A couple of thoughts on victory conditions and general gameplay:
A lot of games include a certain "delay the leader" dynamic. The two best examples I can think of are Munchkin and Settlers... in both cases the group teams up to prevent the leader from attaining the victory condition and ending the game. I like attacking the leader, but I don't like the group dynamic it sometimes creates, in which those in last place are pressured to do something which, frankly, isn't really in their own self-interest. Once you're really out of it in Catan, upholding an embargo on the first place player only prolongs the pain and gives some other jerk a chance to win. Often, the last place player figures this out, and stops helping the group hold the winner back.... and everyone else gets angry because the last place player isn't being "competitive." I say, don't hate the player, hate the game.
All that leads me to ask, is there a way to make the "attack the leader" action help the last-place player? In other words, what if hurting the leader didn't prolong the game... but instead hastened victory?
Here's a simple example of what I'm talking about: take a deck of playing cards, deal some out. Players take turns giving points by playing cards on one another. The game ends when the group total=100 (or whatever), and the winner is the low point holder. Giving the leader points both hurts their position and brings the end a bit closer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One idea that comes to mind is to provide goals that only the person in last place (or those tied for last place) can achieve. If you also want it to be a means of slowing the leader, make the goal oriented around consequences for the leader. An interesting example would be allowing the person in last place to perform any previous goals attained by the leader. If the last place player is successful, the leader looses half the points of said achievement.
ReplyDeleteThe flip side of the coin is that if you make it too easy to punish the person in first place, you end up with a really boring game. If being in the lead makes it very easy to be crushed, you have a game where nobody is willing to take risks/make bold moves. The game then becomes about maintaining the status quo until the last round. A great example of this is Power Grid... that game is about keeping pace, but not over extending. In my opinion it makes for a game where you go through the motions until the last few rounds, and only then do things get interesting. Some people like this, I find myself wanting to push the fast forward button.
One other mechanic that springs to mind is the achievements in twilight imperium. Each round a new public objective is flipped over, and all players can achieve the objective. Once a certain number of level 1 objectives come out, phase two begins, and a "the game ends this round" card is shuffled into the pile. This adds a great sense of urgency, and suspense to the game, and really helps to draw people away from just ganging up on the leader. Not knowing when the end will come really makes people scrambling for points.
In addition, each player has a secret objective, that only they can achieve, which is typically difficult but worth more points. This always gives players who are behind something to focus on. Also, since the public objectives are unknown until they are flipped, the leader position can easily change over the course of the game, without the players having to put all their energy into stopping whoever is in the lead.
In defense of the "not being competitive" claim; nothing ruins a game more than having a player who is bored with it sacrifice themselves just to ensure the person in the lead loses. To me that's king making, and all you've done is rob the fun from the players who are still enjoying the competition. I'm not suggesting that the player in last should be obligated to suddenly "be part of the team", but if you're not going to try to win, ruining it for others isn't a very sporting play.
The issue seems to be less the "delay the leader" mechanic and more the hopelessness experienced by the trailing competitors. In games like Munchkin and Settlers there are often positions where one person lags due to random circumstances or arguably poor decisions, but is not provided with an appropriate catchup mechanic. They do not have a spectacular course of action: They can attack the leader but as you stated that only helps someone else win. They can play for their own advancement but often that leads to the same conclusion or has them striking deals with the leader who is willing to pay more for what he needs. Finally, if they throw the game they become Satan.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has played a game with a settlement on the Clay 8 , Wood 10, Sheep 4 only to be hosed by poor die rolls until the early strength of that position is squandered. You can still play but you are no longer in contention. Likewise, if you open doors with only monsters that are far too strong, you can end up in a position where nobody needs your help or wants to help you without a one-sided donation of treasure. This doesn't promote engaging play.
This is because both of these games lack an appropriate balancing mechanic and reward those in the lead by providing them with even more resources. Power Grid has a similar style of punishment; if you get off to a bad start you might as well start reading the rules to the next game. It limits the potential for breakaway games by restricting growth which leads to the 'keeping pace' feel but I think this is better than allowing open progression which would just push the problem Mantrout has with it to another place in the game.
As far as "not being competitive" is concerned I understand the resentment but feel that this is not always so clear. If I am forced to play out turns in a game where my actions are useless aren't the other players robing the fun from me? Isn't this the fault of the game? Clearly sacrificing myself so that the leader loses or the leader wins is frustrating for some but not always so clear cut. Lets look at an example.
