its fine to encounter players in non anon games, but you should start every game fresh. however, u will obviously have learnt things about the playing style of others and that gives you an advantage. anon games are best for pure play.

Halt - Let game.conditions decide. If all things are equal, then use your gut (i.e. a bit of subconcious knowledge) to come into play. But if you are going to ally with someone to crush a buffer neighbor then you suck at playing this game. Each game is different and position is everything in making alliances.

"When I do reach such a situation, I point it out to them and generally develop ties with them. "

If you say anything along the lines of, "hey we are allies in this game, ally with me here or I will stab you in that other game", then you are metagaming. The diplomacy/press in one game MUST stay in that game only.


"If the two of us join a game together after becoming acquainted, and I choose to seek him out as an ally because I feel it would benefit me in game, would that be Metagaming?"

This comes very close to severe/punishable metagaming. If you two are joining a game with the understanding that you will ally regardless of what your neighbors say to you then yes, it is metagaming and is not allowed.


"How about if I feel more inclined towards allying with a player I've played with as opposed to one I haven't because I have an idea of his playstyle and "stab" probability? "

Technically this is metagaming as well, but is fairly common and hard to avoid outside of anonymous games. As long as you keep an open mind about everyone in the game you are probably alright. Keep in mind though, only allying with people you know can severely hurt your own chances and limits your diplomatic options.

Please ask any additional questions here or send them to [email protected]

-WebDiplomacy Admin

Halt: Simply knowing about another player's history and playing style (and taking that into account) is not a problem, if that is what you meant to ask. Some players here spend a lot of time looking at their opponents' game history. I think you can also point out to somebody: 'Hey, I think we've met before, haven't we?'

But of course their are some clear limits. Entering a game with another player on the understanding that you will cooperate is not permitted. Entering a game with an out-of-site relative or friend without introducing that fact in your game is usually not permitted, and definitely frowned upon. Communicating with another player through communication means that are outside the site is only permitted if the game both has unrestricted press and is not anonymous. Diplomacy in two ongoing games between players in both games is not allowed under any circumstances (though I suppose a tournament or set of private games explicitly revolving around this sort of metagaming would be allowed; I don't know if there are or have ever been any).

A mod can correct/clarify what I've said.

There was someone who got banned for Metagaming the other day... What did he do?

@JECE, that is about what I said, and essentially correct. It doesn't have to be a real life friend though, if you cannot play fairly against someone you've met on the site then you should avoid them too. Say for example I knew that if I joined a game with Yebellz (who I don't know outside of the site) I would ally with him because we get along, that would be metagaming, and isn't allowed. Metagaming is not allowed in tournaments either.

Although metagaming for league position is as long as it is kept in the league. Even in the leagues there is unacceptable metagaming (like being in a league with a friend and agreeing to ally with them in all four games).

jmo1121109: Right, I know metagaming is not allowed in tournaments (or at least none of what either you or I mentioned is allowed.) But I suppose a creative soul could recruit 6 players to play three ongoing non-anonymous games for an 'alternate dimension challenge', where victory is reached by adding up player's performances in each game. Cross-game alliances could be officially allowed by the creator of such a challenge during the pre-game preparations, right?

But to your former point, does to "get along" only refer to out-of-Diplomacy 'getting along', as a friendship on the forum or through private messages? The only difference I see between encountering somebody multiple times who rarely stabs and reading through the records of their games to see how likely they are to stab is that you don't have to go through so much trouble if you've already met whomever you are investigating.

@JECE - You just described the leagues. :-)

@Draugnar - Uhh how would you suggest I play then? I thought the general opening strategy was to grab. neutral supply centers the ally with someone to crush another (I.e. England and Germany va France)

Thanks to Everyone that responded! I'll definitely keep what you've said in mind. This cleared up my recent moral (well, more as far as diplomacy can go) dilemma regarding allying. I was actually scared I'd never be allowed to ally with a player more than once in any set of games! (which, admittedly, seems silly to me now. Hindsight eh?)

Not sure I understand the league part although I'll cross that bridge when I decide to participate in the next league.

On a parting note: Merry Christmas to all!

@Halt… you can have friends on the site. You can play passworded games with people that you know. You just can't receive outside influences on your moves from other people (i.e you can't work with a player in game A because you were friends with them from game B). If you have friends from school or work or wherever, just let the mods know if you're playing with them, and make sure the people you're playing with are okay with you playing together. All pretty much said already, but hey, I've got finger workouts to finish up.

