It's quite simply a gentleman's agreement GC: Play Diplomacy the way it was intended to be played when it was first created.

This means:

No unbreakable alliances
No pre-arranged draws (this one caused some issues in the last game. Basically, no arranged draws from before the game starts (aka metagaming), and no deciding to 2 or 3 way draw the game early on and then carrying through with the plan).

And most importantly: Play to win!

If everyone plays to win, the other two "rules" will be taken care of. Unbreakable alliances would come apart as people strive for the solo, as would pre-arranged draws.

These types of games have the potential for great fun. Last game, despite some drama, was possible the most fun I've had in a Dip game on vdip.

Ok, I think I can do that. Count me in for this one.

I would like to play again.

Rinascimento would be fun, or one of the other fairly balanced maps like Fall of the American Empire or Abstraction.

Depending on the map, and the phase length, I want to play. American Empire would get my vote.

Dr. Recommended -

Rinascimento is my current choice of maps, as I'd like to see how it plays out with people who are committed to a competitive game without NMRs and while playing to win. However, if we have trouble getting 12, or there's a lot of opposition to Rinascimento, it can always change.

Phase length is up for a vote, 36 hours will be default if not much voting occurs.

Players:
Drano019
General Cool
bozo
Dr. Recommended (?)

I'd be down for 36 hour phase Rinascimento if you need people

I agree with Dr. So if Rin doesnt make it through let us know

36 hours sounds good to me.

I would like to join!

Updated:
Drano019
General Cool
bozo
Scordatura
Dr. Recommended (?)

Where are all my dippers from the last game?

I'm not going to agree to play again under the "rules" as described. Unless we can come to a consensus resolving the matter of what involves the matter of what constitutes "early" and when it is allowable to discuss a draw, specifically an alliance draw.

Here's my problem with this, and it appeared in the last game and "early" was defined as being seen through one and only one person's perspective. I'm not going to go through that again. I play every game to win, and do not feel the need to defend myself against anyone who says otherwise. My record speaks for itself, and I carry a big enough reptatuon as a "stabber" that cannot be trusted to offset any notion of unbreakable alliances. With that said, I'm not going to join a game where someone dictates to me that I must break an alliance simply because it says so in the "rules" of the game.

Basically I do not like the wording of the rules, and they caused problems in the last game, and I will not play under them again until this is resolved. I would LOVE to play a game of competitive Diplomacy where everyone plays to win, but that game is simply called Diplomacy, and it doesn't need any special rules to be played. That is 'the way it was meant to be played'.

Prearranged alliances and grudges are not allowed in any games. That's cheating. A start to finish alliance that is mutually beneficial for both/all nations is not necessarily cheating. It's only cheating if the players never explore other options, such as individual victory, and use such an alliance to disrupt the game.

The gentleman's agreement need only be that every player will try to win/solo. That's fair enough, but it's also going to prove extremely difficult on the map that you've chosen.

Sorry to throw that wrench in the works, but if you want me in this you're going to have to drop the classification that this game has any special rules other than as necessary for the chosen variant. All Diplomacy is supposed to be competitive, and played to win. Making a special rule to play by the rules, is really just reinforcing the trash play that we're seeking to avoid.

Ruffhaus -

We've been through this before and we'll go through it again I guess.

We are playing on VDip. VDip allows game-long alliances that end in two way draws where neither partner explores additional options. Therefore, since we do not want that, we must make a "rule" to not allow it. You call it regular plain Diplomacy. That's great. I do too. But for everyone else on VDip who MIGHT NOT AGREE WITH US, we have to lay it out in terms of "rules" otherwise people won't know what's expected.

And again, stop the passive-aggressiveness of your posts. No one told you you HAD to break an alliance, and no one told anyone else they HAD to break an alliance. Ask the mods if you don't believe me. That conversation is over and done with.

Moving forward, I actually think this map is going to be far more interesting that Classic. Because of the unbalanced start positions, I suspect there will be a lot of early game cooperation that will lead to long-term alliances. That is expected on a map like this. However, if the game is played how I think it will be played, I suspect those alliances will have the chance to break down in the mid to late game. If not, well then, we might have proven that Rinascimento is a very flawed map since even in a "competitive" game, it is unworkable for certain powers to play for a real victory.

Sign me up..

