I thought it might be fun to have a look at some types of player you're likely to come across when playing Diplomacy. Well, OK, it's not all fun in this series... but I'll do my best.
In this post we look at those players who display positive attitudes to the game, players who play in a Calhamerian way. Well, sort of... most of them.
There aren't many holds barred in Diplomacy and a general rule is that if you can get away with it, then you can do it. On the whole, though, there are certain ideas that players ought to be carrying into Diplomacy.
A Dippyist, by the way, is someone who plays Diplomacy... Yes you'd probably already worked that out but I thought I'd make it clear. Just in case.
In this post we look at those players who display positive attitudes to the game, players who play in a Calhamerian way. Well, sort of... most of them.
There aren't many holds barred in Diplomacy and a general rule is that if you can get away with it, then you can do it. On the whole, though, there are certain ideas that players ought to be carrying into Diplomacy.
A Dippyist, by the way, is someone who plays Diplomacy... Yes you'd probably already worked that out but I thought I'd make it clear. Just in case.
The Bagger
After the US Civil War, people travelled from the northern states to the southern to make money from the reconstruction process. These people were given the derogatory name of 'Carpetbaggers'. Here, I've simply whipped the carpet from in front of them.
A Bagger, then, is a player who will look to take advantage, and to profit, from other players. Not very nice? Well, no, but this is Diplomacy. This is what the game's about.
A Bagger will go into the game looking to get the most from her game. She's trying to win. This means that she's quite ruthless. She'll use allies to get her somewhere in the game then, when the time's right, stab them.
A Bagger is an opportunist. However, this isn't the see-a-centre, grab-a-centre type of opportunism because she has a plan. She won't just jump into a space because it's there, she'll need to see that the opportunity isn't going to make things more difficult than they should be.
There's nothing to complain about if you're playing against a Bagger. She's a dangerous player because you know she's going to come after you eventually. The trick is to prevent that by getting at her first.
A Bagger, then, is a player who will look to take advantage, and to profit, from other players. Not very nice? Well, no, but this is Diplomacy. This is what the game's about.
A Bagger will go into the game looking to get the most from her game. She's trying to win. This means that she's quite ruthless. She'll use allies to get her somewhere in the game then, when the time's right, stab them.
A Bagger is an opportunist. However, this isn't the see-a-centre, grab-a-centre type of opportunism because she has a plan. She won't just jump into a space because it's there, she'll need to see that the opportunity isn't going to make things more difficult than they should be.
There's nothing to complain about if you're playing against a Bagger. She's a dangerous player because you know she's going to come after you eventually. The trick is to prevent that by getting at her first.
The Soloist
I mentioned Soloists in a previous post. They play to win. A draw? Well, it's OK if that's absolutely the best you can do but it's not really worth much. The win is all they're really looking to get from the game. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Like the Bagger, you know the Soloist will stab you. Where a Soloist differs from the Bagger is that a Soloist becomes unpredictable when the chance of a win disappears. When the main thing you're playing for is no longer there, what do you do?
There's nothing wrong with Soloism as a philosophy. What you might find is that a Soloist is more likely to edge towards throwing a game. If she can't win, then does she want someone else to win? How vengeful is she going to be towards the player that took her chance away?
Like the Bagger, you know the Soloist will stab you. Where a Soloist differs from the Bagger is that a Soloist becomes unpredictable when the chance of a win disappears. When the main thing you're playing for is no longer there, what do you do?
There's nothing wrong with Soloism as a philosophy. What you might find is that a Soloist is more likely to edge towards throwing a game. If she can't win, then does she want someone else to win? How vengeful is she going to be towards the player that took her chance away?
The Votive
Votives are the knights of the Diplomacy community. To some they might seem to be better placed in the Mad as a Hatter group of people because what they do is jump into abandoned positions, often where there is little chance to do anything worthwhile in the game.
In online Diplomacy abandoned positions are more of a problem than they ought to be. There's nothing very much that can be done about this - it's a problem with any online game. Someone starts a game and then drops from it. There could be all sorts of reasons for this and really, unless you're trying to solve the problem (which is like stopping the ageing process but more complicated), the reasons don't matter. It happens and it needs to be dealt with.
