Diplo game thought experiment

[WilliamLP]

What would happen if a PB game were played with the following "rules"?

1. There is full diplo. Anyone can say anything to anyone.

2. No agreements are ever binding. Any moves allowed in game can be made opportunistically as if it were AI diplo. (Double move etiquette still applies, obviously.)

3. Everyone must agree to make a good faith effort not to judge a player negatively for any action taken, either for any game other than this one, or as a reflection of character. This includes lying, going back on your word, deliberate deception, exploiting trust, and anything else within the game framework that can be deviously thought up.


Now, this really doesn't make a hard change to anything about a full diplo game, because #3 is only a cultural paradigm shift. It's always been really interesting to me how the culture we have for full diplo games stays how it is. (For instance, how NAPs are sacred, and someone who breaks one is actually judged as a person, and not someone who is playing a game for an advantage inconsequential to anything else.) I'm convinced this goes beyond the pragmatism of seeking better relationships in future games.

So what would happen if #3 were made explicit? Would it change much? Would it be possible? Would it even be worth trying to talk to other players? (I think the answer is clearly "yes".) Is human nature too strong for people to detach themselves in this way?

The reason for this post is I've been thinking about the ideal game I'd like to play months later when PB11 winds down, and I'm wondering if it wouldn't be fun to have a game more like an AI diplo game in gameplay, but where we could actually talk about the game too.

[NobleHelium]

What is your definition of judging a player negatively? If player A breaks a NAP with player B, even if I don't look poorly on his character, I would expect him to be fully capable of breaking a NAP with me, correct? Is that judging him negatively? And if not, then one would expect player A to uphold all his NAPs until near the end of the game when he can afford his other NAPs being annulled in response, no?

[WilliamLP]

What is your definition of judging a player negatively? If player A breaks a NAP with player B, even if I don't look poorly on his character, I would expect him to be fully capable of breaking a NAP with me, correct?

Under this thought game, you should expect everyone to be fully capable (perhaps even likely) to break a NAP with you in this kind of game, so player A's action should logically change nothing.

But my thought is that a relationship (and reputation) could still be established in this game, but everyone would make an effort not to carry it beyond.

[NobleHelium]

I mean capable in the sense of probability. There is a nonzero chance that a NAP will be broken on a given turn, but it is not 100% and will be higher or lower for each player. And thus how you behave within the game still changes how your opponents will view such likelihood.

[NobleHelium]

One reason why people don't break NAPs is that it's essentially an iterated prisoner's dilemma. If you know the game will end at the current iteration, the optimal choice is to defect. Thus if I decide that I'm never coming back to RB, I'll break all my NAPs and win my last game and then disappear. But nobody decides that, and thus NAPs are upheld. (The other reason is that people think it's immoral or unethical to break a NAP.)

Likewise, breaking a NAP within the game will cause opponents to view you as more likely to break NAPs in the future within the game. Thus that is part of the consideration in deciding to break a NAP. Thus the earlier in the game it is, the less likely you are to break a NAP. (This may carry over to future games and thus there may be no effective change, I haven't thought enough about this to decide whether that's the case.) You can't just instruct players in the game to consider the likelihood of player A breaking a NAP as equally likely as player B. It's a judgment on each player's character, same as a player gauging player A as more aggressive than player B.

[Jowy]

I'd want to play a diplo game with RB members just to see what happens. Meta game has evolved a lot since the early games.

[suttree]

Sure, anyone who's played Diplomacy is familiar with that way of thinking. I agree that would be a interesting way to play a diplo game - it's just a matter of shifting expectations. And having a group of players who are willing to deal with the stress/work of "real life" negotiations - where you want to cooperate because you want to win but cooperation is very very hard because you want to win.

Making binding agreements is fun because, with a group of players who are willing to maintain the convention, it turns diplomacy in to a chess game. It is unstable, however, because the only way to maintain the convention is to "punish" players that break it - overturning the board, bad feelings, "I'LL NEVER PLAY A GAME WITH YOU AGAIN!" etc etc

People are adapted to detect and punish those who don't cooperate - a backstab is painful even if you expect it. You just need a group of players who can work through the pain - the "Good Losers Game" you would call it because only one team will win and the rest will be brutally betrayed by their closest ally

Sounds interesting!

[WilliamLP]

See my ninja-edit about how you can change your beliefs based on actions in-game. And I guess player reputation is still a big part of the game and you can't be stopped from using it make decisions. E.g., there are player names here that can put someone on high alert even in an AI diplo game.

But this thought game shouldn't affect a perception of character or integrity or trustworthiness when applied to another game that is played, like a conventional diplo game here.

Is there a contradiction here or something irreconcilable? Or would reputations and expected behaviours play out basically like they do now in AI diplo games where they exist but are quite loose and changeable? Would everyone stick to agreements anyway? Would people still play carefully as if this is an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma with stake in future games on the line? I wonder.

I'm imagining a move like Athete vs Slaze in PB2, and the third party reaction encouraged to be more like "Nice move! It's a bad idea to leave yourself open to a backstab in this kind of game." instead of "I don't ever want to play a game with him in it."

[Krill]

One reason why people don't break NAPs is that it's essentially an iterated prisoner's dilemma. If you know the game will end at the current iteration, the optimal choice is to defect. Thus if I decide that I'm never coming back to RB, I'll break all my NAPs and win my last game and then disappear. But nobody decides that, and thus NAPs are upheld. (The other reason is that people think it's immoral or unethical to break a NAP.)

Likewise, breaking a NAP within the game will cause opponents to view you as more likely to break NAPs in the future within the game. Thus that is part of the consideration in deciding to break a NAP. Thus the earlier in the game it is, the less likely you are to break a NAP. (This may carry over to future games and thus there may be no effective change, I haven't thought enough about this to decide whether that's the case.) You can't just instruct players in the game to consider the likelihood of player A breaking a NAP as equally likely as player B. It's a judgment on each player's character, same as a player gauging player A as more aggressive than player B.

Basically NAPs aren't worth the paper they aren't written on. The same goes for upfront versus per turn deals: never trust anyone that wants such a deal. The whole concept of not learning as diplomacy is carried, that there is a separation between reputation, trustworthiness and risk are contradictory.

[NobleHelium]

Rephrase your last sentence please, Krill.