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.

Reflecting on Board Game Geek's Top 20 Strategy Games List

I want to write briefly about Board Game Geek's Strategy Game rankings, to which I've linked in this post. As far as I understand it, the Strategy Game rankings are based on user ("Geek") ratings, but I think those ratings are sometimes overly influenced by popularity and not influenced by the quality of the game enough. Here are some random thoughts about the top 20 games:

• Twilight Struggle does belong at number 1! That's NOT disappointing; what was disappointing is that, for a while, Caverna was challenging for the top spot.
  
• Caverna is higher than Agricola, which (besides just being the flavor of the month) doesn't make sense because Caverna is much more of a sandbox game. Sandbox games do require strategy as you need a plan to go in a direction towards victory, but Agricola seems to constrain the player more than Caverna. In my opinion, constraints challenge players to be creative and to truly consider possibilities and choose the most efficient, expeditious path. Thus, I would put the non-sandboxy Agricola over the sandbox Caverna, given that both games are otherwise strikingly similar (i.e. worker placement, resource gathering, and resource conversion to items that score victory points).
  
• Puerto Rico is at number 5, which redeems this list because though the game does have a bit of a linear progression of how roles are played, this game really challenges players to "get on the train" of progression at the right time and to put your opponents into a position of not playing certain roles because they know that those roles would benefit you.
  
• Conversely, I don't believe that Power Grid should be at 11 without having games like Ticket to Ride up there with it. Call it personal opinion, but Power Grid isn't that much more strategic than Ticket to Ride and is actually quite less accessible. Ticket to Ride earns its classic status because it can be played as strategically and cutthroat as you want.
  
• Caylus is still hanging on at 15, but many reviews I've read have rendered that game outmoded by subsequent worker placement games that superseded it. Despite that, this proves that older, "simpler" games can win out over the new kids in town.
  
• I really enjoy 7 Wonders, but does it really belong at number 16 for Strategic Games? I would definitely put it high up there for Family Games...

As you go further down the list, the games listed make less sense. I suppose that my disappointment lies in the fact that the user votes are counted from the beginning and remain, which means that though some games stay on the list based on the strength of past votes, newer games may pass them because people are conscious of the voting system and what it takes to vote one game over another. I don't know how to rectify this, but many older games should remain at the top; those games didn't become less strategic over time. I would argue that though one may argue that older games were "simpler," they were also eminently strategic and tactical. Look at chess, which should really be near the top of this list (though it's considered an "abstract" game on BGG).

Board Game Cleanup 3: My Firm Guidelines

As I have mentioned in my two previous posts, I try to be judicious and wise about which games I bring into my house. I have some rudimentary personal rules based on a combination of my faith in Christ and my own sensibilities of what is appropriate for me and my family.

For the sake of brevity, here is a list of my rules, which aren't necessarily hard and fast rules as much as firm guidelines that inform my selection process:

• No nudity or coarse language
  I will not tolerate either profanity in any game text or nudity in any game imagery; any game that has these elements will not exist in our household.

No religious content that is antithetical to Christ
Sometimes, this is a judgment call, but a good example is if a game involves offering money to a deity, even a make-believe one.

No bloody imagery
This is more related to certain violent acts portrayed in art, such as impalings, body explosions, graphic beheadings, maimings, and the like. Sometimes, this is also a judgment call, but I have replaced art for images that were "too bloody." I also reject games that have actions that result in those outcomes.

No overtly demonic imagery or acts that invoke demons
The criteria for identifying this is actually quite narrow; I'm referring to outright occultish depictions, such as pentagrams, ritual sacrifices, and portrayals of creatures that were meant to be demons. Also, I rule out in-game actions that involve summoning demons or devils, or appeasing such entities. (Note: I don't reject games if demons are portrayed as "demons" and meant to serve as antagonists).

No positive portrayals of drug use
I don't think that a game that assigns any positive value to illegal or narcotic drug use is "family-friendly."

As I said, these are firm guidelines that are open to assessment; in other words, I try to investigate the game before I reject it. That said, I do lean towards rejection and try not to justify buying games if justification requires long-winded excuses; for example, if a game allows a protagonist to behead people, I wouldn't justify it by saying that the "people were bad, and so they deserved it." Of course, you, the reader, may have your own convictions, but these are mine.

If you would like, please feel free to offer your own convictions and interpretations of the Bible in the Comments section. I'm always willing to engage a cordial commenter, and I have been known to change my mind if a fine point is made.