lying: Some of your best plays result from stringing a player out and then leaving him / her there to hang all by himself. That is how the game is played. A "good ally" is too worried about being lily white (and I don't mean that ethically) and is missing out on hours of good play. When I get stabbed, I scream and yell for a while, especially when It is a "bad" stab. But if it is a good one, I can enjoy and applaud the experience that got me out on the limb to be stabbed. That is what the game Diplomacy Is all about. You are playing to win, not to be a good guy. Good Guys only win in cross-game alliances and I find that to be reprehensible."



Andrew Feather (from "Psychoanalyse Your Opponents"):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Have you ever noticed after playing in a few games of Diplomacy that certain players are remarkably consistent in their behaviour? What this article attempts to show is that it is possible to predict at the start of a game, if you have enough detail on the past games of your opponents, the likely trend the game is going to follow, and to adapt your own strategy accordingly."

"As they say, Diplomacy is a game of psychologies and personalities!"