[MN-dip] Thanks for coming out to diplomacy today

[Chad Walstrom]

Jeremy <Diplomacy at lizakowski.com>  wrote:
> The games might go faster as we get more experience. Everything from
> order writing to diplomacy itself may become more streamlined.

That's a given, though it doesn't address the, "don't ally with Power
X because he's leaving at time T" problem.  I honestly don't feel it's
very ethical to use meta-gaming[1]_, knowledge outside the context of
the current game, to affect its outcome.  It does make the game far
more difficult for Power X.  If the goal is to introduce new players
to the game, and have them come back for more -- we seem to have a
problem rounding up players -- then playing fairly should have some
level of importance.

That being said, I believe Saturday was more about having fun and
learning the game than worrying about things too much.  We did start
to get more efficient as the game went on.  Perhaps we were a bit too
lax on the 15 minute deadline as the game drew on, though it was nice
to be forgiving in the early hours so that we could get a feel for the
pace.

I made it through eight game years.  With two more hours, I'm assuming
you made it to 1910 or 1911.  With experience and strict adherence to
order deadlines, we could probably add another year or so to that
number in the 8 to 10 hours we gamed.

Ry4an's fourth suggestion sounded like the most promising for a single
day's game.  We may not be in a true tournament setting, but the
"Variable Length Tournament Diplomacy" by David Norman[2]_ does solve
the limited-time scope problem.

    'Some games will finish by about 1907, and the vast majority
    should be over by 1911.  As players approach the winning
    conditions, then, like in a full game, it should become the
    objective of the other players to stop worrying about their own
    success, and instead play to stop the leader from getting any
    bigger. If they do not manage this successfully, then they will
    lose, and if they do manage to stop the leader, then getting a
    draw vote accepted should not be too much of a problem. Thus we
    see that the perceived disadvantages of a "fixed-end" (be it
    clock-time or game-year) are avoided.'

I would be an advocate for this style of game play.  Ryan, thank you
for that link.  I was wondering how you could best play this game
under FtF time-constraints.  Were I still in college and starting a
Diplomacy game on Friday night, I could see spending 20+ hours on the
game.  As a working-class father, it's much harder to justify.

I can see one large advantage to playing through DPJudge, email, or
snail mail.  Even though a game may drag on for months, it would seem
easier to play to a solo-win objective using standard rules.

It is long past my bed-time, so good night all!

Chad

References
==========
.. 1. Agar, Steven. "Meta-Gaming and Diplomacy."
      http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/ftf/meta.htm (14 Jan
      2007)
.. 2. Norman, David. "Variable Length Tournament Diplomacy". The Zine,
      Spring 1998 Retreat.
      http://www.diplom.org/Zine/S1998R/Norman/VarLength.html (14 Jan
      2007)
-- 
Chad Walstrom <chewie at wookimus.net>           http://www.wookimus.net/
           assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */