I find myself wondering what the difference is between a game with a “king making problem” and any game where the player interaction enables players to interfere with one another’s goals. Offhand, I feel that if you can adversely affect another player in any significant way, then you can wind up in a king-making end-game. Potentially.
One way to prevent it is to run away with the victory so resoundingly that no one can possibly do anything about it. Games which are commonly competitive and close, though… the potential for king-making might just be a common outcome of those other attributes? And “competitive and close” sounds like a good thing?
I’m just musing, though… I haven’t really thought about this in any detail. How do the rest of you see it?
The only aspect of King-making that I know I like is in asymmetric games where one faction has a skill the others don’t.
In 1970s Dune it’s the Bene Gesserit win condition being that if you can predict which other player will win on a specific turn then you will win instead (and then you’ll try to make that happen, in a way that’s not too obvious to everyone).
In ARCS (according to the review) it’s one of the advanced cards that gives you basically the same win condition as the BG in Dune, but rather than that being your personality for the whole game it’s one that only comes in for a limited time later.
As one player of several doing this when others aren’t, I love it.
But that’s very different to “of the 4 people in play, any of them can use the same rules in the same fight as everyone else to make another one too powerful to stop”. That sucks, isn’t fun, and turns the whole game into carefully-managed attacks to prevent disaster instead of any other kind of interaction.
I’ve just watched the first 30 seconds, and Cole reckons there are “about seven” employees at Leder Games, all of whom work in the same room. I already have questions.
First there is the discussion about whether games should be designed to try and prevent king-making. Phil and I were saying that the possibility for king-making to occur in competitive interactive games is kind of inevitable (and I would go a step further and say that if it can’t happen, then it’s not interactive, and therefore of little interest to me).
Then there’s “is king-making fun when it happens?” which usually comes with a whole boat-load of assumptions. When it is arbitrary and down to one player checking out of the game due to no chance of winning, or boredom, then of course it sucks. This is how most people seem to approach the topic. But when it happens as a form of vengeance, or any result of interwoven player interactions during the game, I think it can actually be fun. Certainly more fun than the win going to whoever optimised the best, understood the rules the best, or rolled the best.
I can certainly see positive scenarios: for example, A and B are both contenders for victory, then non-contender C attacks A in return for A backstabbing C earlier. In the right sort of game with the right players, than can be great fun. It becomes part of the game, and if you’re going to backstab an ally you know you need to leave them unable to hurt you back.
If C does it just because they feel like it, that’s less fun.
Distinguishing these two states by rules is probably impossible.
I think that—as was previously said in the thread—highly interactive games bring some form of king-making to the table by design. They often have some negotiation mechanics that add to the interaction and even if not … winning may very well depend less on having the strongest board position but having a strong board position and a strong standing among the other parties at the table. This is an ephemeral and difficult win condition that is not stated in any rulebook ever. But they exist. And I don‘t think that is a bad thing per se.
I don‘t know much about most of your play-styles here. But I am definitely the type of player who always considers a meta at the table. (Much more so at a real table and less so on BGA). How aggressive do I want to play? How much will my turns piss of others because if I manage to fly under the radar and seem harmless, players will more likely decide their turns in my favor if there is such a decision to be made.
Good strategy for me includes trying to obfuscate your plans, being deceptive and at the same time winning over other players to your side of the table, helping you win by helping others do a little bit worse. I think this is part of almost all games that have any interaction. And it plays a role in winning many more games that don‘t reek of „king-making“ at all. We only call it king-making when it is a clear and obvious last decision at the table. All the previous decisions made at that table seem forgotten then…
It is a completely different thing when it happens because someone holds a grudge from a previous game or because they‘ve checked out and don‘t really care about outcomes anymore. There are definitely situations that can turn really shitty… but that‘s much more a people-problem than a game-design issue in my opinion. Game design cannot prevent people being shitty.
Now I haven‘t been on the receiving end of a bad situation that includes king-making at least not that I can remember—probably because I play with close friends for the most part and don‘t go to conventions where I might encounter a greater variety of players.
