Is 'Kingmaking' legitimate?

Anything about the Diplomacy game in general.

Re: Is 'Kingmaking' legitimate?

Postby Jack007 » 02 Jun 2018, 11:44

NoPunIn10Did wrote:
Jack007 wrote:Which concretely are these "more beneficial diplomatic options" you mention?


You seem to be a bit of a draw-size-only purist...

...

In a DSS game, a player in a desperate position has roughly these options:
  1. Lose to a solo.
  2. Lose to a draw (eliminated or otherwise).
  3. Survive and get included in the draw.

In a rank-based game, a player in a desperate position has these options:
  1. Lose to a solo.
  2. Be eliminated before other players.
  3. Hold out long enough to be eliminated after other players.
  4. Survive until the end, while losing relative rank.
  5. Survive until the end, maintaining current rank.
  6. Survive until the end, increasing one's rank.

...



These are not diplomatic options. They are game goals at the best case. But not even that, it's just a list of possible outcomes of a Diplomacy game.

Same as I would say: here's a list of possible outcomes, these are the diplomatic options you have.
1. lose the game
2. abort the game (7-way draw)
3. be included in a 6-way draw
4. be included in a 5-way draw
5. be included in a 4-way draw
6. be included in a 3-way draw
7. be included in a 2-way draw
8. to solo

But that's pointless, of course.

You can't compare king-making with game outcomes. The former is an instrument to achieve a certain result, the latter are just final conditions.

The rest out your posting I will answer separately.
Jack007 (xxxx.) unbanned for dubious reasons
Member of the Honorables
There is no greater solitude than the samurai's,
unless it be that of the tiger in the jungle… perhaps…
-bushido
User avatar
Jack007
Premium Member
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 08 Mar 2014, 17:34
Location: Switzerland the impassable
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1249
All-game rating: 1558
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: Is 'Kingmaking' legitimate?

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 02 Jun 2018, 13:41

Jack007 wrote:You can't compare king-making with game outcomes. The former is an instrument to achieve a certain result, the latter are just final conditions.

Fair point, except you're ignoring the fact that game outcomes are ultimately what you're arguing for. When there are more "final conditions" available, you have a wider array of possibilities to offer (honestly or otherwise) to your fellow players.

The number of "instruments" is proportional to the number of end conditions.
NoPunIn10Did
Moderator (Forums only)

Variant GM, Designer & Collaborator
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2031
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1515
Timezone: GMT

Re: Is 'Kingmaking' legitimate?

Postby Jack007 » 02 Jun 2018, 16:33

NoPunIn10Did wrote:
Jack007 wrote:You can't compare king-making with game outcomes. The former is an instrument to achieve a certain result, the latter are just final conditions.

Fair point, except you're ignoring the fact that game outcomes are ultimately what you're arguing for. When there are more "final conditions" available, you have a wider array of possibilities to offer (honestly or otherwise) to your fellow players.

The number of "instruments" is proportional to the number of end conditions.


No. The number of final conditions is not necessarily a characteristic of a good game. Chess has three, Go only two. Both great games.

But in a game about diplomacy, the number of available diplomatic tools (options to choose from) are. The more there are, the wider the versatility of the game.

Diplomatic options might be:
- king-making
- being appreciating and friendly
- faking friendship
- bribing
- a seductive look (well probably not by me) :roll:
- offer for alliance
- demonstrating reliability
- humour, so the others want to keep you alive
- being a loyal Janissary
- talking out secrets of a third party
- a screenshot of the map
- faking the copy of a letter
- eavesdropping in FtF, respectively computer hacking in online Diplomacy
- threatening to ally with the enemy of sb.
- promise to be included in a draw
- the western triple
- ganging up against a Juggernaut
- being an indispensable part of the stalemate line
- to create and maintain a state of confusion (gsmx' preferred) ;)
- story-telling and role-playing
- being an excellent tactician
- lying and stabbing
- tit for tat
- tit for two tats
- a friendly word and a gun :)
- a friendly word alone (not so good) :(
- plus 99 others...

Every option you take away pauperizes the game.

.
Jack007 (xxxx.) unbanned for dubious reasons
Member of the Honorables
There is no greater solitude than the samurai's,
unless it be that of the tiger in the jungle… perhaps…
-bushido
User avatar
Jack007
Premium Member
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 08 Mar 2014, 17:34
Location: Switzerland the impassable
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1249
All-game rating: 1558
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: Is 'Kingmaking' legitimate?

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 02 Jun 2018, 17:18

Jack007 wrote:
NoPunIn10Did wrote:
Jack007 wrote:You can't compare king-making with game outcomes. The former is an instrument to achieve a certain result, the latter are just final conditions.

Fair point, except you're ignoring the fact that game outcomes are ultimately what you're arguing for. When there are more "final conditions" available, you have a wider array of possibilities to offer (honestly or otherwise) to your fellow players.

The number of "instruments" is proportional to the number of end conditions.


No. The number of final conditions is not necessarily a characteristic of a good game. Chess has three, Go only two. Both great games.

But in a game about diplomacy, the number of available diplomatic tools (options to choose from) are. The more there are, the wider the versatility of the game.

Diplomatic options might be:
- king-making
- being appreciating and friendly
- faking friendship
- bribing
- a seductive look (well probably not by me) :roll:
- offer for alliance
- demonstrating reliability
- humour, so the others want to keep you alive
- being a loyal Janissary
- talking out secrets of a third party
- a screenshot of the map
- faking the copy of a letter
- eavesdropping in FtF, respectively computer hacking in online Diplomacy
- threatening to ally with the enemy of sb.
- promise to be included in a draw
- the western triple
- ganging up against a Juggernaut
- being an indispensable part of the stalemate line
- to create and maintain a state of confusion (gsmx' preferred) ;)
- story-telling and role-playing
- being an excellent tactician
- lying and stabbing
- tit for tat
- tit for two tats
- a friendly word and a gun :)
- a friendly word alone (not so good) :(
- plus 99 others...

Every option you take away pauperizes the game.

.


And... those options are all still in play, even king making. Some of those you listed become more effective, and some less. Some of them now get multiple variations because of the wider range of endgame targets that can be negotiated for.

None of what I described will reduce tactical variety.
NoPunIn10Did
Moderator (Forums only)

Variant GM, Designer & Collaborator
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2031
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1515
Timezone: GMT

Re: Is 'Kingmaking' legitimate?

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 05 Jun 2018, 04:41

rd45 wrote:
NoPunIn10Did wrote:(But I’ll put my actual proposal in a different thread)

Could you link back to it from here, when you do? Because I'd like to read that.


And here we go: Fibonacci-Diplo!
https://www.playdiplomacy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=57975
NoPunIn10Did
Moderator (Forums only)

Variant GM, Designer & Collaborator
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2031
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1515
Timezone: GMT

Previous

Return to Diplomacy Lore

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest