What do you think?
The game of diplomacy
Book by Sharp, Richard
192 pages, Hardcover
Published January 1, 1978
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
April 25, 2010
This is probably the best, most enlightening book on Diplomacy that I've ever read. Any time I flip to it to reference something- particularly the excellent guide to opening moves- I end up re-reading the entire thing. Just a very well written, amazingly entertaining guide to the world's finest board game. Trumps even Mr. Sharps writings in the classic zines of the 1970s-1990s- a true classic, and available online @ http://www.diplom.org/~diparch/god.htm
A true classic.
A true classic.
July 22, 2026
In its day, a definitive guide to how to play Diplomacy. Now rather dated and it suffers very badly from attitudes that weren't that funny in the 1970s and which today unacceptable.
A book written in the era before email is naturally focused entirely on tactics and amusing approaches to deception from the age of snail mail and notes being passed around in face to face games. Diplomacy is now played in so many different ways, so whilst Richard's analyses of strategic tactics might still hold water, his views on how to win friends and influence people, and how to pull of grand acts of subterfuge, no longer apply. Diplomacy is now played extensively online and the old relationship building of PBM, which could support a game that was played over multiple years in real time, is long gone.
There are many anecdotes that once upon a time might have appealed to the 1970s postal zine players, but which now would confuse the many millennials who play the game. And then there's this view on women in the game:
"A point of special interest concerns female players. They are few in number, according to the record, and probably even fewer if truth were known. There is a considerable difference of opinion here: is it better to be a girl, sheltering behind other players’ innate male chauvinism, or is it better to assume you will be regarded as a soft target, and disguise yourself as a man?
One of my favourite postal Diplomacy stories was told by Edi Birsan, now one of the best-known names in the American game, but then a novice like any other. Edi’s first name is, of course, the standard notation for ‘Edinburgh’, and I’ve always meant to ask him whether he called himself that before he learnt the game. However, it could equally well be a girl’s name. In the course of his first postal game, Edi became aware that his ally had fallen for this unintentional deception! While not exactly confirming that he was a girl, Edi did not exactly deny it either; indeed, he sent the unfortunate ally a photograph of himself with an attractive acquaintance, captioned truthfully enough ‘myself with a friend’. The alliance prospered exceedingly, until eventually the ally, on a visit to Edi’s home town of New York, asked him for a date. This was going a bit too far, and in a letter every player would have loved to write, Edi said, ‘I don’t think we should meet — we have too much in common. For one thing, we’re both male.’
My own opinion is that male chauvinism is too deeply inbred in most players for them to be talked out of it by a handful of noisy, drop-fronted progressives; your skirt could be the biggest diplomatic asset you have, and should not be lightly cast aside … I’m sorry, I’ll rephrase that."
Time for an update perhaps. There must be a budding writer somewhere who has a handle on the modern Diplomacy hobby who could take this task on. Dare I suggest... a woman?
A book written in the era before email is naturally focused entirely on tactics and amusing approaches to deception from the age of snail mail and notes being passed around in face to face games. Diplomacy is now played in so many different ways, so whilst Richard's analyses of strategic tactics might still hold water, his views on how to win friends and influence people, and how to pull of grand acts of subterfuge, no longer apply. Diplomacy is now played extensively online and the old relationship building of PBM, which could support a game that was played over multiple years in real time, is long gone.
There are many anecdotes that once upon a time might have appealed to the 1970s postal zine players, but which now would confuse the many millennials who play the game. And then there's this view on women in the game:
"A point of special interest concerns female players. They are few in number, according to the record, and probably even fewer if truth were known. There is a considerable difference of opinion here: is it better to be a girl, sheltering behind other players’ innate male chauvinism, or is it better to assume you will be regarded as a soft target, and disguise yourself as a man?
One of my favourite postal Diplomacy stories was told by Edi Birsan, now one of the best-known names in the American game, but then a novice like any other. Edi’s first name is, of course, the standard notation for ‘Edinburgh’, and I’ve always meant to ask him whether he called himself that before he learnt the game. However, it could equally well be a girl’s name. In the course of his first postal game, Edi became aware that his ally had fallen for this unintentional deception! While not exactly confirming that he was a girl, Edi did not exactly deny it either; indeed, he sent the unfortunate ally a photograph of himself with an attractive acquaintance, captioned truthfully enough ‘myself with a friend’. The alliance prospered exceedingly, until eventually the ally, on a visit to Edi’s home town of New York, asked him for a date. This was going a bit too far, and in a letter every player would have loved to write, Edi said, ‘I don’t think we should meet — we have too much in common. For one thing, we’re both male.’
My own opinion is that male chauvinism is too deeply inbred in most players for them to be talked out of it by a handful of noisy, drop-fronted progressives; your skirt could be the biggest diplomatic asset you have, and should not be lightly cast aside … I’m sorry, I’ll rephrase that."
Time for an update perhaps. There must be a budding writer somewhere who has a handle on the modern Diplomacy hobby who could take this task on. Dare I suggest... a woman?
October 27, 2024
The result of combining 70s sexism and an obssession with the board game Diplomacy. The latter stands the test of time.
December 2, 2020
Great book about a great game.
Some very insightful strategies laid out here, though there are opening variants that I have tried out with success that aren’t discussed at all.
I understand his main contention that the game is about betrayal, though it would seem that it is possible to win without stabbing anyone.
On a side note, I know it’s from the 70s but some parts were weirdly sexist for no reason
Some very insightful strategies laid out here, though there are opening variants that I have tried out with success that aren’t discussed at all.
I understand his main contention that the game is about betrayal, though it would seem that it is possible to win without stabbing anyone.
On a side note, I know it’s from the 70s but some parts were weirdly sexist for no reason
April 4, 2013
I have just recently discovered the game of Diplomacy (or maybe rediscovered), and have been playing games online at playdiplomacy.com. I am thoroughly enjoying it. This book is full of awesome strategy for the game. Sharp is humorous, but can also switch his tone and be extremely serious. Some of the time he comes across a little pompous in the book, but I think you are allowed when you have played and won as much as he has.
September 14, 2014
There is some queasy 70s-era comments on women, but more than anything it's gonna help you play a better game of Diplomacy. Did I just write this?
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews