Rules Discussion: King-making

Last week, a buddy of mine mentioned a concept that is somewhat rampant in board games: king-making. As far as I understand it, king-making involves when one or more players have no chance to win in a particular game; in that game, those players may choose (together or individually) to elevate a particular player who has a good chance of winning. Obviously, this is an element of directly confrontational multi-player games; a prime example is Risk, in which one or more players can ally to battle a superior foe. It's also an element of games that involve acquisition of a finite amount of resources or positions to occupy; in games like Stone Age or Alien Frontiers, you can block an opponent by seizing a spot and/or collecting resources before that opponent.

I can't think of many excellent examples right now, but king-making can be frustrating for the front-runner who is playing extremely well, but is squashed by two opponents who think that the fourth player in the mix should be the victor. Based on my experience, this is often not a conscious decision, per se, but rather a response to being in an untenable position. Players never start a game thinking about what they would do if they are losing; yet, when they are position in which victory is nigh impossible, they may make a snap judgment to play some kind of role besides "also-ran"; in other words, when all else is lost, you might as well play the "spoiler."

In my opinion, king-making is a kind of "cheese" because one loses not because he or she made a mistake or just didn't get favorable outcomes, but because of other people and their machinations. I've always thought that the sweetest victory is when one plays his or her best game and wins, especially when all other players have played their best games and there were few, if any, mistakes made by anyone. To win because you played better than a bunch of great players is truly an exhilarating experience, but losing to king-making doesn't feel fun at all. Instead, one feels like victory was robbed from him or her by also-rans so that some other player could win. I suppose this is inherent to gaming, but, unlike many things in life, the self-imposed drive to win should spur every player to play their best, even when they cannot win instead of trying to knock the current leader out. In a way, by being a selfish game player, you are being generous by giving all other players the best competition you can; this makes games fun, whether those games are board, card, video, or sports games. King-making rings of "sour grapes" to me.