Fun Stuff > CHATTER

Diplomacy (update: live game Saturday?)

<< < (4/19) > >>

Jace:
I hold the opinion that games like diplomacy don't work as well online because there is a lot more pressure when you are talking to someone, in person, on the other side of the table, making a deal. We played at the store and I ruled at the game. Basically, I made an alliance with one person that was public knowledge, but then I made a secret alliance with another player to stab my open alliance in the back, while I had a second secret alliance with my open alliance that I would be stabbing my first secret alliance in the back. It was fucking awesome.

Slick:
See the online version is not the real-life version, because the social dynamic clearly plays a very important role in the game. However, I think the online version is still very interesting and relies on slightly different methods. Each player has a private channel of communication with each other player that no one else knows about, which I think is handy, because when playing in one sitting with a bunch of real people it is impossible/difficult to conceal who you are talking to.
I would argue that if you can not win online as well as offline then you are not actually that great of a player.

(in case you missed it, that last bit was a challenge)

Slick:
Guys. Turn roll-over in ten minutes.

Jace:
Most of our diplomacy games ended up with one alliance destroying the other players and us going "its 5am, lets just quit."

MrMonk:
I am pleasantly amazed that this game is still around.  We're talking about 30 years since I played in anonymous games .  We negotiated and gave orders by postcard and received the results of each move by weekly newsletter.  It took about two weeks per move, so it wasn't unusual to have a half dozen games going at any time. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page