Tweet
General Notes on Diplogames...
I've probably played in five to six diplogames, all of them being aborted before completion was achieved.
I think that the entire Diplogamin' community should collaborate here and just talk some Diplogame so we know what's up with them. Therefore anyoen setting one up would have a much better chance at making a successful effort rather than something that is doomed to fall flat on its face.
I guess I'll speak from some experience with the latest Diplogame. Everyone that has ever played in a Diplogame can agree that there must be a core of players to carry on the torch even in the worst of horrors. With a very solid core, the game is almost already destined to failure. But the issue is how to determine who will make up the core. The core musn't necessarily be those who have prior experience, or those who are known to be "good" at this game. If that were the case we would go nowhere with the game, however on the flip side those merits are always positives and should never be taken as a negative. In that respect a core of a diplogame should be composed of three to five individuals. In my past experiences the core diplogames are usually never straight warmongers, and are generally happier to see the game finish or continue rather than worry (more or less not totally) about their game score or their position in the game.
This is not to say that the core should be composed of people who don't care how well they do and are willing to suck to make the game a success, this is not what I mean. So when you are establishing your group, you should look for factors that are condusive to a core player. The first one is the willingness to sacrifice for the game. I am not talking anything major (blowing off a hot date, neglecting their health) but minor things such as where their starting position is, or whether it is a "good" position, whether or not there is a tech issue (which I will address later on) or something of that nature.
When you have three to five individuals that you deem "core" you should select the remainder from a wide array of qualities. Among them are their skill, their demeanor, their availability to play, whether they are veterens or "rookies." One of the main concerns should always been the availability to play in the game. A set time and day is always important, and I think it is a plus that an extra day can be set aside in case of an emergency so as not to miss a session or to play two sessions if a need arises, however it is not a necessity that an "auxillery" day is established. It is always good to get a "newbie" involved in the game for a few reasons, one is to make them feel more inclusive in Apolyton, another is to teach them (at a young "age") the merits of a diplogame over a straight up duel. Veterens are always good because they don't waste time, and tend to get things done quickly, although they may be less enthusiastic about the particular game situation and tend to only focus on straight up civ fundamentals. The demeanor is important (and I will admit I have been charged with having a negative demeanor, am I spelling that wrong?) because it effects the game, if someone is negative they will say bad things, and if you have someone who doesn't take remarks very kindly they will react and thus an issue is established that needs resolution, and usually the game will fail.
Another thing I have noticed is the "real" factor v. the "randomness" factor. These two things are commonly confused in the arguments. Diplogames that I have been in have had some adjustment to settings, whether they be maps, rules, graphics what have you. It is important to find settings that are favorable to your group's disposition. In my current game (History of the World) we are looking more towards realistic settings that would be more condusive to diplomacy in the long run, i.e. we have removed SDI for "Nuclear Diplomacy" and have left the Americas open for "Imperial Diplomacy" this far the latter has just been an issue and I am very excited about what could result. Common debates involving reality and randomness include:
1) Real or Random Map?
2) Realistic v. Customized tribe names?
3) Additional graphics/rules?
4) Pre-set or random starting locations?
5) Double movement? Double resources? etc...
Then there are the issues that arise after the game is set up and the players are ready. Should it be Simultaneous (generally new question) or turn based? Should there be time limits or unlimited turns? Chat from start? Bribing? etc...
Since, as any game, a diplogame's merits should be decided by its players, I think its best to decide that as a group before play begins. However I believe wholeheartedly that a diplogame should not be played on Simultaneous turns. There are various reasons why I believe this is the case, among them:
1) The need for negotiation time.
2) Situations where war and strategy are important and effected by the Simultaneous environment.
3) Some players may get two turns while others recieve one; the randomness of the game including its error messages and connection problems.
Another major issue is connection time. Most games will be played upwards of thirty minutes after their set starting time. For instance our game starts as late as 8:15 pm, when it is to begin at 8:00 pm. I propose a few methods to end this, the first would be allowing a thirty minute diplomacy period, therefore the game begins at 8:00 but they must arrive online (ICQ, AOL, what have you) to play thirty minutes prior for diplomatic discussion, if all members are online before 8:00 in this manner then they begin if they deem their discussion ended. This helps get everyone into a diplomatic demeanor and gets people online faster. Although even then, you will still have people showing up right at game time. I believe it is a problem that cannot be fixed totally.
The final issue I will address is one of the most important. This is a leisure activity, therefore it must be fun for all parties. Granted you cannot take from others who deserve to give to those who don't simply to procure the leisure environment. However at the same time I don't think it is fun if one tribe doesn't allow a little leeway for another that is in need. For example in our past game (I won't mention names but a few of you know who you are) we had an AI tribe who was supposed to be under Human control. All players knew that even after this session the tribe would be under human control and should not be slighted due to its AI ruler. However one tribe took liberty to surround this AI tribe so it could only settle at the MOST three cities in its given area. Even though the human who did this had his rights to take whatever land he could, I believe he should have understood the ramifications of his actions. So I think a general idea of what the game will be should be present, for this to occur some type of pride in the game must be present as well.
People must want the game to be a succsess, I don't believe a game is a succsess merely by completion. I think if it is an interesting game that is well played and demonstrates how civilization can be at its optimum intended level a diplogame has been succsessfuly finished.
