Post by The High Commissioner on Jan 26, 2020 13:06:05 GMT
Me.
Well, you might. But what type of player am I?
What I've done here is look at different types of player you may meet when playing Dip, whether face-to-face on remotely. Some are names I've come up with (if you've not realised it already, I'm geeky like that); some are names which have been floating around the Hobby for a while.
In general, this is just a bit of fun... but I am going to have a go at some player-types here, so be warned.
Oh and I'll add to it as I go along. It should be arranged alphabetically.
The Armoured Duck
This is the player who get's herself into the mindset of stubbornness. She sets herself on a certain course and sticks to it, no matter what and no matter what the consequences are for her own game.
She's usually set on vengeance, in practice. In other words, someone has done something to her that she took offence at and all she wants to do is take her enemy out of the game.
There's not a lot you can do if you're the target of this type of play. You've obviously upset her, probably stabbed her and she's being either stupidly vindictive or simply doesn't feel she has anything to lose by playing this way.
If you're not the target, if you're a third party to this kind of play, then you've got the chance to use the Armoured Duck to your advantage.
Often, Armoured Ducks are usually game-specific - they are players who decide to play this way due to what has happened in this particular game. However some players have a tendency to play this way when things go wrong. Try to avoid them; it could be you who becomes the target.
The Bagger
I've taken the derogatory term 'carpetbaggers' and shortened it. I didn't know this but a carpetbagger was originally someone who travelled from the northern US states to the southern to take advantage of the reconstruction after the American Civil War. These days it's a term for a politician seeking to be elected in an area she has no connection with, often sent in by the party bigwigs.(1)
In Dip, a Bagger will play to maximise her outcome from the game. She'll go into the game with the aim of winning; otherwise she'll play to get the best result possible. In Diplomacy there are only three results: the win (a solo), the draw or the loss. A Bagger will play to ensure she survives, to make sure she is involved in the draw at the end of the game, and to win if possible.
They aren't Carebears though. They don't play to maintain alliances as the reason to play. They will maintain an alliance while it is useful to them, and then ditch it. They're happy to stab, if it's right to do so. They will use an alliance while it ensures their own game is progressing.
But, if the chance of a solo disappears, they'll play to draw the game. And for a Bagger, it won't matter what the size of the draw, necessarily: not losing is the key. Which means that they're good to have in a game if you're trying to stop a player soloing. On the other hand, of course, you'll always be looking over your shoulder if you're trying to work with a Bagger.
The Carebear
Carebears are drawmongers - they play to draw games of Dip rather than to win them. This may be a form of "metagaming": entering a game with the intention to draw the game no matter what is usually seen as cheating. However, it is usually a philosophy of play(2) rather than cheating.
Carebears will seek to form a game-lasting alliance with another player or players. They won't stab you because they don't like to stab; they see it as betrayal. Of course, a stab is a betrayal but it's also part of the game. They may, however, be ruthless players, doing what they can to maintain the alliance they've formed and destroy other players until they've achieved the goal - the draw with the fewest other players they can achieve.
Carebears are difficult to like, honestly. They don't see why they should have to try to win the game outright, sometimes simply because it's a difficult result to obtain, otherwise simply because they don't want to stab.
If you challenge a Carebear on her play, she's likely to reply with the meaningless response of: "You can't tell me how to play." She's right, of course - we can't force our philosophy on to anyone - but this doesn't stop the response being ridiculous. Carebears often know how Dip should be played but just don't care.
Irony, eh?
The Cherrypicker
A Cherrypicker is a player who takes over a surrendered position simply because she feels she can gain something from it, usually a positive points score for her rating. She's joined the game when another player has left, picking up an abandoned power. Usually the power has something positive about it and is likely to be decently placed in the game. You won't find a Cherrypicker taking over a weak power.
Cherrypicking is common under certain scoring systems where points awarded are set. This isn't always the case, however, as some scoring systems makes predicting what points a player leaves a game with less than certain. Only a win is going to make a significant difference in this situation... but not all players will understand this and will assume that a safe draw if going to result in a decent score.
Some Cherrypickers will only do this when playing. I can remember when I was playing very regularly on Playdiplomacy under the old scoring system that there were a few dedicated Cherrypickers. They were good players and would make the most of the position they moved in on but this was the only thing they did. They trawled the open positions and joined those games where they had a decent chance of a win or a high scoring draw. Some would also enter games with complete newbies.
