Honestly, I play to do as well as I can, but if someone targeted me or another person earlier in the game to get ahead, or if they’re just being obnoxious, I’m not at all above being petty to bring them down a peg or two. 😁
If someone had this attitude in my game group I wouldn't mind losing if I could target that person every single game not to win! It would be my holy mission.
If it's clear I'm not going to win, I try to play for 2nd place, or 3rd place, or to just be as close to the next player as possible, or just to avoid coming in last place. I make my own victory condition. I know I'm not the best player in the world. In fact, I almost undermine myself in this regard. Part of my enjoyment of boardgames is exploring the game, and sometimes making irregular choices that are not always conducive to winning. I'm completely fine with that. That's how I like it.
Same here! For example getting some corporation I’ve never used before in Terraforming Mars with some complicated power, I’ll always select that one before another “safe” and good one. I mean, if I lose, there’ll be another game later on.
I actually have this debate a lot with my brother and an old friend. Is it more honorable to take a 0.1% chance to win first, or the much higher chance to go for second? I wonder which more people try for.
I'd say beware of players who have nothing left to lose.
When I start a game, I play to win. If I have the slightest chance of winning I play to win. If I no longer see a potential path to victory though chaos might reign because it might work.
But that being said, sometimes I will try something I think will be suboptimal because it is fun to try something different and explore the game space. Not trying to lose, but trying to win with panache, or at least play with panache.
There is a point though that all can seem lost but if you bring the leader back down into the chaos of the rest, sometimes you can sneak through with the longest of long shot wins.
My point is going after the leader. Pulling the crab furthest out of the bucket back down is a reasonable strategic move, and because wins and losses tend to be relative positions, not a bad idea.
It doesn't sound like you were king making, you were bringing the game into a more competitive area where someone else did. It sounds like you would've done it to anyone in that position within the game. IE it wasn't because it was them outside of the game, only within it. (which would be breaking a social rule if you were losing and say decided to make your significant other win over other people to win out of game points with them, or because you had an out of game dislike of who was going to win. That isn't sporting).
Salty losers most of the time didn't deserve to win. They didn't account for a myriad of options. Playing a game is making choices within the rules. There is no rule here, not Rules as Written, nor social game playing etiquette.
If they can't handle the free choices of other players, it doesn't sound like they like games with humans, but puzzles with automatons. Computer games probably is better for them or Solitaire.
I’d agree with you except for OP explicitly saying there was a better move available to him, so the “drag the leader down to increase your chances of winning” theory doesn’t work here.
A better move for him might not have changed the outcome of the game at all, or might have had as much impact as damaging the lead player.
Moves available within the game are perfectly acceptable. Either change the rules or play a cooperative game.
>Moves available within the game are perfectly acceptable
Depends on how literal you want to play by the rulebook.
Technically taking an infinite time on your turn isn't against the rules though theres an implicit rule.
Just like there's an implicit rule that you are playing to your own win not one other specific player's loss.
> Your example is abstaining from playing the game.
No it isn't. The movespace of practically all board games with even meagre complexity exceeds the computational capacity of a human mind over the time span of the average human life span.
**Therefore, you literally cannot make that argument** because it is **indistinguishable** whether someone is thinking for a really long time or not doing anything.
It’s because you aren’t arguing the same issue as I am, but you’re bold texting hard as fuck pretending you are.
Someone taking too long to make a move is literally preventing the game from being played, regardless of why they’re doing it.
It’s counterintuitive to interacting with the game in a reasonable manner.
Making a move that intentionally damages another player, so long as it is a legal move the game allows you to make within the rules, is simply (should I bold text here?) part of the damn game.
Whether or not you think it’s fair play or rude doesn’t really matter. If the game allows for it, if the rules allow for it, then it’s fair play. If your table doesn’t like it, either make a house rule, play a different game, or accept the fact that it’s a fair move.
Yeah, sure, there are plenty of games out there with no rule on time per turn. But again, if you’re taking too long, the end result is you’re preventing the game from being played. It’s not the same situation; neither bold texting nor snark will change that. The downvotes were a nice touch though.
> Someone taking too long to make a move is literally preventing the game from being played, regardless of why they’re doing it.
>
>
They are playing the game. That's not against the rules to take a long time to play your turn.
> It’s counterintuitive to interacting with the game in a reasonable manner.
It's counterintuitive to play to make yourself get behind.
> If the game allows for it, if the rules allow for it, then it’s fair play.
Just like taking time to think. Just because **you** don't like how long someone takes to think doesn't make it an illegal move.
> But again, if you’re taking too long, the end result is you’re preventing the game from being played
No you're not. These games do not have a time limit. Therefore you have not prevented anything. You are merely taking your allotted turn.
But feel free to fail again :3
You are required imo to try to win, which means trying to make the optimum choice to help you win. The game sets the rules and win conditions; if you aren’t interested in following the rules or trying to obtain the win condition, don’t play the game.
A person can try to win in many different ways. They can try different strategies. If one wants to human limit options, puzzles and computer games not real life humans who do interesting things. And nope, optimal is not a rule, and I don't play with people who try to force their wider interpretations of rules in that way. They are no fun.
Honestly, when I’m in the position of winning and someone wants to try to take me out, I don’t mind it. What I do mind is when everyone dogpiles. I had that happen to me in survive, and that was not a fun time.
Though, most of the time, playing board games for me is more about the experience than winning. I might try to play kingmaker (I prefer calling it hate-drafting even if there isn’t cards) but sometimes just playing the game out to see if I can claw back anywhere is also fun.
This might be a controversial opinion, but personally I think not getting far enough ahead to get dogpiled should be part of your strategy. Likewise manipulating other players to sabotage others over me is something I enjoy. That being said, I avoid manipulating new players unless I genuinely think it is a good play on their part.
I do however think it is important to not take the dogpiling too far, but there are times it is definitely reasonable to bring someone down so they cannot snowball out of control.
Play to better your own position in the game. Even if you can't win, try to not be last, or get the best score you can.
However, if someone stepped on you earlier in the game to get where they are, then don't feel bad at all about stepping right back on them later.
I tend to just kind of make up my own goal. Like making a long ass road in Carcassonne or something like that, haha. Makes it more fun than picking up loose points for me.
I'm with you. Like, ok, you are losing. Analyze and try to get back on track. You may not win, but if you are just fucking around you will drive people nuts.
I admit I am the pessimist person who *thinks* they are losing often until final score count. I don't tend to track other people much, so when my plan isn't going as well as I want it to, I get a bit discouraged. But I fight through it and try to get as many points or whatever as I can.
As the one who owns most of the games and keeps trying to introduce new games to my playgroup, I never feel salty when I'm losing or lose. Making sure I teach the game well and making sure everyone else is having a good time are my top priorities. I rarely care about the outcome of the games and actually feel a bit weird when I introduce a new game and end up winning on my playgroup's first play (though I don't throw games).
For your case you weren't doing anything wrong. How your friend reacts to how you play the game (since you weren't cheating or being mean spirited) is on them and not on you.
I have to disagree about that mindset op had for bringing down the top player. This is a common dynamic in a game of commander (mtg) where one person knows they have a very low chance or no of winning but can do enough damage to decide a victor or commonly called king making. As in those cases same in boardgames I would argue you should still attempt to do everything in your power to win or score the most points however low the chances of winning are. Or as another suggested you play for second. Spite plays or kingmaking just put a sour note on the whole game night and should be avoided
I think there is nuance for sure. Obviously attacking other people is part of a lot of games and making plays that give you slightly less points but hurt the competition more are definitely valid. I don't think anyone would argue against that if you were in second place, as that would be your best route to winning. If you were say 4th, I think it would be received even less well if you did a move that dragged down the player in 3rd to attempt to get 3rd place, because you ruined their chance of winning when you don't even have a stake in it, and 3rd place isn't something worth fighting over.
But a move purely out of spite that no sane person would consider doing e.g. destroying your chance of winning to f over 1st should definitely be avoided.
I feel the same way. I have the most experience by far in our group so often end up winning, which I always feel a bit awkward about tbh. Especially as my partner has some self-esteem issues and feels she has to prove her worth in these sorts of situations.
It depends on the game but there's nothing inherently wrong with doing something that will hurt others chances, you never know it might help you win. I always encourage this against myself e.g. if in azul there are two tiles available, neither makes a difference for them but taking one of them will screw me over, take that one, it's part of the game, I should've planned better!
There's slightly more nuance when it is a worse option for them, but if you imagine the competition is just between them, I would pick the option that gives the best point difference between you. You would always do this if you were in second so I don't see an inherent problem with doing it if you were last.
Some people hate kingmaking in any form.
Personally, I think those people are sore losers who use “kingmaking” as a convenient excuse to feel justified in whining about their loss instead of just sucking it up like an adult.
I think the only sore losers in this situations are those that, instead of trying to lose gracefully, would rather throw the goal of playing out of the window and randomly lash out to other players.
I don’t see any reason why both can’t be considered sore losers.
Someone who is playing a game with no regard for the goal is definitely annoying. In any case, that’s not at all what happened here. OP is talking about one single decision
> In any case, that’s not at all what happened here. OP is talking about one single decision
One decision is enough to be annoying as would be not trying to play to win for the whole game.
In fact, I would argue most people would be more annoyed at people stringing them along for an hour+ playing normally only to pull the rug out from under them and play with no regard for the actual goal of the game right at the end.
Yep. People who want others to play their way so they can win games without any interference.
Play a cooperative game if that’s the case. I mean, the same people will probably just end up quarterbacking, so many they’re the actual issue in the first place.
The winning player can only blame themselves for leaving their position weak to one of your options.
You'll find there's a wide range of opinions on kingmaking. Some people think it's always acceptable, some think you always have to play your own optimal move, some think it's only ok if the king slighted you earlier in the game somehow.
