What skills are required to become a true master of Diplomacy? Well, of course there are the obvious ones of tactics and strategy. The best players do see and understand the implications of board positions better. But I have come across many examples of players who had these skills and yet never became top players, never really mastered the game. Why not? While tactical and strategic senses are necessary conditions for mastery, they are not sufficient. What is still lacking? The answer is given in the name of the game: it is the growth of one’s diplomatic ability to negotiate with the other players that is the ultimate skill development required to become a true master of the game.

And yet this skill is so subtle that it has rarely been deeply analyzed, despite some powerful articulations of how to negotiate in Diplomacy. I think the gap has largely been the overlooking of the psychological dimension in these negotiations (on which I will focus our attention shortly). For instance, I recall the wonderfully helpful piece by Paul Windsor “Lawyer/Diplomat,” published in the Fall 1997 Retreat issue of The Diplomatic Pouch Zine, and would still recommend it very highly. But his suggestions are those of a lawyer, not a psychologist, and so, helpful as they are, something more still needs to be explicated.

The closest I have seen to what I am proposing to begin here were two pieces. The first is by Lewis Pulsipher “The Art of Negotiation in Diplomacy”. He emphasized the importance of getting to know your opponents, not only their relative proficiency, but also their style, what facets of the game drew them in. The second is by Umble The Heep, in The Diplomatic Pouch Zine, Spring 2020 issue, who summarized his article “The Infinity Stones of Manipulation” with: “Greed. Fear. Revenge. Empathy. Flattery. Friendship. Being able to wield these emotions are vital for sustained dominant play. Master their use. Don't forget though that the key is finding out which of these emotions work best on a particular player.” Yes, both these authors have begun to open the door onto the psychological dimension of diplomacy. But so much more remains to be understood.

Before proceeding further, I should briefly say something more about what I mean by “the psychological.” The term is of course too broad, because there are a variety of approaches within the field of psychology. The one I find most helpful here is the phenomenological analysis of experience as it is actually lived. And for over forty years as a professor of psychology, that is the approach I studied and taught. But I want to bring it to bear on Diplomacy not as an armchair psychologist. I also played online Diplomacy many years ago, and I quickly became the top ranked player in the world on the old Judges ranking system, a feat I replicated again when I reached the top rank on the BOUNCED site.

So, what is the psychology of masterful negotiation in Diplomacy? First, let us consider what it is not. Many people may think it requires being a good liar, or even a good psychopath. A deliciously funny take on this perspective is Haoran Un’s “Diplomacy: The Most Evil Board Game Ever Made”. After all, isn’t Diplomacy a game about pretending to be someone’s friend, in order to stab them in the back? Well, there is a high level of deceit and treachery involved, certainly. But my argument here is very different. I think the key psychological skill set is in fact the very opposite of that which a psychopath possesses. It is in fact what the psychopath so tragically lacks.

What is required to master diplomacy is a highly developed emotional intelligence. The ability to be sensitive to another person at an implicit level. The ability to understand another’s deepest motivations. The ability to relate empathically to another’s experience. The ability to tune in to and to express an appropriate felt sense: a resonance, a vibe. At just the optimum time. In just the right way.

As an initial foray into these matters, let’s consider in particular this issue of lying. Beginners think you shouldn’t lie and are appalled when they discover that they have been lied to. Better players think you should be honest up until the big stab, so that when you do lie it will not be noticed in time. But mastery goes beyond this simple dichotomy of true/false. As George W. Bush infamously named it, there is an in-between zone of “truthiness.” Why waste the opportunity of writing a press by simply saying only “the truth” when in fact every press can be used as an occasion to shape the perspective of the reader? Every press is a precious opportunity to deploy one’s ability to persuade by extending one’s reach beyond what is true, to what is believable.

But lest this psychological ability sounds rather too abstract, let’s consider it in the exact context of some of the hot and heavy Diplomacy games I have played. Below are a few examples to illustrate these larger themes. Please note a couple of caveats. First, the number of items on this list could be multiplied by many many more! Each situation (each player on each turn) really must be the occasion for its own individualized deployment of the psychological. Second, many good players have been doing these and other practices for a long time, but likely have mostly done so implicitly, without really thinking through just exactly how to calibrate them most optimally. That is typical of psychological practices in general: we tend to live as psychological beings, without necessarily reflecting on the meanings that we are living. But when it comes to growing one’s ability, to become aware of what one has been living unawarefully is a valuable means of improvement.

Here then are a bare dozen examples, listed in no order, simply to incite the beginning of a study of the psychology of diplomacy. To do them justice, each would require several pages of description, instead of the few lines given here. And then, as I said, there are so many more that only a book could really do the job. So please take this for what it is: a mere introduction to this exploration of psychological dimension in diplomacy.