Something sad about that, isn't there?
The Davian
Davian behaviour(3) is a little disturbing. Talk about flogging a dead horse.
I'm not suggesting Dip Davians are necrophiliacs but they do have a love of holding onto dead games. A Davian is a player who holds out for a game result, usually a solo, when there is no way it is going to be achieved without something unfortunate happening such as a player leaving the game or missing the order deadline. This isn't necessarily a stalemate but it is when a the players in the game can't or won't change the way they're playing but when the game isn't going to change - a deadlocked game.
Davians, then, are another example of frustrating players. Not prepared to let the game end - for whatever reason - they keep a tight grasp on what they've got and don't let it go. Painfully pathetic.
The Hippo
The hippopotamus is probably the most aggressive animal in the world, which I find surprising. I tend to think of them as being similar to elephants, and although a bull elephant can be aggressive, there's usually some sort of reason for an elephant to charge at you. With a hippopotamus, there can be no reason at all.
In Dip, a Hippo isn't simply aggressive, she's an arch-opportunist. See a chance to grow, grab the chance to grow. In some ways, Hippos are similar to Trimmers. A Hippo, however, doesn't necessarily see the opportunity to advance her game... she just sees an opportunity.
Hippos can do damage in a game, of course. The simple fact is that a Hippo is unpredictable; she can jump at you without any logic at all. With a Trimmer there is some logic, even if it's difficult for the stabbee(4) to see. With a Hippo, there is often no logic other than: "Grabbing SCs is good."
Hippos are frustrating because they are damaging when they leap on you. But they aren't as scary as a player who does it as part of a plan and often a Hippo will overlook the way her opportunistic behaviour will affect the game.
The Kingmaker
This player is a specific type of Armoured Duck. But a Kingmaker is more - it's a player who plays in such a way as to help another player win the game, or put her in a position to potentially win the game.
Again, Kingmakers are often game-specific in that it is something that has happened in this specific game that has led to this type of play. But this doesn't mean that some players are more likely to become Kingmakers than others.
Often, Kingmakers are wrongly identified. If someone plays in such a way as to help somebody else, but they aren't able to present a game-soloing opportunity to another player, this player isn't a Kingmaker but a fool. OK, let's be less judgemental... let's call this type of player an Outrider.
The Mentalist
Nothing mystical about this person, and nothing crazy about her, either... but it may seem like there is one or the other in her play. A Mentalist plays mind games.
Not everyone believes deliberately trying to get under another player's skin is what Dip is about. They believe Dip should be played politely. We'll overlook the sexist impoliteness of calling it a "gentleman's" game.
Mentalists don't care about whether they're being polite or not. This isn't to say that they'll be impolite for the sake of it - they're not idiots. But they'll do what they can to manage the emotions of other players in the game. If they're playing a Carebear, they might provoke her by denigrating her slavish desire to draw, for instance.
A Mentalist will play provocatively, maybe not on the board but through her diplomacy. Although Mentalists are often guilty of troll-like play, they can also work in other ways. Perhaps she'll try to manipulate another player by adapting her communication style to mirror their's. Mentalists tend to be very good at reading what a player is thinking and feeling.
The Outrider
This is another type of Armoured Duck in that an Outrider will play stubbornly and single-mindedly. However, whereas an Armoured Duck tends to play to the disadvantage of another player, an Outrider will play to the advantage of another player.
An Outrider can sometimes be confused with a Kingmaker. The latter is an Outrider who is able to present another player with the opportunity to win a game, though; if this type of play isn't able to do this, the player is an Outrider.
Outriders play for other players, then, stubbornly working with an ally despite the affect this is having on their own game. This might be a form of cheating (many sites include metagaming as cheating, although this is often prearranged or it happens in multiple games). Often, it is simple stupidity... or an attempt to draw the game (see The Carebear) taken to ridiculous extremes.
The Pseudodippyist
A Pseudodippyist is a player who plays towards objectives that are not part of Diplomacy as it was designed and defined by its creator, Allan B Calhamer, but who claims these objectives are either genuine Dip objectives or of equivalent standing to genuine objectives. One example of a Pseudodippyist is a Carebear (see above), another is a Whittler (see below). Not all examples deserve a name, but I'll look at two other types here that have similar objectives towards the outcome of the game.