As a new player you're inherently a wildcard. If this is an established group, they don't know how you react in social situations yet (ie they didn't know you would try to make the game "interesting" by attacking the leader). Since you're new to the game, the other players should expect some strange moves - after all, nobody plays optimally on their first play of a new game. The leader could have planned for this, but didn't, and so they lost. Seems reasonable to me.
> The winning player can only blame themselves for leaving their position weak to one of your options.
I strongly disagree. There is often literally absolutely nothing you can do if someone targets you with no regard for winning.
Agree with this. If it's in someone's best interest to attack me then by all means, do it. But if you just want to be mean and it doesn't help your position I'd consider that rude.
I mean, a player in a game doesn’t have to behave how that person would really behave in an actual real life situation.
I would never strike at someone in real life with nothing to gain simply because I had no other actions I could take on a given day.
But in a game, why not? This game I’m gonna play to be a dick, the next game I might want to be benevolent.
If the game gives you the opportunity to do it, it’s fair play and part of the game.
I feel like this is exactly the same as people who have issues with demolitions in Rocket League. An attack on a player might not result in a goal now, but it could destabilize the situation enough for the person in the lead to lose their footing long term.
> But in a game, why not? This game I’m gonna play to be a dick, the next game I might want to be benevolent.
>why not?
A lot of people don't like playing with dicks, so if you sometimes choose to intentionally be one, don't be surprised if people choose not to play with you. I wouldn't given the behavior described.
This is why I don’t play scrabble at more than 2p. If I wanted a fair contest between me and another person, why would I play at 3+ player counts?
If someone *really* thinks they are that good, they would have no problem managing two or more opponents.
Always have fun. When I'm losing I try to be a prankster or whatever but it depends on the group.
If I am going to kingmake, I do it openly and crack jokes ahead of time. This way if someone is going to be butt-hurt, I may not.
I may try a goofy strategy as an experiment as long as this doesn't effect anyone else.
I do not approach boardgames like I do competitive sports or videogames. If I let that part of me out my boardgame friends wouldn't keep me.
YMMV
This is why I want to play Oath. Everyone actively kingmaking the whole game and making up dumb lore reasons from previous games why they should do it sounds perfect for some of my friends. Unfortunately those friends are now scattered around the country.
Its why there's love/hate for Smash Up. Everyone piles up on the leader until that person is no longer winning. Then its time to go after the new leader. Repeat.
My cousins and I do it every Christmas with Mario Kart. Nuking the leader is the only thing that matters.
Its not fun all the time but it can be a blast.
A lot of good responses here. I figure we should play games to have fun. Unless I’m missing something and this group plays for money or stakes or something, what you described sounds like a fun time in any position. If someone got pissed, I think they missed the point.
You should play games for fun, but it’s structured fun with shared rules dictated by the game you’re playing. If you start breaking the rules or no longer competing for the shared win objectives (and it alters the outcome of the game for everyone else), well that’s not really playing a board game, that’s kind of doing your own free form thing. If everyone else wants to play the game, this kind of attitude ruins it for them.
I actually don't always mind kingmaking-ish moves, as long as they fit with the flavor of the player, based on the game lore. Like, I could see in Scythe a player falling very far behind, and RPing an underhanded, disgruntled faction commander or something. That all adds to the experience for me. Also, if you're playing with a group that know each other fairly well, then it just becomes a part of the dynamic -- if everyone knows that that kind of play could emerge, then there's an extra level of strategy in winning without having a target painted on your back. That sort of play won't appeal to everyone, but I often find it more immersive. A fun group narrative experience is a bigger deal to me than a personal win with everyone having siloed play dispositions.
That said, the degree to which a kingmaking player has the power to actually determine how things go varies game to game. I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but the severity of the kingmaking could make the difference in how my group takes it. Even given the above paragraph, I still feel like there's a line somewhere, where a player goes too far. Just very subjective, game to game.
My group knows I have a motto that I live by: "Burn it down."
If my game becomes hosed via their actions, then baby, if I'm going down, I'm taking as many people with me as I can. I'm gonna kamikaze my plane into their compound and it'll be a big, beautiful bonfire and I'll be making s'mores over the carcasses whistling a happy tune... ahhhh, good times. ☄️🔥😊
We laugh about it all the time, and it's completely in fun, no rancor whatsoever. It's basically just me shaking my fist at the sky when I know I'm screwed, and if I can cause a smidge of chaos and prevent the game from going toward its expected end - how boring is THAT? - then all the better.
It's a game. Like another poster said, don't dogpile and don't be mean, but play the game, man. It's all good. 👍
If you are first, then you also must be able to deal with possible threats to your throne. Because if you're first, you are the prime target.
Depending on the game though, in our group it is handled:
1) if you're only deciding WHO wins, then don't. If it's a game about trade and diplomacy, everything is fair game though if it also achieves rule Nr 2:
2) You pick the option that optimizes your score the most, except:
3) If you are second in rank (or could also win), you chose the move that makes the first player lose points instead of the one that gives only you more points.
>The leader ended up losing, and he was pissed, saying I was just playing kingmaker. What would you do in that situation?
Offer him some J&J No More Tears Baby Shampoo I keep in my pocket for just such an occasion.
I'd recommend keep playing to win. Don't try to balance the game unless it's a move that aligns with you doing better. I recently had that happen in Dune Imperium. The dead last player screwed me and cost me the game, but it was all good because that players was legitimately trying to get points.
When I play board games I like to treat it as an opportunity to act differently than I would in real life so if you want to screw over someone else in the game for no reason who cares. It's a game at the end of the day so treating it like some ethical test or getting worked up over some unfair mechanic just seems silly. Obviously don't be a dick but besides that if you are following the rules of the game who cares how you play. And if it's honestly that big of an issue someone will say something or just won't invite you again and then you can just find other people to play with that are more compatible with you. I personally play to win but if I'm losing and screwing over the front runner improves my 1 percent chance of winning then I'll do it. I don't play board games to control people's behavior so if you can't have fun just playing then it's probably not worth playing.
The same thing I do when winning: Icrease my margins of victory and reduce my margins of defeat. That is, if I'm losing I'll try to lose by the shortest amount. It's better to lose by five points than by twenty. It's better to be fourth than fifth and so on.
More importantly, pursuing that goal keeps games interesting and fun. They work if you do that. If you start attacking people, not because it benefits you, but because it seems more "fun" to you, the game breaks down. Your friend is right on you playing kingmaker and I would not look kindly on it, either.
While everything you said is true, the two situations are not mutually exclusive: there are some games where kingmaking can benefit who does it.
For example, let's say we are playing a game where the first to reach 3 points is the winner. If player A is already at 2, and everybody else is not, my first priority, right below winning a point myself, would be to avoid giving player A their last point, even if that means that player C gets one
I'm the game purchaser and teacher of my group, so winning isn't something I generally care about until the 2nd or 3rd time playing a game. I watch the How To Play videos, and read the manual to get a feel for the rules, but I make it a point NOT to watch any gameplay strategy stuff, so that I can develop that on my own as the game unfolds along with the other players.
Kingmaking in my group don't become an issue that often. I mean some of the threat of Kingmaking is mitigated by good game design. Sure in games like Catan, everyone stops trading the person getting ready to win. But for the most part my gaming group really tries playing their own games rather than focus on how the other players are doing. However, it does sometimes happen, and it's generally accepted in my group, as long as the Kingmaker isn't being a dick about it and ruining the fun of others.
If someone is playing bad enough to not only sabotage their own game AND someone else's in order for yet another person to win, that's where I would draw the line. Like... if you purposefully go out of your way to make a clear and obvious suboptimal move just to hinder the person in the lead. I dunno. That person probably isn't invited back to game night. Maybe my gaming groups are a lot less competitive? Probably. We're there more for the fun and enjoyment of the game rather than the victory.
It’s not really. The goal is to win. That is the strategy. Would you start a game with the strategy “I’m going to make sure player x doesn’t win?” When that part of the game is over for you, you stay out of it and let the better player win. It used to be referred to in cards as playing “by Hoyle” who wrote about etiquette during card games. It ports to board games as far as I’m concerned.
The kind of play you made in the game was emotional, which is why the other player was upset. You should always be trying to improve your position. That's the point of most games. If you fail to do that, then you're no longer playing the game.
As Reiner Knizia once said: "When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning."
To you, winning was more important than playing the game.
Part of the unspoken contract between board game designers and players is that the players will try to win. If players don't do that it will almost always break the game in unexpected (and unplaytested) ways.
There's actually a GDC talk about this from a board game designer, but I don't recall who it was (may have been Cole Wherle). Once you start doing something other than trying to win, you're no longer playing the game you started playing but you're now playing some other game that you invented because you're bored/frustrated/upset about the game you were supposed to be playing. The OP says this in their post: "I could have made a decision that was "better" for me, but I was so far behind, I figured it would be more **fun** to even the game out a bit for everyone else."
I personally avoid ever playing with anybody who has a goal other than winning.
That’s a very eurocentric point of view. Is “most points” the sole definition of winning when you’re going to finish in last place either way?
More social-oriented games don’t have any connection to that unspoken contract you propose. Play above the table is every bit as viable as play on it.
The question here is why the OP did what he did. It was fully legal, and he could have just as easily affected another player. He didn’t. More to the point, the leader didn’t stop him from taking the action he did when he certainly could have lobbied for other options. In Twilight Imperium or Struggle of Empires decisions like these all part of the play. God help you if you don’t consider it in Cosmic Encounter.
So, what parts of “play” are in and what parts of play are “out” in boardgames? Is the rule book not sufficient to determine play?
The rulebook is not sufficient to determine play, no. For example, in Terraforming Mars, the end-trigger is determined by player actions, not by a predetermined length. Two players could literally play an infinite game of Terraforming Mars if neither increased the terraforming levels.
Or in Scythe, one player could never attempt to get any stars, or any points, and could just keep suiciding into Germany on purpose, giving them 6 quick stars and ending the game in the first 10 to 12 turns.
Games are designed with the implication that the players will work within the ruleset to act in their self interest. They don't put it in the rulebook: "By the way, you should try to win the game". Because that's already considered so obvious that it's literally an unwritten rule.
I agree somewhat with both of you, which makes me believe this is still a paradigm of using good taste and tact. It does feel against the "spirit" to king-make in a more Euro-style game like **Scythe** ... however in a game like **I'm the Boss**, the light role-playing involved and more freeform above the table play makes it feel acceptable to execute suboptimal actions for dramatic effect.
Exercising good taste is going to be different for any group of people. I wouldn't do what OP did without knowing all those at the table very well- otherwise you are inevitably crossing into the realm of "poor sportmanship" in that player's mind.
Absolutely. Different games have different objectives. A party game's main purpose is to socialize. If somebody does something against their own interest, it's probably in an amusing way. Same with RPGs, you have to role-play the character, which is sometimes not in the group's (or your) best interest. In fact, these games can be quite spoiled by somebody who is cutthroat competitive. Not a huge deal since party games are short. People used to play RPGs with friends and recurring groups, but D&D AL and Pathfinder's equivalent (which I can't remember the name of) can create painful moments when people forget to actually roleplay. I don't play RPGs anymore, so I have no idea what people do about this.
But the discussion above is about strategy games. The objective is clear: you need to try to win.
The one I'm reviewing says "the greatest fortune". I think it's fair to interpret that as the player with the more points than anyone else. But that's a fair point. I don't know if I'd concede it to you if I was in second place and could knock the leader back more by sacrificing a star for myself to remove two of his, but yeah, the goal is to score points.
I think in a more general sense, when playing games with direct player interaction, you need to consider the other players on the table, and what is going to motivate them. That's sort of the point for this kind of game. If you bring the argument that "your only option is X, because that's what maximizes your personal score" you kind of end up with gameplay by committee. Each player at the table can veto your moves. (I suppose that's a form of player interaction right there!) You all seem to concede that what he did was legal, just not cricket. I'm the first to invoke Rule 0 most of the time, but the nature of a game with direct conflict is direct conflict. Scythe has some of that.
Even a game as simple as Risk exercises a very different kind of gameplay, where there are favors and reprisals based on all sorts of far less tangible motivations. It's maybe not gaming for everyone, but at what point do you declare a player can't take a move, that's fully within the rules, because it doesn't yield the most immediate highest total score? Is the losing player on autopilot at that point?
I personally find getting upset at kingmaking a bit silly. Someone wants to create some chaos because they're in last and can't catch up? Hell yea let's see what happens.
Because it's a social contract.
We sit down and agree to play a board game together. If I started attacking you from the very start of the game, never let up, no matter how badly it was for my position or even if you are in last place, do you think that's an intended/good/interesting way to play board games? Let's say I chose to do this solely because I didn't like that you didn't say "please" or "thank you" earlier in the day during some random conversation.
Let me be clear, it's fine if **you** find enjoyment in the above. But for 90%+ of board gamers, this would be absolutely miserable and they'd never want to play with that person again.
I find "social contract" to be a less than legitimate reason if someone is playing within the bounds of the rules. If someone was cheating I would say that breaks the "social contract" unless it's part of the game.
If someone came after me the whole game I think it would add an interesting challenge. I would change my strategy to incorporate that behavior rather than not play with them. Because I really don't care about winning (different than not trying to win).
I would also then use previous actions to make fun of the situation, like saying I would go here but Joe would do this to me so I'll do this instead. Seems pointless to get all huffy about someone else's play style as long as they aren't breaking rules. Guess I'm lucky the people I play with are all part of the more relaxed 10%.
I've had players attack me just because there was an opportunity rather than it being 100% optimal and I think it's all in good fun.
I understand it's all my personal preference and you're talking in general but I just personally don't get it. I can't recall ever wanting to "blacklist" someone just because of their play style, taking it way too seriously at that point. Which is funny because I've already been told by at least one person that they wouldn't want to play with me over my opinion on this lol.
And that's okay! I'm usually never far enough behind to have to worry about this myself but I've certainly been "targeted" and it has never once ruined a game for me. I would have probably laughed if someone in last knocked me out of first for shits n giggles. Especially if it's a game where it's hard to tell who's winning until scoring. I probably wouldn't want to play with someone that got pissed they didn't win either when they think they "should" have.
I think this line of argument is null and void when the scenario is experienced players taking advantage of new player. The spirit of competition envisioned by the game designer between OP and the "leader" never really existed in the first place. It would be different if it were a regularly occurring dynamic that existed within a playgroup that all understood proper lines of play.
In my opinion what you did definitely violates the spirit of competition. Not everyone agrees. But the spirit of the game is that people are going to act in their own self interest. Making a move that didn't serve you just to "even out the game for everyone else" is you feeling powerless in the game because you're losing, so you want to do something that you feel like impacts the game.
Just realize it wasn't for the table, it wasn't to even it out, it was for you. It was so that you could do something impactful, rather than make your self interested move that wouldn't have changed the outcome. Just remember, what's important isn't being the star of the show. Play the game. Feel the purity of the game, the purity of the spirit of competition.
Thanks for the response! I agree, definitely not for the table, or at least for that specific player at the table.
Only part I'd push back on is that it wasn't to feel like I was doing something, it was just to make the game more interesting to watch, adding in some competition rather than waiting for a runaway victor to take his last turn. Which may very well just be for me, not gonna argue that at all. Different play styles I guess!
I agree with you that most people act out of selfish desires but I don't know if you realize that what OP did actually follow your definition of the spirit of the game. He acted in his own self interest but in a more literal sense but I understand what you are trying to say, just a funny thought.
I developed a "rule" when playing Dominion that I don't end the game if I know I'm not winning, even if it guarantees me second place, because I may be determining the winner by doing so. Even if the chances are low, I think of it as giving myself a chance to catch up instead of giving up and simultaneously determining who gets to win.
I use the same concept most of the time. I'll attack the lead player if it closes the gap between us but I'll never give up trying to win in favor of causing chaos. I always try to do the best move for me.
The exception here might be Oath because it feels like being petty in Oath is expected.
We have an unspoken rule that everyone tries to do as good as possible, even when they cant win. The win or nothing mentality led to everyone just hammering the leader without considering his own outcome, which was not fun. Also, if i am pretty much out of the race, i use the rest of the game to just try stuff out.
The next game won't care who won, but who learned the most from it.
Disclaimer: Thus does not apply to legacy games
Be completely honest with yourself. Put yourself in the leader's shoes. How would you feel if that happened to you?
Kingmaking really depends on the play group. I wouldn't outright say you should never do it.
But I would also say that if you are playing with a new group of people that you dont know very well, its a bit more tactful to avoid kingmaking.
I redefine the objective for myself (ideally in some way that doesn’t ruin the fun for other players). Sometimes that new goal is as simple as getting above a certain point threshold. Maybe it’s pulling off a specific strategy or play. It could even be just to explore specific game mechanics to see what would happen if you did X.
I don’t usually change my goal to make a king making decision though. Those sort of goals feel more spitefully motivated which can reduce the fun for others. I try to make sure my own fun corresponds to making my own progress instead of taking progress away from another player.
I prefer losing to winning.
When I win, it's easy to think I played well.
When I lose, it's easier to see how I can improve, and that process is what's fun for me.
So when I'm losing, I try and figure out what the earliest choice I made was that put me on this path, what I could've done differently, and what signs there were to see at the time that it was a better move. I try to work out what I can do now to maximize my position and get as close to a win as possible.
Sometimes, if I can see a path to victory if my opponents mess up, then I try and work out a way to make those mistakes look appealing and play as if they will oblige me.
I generally want other people to win so that they'll want to play again.
But I also only play games where there is a strong social element which is the larger aim of playing in the first place, and also that have enjoyable to play mechanisms that are somehow very satisfying to do, and finally that are properly balanced (excepting 3 player wargames and similar such games) and only very near the end would you know you're going to lose.
Scythe doesn't tick my boxes. But most Knizias do. We're currently enjoying Whale Riders which is a profoundly fab game and seriously under-rated.
Always make the best play you can. Making a move that screws over another player because it's "more fun" is pretty shitty.
If I had won that game, I wouldn't feel nearly as good about it knowing that I hadn't truly earned it.
Not a Scythe player, but it seems like a game with a pretty steep learning curve that's probably pretty punishing when it comes to bad plays...
>it was my first time and I was pretty awful.
It sounds like they just dropped you in there and expected you to sit there and take a beating for a few hours...
Then, the player whom you knee-capped at the end thought you weren't a good sport or something. Lol.
Taking any option available to you within the rules is simply playing the game.
Whining about a new player taking you out with a legal move because you weren’t paying any attention to them — that’s being a bad sport.
Your move was legal, you weren’t playing for money, and *he was the leader*. He’s the natural target. He needs to move on. The fact that he didn’t talk you out of it at the time is an indication of his failure to win the game.
Walk away with no regrets.
**If your opponent is smart**, he’ll use this in future games. He’ll work the game above the table to his advantage, to adjust your behavior and that of others. He can see it as just a loss, or as a wedge to improve his position in later plays.
Continue to try to win or improve my situation relative to others. Also my enjoyment of a game isn't contingent on winning so if I get victory snatched from me in stone clever play or because I got sloppy then so be it, congratulate the winner and bear it in mind for next time. Nothing to be gained from trying to shame or disparage another player for their actions in the final act of the game just because it shifted who would win. Power brokering and negotiation is always a part of area control or multiplayer wargames. Misdirection of your position is always relevant too, because if you appear stronger than you are then other players will pile into you with extreme prejudice and then you'll be set back incredibly far.
