
The Board Game of the Alpha Nerds (2014) - Tomte
http://grantland.com/features/diplomacy-the-board-game-of-the-alpha-nerds/
======
jashper
The world championships are this weekend www.ptks.org/wdc2018/

I’m currently here (it’s the last day), and I wasn’t quite sure what to expect
with it being my first time playing in a large tournament— but I have to say
it was pretty damn fun. The face to face hobby is definitely alive and well.
If you enjoy strategy games, and have a bit of a masochistic bent, you’ll get
along just fine.

Definitely would recommend you get some experience under your belt beforehand,
to get a feel for general strategy and tactics. If you want to join the major
discussion channels online to find some good games, hit me up and I’ll invite
you.

------
IggleSniggle
I absolutely loved this game in high school. It’s very special, in that it’s
primary mechanic is real world relationships placed into a tactical context.
The downside is that it pulls real world relationships into a simulated zero-
sum environment where the game ends but the relationships persist.

I’ve never played any game quite like it.

Unfortunately, I can’t think of a situation in which I would ever play it
again, because when played well it will almost certain damage relationships,
and when played poorly it’s just sort of a disappointment.

This may be my favorite game of all time, and I don’t think I’ll ever play it
again.

~~~
cableshaft
I've been brutally betrayed twice in Diplomacy. I'm still good friends with
those people. It's only a game. If you can't separate player's behavior in the
context of a game with who they are outside of it, then maybe board games is
not the hobby for you, or at least not social/negotiation board games, which
are very common in recent years.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Games are supposed to be fun. A lot of people don't find lying, manipulating,
and betraying fun, in any context. That's not a psychological failing, and it
certainly doesn't mean you should avoid board games. There's plenty of
socially competitive board games, but damn few of them are half as vicious as
Diplomacy.

If you and your friends can enjoy Diplomacy, that's great! But I do get tired
of all the people insinuating that there's something wrong with me I don't
like it.

~~~
cableshaft
Personally I'm pretty burnt out on all those social games myself. I'd rather
just play a 2 player abstract nowadays, like the GIPF series. Please don't
take what I said in my original post as a scathing indictment or that there's
something wrong with you. I get along with most people and I'm sure I'd have
no issues playing with you at a game night.

There are certain personality types that tend to lead to negative experiences
in gaming, though, and being a poor sport is one of those, and I do try to
avoid gaming with those people when I can.

------
gabrielmoshe
It's been a while now, but a group of seven of us would very occasionally set
aside an entire Saturday to play Diplomacy. While online and play by mail have
their own flavors, the tension and negotiation strategies while face to face
have a character unlike any other board game I've played.

Between sets of moves, groups of people would scatter to different corners of
the house for hushed discussions, and unlike online play, you could make a
decision based on who you saw talking to whom. With a large board on a dining
room table, it felt like being in a war room with all of Europe at stake.

All in all, it is an extremely compelling game with strategy in both moves and
alliances leaking from all seams.

[0] [http://www.diplomacy-
archive.com/resources/strategy.htm](http://www.diplomacy-
archive.com/resources/strategy.htm)

------
danielvf
You can play online if you have ever wanted to give it a try. It’s probably
the best way to learn, since you can take your time communicating and planning
your next moves.

Diplomacy is probably the emotionally hardest game I’ve ever played. It feels
bad when people betray you, it feels bad when people utterly outsmart you, and
after this happens to you (on say, turn two) you still have a couple hours in
person to play, or a couple more weeks in person. You have immediately roll
with the new situation, try to get help from previous enemies, and keep going
with loosing your cool or your will to fight.

[0] [https://www.playdiplomacy.com](https://www.playdiplomacy.com)

~~~
acomjean
>it feels bad

Even when you win it’s not great because chances are you did something shady
and your friends are mad at you. This might explain why I haven’t played/
thought about this game in 30 years.

I like board games (competetive and co-op) but have no desire to play this
again.

~~~
fenwick67
This is the same problem I have playing Risk.

I don't enjoy deceiving my friends and having them deceive me. It's hard for
me to understand what kind of person enjoys basically trying to manipulate
other people for sport.

~~~
monadgonad
> It's hard for me to understand what kind of person enjoys basically trying
> to manipulate other people for sport.

Your question contains the answer: it’s _for sport_. Sport and games are a
place we can play out desires we’d never want to in real life. Tons of gamers
like to pretend they’re shooting people. Strategy gamers orchestrate war and
genocide. In sport, boxers pummel each other to unconsciousness, and many
boxers are lovely people.

