The first time I played Quo Vadis I groked the game when I was beyond the point of winning, but i realized I had created a choke point where I could decide the winner. I asked the other two players to make their cases. One thought that the situation was interesting and wanted to discuss how we'd gotten there. The other thought i was being an ass for even having realized the situation. His argument was that i had, "given up on the game" and was trying to "cheat because I had lost." Guess who didn't get voted through.
I think the biggest takeaway here is closing the magical circle. Society cheats itself in mimicking gameplay, just like the old saying "all is fair in love and war". We should be evolving to the level where society is more fair, which further allows for unfairness in gameplay.
This talk is really interesting to me in the context of somebody who spent a good decade or two playing (and very occasionally running sessions of) Vampire the Masquerade in it's larp incarnation, in particular about 34:25 and the discussion of horror movies and "dangerous games". One of the biggest (and under-recognized) stresses in those games is the tension around the plotting and scheming that's at the core of the tabletop world-building, and typically manifests in larp as player vs player interaction. Not everyone buys into it that in the same way, many don't really buy into it at all... not to mention those who actively dislike it and just want to get on with other things the game offers. It's stunningly easy for bad feeling to develop when people are playing with fundamentally different, and sometimes directly opposed, ideas of what makes the game fun.
Nice talk, with one glaring flaw: the speaker doesn’t define what Kingmaking means in the context of a board game at the start of the talk. Yeah, you can of course kinda infer it from the context, but it still annoying.
Thank you, GDC, for posting this, and thank you, Cole, for such an interesting and informative talk. It was very insightful to me, particularly the part about the circle and players bringing in baggage from their outside world into the gaming circle. So helpful in explaining why negative emotions can sometimes get the better of players who might otherwise usually present as good sports.
A lot of hot air. When Knizia says that it is all about the goal and not the winning he clearly wants to say that gamers agree to a contract, to interact with the goal in mind and not to pursue a meta narrative. Good game designers can create narratives whilst maintaining a structure and actually designing a game. What Wehrle does is to eliminate the goal and to make player interaction the goal of the experience. However, he also has the tendency to over engineer the way people interact, creating attrition primarily with the system and only secondarily with other players. Kingmaking in real life is much more fun because there are no rules.
I don't know if I miss something, but I didn't hear an actual argument in defense of King-making specifically. Player disruption, multilateral conflict, unfairness, sure all that is cool and interesting. Unfairness is actually fine, I love Dune, you play Bene Gesserit, you probably won't win, but if you win is a better win than an Atreides win. But there is nothing fun in kingmaking. You hate it when you lose because of it, you hate it when you win because of it and you hate it when you had to be the king-maker I found this video after searching about Oath, since my group dropped it after our third game. I love the game, the narrative it creates, the choices, the big plays you can make, but the game always ends with a king making scenario, that nobody enjoys at the table, we usually don't even finish a game when this happens in other boardgames, but this one kind of forces you to finish because the chronicle portion. And now I find out it's on purpose. damn.
I feel different about king making. So long as the game was played well and to capacity, people know what they are doing. I dont mind king making or people being king made. I have played mutiple games of root where I was going to lose so I king made the person who was nicest to me. One person was completely quite and the other was unruly, kept insulting me, always angry, i never made the right move to them. At the end of the game I had a choice, let then win or let the other person win, who talked to me, worked with me, cooperated with me, or the beligerent one. At the end i tld the other one that it isnt just about the board but the "friends you make along the way." They werent very happy with this.
The main argument is that King making allows good stories, and good stories make the game interesting. But another point is that not all games allow good kingmaking. It was a bit more nebulous, but it is about theme and mindset created by the mechanics. The last point is that kingmaking create strong feeling, and thus should be leverage by at least some games, because strong feeling are interesting.
I watched through this with the feeling that it was a wandering, indulgent talk. It was not. What a great commentary on game design and story telling and their place in history and current life.