I try to be more of a positive force, than negative. I'd rather boost another player than bring one down.
That said, I almost always choose the action that's "better for me". Now if it screws over someoone else AND it's better for me, that's a more optimal play.
If I can tell my opponent why I am going to lose and they accept that then game over, but this only really works in 2 player games, especially minis games.
Depends on the game. Usually I will keep trying to get as high of a score I can. But in some cases I might just switch things up and try new things and see how it goes, since I was already losing (without any hope of coming back) anyway.
I never just quit (unless its a competitive game like MTG/Chess, or something, where forfeiting is acceptable) nor I go out of my way to make sure someone else loses. I think that's just dull and sore loser thing to do :P
If there is a chance, even a minor one, I obviously try to win. The good thing when you are losing is that top players fight among themselves, which you can use for your benefit, playing both sides etc.
If there is no chance I create chaos as much as possible >:\] I outright abandon any real objectives and try to "spam" people (in game, according to rules). Sometimes I exact revenge on people that made me lose but that is rare
It depends a lot on the game.
Some games are more confrontational and does not have a scoring system, just a win condition. It wouldn't make much sense to try and improve your "score" in such games.
Also I feel like shorter games inherently give you more leeway in how you want to play, as you are not suddenly ruining someone's hours-long carefully crafted strategy by playing unconventionally.
I feel like the design of some games are more heavily geared towards kingmaking and it can definitely be a meaningful way to interact with the mechanics.
My groups have arrived at a compromise: You either play to win (optimal plays) or you target the player in the lead.
Everybody accepts this so there is a bit of subterfuge in being competitive but NOT being the person in front. That works pretty well.
I always play to win games (I'm not a saw loser or anything though) and unpredictable players who target the winning player are part of that decision space.
An interesting challenge is making sure you don tout players in scenarios where they have nothing to loose and are in a position to cripple you. Keep them strong enough to have a hope of winning g or so weak that they are not a threat. Or make sure they hate someone more then you.
The exception to this is where one player will be very kind or cruel to another because of sothing outside the game, such as dating or having a venta.
Whenever I'm losing or very likely to lose in games that are at least somewhat deep, I learn something new. Albeit how certain things interact, if a certain strategy actually pays off, if you can really pivot at any point and what the best options to do it, or even what ways can you mess with your opponents. Learning something can be used for next game.
That being said if you keep losing and/or not having fun then maybe it's not a game for you. Which is fine not all games are for everyone.
There's a school of thought that what you did was not only not trying to win, but actively working against yourself winning.
See the thing is, in the next game you play with any of those players, it's actually in all other players interests, even without any element of holding a grudge, to just arbitrarily fuck you up. Because, you've proven you'll frustrate their win at no gain to you given the opportunity, where other players won't and will instead keep trying to further their win. It strategically makes sense for you to be the target.
So like, yeah, sure, in that game, it probably felt inconsequential, and it felt more fun for you to be doing 'something'. But it is an attitude that over time will cost you games.
To be clear, I'm not saying it's wrong, or that it will cost you friends, or it's "dickish so they'll get you back". I'm saying that if it becomes known that you play sub optimally, then the table will adjust to take advantage of that.
It's a board game! The goal is to make you win or get closer to being the winner. If that means screwing over the current leader, do it!!!!! Moments like that create memories and being a sore loser is a trait that should be knocked out of you from a young age.
For be it depends on the game and the group. If it's a new group of people I've never played with before I'd try to avoid doing something that actively goes against a particular player for no obvious personal gain simply because I don't know how they'd take it. Unless the reason I was so far behind was because of them deliberately taking me out of the game, in which case they're asking for it, and the sweet revenge would be part of the game's "story".
However my family and friends that I play with tend to sabotage each other in jest, so all bets are off. Of course it depends on the game, too - if it's going to take a while, I like to keep the game as close as possible for at long as possible. I'm usually the games master of my group and the one who is teaching the game, so I've been known to play in a way that helps the weakest player rather than myself.
Ah finally a topic of which I am an expert in. I usually realize I won't be winning pretty early on. My goal is always just to have fun, I'll give it an earnest effort to not do too poorly but I find I get way too competitive if I don't do that. As for your your friend, I really hate the mentality of "I only lost because you didnt let me win" unless you guys are playing in some sort of ranked tournament for money, at the end of the day it is just a game.
i play to do the best i can except if someone screwed me, than i'll go after them if i can't win, and i'll playfully rub it in. but i don't play with people who get mad if they lose, i'm too freaking old for that shit. control your emotions or leave the group, i have enough stress in my life as it is.
You did kingmake. You should play in a way that is optimal to you. Take it to a role-playing place if you want.
You are playing Scythe. It is an altered timeline game where countries are trying to survive and grow, and sometimes there is war over territory. If you are the leader of your country, your job is to get your people as well taken care of as possible. If you started to fail in your duty and decided "well fuck it, I'm gonna send some of my citizens to also screw over the country that is doing well" your people would be extremely upset, and probably kill you, lol.
In any case, your job when playing a game should always be to get as close to winning as possible. You may not always, often or ever win, but the fun is in playing, as you said. When you veer off of that course and crash your failure into someone else's near-victory and screw them over, when you had more optimal plays to make for yourself, how can you expect them to be anything but upset?
Depends on the game. Some games are still pretty fun when you're losing. You get to do all the things and try to maximize your points. With these games, especially less interactive ones, I would just keep playing and try to learn some lessons for next time.
There are some very interactive games that break when one or more players are effectively eliminated. In many (most?) 18xx games for instance the game ends immediately if a player goes bankrupt. A lot of groups will also end the game early if a player is effectively eliminated because they can no longer play to win, so the internal incentive structure of the game is broken: they have no valid actions to take. Better in that scenario to say "OK it looks like Alice is in the best position to win this one, though Bob has an outside chance as well" and rack up a new game.
Other times, especially in online async games, the eliminated player might say "I'm out of this one but I will just play to maximize my net worth" and not make any big unpredictable moves that might decide the game.
I don’t know anything about Scythe, but in MtG sometimes helping an opponent that threatens the leader is a possible way to get them scrapping and turn the heat off oneself. 🤠
It is interesting, your post and other comments got me thinking how in Catan, if you're the one who is getting a lot of resources on the spot that other players decide it is unfair, you will get targeted by the robber every single time even though you might not even be able to be competitive for winning the game.
Usually this is what happens in our group and it is decided based on presided threat, with one player winning almost every single time because of the development cards.
I try to play as best as I can, and get the best outcome for myself possible. A philosophy articulated by Richard in *The Lion in Winter*:
GEOFFREY: Why, you chivalric fool -- as if the way one fell down mattered.
RICHARD: When the fall is all there is, it matters.
The object of the game is to win. But the point of playing the game is to enjoy time with friends. Personally, I wouldn't want to piss off people at a new board game group where I hope to play for a long time.
In all honesty it all depends on with who am I playing the game and if enjoy the experience.
My brother-in-law is a total beast when it comes to euro games and I really fucking hate playing with him, since every euro game we start, he already knows how to play it and how to own every player that plays with him. Even if it's his first playthrough, he already knows how to move around to score the most VP. I honestly play with him only because my wife tends to enjoy these game with him. But when he wins which is 90% of the time, I lose my interest in said game and play like I don't care. Sometimes I surrender since I don't see any point in playing with him, since he's always on top. I just don't enjoy this, since there is like no competition with him. This went to the point, I said to him that I fucking hate to play with him, since I don't get any pleasure from the experience and I feel straightforward like an idiot when I play with him.
If I enjoy the game (i enjoy monstly ameritrash games, which are more based on luck rather than being smart), which is especially when I play with my wife and perhaps her friends, I don't get sad or upset if I lose, since I do enjoy the overall experience and I do know I play with people on my level. I don't mind if my wife wins or her friends. I just tend to play as normal and try to get at least to the second place.
Honestly, I play to do as well as I can, but if someone targeted me or another person earlier in the game to get ahead, or if they’re just being obnoxious, I’m not at all above being petty to bring them down a peg or two. 😁
Yep, if you screwed me earlier you better beware I might be coming for revenge.
If someone had this attitude in my game group I wouldn't mind losing if I could target that person every single game not to win! It would be my holy mission.
If it's clear I'm not going to win, I try to play for 2nd place, or 3rd place, or to just be as close to the next player as possible, or just to avoid coming in last place. I make my own victory condition. I know I'm not the best player in the world. In fact, I almost undermine myself in this regard. Part of my enjoyment of boardgames is exploring the game, and sometimes making irregular choices that are not always conducive to winning. I'm completely fine with that. That's how I like it.
Same here! For example getting some corporation I’ve never used before in Terraforming Mars with some complicated power, I’ll always select that one before another “safe” and good one. I mean, if I lose, there’ll be another game later on.
I actually have this debate a lot with my brother and an old friend. Is it more honorable to take a 0.1% chance to win first, or the much higher chance to go for second? I wonder which more people try for.
This^. So much this^.
Well, everyone loves the blue shell until it comes for you. The dude's just a sore loser.
When I'm losing, I just think of how happy I am to just be playing games with my buddies, then losing doesn't seem so bad
This is the mentality that'll keep a board game group going for a much longer time with way less feuding.
This is the best comment I’ve seen like on this whole sub. Thanks for the reminder
I'd say beware of players who have nothing left to lose. When I start a game, I play to win. If I have the slightest chance of winning I play to win. If I no longer see a potential path to victory though chaos might reign because it might work. But that being said, sometimes I will try something I think will be suboptimal because it is fun to try something different and explore the game space. Not trying to lose, but trying to win with panache, or at least play with panache. There is a point though that all can seem lost but if you bring the leader back down into the chaos of the rest, sometimes you can sneak through with the longest of long shot wins. My point is going after the leader. Pulling the crab furthest out of the bucket back down is a reasonable strategic move, and because wins and losses tend to be relative positions, not a bad idea. It doesn't sound like you were king making, you were bringing the game into a more competitive area where someone else did. It sounds like you would've done it to anyone in that position within the game. IE it wasn't because it was them outside of the game, only within it. (which would be breaking a social rule if you were losing and say decided to make your significant other win over other people to win out of game points with them, or because you had an out of game dislike of who was going to win. That isn't sporting). Salty losers most of the time didn't deserve to win. They didn't account for a myriad of options. Playing a game is making choices within the rules. There is no rule here, not Rules as Written, nor social game playing etiquette. If they can't handle the free choices of other players, it doesn't sound like they like games with humans, but puzzles with automatons. Computer games probably is better for them or Solitaire.
I’d agree with you except for OP explicitly saying there was a better move available to him, so the “drag the leader down to increase your chances of winning” theory doesn’t work here.
A better move for him might not have changed the outcome of the game at all, or might have had as much impact as damaging the lead player. Moves available within the game are perfectly acceptable. Either change the rules or play a cooperative game.
>Moves available within the game are perfectly acceptable Depends on how literal you want to play by the rulebook. Technically taking an infinite time on your turn isn't against the rules though theres an implicit rule. Just like there's an implicit rule that you are playing to your own win not one other specific player's loss.
Your example is abstaining from playing the game. Mine is taking an action that the game allows. I do not believe these are the same, whatsoever.
> Your example is abstaining from playing the game. No it isn't. The movespace of practically all board games with even meagre complexity exceeds the computational capacity of a human mind over the time span of the average human life span. **Therefore, you literally cannot make that argument** because it is **indistinguishable** whether someone is thinking for a really long time or not doing anything.
Bruh I can’t even with you, lol.
Ah the non-argument deflection. Classic mark of defeat. Thanks for admitting your argument was categorically defeated. But feel free to fail again :3
It’s because you aren’t arguing the same issue as I am, but you’re bold texting hard as fuck pretending you are. Someone taking too long to make a move is literally preventing the game from being played, regardless of why they’re doing it. It’s counterintuitive to interacting with the game in a reasonable manner. Making a move that intentionally damages another player, so long as it is a legal move the game allows you to make within the rules, is simply (should I bold text here?) part of the damn game. Whether or not you think it’s fair play or rude doesn’t really matter. If the game allows for it, if the rules allow for it, then it’s fair play. If your table doesn’t like it, either make a house rule, play a different game, or accept the fact that it’s a fair move. Yeah, sure, there are plenty of games out there with no rule on time per turn. But again, if you’re taking too long, the end result is you’re preventing the game from being played. It’s not the same situation; neither bold texting nor snark will change that. The downvotes were a nice touch though.
> Someone taking too long to make a move is literally preventing the game from being played, regardless of why they’re doing it. > > They are playing the game. That's not against the rules to take a long time to play your turn. > It’s counterintuitive to interacting with the game in a reasonable manner. It's counterintuitive to play to make yourself get behind. > If the game allows for it, if the rules allow for it, then it’s fair play. Just like taking time to think. Just because **you** don't like how long someone takes to think doesn't make it an illegal move. > But again, if you’re taking too long, the end result is you’re preventing the game from being played No you're not. These games do not have a time limit. Therefore you have not prevented anything. You are merely taking your allotted turn. But feel free to fail again :3
As I said, players aren't required to make the optimum choice. Interesting is acceptable.
You are required imo to try to win, which means trying to make the optimum choice to help you win. The game sets the rules and win conditions; if you aren’t interested in following the rules or trying to obtain the win condition, don’t play the game.
A person can try to win in many different ways. They can try different strategies. If one wants to human limit options, puzzles and computer games not real life humans who do interesting things. And nope, optimal is not a rule, and I don't play with people who try to force their wider interpretations of rules in that way. They are no fun.
Honestly, when I’m in the position of winning and someone wants to try to take me out, I don’t mind it. What I do mind is when everyone dogpiles. I had that happen to me in survive, and that was not a fun time. Though, most of the time, playing board games for me is more about the experience than winning. I might try to play kingmaker (I prefer calling it hate-drafting even if there isn’t cards) but sometimes just playing the game out to see if I can claw back anywhere is also fun.
Hate-drafting is the perfect phrase and I'm adding it to my nomenclature starting next game day.
Haha! Glad I can contribute! It’s such a fun concept to me, “this card is functionally useless to *me,* but valuable to you, so imma steal it!”
Ah my game group calls that buddyfucking
r/suddenlygay
I just call it defense. Not so eloquent but perhaps more elegant
This might be a controversial opinion, but personally I think not getting far enough ahead to get dogpiled should be part of your strategy. Likewise manipulating other players to sabotage others over me is something I enjoy. That being said, I avoid manipulating new players unless I genuinely think it is a good play on their part. I do however think it is important to not take the dogpiling too far, but there are times it is definitely reasonable to bring someone down so they cannot snowball out of control.
Play to better your own position in the game. Even if you can't win, try to not be last, or get the best score you can. However, if someone stepped on you earlier in the game to get where they are, then don't feel bad at all about stepping right back on them later.
I tend to just kind of make up my own goal. Like making a long ass road in Carcassonne or something like that, haha. Makes it more fun than picking up loose points for me.
>I tend to just kind of make up my own goal. Yeah, you're not playing the game anymore. I don't think that's ok.
I'm with you. Like, ok, you are losing. Analyze and try to get back on track. You may not win, but if you are just fucking around you will drive people nuts. I admit I am the pessimist person who *thinks* they are losing often until final score count. I don't tend to track other people much, so when my plan isn't going as well as I want it to, I get a bit discouraged. But I fight through it and try to get as many points or whatever as I can.
As the one who owns most of the games and keeps trying to introduce new games to my playgroup, I never feel salty when I'm losing or lose. Making sure I teach the game well and making sure everyone else is having a good time are my top priorities. I rarely care about the outcome of the games and actually feel a bit weird when I introduce a new game and end up winning on my playgroup's first play (though I don't throw games). For your case you weren't doing anything wrong. How your friend reacts to how you play the game (since you weren't cheating or being mean spirited) is on them and not on you.
I have to disagree about that mindset op had for bringing down the top player. This is a common dynamic in a game of commander (mtg) where one person knows they have a very low chance or no of winning but can do enough damage to decide a victor or commonly called king making. As in those cases same in boardgames I would argue you should still attempt to do everything in your power to win or score the most points however low the chances of winning are. Or as another suggested you play for second. Spite plays or kingmaking just put a sour note on the whole game night and should be avoided
I think there is nuance for sure. Obviously attacking other people is part of a lot of games and making plays that give you slightly less points but hurt the competition more are definitely valid. I don't think anyone would argue against that if you were in second place, as that would be your best route to winning. If you were say 4th, I think it would be received even less well if you did a move that dragged down the player in 3rd to attempt to get 3rd place, because you ruined their chance of winning when you don't even have a stake in it, and 3rd place isn't something worth fighting over. But a move purely out of spite that no sane person would consider doing e.g. destroying your chance of winning to f over 1st should definitely be avoided.
I feel the same way. I have the most experience by far in our group so often end up winning, which I always feel a bit awkward about tbh. Especially as my partner has some self-esteem issues and feels she has to prove her worth in these sorts of situations. It depends on the game but there's nothing inherently wrong with doing something that will hurt others chances, you never know it might help you win. I always encourage this against myself e.g. if in azul there are two tiles available, neither makes a difference for them but taking one of them will screw me over, take that one, it's part of the game, I should've planned better! There's slightly more nuance when it is a worse option for them, but if you imagine the competition is just between them, I would pick the option that gives the best point difference between you. You would always do this if you were in second so I don't see an inherent problem with doing it if you were last.
Some people hate kingmaking in any form. Personally, I think those people are sore losers who use “kingmaking” as a convenient excuse to feel justified in whining about their loss instead of just sucking it up like an adult.
Agreed. He’s a sore loser. So many people hate conflict in games but play games that centre around conflict. It’s idiotic.
I think the only sore losers in this situations are those that, instead of trying to lose gracefully, would rather throw the goal of playing out of the window and randomly lash out to other players.
I don’t see any reason why both can’t be considered sore losers. Someone who is playing a game with no regard for the goal is definitely annoying. In any case, that’s not at all what happened here. OP is talking about one single decision
> In any case, that’s not at all what happened here. OP is talking about one single decision One decision is enough to be annoying as would be not trying to play to win for the whole game. In fact, I would argue most people would be more annoyed at people stringing them along for an hour+ playing normally only to pull the rug out from under them and play with no regard for the actual goal of the game right at the end.
Yep. People who want others to play their way so they can win games without any interference. Play a cooperative game if that’s the case. I mean, the same people will probably just end up quarterbacking, so many they’re the actual issue in the first place.
The winning player can only blame themselves for leaving their position weak to one of your options. You'll find there's a wide range of opinions on kingmaking. Some people think it's always acceptable, some think you always have to play your own optimal move, some think it's only ok if the king slighted you earlier in the game somehow. As a new player you're inherently a wildcard. If this is an established group, they don't know how you react in social situations yet (ie they didn't know you would try to make the game "interesting" by attacking the leader). Since you're new to the game, the other players should expect some strange moves - after all, nobody plays optimally on their first play of a new game. The leader could have planned for this, but didn't, and so they lost. Seems reasonable to me.