~~~
fenwick67
You're not pretending to manipulate though, you're actually doing it. There's
a massive difference between deceiving an NPC in D&D and actually manipulating
your friends to win at Risk. This is what makes it uncomfortable for me.

------
Sodman
Shout out to subterfuge, another great diplomacy/strategy game involving
inevitable betrayal. Takes about 7-10 days to finish a game.
[http://subterfuge-game.com](http://subterfuge-game.com) (mobile only)

~~~
azernik
Another related game is the Game of Thrones board game - very similar to
Diplomacy mechanically but tuned to shorter game lengths (on the order of 2-4
hours).

[https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/103343/game-thrones-
boar...](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/103343/game-thrones-board-game-
second-edition)

------
fjsolwmv
This American Life did an article about the writing of this article.

[https://www.thisamericanlife.org/531/got-your-
back](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/531/got-your-back)

------
forkandwait
I think the turn sequence in Diplomacy is actually the genius of it, and I am
surprised it isn't incorporated into more boardgames.

------
milesskorpen
I college, I'd do 18 player games on a world map. Definitely changed your
impression of people, particularly when you'd only vaguely know them otherwise
- but it also got you into long-term close contact (these games were a turn a
week, and would last for ~18 months before a winner was obvious).

~~~
jack_jennings
Which variant map did you play? I have seen a few world maps but hard to see
the potential balance issues without playing a few rounds…

~~~
milesskorpen
We did two games. One used
[http://www.variantbank.org/results/rules/i/imperial2.htm](http://www.variantbank.org/results/rules/i/imperial2.htm)

------
kstenerud
What's interesting is how the macro-cooperation game gets completely ignored
by so many people when they play a game like this. If you're never going to
interact with someone again, then betrayal has no long term consequences, but
if it's someone you plan to continue a relationship with in real life, then
betrayal, even if it's "just a game", will damage that relationship, possibly
terminally so.

It's almost like our instinctive zero-sum behaviors short-circuit our higher
reasoning just enough in this simulated environment to suppress thought of the
long term real-world relational consequences of our actions.

~~~
whack
> _if it 's someone you plan to continue a relationship with in real life,
> then betrayal, even if it's "just a game", will damage that relationship,
> possibly terminally so._

Do you also hold it against someone in real life, if they bluff you while
playing poker?

What you're saying might be true as a descriptive statement - many people
can't separate gameplay from reality. But betrayal is a key mechanic that's
designed into the fabric of the game, and I would encourage everyone not judge
someone for using a intentionally designed feature in the game.

~~~
sanderjd
A poker "bluff" has always seemed poorly named to me. You aren't making any
claims about your hand either way, you're just making bets. So a "bluff" is
actually just the _other_ players guessing wrong at what you're holding.

~~~
fjsolwmv
That's an overly reductive view of poker that misses the point of the game. If
a high bid isn't an implied threat of high cards, what is it? Bidding is
correlated to hand strength and player stacks, so a bid is a statement about
your hand and the game, albeit a fuzzy one.

------
DanceScholar
Top board for WDC live updated at
[https://www.backstabbr.com/sandbox/5978906570522624](https://www.backstabbr.com/sandbox/5978906570522624)

------
bhickey
This is a trip down memory lane. Back at HuskyCon 2009 I was on a board with
Brian Ecton. When it was my turn to read orders, he stepped away from the
board for a smoke. Since he was gone I made up new orders for his fleets. Boy
was he livid when he got back.

Unfortunately it seems like the face to face hobby is aging out. The last
decade has seen several luminaries of Diplomacy retire from the game or pass
away.

~~~
polynomial
> Since he was gone I made up new orders for his fleets.

How does that work?

