The Board Game of the Alpha Nerds (2014)
grantland.com
grantland.com
I’m currently here (it’s the last day), and I wasn’t quite sure what to expect with it being my first time playing in a large tournament— but I have to say it was pretty damn fun. The face to face hobby is definitely alive and well. If you enjoy strategy games, and have a bit of a masochistic bent, you’ll get along just fine.
Definitely would recommend you get some experience under your belt beforehand, to get a feel for general strategy and tactics. If you want to join the major discussion channels online to find some good games, hit me up and I’ll invite you.
I’ve never played any game quite like it.
Unfortunately, I can’t think of a situation in which I would ever play it again, because when played well it will almost certain damage relationships, and when played poorly it’s just sort of a disappointment.
This may be my favorite game of all time, and I don’t think I’ll ever play it again.
"We're all here to win, so let's screw each other over and see who can be the most selfish"
I still stand by my statement. It's just a game. Just because it took a few extra hours than most doesn't mean it should permanently damage friendships. Maybe take a week or two break from everyone to decompress from the absolutely intense and crazy experience, but not permanently damage a friendship. That's the sign of a very weak friendship, I feel.
As for more at stake...what's at stake? A 'yay, I won!'? It's not a poker tournament where the winner is going to take home $100,000+.
It’s the weak friendships that I’m concerned about damaging.
I should point out I separate games from gambling, because money does changes things quite a bit.
If you and your friends can enjoy Diplomacy, that's great! But I do get tired of all the people insinuating that there's something wrong with me I don't like it.
There are certain personality types that tend to lead to negative experiences in gaming, though, and being a poor sport is one of those, and I do try to avoid gaming with those people when I can.
Games are allowed to have hurt feelings and flaws and brutality if they make up for it with something cool... But the severity of those flaws is amplified by run-time. An 8-hour game that is ruined by betrayal is monstrous.
Need a "diplomacy lite" that can be wrapped up in under 40 minutes
Thinking it over, Nash's "so long, sucker" is probably the closest example, but I don't know anybody who's actually played it.
We need a bunch more people, though.
If you'd like to join, PM me on reddit.
Between sets of moves, groups of people would scatter to different corners of the house for hushed discussions, and unlike online play, you could make a decision based on who you saw talking to whom. With a large board on a dining room table, it felt like being in a war room with all of Europe at stake.
All in all, it is an extremely compelling game with strategy in both moves and alliances leaking from all seams.
Diplomacy is probably the emotionally hardest game I’ve ever played. It feels bad when people betray you, it feels bad when people utterly outsmart you, and after this happens to you (on say, turn two) you still have a couple hours in person to play, or a couple more weeks in person. You have immediately roll with the new situation, try to get help from previous enemies, and keep going with loosing your cool or your will to fight.
Even when you win it’s not great because chances are you did something shady and your friends are mad at you. This might explain why I haven’t played/ thought about this game in 30 years.
I like board games (competetive and co-op) but have no desire to play this again.
I don't enjoy deceiving my friends and having them deceive me. It's hard for me to understand what kind of person enjoys basically trying to manipulate other people for sport.
Your question contains the answer: it’s _for sport_. Sport and games are a place we can play out desires we’d never want to in real life. Tons of gamers like to pretend they’re shooting people. Strategy gamers orchestrate war and genocide. In sport, boxers pummel each other to unconsciousness, and many boxers are lovely people.
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/103343/game-thrones-boar...
It's almost like our instinctive zero-sum behaviors short-circuit our higher reasoning just enough in this simulated environment to suppress thought of the long term real-world relational consequences of our actions.
Do you also hold it against someone in real life, if they bluff you while playing poker?
What you're saying might be true as a descriptive statement - many people can't separate gameplay from reality. But betrayal is a key mechanic that's designed into the fabric of the game, and I would encourage everyone not judge someone for using a intentionally designed feature in the game.