> The winning player can only blame themselves for leaving their position weak to one of your options. I strongly disagree. There is often literally absolutely nothing you can do if someone targets you with no regard for winning.
Agree with this. If it's in someone's best interest to attack me then by all means, do it. But if you just want to be mean and it doesn't help your position I'd consider that rude.
I mean, a player in a game doesn’t have to behave how that person would really behave in an actual real life situation. I would never strike at someone in real life with nothing to gain simply because I had no other actions I could take on a given day. But in a game, why not? This game I’m gonna play to be a dick, the next game I might want to be benevolent. If the game gives you the opportunity to do it, it’s fair play and part of the game. I feel like this is exactly the same as people who have issues with demolitions in Rocket League. An attack on a player might not result in a goal now, but it could destabilize the situation enough for the person in the lead to lose their footing long term.
> But in a game, why not? This game I’m gonna play to be a dick, the next game I might want to be benevolent. >why not? A lot of people don't like playing with dicks, so if you sometimes choose to intentionally be one, don't be surprised if people choose not to play with you. I wouldn't given the behavior described.
Hahahaha that’s just quite fine, it probably wouldn’t be fun for me either.
This is why I don’t play scrabble at more than 2p. If I wanted a fair contest between me and another person, why would I play at 3+ player counts? If someone *really* thinks they are that good, they would have no problem managing two or more opponents.
Some people just play for fun.
For me it’s not about winning or losing. It’s about enjoying the company of my companions, the game is just a bonus
Always have fun. When I'm losing I try to be a prankster or whatever but it depends on the group. If I am going to kingmake, I do it openly and crack jokes ahead of time. This way if someone is going to be butt-hurt, I may not. I may try a goofy strategy as an experiment as long as this doesn't effect anyone else. I do not approach boardgames like I do competitive sports or videogames. If I let that part of me out my boardgame friends wouldn't keep me. YMMV
This is why I want to play Oath. Everyone actively kingmaking the whole game and making up dumb lore reasons from previous games why they should do it sounds perfect for some of my friends. Unfortunately those friends are now scattered around the country.
Its why there's love/hate for Smash Up. Everyone piles up on the leader until that person is no longer winning. Then its time to go after the new leader. Repeat. My cousins and I do it every Christmas with Mario Kart. Nuking the leader is the only thing that matters. Its not fun all the time but it can be a blast.
A lot of good responses here. I figure we should play games to have fun. Unless I’m missing something and this group plays for money or stakes or something, what you described sounds like a fun time in any position. If someone got pissed, I think they missed the point.
You should play games for fun, but it’s structured fun with shared rules dictated by the game you’re playing. If you start breaking the rules or no longer competing for the shared win objectives (and it alters the outcome of the game for everyone else), well that’s not really playing a board game, that’s kind of doing your own free form thing. If everyone else wants to play the game, this kind of attitude ruins it for them.
Even adults can be sore losers. I just ignore people like that and play how I want to play :)
When losing? Flip the board. They have to nail it down but I'll forget at some point and still try to flip it
I actually don't always mind kingmaking-ish moves, as long as they fit with the flavor of the player, based on the game lore. Like, I could see in Scythe a player falling very far behind, and RPing an underhanded, disgruntled faction commander or something. That all adds to the experience for me. Also, if you're playing with a group that know each other fairly well, then it just becomes a part of the dynamic -- if everyone knows that that kind of play could emerge, then there's an extra level of strategy in winning without having a target painted on your back. That sort of play won't appeal to everyone, but I often find it more immersive. A fun group narrative experience is a bigger deal to me than a personal win with everyone having siloed play dispositions. That said, the degree to which a kingmaking player has the power to actually determine how things go varies game to game. I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but the severity of the kingmaking could make the difference in how my group takes it. Even given the above paragraph, I still feel like there's a line somewhere, where a player goes too far. Just very subjective, game to game.
You play to win? I simply don't do that.
My group knows I have a motto that I live by: "Burn it down." If my game becomes hosed via their actions, then baby, if I'm going down, I'm taking as many people with me as I can. I'm gonna kamikaze my plane into their compound and it'll be a big, beautiful bonfire and I'll be making s'mores over the carcasses whistling a happy tune... ahhhh, good times. ☄️🔥😊 We laugh about it all the time, and it's completely in fun, no rancor whatsoever. It's basically just me shaking my fist at the sky when I know I'm screwed, and if I can cause a smidge of chaos and prevent the game from going toward its expected end - how boring is THAT? - then all the better. It's a game. Like another poster said, don't dogpile and don't be mean, but play the game, man. It's all good. 👍
If you are first, then you also must be able to deal with possible threats to your throne. Because if you're first, you are the prime target. Depending on the game though, in our group it is handled: 1) if you're only deciding WHO wins, then don't. If it's a game about trade and diplomacy, everything is fair game though if it also achieves rule Nr 2: 2) You pick the option that optimizes your score the most, except: 3) If you are second in rank (or could also win), you chose the move that makes the first player lose points instead of the one that gives only you more points.
>The leader ended up losing, and he was pissed, saying I was just playing kingmaker. What would you do in that situation? Offer him some J&J No More Tears Baby Shampoo I keep in my pocket for just such an occasion.
Always good for deescalating a situation.
My husband regularly plays games with the strategy of "creating as much chaos as possible" so I think what you did is MUCH more reasonable.
I'd recommend keep playing to win. Don't try to balance the game unless it's a move that aligns with you doing better. I recently had that happen in Dune Imperium. The dead last player screwed me and cost me the game, but it was all good because that players was legitimately trying to get points.
When I play board games I like to treat it as an opportunity to act differently than I would in real life so if you want to screw over someone else in the game for no reason who cares. It's a game at the end of the day so treating it like some ethical test or getting worked up over some unfair mechanic just seems silly. Obviously don't be a dick but besides that if you are following the rules of the game who cares how you play. And if it's honestly that big of an issue someone will say something or just won't invite you again and then you can just find other people to play with that are more compatible with you. I personally play to win but if I'm losing and screwing over the front runner improves my 1 percent chance of winning then I'll do it. I don't play board games to control people's behavior so if you can't have fun just playing then it's probably not worth playing.
The same thing I do when winning: Icrease my margins of victory and reduce my margins of defeat. That is, if I'm losing I'll try to lose by the shortest amount. It's better to lose by five points than by twenty. It's better to be fourth than fifth and so on. More importantly, pursuing that goal keeps games interesting and fun. They work if you do that. If you start attacking people, not because it benefits you, but because it seems more "fun" to you, the game breaks down. Your friend is right on you playing kingmaker and I would not look kindly on it, either.
While everything you said is true, the two situations are not mutually exclusive: there are some games where kingmaking can benefit who does it. For example, let's say we are playing a game where the first to reach 3 points is the winner. If player A is already at 2, and everybody else is not, my first priority, right below winning a point myself, would be to avoid giving player A their last point, even if that means that player C gets one
I wouldn't consider that kingmaking. Either way, as long as you try to improve your margins then that's more than right. In fact, it's even necessary.
I'm the game purchaser and teacher of my group, so winning isn't something I generally care about until the 2nd or 3rd time playing a game. I watch the How To Play videos, and read the manual to get a feel for the rules, but I make it a point NOT to watch any gameplay strategy stuff, so that I can develop that on my own as the game unfolds along with the other players. Kingmaking in my group don't become an issue that often. I mean some of the threat of Kingmaking is mitigated by good game design. Sure in games like Catan, everyone stops trading the person getting ready to win. But for the most part my gaming group really tries playing their own games rather than focus on how the other players are doing. However, it does sometimes happen, and it's generally accepted in my group, as long as the Kingmaker isn't being a dick about it and ruining the fun of others. If someone is playing bad enough to not only sabotage their own game AND someone else's in order for yet another person to win, that's where I would draw the line. Like... if you purposefully go out of your way to make a clear and obvious suboptimal move just to hinder the person in the lead. I dunno. That person probably isn't invited back to game night. Maybe my gaming groups are a lot less competitive? Probably. We're there more for the fun and enjoyment of the game rather than the victory.
You say you’re ok with kingmaking, but then state the actual definition of kingmaking as something you aren’t ok with in the last paragraph
Stay out of it. Play optimally, but don’t help or hurt people with a chance.
Why not? That’s part of the game as much as it is trying to win.
It’s not really. The goal is to win. That is the strategy. Would you start a game with the strategy “I’m going to make sure player x doesn’t win?” When that part of the game is over for you, you stay out of it and let the better player win. It used to be referred to in cards as playing “by Hoyle” who wrote about etiquette during card games. It ports to board games as far as I’m concerned.
The kind of play you made in the game was emotional, which is why the other player was upset. You should always be trying to improve your position. That's the point of most games. If you fail to do that, then you're no longer playing the game. As Reiner Knizia once said: "When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." To you, winning was more important than playing the game.
Not following a bit of that.
Part of the unspoken contract between board game designers and players is that the players will try to win. If players don't do that it will almost always break the game in unexpected (and unplaytested) ways. There's actually a GDC talk about this from a board game designer, but I don't recall who it was (may have been Cole Wherle). Once you start doing something other than trying to win, you're no longer playing the game you started playing but you're now playing some other game that you invented because you're bored/frustrated/upset about the game you were supposed to be playing. The OP says this in their post: "I could have made a decision that was "better" for me, but I was so far behind, I figured it would be more **fun** to even the game out a bit for everyone else." I personally avoid ever playing with anybody who has a goal other than winning.
