Ooh, I like the “Calm” vs “Agitated” rating spectrum… that is an interesting metric.

Sandbagging in 2nd is always an issue.  Most of my groups (or at least my play style) is to always make the 2nd place player to be responsible for trying to slow down the leader.  (of course this means the true sandbaggers will try for 3rd place, etc… but waiting too long to make a move becomes even more of a problem from that position...)

"Consider some familiar meta-diplomacy tactics: strong alliances, backstabs, deterance/mutual-destruction, manipulate-the-newbie, tit-for-tat attacks, beat-on-the-leader, whining, sandbagging-in-second-place, kingmaking, the-big-lie, boycotts, etc. All of these tactics mean something more or less independent of the actual game or mechanisms involved. If I say, “I negotiated two strong alliances with players on the opposite sides of the map, so I was able to expand faster than anyone else, then won by backstabbing one of them just before they could gang up on me,” I am describing a strategy which could apply equally well to many different negotiation/conflict games, such as Diplomacy or Twilight Imperium. “

Funny that you mention only the tactics that tend to Break games. Most of these are legitimate tactics that have usually been taken too far. The strategy you mentioned above sound perfect legitimate, and really the fault for your winning in on the poor play for your allies for not suspecting/preventing the stab. I find it strange that player who know that there can only be one winner are hesitant to slow an ally who is leading down. How is it that we forget that in most diplomatic games, no one is REALLY your friend.

Also you fail to mention some of the things that diplomacy in a game tends to solve, like runaway leader for example or for players who are out of the game still having leverage (think the guy who comes back from 2 SC in a game of Diplomacy) compare this to some of the thing like reign in the leader mechanics and players being out fo the game yet still stuck playing that some non-negotiation games suffer from. 

“First, I have a number of friends who used to play lots of negotiation/conflict games and now avoid them because they feel they “are playing the same game over and over again,” due to specific game mechanisms being dominated by the diplomatic metagame. (To be fair, I also know gamers who feel they keep playing the same Euro – earn the most VPs to impress the ruler – over and over again, no matter which Euro they try! ;-) Certainly, in this instance, I felt like we stopped playing Carcassonne once the “diplomatic card” had been invoked since the game’s outcome all came down to what the newbie would do once she figured out that she was being manipulated. “

Any single type of game will get stale after a while. You make the point yourself that the same can be said for VP engine based Euro’s, even wargames can begine to feel the same after a bit.

“Second, one particular friend’s objection to negotiation/conflict games is that the first half of these games is irrelevant to their outcome. Playing well early on simply means that you get ganged up on during the mid-game.  He prefers games that reward skillful play throughout. (Of course, such games might suffer from the “rich get richer” problem, where players can’t catch up to an early leader, so that the second half of the game becomes uninteresting.) “

I would argue that there is more to “playing Well” than mastering the mechanics on the board. I find players who take the time to establish good diplomatic relations from the start of the game, as opposed to trying to defend their positions in the mid-game, do better overall. Perhaps your friend is forgetting to rate his diplomatic ability while assessing the Skillfulness of his play.

“Third, especially in mixed groups of light, social players and hard-core gamers, being the first to play the “diplomatic card” – if you are willing to do so – is often a huge advantage.”

Mixed levels of players tends to mess up most games. Anyone here played PR with a newbie?
I think that is where a lot of negotiation games tend to get a bad name. You do not play Diplomacy with your sister-in-law. (for that matter I would not play most euro’s with her either)

“Fourth, because diplomacy is a “meta” issue, it interacts with other gaming “meta” issues, in particular whether behaviors such as trash talking, deal making, note taking, commentary and analysis of others’ moves, secondary victory conditions, the revelation of hidden information (such as a player’s cards in hand), a discard pile search or the tracking of public information are considered appropriate for a given play group. Group gaming styles vary enormously and I believe that there is no “right” way to play. While I have my preferences, I try to adapt to whatever play style is predominant in the group wh
ere I am playing. “

This I agree with. Often the level of what is acceptable varies with different groups. We all have our personal preferences, when with strangers it can be hard to figure out what their “Rules” are. More important, I find it rare that people ask.

-Malloc

Glad my article inspired some discussion.

You raise a lot of points here. But I’d offer a couple of counterarguments which kind of dig under the case you’re trying to make.

Firstly I would - predictably - disagree that the negotiation in a game is always or even usually divorced from the mechanics. The mechanics and setup of a game strongly influence what negotiations will take place with whom and over what. Who plays what position will - so long as you’re gaming with people you know - also play a part, all the more so if there’s variable player powers involved. In a well designed game the negotiation over board position will also be tied to other side mechanisms - often economic ones - which may or may not also be subject to negotiation. If not then the strategy on the board will be tied into these other mechanisms, otherwise the negotiation stances will again be different each time and not be anywhere near as straightforward as allying with player X to take out player Y.

Secondly you make little mention of the modern designs that try to alleviate this problem in various ways. You do talk about NEXUS OPS but - and this is a guess - it sounds like you haven’t played many others. You apply the theoretical situation you mention to illustrate your argument about why negotiation is disconnected from mechanics to TWILIGHT IMPERIUM. When in fact that situation might well not have helped you win in that particular game.

One thing on which I heartily agree is the need for game designers to actually *specify* whether or not a game is suitable for negotiation in the rules. You make the point extremely well with your tale about the three player CARCASSONNE game. I’ve made the same argument about PUERTO RICO in the past - it’s a game which would be absolutely ruined if players started colluding. I suspect sometimes that the frequent failure to clarify this isn’t behind a lot of players’ rejections of otherwise very worthwhile titles. A group used to a lot of table talk might find PR a waste of time because it’s not obvious to them that it isn’t suitable for that treatment. A group used to non-negotiation games might find MARE NOSTRUM falls flat because even though it has many aspect of an economics game, it needs some sort of negotiation between players to make sense of the starting positions.

