Trashdome - Diplomacy VS Borderlands

"Although you should be familiar with both games, there is no rule that says you have to have played both of them. The only rule in Trashdome is this;

Two games enter! One game leaves!"

Hey Dragonstout - please direct any logical debate to www.boardgamegeek.com :-p

Vote: Borderlands / Ascalion

It might not be suitable for Vassal-play, but it still is a great fantasy game, even the old edition still looks good (Ascalion has a cool Frazetta pic on the box front, which was the buying incentive for me back then as a teen!).

Diplomacy might be a good game in theory, but for me it is just not playable in real time. Not only do you need 7 people, you also need 7 dedicated, cut-throat players, who don't hold a grudge when you backstab. For me that's nearly impossible. I have to admit though: the older Avalon Hill version with the shiny metal pieces remains to be the ultimate edition. BTW, Diplomacy should loose alone for the fact that they now put this flimsy paper edition out as anniversary edition.

That being said: there is a facebook Diplomacy app, which seems to work. Anyone tried it?

Southernman wrote:
" "What a disgraceful act - voting for a game you hate, we may as well just declare Pillars of the Earth the overall winner and close the Dome to save any more embarrassment for it."
I'm voting as per the intro: "This is part of a series of bloody-minded matches to the death."
Or, if you want a better reason, look at the damn picture over there --->---->---->---->---->---->---->---->---->---->---->---->---->---->---->---->---->
And if we're talking about disgraceful reasons for voting, there's this despicable post on page one:-
Southernman wrote: " Never played either ... (Plus-plus if Mikey Barnes fixes another vote I want to be on the winning side this time.)"
Talk about gushing Barnes fanboyism... "Plus-plus"? More like kiss-kiss.

Shellhead wrote:
" In protest, I'm going to vote in future Trashdomes for absurd reasons like alphabetical order, box color scheme and ranking at BGG."
Damn you and your blackguardly spying ways!! I was going to vote for the most black one next time!!!! Curses! Foiled again!
(However, I note that you're not protesting against the just quoted Southernman reasons.)

The King in Yellow wrote:
" Diplomacy is a classic, but its more of a framework for players to wheel and deal, instead of an actual game."
Which is why it has a rich history of a staggering amount of alternative boards and themes, yes, thinly pasted on themes! Therefore it's a proto-Euro and even more deserving of a vote. If Borderlands appeals to EuroTrashies then Diplomacy should appeal even more.
" Not to mention that I could get tons of enjoyment just playing against the computer opponent. Vote: Borderlands"
So a vote for Borderlands is a vote for playing with yourself?

Southernman wrote:
" Hey Dragonstout - please direct any logical debate to www.boardgamegeek.com :-p"
Glad to see you admit the logic of voting for Diplomacy. And thanks for implying that a Borderlands vote would be illogical.

Michael Barnes wrote:

I guess if we had a Trashdome 'twixt BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and PUERTO RICO these folks would be appealing to the historical significance of PUERTO RICO in defense of their faulty ability to vote for the right, and better, game.

I don't think this is the first time someone voted in Trashdome based mainly on the game's influence.

Michael Barnes wrote, previously on Trashdome:

My kneejerk response is to vote COSMIC- it's like the Beatles of modern hobby game design. It's one of my top 5 games of all time. It's perfect, as far as I'm concerned.

But MAGIC isn't Oasis. It's its own thing, and what it is is incredibly important, significant, and lasting _whether you like the game or not_. And the point has already been made that in a lot of ways MAGIC takes the potential of COSMIC and explodes it even further.

At the end of it, MAGIC is the game that has really had the stronger, more significant impact. I mean, even outside the hobby people know MAGIC. And it's still going strong, and still getting new people into the hobby.

For all I love COSMIC, it's not doing those things. It's still great, but it's more like the niche record you get into after you've already gotten deep into rock n' roll.

It's MAGIC, folks. MAGIC to win. I don't know that I can bring myself to talk a bunch of shit about COSMIC voters this time, because y'all are right too.

Maybe this is the fight that will unite us all.