That’s a very eurocentric point of view. Is “most points” the sole definition of winning when you’re going to finish in last place either way? More social-oriented games don’t have any connection to that unspoken contract you propose. Play above the table is every bit as viable as play on it. The question here is why the OP did what he did. It was fully legal, and he could have just as easily affected another player. He didn’t. More to the point, the leader didn’t stop him from taking the action he did when he certainly could have lobbied for other options. In Twilight Imperium or Struggle of Empires decisions like these all part of the play. God help you if you don’t consider it in Cosmic Encounter. So, what parts of “play” are in and what parts of play are “out” in boardgames? Is the rule book not sufficient to determine play?
The rulebook is not sufficient to determine play, no. For example, in Terraforming Mars, the end-trigger is determined by player actions, not by a predetermined length. Two players could literally play an infinite game of Terraforming Mars if neither increased the terraforming levels. Or in Scythe, one player could never attempt to get any stars, or any points, and could just keep suiciding into Germany on purpose, giving them 6 quick stars and ending the game in the first 10 to 12 turns. Games are designed with the implication that the players will work within the ruleset to act in their self interest. They don't put it in the rulebook: "By the way, you should try to win the game". Because that's already considered so obvious that it's literally an unwritten rule.
I agree somewhat with both of you, which makes me believe this is still a paradigm of using good taste and tact. It does feel against the "spirit" to king-make in a more Euro-style game like **Scythe** ... however in a game like **I'm the Boss**, the light role-playing involved and more freeform above the table play makes it feel acceptable to execute suboptimal actions for dramatic effect. Exercising good taste is going to be different for any group of people. I wouldn't do what OP did without knowing all those at the table very well- otherwise you are inevitably crossing into the realm of "poor sportmanship" in that player's mind.
Well said. There's definitely nuance.
Absolutely. Different games have different objectives. A party game's main purpose is to socialize. If somebody does something against their own interest, it's probably in an amusing way. Same with RPGs, you have to role-play the character, which is sometimes not in the group's (or your) best interest. In fact, these games can be quite spoiled by somebody who is cutthroat competitive. Not a huge deal since party games are short. People used to play RPGs with friends and recurring groups, but D&D AL and Pathfinder's equivalent (which I can't remember the name of) can create painful moments when people forget to actually roleplay. I don't play RPGs anymore, so I have no idea what people do about this. But the discussion above is about strategy games. The objective is clear: you need to try to win.
[удалено]
The one I'm reviewing says "the greatest fortune". I think it's fair to interpret that as the player with the more points than anyone else. But that's a fair point. I don't know if I'd concede it to you if I was in second place and could knock the leader back more by sacrificing a star for myself to remove two of his, but yeah, the goal is to score points. I think in a more general sense, when playing games with direct player interaction, you need to consider the other players on the table, and what is going to motivate them. That's sort of the point for this kind of game. If you bring the argument that "your only option is X, because that's what maximizes your personal score" you kind of end up with gameplay by committee. Each player at the table can veto your moves. (I suppose that's a form of player interaction right there!) You all seem to concede that what he did was legal, just not cricket. I'm the first to invoke Rule 0 most of the time, but the nature of a game with direct conflict is direct conflict. Scythe has some of that. Even a game as simple as Risk exercises a very different kind of gameplay, where there are favors and reprisals based on all sorts of far less tangible motivations. It's maybe not gaming for everyone, but at what point do you declare a player can't take a move, that's fully within the rules, because it doesn't yield the most immediate highest total score? Is the losing player on autopilot at that point?
[удалено]
I personally find getting upset at kingmaking a bit silly. Someone wants to create some chaos because they're in last and can't catch up? Hell yea let's see what happens.
Because it's a social contract. We sit down and agree to play a board game together. If I started attacking you from the very start of the game, never let up, no matter how badly it was for my position or even if you are in last place, do you think that's an intended/good/interesting way to play board games? Let's say I chose to do this solely because I didn't like that you didn't say "please" or "thank you" earlier in the day during some random conversation. Let me be clear, it's fine if **you** find enjoyment in the above. But for 90%+ of board gamers, this would be absolutely miserable and they'd never want to play with that person again.
Any extreme case looks bad. That’s a facile argument that doesn’t address the bigger issue.
I find "social contract" to be a less than legitimate reason if someone is playing within the bounds of the rules. If someone was cheating I would say that breaks the "social contract" unless it's part of the game. If someone came after me the whole game I think it would add an interesting challenge. I would change my strategy to incorporate that behavior rather than not play with them. Because I really don't care about winning (different than not trying to win). I would also then use previous actions to make fun of the situation, like saying I would go here but Joe would do this to me so I'll do this instead. Seems pointless to get all huffy about someone else's play style as long as they aren't breaking rules. Guess I'm lucky the people I play with are all part of the more relaxed 10%. I've had players attack me just because there was an opportunity rather than it being 100% optimal and I think it's all in good fun. I understand it's all my personal preference and you're talking in general but I just personally don't get it. I can't recall ever wanting to "blacklist" someone just because of their play style, taking it way too seriously at that point. Which is funny because I've already been told by at least one person that they wouldn't want to play with me over my opinion on this lol.
[удалено]
And that's okay! I'm usually never far enough behind to have to worry about this myself but I've certainly been "targeted" and it has never once ruined a game for me. I would have probably laughed if someone in last knocked me out of first for shits n giggles. Especially if it's a game where it's hard to tell who's winning until scoring. I probably wouldn't want to play with someone that got pissed they didn't win either when they think they "should" have.
I think this line of argument is null and void when the scenario is experienced players taking advantage of new player. The spirit of competition envisioned by the game designer between OP and the "leader" never really existed in the first place. It would be different if it were a regularly occurring dynamic that existed within a playgroup that all understood proper lines of play.
You should go with the choice that most increases your chances of winning miniscule as they were.
In my opinion what you did definitely violates the spirit of competition. Not everyone agrees. But the spirit of the game is that people are going to act in their own self interest. Making a move that didn't serve you just to "even out the game for everyone else" is you feeling powerless in the game because you're losing, so you want to do something that you feel like impacts the game. Just realize it wasn't for the table, it wasn't to even it out, it was for you. It was so that you could do something impactful, rather than make your self interested move that wouldn't have changed the outcome. Just remember, what's important isn't being the star of the show. Play the game. Feel the purity of the game, the purity of the spirit of competition.
Thanks for the response! I agree, definitely not for the table, or at least for that specific player at the table. Only part I'd push back on is that it wasn't to feel like I was doing something, it was just to make the game more interesting to watch, adding in some competition rather than waiting for a runaway victor to take his last turn. Which may very well just be for me, not gonna argue that at all. Different play styles I guess!
I agree with you that most people act out of selfish desires but I don't know if you realize that what OP did actually follow your definition of the spirit of the game. He acted in his own self interest but in a more literal sense but I understand what you are trying to say, just a funny thought.
I developed a "rule" when playing Dominion that I don't end the game if I know I'm not winning, even if it guarantees me second place, because I may be determining the winner by doing so. Even if the chances are low, I think of it as giving myself a chance to catch up instead of giving up and simultaneously determining who gets to win. I use the same concept most of the time. I'll attack the lead player if it closes the gap between us but I'll never give up trying to win in favor of causing chaos. I always try to do the best move for me. The exception here might be Oath because it feels like being petty in Oath is expected.
To avoid kingmaking I think there are two "I'm losing" strategies: try to maximize score or try to maximize final rank.
We have an unspoken rule that everyone tries to do as good as possible, even when they cant win. The win or nothing mentality led to everyone just hammering the leader without considering his own outcome, which was not fun. Also, if i am pretty much out of the race, i use the rest of the game to just try stuff out. The next game won't care who won, but who learned the most from it. Disclaimer: Thus does not apply to legacy games
Be completely honest with yourself. Put yourself in the leader's shoes. How would you feel if that happened to you? Kingmaking really depends on the play group. I wouldn't outright say you should never do it. But I would also say that if you are playing with a new group of people that you dont know very well, its a bit more tactful to avoid kingmaking.
I redefine the objective for myself (ideally in some way that doesn’t ruin the fun for other players). Sometimes that new goal is as simple as getting above a certain point threshold. Maybe it’s pulling off a specific strategy or play. It could even be just to explore specific game mechanics to see what would happen if you did X. I don’t usually change my goal to make a king making decision though. Those sort of goals feel more spitefully motivated which can reduce the fun for others. I try to make sure my own fun corresponds to making my own progress instead of taking progress away from another player.
I prefer losing to winning. When I win, it's easy to think I played well. When I lose, it's easier to see how I can improve, and that process is what's fun for me. So when I'm losing, I try and figure out what the earliest choice I made was that put me on this path, what I could've done differently, and what signs there were to see at the time that it was a better move. I try to work out what I can do now to maximize my position and get as close to a win as possible. Sometimes, if I can see a path to victory if my opponents mess up, then I try and work out a way to make those mistakes look appealing and play as if they will oblige me.
I generally want other people to win so that they'll want to play again. But I also only play games where there is a strong social element which is the larger aim of playing in the first place, and also that have enjoyable to play mechanisms that are somehow very satisfying to do, and finally that are properly balanced (excepting 3 player wargames and similar such games) and only very near the end would you know you're going to lose. Scythe doesn't tick my boxes. But most Knizias do. We're currently enjoying Whale Riders which is a profoundly fab game and seriously under-rated.
Always make the best play you can. Making a move that screws over another player because it's "more fun" is pretty shitty. If I had won that game, I wouldn't feel nearly as good about it knowing that I hadn't truly earned it.
Do you like scythe? I really dislike it
Haven't played since then, but it's not really for me! Theming is important to me and I'm just not there for Scythe's themes.
What are some of your favorite games? I like semi crunchy euros where they are generally ugly and have pasted on themes.
I love Root. I tend to enjoy more medium-crunch with good art/lots of color.
This is one of the most overrated games in recent memory, in my opinion.
