Ryan B.:  A Diplomatic Christmas

This Saturday my wife and I were presented with the opportunity to go see the incomparable Jerry Seinfeld in person at the Tampa Performing Arts Center. What a great show. He doesn’t look like the Jerry we have all come to know from the Seinfeld days. The hairline is receding just a bit and he has a more sophisticated bearing now in his dress, but he maintains the same juvenile impishness as he draws on life’s amusing observations. Someone from the very large, packed audience asked Jerry what he had been up to since the days of Seinfeld and without missing a beat he replied, “Well, I can tell you… pretty much… nothing.”

He brought the house down.

“But after they settle in you’ve still got to be funny. Because for a whole hour, just the fact they get to see you live in a theater is going to wear off, especially if you’re not doing well.” -Jerry Seinfeld

So on to things game related – are you like me? Do you usually divide up the types of games you play dependent on who you play with? With my close friends, for instance, we really keep it to lighter fare, such as Scotland Yard, Clue the Great Museum Caper and Pirate’s Cove. These type of games are easily my favorites, but my interests have been expanding as I have developed an interest in games with a similar flavor to Milton Bradley’s old Gamemaster Series. I love history, so games like Napoleon in Europe, Conquest of the Empire and Shogun have no small appeal to me. My favorite casual game is I’m the Boss. So I had really been set to thinking about what might make for the best Gamemaster equivalent of that style of game?

Actually, I found the choice to be really easy. And so with a simple decision, Diplomacy climbed to the top of my Christmas list.

Now this was in October. I thought I found myself fortunate when I discovered Greg Schloesser was offering a mint copy of the game for only $25.00. I immediately took him up on the offer and with shipping, the cost was about $34.00, to be paid once the Thanksgiving holidays were over. In the meantime, I discovered a friendly local game store that had the game for slightly less – plus I could own it that day! Aaaaah, the appeal. So without even playing the game, I was already faced with a Diplomacy type of test: Do I renege on the earlier promise I made? Or do I go for the immediate win?

“Some people actually cheat on the people that they’re cheating with, which is like holding up a bank and then turning to the robber next to you and going, “All right… give me everything you got, too.” -Jerry Seinfeld

I have always found that I can separate the nature of a game from a more important barometer of life, namely, what happens when you walk away from the table. The fact that friends can get together and merrily screw each other over in the quest for Machiavellian glory is something I find has a distinct appeal. To see loyal friends get mad and completely bent out of shape while being run over mercilessly to advance one’s own cause? Priceless.

Why is this so? Because in real life, we are undyingly loyal to our friends. So the opportunity to step outside of this parameter is, at the very least, comical amusement for the friendship. Of course, having your friends over to actually play the game is a good starting point. Unfortunately, this brings us to an earlier discussion. My close friends would never play a game like this because it is far too long and involved. And this actually brings me to another point. I have noticed when I form a group to play a game considered to be more casual fare, the composition of my group gets a lot more female oriented. Of course, the likely cause is the makeup of my close friends. I have found that playing with women usually means the evening is more genial and is not quite fully game focused. I like that.

But the opposite is true when I want to settle down to an involved, historical game with lots of thinking and details. Then it seems a preponderance of guys are suddenly in the mix. But even so, trying to get my friends to play six hours of Diplomacy is probably going to be a stretch – a “Stretch Armstrong” stretch at that. So to fill this void, I have found myself turning to local game groups in the area. I have met several good guys there, although I still am coming to grips with this “open gaming” format. For a game group, I advocate this is the way it should be. For me personally, however, the joy in playing a game is the experience spent challenging your friends and not a bunch of strangers I have never seen before. Of course, that is how you make new friends, but I am still struggling to adapt.

My first choice is playing with your good friends. It makes the joys of victory and defeat much more personal and a lot more fun. For the same logic, playing with people that may rub me the wrong way also sounds like good fun. There is little that is more satisfying or frustrating than getting a win or loss in that case. But I have to admit, when you are playing a game with people you are indifferent to or don’t know all that well, it can be quite boring. Especially if the game is earmarked as a social game.

Now I realize that is not the most diplomatic thing to say, but my caveat is that just because I am indifferent to someone doesn’t make them “not fun,” nor does it make them less of a person. It is just that I prefer playing with people who I maintain some sort of a personal stake in. I am sure there are people who are indifferent to me. In fact, if we were all being honest, we all have bouts of indifference to some people. I guess what that leads me to conclude is that for such a social interaction game as Diplomacy, any game I set up just needs to be an invitation event.

I also realize for someone (me) who hasn’t played the game yet, the next statement I make may seem premature. But before I make it, please understand that I have absorbed many of the rules. My quick observation is that Diplomacy may be the ultimate strategy and negotiation game out there with a historical theme. (Yes, there are some of you out there right now that just went, “Duh.") Anyway, for those who didn’t just think that, the reason for this is that most historically themed strategy games provide an existing basis of power in providing the negotiation element. For instance, in most games of this ilk you could leverage the power, strength, or number of your armies to make headway in negotiations. One can also plot tactical strategy based on force composition.

