I'd argue that Diplomacy is only a game for "nerds" in a rather peculiar sense. The people who are really good at it are those that are capable of lying/acting convincingly. Face to face, that's quite difficult and falls outside of the skill set of the classic nerd. Online games are another matter. Here, I think long range analysis combined with good writing skills matter more, although the social elements are still in play.
We can split hairs over the different kinds of nerds, but I'm interested in how you would describe a group of people who sit in a room for 8 hours in a row while roleplaying foreign affairs on a fin-de-siècle map of Europe ;).
Even as I was hitting "submit" I was reconsidering my comment above, so your point is granted. I think I was just imagining the epitome of a great diplomacy player. In my head, this is someone not just smart, but charismatic, persuasive, and, shall we say, "ethically flexible." Say... Bill Clinton, for example; not someone I would have originally categorized as a nerd, but who might well meet that description upon reflection.
That's a pretty unsophisticated look at the game. It's very possible to win a game of diplomacy without ever lying once. This is especially true if you play with the same people a few times: When people get to choose between being allied with a known backstabber or with someone that will tell the truth, guess what? The backstabber loses. After a big backstab, chances are you are getting clobbered in the next game, because on the first couple of turn, chances are you'll have trouble being part of an early alliance, and thus end up as food, especially if you are stuck playing Italy.
It's far more valuable to know who else is lying, and trying to gain information from other people on the table. So much of the game comes from figuring out what other people will do. Being persuasive is also very important, and it's very hard to be persuasive when people know you are a good liar.
Of course you don't have to lie to win at Diplomacy, but even in an iterated game scenario, I believe that never lying is a suboptimal strategy. As the article notes, players who do this are derisively called "care bears" and in my experience, aren't the most successful, though they may come in second fairly often (speaking from experience as something of a care bear myself.)
Over multiple repeated games with the same players, no doubt some sort of equilibrium arises where on the scale of 0 to 1, zero always being a care bear, and one always being cutthroat, an optimal strategy probably lies... well, I'd be curious to know exactly where that optimum lies, actually. Anyone care to guess? My guess would be somewhere around ~.25.
i disagree on some points. when playing these types of games with people you played many times with, its really about knowing WHEN and HOW to backstab.
playing a game where everyone is honest (especially in diplomacy where there is no random variation), you already know who is the winner from the onset. who would even want to play. diplomacy will always end in a tie if 'teams' are even and once you outnumber the enemy its over, unless someone doesnt keep their end. maybe I am remembering the game wrong
Every article that has anything to do with with involved, intellectual hobbies has to have the word "nerd" or "geek" in them nowadays. It's what sells, apparently.
