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

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 Include Nominated Survivors (DINS) games

Although the way the rules of Diplomacy are written means that draws should be DIAS games (Draws Include All Survivors), some games might not be DIAS games.  In these games, a draw proposal will include a limited number of survivors, a system I call DINS (Draws Include Nominated Survivors).  Again, though, this vote still has to be unanimously accepted by all surviving players.

The way the game is played

First, the game should be played to get the best result you can from it.  This means trying to solo; failing that, to be part of the draw - which means playing to prevent another player from winning.  With some scoring systems, it is possible that - depending on other results across the tournament - it may be better to help a player win!

Second, the game should be played to a natural finish.  In tournaments, as I've already noted, this isn't always possible for practical reasons, so games might end as a specific game date, the game end date (GED).  If this is the case, the scoring system should be able to support game play right up to the GED.  The system shouldn't mean that the game becomes about finishing in a certain position, or that it becomes a scramble for SCs.  That wouldn't normally happen in a stand alone game; it shouldn't happen in a tournament game.

Third, games should be fun and interesting.  Of course, these are both subjective concepts, but a scoring system shouldn't prevent this.  If we want players to participate in tournaments, you don't want games to become predictable.

Fourth, the system should be simple enough that players understand it.  I know of one previous Diplomacy world champion who won World Dip Con without really understanding how the scoring system worked!  It wasn't that he didn't understand how games were scored, but that it seemed that it would be better to lose a game rather than survive it.  The point is that, when playing a game in a tournament, you should know roughtly what you have to do to score competitively. 

Summary

Because this will be important, I'm going to summarise these points below.  This is what a scoring system should encourage:

• Players should be aiming to win the game.
• If unable to win, players should be playing to (be included in the) draw.
• As far as possible, being able to play each game as you would a stand alone game.
• Within the practicalities of the tournament, games should be played to a natural finish.
• Games should be fun and interesting, not predictable.
• Players being able to play a game which allows them to play to the scoring system.

TOURNAMENT SCORING series:

1. Tournament Games are Variants
2. What should a good scoring system do?
3. Draw Size Scoring (DSS)
4. Supply Centre Scoring (SCS)
5. Other Scoring Systems
6. Summarising the Problem with Scoring Systems
7. The Mystery Scoring System Explained
8. Does Mystery Scoring meet the objectives?