~~~
hirsin
Cheating, to be blunt. The person reading out the orders (OP) decided to
ignore what was written on the paper and make up something. Difficult to pull
off though - in every game I've played the written moves are shown to
everyone, just to make it easier to keep track of who's doing what.

~~~
bhickey
Yep, in some circles the prevailing law is that cheating is fine until you get
caught. The issue here is that Brian walked away from the board while orders
were being read. No one has a responsibility to make sure your orders are
adjudicated correctly.

------
dbmikus
I play Diplomacy online with a group of friends, where we normally have a turn
lasting 2 days. We need to do this sparingly, though, because invariably we
all end up spending huge portions of our workdays messaging each other and
plotting instead of actually getting anything done.

------
dang
Discussed at the time:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7913183](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7913183)

------
karmakaze
We used to play this at work with weekly turns. There was a lot of scheming
throughout the week leading up to each turn day. I even learned the OS/2
display list (retained graphics api, forget the name) to make an interactive
Diplomacy game reference map that lived on the LAN. Good times. Don't recall
any friendships being ended.

------
scarejunba
The experiences of individuals playing this remind me of when we got first an
8 man and then a 16 or 24 man game or something and it was quite an
experience. The two weeks we played this at work were probably hundreds of
thousands of dollars in productivity lost.

~~~
scarejunba
I didn't even mention the game it was similar to. Incredible mistake.

The games were of Neptune's Pride.

------
jaypeg25
I have this game but I've never been able to play, because I've never been
able to find willing players. One day...

------
Rainymood
How long does a game of diplomacy usually last? Does someone often win?

~~~
tonypace
It's unusual for someone to win outright in my experience. But the presence of
an outright victory condition affects player behavior.

~~~
protomyth
It depends on the group attitude. There are a lot of people who keep alliances
until the end then call draws. In a lot of ways this is a behavior that earns
points for next time someone plays (e.g. That person will keep their word). On
the other hand, there are groups that treat it as a winner-take-all game and
play to win. It really depends on which group you get in with.

You'll probably know about a group victory in a short period of time (under
four hours if you use a turn clock[edit]5 or ten minute turns[edit]), but it
will be a long night with the must have a winner group. Most in a concede.

Colonial Diplomacy is faster and really, really brutal.

------
dave_sid
What’s the difference between a nerd and a geek? Are they the same?

~~~
harimau777
My understanding is that a nerd is someone who is very intelligent or involved
in pursuits associated with intelligence like academia, science, or
programming. A geek is someone with an extreme interest in something like pop
culture or science fiction.

------
andrewstuart
Diplomacy breaks up relationships.

~~~
tonypace
This needs unpacking, because it's true but not very complete. Diplomacy is
correlated to human behavior that causes people to reevaluate relationships.
This pattern is not caused by losing players being unable to take a game as a
game. It's having a game reveal real-life patterns of manipulation and
deception that ends relationships.

That said, I do recommend a game with your friends.

------
mindgam3
Apologies in advance if this is somewhat off topic, but I have some pushback
against the title of this post.

No disrespect to Diplomacy, I think it's a great game. However I would
respectfully submit that chess might have a stronger claim to being "the board
game of the alpha nerds". (Or go, arguably, in the eastern world. But despite
go's supremacy in terms of complexity, it hasn't captured the world's
imagination like chess has.)

There's a reason why chess scenes always pop up in movies and literature
featuring, e.g. criminal masterminds vs Sherlock, or the venerable doctor
teaching strategy to the protégé. The reason is, chess (rightfully or not) is
universally recognized as the quintessential game symbolizing human
intelligence.

In my opinion as a former competitive chess player, chess skill actually _isn
't_ correlated with general intelligence, in the sense that if you're smart
enough to get good at chess, at some point you realize that there are more
worthwhile things to be doing with your time. But that's neither here nor
there.

My main argument is that if we did a vote among all the world's "alpha nerds"
to determine who is the alpha-est and nerdiest of us all, I suspect that
current world chess champion Magnus Carlsen might place higher than any of
these Diplomacy masters. I have no idea how this survey methodology would work
(could anyone declare themselves an alpha nerd, or would they need to be
confirmed by other nerds with official titles in nerdy activities?), but you
get my point.

~~~
fjsolwmv
"Alpha nerds" as a term is unhelpful and distracting.

~~~
eeZah7Ux
To say the least. This concept of "alpha" humans has no basis in psychology,
biology and anthropology.

It implies that humans are evolved to live in a hierarchical and purely
competitive society which is known to be false (not only for us but for many
mammals). Humans are not insect nor lobsters.

There are various books from prof.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sapolsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sapolsky)
and youtube videos with good analysis of social behavior in primates including
humans.