I guess we will go through it again, drano. I'm interested in your concept of gathering competitive Dip players together for games. However, I'm not willing to call a game of standard regular Diplomacy a "special rules game". Diplomacy allows game long alliances. It's not a matter of VDip allowing them or not. There's nothing illegal, unethical, or wrong about a game long alliance. The problem that you and I appear to have hear (because I think we both agree on your concept) is that you're beating around the bush in your definitions. What you're talking about is honesty and integrity, and you don't want to call it that because you're too nice to come out and say that people cheat at VDip, and the moderators tolerate it, leading the community to accept it as encouraged and acceptable behavior.

There's no passive-aggression going on from me. I say what I mean. I think that's pretty clear. Maybe it comes across that way to you because I'm contesting your approach of labeling the game 'special rules' while at the same time I have nothing but respect for you. You're not part of the problem as a player. But as a leader, you're sugar coating the entire reason for why these games have an appeal.

The reality is that this failure to properly define the guidelines/rules for the game is going to lead to misinterpretations. It already has as we have both seen. Bringing it up here is not an attempt to dive into the details of the past, but to avoid it repeating itself.

So, I will repeat myself. I want to play, but only if we can be open and honest about the fact that there's nothing necessarily special about the rules we're playing under, absent a variant that requires them. Now if you want to go on the say that the 'group hug draws' will be frowned upon, or that prearranged alliances, and cross gaming will not be tolerated, that's great, but that's not really a 'special' rule. I hate to be so openly argumentative about this, but it's my opinion that you're doing more damage to the problem here by classifying standard play as special, thus driving the average player deeper into the coddled world of mediocrity where dubious ethical behavior is commonplace and accepted.

Rinascimento is not a flawed map because it's imbalanced. It's intentionally imbalanced. I think that you have to chalk that game up to a "for fun" experience, and accept that if you draw a weak power, that it's just a challenge to take it as far as you can. The odds are long, and that's part of the fun of it. The reason that this variant is not more popular is because the site tracks statistics, and awards points and rankings to performance. So anyone competing in those arenas is going to be pretty reluctant to take on a rather certain defeat.

@drano and ruff - you guys both want the same thing. Obviously the problem and disagreement is communicating that to other players. Even in the first game that you organized, drano, there was some very questionable play that in my opinion countered the goals you set.

So, I agree with ruffhaus in that it simply comes down to integrity.It comes down to people buying into the "type" of game you're trying to play. Hopefully you do get a full game of players who all participate in this game for the same reasons, otherwise, I suspect that some people will be disappointed.

If an alliance is created to prevent a solo then stabbing each other is impossible
To prevent all this I think only the standard map, the smaller than 7 maps and perhaps Known world can reduce the possibility of long term alliances.

Drano, I apologize if my ranting appears like I'm pissing all over your project. I admire what you're doing very much. I just cannot buy into any more of the mealy mouthed sugar coating. You approach of softening the transition from the welfare state style games here, weaning players of the crack (points for everyone, win or lose) may be the better idea, but I cannot stomach it.

I hate rules lawyers, and lawyers in general for that matter. Part of the beauty of Diplomacy is it's pure simplicity. Adding a lot of rules and language added to games to define what "competitive" is only clogs the process. Diplomacy is an extremely competitive game, perhaps the most competitive game ever invented. It's a brutal, cut-throat, and down right nasty game played with seven players in a room all smiling at each other, while thinking of ways to send them to the couch in shame to watch football for the next 4 hours. There's absolutely no need to define why the game needs to be competitive in the first place. It inherently is.

Cypeg bring up another example of how introducing new rules to enforce 'competition' could create misunderstandings and bitterness if the games are played under you rules. Mind you I do *not* thin that it is you intention for this to happen, but it is often said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Sometimes in Diplomacy a grand alliance must be formed to prevent a solo, and if it is not 'unbreakable', then it will fail. So inserting a rule prohibiting unbreakable alliances is just changing the game too much. Every game is different too, so there's no defining a specific time when alliances can start and finish. Everyone's definition of early and late is going to be different based on their style, perspective, and position in the game.

Ultimately it comes down to integrity and playing under a gentleman's agreement to play all games to win>draw>lose. When everyone is doing that, the game works great with no need for more rules. When players cannot play under these conditions, everyone will see it, and the consensus should be an opinion that asks them not to play again.

Once again I'm sorry for going on and on. It seemed to me that I do want the same things that you do. However, maybe I have misunderstood your intentions from the beginning.

I still remember my first diplomacy games (boardgame and pc-online) where the notion of draw didnt exist, and introduced only when the infrequent draw lines were in effect.