"I will stab when it is the best possible course"

Stab smart, stab hard, when it advances your plans sufficiently and when you can hit hard enough to ensure that there will be no retribution.

Seems quite logical to me.

If people want to play a cooperative game, there's tons of awesome games out there that allow everyone to play "against" the game itself and win as a group. Diplomacy....is not one of those. I agree with Skyrock 100%.

Oh, cooperation is very important in Dippy, especially in the early and mid game. But you need to be ruthless enough to know when an ally has become a liability or prey, or simply an obstacle on the way to 18 centers, and act accordingly.

Learn from the Fat Man in Maltese Falcon:

"Well, Wilmer, I'm sorry indeed to lose you, but I want you to know I couldn't be fonder of you if you were my own son.

Well, if you lose a son, it's possible to get another. There's only one Maltese falcon."

I'm interested in hearing from people who say, "I never stab people."

One of the things I love about Diplomacy is the flexibility. You can play to solo. You can play to get as many centers as possible. You can play to draw with good allies. At some point in a game you may begin playing to destroy another power. Really cool aspect of the game.

This is apart from any scouring system. I don't mean to open that can of worms again.

Everyone should play to win every game. Obviously that's impossible to do. But the game doesn't function right if players don't try to win. Then what happens is players fall into playing with, and partnering with their friends all the time. That presents a problem. I play the game with good friends that I've had for decades and share beers and personal details with, but I'd push them off a cliff in a Dip game for a win. I play the game with people I personally detest, but I'll work side by side with them to stop a solo. If you cannot play the game for what it is, you're doing it all wrong.

I don't fully agree with you, Ruff. I myself play to win. But I find it very intriguing that some people do not. I think it brings a whole other aspect to the game that exists in few other places.

I disagree that playing to win is the only correct way to play. It may be "wrong" not to play for the win, but I think it adds an interesting dimension. A game may not function "right" if some players don't play to win, but it can still be enjoyable for all parties. Because that is really the point of playing a game, having fun, not winning. I'll concede that winning is fun, but sometimes to win is simply not a priority, and a player who does not play to win is not wrong for doing it.

I will also concede that games where everyone has the same objective, and that objective is to win, are more enjoyable for me personally....most of the time.

What an odd question. Its like asking "Are you in favor of agreeing to bounce in province X". The answer is completely dependent on the ingame situation.

The question was asked in response to people in games who claim they never stab people. They detached the question from the game situation first.

Also, would you not ask a question much like your Ad Absurdum example when discussing opening strategies for certain powers? For example, "Are you in favor of agreeing to bounce in Galicia(Black Sea, Burgundy, etc)?" Is that completely dependent on the game situation? Are there not openings demonstrably better for certain powers? Are there not actions demonstrably better for everyone? And yes there are always going to be situations that do not fit with a specific question, everything has exceptions. But is my question really that odd? Is it really completely dependent on the game situation? I think not.

There's not an answer that exactly points to my view on this? I chose when it's in my best interests to do so because I guess that's the closest.

I'll almost always stab if I can see a solo opportunity that isn't too risky (risky as in would open me up to someone else soloing easily through a throw). I don't stab to thin the draw anywhere near as often, especially if it's someone I've enjoyed playing with.

@Captainmeme.

I think that answer does fit your preference. You don't think stabbing to thin the draw or when someone else can solo is in your best interests. Some would say that thinning the draw is in their best interest, you don't. So that answer fits your preference.

It is completely dependent on the game situation for me. I think that answers the other question too. LOL

What did you eat for breakfast?

Could I say l don't stab if kept my fingers crossed at all times. Or is that against the spirit of the question?

I would say that's against the spirit of the question.

For breakfast? Raw meat. ;)

Maybe this weekend you did, but isn't it entirely dependent on the game situation?

I feel like there’s a tendency on this site and webdip lately to play for a draw, and I think that’s the wrong approach. A draw should be forced, not freely given. The only situation in which I willingly draw is when an NMR or other circumstance affects the game and I don’t feel good going for the solo, or if I’m the weaker power and doing it out of self-interest

I blame WTA scoring. People are too scared to play for the win with WTA scoring.

"I blame WTA scoring. People are too scared to play for the win with WTA scoring."

That's actually the entire point of the game. You're supposed to be scared to try, but you have to try. Points are the problem, but it's PPSC that fucks it up.

What's so absolutely terrible about playing a game for the fun of it?

If their idea of fun is different from your idea of fun, and they are playing with you.

That's a fair point.

I'm with you Captain, and I also have no problem with people who play the game for fun. Mercy, mon brave, brilliant a player as you are, I don't have to adhere to your view. David E. Cohen I find myself entirely agreeing with you (without the LOL)... a first!

We're all playing the game for fun, people. How arrogant is is to suggest that only your way of fun is the right way. And yet in the comment I read above I see this projection of that very arrogance upon those playing the game by the spirit and intent of it's design. I suppose if you want to play soccer and say that goals from outside the penalty area count as two points, and goals scored by a goalkeeper count for three points instead of one, some people would call that fun... And maybe that is fun, but it's no longer soccer.

Mystified... after all that's what this site is all about.

Well, Chumbles, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. ;)