The Velvet Glove

Meta-gaming has been around the Hobby for ages, as we’ve seen from the above analysis of the Karma League articles by WHS. It seems almost natural in a game where relationships and social play are such important parts of the game. It’s human nature to trust people we know more than strangers, to use past experiences to influence decisions in a game rather than play each game anew, and to put aside the prejudices we have over writing style, attitude, philosophy, reputation, etc.

 

Given this, is it impossible to prevent meta-gaming? I’d say it depends what you take meta-gaming to be.

 

Playdiplomacy’s Rules

Playdiplomacy.com has a list of rules which seek to prevent meta-gaming. gsmx has mentioned some of them in his article; but I’ll summarise them all here:

• Players aren’t allowed to enter a game with a preset alliance or to join a game with an arranged alliance.

• All players in a game should be treated equally, regardless of prior knowledge or existing relationships.

• Carrying alliances into multiple games and playing as a team across multiple games is banned.

• Cross-game alliances are banned: ‘We’re allied in game A, so let’s ally in game B’ or ‘If you do this in game X, I’ll do this for you in game Y.’

• Targeting a player, threatening reprisals in a concurrent or future game, in response to something which has happened in another game isn’t allowed.

• Sharing information across active games, sharing information from past games that can’t be seen in normal ways (ie sharing information past on through power-to-power messages) and referring a player to a game using its name or number are not allowed.

• Players aren’t allowed to coach other players in a game.

• Using the threat of reporting cheating as blackmail in a game is banned.

• ‘Hijacking’ a game – jumping into it solely to disrupt it – isn’t allowed.

 

What we do allow players to do is research. They can view past games others have played, including reading public press. They can use statistics to build up an idea about how a player may play. They can, in short, build up a profile of players, if they wish.

 

Players can also pass on information about another’s player’s style of play, providing there is no direct referral to a game. We also accept that players will have certain prejudices and that these will influence play. In this, at least, human nature will play its part!

 

Why these rules?

It should be pretty clear that certain things are clearly unfair. Entering a game as a team and with a preset alliance – arranged before the game starts – are surely clearly unfair. Dip is a game where seven players vie for the win: if a game has a team of players in it, this changes the dynamic. Even if players only play to eliminate the opposition and then ‘shoot it out’ this is unfair to everyone else in the game.

 

There is the ‘Spirit of the Game’ to consider. In a normal game of Dip, one that isn’t part of a tournament for instance, each game should be a single event, not affected by events in other games. Creating cross-game alliances, carrying cross-game grudges, passing favours across games – these all destroy the ideal.

 

Some of the above rules are difficult to enforce, as gsmx has said. It’s difficult to divorce past experiences with another player from the current game. If I’ve been stabbed in game 1, I’m going to be more wary of being stabbed in game 2, for instance. ‘Coaching’ can be a nebulous concept: providing advice or moves and strategy we accept – entering the game intending to not attack another player because she’s (or something similar) or a mate we’re introducing to the site isn’t!

 

Meta-gaming v. the Meta-game

This is also a problematic issue. Meta-gaming – team play, cross-game play, etc – has been around forever (in Dip terms). The meta-game has probably been around as long but is something different.

 

To some extent, the differentiation between meta-gaming and the meta-game is more to do with what a site, GM, tournament officials, etc will allow and what they won’t. Certainly, that is how the concepts have developed on Playdip. They are, arguably, equally as harmful to the Spirit of the Game; the question becomes, then, can the meta-game be prevented?

 

It is all-but impossible to prevent prejudices and past experience from affecting a game, as mentioned above. It’s been argued that making every game anonymous is the answer to this but it isn’t. Doing so would simply make it easier to mask cheating until after the game is over and it would likely bring the ‘cheats are everywhere’ response to unusual play – already evident in those players who report anything that appears strange to them! – right to the forefront of the site. If I’m determined to play as a team with my mate, I simply create or join a game and pass on the details.

 

Scoring games is also going to encourage the meta-game. Playdip allows players to play Ranked, No Rank, Friends or Schools games. Ranked games are scored, they contribute to the players’ site ratings. The other classes of games aren’t scored. (It’s worth recognising at this point that Friends and Schools games are not investigated for meta-gaming.) No Rank games are for fun, although the full site rules are applied to them (after all, any game is for fun and the fact that these aren’t ranked shouldn’t mean that fun can be spoiled). Friends games are designed to be played as if a group of friends were playing a game together; Schools games are designed to be used by teachers, lecturers, tutors, etc to use Dip for teaching purposes.