Unfortunately it seems like the face to face hobby is aging out. The last decade has seen several luminaries of Diplomacy retire from the game or pass away.
How does that work?
The games were of Neptune's Pride.
You'll probably know about a group victory in a short period of time (under four hours if you use a turn clock[edit]5 or ten minute turns[edit]), but it will be a long night with the must have a winner group. Most in a concede.
Colonial Diplomacy is faster and really, really brutal.
We've had two solo wins over the 36 boards played so far.
I don't want to sound judging or oversimplify it, but for example you may like cellphones or photography as a geek, but you'd never think about reading about semiconductor physics to understand what the latest stuff in sensors mean or trying to build your own camera. A geek may try some light DIY project every once in a while but it's not what makes his heart beat, and a nerd will obsess over it for months.
That said, I do recommend a game with your friends.
No disrespect to Diplomacy, I think it's a great game. However I would respectfully submit that chess might have a stronger claim to being "the board game of the alpha nerds". (Or go, arguably, in the eastern world. But despite go's supremacy in terms of complexity, it hasn't captured the world's imagination like chess has.)
There's a reason why chess scenes always pop up in movies and literature featuring, e.g. criminal masterminds vs Sherlock, or the venerable doctor teaching strategy to the protégé. The reason is, chess (rightfully or not) is universally recognized as the quintessential game symbolizing human intelligence.
In my opinion as a former competitive chess player, chess skill actually isn't correlated with general intelligence, in the sense that if you're smart enough to get good at chess, at some point you realize that there are more worthwhile things to be doing with your time. But that's neither here nor there.
My main argument is that if we did a vote among all the world's "alpha nerds" to determine who is the alpha-est and nerdiest of us all, I suspect that current world chess champion Magnus Carlsen might place higher than any of these Diplomacy masters. I have no idea how this survey methodology would work (could anyone declare themselves an alpha nerd, or would they need to be confirmed by other nerds with official titles in nerdy activities?), but you get my point.
It implies that humans are evolved to live in a hierarchical and purely competitive society which is known to be false (not only for us but for many mammals). Humans are not insect nor lobsters.
There are various books from prof. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sapolsky and youtube videos with good analysis of social behavior in primates including humans.
All of that notwithstanding, it is very possible and in fact extremely common for alpha traits to be displayed in chess, both the Machiavellian style and the more “woke” for lack of a better term. In a one on one game, this is communicated in the non-game communication ie body language. In a club or team setting all of the usual social dominance tactics apply.
Honestly I dislike using the term alpha, because it's so inflammatory. Its hard to talk about what alpha means without bringing up beta, and the moment you use those two words then it sounds like redpill-speak. However, there are certain kinds of people who are confrontational and very much extroverted, the kinds who don't back away when challenged. I see alpha as a way to describe these traits as they are, with no moral conclusions attached.
For sure Chess players can display alpha traits, but it's hard to see how Chess players are MORE alpha than Diplomacy players. An entire game of Chess can finish without a single word exchanged, and it's rare and unprofessional for violence to show up in Chess, though it does show up time to time. In diplomacy, violence, albeit only verbal, is the norm. A nonconfrontational person will never survive in diplomacy, but they can do well in Chess.
For that reason, I encourage you to stop conflating "alpha" with antisocial character traits. Words matter. The very idea that this is acceptable behavior for leaders, that sometimes violence is the answer, perpetuates the social norms that allow bullies to stay in power.
Also, your conception of diplomacy needs work. Again, anybody who is actually any good at diplomacy understands how it is possible to convey a firm position with minimal violence. Diplomacy is more of a dance. You don't want to be the kind of lead dancer who's violently swinging your partner around the room.
If you really believe that confrontation can't be resolved without violence, I recommend a meditation practice known as "metta" [compassion]. Reading the Art of War may also provide inspiration and guidance on this front.
Go, and a lot of modern heavy strategy games are way more complex than Chess.