Diplomacy, the game

The lowercase "d" game of diplomacy, the intricate back-room acrobatics of international relations, can be played from any of the three theoretical perspectives that we have discussed in Professor Jackson's World Politics class: realism, liberalism, and constructivism. But the uppercase "D" game of Diplomacy, the online board game moderated by MNadler, is at first glance an intensely realist perspective on world politics. 

In Diplomacy, the goals of the state are explicitly outlined in the rules: states "win" by conquering territory and amassing "supply centers", which can be seen as collections of resources. Although realism does not necessarily dictate conquest as a means to achieving security, and liberalism does not necessarily exclude conquest as a means to achieving self-interest, the military achievements of the state in Diplomacy are the only achievements. The capture of supply centers is a transcendent and inviolable goal, not a means by which to access resources and enhance quality of life. Without supply centers, it is impossible to achieve victory; because the number of resources -- supply centers -- is limited, Diplomacy is a zero sum game. Some supply centers are neutrally held at the start of the game, but once this finite supply is exhausted the gain of one state is the loss of another state. Territorial integrity -- the possession of resources -- seems integral to success in Diplomacy.

The case for Diplomacy as a liberal paradigm of world politics is weak. States do not pursue self interest, and they do not operate in a positive-sum world. But, on close examination, the case for a constructivist reading of Diplomacy is strong -- stronger, I feel, than the realist interpretation of the game. Although the number of resources in the world of Diplomacy are indisputably limited, the competition for supply centers -- for resources -- is only a competition when viewed as such. The players in Diplomacy do not actually gain any concrete benefit from capturing supply centers, conquering territories, and amassing resources. A seven-way draw, in which players expand to occupy neutral supply centers and then end the game without eliminating each other, would have no less benefit to any player than the emergence of a single dominant power. Players' action in Diplomacy, with an upper-case "D", are predicated upon the assumption that  Diplomacy is a competitive game which must have winners and losers. The rules do not specify it must.