I have had plenty of post-game discussions where people moaned about how unbalanced something is or how things would have been different if only… the answer more often than not would be „you know if you had not pissed off that other player by placing the robber next to their town…“—yes things might have been different.
I think this hits on something for me around the subject. I’ve played games before which were used as a vehicle for a popularity contest of sorts. I hate it. For me with gaming I find that magic circle to be very important. Part of what makes the game table a safe space that is different to most other social spaces. I don’t care about king making in a game as long as the players are doing it in a spirit that is conducive to no personal attacks. The aforementioned you stabbed me in the back earlier in this game so I’ll scupper your victory is fine. I’ll attack X for non in game reasons I’m not going to be playing with that group if it’s consistently about non in game reasons. The idea of doing a move because it’s ‘funny’ is often too subjective and also boils down to pettiness in my experience so I’m not intrinsically against that motivation but I think it needs to be rare in a group as I’ve seen it dissolve in to bullying too often to have much truck with it.
I like foxed length games sometimes in the multi player solitaire vein as it can be like a calming time together where the lack of interaction is just about sharing an activity. I like having some consistent turns to put a plan in place and know what’s what. That being said my preference is for mainly high interaction games with a group that enters in to it with a spirit that aligns with mine. Playing with @lalunaverde and the other regulars we often play aggressively but it’s invariably done for in game advantage and is almost always selected as a course of action due to opportunity and calculated advantage so without that negative intent it’s rarely taken badly and most people laugh it off. The knock on of this is when we’re in a king making situation it’s rarely a bother.
I dislike games with a variable length which disproportionally reward a rush strategy. When it’s variable length and always the shortest I’m less fussed as my natural inclination is to prefer longer builds and strats.
Film endings: The Mist has a serious gut punch for an ending so for sheer WTF?! It’s hard to beat. Currently blanking on more good endings in films and books. I may come back if I remember any but a new baby is not conducive to such memory trawling.
That whole set of games which map to “everybody produces an answer, then some or all players judge or vote on which is the best” feels degenerate to me. At the very least they’re very subject to collusion.
I was in a game of Mall of Horror in which a player, let’s call him Robert, could not win, but he had the ability to choose which character would be sacrificed to the zombies and thus which player would win. My character in the room was the cheerleader; Robert and I agreed she used… erm… persuation… to not get picked to die.
In a light, backstabby game like Mall of Horror, it’s all done in good fun.
In a lengthy, strategic game, this type of kingmaking can be very anticlimatic and just leave a bad taste.
Consider the following:
There are 3 players: Xavier, Ynes, and Zack.
It is Xavier’s turn and is the last to take a turn.
Which move should Xavier make in the following situations?
Situation A)
Xavier has 100 points. Ynes has 110 points. Zach has 110 points.
Xavier can make a move that gains 5 points but would also give Ynes 1 point
Ynes would win, but Xavier would still be in third.
Xavier can make a move that gains 5 points, but would also give Zack 1 point
Zack would win, but Xavier would still be in third.
Situation B)
Xavier has 100 points. Ynes has 105 points. Zach has 105 points.
Xavier can make a move that gains 6 points but would also give Ynes 2 points
Ynes would win, but Xavier would be in second.
Xavier can make a move that gains 4 points, but would give no one any points
Zack would win, but Xavier would still be in third.
Situation C)
Xavier has 100 points. Ynes has 110 points. Zach has 113 points.
Xavier can make a move that gains 10 points but would also give Ynes 4 points
Ynes would win, but Xavier would still be in third.
Xavier can make a move that gains 5 points, but would give no one any points
Zack would win, but Xavier would still be in third.
My preferences:
Scenario A) Doesn’t matter, flip a coin
Scenar B & C) Give the win to Ynes. In both cases, it is a “better move” for Xavier’s overall game position.
It all depends on whether Ynes or Zach did more to harm Xavier’s score. Or, if it isn’t even possible to determine that, it doesn’t matter, might as well flip a coin.