A Pseudodippyist might play the game with the aim of obtaining the best possible result from the game relating to ranking points.(5) The idea is that, when playing a game that is scored in some way, it is acceptable to play towards getting the best possible points score from the game. This may lead to being a Whittler, as I've suggested, but it may be anything else. It may include throwing the game to a player that will have the least impact on the Pseudodippyist's score (or rating), for instance.
Another feature of a Pseudodippyist's play may be that she aims for a placing in the game. I mention this type of thing when discussing Purists below but it is more than that. It may be, for instance, that a Pseudodippyist will play to secure a good placing behind someone who wins the game, regardless of whether this results in extra points in a scoring system.(6)
With a Pseudodippyist, this is not necessarily about being an adherent of Soloism or Allianceism, for example, but it is simply something they see no problem with and may actively pursue. "Play how you want to play and leave me to play how I want to play." Well, yeh, but when you play in a way which is identifiably against Calhamer's ideas, then something is simply aberrant in your play, like it or not.
The Purist
The Purist is usually someone who follows the philosophy of Soloism, that is that the solo is all that matters.
There's nothing very wrong with the Purist's play except that, if they are known to Purists then they're probably going to be targets. But that's their problem, not yours (unless you're a Purist, of course). You known, if you're playing a Purist, you'll be stabbed when she feels it's right because she's not interested in drawing with you.
Well, almost. Most Purists will accept a draw, they simply won't credit the result. The Solo is all important. As a result, Purists may like the ideals of those scoring systems which recognise things like "topping the board" and placements in the game. If a game isn't going her way, a Purist may well lose interest and fall into one of the categories of player that aren't philosophical.
The Pussycat
"Faster, Pussycat! Play! Play!" This says it all. Pussycats are usually found online. They're the players who want to play to stupidly short deadlines and who demand that you should finalise your orders NOW!!!
If you're a Mentalist, Pussycats are one of the groups of players you'll love playing against. Slow your play down, wind a little... before long you'll know exactly how this player is going to respond.
Beyond this, Pussycats are more annoying than anything else. The regular whining that the game is going too slowly, or the constant questions about who hasn't finalised yet, is simply wearying. It doesn't make them bad players, or good players for that matter; it makes them look like a two year old tanting.
The Succumbus
No, I don't mean "succubus"... although I am using that word as inspiration, as well as "succumb". A Succumbus is a player who has a tendency to give in when things go downhill in a game - she succumbs.
A Succumbus, then, will give up when she feels there's no point in playing any more. Often, remotely, she'll quit the game, leaving the power in Civil Disorder; however, she may stay in the game but just stop playing, maybe entering orders but not communicating. In an FTF game, she might allow another player to order her units.(7)
There may be many reasons why someone quits the game, some of those reasons for genuine reasons involving real life. Succumbi, though, are players who regularly go absent from a game when things go wrong. If you can, avoid them if you want a decent game. However, if you can identify a Succumbus, it may be possible to use her. If you can predict what will make her quit, you can potentially use that to your advantage.
The Trimmer
A Trimmer is an opportunist, someone who will change her game plan at the first sign of a chance to better her position.
Trimmers are extremely flexible. If they see an advantage, they will take it. There may not seem to be a lot of logic behind this, but the Trimmer will believe she has logic on her side. If you like, they are a step on from a Bagger, although Baggers are usually more about playing to a plan. Trimmers are more likely to adapt any plans they have to circumstances.
Trimmers can be confused with Hippos but they aren't quite as random as that. Trimmers are more dangerous because a Trimmer won't just grab for SCs, they'll have a reason to be opportunistic.
The Votive
A Votive is a player that is perfectly honourable. They have a mission: to see abandoned positions picked up and to play honestly in those positions, seeing the game out with no further disruption caused to that power. Of course, that doesn't mean they're good players, or that they're going to be perfectly polite; it just means that they're going to make sure the power isn't left abandoned or in Civil Disorder again.(8)
The term votive is a medieval one linked to orders of knights. A votive knight was one who had joined a chivalric order to defend an honourable oath.(9) There is usually no oath to do this in Dip, although there might be. Some communities have groups who will actively look for this kind of event simply for the good of a game.
A Votive usually knows what she's doing when she's playing Dip, so expect a good game from this player. However, be careful - the player may be the less than honourable Cherrypicker or a Weasel.