One way of doing this is to have replacements step up to the mark. It always amazes me that some sites don't allow replacement players. What are you trying to do - wreck games?!?
The thing is, not all replacements are good replacements. Some of them step in for less than honourable reasons. Not so the Votives.
Votives will step into a game simply because they have a desire to see fewer games spoiled by players leaving the game. They'll step in, play the game for real, and won't leave (unless something unpredictable happens).
Generally, then, if a Votive drops into your game, while you should be expecting things to change (especially if you're a neighbouring power to the one that was just abandoned and your shot at easy gains has gone), you can pretty much guarantee that the player is going to play and not go.
In online Diplomacy abandoned positions are more of a problem than they ought to be. There's nothing very much that can be done about this - it's a problem with any online game. Someone starts a game and then drops from it. There could be all sorts of reasons for this and really, unless you're trying to solve the problem (which is like stopping the ageing process but more complicated), the reasons don't matter. It happens and it needs to be dealt with.
One way of doing this is to have replacements step up to the mark. It always amazes me that some sites don't allow replacement players. What are you trying to do - wreck games?!?
The thing is, not all replacements are good replacements. Some of them step in for less than honourable reasons. Not so the Votives.
Votives will step into a game simply because they have a desire to see fewer games spoiled by players leaving the game. They'll step in, play the game for real, and won't leave (unless something unpredictable happens).
Generally, then, if a Votive drops into your game, while you should be expecting things to change (especially if you're a neighbouring power to the one that was just abandoned and your shot at easy gains has gone), you can pretty much guarantee that the player is going to play and not go.
The Mysterion
OK, so the inclusion of this player in the Dippyist section isn't going to be very popular with some people out there. Bear with me, though, and I'll try and justify the inclusion.
The Mysterion was named because I decided "Mentalist" was probably not a good choice. What to call it? I admit my geek side kicked in (that shouldn't surprise anyone considering the amount of writing I do about Diplomacy) and I decided that Mysterio from Spiderman combined with the Decepticons from The Transformers was a good mix for the sound of the name.
Mysterions play mind games (hence Mysterio). The one thing a Mysterion will do is hide her true objective from you. Of course, we should all be doing that; this isn't one of those scenes where the antagonist explains her evil plan. But Mysterions will mask it by doing their best to manage your emotions.
It isn't all about being antagonistic; Mysterions will try to make a positive impression on you if that fits their plan. So the complaints that are raised about mind games only focus on when a player tries to provoke a negative reaction.
I've come across Dip players who hate this kind of play, though. I can understand it: it can be rude, provocative, antagonistic... everything up to (and sometimes including) being discriminatory. Personally, anything that's abusive isn't acceptable and may well be clamped down on by Moderators in an online community, rightly so. But, well, mind games are as much a part of Diplomacy as anything else. Rightly or wrongly.
The Mysterion was named because I decided "Mentalist" was probably not a good choice. What to call it? I admit my geek side kicked in (that shouldn't surprise anyone considering the amount of writing I do about Diplomacy) and I decided that Mysterio from Spiderman combined with the Decepticons from The Transformers was a good mix for the sound of the name.
Mysterions play mind games (hence Mysterio). The one thing a Mysterion will do is hide her true objective from you. Of course, we should all be doing that; this isn't one of those scenes where the antagonist explains her evil plan. But Mysterions will mask it by doing their best to manage your emotions.
It isn't all about being antagonistic; Mysterions will try to make a positive impression on you if that fits their plan. So the complaints that are raised about mind games only focus on when a player tries to provoke a negative reaction.
I've come across Dip players who hate this kind of play, though. I can understand it: it can be rude, provocative, antagonistic... everything up to (and sometimes including) being discriminatory. Personally, anything that's abusive isn't acceptable and may well be clamped down on by Moderators in an online community, rightly so. But, well, mind games are as much a part of Diplomacy as anything else. Rightly or wrongly.
Comments
Post a Comment
What do you think?