Rules Discussion: Catch-up Mechanisms

Catch-up mechanisms are a somewhat polarizing concept in gaming, for it involves enabling players in last place or close to last place to catch up to the leaders. The prime example of this is in Power Grid, in which the last place player (who does bid for power plants last) purchases resources first and connects to cities first, as well. This affords those back-dwellers opportunities to "catch up" with better deals on resources, which lets them conserve money to add to their networks. It's a mechanic that defines Power Grid and (as I heard in a Long View podcast) German politics and utilities in that the lagging company is helped, while the leaders are distrusted enough to be penalized. American business is the opposite, which leads to massive oligopolies and disappearing mom-and-pop shops.

Based on my somewhat limited knowledge of board games, I can only say that there are other games that have some kind of catch-up mechanisms, though I'm not familiar with them. A possible example is Star Realms because certain cards let players draw another card, either by simply playing those cards or depending on the presence of allies. If a player plays enough "Draw one card" cards in quick succession, damage can accumulate rapidly, leading to a 30-point attack on an opponent who may have been way ahead in Authority points. However, this is not a catch-up mechanism as much as it is an example of a game that has single cards or actions that can turn the tide of a game for a player. When I talk about catch-up mechanisms, I'm talking about a general rule or mechanic that is inherent to each turn of game play, not singular events that can change the game. I suppose I could refer to those events as "game changers," but that would be employing a terribly hackneyed expression in its proper context; that just bothers me...

Anyway, catch-up mechanisms are controversial for a few reasons. One is because they can serve to hand victory to the lagging player; for some, this is a nice leveling element that offers the newbie a chance to win a game; for others, catch-up mechanisms can cheapen a game, denying a front-runner the victory mostly because he or she was in first place most of the game. Another reason is a causal effect of the first reason: because experienced players may be well aware of the presence of a catch-up mechanism, they may hang back on purpose to yield the benefits of the lower position, and then surge ahead at the end. Much like running, cycling, or auto racing, you can "draft" off your opponent as he or she faces the full brunt of wind resistance, all the while conserving energy until the final straightaway. A third reason why catch-up mechanisms are controversial is a broad one: they feel oddly un-democratic, as if the "nail that sticks up gets hammered down," as they liked to say in Japan (I speak from six years of experience living there). Who wants to feel like they are fettered by a mechanic just so that the trailing players have more opportunities to win? You're almost better off stinking for most of the game...

Personally, I haven't played enough of Power Grid to truly understand the impact of its catch-up mechanic, but I understand it enough to see its value, which is mainly that it levels the playing field for new players to keep up with experienced ones. The funny thing, though, is that experienced players would know well enough to NOT run in front until the end, which is very much like running, cycling, or auto racing. The sweetest victory would come when a front-runner can stay in front despite the catch-up mechanism, but the more plausible road to victory involves staying with the peloton (the cycling group behind the leader) until you see the finish. In this way, veterans can negate the catch-up mechanism, and instead use it as the means to surge in front, which would mean that the catch-up mechanism isn't really for catching up at all... It's just a way to "draft" behind the leader. I guess catch-up mechanisms aren't so bad, after all.