Both definitions are in relation to PHPDip.

meta-game: the use of other games, future or present, as a bargaining chip in negotiating or in formulating strategy. Therefore regarding the entire site, and one's standing therein, as the game itself.

purism: an insistence to treat this site exactly as if it were the board game.

Thank you, Edi. Your views and comments on board game culture are always worth noting.

Well actually I think many players played the leagues specifically with the metagame in mind. I thought this was what made them special. When the first started I posted a couple of rants where I showed that the usual problems associated with metagaming didn't apply to simple cross-board play in a series for games all with the same people. It's simply another realm of Diplomacy and equally as prone to betrayal as in-board play. It makes the later games extremely suspenseful.

Normally I'm a vehement opponent of metagaming, but I do know that in my league group at least, metagaming was a huge part of the diplomatic procedure and made up for some very interesting play.

I think the difference between normal metagaming and league metagaming is that in the league we are all on even ground.

We get to know each other from playing all these games together, and we know that there are consequences to backstabbing someone in a given game.

A cross-game alliance can, and will, be countered a another cross game alliance.

I think the presence of meta-gaming is inevitable in the leagues, I just didn't realize the extent. Going into the league, I figured I'd probably make considerations of how to proceed based on how the league was playing out (who was winning/losing), but I didn't realize there would be blatant conversations about it, which is more of a reflection of my ignorance than anything else, and I have since modified my approach to the topic. Anyway, in game four of our league I was a bit surprised when one other player told me he had been lying to me for several seasons (in game four) and never even considered working with me (in game four) based on the league standings... One player in our league makes a habit of repeated, lengthy and over-elaborate lies ever game, so I kind of figured that was an anomaly (and/or not related to metagaming), but the admission of this second guy finally got me to wake up and realize how embedded metagaming is in league play...

As far as metagaming in league play, I can understand how that is an acceptable and/or inevitable part of the league, but it has been suggested to me by a very highly ranked player (not someone in my league), that there is a bit of a "good ol' boy" network on this site. He suggested that some of the people that have been around longer have a tendancy to gang up on newer players that tend to be a bit "too" aggressive and, because of this form of metagaming, he had to adjust his style of play for this website if he did not want to be repeatedly ganged up on. That also took me a bit by surprise, but again, my ignorance is hard to hide on these matters... and, Edi, I'm not just talking about cases when two people team up and get an early lead!! ;-)

I'm not exactly sure what the whole purism question really means, but if you scoff at the metagame, as is/was my tendency, don't be too surprised if/when you get eliminated quickly!!

I am very much against the meta-gaming that is occurring in the league games. That said, I've become a pragmatist about it so can't claim that I'm completely clean.

Metagaming can happen in F2F games as well, so I wouldn't say there is any purism to F2F. I'm sure (although I've never been) that the regulars at WorldDipCon metagame in the tournaments there trying to maneuver for position. Heck,, as has been pointed out, it provides another level of Diplomacy and even more risk to the stab in the cross-gaming area.

Whilst I'm not in the leagues, I'm really thinking about joining the next set, so I must say I'm interested in how it goes. Surely, if they are to be run as a league then arguably any cross-board action should be banned. However, if they are run as a single elaborate game then it's rather a different case. Personally I'd like them all to be independant.
I have to agree about the 'old-boy' mentality, and its a difficult thing to deal with. I think that with very new players it is understandable, because the number of drop-outs can make alliances almost untenable, but in a game where the players have shown their respectable players (even if not particularly good) then I don't think it's a fair thing to do.
How to combat it however, well, I don't know...

To let people know where I stand and have stood:

This season, I have allowed different groups to sort of agree their own "unwritten rules". Group C I believe has seen cross board gaming, whilst I would gambit that the other leagues have seen tall poppy syndrome based play.

Next season I shall say that cross board gaming is not allowable, but playing to win the league in terms of who is leading etc. cannot be made illegal as that would be totally unenforceable, really.

I'd be less quick to judge. Look at me and Chrispee. We're on opposite sides of the metagaming in Group C, and both of us see it as a natural thing and not something to be changed.

Besides, what's the difference between crossboarding and playing to win the leagues?

It's a very blurry one, at the least.

Well, there are two reasons for my distinction:

1. It dramatically changes the nature of the game. Essentially it becomes a variant, rather than an elite.

2. It could result in 4 players monopolising the premier league, or some similar effect.

Atleast in Group D the play has generally revolved around positioning oneself against the leaders. Things have been generally close and I think Darwyn in particular has suffered from having "tall poppy" cut down.

That being said, we came to an agreement that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. I myself sortof implied that I couldn't play aggressively in one game because of a strong alliance against me in the other (thus implying that maybe if that alliance didn't exist... you see where that leads). But we have since made an attempt to try to keep that sort of thing unspoken, and the only meta-gaming concerns league standings.

I call it the tall poppy syndrome. It is inevitable that if you introduce a league system that people are going to look at who is at the top and say 'We'd better take him down - he's going to win'. By doing that, they improve their chances of winning.

The player Madmarx refers to as making repeated over lengthy and elaborate lies is me. I don't really want to get in a discussion whilst games are ongoing, but he brought it up :P The justification I would employ is that of the above tall poppy syndrome. You look at the table, and make decisions based on that. Diplomacy is all about lying and subterfuge, whether you are playing in a league or not. What I haven't been good enough at is hiding it. Every player lies, tries to conceal their thoughts and so on - they should not be castigated for it. As for me doing it in every game, well the first game was co-incidental - I was trying to get a good result for myself. After that, I got taken out in the next couple of games so didn't have a chance to lie at all - Madmarx being the one taking me out!

There perhaps is a misconception that I have allied always with one player against another. That is not true - in a couple of cases it is simply that the same player happened to be next to me by coincidence, and in the best position to jointly take out the leader. If another player had been by me, I would have done exactly the same thing.