The Weasel
A Weasel is a player who pops up from nowhere and does nothing, or nothing useful, then pops out again. For this to happen, another player has had to have left the game, leaving an abandoned power behind them. The Weasel then joins the game.
Not every player that picks up a vacant seat in a game is a Weasel, of course. Some of them are Cherrypickers, some are Votive Knights, some are just players who've spotted a position and taken it up for no other reason than that.
Weasels, though, have no real intention of playing, and are likely to last one turn or, if you're lucky, a year. They might not have looked at the position they've taken and, when they join, realise that it isn't going to last long so they turn tail and jump. Some, though, are game trolls. They simply jump in, drop some disruptive orders, and drop out again. There are a number of alternative terms for these players: let's just call them idiots and move on.
The Whittler
Whittlers involve themselves in draw-whittling, playing solely to reduce the number of players who share a draw at the end of a game.(10)
This is often seen in games that are scored using a draw-based system. The fewer the players that draw the game, the more points are earned by those players.(11) It can lead to a dissatisfying end to the game, with play being stretched out while one or more players are eliminated.
Whittlers are annoying. If you're going to draw, then draw! More than that, though, they'll actively seek to build an alliance against anyone who looks like they're vulnerable to draw-whittling, with no regard to anything else.
Notes
Well, you might. But what type of player am I?
What I've done here is look at different types of player you may meet when playing Dip, whether face-to-face on remotely. Some are names I've come up with (if you've not realised it already, I'm geeky like that); some are names which have been floating around the Hobby for a while.
In general, this is just a bit of fun... but I am going to have a go at some player-types here, so be warned.
Oh and I'll add to it as I go along. It should be arranged alphabetically.
The Armoured Duck
This is the player who get's herself into the mindset of stubbornness. She sets herself on a certain course and sticks to it, no matter what and no matter what the consequences are for her own game.
She's usually set on vengeance, in practice. In other words, someone has done something to her that she took offence at and all she wants to do is take her enemy out of the game.
There's not a lot you can do if you're the target of this type of play. You've obviously upset her, probably stabbed her and she's being either stupidly vindictive or simply doesn't feel she has anything to lose by playing this way.
If you're not the target, if you're a third party to this kind of play, then you've got the chance to use the Armoured Duck to your advantage.
Often, Armoured Ducks are usually game-specific - they are players who decide to play this way due to what has happened in this particular game. However some players have a tendency to play this way when things go wrong. Try to avoid them; it could be you who becomes the target.
The Bagger
I've taken the derogatory term 'carpetbaggers' and shortened it. I didn't know this but a carpetbagger was originally someone who travelled from the northern US states to the southern to take advantage of the reconstruction after the American Civil War. These days it's a term for a politician seeking to be elected in an area she has no connection with, often sent in by the party bigwigs.(1)
In Dip, a Bagger will play to maximise her outcome from the game. She'll go into the game with the aim of winning; otherwise she'll play to get the best result possible. In Diplomacy there are only three results: the win (a solo), the draw or the loss. A Bagger will play to ensure she survives, to make sure she is involved in the draw at the end of the game, and to win if possible.
They aren't Carebears though. They don't play to maintain alliances as the reason to play. They will maintain an alliance while it is useful to them, and then ditch it. They're happy to stab, if it's right to do so. They will use an alliance while it ensures their own game is progressing.
But, if the chance of a solo disappears, they'll play to draw the game. And for a Bagger, it won't matter what the size of the draw, necessarily: not losing is the key. Which means that they're good to have in a game if you're trying to stop a player soloing. On the other hand, of course, you'll always be looking over your shoulder if you're trying to work with a Bagger.
The Carebear
Carebears are drawmongers - they play to draw games of Dip rather than to win them. This may be a form of "metagaming": entering a game with the intention to draw the game no matter what is usually seen as cheating. However, it is usually a philosophy of play(2) rather than cheating.
Carebears will seek to form a game-lasting alliance with another player or players. They won't stab you because they don't like to stab; they see it as betrayal. Of course, a stab is a betrayal but it's also part of the game. They may, however, be ruthless players, doing what they can to maintain the alliance they've formed and destroy other players until they've achieved the goal - the draw with the fewest other players they can achieve.
Carebears are difficult to like, honestly. They don't see why they should have to try to win the game outright, sometimes simply because it's a difficult result to obtain, otherwise simply because they don't want to stab.