43:00 : And the auto-battler genre. The non-zero sum 3+ player space has a lot of room to grow in the video game area. Lots of old WarCraft 3 maps have some interesting gems in that space.
It's interesting - at 4:16 he describes who would like Root and says the defining feature is that the game is very, very mean and will only appeal to people who don't mind being attacked. I've found that it appeals to a much broader audience, including players who would never go near a COIN game.
I agree that Strategic inertia is really really important. And that's a large part of why Root is actually better than COIN. To me COIN games feels a lot like playing "musical chairs". ... it's all about timing.
Hit the nail on the head. Nothing he says really addresses the issue of king making, which is boredom and players disengaging. The closest he gets is when he’s discussing “closing the magic circle” - where he basically frames bad feelings as the fault of “immature players who can’t separate the game and real life”. But even that’s just about the feeling of losing a game, not the feeling of realizing you can’t win AND you have to sit through another 2 hours of game time.
Let me try to reframe Cole's talk and see if this makes sense: any 3+ player strategy game has an element of kingmaking (unless it is truly multiplayer solitaire). Or phrased differently: if there is player interaction it is impossibly hard to play a truly neutral position towards all other players. Depending on how the player interaction is modelled though, kingmaking may be more or less at the fore. The way I would interpret Cole is that he is defending games that DO bring it to the fore (hence also his bit about fairness being a modern unconscious expectation). Kingmaking is not bad as long as all players agree to this being a possibly strong driver of the game outcome and the game still entertains.
@@dirkroettgers the real defense against kingmaking in interactive games is for the core mechanism to just be so fun that you'd rather participate earnestly than throw the game. eg I've never seen someone decline their best delivery in Age of Steam.
I believe it actually is a feature though, one that is thought of as a bug because of the obsession with fairness, but ignoring the strategic story telling features it brings to a game. It should be embarrassed rather than neglected or thought poorly of as it actually adds extra depth, and helps even the odds for those less capable in strategic calculating like chess and stuff like that. Allowing for those with skill in different areas like planning to keep just within winnable ranges while manipulating the table politically to be kinged or even underestimated. It evens the playing field, allowing social geniuses to combat the strategic/technical geniuses. All at the same time making fun and interesting stories. Players need to be aware if it though before hand as this really can sour it if you go in expecting a fair chess like experience, but get all this political mumbo jumbo mixed in unexpectedly that drags you down. In real life I have encountered really skilled social people that could win everyone to their side even though I had the facts that countered their entire point. Idk how to explain it. It truly just adds another level of depth and options in games where it is allowed and not just forced strict fairness. Idk, how to express. Not a socially skilled person myself, I would be the technical chess type.
@@merccc1 Stop fucking with the narrative so much. This is games, not movies. The actual issue of king making in games is not the concept of it. But HOW THE F* the experience can be fun for the not able to win players. Like for example whenever people play Catan and someone gets to the point in which its ooobvious he will lose, then, they just get bored and may even leave the game. If you make a game focused on that concept, then you will have a bunch of players playing a boring no goal state of the game that they have no motivation playing from the games rules. Just think about it, 5 friends play table top game, 1 hour passes, 3 player find out they will lose 100%, game still goes on for another hour. These 3 players got utterly bored at the second half of the game, they might have quit the game out of boreness. One way to solve that its to like put mechanics in the game so that the players that are already losers can get some way of chance of stealing a still winable spot in the game by predicting the relationship beetween the 2 competing players and the losers.
27:50 Cole says that at the end everything will cash out in sets 3 to 1 and both games that he uses Terraforming Mars and Race for the galaxy as an example, but both of those game don't have the cashing out.
I think for RFTG he is referring to the 6 cost developments that people tend to go for which give you X victory points per 1 thing that qualifies. Same with selling resources for VPs.
Nice perspective, but I would definitely also take into consideration the psychological substrate of the king-making mechanics. The guttural feeling of cringe that unfairness produces is, in my opinion, unaddressed by a rhetorical design philosophy. We can defend king-making in terms of ethical philosophy, but if you experience a disconnect, the feeling stays and users will still hate that.