With Diplomacy, however, everything is inherently equal without support. There is no crutch of power or weakness to fall back upon quite so readily, so strategy must be plotted in a more pure and fluid manner. And certainly, the diplomatic and political will to cultivate enablers to implement your strategy rises to the forefront. This idea of “will” holds true even if your tactical planning is the greatest ever devised or your strategic vision is the most clever ever. Thus, you have a much more complete dynamic, from a strategic perspective, needed to formulate a successful plan. And as such, the demands required to implement the plan successfully are even greater still. It would seem as if Diplomacy is the one game of strategy where your skills as a leader actually enter into the fray of what is about to take place. I am eager to put my theories to the test.

It was just chanced upon me that Diplomacy supposedly plays best with seven people – and we have exactly seven weekly columnists here at Boardgame News. Now THAT would be interesting. I think I would watch out for Tom Vasel. He might be sneaky, but then would he feel bad about it? Greg Schloesser, I think, would be patting everyone on the back while selling them on the idea that everyone is about to attack each other – and he is just the person to protect them. Nobody would be able to think straight. Rick is just too nice, so he would lose, but of course, he would make my Diplomacy life a virtual nightmare for having uttered that statement. Valerie would probably do a Margaret Thatcher on all of us and probably would be running half the board at the midway point. Patrick and Larry would be the great unknowns. And me?

Well, I guess that would just depend. From whom or where do you think I bought Diplomacy?

“When you want to enjoy something, you must never let logic get too much in the way. Like the villains in all the James Bond movies. Whenever Bond breaks into the complex: “Ah, Mr. Bond, welcome, come in. Let me show you my entire evil plan and then put you in a death machine that doesn’t work.” -Jerry Seinfeld

Till next time – laugh! I just did.

Ryan B.
“A fun game starts with fun people.”

© 2005 Ryan B.

---

Comments:

You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free, but if you appreciate the news, previews, reviews and other material posted on Boardgame News, please consider becoming a member to keep the info flowing to your screen!

Ryan - Having played Diplomacy a few times, I know it’s a tough game for me to play.  I love the game, I think it’s superb, but you have to have a certain sneakiness streak to do well and I don’t think I have that streak. I think you bought the game from Schloesser. - Rick Posted by Rick Thornquist on Dec 14, 2005 at 11:09 AM | #

Actually, playing Diplomacy with people you are indifferent to might not be such a bad idea, Ryan.  Since the game supposedly is responsible for trashing friendships, playing with those who aren’t friends might make sense.  Personally, I’ve never had any unpleasant moments while playing Dip, but you never know--some people react strangely when being stabbed in the back! I’ve actually had the pleasure of playing with all the other columnists except for you and Tom.  Greg, as always, would be fun to play with (just don’t give him a country that might lead him to start singing).  I was also in a game of Shadows where he was the traitor and he won easily, so I have no doubt he could be sufficiently ruthless.  Rick, too nice?  Not when winning’s on the line, which is how it should be.  I saw THAT firsthand in a session of A Game of Thrones (although his style was cramped a bit due to the presence of the lovely Christine--not that it saved her pretty neck!).  I’m not sure how cutthroat Valerie would be, but I bet her enthusiasm would make the game fun no matter how well I was doing.  And I think Patrick would make a good loyal ally.  But if I chose to stab him, I’d better make sure he was really most sincerely dead, since I think he’d come after me with a vengeance! Posted by Larry Levy on Dec 14, 2005 at 03:51 PM | #

If someone has a friendship that ends over a game, then it was never much of a friendship in the first place, right?  So like I said, I would rather play Diplomacy with people I have a personal stake in.  It seems like some pretty good, laugh inducing, fun memories could be created!  And in a game like Diplomacy, I can definitely be sufficiently sneaky… if the game situation warrants it. The difficulty is that I just can’t be that sneaky in real life.  Which is a good thing, I think.  I bought the game from Greg.  : ) Posted by Ryan Bretsch on Dec 14, 2005 at 06:54 PM | #

I don’t think the problem is as great as Ryan makes it out to be. For me the solution would have been simple. NEVER BUY THE GAME DIPLOMACY!!  IT IS PURE EVIL!! You heard it here first, folks, the descent of Ryan to the dark side… Posted by Tom Vasel on Dec 14, 2005 at 08:21 PM | #

I just figure that if I am not getting stabbed in the back or someone isn’t trying to destroy me in some way (in any game I play)--- I must be doing something wrong. :D Posted by Patrick Dignam on Dec 16, 2005 at 11:37 AM | #

< Back Home