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

Tournament Scoring - Part 4: Supply Centre Scoring

By
The thing with tournaments is that a lot of games end in a draw.  This means that DSS systems aren't necessarily going to produce a great result because a lot of players could well finish on the same score.  An alternative to DSS is a  Supply Centre Scoring  (SCS) system. I'm going to use the game above as an example to explain SCS systems.  (The game is from Playdiplomacy and so the colours are different from those I use for my maps.)  The game ended with the following outcome: England - 12 SCs Russia - 9 SCs Turkey - 8 SCs Italy - 5 SCs France , Germany and Austria-Hungary were eliminated, with 0 SCs each. Supply Centre Scoring systems are based on the number of SCs the players owned at the end of the game.  The basic pattern is: A solo results in all the points available.  No other player scores points. A draw will be scored using the number of SCs the players hold at the end of the game.  In the above game, on ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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 1: Tournament Games are Variants

By
Tournaments have come to be a big part of Diplomacy, whether face-to-face or online.  If you're running a tournament you need to be able to find a winner, and so a scoring system has to be introduced.  In this series of posts I'm going to look at different types of scoring systems and discuss the pros and cons of each one.  And I'll end the series by discussing my own, as yet, prototype system. The first thing to be aware of is that a scoring system will change the way people play the game.  It has to do.  If you're playing and you need to do well then you need to play to the system.  This means that the way the system affects the way Diplomacy is played. Tournament games are already a variant of Dip.  Ideally, they wouldn't be.  Players would be able to play x  number of games and play them as they would any other game.  In FTF play, you'd expect the game to run until they're finished or time runs out.  Online, there should ...
Post a Comment
Read more