In light of my theorizing in my earlier post about the influence of Diplomacy on the development of Dungeons & Dragons, there's this paragraph from Jon Peterson's magisterial Playing at the World:
By the end of the 1960s, both Gygax and Arneson had long histories with Diplomacy; some of their exploits receive consideration in the later sections of this chapter. The influence of Diplomacy on Dungeons & Dragons is subtle, but not insignificant. In something of the same matter as Diplomacy, Dungeons & Dragons stipulates the existence of coalitions of players – that is, parties – but without in any way defining how players might ally and cooperate in a party.
Anyone interested in a more thorough examination of this topic should probably check out Peterson's book, which goes into far more detail than I ever could. Still, I think it's worth remembering that Gygax, Arneson, and their contemporaries were playing a wide variety of different wargames in the years leading up to the creation of D&D and all of them probably contributed in some way, often unconsciously, to the game that would ultimately be published in 1974.
On a macro-level, Diplomacy seemed to influence "The World Of Grayhawk" supplement in the way even similarly-aligned nations had their own. sometimes inimical, objectives to work out. In terms of regular gameplay, I think any synergies in the way one plays Diplomacy and D&D really depends on the players, and how conflict-adverse they are.
ReplyDeleteActually, Diplomacy was not a subtle influence, it was a foundational one.
ReplyDeleteDave Wesley was a fan of Diplomacy, and developed a offshoot of it called Braunstein, in which players embodied the roles of the citizens of a small German town during the Napoleonic wars. This included everyone from military officers, to the town baker. players were then given secret objectives by Wesley. Once this was done, the game commenced with players trying to achieve their objectives, find out the other players objectives, and potentially help or hinder them. Disputes, conflict, arguments and outcomes were determined by dice rolls, and a "Referee".
Wesley originally thought the game was a failure and that it had broken down so much from having any rule based structure that it could not possibly be enjoyable for his players. However, this was far from the case and people began to ask him to run more games of it. One of those was Dave Arneson, the co creator of DnD. Not only was he a fan of Braunstein, he became the second "Referee" and ran games when Wesley was unable. And when Wesley left for the army, he took over the game entirely and continued development of it.
For a more in-depth breakdown of this you can read Jimmy Mahr's excellent article at his site The Digital Antiquarian.
https://www.filfre.net/2011/07/dungeons-and-dragons/
The different communities across the US in the early years of the hobby did have some different backgrounds. I don't think Greg Stafford had much background in miniature wargaming, for example. The Phoenix Cosmic Circle was the same, but there is an interesting correlation with Diplomacy! Ken St Andre was a big fan of Diplomacy and even published a Hyperborean variant.
ReplyDeleteI have not played Diplomacy for many years now, and I think peace of mind wins over the thrill of the game board for me.
I love DIPLOMACY despite not playing it for years. I haven't lost a game since the first one my professor ran in college. Love it.
ReplyDeleteIn our high school in 1979 the existing "Diplomacy Club" first adopted various Avaion Hill and SPI wargames, then turned into what was largely a D&D club. The next year it was gone, as everyone was just playing D&D after school instead of diplomacy or wargames, and the teacher ceased to sponsor such activity.
ReplyDelete