Proportion of PbEM players who play (or have played) FtF

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Grant Flowers wrote:

> A few weeks ago I tried to launch a thread in which people might talk
about
> some of the comic anecdotes they've experienced in FTF games, but met with
> little response. Why is it that the convoy paradox gets so much attention
> from RGD posters but the play of the game itself achieves so little? If I
> were a newbie coming across this newsgroup I'd think it was the most
boring
> game ever created.


Thought we better get this discussion out of the wicked weave of Turing ...

I saw the thread, and would have been sure to comment had I ever played FtF
.... actually that might be part of the point, I wonder how many current
play-by-email players have ever played the game as it was originally
designed by Allan Calhamer?

[There were some good anecdotes posted recently following the DipCon
tournament that drew a smile, IIRC.]

Alastair

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"Alastair Tomlinson" <agtomlinson.nospamplease@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<2g8oggF4t46kU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> Grant Flowers wrote:
>
> > A few weeks ago I tried to launch a thread in which people might talk
> about
> > some of the comic anecdotes they've experienced in FTF games, but met with
> > little response. Why is it that the convoy paradox gets so much attention
> > from RGD posters but the play of the game itself achieves so little? If I
> > were a newbie coming across this newsgroup I'd think it was the most
> boring
> > game ever created.
>
>
> Thought we better get this discussion out of the wicked weave of Turing ...
>
> I saw the thread, and would have been sure to comment had I ever played FtF
> ... actually that might be part of the point, I wonder how many current
> play-by-email players have ever played the game as it was originally
> designed by Allan Calhamer?

Do you mean the 1959 game, or the privately done up earlier versions?
;^)

I played a bunch of FTF in college, but that was 20+ years ago. After
I graduated, it was very difficult to first find 6 other people, and
second, have everyone's RL schedules and availabilities work out. I
am *so* glad that PBEM Diplomacy is around.

But yeah, I have some anecdotes.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

"Alastair Tomlinson" <agtomlinson.nospamplease@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2g8oggF4t46kU1@uni-berlin.de...

> I saw the thread, and would have been sure to comment had I ever played
FtF
> ... actually that might be part of the point, I wonder how many current
> play-by-email players have ever played the game as it was originally
> designed by Allan Calhamer?

I'm going to be showing my age, I guess, but I played The Game face-to-face
long before I'd ever sent an e-mail to anyone. (Although, just to prevent
anyone from getting the wrong idea about my age, that was *not* before I had
used my first computer or written my first computer program!) I also played
by snail mail back when that was the only kind of mail I *could* use.

Somewhere in my basement storage I have a couple of DipCon plaques; I think
I won third place one year (maybe 1983? gosh, when you get to be this old,
your memory starts to go!!!). Well, anyway, if it wasn't third place, at
least it was somewhere in the top seven. ;-)


--
I don't actually read my hotmail account, but you can replace hotmail with
excite if you really want to reach me.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Well, since the topic has been breeched, I thought I'd just throw out my
pitch for face to face diplomacy. I learned Diplomacy in high school, where
I played with a bunch of friends face to face exclusively. That lasted
about a year, until I stopped playing with them because certain individuals
took the game way too personally.

So I discovered PBEM, and that was my only source of play for several years.
Then I discovered the existance of many groups devoted to playing FTF around
the country. I was in Boston at the time, and there wasnt any organized
group there, but there were scattered players in the area. I made some
effort to get it organized, and thanks to the efforts of Jim Burgess,
Melissa Nicholson, and some others in the area, Boston now has a group that
plays at least once a month and has a large annual tournament. Now I'm in
Northern California trying to do the same thing...

But, I digress. My real point is that once I got back into playing FTF
again, I realized how much playing face to face adds to the game. There's
an argument that FTF and PBEM are very different games, and I would agree
with that, with the corrallary that FTF is a much better game My primary
reason for saying so is that in PBEM, with basically no time limitation,
theoretically, anyone (who spends the time) can come up with the best
strategy, best diplomacy letters, and best tactics. But in FTF, the time
limitations force you into choosing you battles, choosing your negotiations,
making split-second decisions. Much more exciting!

I love PBEM, and its often my only chance to play due to time restraints,
but I'll still argue that you can't beat FTF. So for those who haven't
played FTF in a while and are thinking about it, see if there's a group in
your area. If you're in the US on one of the coasts, there probably is, and
there have been more and more groups sprouting up in the middle as well.