So TLDR; Kingmaking make me feel bad, me don't like feel bad. He specifically addresses creating a social construct of sorts. If you sit down with your players before the game and explain "Hey, this isn't going to be chess. This is going to be a game where one or more of you will have the choice of choosing who wins, and it won't always be through skill alone that you acquired that choice." Then the players can release and have fun in the space that this game created rather than trying to force a hyper competitive game where losers feel lesser because they weren't capable of calculating the entire game. If you're looking for an experience where you can exert your logical prowess over other players then go play chess.
@@chlawl574 his game oath is exactly like that. If you indulge in the narrative and accept that you may lose to lesser players then the game opens up and becomes beautiful.
I agree. The first reply seems very defensive, but I think both are valid. The journey this talk gave with the history was informative, but agree that it did not address the common complaint. If anything, it justified kingmaking for the experience that elicits strong memories and room for such storytelling techniques. I think it pretty much boils down to that it depends on the target audience. Most games reward logical skills and are thus not suitable for kingmaking. However, given the social agreement and willingness for chaotic fun, kingmaking has its place. It's just that the design would have to be intentional and transparent to those who play.
I think Reiner Knizia is wrong. A better guiding rule is that *while* you are playing it's all about winning. As soon as the game is over, it's no longer about winning - it's about what you learned by playing.
Great talk! I was delighted by him mentioning coherently designed one-shot rpgs like The Quiet Year and Dialect :D My main takeaway is his comment about "mechanics being less important than the relationships among players". To me this leads to the idea that the most powerful and meaningful rules in a game are those that take into account and then manipulate those relationships. Which is an area of design that most D&D-like rpgs still ignore or only tentatively touch upon, and that is instead at the heart of most indie/modern/coherent rpg. So much potential for exploration and experimentation! :D
I've stopped playing games with a big deception or sabotage focus. Games like Werewolf and Coup are fun, sure, but I don't like what they do to my relationships with the other players. I want to build trust, not teach others to lie to me and reward them for it. I think we should be careful what we practice in play because it can influence how we feel about others. I have learned to like more cooperative games and the more fairness, the better! In my experience ;)
Yeah this is a thing, like games like these literally teach people how to play that way in real life while also telling them why it pays off(which are manipulative skills pretty much). Sooner than expected you get to spot how your friends end up actually applying what they learned on the game on real life. But cant tell for sure if its actually bad, I mean if more people get to know those skills then it balances out with the people who are using these skills in real life and getting too much away with these because of many just being unware. So its complicated
Choosing to have fully or partly end game scoring (= more or less "hidden" scoring), like in Stone Age... removes all/most of the "bash the leader"/kingmaking. Smart!
You can still bash the perceived leader, whether they're actually winning or not. I've played many games where I was sure I would win only to be completely overtaken on the last turn because someone had a hidden bonus. Others have probably experienced the same. And others have surely been bashed when behind when they were aware they weren't going to win but the other player didn't know that. It's not a fixed solution. It's one way to mitigate the "bash the leader" idea, but it's not the only way.
I love he talked about inis and sad he didnt delve dealer into how this game does this stuff perfectly, but yeah great talk. Also, God i hate root theming and artstyle and it prevents me from checking it out tho i think I would love it
It's a little tragic to hear this man struggle to make his point clearly. He obviously has learned something about anti-imperialist thought, and wishes to impart it to his audience - but unfortunately I had to listen rather generously in order to make it out. What he seems to be saying is, that the notion that all games should be played 'fairly' - all participants starting from a supposedly 'equal' position - is meant to support the nationalistic (and sometimes eugenicist) idea that the 'best' participants will rise to the top in any competition. While this feels fair in gaming, it can accidentally reinforce negative narratives associated with colonialism and imperialism. I totally agree and support this concept, and I also appreciate his input. But he could've used much clearer language. I recommend doing some reading on decolonisation and anti-colonial theory. Frantz Fanon might be a good place to start.