If you challenge a Carebear on her play, she's likely to reply with the meaningless response of: "You can't tell me how to play." She's right, of course - we can't force our philosophy on to anyone - but this doesn't stop the response being ridiculous. Carebears often know how Dip should be played but just don't care.
Irony, eh?
The Cherrypicker
A Cherrypicker is a player who takes over a surrendered position simply because she feels she can gain something from it, usually a positive points score for her rating. She's joined the game when another player has left, picking up an abandoned power. Usually the power has something positive about it and is likely to be decently placed in the game. You won't find a Cherrypicker taking over a weak power.
Cherrypicking is common under certain scoring systems where points awarded are set. This isn't always the case, however, as some scoring systems makes predicting what points a player leaves a game with less than certain. Only a win is going to make a significant difference in this situation... but not all players will understand this and will assume that a safe draw if going to result in a decent score.
Some Cherrypickers will only do this when playing. I can remember when I was playing very regularly on Playdiplomacy under the old scoring system that there were a few dedicated Cherrypickers. They were good players and would make the most of the position they moved in on but this was the only thing they did. They trawled the open positions and joined those games where they had a decent chance of a win or a high scoring draw. Some would also enter games with complete newbies.
Something sad about that, isn't there?
The Davian
Davian behaviour(3) is a little disturbing. Talk about flogging a dead horse.
I'm not suggesting Dip Davians are necrophiliacs but they do have a love of holding onto dead games. A Davian is a player who holds out for a game result, usually a solo, when there is no way it is going to be achieved without something unfortunate happening such as a player leaving the game or missing the order deadline. This isn't necessarily a stalemate but it is when a the players in the game can't or won't change the way they're playing but when the game isn't going to change - a deadlocked game.
Davians, then, are another example of frustrating players. Not prepared to let the game end - for whatever reason - they keep a tight grasp on what they've got and don't let it go. Painfully pathetic.
The Hippo
The hippopotamus is probably the most aggressive animal in the world, which I find surprising. I tend to think of them as being similar to elephants, and although a bull elephant can be aggressive, there's usually some sort of reason for an elephant to charge at you. With a hippopotamus, there can be no reason at all.
In Dip, a Hippo isn't simply aggressive, she's an arch-opportunist. See a chance to grow, grab the chance to grow. In some ways, Hippos are similar to Trimmers. A Hippo, however, doesn't necessarily see the opportunity to advance her game... she just sees an opportunity.
Hippos can do damage in a game, of course. The simple fact is that a Hippo is unpredictable; she can jump at you without any logic at all. With a Trimmer there is some logic, even if it's difficult for the stabbee(4) to see. With a Hippo, there is often no logic other than: "Grabbing SCs is good."
Hippos are frustrating because they are damaging when they leap on you. But they aren't as scary as a player who does it as part of a plan and often a Hippo will overlook the way her opportunistic behaviour will affect the game.
The Kingmaker
This player is a specific type of Armoured Duck. But a Kingmaker is more - it's a player who plays in such a way as to help another player win the game, or put her in a position to potentially win the game.
Again, Kingmakers are often game-specific in that it is something that has happened in this specific game that has led to this type of play. But this doesn't mean that some players are more likely to become Kingmakers than others.
Often, Kingmakers are wrongly identified. If someone plays in such a way as to help somebody else, but they aren't able to present a game-soloing opportunity to another player, this player isn't a Kingmaker but a fool. OK, let's be less judgemental... let's call this type of player an Outrider.
The Mentalist
Nothing mystical about this person, and nothing crazy about her, either... but it may seem like there is one or the other in her play. A Mentalist plays mind games.
Not everyone believes deliberately trying to get under another player's skin is what Dip is about. They believe Dip should be played politely. We'll overlook the sexist impoliteness of calling it a "gentleman's" game.
Mentalists don't care about whether they're being polite or not. This isn't to say that they'll be impolite for the sake of it - they're not idiots. But they'll do what they can to manage the emotions of other players in the game. If they're playing a Carebear, they might provoke her by denigrating her slavish desire to draw, for instance.
A Mentalist will play provocatively, maybe not on the board but through her diplomacy. Although Mentalists are often guilty of troll-like play, they can also work in other ways. Perhaps she'll try to manipulate another player by adapting her communication style to mirror their's. Mentalists tend to be very good at reading what a player is thinking and feeling.
