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 5: Other Scoring Systems

By
There are, perhaps, three other types of scoring system: Placement or Rank scoring, hybrid systems that seek to combine DSS and SCS, and Tier scoring systems.  I want to have a look at each system. Placement or Rank systems Essentially, these are Supply Centre Scoring systems with the addition of bonus points.  I'm going to have a look at some more regularly used systems.  Again, here is the map I will use as an example: England  - 12 SCs Russia  - 9 SCs Turkey  - 8 SCs Italy  - 5 SCs France ,  Germany   and  Austria-Hungary   were eliminated, with 0 SCs each. C-Diplo In a drawn game points are awarded for: Participating in the game: 1 (for an online tournament, I'd only award this for participating and not surrendering). Each SC held at the end of the game: 1 . The player that 'tops the board' (has the most SCs): 38 pts. The second placed player (second highest number of SCs): 14 pts. The third placed player: 7 pts. If players are
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 adapted to any number
Post a Comment
Read more

The Ethics of Diplomacy - Part 9: Mind Games

By
I've separated this from gamesmanship because it is something different.  However, mind games have the same impact on the Dip community as gamesmanship, for very similar reasons. Mind games are anything that you can do to get under the skin of another player.  They can be irritants, impoliteness or meant to simply build paranoia. Silence Sending messages and getting no response is frustrating.  I know - I send a lot of messages and find it annoying if I'm getting nothing back from someone with whom I'm supposed to be working. Now, what happens when that silence is  deliberate ?  When someone decides that they're not going to answer messages, or keep their answers to a minimum?  Why would they do  that ? Well, it is usually to cause some disruption in your thinking.  If you're concerned that she isn't messaging back, you're going to be concerned about what your plans were going to be. I know at least one player who hates this, not becaus
Post a Comment
Read more