 

Once you score a game and once you allow more than one game to feature in a scoring system, it introduces the idea that a player may play to maximise her score. This can lead to all sorts of strategies – playing to a draw being the worst aspect. With a good scoring system, though, it is possible to ensure that a solo victory is weighted high enough that a draw is less appealing. Still this isn’t necessarily what happens.

 

What can’t be stopped at all is playing to build a reputation for being a reliable ally. This will always happen when there is a group of players regularly playing together, whether it’s a group of friends and a limited group of players using the same site (and Playdip is the largest site). Some will play to encourage others to ally with them in future games, rather than play to get the best possible result from the current game.

 

Finally, an issue of discontent among some, is being able to see statistics and past games. gsmx even identifies this with meta-gaming. Should I be able to check out how Player1 plays France and, if I see that he has a fondness for a set opening use that in my game against him? Should I be able to check out Player2 and work out whether he’s aggressive, passive, etc? Should I be able to check out Player3 and find she is likely to surrender if the going gets tough and make a decision on how I will play against her?

 

Drawing a Line

At Playdip, then, we try to draw a line between what any member could do and what no member should do. Perhaps this is a superficial or artificial distinction but it is, at least, a pragmatic distinction.

 

Any player could do her homework on others. Unless we blocked access to the stats and didn’t allow players to see archived games, this is impossible to prevent. And, let’s face it, stats are almost second nature to a lot of Dippers! So, if I do my homework then the only advantage possible is over players who either don’t do theirs or who don’t do it as well. On the other hand, if I pass on information that only I could know about another player, eg something I have learned in a power-to-power message, then this is against the rules.

 

Similarly any player could go through any other player’s past games to find trends, patterns, etc so we don’t prevent comments such as: “Go and look at PlayerX’s games – you’ll see he’s a stabber!” However, not all players might see the same patterns from past games and so we don’t allow direct references to games where this evidence can be found.

 

Any player could play to establish a reputation. When it comes right down to it, I am the player who is in sole control of my units and how I play my game. If I choose to play in such a way, that is my choice. How other players choose to react to that attempt is up to them!

 

And, again, any player could play games to draw them, building a strong alliance in the game and maintaining it to the end. As someone pointed out to me, there is a certain amount of skill in doing so. Again, how players deal with that situation is up to them. What we at Playdip say is that every player should enter a game with the intention of gaining the best possible result from the game, not entering it with the preset idea of drawing with a certain player or power.

 

Parallels in Other Spheres

‘Meta-gaming’ exists outside the Hobby, of course, although it’s usually termed ‘gamesmanship’. In any competitive team sport a team will prepare itself for a game by utilising certain tactics based on those used by the next opposition. In baseball, a pitcher may choose to walk a batter rather than allow a big-hitter the chance of a home run.

 

One fairly famous event happened in the 1978 World Cup in Argentina (actually, a number did but this one sticks in my mind clearly). In their group in the Finals, West Germany and Austria were paired together. When they played, they were in the position where a draw would see both qualify for the next stage. In a reflection of the German/Austro-Hungarian ‘anschluss’ from Dip, they played out an uninspiring, sleep-inducing 0-0 draw, despite the fact that West Germany were much the better team.

 

Finally…

There have to be some rules which seek to prevent players from gaining clear advantages in games. Outlawing team-play, cross-game play, etc is clearly the way to do it.

 

Alongside this there should also be rules which prevent advantages gained through linking games together in a way that they influence play in one game. The difficultly, then, lies in what can be done to prevent this.

 

We should also remember that one rule of competition, be it Diplomacy or warfare, is ‘know your enemy and yourself’. Putting some effort into researching the competition is common in all walks of life. Trying to prevent this in Diplomacy is almost impossible – there will always be some way to do it. And it probably shouldn’t even be prevented. Dip isn’t about a completely level playing field, even on the board! Trying to make it completely level off the board is ridiculous.

 

Not everything that can be defined as ‘meta-gaming’ is in Playdip’s ‘we don’t want you to do it’ category. There’s no point trying to combat human nature that will favour past history over a fresh start, although if there is explicit evidence that this past history has resulted in clearly unequal treatment, then there will be some action taken. There’s no point in preventing gossip between players, and the passing on of information but, if that information is too specific or even ‘secret’ then there will be some action.

 

It is a balancing act, to be sure. But it’s worth putting the effort into it to encourage the site to flourish.