Hello, I am totally noob in diplo/roleplay type games, could you help me to understand some things?

First of all, what is (if there is any) the differences between diplo and roleplaying games?

To be honest, there isn't really a difference.

I'll give you some examples, there isn't much difference:

Diplomacy:

"I declare war on *country*"

Roleplaying:

"Our great nation is offended by the actions of *country*, we therefore declare war.

Small differences like that

There are those that take it a bit far....

@Diplomatic Immunity
This is my first diplo/rolepaying game ever (seems very interesting btw):
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9767180

I assumed there is big difference between simple diplo and roleplaying games.
For example how the hell can you imagine an alliance between the Papal State and the Almohads on that map? Or the roleplaying means other thing?

There are 3 groups imo.

FFA: You want to win, pm not allowed.

Diplo: here you want to win too. Pm allowed.

Rp games: goal is not to win. You represent something and maybe even vote to end.

For me there is a huge difference between roleplaying and diplo.

Master of desaster is right.
diplo games are like FFAs - but you have to warn your opponent befor you attack. Most of the time those games start with a crucial advantage or disadvantage for each player - which makes them very annoying, when they are ranked.
Roleplaying games are never ranked and will always be voted to end. They have custom scenarios, where each player has the opportunity to participate in telling/inventing a tale.

recently I played a game which simulated a beglian government with its different parties arguing against eachother: https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=8046850

and once there was a game with a spy theme, where you had to find out the locations of every other player in the game. so, private chat was crucial, as well as lying, backstabbing and eliminating players on well known positions.

diplomacy games involve the usual declarations

RP adds the aspect of behaving as if you were the leader of that country. For example if you were RP'ing in a game of thrones game you gotta say like "I house XXX declare war on house lannister cos everyone hates lannisters".

As a big player of Diplos, roleplays and FFAs I would say MoD is wrong (for once)

FFA: You want to win, anything goes, temporary alliances/truces and naps are key to winning and take a lot of practise to get right, knowing the exact best turn to backstab people is paramount. Anticipating and countering a backstab is even better (those who play me often will know that's my favourite tactic)

Diplomacy: The game is much more focused on having fun in a different way than just winning. Formation of alliances, discussions over various players behaviour/actions/attitudes are key to the game. Backstabbing, gangbanging and warmongering are generally against the rules. This is one of the main differences between FFA and Diplomacy. Usually the end of the game occurs when everyone agrees the world knows peace. Normally at this point the game is voted, or the win is given to the lowest level player, or the player everyone agrees played most admirably.

Roleplay: You are not a player, you are playing a role. Instead you're focusing on the particular history or nation that you are assigned, or the persona you are given. For example, you could be in a Game of Thrones game and be playing the White Walkers, or the "zombies" in another scenario. If you're playing a roleplay game then you will attack everyone without bias, won't form alliances, and play to destroy everyone. This is you roleplaying that role. If you were playing the King, you'd have to play a more leadership-role. The key thing is you play that role, not play as yourself or your own personality. If you're fighting zombies and they are destroying you, roleplay that. Don't get angry at the actual player, they are playing their role well, and so should you, stay in the roleplay.

The opposite of roleplay is not FFA, it's just playing as yourself like normal. A Diplomacy game can be role-play or "normal" and a FFA can be role-play or "normal". Obviously people prefer their own genres, and that's fine. Personally I like all types, but it's important to play the game type that you are in.

Edited 11/19/2015 12:16:06

mod and Ranek understand the difference.
Roleplaying is precisely this:

each player has the opportunity to participate in telling/inventing a tale.

The only thing is, the definition of roleplaying has changed through the years of warlight. The introduction of what is now called "diplomacy games" (i.e. a custom scenario which is hugely imbalanced and has a public enemy and maybe a couple other rules depending on who made it) has made people view roleplaying games as diplos where you just pretend you are who you started out as, just a fancy version of a diplo.
True roleplaying games have very little to do with the gameplay, it is all about the story which is made and the "aim" of the game. Some include:

• Eliminating 1 player in particular (each person has a different player to eliminate and noone knows whose player is whose (bad english I know))
  
• Going back to your "homeland" before anyone else
  
• The spy theme Ranek described

any many more... However it isn't like it has only 1 definition, so difficult to define rp games exactly.

