Simon_Jester wrote:IMO, the mechanics are OK- they're not that bad a WWI simulator, as it were, subject to the very abstract and strategy/diplomacy-oriented way in which the period is being simulated.
The real problem is the people. There are basically two overall strategies for the game as I see it:
-Trust no one
-Trust some people while beating up on third parties.
"Trust no one" leads to disaster, or at least stasis.
But to "trust some people," you must have at least some willingness for all parties involved to enter alliances that are mutually beneficial in the short term without actively betraying or screwing people at the first opportunity. Sure, both parties may be wondering when the other shoe is going to drop and they start fighting, but that doesn't happen right away while the enemy is at the gates.
And it's very hard to establish that, given the way the game works and the fact that everyone seems to go in thinking "This is a game of backstabbing, therefore everyone will always backstab me, therefore I will always backstab everyone or screw everyone by inaction."
Excellent illustration of the Prisoner's Dilemma in action.
I.... think your gaming group needs improvement, really. As you point out, the game is deliberately set up to force you to work with other players - something Diplomacy's spiritual successor, Game Of Thrones (more on that later) foregoes somewhat. You have a very simple stalemate if you don't work with other people or agree with them.
At the same time, they're not your friends (in-game). They will work with you as long as it is to their benefit. The trick - and fun - of Diplomacy is:
A - convincing people of what is to their benefit
B - understanding what can benefit other players.
It's partially a battle of wits and partially personal charisma. Reading out the 'order resolution' is incredibly tense, simply for that uncertainty.
Your gaming group is missing this - and of course there is no interest when people act the way you describe. If everyone backstabs everyone the first chance they get, not only do you have the problem of nobody working with anyone, you also have the problem of order resolution lacking any tension. Of course that game is going to suck.
What is the right way to play? By keeping assumptions A and B in mind. Paying attention to the unfolding situation and seeing what your angle is on the situation, and who could be helping you. They WILL betray you if it makes sense - your trick is to convince them it makes more sense to not betray you. And really, there are situations where it makes considerably more sense to work with you than not. That's ALSO baked into the game. If you're France, you'd better fucking believe you have reasons to work with Britain, or fight them - and then you need to work with Spain or you lose.
It's not really a prisoner's dilemma, because you have little-to-no guaranteed reward for non-collaboration and many MANY situations in which betrayal does not net you the proverbial huge reward. In fact, if you get into a situation where you have little to lose and a lot to gain from backstabbing an ally - DO IT, and your ally is an idiot for allowing things to come to that.
Also, consider that every backstab hurts you later on - and moreso if you did it for little-to-no-gain. People can't personally trust you, but they need to rely on you to be rational, or they can't work with you. Professor Jack Sparrow has lectured at length on this topic: "Now, me, I'm a dishonest man, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. It's the honest ones you have to watch out for, because you never know when they're about to do something incredibly stupid". That's about it, really. If you can be relied upon to always work in your self interest - long term as opposed to short - then there is the basis of mutual benefit to work with, and that can be the basis for quite a lot of dynamics. If you can't.... no one can work with you, and you are therefore screwed.
In short - chronic backstabbing is a terrible strategy for Diplomacy, both for advancement and for fun. The alternate, and better strategy is to treat it as continuous puzzle of "who stands to gain from what?".
Or... you could play a nice game of Munchkin and ensure fun without all this crap. I guess you could do that.
Oddly, enough, there's a game whose mechanics are based heavily on Diplomacy, the Game of Thrones boardgame from FFG, which I think solves a lot of the mechanical issues with Diplomacy - the mechanics are more flexible and flavourful, but also force players to choose between the interests of different third-party factions more often, and the Storm of Swords expansion adds a new level of the kind of informal Trust-Ally-Backstab-Kill-Ally play that's the most fun part of competitive boardgames through hostage negotiations.
I love Game Of Thrones, and as I said, it is without a doubt heavily inspired by Diplomacy, but... it's a completely different dynamic. The ability for individual action is greatly increased - while a single army can't dominate the board, it CAN pull off complex tactics to take opponents by surprise. You are not forced to work anywhere near as closely with players as you are in Diplomacy. A lot of negotiations will be more non-aggression ("I'll take the Lannisters, you fight Baratheon") than they will be cooperation. Tactical maneuver will be far more important than establishing trust and relationships. While this makes it better suited for nerds lacking in people skills (what's a demographic?), it removes some of the tense air of Diplomacy, and replaces it with a lot more time of players staring at their own counters.
It's huge fun, but it's a much different kind of fun from Diplomacy. Also, they STILL can't get the Greyjoy-Lannister balance right, which is annoying.
EDIT: Seperating in-game conduct from out-of-game conduct in these games is a question of maturity, really. Being immature, I used to suffer from that particular ailment, but... it's about as absurd as taking it personally when your character gets beaten up in a session of Tekken, or losing a sparring session in a martial art. Trust games are written into the rules!