The Outrider
This is another type of Armoured Duck in that an Outrider will play stubbornly and single-mindedly. However, whereas an Armoured Duck tends to play to the disadvantage of another player, an Outrider will play to the advantage of another player.
An Outrider can sometimes be confused with a Kingmaker. The latter is an Outrider who is able to present another player with the opportunity to win a game, though; if this type of play isn't able to do this, the player is an Outrider.
Outriders play for other players, then, stubbornly working with an ally despite the affect this is having on their own game. This might be a form of cheating (many sites include metagaming as cheating, although this is often prearranged or it happens in multiple games). Often, it is simple stupidity... or an attempt to draw the game (see The Carebear) taken to ridiculous extremes.
The Pseudodippyist
A Pseudodippyist is a player who plays towards objectives that are not part of Diplomacy as it was designed and defined by its creator, Allan B Calhamer, but who claims these objectives are either genuine Dip objectives or of equivalent standing to genuine objectives. One example of a Pseudodippyist is a Carebear (see above), another is a Whittler (see below). Not all examples deserve a name, but I'll look at two other types here that have similar objectives towards the outcome of the game.
A Pseudodippyist might play the game with the aim of obtaining the best possible result from the game relating to ranking points.(5) The idea is that, when playing a game that is scored in some way, it is acceptable to play towards getting the best possible points score from the game. This may lead to being a Whittler, as I've suggested, but it may be anything else. It may include throwing the game to a player that will have the least impact on the Pseudodippyist's score (or rating), for instance.
Another feature of a Pseudodippyist's play may be that she aims for a placing in the game. I mention this type of thing when discussing Purists below but it is more than that. It may be, for instance, that a Pseudodippyist will play to secure a good placing behind someone who wins the game, regardless of whether this results in extra points in a scoring system.(6)
With a Pseudodippyist, this is not necessarily about being an adherent of Soloism or Allianceism, for example, but it is simply something they see no problem with and may actively pursue. "Play how you want to play and leave me to play how I want to play." Well, yeh, but when you play in a way which is identifiably against Calhamer's ideas, then something is simply aberrant in your play, like it or not.
The Purist
The Purist is usually someone who follows the philosophy of Soloism, that is that the solo is all that matters.
There's nothing very wrong with the Purist's play except that, if they are known to Purists then they're probably going to be targets. But that's their problem, not yours (unless you're a Purist, of course). You known, if you're playing a Purist, you'll be stabbed when she feels it's right because she's not interested in drawing with you.
Well, almost. Most Purists will accept a draw, they simply won't credit the result. The Solo is all important. As a result, Purists may like the ideals of those scoring systems which recognise things like "topping the board" and placements in the game. If a game isn't going her way, a Purist may well lose interest and fall into one of the categories of player that aren't philosophical.
The Pussycat
"Faster, Pussycat! Play! Play!" This says it all. Pussycats are usually found online. They're the players who want to play to stupidly short deadlines and who demand that you should finalise your orders NOW!!!
If you're a Mentalist, Pussycats are one of the groups of players you'll love playing against. Slow your play down, wind a little... before long you'll know exactly how this player is going to respond.
Beyond this, Pussycats are more annoying than anything else. The regular whining that the game is going too slowly, or the constant questions about who hasn't finalised yet, is simply wearying. It doesn't make them bad players, or good players for that matter; it makes them look like a two year old tanting.
The Succumbus
No, I don't mean "succubus"... although I am using that word as inspiration, as well as "succumb". A Succumbus is a player who has a tendency to give in when things go downhill in a game - she succumbs.
A Succumbus, then, will give up when she feels there's no point in playing any more. Often, remotely, she'll quit the game, leaving the power in Civil Disorder; however, she may stay in the game but just stop playing, maybe entering orders but not communicating. In an FTF game, she might allow another player to order her units.(7)
There may be many reasons why someone quits the game, some of those reasons for genuine reasons involving real life. Succumbi, though, are players who regularly go absent from a game when things go wrong. If you can, avoid them if you want a decent game. However, if you can identify a Succumbus, it may be possible to use her. If you can predict what will make her quit, you can potentially use that to your advantage.
The Trimmer
A Trimmer is an opportunist, someone who will change her game plan at the first sign of a chance to better her position.
Trimmers are extremely flexible. If they see an advantage, they will take it. There may not seem to be a lot of logic behind this, but the Trimmer will believe she has logic on her side. If you like, they are a step on from a Bagger, although Baggers are usually more about playing to a plan. Trimmers are more likely to adapt any plans they have to circumstances.
