Diplogame FAQ and Reference Manual

[The Capo]

Well, "Vikings" I think we actually want to talk about DIPLO.

A lot actually.

[Rasputin]

It a semi quote from fight Club movie

[The Capo]

I got the reference.

Well, since it doesn't look like I'm going to have a diplogame to play I can update the FAQ, but I'd rather have help. Not necessarily because I need it, but because my concept of a diplogame is not always the most popular so there should be a few hands involved in this.

[Pitboss Vikings]

i am happy to put my 2 cents in

[OzzyKP]

As I. CS is good too.

[The Capo]

Well, how should we go about doing this?

I was thinking we should assign sections of the current FAQ we have now to edit and then brainstorm on new sections we'd have to add. Obviously there will be a few of them since this doesn't seem to have been changed since Civ II.

[Pitboss Vikings]

I think we need to set the overall philosphy first.

What is Diplo gaming?

To me it is Role Palying a Civ game.

[The Capo]

I don't think it is necessarily role playing.

It is somewhat of a role playing civ game, in the sense that you adopt the role of a nation's leader. Beyond that there is not a necessity to play as a certain person. That isn't to say that you shouldn't roleplay at all, everyone knows I do. But I don't think it is necessary in its essence.

I think it mostly involves advanced diplomacy beyond what the game offers. I don't know how to put my point into words really.

But there is a lot of role playing, yes, I agree with that. I just don't think that sums it up enough.

[Pitboss Vikings]

ok well i beleive i have misunderstood the whole thing.

To me diplomacy happens quite regularly in any Civ game.

So to call a game DIPLO it needs something to make it different and to me it was always the fact it was a roleplay game.

Posting the stories etc. Palying your game based on the stories.

[The Capo]

You have to take into consideration that (a) in many MP games people never talk to eachother or trade, and (b) diplogames started in Civ2, where there was much less diplomatic options.

So a lot of what we wanted happened in Civ IV.

[Pitboss Rome]

I take Diplo games, as civ games where players role play their civs, not the way the civs really where in history (which they can certainly do if they want) but the way civs would be in the world of the particular diplo game.


It is also centered on diplomacy, this makes it a very different game for some players, but not others always, since some always indulge in diplomacy in MP games. The style can be best summed up in as a game where there is a agreed upon standard of minimal diplomacy and a strong component of role playing.

The games are also more involved for the players that play them than normal MP.


BTW Welcome back Capo.


Edited: Typos and clarity

[Pitboss Rome]

BTW A shorter way to define it:

Diplo = the best way to play civ

[The Capo]

I think its best to keep it simple. The roleplaying aspect originally started in diplogames as a propaganda tool, at least that is how I took it. I think HOTW2 was instrumental in forming the way diplogames are played now, while diplogames before that were great, I think HOTW2 marked the start of the advanced roleplaying we're seeing now. So it may be in people's interests to check out those threads if it is still around. HOTW2 also had discussions about the meaning of a diplogame etc. so it would be a nice place to look as a starting point for this discussion.

I am not knocking the roleplaying aspect at all, in fact if you check out the HOTW2 game I discussed I kind of went overboard with it (check out the elaborate Napoleon Bonaparte storyline), I think the main thing we should do now is write up a statement of purpose and then maybe edit the FAQ to reflect Civ IV/BtS changes.

[OzzyKP]

I"ve updated it with DoC info and the new Doom of the Diplomats game.

[Arabia (DoE)]

Accidental post.