4 ms·

It’s a short version of I’m running out of friends to play diplomacy with. Not everyone likes realpolitik as much as I do. In poker the adversarial aspect is c

It’s a short version of I’m running out of friends to play diplomacy with. Not everyone likes realpolitik as much as I do. In poker the adversarial aspect is clearer. In diplomacy you have to develop trust to later exploit it by breaking alliances and traitorously conspiring with enemies in a way that guarantees your former allies loss. The betrayal is more acute in a way that feels more fundamental. Telling them that they were naïve for trusting you and they must do the same if they want to win tends not to go down so well.

lupire 5y ago
My question is it possible to be good at Diplomacy without being a socio opath in real life. In poker, someone being good at bluffing is scary (separately from just being better at the math part), much like someone being better than you at sports is physically intimidating off the field because they could beat you up. Diplomacy even more so than poker, because manipulation and deceipt is the only skill in the game. It doesn't even have the cooperative part of the real world's "build something of value together" -- it's a zero sum or negative sum game.
- cjbgkagh 5y ago
  It is Kissinger’s favorite game. The people I do play with tend to enjoy the departure from normality. One guy I play with is very loyal in real life but will betray as soon as possible in game - too soon so it is actually sub optimal play but for a different reason (newbies are too trusting and think they can hold alliances into late game). Compartmentalization is needed to keep playing - or be a sociopath. I have ADHD and I feel that my emotional responses are learned rather than entirely natural. I think it makes me an effective lier - but I still don’t like doing it. I do enjoy introducing realpolitik to friends, helping them understand the palpable paranoia of eminent betrayal and how essential it is to maintain strength (the weakest get ganged up in). It’s one thing to read about the mechanics of realpolitik it’s another to emotionally feel them. For a deceptively simple game I’ve had friends stop playing because they found it too intense and damaging to their faith in humanity.
- forum_ghost 5y ago
  The world is zero sum. We only have one Earth for now.
  - drdeca 5y ago
    That’s not what zero sum means. One person being harmed isn’t always a benefit to one or more other people. Though, really, seeing as utility between persons isn’t clearly commensurable, it isn’t clear to me that the statement that the world is zero sum even, like, makes sense as a claim, because there’s no “sum of everyone’s utility” to ask whether this sum is constant. But, if there was such a sum, it wouldn’t be constant.
- aidenn0 5y ago
  I hope it's possible, or I have a lot of sociopaths for friends.
- tempestn 5y ago
  I'd say of course it's possible, but you probably do have to play the game like a sociopath. Just like you can watch a violent movie and not be horrified in the same way you would if you were seeing the same things happen for real, you can behave in a manner in a game that you wouldn't in reality. As an aside I will say that manipulation and deceit are far from the only skills in the game. There are significant strategic and tactical elements, as well as probabilistic/game theory thinking as well. Plus, on the interpersonal side, it's as much about just reading people as it is about manipulating them.
javajosh 5y ago
I wonder if there's a way to soften the personal blow of Diplomacy without changing the game. Something simple, perhaps, like literally wearing masks - to emphasize that this isn't you, it's your in-game persona. Or maybe something more subtle, like making the game really short so you can play many games, where each betrayal in each game becomes insignificant on a personal scale - it impersonalizes, and becomes simply data and decisions. (I've only played Diplomacy once, and it left a very sour taste in my mouth. I don't think we even finished one game, and it certainly hurt real-world relationships.)
- cjbgkagh 5y ago
  I think fast games are better so people are more likely to experience both being betrayed and being the betrayer. It helps develop cognitive empathy. Plus less time and effort is invested in each game. Sorry to hear about the hurt real world friendships. The same would have happened to me but being able to play multiple games helped patch things up.
- tempestn 5y ago
  Another problem with Diplomacy is that it kind of ruins the game if someone quits before they're eliminated. And certainly if multiple players do. But most non-hardcore Diplomacy fans don't find it fun to stick around playing the game for potentially several hours after their position becomes fairly hopeless. I roped some friends into an online game in the early pandemic times, and it started out fun, but half of them lost interest once they felt an alliance had 'won'. Of course I'm thinking this is just the beginning of the midgame, but I can see how most wouldn't feel that way. Best that everyone understands what they're getting into, at least.
  - MiddleEndian 5y ago
    Is there a shorter version of Diplomacy one could use to introduce people to the game and its concepts?
    - tempestn 5y ago
philipswood 5y ago
Sort of a “Iterated Diplomats dilemma” problem?

