On Kingmaking and Boardgaming Etiquette
In which MetalJim ruminates about the proper etiquette for losing…
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a review of my trip to the Oasis of Fun, and I mentioned a board game called On the Underground, which was my pick from the prize table. I’ve since played this one about three more times with my local game group here in Nashville, and the most recent session had a somewhat surprising and problematic ending.
First, a brief clarification of some important game concepts. Each turn, a player can place up to four track segments on the board. There are various points that you can gain for connecting certain types of stations into your network on your turn. There is also a “passenger” token who wants to move around at the end of each player’s turn. The passenger has to go to certain places based on a small pool of face-up cards, but the player can influence which trains the passenger rides to get to a given station, especially if there are two or more equally valid paths that the passenger can use. Thus, while you normally score points on your own turn for your build, sometimes you are forced to give points to other players on your turn, and you frequently have a choice about which of the other players will get a certain bonus point for having the passenger use a given train.
Now then, the situation. It was a four player game. We realized, as Bill started his turn, that the deck of destination cards would run out that turn. We also realized that because Bill was sitting next to the start player, that his turn would be the very last turn of the game. Bill was trailing the other three players by roughly 5 points, and it was fairly obvious that nothing that Bill did could possibly make him the outright winner of the game. (Note that the picture of the board above is from an earlier session of mine in Atlanta, and does not reflect this particular situation.)
After a minute or two of board analysis and looking at the face-up destination cards, it was fairly obvious that Bill could have engineered his turn so that there would be a three way tie for first. However, this option would force Bill to leave himself in fourth place. Despite the fact that the game was clearly over, Bill was not content with the result. He insisted on spending a good ten minutes agonizing over the board, with some kibbitzing from myself and the one other player who was still interested in the final outcome.
Finally, Bill figured out a way to create a three way tie for second place, with himself as one of the three players tied for second. However, this option gave Bill a free and unfettered choice between two of the other players, one of whom by necessity HAD to get another point and win the game. In other words, by insisting on finding the best outcome for himself, Bill ended up forcing a messy kingmaking situation so that he wound up pointing to someone and saying, “You win.” Bill’s logic was that the “new guy”, Scott, was more deserving of the win than I was, since I owned the game and would probably have plenty more chances to play the game.
So, in defense of Bill’s kingmaking… he felt that it was his responsibility, given the “perfect” information of his final turn, to search the board at length until he found the move that gave himself the best possible finish, even if that only meant a tie for second with two other players, and giving someone else a one point victory. Objectively, I can understand his decision to let the new guy win, but in my own personal view of the game, it really should have ended as a three way tie for first.
Now, there are lots of reviewers on Boardgamegeek who would be quick to mark down a game with a noticeable tendency to create these kingmaking situations. Specifically, any game in which you can potentially find yourself unable to win, but where you can act so as to choose which of the other players wins, is a game with that “kingmaker” potential. Normally, I would agree that this does detract from a game, and I consider the situation which happened here to be one that certainly CAN happen in this particular game (because it did), but I still don’t seeing it happening often enough to really detract from my enjoyment of a game that is otherwise excellent, with plenty of flavor, tight scoring, and a nice balance between light fun and heavy strategy.
So, then, on to the discussion questions for this week. Is anyone else really appalled by blatant kingmaking situations in boardgames? Is it morally correct to engineer a tie rather than forcing yourself to make a choice between two other players? Or is actually better to make that choice based on some notion of justice, who played better within the spirit of the rules, etc., so that the game can have a single winner?
There’s also a bit of a question here about the amount of time that Bill took to find what he considered to be the “correct” ending for this particular game. When you have a game that takes about 90 minutes to play, and one player wants to spend 10 minutes agonizing over that last turn, even when he knows he can’t win, is that wrong? Bill was genuinely amused and intrigued by the peculiar situation in which he found himself, and I put up with it in part because I enjoyed watching the smoke pouring out of his ears. At one point during the delay, Bill mentioned that if his digital camera had been close at hand, he would have taken a picture of the board and come back a week later to the game store with his “final answer” about who really won. Still, for most of that 10 minutes it was also obvious that the three way tie was available, and in his situation I would have quickly settled on that tie so as to avoid kingmaking and move on to the next game, even at the expense of my own defeat.
So, what’s the proper boardgaming etiquette here?
Posted on July 11th, 2007 at 2:47 pm. About 'On Kingmaking and Boardgaming Etiquette'.
In a game that involves a lot of strategy, it’s not really all that bad to spend a significant amount of time in the last few turns of play. That’s when the situations get really complicated, and stakes get high - would you have faulted Bill if it instead looked like he couldn’t have won, but he managed to figure out a way to pull it off?
That said, I would not have done what he did. For me, second place is meaningless in a game - it’s the same as dead last as far as I’m concerned. I know a lot of people disagree with that assertion, however, so I myself would definitely try to avoid a game that encourages inadvertent kingmaking while jockeying for second place. I know I definitely get sour grapes when somebody screws me out of first place while trying to get from fourth to third.
Posted on July 12th, 2007 at 2:31 am. About 'On Kingmaking and Boardgaming Etiquette'.
I usually make my first priority to make the best move I can for myself so I can’t fault Bill for his kingmaking. In his situation I would probably have determined which of you was going to win randomly, just so you knew it wasn’t personal. Unless of course one of you screwed me earlier in the game.
