Metagaming is when anything from outside a game affects what happens in the game. This can be difficult to isolate in Diplomacy because human nature is to learn from mistakes (for most of us, anyway). So what qualifies as metagaming, and why is it wrong?
If you start the game with a pre-arranged agreement, however, this is different. This is deliberately going into the game with a preset alliance. What chance do the other players have against such a thing?
It is usually against the rules to carry this teamplay into a majority of games. As I say, a one-off can be put down to dealing with events in that game; when it is happening in most, or even many, games then that becomes a pattern of unfair play.
This is the key to most metagaming based on teamplay. If a pattern emerges, there's something going on that is simply unfair.
This is often known as a Persistent Alliance, something that shows up repeatedly. In other words, a player will either target another in any game in which they come across each other or will ally with in any such game.
Then there is the Cross-game Favour. In this form of meta-gaming, it is when two players in two separate but concurrent games agree that if A does something for B in game 1, B will do something for A in game 2.
The opposite of this is Cross-game Vengeance. I probably don't need to explain this one, but I will, just in case. It's when A takes revenge on B in game 2 solely because of what B did to A in game 1.
The idea behind these actions being illegal is that each game of Dip should be a sealed event: it shouldn't be affected by events in other games. "Each game should stand alone." Again, it's difficult: human nature makes it so. But if it is suspected and there is evidence that this has been the case, then players can expect a penalty.
Occasionally players will ask for advice about an on-going game. You may have seen posts that ask the question: "What should I do if..?" Now, OK, there's nothing wrong with this in principle, but in an on-going game then it is unfair. Learn what you did wrong after the game!
Then there is the blackmail aspect. Online this can often be seen when a player warns another that If you do this I'll come after you again. This is, of course, potentially cross-game vengeance as described above, but only potentially. It's blackmail.
And then there's the times when one player finds that another is cheating. Instead of reporting the cheating, she sends a message saying that she will report it if the naughty one doesn't do this. Again, this is using an outside threat to influence a game. Personally, I think this is despicable.
And the fact that a lot of games on websites are scored has an affect on how games are played. I've certainly known players who play a certain way because they only play to improve their rating on site, which I find, personally, pathetic.
It's arguable that this play, the Metagame, is unavoidable given that websites score games (or some games) and players are always looking to find some advantage. If they play each game for what it is, it's difficult to say it's cheating.
For me, it leaves a poor taste in the mouth.
Bribery
In his book The Game of Diplomacy, Richard Sharp recounts a number of cases of bribery, some of them more jokey than anything else, but bribery (or blackmail) still. In those days of a smaller, less anonymous Dip hobby, it was - perhaps - easier to use these shady tactics. The underlying philosophy seems to have been that if "the rulebook doesn’t mention the subject" anything goes.Teamplay
The online game can't really include teamplay. If two or more players enter a game as a team, agreeing to help each other against all-comers, this isn't a fair game. It is, of course, easy to work with someone you know, and as a one-off it is probably acceptable, assuming there has been an in-game agreement to work together.If you start the game with a pre-arranged agreement, however, this is different. This is deliberately going into the game with a preset alliance. What chance do the other players have against such a thing?
It is usually against the rules to carry this teamplay into a majority of games. As I say, a one-off can be put down to dealing with events in that game; when it is happening in most, or even many, games then that becomes a pattern of unfair play.
This is the key to most metagaming based on teamplay. If a pattern emerges, there's something going on that is simply unfair.
Cross-game Actions
Again, this can be easy to fall into. If a player has betrayed you in one game, it is going to be easy to distrust her in another. If a player has been loyal to you in one game, it's easy to trust her again in another. If this becomes a pattern, however, perhaps there is something more than human nature at play.This is often known as a Persistent Alliance, something that shows up repeatedly. In other words, a player will either target another in any game in which they come across each other or will ally with in any such game.
Then there is the Cross-game Favour. In this form of meta-gaming, it is when two players in two separate but concurrent games agree that if A does something for B in game 1, B will do something for A in game 2.
The opposite of this is Cross-game Vengeance. I probably don't need to explain this one, but I will, just in case. It's when A takes revenge on B in game 2 solely because of what B did to A in game 1.
The idea behind these actions being illegal is that each game of Dip should be a sealed event: it shouldn't be affected by events in other games. "Each game should stand alone." Again, it's difficult: human nature makes it so. But if it is suspected and there is evidence that this has been the case, then players can expect a penalty.
External Influences
I've seen cases where players have used all kinds of external influences to affect actions in a game. Perhaps the most easily abused one is when a player in a game uses the site's forum to try to affect the game. I've seen one player attempt to raise false cheating accusations against another to create distrust among the other players in the game. I've seen a player create a false bug report to try to get info about a game. Careful moderators are usually able to deal with this and it's unacceptable.Occasionally players will ask for advice about an on-going game. You may have seen posts that ask the question: "What should I do if..?" Now, OK, there's nothing wrong with this in principle, but in an on-going game then it is unfair. Learn what you did wrong after the game!
Then there is the blackmail aspect. Online this can often be seen when a player warns another that If you do this I'll come after you again. This is, of course, potentially cross-game vengeance as described above, but only potentially. It's blackmail.
And then there's the times when one player finds that another is cheating. Instead of reporting the cheating, she sends a message saying that she will report it if the naughty one doesn't do this. Again, this is using an outside threat to influence a game. Personally, I think this is despicable.
The Metagame
To some extent, there are always going to be outside influences affecting a game. It might be that a player is seeking to build up a reputation, often as a loyal player, as part of a plan to use that reputation in future games. Certainly, although some are probably genuine, I think a lot of players who say they never, ever, so help me Jebus stab in games are doing this.And the fact that a lot of games on websites are scored has an affect on how games are played. I've certainly known players who play a certain way because they only play to improve their rating on site, which I find, personally, pathetic.
It's arguable that this play, the Metagame, is unavoidable given that websites score games (or some games) and players are always looking to find some advantage. If they play each game for what it is, it's difficult to say it's cheating.
For me, it leaves a poor taste in the mouth.
Comments
Post a Comment
What do you think?