Skip to main content

The Ethics of Diplomacy - Part 9: Mind Games

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 because of how it makes him approach a game, but because he judges it to be exceedingly rude.  Let's face it: if someone is being silent with you in Dip, then you really ought to be targeting her; that's not the problem.  It's the fact that they have decided to not answer you that's frustrating.

Does the silent treatment actually succeed?  Perhaps.  There will certainly be some players that find it more than a little disconcerting.  If it throws them off their game, then it's worked.

Provocation

If you can provoke a reaction, then you might be able to predict what a player will do.  This doesn't mean just provoking a player to anger, it might mean something more subtle than that.  I've discussed provoking anger under Gamesmanship.  It could have come under mind games, too, of course.  So here I want to look at the more subtle side.

One of the best ways to manipulate another player to do what you want is simply planting a seed.  For instance, if you want Germany to act against France, you might tell him that France is going to stab her.  This is quite a blunt tactic and, honestly, not likely to work.  Germany will look at what you're telling her and look to see what you gain from her turning on France.

Rather than this a more subtle approach is planning how to tip Germany off without seeming that you meant to do it.  This might be, for instance, asking a question as part of sharing information.  Perhaps something like: "Is France really moving north?  She seemed a little evasive with me."

Of course, any good player would still look at what you get by suggesting something.  However, if you can establish a pattern of communication early on, then using that pattern to your advantage is something that can be useful.

Of course, persuasion is better than manipulation.  Understand what they want from a situation and see if you can find a common set of objectives.  But there are times when manipulation is a fair strategy to use, too.

The False Missed Turn

Missing a turn can be disastrous, especially in the mid- and late game.  Why, then, would someone deliberately 'miss' a turn?

First, I should point out that missing a turn, on websites, is going to have a consequence.  It might see you removed from the game immediately on some sites and apps.  On others, it might be that this is your one chance and a repetition will see you removed.  However, on almost any site, it will reduce your consistency level, however that is managed, and this may affect the games you can get into.

Because of this players are unlikely to deliberately miss a turn for the sake of playing mindgames.  What is much more likely is that they'll find a way to not enter orders and still log the turn as completed.

Why?  Because then you can see how players will react to this.  Does it throw them off?  Does your ally try to get in touch with you to check that things are OK, which indicates that she really does need you going forward?  Does an ally use this to attack your position.

However, this is a risky tactic.  At the start of the game, when it may be used most often, it may mean that a player loses the chance to get an SC.  In later stages of the game it may result in key positions being lost.  Not one I'd recommend.

The Deliberate Mistake

This is in a similar vein to missed turns but can be less damaging.  It is when a player deliberately enters a mis-order, an order that can't be followed.

This isn't possible on all sites.  On webDiplomacy, for instance, the interface won't allow it; the only option there is to give legal orders.  On Playdiplomacy the option is possible because it allows you to enter any order you want.

This is truly devious.  It means you can, for instance, not order to support an action on a specific coast, or you can misorder an army to move by convoy rather than by land.  With an appropriate level of annoyance or embarrassment after the 'error' you can carry this off.

And it doesn't mean you have to miss a turns worth of orders for all your units!

THE ETHICS OF DIPLOMACY series:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Tournament Scoring - Part 4: Supply Centre Scoring

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 ...

WHAT IS DIPLOMACY? - Part 5: Variants

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...

Tournament Scoring - Part 1: Tournament Games are Variants

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 ...