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

[Jeremy]

On Monday 15 January 2007 12:16 am, you wrote:
> 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

That's actually not meta-gaming, as the announced intention of a player to 
leave is knowledge within the game.  If another player arranged for you to 
have a reason to leave early, using resources from outside the game, I 
believe that would be meta gaming.  

I would think it would be within the realm of the game to act on knowledge 
provided by your opponent.  In fact, it would be hard not to act upon it, 
when you consider the nature of the game.  

In real-world Diplomacy, I would suspect it is quite natural for your fortunes 
to fade when you announce the end date of your position.  

I would agree with Ry4an that it's best not to announce the time you intend to 
leave.  Or, alternately, you could announce it, and try to form a strategy 
around the fact of your departure.  That would be tough, but very 
interesting. 

Jeremy

> 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)