I don't think he was "struggling" as much as trying to make the journey towards that point an interesting one. and I believe he suceeded. you don't come to 1-hour talks for the bottom line.
@@voltcorp No, he was struggling. He meandered through his explanation about sport in british india without explicitly connecting it to the rest of his presentation. I had to connect it for him. Similarly, others have pointed out that he never defined the actual subject of his talk. I don't know why you're being defensive on his behalf. Presenters and public speakers are usually grateful for constructive commentary. The next time he gives this presentation I bet he'll make sure to add a point or two and it will come out better. As I said, I still appreciated his work.
@@danger_design haha I can tell you with absolute certainty that he won't be giving this or any other presentation any time soon. anyhow, this was clearly a free form talk. you say matter of factly that he was struggling (when in fact it's your perception) just as you say that I'm "defending" him (when in fact I'm just presenting my own perception). I'm not lying when I say I didn't feel he wasn't being clear. If you felt orherwise, that's fine. I have to say that it is curious how you conclude that he was struggling while you had to make connections on his behalf (which assumes he's failing while you're going above and beyond) instead of perhaps conclude he was presenting ideas in an open-ended manner and you caught on to that just like I did and probably many others watching.
His undergraduate thesis was on the writings of Sir Richard Francis Burton and Frantz Fanon. He then attended the University of Texas at Austin and earned his MA in 2012 and his PhD in 2017. While at UT, Cole was a member of the E3W interest group and the Digital Writing and Research Lab. His dissertation concerns how the experience of empire altered the way British writers imagined distances of time and space during the early and mid 19th century.
@@chessgirl8046 thanks for coming in with an objective contribution - i didn't know that. Perhaps sometimes I take it for granted that I can speak the way I write, and vice versa. I was taught to make my conclusions explicitly, because the notion that ideas can be presented without bias is itself a kind of bias. It's generally better to state your own beliefs with conviction (including your personal conclusions) because that's what all pedagogy actually consists of. I haven't been given an institutionalized platform from which to present myself as a meroticratically selected educator, so I don't need to hold myself to the same standards. But I also wouldn't "pretend" to let my audience reach their own conclusions while presenting my opinion to them.
This talk seemed like it could have been really good, if we were actually made aware of what "king-making" actually means. It's not a term I had ever heard before so I clicked on this talk just out of sheer curiousity and watched it through, trying to get a grasp of what the hell the actual topic is, but never did he reveal it.
Idk if you looked it up, but Kingmaking is a scenario where the winner between two players is not determined by one of their actions, but instead determined by some third player. Let's look at Twilight Imperium, since it was mentioned in this talk. At 10 pts, a player wins. There is a card you can give to another player to give that player 1 pt (used for making deals and alliances). Let's say Player 1 and 2 are both at 9 pts. It's Player 3's turn and next turn is Player 1's turn. Player 1 has a guaranteed way to generate that 1 final point on their turn and Player 3 has no way to prevent it except to give Player 2 their point card and make Player 2 win. Either way, Player 3 loses, so they no longer have winning the game as part of their motivation. Instead, their turn is purely a decision of who _else_ will win. They are choosing the winner amongst the players other than themselves, i.e. kingmaking.
Cole Wehrle is absolutely trying to justify bad game design with this defense of kingmaking. The whole concept of a "kingmaker" is a blatant admission that the game has failed to provide a meaningful experience for all players. The idea that someone who is demonstrably losing should have any say in who wins is preposterous. It's like a football team that's down 50 points in the fourth quarter suddenly getting to choose which of the other teams scores the final touchdown. It's a nonsensical mechanic that rewards failure and undermines the entire point of competition. Sure, some might argue that kingmaking adds a layer of social strategy to games. They might say it encourages players to build relationships and alliances, even when they're losing. But let's be real, those relationships are built on desperation and opportunism, not genuine camaraderie. It's a cheap way to inject artificial tension into a game that's otherwise falling flat. Ultimately, kingmaking is a crutch for designers who can't create a balanced and engaging experience for all players. It's a lazy attempt to mask fundamental flaws in game mechanics. And anyone who defends it is either a terrible game designer or a sore loser who's trying to justify their own incompetence.
