Purple Parlay—Kingmaking

10 Comments

1. Mike Devonald on 07.09.2010 at 09:23

   I had this happen last weekend.

   Myself, my other half and her mum were playing Carcassonne.

   My other half placed a tile that completed one of my larger cities and gave me enough points to go ahead in the game.

   There was complete and total uproar from both myself and her mother as it was very bad sportsmanship. I felt cheated out of winning on my own merits and as for her mum, she was quite distraught as it was her first time at Carcassonne and was ahead in points from the beginning.

   There is no need for king making in any game, no matter your relationships or how you feel about the gamers in your group.

   DONT DO IT!

2. Rob on 07.09.2010 at 09:45

   Depends on teh game and the players. If my kids are involved and its the first or second time they are playing it then maybe. If its with the game group then not really, unless someone has pwned me so bad that I don’t want them to win. But that rarely happens ;-)

3. David on 07.09.2010 at 16:00

   Never! It upsets the game. Makes me feel like after I’ve invested all that time, someone is forcing a change to the nature of the game that I never agreed to.

   Don’t do it!

4. Chris on 08.09.2010 at 04:10

   It’s awfully rude to tell other people how they must play! :p

   If you want to play in the absence of the human element of improvisation, play against a computer. King-making is an aspect of these games when played with real people… if you aren’t able to play the game in the knowledge of this risk, then you’re just not good enough at playing. :)

   Personally, I like to play the game in all its dimensions – including the all-to-human risk that players you have betrayed will take their vengeance in whatever petty ways become available. Yes, that means a little bit of diplomacy creeps into almost all games, but so it does to any activity that occurs between humans.

   Sun Tzu wouldn’t have been so careless. ;)

   Best wishes!

5. Mike Devonald on 08.09.2010 at 05:16

   Not so much as telling, more like politely suggesting while using aggressive UPPER-CASE LETTERS, lols.

   There is also the other side of the coin, when the person you are giving the advantage does not want the help.

   When you are playing games you are always focusing on what next move will be. Suddenly out of left field someone influences your game and could unintentionally foul up your ongoing strategy.

   I love to play games and when there is a cooperative side, Arkham Horror, Pandemic and Forbidden Island jump to mind, king making is a valid option. But for me it in competitive gaming King making can spoil the experience for me.

6. David on 08.09.2010 at 10:05

   It is rude to tell other people how to have fun. It’s even worse to deceive people into thinking they’re playing one type of game when really you’re going to change it into something else in the middle. There are games with shared victory. My favorite is still Dune. But for others, kingmaking is a variant and not one I’d generally agree to.

7. Lewis Pulsipher on 08.09.2010 at 10:12

   I tell my game design students, you can’t assume people will play a particular way. If kingmaking is practical, then some players will do it, perfectly reasonably. If you don’t want kingmaking in a game you’re designing, design it so that kingmaking is impractical. If you won’t want kingmaking in the game you’re playing, don’t play ones that allow it, or make a formal agreement with all players beforehand not to do it.

   The idea that kingmaking is a “variant” is bizarre. “Variants” are at variance with the rules, by definition. If it’s possible and legal, expect someone to do it.

8. David on 08.09.2010 at 15:27

   Lewis, I understand your advice from a game design perspective. But from a player perspective, I disagree. As players, we go in to a game with many expectations that are not negotiated in advance. For example, I expect each player to make a reasonable effort to win. Game rules typically state the victory conditions, but I haven’t seen one yet that makes it an explicit requirement that a player should try to win. So what happens if a player instead tries to keep the game going as long as possible? Should I be happy that they are ruining my fun by playing in an unusual and unexpected way? And speaking of keeping the game going, what about a player who spends forever considering their move? There’s no time limit stated in the rules. However, if the delay is long enough, I think it’s fair to complain.

   You are correct that kingmaking, when not addressed by the written rules, is not truly a variant. I was trying to make the point that unwritten expectations are also important.

9. Vincent on 09.09.2010 at 07:44

   In Battle games where politics play in, I think going after the bastard who took away your winning chance with your remaining forces is fully within the theme of the game. You may end up effectively crowning another more peaceful player the winner, but that’s how war works, if you attack you should expect your opponent to come back at you. However in games like settlers it’s just down right annoying when two players decide to “share” resources just because one of them obviously will not win.

10. Just Some Guy on 09.09.2010 at 13:03

    I gotta disagree with most people here. Kingmaking is a style of play. It doesn’t form in a vacume though. Few poeple go into a game thinking, “I sure hope Bob wins”.

    Kingmaking is inevitable in games that have punitive mechanisms, little to no catch-up mechanics, and of course, no player elimination. I would say, almost all kingmaking is inevitable in games with one winner. At some point, players will realize they have no chance to win. Their choices are a) patiently wait to lose (so much fun!), b) walk away, c) take an active role in how the game will end.

    Its no surprise that a player who has been crushed or cock-blocked throughout a game will take some joy in taking control of the game and determining a winner. I feel that this option in fact encourages good play and prevents needless cruelty. You want to just dump on Tom all night? Fine, but he’s going to stick it to you and give the game Sarah.

    However, sometimes kingmaking is simply a way to stick it to the winner regardless of play styles. This is closest to unsportsman like conduct. I don’t think this will happen in a game with alot of choice (i.e. Carcasonne, Settlers, etc.), but rather in a game like Monopoly or Clue. Players have no choice in who will and on their property (although being a dick about property trades can on kingmaking).

    I have experienced the gut wrenching feeling when one player decides his best friend should win (who incidently is in second place), rather than letting the board decide. However, Monopoly has rules to limit this and its easy to call them on it. Plus, you now know not to play games with those people!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.