I do not make decisions or agreements in one game to help me or another person in a second game. That is cross-board gaming. What I do consider fair and above board is looking at the league table and deciding how best to move myself up it. If that means creating an alliance to cut down the leader, then so be it. It is obviously something that has cropped up in other leagues (D for example).

@figle - there is no way you can make the leagues, set up as they are, a series of independent games. The fact that you introduce points into it means people will always look at the table and base their decisions upon that.

Actually I quite enjoyed the metagaming in the game because it creates a whole new level of diplomacy, and yes, it's just another arena in which you can be betrayed. >=D

My normal qualms of metagaming are gone in league play because nobody is at an inherent disadvantage. I would say that cross-season metagaming should not be allowed because of the promotion/demotion.

@dangermouse, hey... you and Xapi started it! ; )

@TheGhostmaker
1. This isn't necessarily bad. It definitely spiced up the league experience for me and was a major reason why most people in my group were all for playing the 5th game to see where the metagame would end.

2. I did consider this and it was the one disadvantage that I saw. However, it shouldn't be a big problem as long as there's a large enough drive to win. The four person cartel won't hold if they each want to win.

I agree with Chrispminis and cgwhite32. Cross-board gaming is a bad thing and I even can't see any reason for it in the league. Playing to win the group, not only a separate games, is sometimes very interesting and sometimes very boring, however it's inevitable first of all. If we want to prevent it, we would have to play anonymously, with different IDs in every game.

Marek, are you sure you agree with me? Because in the case of the leagues I'm actually for cross-board gaming...

Can I be the devil here and suggest that in the light of the above I hereby renounce all metagaming activities in Group C?

Lovely word 'suggest'...

I think the cross board alliances are a natural and inevitable part of the League - and it is in order to try to influence who wins overall. I think the games should be seen as connected from the start. There is a lot of positioning in the earlier games and the fifth one is set up very nicely for a stab or two.

I think we can adjust the rules (on an honour basis) if that will stop metagaming that keeps a select group in the top League group, but otherwise I think it is acceptable.

Actually I have a question about the league. Does the top player from each group move to the highest league next season? Or will you take the top 7 players from all groups combined?

Thank you, everybody, for weighing in on this. I have been swamped at work, so I have not answered my own three questions from the beginning.

1. Yes, it's presence is obviously f@#*&#g inevitable in the leagues. Sorry. Stupid question.
2. I'm going to throw everybody a curve-ball here, I think, and say yes, it is an acceptable strategy in the leagues. That is why the leagues exist. In fact, you could substitute the word meta-game for league, and lose nothing in the translation. I am playing in Meta-Game F -Game 5 right now(not for long). See what I mean?
I hate it in regular, non-league, play though.
3. It is not purism to scoff at meta-game because meta-game does exist in F2F play. I remember going to play Diplomacy in grade seven with my friend, and we would ALWAYS team up, when it made sense geographically. We were friends. We did everything together. Some of you have also given examples of meta-game in F2F play. Having said that, I generally do not care for it(meta-game), as an adult.

In group D we agreed and (as far as I'm aware) have stuck to the principle that you can discuss moves with reference to the overall league standings e.g. if we both stick together in this game then we can both move up the league table.

But NOT detailed moves across mutiplies games e.g. once I see that you stab player A in game 4; then i will join you in stabbing player B in game 5.

There is a clearly a fine line, but I think we have struck the right balance in Group D at least.

Ah, but have you finished Game Five yet? ; )

I would have to agree with all of you who have said meta-gaming is inevitable in league play. Not in the sense that you make unbreakable alliances based on friendships or deals that you make in other games (i.e. making a concession in one game for the sole purpose of benefiting you in another league game), but rather that you would naturally try to eliminate a player that has the lead in points in the league.

I can't claim to be an expert on this topic, as I have only participated in the last two games in my league group, but I can admit to the fact that I would make sure I ally against the player who has the league lead in both of those existing games. It's something that occurs all over sporting and gaming events. Naturally you want to beat the person you are chasing for the supremacy of your group because that gives you a leg up on them for the next contest, being relegation or a berth in the Premier League in this case.

That all being said, I thoroughly enjoy the new dimension it brings into games. You have to formulate a game plan based upon the apparent results of all the other games, making things that much more complex and challenging. Also, as was mentioned before, you have to be wary of stabs not only for territories that could be gained from you, but also for reasons pertaining to league standings, which makes things exponentially more complex on a diplomatic level. You need to use your diplomatic savvy that much more, because you're not only convincing people of the benefits of strategy on a game-by-game basis, but rather making people believe that a strategy in an individual game would be beneficial to them in the entire great scheme of things in your league.

All-in-all, a wonderful experience for me, stimulating and challenging beyond anything else I have experienced so far on this site. I will most definitely continue to participate in league play after this season is over, as it is the best caliber of Diplomacy you could play (at least on this site)!!

I'm sure you'll see comparable play in the next round of the GFDT as well! Maybe we should start some Masterminds+ games as the events start to unwind a little? Those were always promising.

I've said it like four times already this thread, but I have to say it at least once more. The metagaming aspect of league play was probably the most stimulating part of the leagues and made the concept of playing five whole games with the same players so much more practical and enjoyable. I would be sad to lose such a crucial element that really shaped the play in group C.

That's if I make it to the next round of the GFDT :S!!

Chris, I think I agree with you but I'm not absolutely sure :-) By cross-board gaming I mean e.g. an offer: "I'll help you win here, you'll help me win there." This wouldn't be acceptable for me, unless explicitly accepted by all players before the game. On the other hand, helping the weakest player of a group to win a game that I can't win myself, is OK for me.