Yeah, but I love COSMIC and MAGIC and I wanted either one of them to win equally. So I had to leverage something.

Barnes has ONE bad game of Diplomacy and writes it off as crap?

No. I've had a few bad games of DIPLOMACY. This last one was actually the first time I had played it in like 10 years. I was really excited about it, having all these great memories of it from the past. But come to find out, the memories weren't so much about _the game_, but about events that happened around the game.

And there was a big difference. It was actually the first time I had played a full game face to face. When you play a game over a 8 week period, a lot of the really fucked up and boring things about the game aren't apparent- like when you're completely down and out and functionally eliminated but no one will finish you off, hoping to get you to support a couple of fights or something.

Maybe the game really works best in a PBEM/play over time format. But face to face- never again for me.

Juniper wrote:

Michael Barnes wrote:

Cast a vote for the future and quit living in the past.

Translation: cast a vote for 1982* and quit living in 2008**.

* most recent English-language edition of Borderlands
** most recent English-language edition of Diplomacy

Real translation: cast a vote for sometime in the not so distant future* and quit living in 2008**.

* publishing date of the upcoming FFG edition of Borderlands
** blahblahblah

Wow, I love both of these games!

I am almost always playing a game of Diplomacy on Dipbounced.com (anyone interested in a game for F:AT members?)

I haven't played Borderlands for a while but I did go to the trouble of making a pimped out version.

I'm going to have to give the edge to Diplomacy though. It's got the longevity that all games aspire to have.

Vote: Diplomacy

Get the proper seven players for this game together and have the time needed to see it through and a good old time of backstabbing and relationship ending will be had!

Vote: Diplomacy

Notahandle wrote:

The King in Yellow wrote:
" Diplomacy is a classic, but its more of a framework for players to wheel and deal, instead of an actual game."
Which is why it has a rich history of a staggering amount of alternative boards and themes, yes, thinly pasted on themes! Therefore it's a proto-Euro and even more deserving of a vote. If Borderlands appeals to EuroTrashies then Diplomacy should appeal even more.

For the record, Borderlands/Lords of Conquest probably has even more alternative boards. Hell, I played one that was composed of Appalachia. I challenge you to show me a Diplomacy board that features West Virgina

" Not to mention that I could get tons of enjoyment just playing against the computer opponent. Vote: Borderlands"
So a vote for Borderlands is a vote for playing with yourself?

Nothing wrong with that. Billy Idol had it right.

Michael Barnes wrote (in response to me):

but I prefer my negotiation games to be lean so that folks are concentrating fully on screwing each other and not distracted by other fluff

Then for god's sake, don't play EITHER of these. Play INTRIGUE.

I've played Intrigue. That, Quo Vadis?, and Rette Sich Wer Kann (Lifeboats) are all to my liking for that reason. Diplomacy intrigues me because I like having a map to structure the action. I had Africa 1880 for awhile but never presented it to the group as such games usually fall flat; same goes for Europa 1945-2030. Such games need more chrome and theme to be accepted onto the table (e.g., A Game of Thrones).

It seems the anti-Diplomacy crowd has but three arguments (and notice also that there does not appear to be a pro-Borderlands crowd):

1. I Had A Bad Experience. This argument is simply refuted: man up. If you'd prefer not to, go play Princes of Florence or something (although beware, someone might outbid you for that jester).

2. There's No Real "Game" To It. There's an insidious odor of Euro-ism to this one, an emphatic desire to strip gaming of its human aspects and turn the gamers to machines. By "game" the people who argue this point mean, of course, the sort of tactical puzzle solving which our German brethren seem only to enjoy. Let us set aside for the moment the lie that Diplomacy contains none of this, a lie which even a single play of the game expose, since combat, which is reduced in most games to modified chance, is in Diplomacy a spatial logic puzzle. The fact that Diplomacy is more memorable for the experiences of playing it, that what stands out in the game is the human aspect and not the "gamey" aspects--shouldn't this declare nothing less than that Diplomacy is an exemplar of Ameritrash's purest virtues?