"Consent is so important. Everyone should realize up front exactly what type of game they're going to play" So use cute little animeeples to convey that??? Edit: ha, that's the first question in Q&A. I still think the art basically contradicts any point he's making
Personally I don't think the art needs to reflect the type of game (not sure if that's what you're saying but that's what I'm getting from it). I like serious games like Root, but I do not like serious *looking* games as much. Never judge a book by it's cover. For example, a videogame like Donkey Kong Country on the outside looks like a fun, goofy kids game, but in reality it is a brutally difficult, serious, and melancholy game that an older audience would most likely enjoy more (still goofy, but still serious... much like Root). I get that people could say the art is misleading, but I don't think it should be changed just because it's misleading. Everyone should do research before buying a game, so a "misleading", art style shouldn't be a major consideration during game design. I haven't watched his whole talk so I'm not going to speak about if that contradicts whatever his point is, but I would at least keep in mind the stuff I said above.
@@Spilzua great example of conflicting theme and complexity being a terrible idea is FORT, also by Leder games. It's supposedly, much to complex for kids, but it's art and theme are about little kids building a fort and eating pizza, which somebody who is looking for a super heavy game will ignore. Theme is not distinct from gameplay in defining the quality of a game, them not working together hurts games, and the actually working together heavily improves games. It's why spirit Island is so cool.
What in the fuck is he even talking about? He goes on for an hour and never addresses Kingmaking. He seems to have confused games with conflict and zero-sum games with the problem of kingmaking. Conflict games can create great stories without kingmaking being involved. He never makes any sort of case for kingmaking, only for conflict and interaction.
It is generally about how many games are designed with a fair design like chess for example, maybe not as perfectly fair, but close enough. That games with social aspects like king making are a good thing as they themselves provide a whole new level of depth to the game with social interaction and choices as a feature. It evens the odds and/or allows for social people to face those that are technically good at the mechanics themselves, creates interesting and memorable stories, adds extra strategic depth based on manipulating the social relations in the games and all that. Just overall a good thing that is perceived bad thanks to the obsession with fairness. Even though fairness has it's own downsides of singling out those that are better at the mechanics generally destroying those others that are not as good or have their skill in different things like social interaction for example. For your story point though, It is like with chess. It is simply just much dryer of a story, it is like reading an instruction manual or list of events. A game like oath and all the player decisions and mechanics however paint a much more vivid and engaging of a story. Not the best at explaining... It is like a sports narrator just saying what is happening vs a book or movie story with all types of in depth weaving plots. Just way different.
Years late to this comment, but I think the "subtext" in the talk is the notion that: "Games with lots of direct conflict will unavoidably create Kingmaking opportunities, but the story-telling power of these kinds of games is worth the feeling of unfairness that comes from the Kingmaking."
@@ScherFire ok, but that's not a defense of kingmaking in board game design. That's an acceptance of kingmaking as an unintentional and unavoidable consequence of conflict games, but still not necessarily a positive consequence.
At some point he said he gets some enjoyment when kingmaking happens. I would have to guess at why. I agree his reasons for liking it are not clear to me. Maybe a better title is that games don't need to emphasize fairness. He makes an ok case for that. He also says it should be opt in. If I play with the same group and one is always going to screw me over if he isn't winning and I'm tied in the lead, whatever, I can expect it. If I'm playing some game with people I don't know and they just decide I don't get a chance after several hours, that's not so fun. And I don't think he argues it is. I personally only tolerate it, I don't enjoy it. Such as when teaching games. I just assume everyone will gang up on me since they assume I have an advantage. Circling back, I think the stronger point is that games don't need to be fair to be fun.