Those are my notes for now, thanks for reading and I implore anyone who has played in these games to throw in their two cents. Peace.
I think that the entire Diplogamin' community should collaborate here and just talk some Diplogame so we know what's up with them. Therefore anyoen setting one up would have a much better chance at making a successful effort rather than something that is doomed to fall flat on its face.
I guess I'll speak from some experience with the latest Diplogame. Everyone that has ever played in a Diplogame can agree that there must be a core of players to carry on the torch even in the worst of horrors. With a very solid core, the game is almost already destined to failure. But the issue is how to determine who will make up the core. The core musn't necessarily be those who have prior experience, or those who are known to be "good" at this game. If that were the case we would go nowhere with the game, however on the flip side those merits are always positives and should never be taken as a negative. In that respect a core of a diplogame should be composed of three to five individuals. In my past experiences the core diplogames are usually never straight warmongers, and are generally happier to see the game finish or continue rather than worry (more or less not totally) about their game score or their position in the game.
This is not to say that the core should be composed of people who don't care how well they do and are willing to suck to make the game a success, this is not what I mean. So when you are establishing your group, you should look for factors that are condusive to a core player. The first one is the willingness to sacrifice for the game. I am not talking anything major (blowing off a hot date, neglecting their health) but minor things such as where their starting position is, or whether it is a "good" position, whether or not there is a tech issue (which I will address later on) or something of that nature.
When you have three to five individuals that you deem "core" you should select the remainder from a wide array of qualities. Among them are their skill, their demeanor, their availability to play, whether they are veterens or "rookies." One of the main concerns should always been the availability to play in the game. A set time and day is always important, and I think it is a plus that an extra day can be set aside in case of an emergency so as not to miss a session or to play two sessions if a need arises, however it is not a necessity that an "auxillery" day is established. It is always good to get a "newbie" involved in the game for a few reasons, one is to make them feel more inclusive in Apolyton, another is to teach them (at a young "age") the merits of a diplogame over a straight up duel. Veterens are always good because they don't waste time, and tend to get things done quickly, although they may be less enthusiastic about the particular game situation and tend to only focus on straight up civ fundamentals. The demeanor is important (and I will admit I have been charged with having a negative demeanor, am I spelling that wrong?) because it effects the game, if someone is negative they will say bad things, and if you have someone who doesn't take remarks very kindly they will react and thus an issue is established that needs resolution, and usually the game will fail.
Another thing I have noticed is the "real" factor v. the "randomness" factor. These two things are commonly confused in the arguments. Diplogames that I have been in have had some adjustment to settings, whether they be maps, rules, graphics what have you. It is important to find settings that are favorable to your group's disposition. In my current game (History of the World) we are looking more towards realistic settings that would be more condusive to diplomacy in the long run, i.e. we have removed SDI for "Nuclear Diplomacy" and have left the Americas open for "Imperial Diplomacy" this far the latter has just been an issue and I am very excited about what could result. Common debates involving reality and randomness include:
1) Real or Random Map?
2) Realistic v. Customized tribe names?
3) Additional graphics/rules?
4) Pre-set or random starting locations?
5) Double movement? Double resources? etc...
Then there are the issues that arise after the game is set up and the players are ready. Should it be Simultaneous (generally new question) or turn based? Should there be time limits or unlimited turns? Chat from start? Bribing? etc...
Since, as any game, a diplogame's merits should be decided by its players, I think its best to decide that as a group before play begins. However I believe wholeheartedly that a diplogame should not be played on Simultaneous turns. There are various reasons why I believe this is the case, among them:
1) The need for negotiation time.
2) Situations where war and strategy are important and effected by the Simultaneous environment.
3) Some players may get two turns while others recieve one; the randomness of the game including its error messages and connection problems.
Another major issue is connection time. Most games will be played upwards of thirty minutes after their set starting time. For instance our game starts as late as 8:15 pm, when it is to begin at 8:00 pm. I propose a few methods to end this, the first would be allowing a thirty minute diplomacy period, therefore the game begins at 8:00 but they must arrive online (ICQ, AOL, what have you) to play thirty minutes prior for diplomatic discussion, if all members are online before 8:00 in this manner then they begin if they deem their discussion ended. This helps get everyone into a diplomatic demeanor and gets people online faster. Although even then, you will still have people showing up right at game time. I believe it is a problem that cannot be fixed totally.
The final issue I will address is one of the most important. This is a leisure activity, therefore it must be fun for all parties. Granted you cannot take from others who deserve to give to those who don't simply to procure the leisure environment. However at the same time I don't think it is fun if one tribe doesn't allow a little leeway for another that is in need. For example in our past game (I won't mention names but a few of you know who you are) we had an AI tribe who was supposed to be under Human control. All players knew that even after this session the tribe would be under human control and should not be slighted due to its AI ruler. However one tribe took liberty to surround this AI tribe so it could only settle at the MOST three cities in its given area. Even though the human who did this had his rights to take whatever land he could, I believe he should have understood the ramifications of his actions. So I think a general idea of what the game will be should be present, for this to occur some type of pride in the game must be present as well.
People must want the game to be a succsess, I don't believe a game is a succsess merely by completion. I think if it is an interesting game that is well played and demonstrates how civilization can be at its optimum intended level a diplogame has been succsessfuly finished.
Those are my notes for now, thanks for reading and I implore anyone who has played in these games to throw in their two cents. Peace.
Comment