-Adam


"David E. Cohen" <david_e_cohen@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f08a3e93.0405100735.978aa4f@posting.google.com...
> "Alastair Tomlinson" <agtomlinson.nospamplease@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:<2g8oggF4t46kU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> > Grant Flowers wrote:
> >
> > > A few weeks ago I tried to launch a thread in which people might talk
> > about
> > > some of the comic anecdotes they've experienced in FTF games, but met
with
> > > little response. Why is it that the convoy paradox gets so much
attention
> > > from RGD posters but the play of the game itself achieves so little?
If I
> > > were a newbie coming across this newsgroup I'd think it was the most
> > boring
> > > game ever created.
> >
> >
> > Thought we better get this discussion out of the wicked weave of Turing
....
> >
> > I saw the thread, and would have been sure to comment had I ever played
FtF
> > ... actually that might be part of the point, I wonder how many current
> > play-by-email players have ever played the game as it was originally
> > designed by Allan Calhamer?
>
> Do you mean the 1959 game, or the privately done up earlier versions?
> ;^)
>
> I played a bunch of FTF in college, but that was 20+ years ago. After
> I graduated, it was very difficult to first find 6 other people, and
> second, have everyone's RL schedules and availabilities work out. I
> am *so* glad that PBEM Diplomacy is around.
>
> But yeah, I have some anecdotes.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Adam P. Silverman wrote:
> Well, since the topic has been breeched, I thought I'd just throw out
> my pitch for face to face diplomacy. I learned Diplomacy in high
> school, where I played with a bunch of friends face to face
> exclusively. That lasted about a year,

> So I discovered PBEM, and that was my only source of play for
> several years. Then I discovered the existence of many groups
> devoted to playing FTF around the country.

> once I got back into playing FTF again, I realized how much
> playing face to face adds to the game. There's an argument that
> FTF and PBEM are very different games,

They are very different games, and yet they are also the same
game played on vastly different timescales. If you played FTF
at work, with moves due at the end of the workday, and 8 hours
(less time spent actually working ) to negotiate, instead of
15 minutes, many of the differences would fade away.

> I would agree with that, with the corollary that FTF is a
> much better game

It's a different game, that requires different skills to succeed
at, but neither version is better than the other.

> My primary reason for saying so is that in PBEM, with
> basically no time limitation, theoretically, anyone (who
> spends the time) can come up with the best strategy,
> best diplomacy letters, and best tactics.

The magic of Diplomacy is that there is almost never a
single best strategy, tactical plan, or a negotiating tact.
Even in the situations where such a plan exists, there is
no guarantee that your opponent won't pick the one
unlikely defense that defeats your attack. That's the
wonder of PBeM, the board is equalized and you
have to play the people much more.

> But in FTF, the time limitations force you into choosing
> you battles, choosing your negotiations, making split-
> second decisions. Much more exciting!

Yes, but it favors those who can think on their feet and
who have the social skills to dominate negotiations in
one way or another. The playing field in PBeM is much
more level.

> for those who haven't played FTF in a while, see if
> there's a group in your area.

I'll whole-heartedly endorse this idea. Check out:
http://www.diplom.org/DipPouch/Face/
http://www.diplom.org/DP-cgi/clubs?area=US
http://www.diplom.org/DP-cgi/informal?area=US

Eric.
--
Endpress
Signoff

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.diplomacy (More info?)

Well, we could argue the merits of PBEM vs. FTF from now till doomsday

Another good source of info for FTF, is:

http://devel.diplom.org/NADF

-Adam


"Eric Hunter" <hunter90@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:QqqdnZE_obCtnD3dRVn-jw@comcast.com...
> Adam P. Silverman wrote:
> > Well, since the topic has been breeched, I thought I'd just throw out
> > my pitch for face to face diplomacy. I learned Diplomacy in high
> > school, where I played with a bunch of friends face to face
> > exclusively. That lasted about a year,
>
> > So I discovered PBEM, and that was my only source of play for
> > several years. Then I discovered the existence of many groups
> > devoted to playing FTF around the country.
>
> > once I got back into playing FTF again, I realized how much
> > playing face to face adds to the game. There's an argument that
> > FTF and PBEM are very different games,
>
> They are very different games, and yet they are also the same
> game played on vastly different timescales. If you played FTF
> at work, with moves due at the end of the workday, and 8 hours
> (less time spent actually working ) to negotiate, instead of
> 15 minutes, many of the differences would fade away.
>
> > I would agree with that, with the corollary that FTF is a
> > much better game
>
> It's a different game, that requires different skills to succeed
> at, but neither version is better than the other.
>
> > My primary reason for saying so is that in PBEM, with
> > basically no time limitation, theoretically, anyone (who
> > spends the time) can come up with the best strategy,
> > best diplomacy letters, and best tactics.
>
> The magic of Diplomacy is that there is almost never a
> single best strategy, tactical plan, or a negotiating tact.
> Even in the situations where such a plan exists, there is
> no guarantee that your opponent won't pick the one
> unlikely defense that defeats your attack. That's the
> wonder of PBeM, the board is equalized and you
> have to play the people much more.
>
> > But in FTF, the time limitations force you into choosing
> > you battles, choosing your negotiations, making split-
> > second decisions. Much more exciting!
>
> Yes, but it favors those who can think on their feet and
> who have the social skills to dominate negotiations in
> one way or another. The playing field in PBeM is much
> more level.
>
> > for those who haven't played FTF in a while, see if
> > there's a group in your area.
>
> I'll whole-heartedly endorse this idea. Check out:
> http://www.diplom.org/DipPouch/Face/
> http://www.diplom.org/DP-cgi/clubs?area=US
> http://www.diplom.org/DP-cgi/informal?area=US
>
> Eric.
> --
> Endpress
> Signoff