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.

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

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.

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.

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.