Contracts

[Mock]

Hello everyone!

I've started playing Diplomacy recently and I have heard, that in real life sessions players would work out contracts restricting them from invading certain areas or deciding which player gets which provinces. However, I have not found an ingame mechanic to set up mutual contracts between players. Is there one? If not, what can I do as an alternative?

Thanks in advance!

[nanooktheeskimo]

Very few if any face to face players actually do this—there’s a couple anecdotes about it, but it usually ends with “and then player X ignored it and took Belgium anyways.” It’s not really a part of the game online or in most in person games.

Any agreements you make are totally and completely non binding, and are exclusively verbal in nature.

[V]

Very few if any face to face players actually do this—there’s a couple anecdotes about it, but it usually ends with “and then player X ignored it and took Belgium anyways.” It’s not really a part of the game online or in most in person games.

Any agreements you make are totally and completely non binding, and are exclusively verbal in nature.

But on this website everyone always honours any agreement automatically, so there’s never any need to worry

[DipideeDawg]

Hello everyone!

I've started playing Diplomacy recently and I have heard, that in real life sessions players would work out contracts restricting them from invading certain areas or deciding which player gets which provinces. However, I have not found an ingame mechanic to set up mutual contracts between players. Is there one? If not, what can I do as an alternative?

Thanks in advance!

Contracts, agreements, alliances, and treaties are always worth the paper they are written on. But don't get the impression that Diplomacy is a free-for-all, where lying and duplicity are the standard modi operandi of most players. We all joke about it, of course; but in truth, players who are habitual stabbers, deal-breakers, and PITAs are usually not well received, except as early victims. Not that we avoid using those tactics, but like any tool, overuse leads to diminishing returns. It's the well-timed, well-placed stab that is applauded and most successful. But just remember that agreements are largely opportunistic; game-long agreements, for example, are usually unrealistic or just deceptions.

So, make good agreements, and take precautions; if for no other reason, than to not give the other player the impression you are a sucker. And don't take stabs personally; it's part of the game. Players expect you to stab them, so somebody will likely stab you sooner or later. And if you find it helpful for you to stab an ally, stab big.

Golarth's 3rd law of Diplomacy: Never forget that opponents and allies do things for their own reasons, not yours.
Cousin's Last Theorem: It's only a game. Have fun and keep a sense of humor. (This is one maxim that is sometimes hard to keep in mind!)

[Mr.E]

There are, of course, DMZs (demilitarised zones), NAPs (Non-aggression Pacts) and the like. The mechanics for those is the in-game messaging system.

Contracts, as in "legally binding" agreements would lead to more time arguing over the minutiae than playing the game. There's a reason they're not part of the game rules (more than one, in fact).