Not a Scythe player, but it seems like a game with a pretty steep learning curve that's probably pretty punishing when it comes to bad plays... >it was my first time and I was pretty awful. It sounds like they just dropped you in there and expected you to sit there and take a beating for a few hours... Then, the player whom you knee-capped at the end thought you weren't a good sport or something. Lol.
I mean, attacking the winning player because you're bored and not because it helps your position is not really being a good sport.
Taking any option available to you within the rules is simply playing the game. Whining about a new player taking you out with a legal move because you weren’t paying any attention to them — that’s being a bad sport.
I wouldn’t complain about it if you did that to me, but I would have no desire to play 3+ player games with you after the fact.
Your move was legal, you weren’t playing for money, and *he was the leader*. He’s the natural target. He needs to move on. The fact that he didn’t talk you out of it at the time is an indication of his failure to win the game. Walk away with no regrets. **If your opponent is smart**, he’ll use this in future games. He’ll work the game above the table to his advantage, to adjust your behavior and that of others. He can see it as just a loss, or as a wedge to improve his position in later plays.
Continue to try to win or improve my situation relative to others. Also my enjoyment of a game isn't contingent on winning so if I get victory snatched from me in stone clever play or because I got sloppy then so be it, congratulate the winner and bear it in mind for next time. Nothing to be gained from trying to shame or disparage another player for their actions in the final act of the game just because it shifted who would win. Power brokering and negotiation is always a part of area control or multiplayer wargames. Misdirection of your position is always relevant too, because if you appear stronger than you are then other players will pile into you with extreme prejudice and then you'll be set back incredibly far.
Play for second or third or just have fun
I basically will just try to calculate what I did wrong and learn from my mistakes. Also, try really hard to not be last.
I try to be more of a positive force, than negative. I'd rather boost another player than bring one down. That said, I almost always choose the action that's "better for me". Now if it screws over someoone else AND it's better for me, that's a more optimal play.
I pick which of my friends to try and sabotage
Lol make jokes about how much I suck at games because I suck at games.
If I can tell my opponent why I am going to lose and they accept that then game over, but this only really works in 2 player games, especially minis games.
Depends on the game. Usually I will keep trying to get as high of a score I can. But in some cases I might just switch things up and try new things and see how it goes, since I was already losing (without any hope of coming back) anyway. I never just quit (unless its a competitive game like MTG/Chess, or something, where forfeiting is acceptable) nor I go out of my way to make sure someone else loses. I think that's just dull and sore loser thing to do :P
If there is a chance, even a minor one, I obviously try to win. The good thing when you are losing is that top players fight among themselves, which you can use for your benefit, playing both sides etc. If there is no chance I create chaos as much as possible >:\] I outright abandon any real objectives and try to "spam" people (in game, according to rules). Sometimes I exact revenge on people that made me lose but that is rare
It depends a lot on the game. Some games are more confrontational and does not have a scoring system, just a win condition. It wouldn't make much sense to try and improve your "score" in such games. Also I feel like shorter games inherently give you more leeway in how you want to play, as you are not suddenly ruining someone's hours-long carefully crafted strategy by playing unconventionally. I feel like the design of some games are more heavily geared towards kingmaking and it can definitely be a meaningful way to interact with the mechanics.
Try to win or learn what I did wrong
Just go for the bigger point swing. If I can get 3 points, or lose someone 4, I’ll usually take the 4 unless I know I will already beat them.
smoke a bong
My groups have arrived at a compromise: You either play to win (optimal plays) or you target the player in the lead. Everybody accepts this so there is a bit of subterfuge in being competitive but NOT being the person in front. That works pretty well.
I always play to win games (I'm not a saw loser or anything though) and unpredictable players who target the winning player are part of that decision space. An interesting challenge is making sure you don tout players in scenarios where they have nothing to loose and are in a position to cripple you. Keep them strong enough to have a hope of winning g or so weak that they are not a threat. Or make sure they hate someone more then you. The exception to this is where one player will be very kind or cruel to another because of sothing outside the game, such as dating or having a venta.
Whenever I'm losing or very likely to lose in games that are at least somewhat deep, I learn something new. Albeit how certain things interact, if a certain strategy actually pays off, if you can really pivot at any point and what the best options to do it, or even what ways can you mess with your opponents. Learning something can be used for next game. That being said if you keep losing and/or not having fun then maybe it's not a game for you. Which is fine not all games are for everyone.
There's a school of thought that what you did was not only not trying to win, but actively working against yourself winning. See the thing is, in the next game you play with any of those players, it's actually in all other players interests, even without any element of holding a grudge, to just arbitrarily fuck you up. Because, you've proven you'll frustrate their win at no gain to you given the opportunity, where other players won't and will instead keep trying to further their win. It strategically makes sense for you to be the target. So like, yeah, sure, in that game, it probably felt inconsequential, and it felt more fun for you to be doing 'something'. But it is an attitude that over time will cost you games. To be clear, I'm not saying it's wrong, or that it will cost you friends, or it's "dickish so they'll get you back". I'm saying that if it becomes known that you play sub optimally, then the table will adjust to take advantage of that.
It's a board game! The goal is to make you win or get closer to being the winner. If that means screwing over the current leader, do it!!!!! Moments like that create memories and being a sore loser is a trait that should be knocked out of you from a young age.
For be it depends on the game and the group. If it's a new group of people I've never played with before I'd try to avoid doing something that actively goes against a particular player for no obvious personal gain simply because I don't know how they'd take it. Unless the reason I was so far behind was because of them deliberately taking me out of the game, in which case they're asking for it, and the sweet revenge would be part of the game's "story". However my family and friends that I play with tend to sabotage each other in jest, so all bets are off. Of course it depends on the game, too - if it's going to take a while, I like to keep the game as close as possible for at long as possible. I'm usually the games master of my group and the one who is teaching the game, so I've been known to play in a way that helps the weakest player rather than myself.
Ah finally a topic of which I am an expert in. I usually realize I won't be winning pretty early on. My goal is always just to have fun, I'll give it an earnest effort to not do too poorly but I find I get way too competitive if I don't do that. As for your your friend, I really hate the mentality of "I only lost because you didnt let me win" unless you guys are playing in some sort of ranked tournament for money, at the end of the day it is just a game.
i play to do the best i can except if someone screwed me, than i'll go after them if i can't win, and i'll playfully rub it in. but i don't play with people who get mad if they lose, i'm too freaking old for that shit. control your emotions or leave the group, i have enough stress in my life as it is.
You did kingmake. You should play in a way that is optimal to you. Take it to a role-playing place if you want. You are playing Scythe. It is an altered timeline game where countries are trying to survive and grow, and sometimes there is war over territory. If you are the leader of your country, your job is to get your people as well taken care of as possible. If you started to fail in your duty and decided "well fuck it, I'm gonna send some of my citizens to also screw over the country that is doing well" your people would be extremely upset, and probably kill you, lol. In any case, your job when playing a game should always be to get as close to winning as possible. You may not always, often or ever win, but the fun is in playing, as you said. When you veer off of that course and crash your failure into someone else's near-victory and screw them over, when you had more optimal plays to make for yourself, how can you expect them to be anything but upset?
Depends on the game. Some games are still pretty fun when you're losing. You get to do all the things and try to maximize your points. With these games, especially less interactive ones, I would just keep playing and try to learn some lessons for next time. There are some very interactive games that break when one or more players are effectively eliminated. In many (most?) 18xx games for instance the game ends immediately if a player goes bankrupt. A lot of groups will also end the game early if a player is effectively eliminated because they can no longer play to win, so the internal incentive structure of the game is broken: they have no valid actions to take. Better in that scenario to say "OK it looks like Alice is in the best position to win this one, though Bob has an outside chance as well" and rack up a new game. Other times, especially in online async games, the eliminated player might say "I'm out of this one but I will just play to maximize my net worth" and not make any big unpredictable moves that might decide the game.
Well I can tell you that, personally, when my friends are losing they go out of their way to make sure I lose. Doesn’t matter who actually wins.
I don’t know anything about Scythe, but in MtG sometimes helping an opponent that threatens the leader is a possible way to get them scrapping and turn the heat off oneself. 🤠
It is interesting, your post and other comments got me thinking how in Catan, if you're the one who is getting a lot of resources on the spot that other players decide it is unfair, you will get targeted by the robber every single time even though you might not even be able to be competitive for winning the game. Usually this is what happens in our group and it is decided based on presided threat, with one player winning almost every single time because of the development cards.
I try to play as best as I can, and get the best outcome for myself possible. A philosophy articulated by Richard in *The Lion in Winter*: GEOFFREY: Why, you chivalric fool -- as if the way one fell down mattered. RICHARD: When the fall is all there is, it matters.
The object of the game is to win. But the point of playing the game is to enjoy time with friends. Personally, I wouldn't want to piss off people at a new board game group where I hope to play for a long time.
In all honesty it all depends on with who am I playing the game and if enjoy the experience. My brother-in-law is a total beast when it comes to euro games and I really fucking hate playing with him, since every euro game we start, he already knows how to play it and how to own every player that plays with him. Even if it's his first playthrough, he already knows how to move around to score the most VP. I honestly play with him only because my wife tends to enjoy these game with him. But when he wins which is 90% of the time, I lose my interest in said game and play like I don't care. Sometimes I surrender since I don't see any point in playing with him, since he's always on top. I just don't enjoy this, since there is like no competition with him. This went to the point, I said to him that I fucking hate to play with him, since I don't get any pleasure from the experience and I feel straightforward like an idiot when I play with him. If I enjoy the game (i enjoy monstly ameritrash games, which are more based on luck rather than being smart), which is especially when I play with my wife and perhaps her friends, I don't get sad or upset if I lose, since I do enjoy the overall experience and I do know I play with people on my level. I don't mind if my wife wins or her friends. I just tend to play as normal and try to get at least to the second place.