@Halt - I should clarify what I mean by a buffer neighbor. It isn't justca neighbor, but one who is keeping.you safe from aomeone else and quite ppssibly stopping the someone else from soloing. If you let friendship get in the way and help your friend get the solo, then you don't understand he game. The order of Diplomacy: Win. If you can't do that, stop the solo by forcing a draw. If you can't do that, influence the game by screwing the assholes who screwed you. That is the one and only situation in which helping the solo is acceptable - screwing those who are hell bent on destroying you.

Ohh! Well yes, I am rather familiar with the so called "goals" of Diplomacy. I would rather participate in a Draw then let someone else Solo so I doubt I'd attack a buffer state.

@Halt: You start a game. You have played with some of the players before (or are playing with them simultaneously). You ally with one of them. Stop. Ask yourself: "Why am I allying with this player?"

If your answer is "Because of moves and communications that have occurred in this game," then you are fine.

If your answer is "Because I've played with this player before (or seen this player play before), and based on my understanding of his personality and play style I think he will make a good ally _in the current situation in this game_" is borderline, but generally acceptable in non-anonymous games. Not to say that this is necessarily a good strategy, as players can and will change their style and tactics between games just to throw off those who try this.

If your answer is "Because we made a deal in another game / over PMs / in real life to ally with each other," then that is clearly metagaming. You are making a deal for reasons that are completely outside of the current game.

In short, you are allowed to bring in your personal knowledge of other players into the same way that you are allowed to bring in your personal experiences with the game itself. The second time you play Austria, for example, you are free to utilize the lessons learned from the first time you played Austria. But this knowledge must be utilized in the context of the game you are playing. If Johnny has a reputation for always stabbing during a Lepanto, then you might want to be careful about entering a Lepanto with Johnny. But you can't make a deal with Johnny where he doesn't stab you in said Lepanto, in exchange for you DMZing the Black Sea in that other game you're playing together.

There's also the situation where you decide not to ally with a player or even decide to ally against a player for some out-of-this-game reason. That too is metagaming.

It's impossible to avoid metagaming. You can't simply chooose to forget or ignore your prior experiences with a player. Too try and say that is forbidden is not only unenforcable, it's an impossible rule not to break, and that's why anonymous games are great.

Of ccourse, going into the game with an agreement to work together or trading a favor in one game isn't allowed, but I can even argue that it can be an effective iplomatic tool. If I promise to support a player into a center in another game if he supports me into one in this game, who's to say I'm actually going to do it? Of course, I wouldd then have to weigh the conssequences of that action, as the person I sccrewed over owould probably have it out for me in the future (which would also be metaga,ing).

It's a complicaated topic, for sure, and it's haard to define an exact line that's not ok to cross. In a lot of ways, diplomacy is a game of feeling andd emotions, and it's not always possible (or smart) to simply tune them out.

Skittles - I think I agree with you there about meta-gaming, it is a very tricky one, I see it all the time in full press games and you'll never stop it, that's why I play Anon gunboats, and that is really annoying when people do it in them games.
When I play in full press after about 5 years everyone is looking to draw, if some people get a 3 or 4 way draw they are happy regardless of whether a solo is possible or not. Maybe in War as in life sometimes a draw is also a good result.

Skittles - Yes metagaming is impossible to avoid in non-anon games with people you know even just through the site. But the point is that making cross game deals or entering.into pre-game arrangements or even planning to fight over a forum grudge is against the rules. The mods have said as much and we should respect that as the rules of the site. But to me, the real key, is to not make a stupid alliance or war decision that isn't what is best for the position I am in or that isn't driven by emotions derived outside of the game.

Draug - I agree with you 100% but I also think there are a lot of people who are incapable of doing what you suggested and therein lies the problem

It isn't a problem at all. Complain to a mod. Let the mods conduct their interviews and issue their warnings, eventually banning the asshole.for not being able to separate out of game disagreements orbfriendships from game dynamics.

http://cheezburger.com/6925118720

I recently joined the leagues as a stand in and was very surprised when, following a stab, I received a mesage along the lines of ''that was a silly thing to do when there are still three games to play''. Is this par for the course? If so, is it ok with the mods?

@ful - It is a part of the leagues and is fine with the league director who happens to be a mod now I believe. Playing for position and remembering from game to game is part of the leagues and what sets them apart from other tournaments.

Jamie, why are you posting the cheeseburger link on every thread?

It's a different link for each thread, Philcore, with a different image/caption depending on the thread. Plus I was bored.