1. Whenever reasonable, use “we” rather than “I’ and “you” when discussing ideas with an ally. For instance, if instead of saying “I see Germany is threatening you” to say instead “Germany is threatening us” gives an added emphasis that you are in this situation together, and will work it out together. (The old cliché: “There is no I in team.”)
2. In your initial press after a move turn processes, try to lead with a compliment about what the other person did well last turn. Create an occasion for you both to celebrate it together, even if only with a line of text. Such specific reflections are more effective than general flattery.
3. To build the rapport of an “us against him” mentality, don’t neglect to tell your partner how badly another player has spoken of them (even if they haven’t). And add how deeply you mistrust that other player for being so malicious toward your partner.
4. When a partner has failed to gain an objective against a third player (especially if that’s because you alerted the third party in order to insure that failure) commiserate sympathetically about their “bad luck.” Or better still, use the occasion to sow suspicion on a fourth player’s perfidy in the matter (“I wonder if France suggested that move to Germany. You hadn’t tipped him off as to where you were going, had you?”)
5. To insure buy-in, do your best to induce in your partner the sense that your ideas are their ideas. For example, credit whatever input they have as “brilliant,” even if – always subsequently – seen to be improvable with a little more “tweaking.”
6. Study carefully how the other player crafts their press, and try to do yours in a similar way. For example, if the other writes short and succinct, keep your short too. If the other enjoys a bit of role playing, play along too. If the other writes back quickly or frequently, do the same. You want to build in the other a sense of confidence in your mutuality – especially by contrast with the others, who “just don’t seem so trustworthy.”
7. Don’t act naïve or stupid, and certainly never condescending, but do grab opportunities to let the other inform, enlighten or educate you. For instance, ask what he thinks of someone else’s moves, or what suggestions he might have for your moves even when not relevant to his own. And mark these occasions with gratitude. (“Ah, now I see what you mean! Thank you!”)
8. In a long-term alliance, be sure to reflect your understanding of their vulnerabilities to a future stab by you, and take opportunities to offer specific protections to reassure them that you’ve no such designs. Token concessions, such as waiving a build, or placing it where the other chooses, can go a long way toward creating a false sense of safety.
9. Never neglect a player who is losing so badly that they’ve given up hope of even finishing in a draw. It is with such a player that you should discover what other motivations they can still be stimulated by. The classic one, of course, is that of revenge – helping you to solo instead of settle for a two-way because the other large player viciously, “unfairly” cut them out of what was “supposed” to be a three-way draw. For others, it may simply be survival, or ending up with more dots than their rival. Or helping you to craft the winning strategy. Or just having good conversations.
10. To insure that your telling a third party about your partner’s moves doesn’t come back to bite you, it can be helpful to tell your partner that this third party has told you that your partner has told him of your moves. For example, France writes to Russia: “Austria just told me that you told him I’m going to attack Munich. Did you? How could he have otherwise known that? I haven’t told anyone else but you!” After which, you calmly come to “understand” that Austria must have just made a “lucky guess” in order to sow distrust between the two of you.
11. Whenever you do attack another player, do your best to redirect the attribution. In other words, try to make sure that they understand it is someone else’s fault, someone who had already laid the seeds of their downfall, so that your own moves are only the “natural” consequence of that now current situation. (Better that you get their remaining centers than that awful ogre who put them in this vulnerable position. And you promise that you will make sure to punish that ogre.)
12. When the game is over, an emotionally mature person may feel, beyond the joy that they have won, an additional layer of something like remorse or regret, that they betrayed others who trusted them. This sensitivity to the experience of the other is a feature of emotional intelligence. And that is why you should take the time, after the game, to write thoughtful End of Game (EOG or AAR) statements to the other players, justifying one’s actions strictly in the game context, to remind oneself and everyone else that this was just a game and nothing personal was ever intended by anything done within it.

In closing, if you master the highest level of the psychology of diplomacy, you will enjoy very friendly, positive, deeply engaging relations with the other players, who will all happily help you to win!

END NOTES:

1. Another interesting use of psychology in Diplomacy is “game theory” -- such as the work of Larry Peery in The Diplomatic Pouch Zine, Winter 2014 Adjustment issue -- but this is outside the parameters of the psychology of negotiation that I am focusing on here.
2. Before closing, we should consider the difference between face-to-face vs. online Diplomacy with respect to this issue. I have only played online, but my guess is that both involve the same essential skill I‘ve described above. In some ways, face-to-face is even more so, because it is live (body language! See Larry Peery’s take on that in The Diplomatic Pouch Zine, Fall 2016 Movement issue) and because the time available is so compressed (no time to waste, each moment must be used to the maximum extent possible). But these very differences also allow for a high level of psychology in online Diplomacy. Because one is not live, and not under such time pressure, one can hone one’s message with great care and precision, taking into account and deploying all the features I’ve described above. In that sense, it is online Diplomacy that allows for the richest opportunity to cultivate these abilities.
3. I want to acknowledge and thank Carol, my love and life partner, for her help in putting these thoughts together.

Dr. Chris Aanstoos is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of West Georgia. Correspond with Chris via email at:

Dr. Chris Aanstoos (aanstoos@gmail.com)

If you wish to e-mail feedback on this article to the author, and clicking on the envelope above does not work for you, feel free to use the Dear DP... mail interface.