Sure, why not? I don’t buy the argument that more points for a final move and guaranteed loss is significant - in lots of games, how many points you are from winning at the finish line is not a good indicator of how close you were to actually winning. For example, in a penultimate move rather than a final one, it can happen that a move that nets 10 points could never have won, while a move that nets 0 is a necessary prerequisite to a winning move (that didn’t then work out in this particular case for whatever reason). In such a situation, I might rather follow through with the failed plan for the final move, rather than take an unrelated move that gets me more points and still lose. Or I might prefer to kneecap the player who scuppered my winning move. Lots of potential motivations, but caring how many points I get when I know I can’t win is a particularly weak one, unless the game is utterly dry and lacking in interaction.
Did one of the players work with or against me during the game?
Which move fits best with my own previous strategy. Can I complete a plan I had been following?
More of the second, less of the first usually. I make plans and more than winning I want to complete my plans. A cool move is always preferred over other choices.
When a game is this close, we will note that winning on their own was not in the cards for either player. Sure BGStats won‘t reflect that, but in that moment: we know. Some game results are hard to express as numbers.
Basing kingmaking decisions on past grievances within the game seems petty and personal. But I am a “Care Bear” when it comes to games. I also don’t adhere to a “2nd place is 1st loser” mentality. I would rather just do the thing that is objectively better for me as if I were playing a solo game and let the kingmaking chips fall where they may.
Basing kingmaking decisions on past grievances outside the game would be cause for me to leave the game group.
My kingmaking scenarios depends on the context of the competition. But the rule remains the same. The goal is to win. Games with ranked endings: I’ll try to win but will attempt to increase my loser rank even if that changes the 1st place outcome for someone.
On a games where there’s only 1 winner and several losers. I won’t do anything on my last move if that doesn’t make me win. So even in the case where you backstab me and now you’re winning and I have the last move. I will make a non-move and let you win.
The problem is actually much larger than that. In order to arrive on that state, I need to be dumb enough to believe that my temporary ally (and it’s obvious that they are a temporary ally) wont backstab me. So, that doesn’t happen and I consider that a non-issue.
I don’t do intergame grudges. But again, the goal is to win so I will hit the strongest player if I have the choice.
People know who wins more often than others. And I feel it is allowed to consider player strength when determining moves. (edit: but it needs to be balanced. If it turns into bullying or a coordinated effort to shut down someone’s play that’s a no-go. I vaguely remember one occasion where I had to call people to reason to leave someone alone. I think the person would have been able to deal. But let things like that go on and they become a shitty habit.)
If someone mostly plays to block me instead of pursuing a strategy that will let them win, they are already losing usually.
Most of the games we play aren’t that interactive anyway so my takes are more theoretical than not.
Carrying grudges beyond the game/campaign’s premise, is something I find inacceptable–at my table. (Note: league and tournament play are maybe more prone to this, I have no idea, I just want to note that I can imagine situations where this comes up more frequently and since I don’t play in such surroundings, it is entirely possible in my imagination that people playing there might have a very different take)
I’ll admit to doing things in games because it is “funny”, however that can’t be just ruining someone else’s carefully constructed plan. Funny is definitely better when you have two equally good/bad options and you pick the more bizarre one (possibly launching yourself into the sun or being eaten by a dragon in the process).
I sometimes play with people who take things quite personally in games, and they don’t get the sharp end of funny, because it’s not worth ruining someone’s day.
Why does it have to be a “grievance”? If the only reason Xavier has 100 points instead of 130 is because Zach did everything he could to lower Xavier’s score during the game, why shouldn’t Xavier do the same back to Zach in the final round? Is it not allowed now, because it’s “too late”?
“You’ve been picking on me all game, so I’m going to pick on you and let someone else win even if I have an objectively better move to make” doesn’t sound like a fun game atmosphere. That’s why I tend to avoid games were you gain advantage through disadvantaging others.