Hacker News Reader

Comment by IggleSniggle | Hacker News Reader

I absolutely loved this game in high school. It’s very special, in that it’s primary mechanic is real world relationships placed into a tactical context. The downside is that it pulls real world relationships into a simulated zero-sum environment where the game ends but the relationships persist.

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.

View on HN

I've been brutally betrayed twice in Diplomacy. I'm still good friends with those people. It's only a game. If you can't separate player's behavior in the context of a game with who they are outside of it, then maybe board games is not the hobby for you, or at least not social/negotiation board games, which are very common in recent years.

Diplomacy sounds unique, though, because it takes so long to play. In shorter games I might betray you and you me before the night is over. Also, maybe the length makes it eel like there's more at stake?

Both games lasted a long time (one was in person for 10 hours before we ended it, the other was an online game with one turn made per week). Both times I was completely crippled (if someone is going to betray you in Diplomacy they better cripple you or they're going to be fighting multiple fronts later, and that's really hard to do in Diplomacy), and had to basically observe what happened for the rest of it.

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+.

I suppose close friendships is a context in which I can imagine playing this game again. Having six close friends that love strategy games and have a day to dedicate is much harder to imagine.

It’s the weak friendships that I’m concerned about damaging.

Uno has damaged friendships. We humans tend to take games a bit too seriously. Frankly, I worry about my friends who won't take a shot at winning in the mid-game when its pretty obvious the other side is about to be done. Not being able to separate a game from feelings is a problem for some.

I should point out I separate games from gambling, because money does changes things quite a bit.

Games are supposed to be fun. A lot of people don't find lying, manipulating, and betraying fun, in any context. That's not a psychological failing, and it certainly doesn't mean you should avoid board games. There's plenty of socially competitive board games, but damn few of them are half as vicious as Diplomacy.

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.

Personally I'm pretty burnt out on all those social games myself. I'd rather just play a 2 player abstract nowadays, like the GIPF series. Please don't take what I said in my original post as a scathing indictment or that there's something wrong with you. I get along with most people and I'm sure I'd have no issues playing with you at a game night.

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.

Did you try to set up a few axioms for the environment beforehand to try and contain actions within the context of the game? I always envisioned declaring a group objective of betrayal so that someone doesn't try to come in with preconceived tactics based and bonded on real world relationships.

"We're all here to win, so let's screw each other over and see who can be the most selfish"

Yup. As much as the concept is neat, fundamentally it's the 7-player and runtime requirements that ruin it.

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

I would call that Resistance (or Avalon, Mafia, etc.). A social/trust/betrayal-oriented party game that's playable in less than an hour.

Yeah, but Avalon or Secret Hitler have pre-defined teams. Part of the appeal of Diplomacy is that it's a free for all and you define alliances as you need them.

Thinking it over, Nash's "so long, sucker" is probably the closest example, but I don't know anybody who's actually played it.

So let's play online with other HN'ers with experience. We can set it up to require one move a week, which gives plenty of time to communicate and plot even if life's distractions come up every now and then. (I agree with you that it's the worst when you start a game and then other players stop making moves.)

We need a bunch more people, though.

If you'd like to join, PM me on reddit.

https://www.playdiplomacy.com/

Same for me with monopoly. Monopoly doesn't have backstabbing that much, but certainly has alliances and some people already don't take too well to other people cooperating without them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com