Isn't... that what I just said?

There are 3 groups imo.

FFA: You want to win, pm not allowed.

Diplo: here you want to win too. Pm allowed.

Rp games: goal is not to win. You represent something and maybe even vote to end.

For me there is a huge difference between roleplaying and diplo.

Very much this. I try to play only RP games for that reason, I see no point in the other two (though I do occasionally play some of them as well)

BTW, Walter, judging by the level of your roleplay, you're not a noob at all. Roleplay and respecting the rules is really all you need. And imagination ofc.

I'm starting to think my posts are invisible...

I'm starting to think my posts are invisible...

No, they are not.

Every roleplay based game is a diplomacy, but not every diplomacy is a roleplay game.

It all depends on who you're playing with, to be honest. If you're playing with good roleplayers that enjoy pretending to be someone, you're playing a predominantly RP diplo. Otherwise, if you're playing with FFA lovers or people who desire to win by strategically moving their alliances, you're playing a warmonger diplo (some people heavily frown upon that, but honestly, if the players like it, it's not really a bad thing).

Both of these can be enjoyable according to every person's liking, although someone spamming, breaking rules or just playing the way the rest of the game is not really favorable to can really damage the fun.

Also, after a quick check of the chat in the game supplied, what Death said is accurate - you're not really a noob. If that is a newcomer roleplaying, then you've got ways to go :)

NO! You can make Roleplay games that are not diplomacy because you use complete fog and simulate it being a castle in the middle of the night.

^Yup, RP only means that you are in character. As a matter of fact a 1v1 can be a RP game.

@Carus Cauda, Who are you quoting? I am confused.

Yeah, I often host Roleplay FFAs on historical maps, also it's really good fun to roleplay in big 2 team games like Axis vs Allies.

I wouldn't call either of those Diplomacy, honestly, read my post, it explains everything.

The important takeaways here are:

1. There is no single way to play a "diplo" game. Some involve alliances, some have strict rules, some have roleplaying, some have custom scenarios, and all are unique.

Let me repeat that:

There is not RIGHT way and no WRONG way.

There is just a clear way which everyone agrees on (and therefore has a fun game) or an unclear way where everyone assumes different things and then ends up blacklisting each other (and complaining about it on the forums).

So, what to do?


2.If you're going to host one, make it clear:

a) What are the rules, if any?

b) Are players expected to "roleplay", as part of the fun (and therefore somewhat optional)?

c) Are players expected to "roleplay", as the whole point of the game (and therefore you shouldn't play at all f you're not going to get into character - and stay in character)?

d) Is the goal to "win", and, if so, what are the victory conditions? (e.g. A single winner versus a winning alliance which "votes to end" at the end of the game, or some other, less obvious objectives.)

e) What are the social expectations? (For instance, is holding a grudge acceptable, or does it make you a bad player? Are betrayals part of the fun, or do they make you someone no one wants to play with? Does a good player cause drama and action, or is quiet and peaceful behaviour more desirable?

f) What happens if the "roleplay" interferes with the victory conditions of the game? (Should you play "in-character" even if it means losing the game, or is being a good competitive player the primary goal, with the roleplay a sort of fringe or "colour" on top of that?)


3. If you're going to join one, ask questions until you understand the above.

I have no doubt that the typical Warlight player, however, will be too lazy to give this some thought and take the five minutes it takes to outline this. Then a hundred threads will appear on the forum and everyone will argue about the "right" way to play, people will be angry at each other for "playing wrong", and so on.

Make it clear what game you are playing, and get straight to the fun. Almost all the "problems with diplomacy games" (a common forum thread title) will disappear.

Edited 11/19/2015 22:11:54

M.Poireau, that is a good guide for those, who never played a rp game before and would like to give it a go. there might have been other posts, which explain everything, but I guess everyone got the point after your reply.