The game is almost over and I have no chance of winning. Two players are competing for the win, three languish in crummy positions. I can keep making pointless moves or I can make a move that helps the leader secure victory because he was trading favorably with me early in the game. Some people would not consider this example king making but in fact state that the leader had the extra 'friend' resource. Now we get to start a new game where everyone can have fun!
I don't know. King making is always a sour experience, but so is sitting in a losing position for the second half of a game. They might as well eliminate you. Games need to provide you with some built in hope.
Mike is your question about hurting the leader and hastening victory in the context of the two games you referenced or a general thought? I am sure these two can be tweaked to include some very interesting rules to minimize boredom and king making.
ReplyDeleteI was just ruminating.
ReplyDeleteI'm just wondering if there are fun ways to keep games highly interactive and avoid the king-making dynamic. Both Munchkin and Settlers are popular games because they are way more interactive than most...
Andy's missing thing point on king-making I think: in interactive games, spoiling other people's chances is half the fun. "Being competitive" or playing as "part of the team" in Settlers or Munchkin MEANS preventing the leader from winning, and sacrificing some resources to do so. The problem comes when you are spoiling people's chances, but have no chance yourself. At that point you are kingmaker... and the most rational decision (unless you are enjoying losing) is to try and end the game quickly (by helping the leader) or to try and help one of your friends. The anger of everyone else at the table (usually me, actually) at the loser isn't really justified. The game is what put them in that place.
What I was thinking about, and expressed inelegantly, was the possibility of expecting this scenario, and incorporating or dealing with it. Dealing with it is easier... set-endpoint games, or random endpoint (i like that one, and didn't know about it) relieve this in that they don't actively encourage the loser to help the winner, but they don't remove other incentives for king-making...
I guess I just don't see king making as being that gray of an area. Ganging up on the leader, conspiring against a player, taking advantage of another players misfortune/situation in the game, that's all perfectly fine, and should be encouraged to make the game more fun/interesting. Being ruthless, or being competitive are to me the opposite of king making. If a player has fallen behind, I would much rather they stop playing if the alternative is to make everyone else want to stop playing. I don't know about others, but even if I'm the one benefiting from someone who's tired of playing, I'd rather they not it robs a little from the enjoyment of winning a game.
ReplyDeleteI also don't understand the sentiment that a game has somehow failed because someone falls behind and gets bored. If a game is too simple to catch up in, I feel like you run the risk of loosing the challenge of a really good game.
Ultimately, I think all of this really boils down to the kind of game you want to play, and the kind of player you are. I think for a super competitive strategy gamer, the idea of easily catching up isn't very appealing. On the other hand, if your playing a cooperative game, having someone falling behind, or feeling like their actions don't matter is a really crappy thing. Well, feeling like your actions don't matter is crappy in any game, but the alternative isn't better in my opinion (for a competitive game).
Anyways, I think the examples I gave above are some ways to alleviate the drag of being behind in a game. I'm sure you can think of others.
Another consideration is how the losing player gets to be so far behind. If I make a poor decision or two early on that I can attribute my crumby position to directly, at least the loss forces me to consider strategies. If, on the other hand, there is some early game luck that puts another player in a vastly superior position for the rest of the game, the loss is not thought provoking at all, and really I don't care about going for second.
ReplyDeleteFor example: Mike and I didn't really have much time to get a deep grasp for Agricola over Christmas, but in the game in which I tried to feed my family with farming, at least I got a much better grasp for how hard farming is without a good combination of occupation and improvement cards. Conversely, I have played a couple games of settlers with completely random boards. There are often 1-2 super powerful starting positions, which if you don't get you are pretty much screwed.
In general I would say that random events need to have less impact early on, as disadvantages tend to compound. Larger swings in luck later in the game keep things interesting for players not in the lead, but also tend to hurt depth of strategy and replayability.
If a game makes it TOO simple to catch up then you do risk losing the challenge the GAME creates. I would rather play against the players then the game though. Otherwise we could all just play solitaire. I prefer a game provide a way to scrape together some sort of advantage when you are behind. This only harms the game play if it is implemented poorly.
ReplyDeleteI tried to explain this shortcoming with an example from Settlers. Strategically sound play does not guarantee a good experience in every game. In this situation dice can ruin the game. A popular solution to this is the food stamp version. A player collects a stamp every time the dice are rolled but do not provide that player with a resource. A player may trade food stamps equal to their score for one of any resource they need. A solid player will collect less stamps due to more sound placements but is OK with the exchange as resources are stronger intrinsically then stamps. The poor player can continue to enjoy the game and other savvy players suffering from bad beats can stay competitive by making the most of their stamps.