I’ve been in games that were determined by so much more blatant kingmaking that your example really looks minor to me. A lot of games come down to kingmaking on the final turn. This never bugs me as long as the person kingmaking is not hurting their position to do so. What bugs me is when someone decides that they had a bad start to a game and then, halfway thru the game, they decide to hand the game to someone else just to get it over faster. I’ve stopped playing with people because of that behavior.
As far as general etiquette I say make the best move you can for yourself. If all moves are equal then take the option that hurts the current leader. Unless the current leader is in a knife fight for first with someone else at which point take the option which allows you to stay out of it and try to sneak a win while they take each other out.
Posted on July 12th, 2007 at 11:16 am. About 'On Kingmaking and Boardgaming Etiquette'.
Proper boardgame etiquette is not to stress over winning, losing, and coming in second place to begin with. Doing well is nice, winning is nicer. Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted on July 12th, 2007 at 1:15 pm. About 'On Kingmaking and Boardgaming Etiquette'.
Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn’t be best to simply stop the game at the “moment of truth” when it’s so obvious. Sit around the board, point out the various possible endings, savor the delicate balance of it all, and just - leave it at that. Fade to black, cue the Journey music.
I’ve never seen a gaming group actually do this, however. Usually, as Random says, the potential kingmaker feels like _someone_ has screwed him and needs commupance. That way, at least then it’s rationalized. Do nice guys really finish first more often in this paradigm? Anyway: some games are made for screwing more than others. As, ahem, are some players.
Posted on July 12th, 2007 at 2:19 pm. About 'On Kingmaking and Boardgaming Etiquette'.
To Metaljim’s question.. “is it morally correct to…” whatever kingmaking situation, and I think the answer is that there is nothing ‘moral’ about it, since no one was playing for money, or more serious stakes.
Games have rules, assuming Bill followed the rules legally within the games, all behavior is ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’ so long as the act of playing itself is not immoral.
But the real question does come down to etiquette, as was pointed out in Random’s and Coldfoot’s comments. Etiquette is behavior that shows respect to others, and consideration for others feelings, and is least likely to offend. Answering that question from the case of etiqette, the position would be both to take ones turn as promptly as appropriate, and to play toward the path towards best self position as a ‘good sport’. Now when in a situation such as described, a very decorous way to conclude the match without offending others could be to say “Oh dear, it seems no matter what move I make, you three all would win. Good game! Shall we play again?” Unless it’s getting late for the host, in which case the last sentence would be omitted.
But etiquette factors in the wider situation - perhaps it would be preferable for someone to win (let the boss, the birthday boy, the president, or the wookie win) Scenarios with highly familiar players may allow for rougher play.
But the very fact that you (and perhaps the other players) were put off by Bill’s choice, and had actually commented on the length of time Bill took to make that choice, may suggest that he could have chosen a different move that would have better revealed his decorum and enlightened classiness.
Smack-talk not withstanding.
-The Emperor
Posted on July 12th, 2007 at 3:09 pm. About 'On Kingmaking and Boardgaming Etiquette'.
Thanks guys for some good, insightful comments. I confess to having been slightly cheezed at the time, since Bill chose someone else to be the “winner”, but more that it took 10 minutes for him to reach a conclusion on that final turn. That said, the substance of his decision was perfectly defensible, and I can live with it. I would happily keep playing games with Bill, and I won’t even take it out on him the next time we play. Still, I might have acted a little bit differently if I was in his shoes, given that situation.
And, as Random suggested, real kingmaking is when people start to deliberately screw up a game even before its halfway over, and that does cross a line from bad etiquette into something even worse, in my opinion.
Posted on July 14th, 2007 at 12:55 am. About 'On Kingmaking and Boardgaming Etiquette'.
The Kingmaking, as was stated earlier, was really last turn situational. It was more of Bill thinking ” How can I maximize my finish?”. I have no problem with that mode of thinking; the 10 minutes to compute this is where I’d have a problem. ‘Perfect Information’ games have this as a major drawback, the tendency to thoroughly compute all options to the nth degree. Which is why I’da told him to get on with it or I’ll just put it all up. (just to empathize the point of ‘delays are substantially no fun’)
Posted on July 22nd, 2007 at 1:39 am. About 'On Kingmaking and Boardgaming Etiquette'.
The kingmaker problem is big all over, and it adds a level to gameplay that goes beyond the written rules, unless it’s part of the “unwritten rules”…
I had a situation recently in a Diplomacy game: 4 powers left, and I was clearly #4. So I struck a deal with #2, promising to stick with him and give him the win if I got second place at the end. He agreed, and that’s how it turned out. How do you judge that? Does it make a difference when I tell you that #1 and #3 had been jerks to me, while #2 had been friendly/neutral to me? Theoretically, I could have thrown in my lot with any of them, and would have tipped the scales largely in their favor, but I chose to help the one who had been “nicest” to me. Maybe in Dip it’s different because the negotions are supposed to affect gameplay…
I guess my point is that it happens, sometimes consciously and sometimes not. I’d be ticked if that happened in a Civ game, I guess, but I expect it more in a Dip game. In the end, though, I agree with Coldfoot: dude, it’s just a game, played to have fun.