Trimmers can be confused with Hippos but they aren't quite as random as that. Trimmers are more dangerous because a Trimmer won't just grab for SCs, they'll have a reason to be opportunistic.
The Votive
A Votive is a player that is perfectly honourable. They have a mission: to see abandoned positions picked up and to play honestly in those positions, seeing the game out with no further disruption caused to that power. Of course, that doesn't mean they're good players, or that they're going to be perfectly polite; it just means that they're going to make sure the power isn't left abandoned or in Civil Disorder again.(8)
The term votive is a medieval one linked to orders of knights. A votive knight was one who had joined a chivalric order to defend an honourable oath.(9) There is usually no oath to do this in Dip, although there might be. Some communities have groups who will actively look for this kind of event simply for the good of a game.
A Votive usually knows what she's doing when she's playing Dip, so expect a good game from this player. However, be careful - the player may be the less than honourable Cherrypicker or a Weasel.
The Weasel
A Weasel is a player who pops up from nowhere and does nothing, or nothing useful, then pops out again. For this to happen, another player has had to have left the game, leaving an abandoned power behind them. The Weasel then joins the game.
Not every player that picks up a vacant seat in a game is a Weasel, of course. Some of them are Cherrypickers, some are Votive Knights, some are just players who've spotted a position and taken it up for no other reason than that.
Weasels, though, have no real intention of playing, and are likely to last one turn or, if you're lucky, a year. They might not have looked at the position they've taken and, when they join, realise that it isn't going to last long so they turn tail and jump. Some, though, are game trolls. They simply jump in, drop some disruptive orders, and drop out again. There are a number of alternative terms for these players: let's just call them idiots and move on.
The Whittler
Whittlers involve themselves in draw-whittling, playing solely to reduce the number of players who share a draw at the end of a game.(10)
This is often seen in games that are scored using a draw-based system. The fewer the players that draw the game, the more points are earned by those players.(11) It can lead to a dissatisfying end to the game, with play being stretched out while one or more players are eliminated.
Whittlers are annoying. If you're going to draw, then draw! More than that, though, they'll actively seek to build an alliance against anyone who looks like they're vulnerable to draw-whittling, with no regard to anything else.
Notes
- See collinsdictionary.com
- I will discuss different philosophies of play in Diplomacy in a separate thread.
- See "A short introduction to Davian behaviour" by Patrick S Forscher.
- A stabbee is someone who has been stabbed. Stabbing in Dip is when one player has betrayed another by attacking her, usually to steal an SC. I'm not going to differentiate between a good and bad stab here!
- It is common for Dip sites to use a scoring system for some, if not all, games.
- Topping the board is often used in scoring systems that make SC count important. These are heretical systems in themselves... but that's not the topic of this post. Topping the board is when a game is drawn and differentiation is made for players with the highest number of SCs. Similarly, placements may be offered in these scoring systems. For instance, if a game ends in a solo, credit and points may be offered to players who finished on the higher numbers of SCs behind the winner.
- There are two main ways to play the game: face-to-face (FTF) or remotely. FTF is playing with people in the same location, usually around a table (although the diplomacy may not be around the table). Remote play is any format that isn't FTF, such as playing online.
- If a player doesn't enter orders the power is said to be in Civil Disorder in the rules of the game. In a Remote format, this probably means that the player won't enter orders again, and she may be immediately removed from the game or will be removed if she misses another set of orders if the system is a little more forgiving. When a player leaves the game, so that no player is left in control, the power is also in Civil Disorder, or course (although, in certain situations, a player may have entered orders before leaving and therefore the power isn't really in Civil Disorder). If a power doesn't have a player in control of it, then, I call this an abandoned position.
- See quora.com.
- Draw-whittling may be to do with maximising a certain player's score in a game by sharing the points with the fewest number players as possible, or it may be simply to do with an idea that games shouldn't feature more than a certain number of players in a draw.
- There are three types of scoring systems: Draw Based Scoring (DBS), Centre Count Scoring (CCS), and Hybrid systems that set out to combine the DBS and CCS. Another system type may be Rank systems, involving placement at the end of the game, but this is based on SC count, so it isn't really a separate system. DBS scoring can often lead to boring games; SC Count is an aberration; Hybrid systems are a mess.