slappy
Semi-Dangerous Nut
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 387
This is a proposal for a variant of Diplomacy that I am calling "Politics", as a working title. It is mainly a sort of hybrid of Martin Kennedy's "Factional" variant and Steve Doubleday's "Vote" variant. I am simplifying the rules of the former and the latter in order to give their offspring a fighting chance at life. I'm submitting this to you for feedback, especially to find out if a variant exactly like this already exists or if anyone would be interested in playing such a game. If so, I'd be interested in GMing for a trial run.
In "Politics", all of the standard rules apply, except each power is run by a team of 3 or more players. The game begins with Britain and France as democracies and all other powers as absolute monarchies. (These political structures can change as the game progresses.)
In democratic empires, all team members begin by voting for a Captain (who may be referred to as President, PM, etc). If no majority is granted, the GM will randomly draw a Captain. In monarchies, the GM randomly assigns the position.
Players in democracies vote on all move and build orders by sending them directly to the GM. Usual rules on deadlines and ambiguity apply. (e.g.: An ambiguous order or NMR from one team member is the equivalent of a spoiled ballot or voter apathy.) Democratic Captains get two votes, in the event of a tie for any specific order. The GM tallies the vote for each specific order and thereby determines the power's move for that turn.
Monarchies (and, later, dictatorships) are run by their Captains, but of course all team members may advise and debate in an effort to influence the Captain's orders.
After the Winter build of every even-numbered year, every government is subject to possible replacement.
In democratic countries, the replacement can only happen by vote of all members. Here, of course, the Captain only gets one vote. In the event of a tie, a second ballot is held. A second tie results in a coup d'etat with a Dictator being randomly chosen by the GM (see monarchies and dictatorships below).
In monarchies or dictatorships, overthrow is only possible if the war is not going well for the power. If any team member submits a bid for revolution to the GM, a random roll determines the success of the attempt in the following way:
So, for instance, a grab for dictatorship can only succeed if there has been no net gain in supply centres during the two-year cycle. If Germany picks up Denmark by 1902, the odds of a successful grab for dictatorship fall to 0 in 6. However, a call for democracy may still succeed, albeit with reduced odds of 2 in 6.
I recognize that the greatest challenge to playing this game would be player commitment. But I personally don't see a fatal problem with teams shrinking if the GM cannot find a replacement. It takes some of the fun out of the game for the remaining player, but that player ought to decide for himself whether he likes remaining as the unchallenged Captain or wants to recruit more players so he may enjoy the additional challenge and intrigue of the political dimension. The GM should have the right to add players at her discretion, but I'm just pointing out that replacements can be found through various efforts.
The extra political dimension is, to my mind, the enticing feature of this sort of variant. Email communication becomes all the more vital where powers can influence each other by encouraging revolution or simply pleading various diplomatic cases in the court of "public opinion". Turns would likely take significantly longer, but this ought to be necessitated by lively internal and external debate and discussion.
What do you think? I'm not terribly interested in correcting the concept for historical accuracy; I'm much more interested in advice and suggestions for playability. Ultimately, I'd like to try a game like this as GM in the near future and, if it works well, as a player in a future match. Any thoughts?
In "Politics", all of the standard rules apply, except each power is run by a team of 3 or more players. The game begins with Britain and France as democracies and all other powers as absolute monarchies. (These political structures can change as the game progresses.)
In democratic empires, all team members begin by voting for a Captain (who may be referred to as President, PM, etc). If no majority is granted, the GM will randomly draw a Captain. In monarchies, the GM randomly assigns the position.
Players in democracies vote on all move and build orders by sending them directly to the GM. Usual rules on deadlines and ambiguity apply. (e.g.: An ambiguous order or NMR from one team member is the equivalent of a spoiled ballot or voter apathy.) Democratic Captains get two votes, in the event of a tie for any specific order. The GM tallies the vote for each specific order and thereby determines the power's move for that turn.
Monarchies (and, later, dictatorships) are run by their Captains, but of course all team members may advise and debate in an effort to influence the Captain's orders.
After the Winter build of every even-numbered year, every government is subject to possible replacement.
In democratic countries, the replacement can only happen by vote of all members. Here, of course, the Captain only gets one vote. In the event of a tie, a second ballot is held. A second tie results in a coup d'etat with a Dictator being randomly chosen by the GM (see monarchies and dictatorships below).
In monarchies or dictatorships, overthrow is only possible if the war is not going well for the power. If any team member submits a bid for revolution to the GM, a random roll determines the success of the attempt in the following way:
- A majority of citizens submitting a call for democracy has a 3 in 6 chance of success. If successful, the normal voting rules for Captain apply.
- One citizen submitting a grab for dictatorship has a 1 in 6 chance of success. If successful, that citizen becomes the new Captain in a dictatorship (same as monarchy, just not the "traditional" government). Only one such attempt allowed per cycle (first come basis).
- A grab for dictatorship can only succeed if there is not a successful call for democracy in the same cycle.
- The above odds are also affected by the success or failure of the sitting government in the past two years. The gain of every supply centre gives the government a bonus point in each roll. The loss of every supply centre grants a similar bonus to the revolutionary faction. A net growth of 0 leaves the odds unmodified.
So, for instance, a grab for dictatorship can only succeed if there has been no net gain in supply centres during the two-year cycle. If Germany picks up Denmark by 1902, the odds of a successful grab for dictatorship fall to 0 in 6. However, a call for democracy may still succeed, albeit with reduced odds of 2 in 6.
I recognize that the greatest challenge to playing this game would be player commitment. But I personally don't see a fatal problem with teams shrinking if the GM cannot find a replacement. It takes some of the fun out of the game for the remaining player, but that player ought to decide for himself whether he likes remaining as the unchallenged Captain or wants to recruit more players so he may enjoy the additional challenge and intrigue of the political dimension. The GM should have the right to add players at her discretion, but I'm just pointing out that replacements can be found through various efforts.
The extra political dimension is, to my mind, the enticing feature of this sort of variant. Email communication becomes all the more vital where powers can influence each other by encouraging revolution or simply pleading various diplomatic cases in the court of "public opinion". Turns would likely take significantly longer, but this ought to be necessitated by lively internal and external debate and discussion.
What do you think? I'm not terribly interested in correcting the concept for historical accuracy; I'm much more interested in advice and suggestions for playability. Ultimately, I'd like to try a game like this as GM in the near future and, if it works well, as a player in a future match. Any thoughts?