Even Mariokart is more fun with catchup turned on because it keeps all the players engaged. The best player will still likely win but at least you don't lap the new player as he is pulled out of the lava; Again. This would just turn him off to an otherwise great game. This situation also provides a poor challenge for the good player.
I like ketchup.
A question about king making: Mike and I are playing for the win. Jenni, who I stepped on to get to my position, makes a move that attacks me. Mike wins. Has she been a kingmaker or has she just conspired against me, acting in a ruthless manner to take advantage of my situation?
I'd say no, that's not kingmaking or bad gamesmanship, but it might depend on the circumstances. In general, though, I think people are willing to accept attacks to prevent A from winning, but not help that allows B to win.
ReplyDeleteHere's a question: in a game of Settlers, A and B are near victory, while C and D are sitting at 5 and 6 points, respectively. Is it ok for C to trade with A in order to claim 3rd place, knowing that the trade gives A the victory on the next turn? What if C can't claim 3rd, but can get another point out of the trade? What if it doesn't help C at all, but B screwed C over earlier?
Comparisons to Mariokart don't work for me: I played the Wii version when it came out, and the catchup mechanisms were ridiculously annoying. You could have a perfect race, practically lap the computer, get the finish line in sight... turtle shell, turtle shell, turtle shell.. omg last.
I do think games fail whenever people get bored playing them, at least in a small sense. Clearly I don't mean that a game should please all of the people, all of the time, but when a game very frequently leads to boredom or frustration for someone sitting at the table, something isn't right.
The problem is people falling behind and ruining the game. What are some possible solutions?
1. Old-fashioned elimination, ala Risk.
2. Less interaction: you can't play kingmaker if you can't affect someone else's game.
3. Catch-up or leveling mechanisms.
4. Multiple goals: give everyone something to work for.
5. Very fast play: who cares if you're behind in a 30 minute game
6. Disguise success/failure. Make it hard to tell how big the lead is until the game is over.
Obviously, the cure is worse than the disease in many cases.
Also, I'm intrigued by the food stamps, but it seems like early on, when you're only getting one resource per roll and only have 2 points, the food stamps would very often be preferable to actual resources.
ReplyDeleteI think the example with Jenni really depends. If Jenni attacked you with absolutely nothing to gain other than making you get 2nd rather than 1st I'd say that is king making, cause she ruined the competition for first only for the sake of being malicious. If however, as Mike points out, it makes strategic sense for her to attack you (it earns her points, it pushes her from 4th to 3rd, it achieves some goal towards her own end) then it's something that makes sense within the context of the game, and thus to me it's a reasonable play.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you mean by playing the player vs playing the game. If the game is easy to exploit by a reasonable player, then I say it's a fault in the game, not a fault in the way I'm playing it. If there is only one course of action to be pursued if you want to be competitive in a game, I feel like that's a weak game.
I agree with Mike's statement about a game failing if it frequently leads to frustration PROVIDED the people playing are all interested in the game type. There are plenty of good games that some people will just never enjoy. An example that springs to mind is me and cooperative games. I just can't get into playing a game where its the group vs the board. I played Pandemic with Joe and Jenni and it just wasn't compelling. I found that I just couldn't care weather we beat the board or not, if you asked me I would say it's a boring game. If you ask someone who likes cooperative games, they would probably have a completely different opinion. Bottom line is that trying to make a game appealing to everyone probably means you'll end up with a game appealing to no one.
I like Mike's list of solutions here are my comments on each proposed solution:
1) elimination is fine if its a game where the eliminated players don't have hours to wait for a new game to start.
2) I like interactive games so moving toward this solution makes the game less interesting to the kind of game player I am.
3) I really feel like this is hard to do without making the catch up mechanism turn the game into something that's boring. (again, YMMV)
4)Love it. Some games you can have fun in without being the winner (ROBORALLY). "Sure you won, but I managed to complete X before you did"
5)There is definite value in a game that lasts 45mins vs a game that lasts 3 hours. But I love them both.
6)I think the best aspect of Settlers is the hidden points, the unknown soldiers, etc... Twilight Imperium's hidden objective is good for the same reason.
