To start off.. I would ask that the nay-sayers stay out of this conversation. My/our goal will not be to take away your right to play the variant of your choice... but to help encourage and play wta games.

I will be back in 3-4 hours to post some thoughts, but wanted to start off this idea in light of the many threads that have the wta-ppsc divide at their root.

So... BoG, chris, fig, DbJ and others... this thread is for us to come to some concensus among us... maybe a code... maybe a ... "League of Extrodinary Diplomacy Players"

Speaking as someone whose standard fare is a WTA at 48 hours, this is still a totally pretentious topic that claims this site's default gametype is not "real" diplomacy and you are being an Extraordinarily Arrogant Diplomacy Player.

Regardless of arrogance, WTA for the win. :D

Oh, and since you have insisted on spelling it incorrectly again, I will spell it out for you: extraordinary, not 'extrodinary'

And on a note towards the topic at hand; personally I believe there are two seperate issues that have been touched on of late.

One is of course the break between PPSC and WTA. I believe that both are valid depending on whose playing. See the heart of 'real' Diplomacy as something far deeper than the methodology of absolute versus measured victory.

The second issue is that of game relationships and playing styles. I do not think that this is inextricably linked to ppsc and wta versions of the game. Some people will be more inclined to cultivate long-term relationships than others. I think the point factor matters less than people think.

Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but I cannot say that point-distribution has a major effect on anything beyond basic cautiousness.

Babak, try to make it into the Masters.

personally, i play ppsc games now, but just to get experience and points, so i can be successful in wta games.

Babak... The World's Biggest Diplomacy Snob.

diploslob! lollllllzzzzz

Sounds like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen -- That movie sucked.

I hear the novel was good though.

Well, as long as Babak is willing to play the bad cop for WTA, I suppose I can be the good cop.

To my mind WTA is clearly the best way to play - it's hard for me to understand why everyone else can't see that. But, there's lots of things I don't understand so I'm not going to sweat it =)

I'll just content myself with looking down my nose at all those who don't think the same way I do. The League of Extraordinary Diplomacy Players sounds like a great way to do that!! (for those of you who need explanation - this paragraph is a joke...)

Also - as long as we're calling out spelling mistakes - it's "separate". =)

I just wish it was easier to get a WTA game going. I think people are afraid to play WTA because they are afraid of losing their points. This site encourages points by posting the hall of fame by point total. It would be better to use ELO or even just winning percentage.

There was recently an article published in another thread about how all games should end in draws, then is there much of a difference between WTA and PPSC?

hmm. Well I say it as 'seperate'. :P But I see.

Jacob
If you promote a WTA game for a while you should have little problem gathering enough players. Its all about the right people noticing.

Yes, precisely, the article is based on a WTA mindset.

In PPSC, the article's premises don't hold.

i always like to play WTA but don't generally like the whole "it's the proper way to play the game" - when i have less games on my plate i'd join in a game you start jacob (or anyone else)

Really, the only difference between the two is that ppsc contains 'official' recognition that there are degrees of losing.

If you make it, they will join.

Don't worry about others not joining in. Frankly, I could care less about the point system. It's just bragging rights.

I wanted to set up a wta game (I agree it is the most natural way to play) but it wouldn't let me. Is there some sort of limit before the choice for scoring is allowed?

You have to have > 100 points

With 1 point, you can't even join a game. Minimum is 5.

i consider wta to be more exciting but not as realistic as ppsc. ppsc is more life-like.

i prefer wta's, but only for the cut-throat-thrill that defines it.

no need to give us a snazzy name, most of us have big enough egos as it is ;)

@jbalcorn
Thanks.

lazy, why is ppsc more 'realistic' than wta?

Because most people don't have the balls to be so cutthroat when it's their life. Most people will take the safer road given the choice, even if the reward isn't quite as good.

WTA is for losers, discuss.

Maniac is a loser.
Therefore, WTA is for Maniac!

I'm glad we discussed this.

LOL, short and sweet as ever. Chris.

Whilst I'm undecided on the whole WTA v PPSC debate and follow these articles for information more than anything else. It seems to me that WTA is for people who want to play a game where they have a much better chance of losing than playing in a PPSC, therefore WTA is for losers, or people who like to lose, perhaps those same people frequent ladies of the night to be beaten with a table tennis bat? (And then proclaim that it is 'real' sex)

hahaha

No, WTA is for gamblers. High risk, high reward.

Do you go out of your way to be provocative?

I mean, I can understand an argument for WTA as a better form of play - I do both - but I can't quite understand the need to call it "real" diplomacy and be dismissive of people who play PPSC. I'm fairly certain any number of so-disposed players are more experienced and skilled than you are.

i don't know - both are fun. i think neither should be banned

WTA doesn't even have to be high risk. You can play in a few low stakes WTA instead of playing in a higher staked PPSC and come out with similar gains or losses. The difference is really the style of play and what the different systems offer as incentives.

To me, the major selling point for WTA is that it encourages the formation of grand alliances to try and force a stalemate against the leader, whereas in PPSC, you're more likely to see vicious land grabs among the minor powers because they see that the end is imminent. Nobody wants to be the sucker in a PPSC clamouring for a grand alliance only to have their land taken from them by their more opportunistic neighbours.

who are you talking to lulz?

That's also true. Babak - what is your goal when you play Diplomacy? Is it fun? Because unless you can convince me that PPSC doesn't provide equal amounts of fun (while I suppose being similarly challenging - which is part of the fun, not a separate issue) I don't really see how one sneers at it.

I'd like arguments about things being "real" or "more true" a bit more if we were talking about art, or music, or philosophy or economics - not a board game.

@DJ - Babak - original poster.

'Real' Diplomaxy would be a terrible title anyway, like 'real' tennis or 'real' IRA - It's a term applied by those who are uncertain of their status and feel the need to bolster their own importance. No offence, btw.