lupire 5y ago

My question is it possible to be good at Diplomacy without being a socio opath in real life. In poker, someone being good at bluffing is scary (separately from just being better at the math part), much like someone being better than you at sports is physically intimidating off the field because they could beat you up. Diplomacy even more so than poker, because manipulation and deceipt is the only skill in the game. It doesn't even have the cooperative part of the real world's "build something of value together" -- it's a zero sum or negative sum game.

cjbgkagh 5y ago
It is Kissinger’s favorite game. The people I do play with tend to enjoy the departure from normality. One guy I play with is very loyal in real life but will betray as soon as possible in game - too soon so it is actually sub optimal play but for a different reason (newbies are too trusting and think they can hold alliances into late game). Compartmentalization is needed to keep playing - or be a sociopath. I have ADHD and I feel that my emotional responses are learned rather than entirely natural. I think it makes me an effective lier - but I still don’t like doing it. I do enjoy introducing realpolitik to friends, helping them understand the palpable paranoia of eminent betrayal and how essential it is to maintain strength (the weakest get ganged up in). It’s one thing to read about the mechanics of realpolitik it’s another to emotionally feel them. For a deceptively simple game I’ve had friends stop playing because they found it too intense and damaging to their faith in humanity.
forum_ghost 5y ago
The world is zero sum. We only have one Earth for now.
- drdeca 5y ago
  That’s not what zero sum means. One person being harmed isn’t always a benefit to one or more other people. Though, really, seeing as utility between persons isn’t clearly commensurable, it isn’t clear to me that the statement that the world is zero sum even, like, makes sense as a claim, because there’s no “sum of everyone’s utility” to ask whether this sum is constant. But, if there was such a sum, it wouldn’t be constant.
aidenn0 5y ago
I hope it's possible, or I have a lot of sociopaths for friends.
tempestn 5y ago
I'd say of course it's possible, but you probably do have to play the game like a sociopath. Just like you can watch a violent movie and not be horrified in the same way you would if you were seeing the same things happen for real, you can behave in a manner in a game that you wouldn't in reality. As an aside I will say that manipulation and deceit are far from the only skills in the game. There are significant strategic and tactical elements, as well as probabilistic/game theory thinking as well. Plus, on the interpersonal side, it's as much about just reading people as it is about manipulating them.

javajosh 5y ago

I wonder if there's a way to soften the personal blow of Diplomacy without changing the game. Something simple, perhaps, like literally wearing masks - to emphasize that this isn't you, it's your in-game persona. Or maybe something more subtle, like making the game really short so you can play many games, where each betrayal in each game becomes insignificant on a personal scale - it impersonalizes, and becomes simply data and decisions. (I've only played Diplomacy once, and it left a very sour taste in my mouth. I don't think we even finished one game, and it certainly hurt real-world relationships.)

cjbgkagh 5y ago
I think fast games are better so people are more likely to experience both being betrayed and being the betrayer. It helps develop cognitive empathy. Plus less time and effort is invested in each game. Sorry to hear about the hurt real world friendships. The same would have happened to me but being able to play multiple games helped patch things up.
tempestn 5y ago
Another problem with Diplomacy is that it kind of ruins the game if someone quits before they're eliminated. And certainly if multiple players do. But most non-hardcore Diplomacy fans don't find it fun to stick around playing the game for potentially several hours after their position becomes fairly hopeless. I roped some friends into an online game in the early pandemic times, and it started out fun, but half of them lost interest once they felt an alliance had 'won'. Of course I'm thinking this is just the beginning of the midgame, but I can see how most wouldn't feel that way. Best that everyone understands what they're getting into, at least.
- MiddleEndian 5y ago
  Is there a shorter version of Diplomacy one could use to introduce people to the game and its concepts?
  - tempestn 5y ago

philipswood 5y ago

Sort of a “Iterated Diplomats dilemma” problem?