Skip to main content

The Ethics of Diplomacy - Part 7: Tournaments and Teamplay

Image
By
Teamplay during an online game is likely to be banned under metagaming rules.  It's clearly unfair if a couple of players enter a game to play together, supporting each other and attacking others, when everyone else in the game is playing as an individual.  Well, I say clearly but that isn't always the case; some people just don't think there's anything wrong with it.
However, it is also something that can arise in FTF tournaments and it has often been banned, for obvious reason... again, I'd say obvious reasons.

It is (or was) common for a tournament or convention to combine individual competitions with team competitions.  A local club or organisation might have a number of players attend, therefore, and this is often true when there wasn't a team competition, simply because it's nice to go with your mates.

It didn't take long for teamplay to be outlawed.  What was happening was that players from the same club would help each other out in games.  It was occasionally a case that a club would nominate a 'champion' who would be given the chance to win the tournament; other members of the club would help her to get the best chance of winning in games.

Essentially, some players would sacrifice their own chances of winning to help their nominated champion.  This caused problems.  When individuals had attended the tournament on their own, to be in a game where one player was playing in such a way as to help another, rather than playing for herself, this was unfair.

The problem was that there is nothing in the rules of the game that prohibited this.  In fact, it was fairly common for players to hand control of their units over to others, both in FTF play and in postal play.  The GM would allow this providing the player owning the units didn't submit her own orders.

Common sense won out, though.  This kind of play was often specifically banned in tournament rules.  It wasn't always be easy to pin this kind of play down, of course, but it was penalised.

The ethical question is whether this kind of play can be outlawed.  In the rules the player controlling a power can do anything she wants with her units.  If she wants to support another player at her own expense, she can.  

But this is where 'house' rules come in.  Whether it's tournament rules, website rules, or a GM's rules, organisers can plug the gaps for play that is questionable.  If you don't like it, don't play. 

THE ETHICS OF DIPLOMACY series:

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

What do you think?

Popular posts from this blog

WHAT IS DIPLOMACY? - Part 5: Variants

By
A variant is a game of Diplomacy where the rules or context are different from the standard game as designed by Allan B Calhamer.  There are three types of variants: context variants, map variants and rules variants. Context Variants Context variants are those games that are played with a wider context.  They may be tournament games, other scored games, or remote format  games.  These aren't often recognised as variants as such, as variants tend to be within the other two types discussed below.  But the context the game is being played in will have an impact on how some players will play the game, and so they are certainly a variation of Dip. Maybe they should be called "variations" rather than variants but does it really matter? Map Variants Diplomacy has been adapted to different maps, or boards.  Not surprising as the general idea of the game, pitting competing powers against each other in a localised region and time in history, can be adapte...
Post a Comment
Read more

Tournament Scoring - Part 3: Draw Size Scoring (DSS)

By
If we're looking to score Diplomacy games based on the rules of the game, there are just three outcomes: a win, a draw, and a loss.  A scoring system based on these outcomes would therefore be based on whether the game was won, or whether it ended in a draw.  These systems are called Draw Size Scoring systems (DSS). The basic model for DSS systems is: The result is based on how the game ends only. If you win the game outright (solo), you take all the points in the game. If you are part of the draw at the end of the game, you receive the points avaialble in the game divided by the number of players in the draw. If you lose the game, you receive 0 (zero) points. The most basic version of this is the Calhamer Point system, designed by the great and good ABC himself.  If you soloed, you earned a point.  If you drew the game, you scored a number of points based on how many people you drew with.  So a 4-way draw would provide 0.25 points, a 5-way draw 0....
Post a Comment
Read more

Tournament Scoring - Part 2: What should a good scoring system do?

By
As I mentioned in the first post in this series , if you're playing in a tournament, you're playing a variant of Diplomacy.  This must be kept in mind when we're evaluating scoring systems.  The games are already variants so having them scored just means the variant aspect is increased. However, the scoring system should change the nature of the game as minimally as possible.  Ideally, even in the context of the variant you are playing - whether that variant is that the game is part of a tournament only, or whether it's being played online - the scoring system should try to meet the objectives of Diplomacy, not alter them. Objectives of Diplomacy The objective of the game is to win.  This means owning 18 SCs. If the game is unlikely to end in a solo victory, then the surviving players can end the game in a draw.  This means that players should be looking to survive in most cases, and certainly to be in a position to be part of the draw. Draws Inc...
Post a Comment
Read more