3. Sometimes You Get Screwed And Can't Do Anything. The whines you hear from this quarter likewise conceal a confraternity with the worst of Euro-ism. If player elimination de jure is a sacred characteristic of Ameritrash, what is so reprehensible about player elimination de facto? Surely it is one of the ugly constraints of a cookie-cutter Euro that all players must be within striking distance of victory, no matter their incompetence--and is not the ideological underpinning of this constraint the notion that we can only enjoy a game that we win or almost win? Sure, you aren't going to win if you're stuck with just a few supply centers, but if it's not worth it to any of the more successful players to put you out of your misery, then you obviously have enough that you can get something from them in return for your aid. If there's no point in playing once you have no hope of victory, by all means, call this a flaw. But if you value the thematic experience and can enjoy achieving goals other than the goals of victory, this is no weakness in the game.

To those who object to a vote cast because of a game's place in history, I will only say this: Diplomacy's unique place in the history of board games may not be in and of itself reason to vote, but it is a way to highlight its unique mix of qualities as a game-playing experience and the fascination it exercises on its devotees.

I have never played either of these games. However, I think I can make an educated guess about which I would enjoy more. After all, Dune is pretty close to the best game I've ever played, and Cosmic Encounter isn't too bad, either. Diplomacy, on the other hand, is often referred to as "a game which is great for classrooms," which never fails to make my stomach churn.

Vote: Borderlands

1. I Had A Bad Experience.

This is a totally valid argument against an "event" game like DIPLOMACY that requires you to get six other people willing to sit down for anywhere from six to twelve hours. DIPLOMACY is not a game many people get to play, and those that do don't get to play it often. So one bad experience is more signficant. Again, if you're talking about online games or PBEM, this is a different dynamic altogether. I do agree that it's one of the most common complaints levied against the game.

2. There's No Real "Game" To It.

There's game, but the game that's there isn't something that needs all of the padding and froo-fra to make happen. Again, look at INTRIGE. It does away with all the fake WWI crap and makes it almost completely about human interaction. The psychology of the game is even more conducive to hatefulness and betrayal. But you don't have to go through six hours to get to the game there. Besides, I'd hardly call a game that makes combat a "spatial logic puzzle" an example of AT virtue.

3. Sometimes You Get Screwed And Can't Do Anything.

Player elimination is great and DIPLOMACY definitely needs it. However, functional elimination SUCKS. That's definitely a Eurogame trait. And in DIPLOMACY, if you're doing poorly it inevitably gets to the point where other players decide if you're going to be sitting at the table for another couple of hours or not. That is a good point about setting goals other than overall victory, and those are often what makes a game of DIPLOMACY fun. Last time I just really, really wanted Steve Avery to give me Poland. Just hand it over. I tried for like five hours, even plying him with liquor. Wouldn't budge. The fun was in that, not in anything that happened on teh board.

Michael Barnes wrote:

And in DIPLOMACY, if you're doing poorly it inevitably gets to the point where other players decide if you're going to be sitting at the table for another couple of hours or not. That is a good point about setting goals other than overall victory, and those are often what makes a game of DIPLOMACY fun. Last time I just really, really wanted Steve Avery to give me Poland. Just hand it over. I tried for like five hours, even plying him with liquor. Wouldn't budge. The fun was in that, not in anything that happened on the board.

But is still part of the game experience...

Diplomacy rocks... the game is all about negotiation and adaptive game play. Being able to get out of a bad position in Diplomacy by shrewd discussion and bargaining is vastly more rewarding than getting a lucky run in the roll of the dice in some of the many games which plague the market nowadays.

Diplomacy is truly a game of skill... that doesn't devolve into some lame abstract Euro exercise.

Ryan B. wrote:

Diplomacy rocks... the game is all about negotiation and adaptive game play. Being able to get out of a bad position in Diplomacy by shrewd discussion and bargaining is vastly more rewarding than getting a lucky run in the roll of the dice in some of the many games which plague the market nowadays.

Diplomacy is truly a game of skill... that doesn't devolve into some lame abstract Euro exercise.

Don't forget to vote...