Another mechanic that I think deserves to be on the list is to have a game with big rewards for risky play. Or a game where there is an opportunity for big point swings. Robo Rally, Galaxy Trucker, and Risk are all good examples. In RR, if you're suddenly falling behind, you can always try for the much riskier strategy of eliminating your competition rather than trying to play catchup in the race. Is it harder to win this way? yes, but it's better than just going through the motions till the game ends. If you're behind in Risk the only thing you can really do at that point is go on the offensive and spread your armies thin. Sometimes you end up with a surprise elimination and it pays off. It sure beats sitting in Australia for 3 hours....
And finally, I also thought of mario cart when the talk of a catchup mechanism came up. I agree with Mike that it used to be better before the super turtle shells got out of hand, now it's an example of the catch up mechanism ruining it for the competitive players.
I also thought of Mario party, which I think is another example of a catch up mechanism that ruined that game. The first mario party (maybe the fist 2?) were super fun, but then they introduced a billion random obnoxious awards so that "every one was a winner". The only problem was, it ruined it for people who enjoyed trying to actually win the game, cause it meant that being good at the game was meaningless, it all came down to how many silly stars you lucked into at the end of the game.
I just feel like making a game that's fun for the casual player and is also fun for the deep strategist is a really hard problem.
I didn't really play any double dash but it sounds like the catchup mechanics for getting items is not at all what I had intended to convey. I was a leaning towards a speed bonus, possibly dependent on you position in the game. I thought the 64 version had this? Mechanics that only harm another player are often poor catchup mechanics, I prefer those that bestow bonuses.
ReplyDeleteI agree with each of Andy's statements on the points presented by Mike. I do not know what YMMV is though. I also agree that if the game is easy to exploit by a reasonable player it is the games fault not yours. This is why I prefer the game to be well rounded and derive the difficulty from my savvy opponents not from poor mechanics. I believe that while catchup mechanics have been botched in many games they play an integral part in balancing.
Mario party was very frustrating and most of they bonus stars were no good. A few however might answer interesting balancing issues, such as the Coin Star (awarded to whomever held the greatest number of coins at any one time during gameplay) and the Shopping Star (given to whomever spent the greatest amount of coins). Or perhaps the one that lends credit to skill players, the Mini-Game Star (for most mini game wins). Unfortunately, Mario Party seems too random for catchup mechanics to fix the game for deep strategists. This is a good example of Andy's point that games rarely appeal to all personality types.
Food stamps are actually fairly strong early in the game but if you use them early for advancement you meter their functionality down so they diminish in power fairly quickly. This stamp variant definitely needs some test data.
I do like the idea of "riskier" alternatives for players that fall behind, though I'm not sure if I've really noticed this in action in many games I've played. In some ways, this fits in with my #4: multiple goals... or multiple victory paths. In other ways, I think multiple victory paths are similar to the "hidden success" idea: it's harder to tell who is winning when there are multiple ways to win.
ReplyDeleteI also like games that allow big swings. I've always said comebacks are more fun than neck-and-neck races. Risk, for all of its flaws, is a good example there: playing the card structure right allows for really ridiculous swings. The trouble is making the swings feel rational and fair: if the winner is the guy who gets the last big swing, by luck, it might feel arbitrary.
On a different note, I've been thinking about victory conditions, trying to categorize them a little:
1. Game ends when someone (usually winner) attains set goal: Settlers, Munchkin, Trivial Pursuit.
2. Game ends when all losers are eliminated: Risk, Monopoly.
3. Game ends at a preset point, which players have no real influence over: Agricola, Carcassonne, El Grande
4. Game ends when some communal resource runs out: Puerto Rico.
5. Game ends when some individual resource runs out: Ticket to Ride.
6. Game ends when the loser hits some point: Hearts
Personally, I like the idea of a game in which the end is a strategic decision, and not purely a mechanical occurrence, but they are, in a way, riskier. One measure of a game's accessibility might not be the complexity of the rules, but the freedom allowed to the players: with relatively open rules, it's possible to have a very large range of experiences... including completely miserable ones.
YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary
ReplyDeleteThe strategic ending is usually more interesting, but I think Agricola makes great use of the preset ending. If you're playing that game right I feel like it's almost stressful... you're constantly under the gun to try to scrape together as many points as possible. I've had more than one person remark to me that they feel like the game should be just a round or two more, but that's the beauty of it: If the game were longer everyone would end up with just about the same farm, and the game would be broken.
Caylus has an interesting hybrid in that there are a set max number of turns in the game, but players can take actions to speed the game along. I think it really works for that game.