Trashdome - Diplomacy VS Risk (classic )

I suck at Diplomacy.

Vote: Risk

Good match up Mad Dog even if Risk wins by a large margin. I like both games a lots and both games bring me back to high school and college when that is about all we would play. But like many other people who have commented so far I have to roll 3 dice to attack Iceland from Greenland.

My Vote is: Risk

I suck at Diplomacy, but it's still the better design. Risk probably got all of us into gaming and while newer editions make if a far more playable and fun game, it's still standing in the shadow of newer, better games. I don't think it's bad at all, but when given the choice to play Risk or, for example, War of the Ring, which one would you pick? Sure, it's up against Diplomacy here, but this still doesn't change the fact that Risk is dated in Diplomacy is still an innovative, unparalleled game to this day. Neglecting organisational problems, if given the choice between playing Risk or a seven player game of Diplomacy, I pick Diplomacy. I would pick Risk if the number of players is lower, but when voting in Trashdome I ignore such petty problems.

Vote: Diplomacy

What he said. Love both games...it has been awhile since I played Diplomacy...but still no contest.

Vote: Diplomacy

The DipBOUNCED website absolutely ruined my Diplomacy game. After playing Diplomacy online, I have little to no desire to set up a game of Diplomacy and play it for the day with 6 others.

Vote: RISK

I have little desire to play Dip, despite all it's greatness (anyway we sold our copy), but far less to play Risk (which we don't own). Vote: Dip

I would totally dip that avatar

Partizan wrote:

The DipBOUNCED website absolutely ruined my Diplomacy game. After playing Diplomacy online, I have little to no desire to set up a game of Diplomacy and play it for the day with 6 others.

OK. Why?

I have the same problem with Axis and Allies. After playing an electronic version, I don't think I'll ever be able to do the set up for the real game again.

And playing against AI is more fun

dragonstout wrote:

Ancient_of_MuMu wrote:

Vote: Risk. It takes a bit less time and everyone can play. The thing that truly sucks about Diplomacy and ruins an otherwise fine game is that one person has to coordinate it all and watch from the sidelines.

WHAT THE FUCK this thread is gonna make me cry.

I have NEVER heard of, nor used, the above. A game-master for Diplomacy? Where did you hear that? You don't even remotely need a gamemaster.

My Dip experience is limited to a computer game version in the late 80's. Otherwise I have only seen it played at cons with a gamemaster, so I guess it is just a biased opinion from where I have seen it played.

I don't think I'd ever be willing to touch Risk classic ever again. There are just too many better options. Diplomacy, on the other hand, is not really outdated. I'd still be interested in playing Diplomacy (even if just PBEM).

Vote: Diplomacy.

Playing Diplomacy online will always suck because it misses the point. It's like playing Settlers online. It's a hollow and ultimately unsatisfying attempt at recreating the experiecne of the game. And it fails.

Because Diplomacy (like Settlers, but more so) is all about the interaction between the players. It's about convincing, cajoling and lying your fucking ass off with a straight face.

Without the physical face-to-face interaction, you don't even have the game anymore.

I vote Diplomacy.

Risk I've played more and is more beer-and-pretzels type fun, but it's been overshadowed MASSIVELY since it's release. Diplomacy is still a perfect little timeless design.

I dunno about that, I enjoy playing Werewolf/Mafia variants over email. But such cases, I usually just play with people I'm close with IRL. Perhaps that helps.

vote: Diplomacy

I freakin suck at Diplomacy online, after the recent F:AT game, i don't think i'll try again.

like shryke said, it is missing alot of the point. and i'm just not good at typing those interactions. like in the game of successors that's running right now, I know there is alot of room for temporary alliances and such...but I just have a hard time with those online. I love that aspect F2F though.

anyway, diplomacy because its a classic design that does what it does, and does it well. Risk has been improved upon and really outclassed by modern designs.

quozl wrote:

Partizan wrote:

The DipBOUNCED website absolutely ruined my Diplomacy game. After playing Diplomacy online, I have little to no desire to set up a game of Diplomacy and play it for the day with 6 others.

OK. Why?

I just think Diplomacy is the perfect game to play and it makes face-to-face games tedious to play. It's one of the few that I rather play online. Here's what I like:
1. Messages are always sent in secret. Or if you can forge other other's messages.
2. You're identity as a player is always secret. So I can go from game to game and I won't be prejudged as a "stabber."
3. The computer spits the results out immediately. I hate the tediousness of sitting around and reading out people's moves.

Don't get me wrong, I love Diplomacy. But I just don't want to play it anymore face-to-face. There's a lot of other games that I'd rather play.