Tom’s comment:

“Consider some familiar meta-diplomacy tactics: strong alliances, backstabs, deterance/mutual-destruction, manipulate-the-newbie, tit-for-tat attacks, beat-on-the-leader, whining, sandbagging-in-second-place, kingmaking, the-big-lie, boycotts, etc.  All of these tactics mean something more or less independent of the actual game or mechanisms involved.”

However…

And I would say is that some game designers build their games with those very “independent” strategies in mind.

Variables that come as an informal part of the game but are independent of the formal game mechanisms don’t automatically render the those variables as invalid.

There is a discernable bias in that viewpoint in my book.

I really liked Malloc’s and Matt’s comments as a counterpoint to the original discussion points Tom brought forth. 

At the same time, I certainly applaud the article for taking a stab at this topic.  A worthwhile read, Tom!  Definitely interesting stuff.

A good example of a game that could use, but often does not use negotiation is Age of Steam. the game is completely set up for it. For example there is no reason I could not say to player A “If you ship that red cube there I will ship on another players line” or make some other sub-optimal move directly hurting player A. But no one plays this way. Why? well I think in the end the designer didn’t want negotiation, but that was not really ever spelled out.

Having Designers give more details to what is acceptable in a game would be nice.

Also I would like to go on record as saying that TI3 is a game that negotiation can be handles well in. The way that VP’s are dealt out in that game tend to lead to deal making (with experienced players) but it is rare that I see someone successfully stab or take advantage of a newbie in that game. To lump it in with classic Diplomacy is really a mistake.

-M

The...mandate...that attacking must have a cost to the attacker is something I had never quite fully realized.

I suspect that the lack of cost to attack is what has destroyed conflict in Eurogamers’ eyes. So many games get this part wrong.

Look at the new reworking of Blackbeard. You play cards to hose other players. The “penalty” for playing cards is that you fill your hand each turn to replace them, improving the odds of drawing a card that can help you.

Other examples start to bubble up...and the list starts getting extensive.

Good comments.  Thanks.

I have played Twilight Imperium four times.  Yes, I understand later versions have changed the game considerably.  This is why I referred to TI, not TI:3, in my example.  I have used the strategy I described to win games of both Diplomacy (it’s my favorite ploy as Russia) and the original TI.

Malloc wrote: “Funny that you mention only the tactics that tend to Break games. Most of these are legitimate tactics that have usually been taken *too far*.  [my emphasis]

Precisely.  It is the “meta” nature of these tactics that makes them difficult to rein in, which is why they can become problematic.  Note, I didn’t claim that these tactics are good or bad per se, just that they are meta-tactics that can sometimes dominate play.

How many efficiency games are ruined because a player is “too efficient”?  (That’s not to say that efficiency games can’t suffer from other flaws, such as strong left-right binding that make the game work well only if all players are at the same skill level.)

Later on, I discussed some ways that design can reduce the impact of meta-diplomacy.  Many of the meta-tactics I listed do show up in games of Air Baron, for example, but rarely dominate the game’s outcome.

For me, the one mechanism that makes me very leery when I encounter it in games that are not explicitly themed as diplomatic games is low-cost “take-that” attacks against any arbitrary player (I have no problem with it in short diplomatic games such as Family Business or Cash ‘N’ Guns).

Players’ mileage will vary.  For me, this element in Brass (the obsolete rules) meant that I lost interest in playing it.  But, the group I played Brass with in Australia loved it.  They had adapted their play to it and thought it helped against run-away leaders (and, yes, the game we played featured two 15-minute diplomacy sections near the endgame where players debated who needed to be taken down).

I agree that many games could use an Etiquette section (that describes whether deals can be made, are they binding or not, what info is secret, and so on).  I put it one in my submission prototypes and publishers continually remove it…

Nice article and very interesting theme.
However, as for non-diplomatic games: although “low cost of take-that attacks” can be problem, high cost of these can be problem, too. In these games the “someone has to stop the leader” phase is even worse – players start to negotiate who will pay the cost. At this moment, some of the described issues are even worse (manipulate-the-newbie, sandbagging vs. beat the leader, kingmaking etc).
In my opinion, the problem is in the “take-that attacks” independency. The euros work better if the action that can damage another player is somehow tied to the action you benefit from (as its side effect), and cannot be independently targeted (i.e. the target player who will be damaged is given by the context, not chosen by the player). You can still “attack someone” by playing an action that is not optimal for you (and thus paying the difference between this action and your optimal action as the cost), but the level at which you are doing so can be adjusted very finely. You can master the game by anticipating the other player moves, and playing the way their effective actions can’t harm you, and eventually your effective actions harm the leader. Sometimes, you can afford an action slightly non-optimal for you, if the damage it does is big or well targeted.
That’s in my opinion why Puerto Rico was on the top of bgg so long. In lower amount, it can be seen in lots of good euros from the last years – which card you pass in Notre Dame, which card you take in Thurn&Taxis, whether to close a color in Genial etc. You play well if you don’t pass the card the next player is waiting for and have a good use for it, if you take a city card another player badly needs and play it later efficiently, or if you close a color another player is short of, while scoring the color you need.
To be honest, I like this aspect of “calm” games. This kind of interaction (empathy) can bring you closer to your friends than much louder games.