I drafted a house rule regarding kingmaking. Kingmaking - A House Rule Multi player games can be very fun with in-game issues such as set up, strategy, overall position as well as a number of meta-game issues like player reputations and personal relationships often playing key roles in determining who ultimately takes the win. This house rule is intended to ensure that multiplayer games are dependent on first hand ability, tactics, and insight rather than unearned support from other players. When a player behaves in a way that tilts the outcome of the game in favor of another player, without also providing themselves a substantive path to victory, it is called “kingmaking”. Note that there are many games where kingmaking behavior is a feature of the game itself, such as “deal making” games. This house rule does not seek to adjudicate or restrict player behavior in games such as these. Multiplayer games are notoriously difficult to balance because of the meta-influences to the game previously described. To help ensure an enjoyable multiplayer experience for all players, certain meta game behaviors in tactical games are expected to be observed. Rule 1 Attempt to Win - All players should be attempting to win the game. Winning behavior takes two forms: attempt to assume the lead, or undermine the person in the lead. Players with no clear winning choices or moves, should impede players perceived to be winning before players who are not. Rule 2 Avoid Collusion - Assisting another player without a planned expectation that doing so will ultimately cause you to win is intentional collusion. Unintentional collusion occurs when a player is unwilling to identify and/or hamper the player in the lead. Collusion can also result when a player shares exclusive or secret information. Players should avoid cooperation (or sharing of exclusive information) with one another unless doing so provides a reasonable expectation of exclusive or mutual victory. Rule 3 Avoid Mercenary Advice - Sometimes less experienced players ask for advice or guidance. Care should be taken by all players to provide impartial advice under such circumstances. Players should avoid advising another player when they are at risk of providing advice that unfairly affects the outcome of the game (particularly when it benefits them). Rule 4 Avoid Table talk - Suggestions to harm a specific player constitutes manipulative table talk and can affect the outcome of a game in a non tactical way. Players may publicly call out when a player is demonstrably in the lead, but should avoid providing expectations, insight, exclusive or secret information or clues to provoke players into harming the prospects of another player who is not in the lead. It is each players individual responsibility to develop those plans. Remedy When a player believes another player has failed to observe one of the kingmaker rules above, they may call “kingmaker”. The objecting player has up to 60 seconds to cite the action they believe is in question. Game play is suspended, and the player has one minute make a case. Afterwards all players must cast a vote of “kingmaker” or “not kingmaker”. If the vote is “kingmaker” the player who took that action must justify their action or should consider an alternative action. Secret information is a suitable justification.
Holy cow! These rules are well considered and articulated, but... like, are they posted on your game room wall? What happens in the case of non compliance? Do you have a set of stocks nearby? :) We had a situation last night where one player was too far behind to win but, by his final action, could hand the game to one player or another. What does your group prescribe for a situation like that?
Nice video! I like having vocabulary for this stuff. Another 4x example -- Twilight Imperium 4 has a clear kingmaker issue with a diplomatic card called "support for the throne." Basically I make a deal with another player to give them a victory point and, if they want to keep it, they can't attack me anymore. In TI4, you win the game immediately when you reach 10 points. So, like your 1st example, if I've got a couple of opponents at 9 points and I'm at like 5, I could just decide who wins the game in one quick negotiation by giving away my "support" card. The solution here is obvious enough: just house rule that the game winning point cannot be gained through a "support" card. A trickier example from TI4 - suppose I'm in the same situation as before, with the "support" house rule now in place. I know this is the last round and I have no chance to win, but I've got a big ol' space fleet sitting on the board, positioned to strike. I could attack one of the 9-points players and damage their chances of winning, possibly handing the game to the other player or at least giving them a lot of help. That ending could still leave a bad kingmaker taste in people's mouths, but there isn't an easy way to house rule it away (not that I can see anyway). And having a bad ending really sucks in TI4, considering the game takes like 8 hours to play! Ultimately, kingmaker issues like the second one seem to require good faith players, which I am fortunate enough to have in my gaming group. So I may have to say, "okay I'm just gonna play defensively this turn, since I'm not in a position to win." Which is boring for me, but it might be the only respectable move.
Yeah - with a complex enough situation, sometimes it just comes down to “welp... that’s how it goes!” and you take your knocks, and hope that you get ‘em next time. That might not come as easy after 8 hours of TI tho ;)
Most area control games have this problem, 4x or not. The best solution is to play in even player counts, where everyone can take on one opponent. The odd one player not investing in fights almost always wins
The last time I played Euphoria, there was an issue with Kingmaking. If you haven't played it, the winner is the first player to place all their stars. In this 4p game, two players were down to their last star while I and one other had 2 left. One of the ways to place stars is to place workers on spots to construct buildings -- pay the resource, and leave your worker there until the building is constructed (or pull your dude back, which is inefficient). In a 4p game, 3 of those spots must be filled for the building to be constructed. Player 1, with 1 star left, places a worker on one of those spots, seeing that the other players could help him finish it. But rather than go there, player 2 uses her doubles to place two workers on a different spot, allowing player 3 to complete that building (and place her final star). Since players 2 and 3 are sisters, I felt that it was unfair for player 2 to open up a spot for her sister to win, even though she herself couldn't do it. Really soured me on the game for that reason.
Ah! So you've identified a third type of kingmaking - kingmaking through inaction. It's so common! i remember it most clearly in Small World, where i would PLEAD with the other players, "Listen: if we don't stop so-and-so, he's gonna win."
Thanks for the video! What pops up first is Star Trek: Ascendancy, but I can imagine that most 4X games have kingmaking issues. So far we've played 5 rounds and in 3 there were obvious kingmaking turns. But as it is more an adventure you play together rather than a tough strategy competition I don't find it really problematic. I thought I would remember more games, but when I look at my collection I don't really see a game with serious issues on that. Of course point salad games with open victory points cann all have the potential for kingmaking turns (as long as there is not an extended end game scoring which doesn't let you count the winner out in advance) - so I guess by hiding the VPs you can abolish it to a certain extend. An example is Small World, which would most likely have kingmaking issues if the VPs were known. So if you want to avoid it and you can just not use the tracks on the board and give players coins or something to put in a cup or whatever.
Thanks so much, Dan! Welcome! The Board Games 101 series is intended to help newcomers to the hobby get up on all the terminology and concepts very quickly, so they can start playing and collecting games they'll enjoy. It'll be a good resource for people once the syllabus is more complete. i make these videos while i toil away in the background producing more time consuming videos, like my How to Play vids.
Interesting! Didn't know about this term. I thought it was going to be the name for a mechanic--like in Checkers when you can double-stack your Checker piece to ... make it more powerful? Not sure. It's been a long time since i've played Checkers.
I've been collecting and consuming a lot about board games for a while, but this is the first time I'd heard the term. I've also realized that I am the Petey of Scrabble.
I feel like most prominent examples of kingmaking are related to turn-order. Tom Lehman has talked a bit about this before with regards to how he designed Race For The Galaxy. When you design the game around simultaneous play, then it really doesn't matter if you happen to sit next to an inexperienced player.
@@NightsAroundaTable how is Res Arcana? I've only had a chance to play it once. It felt a little to me like you're at the mercy of your starting deck. If those cards don't synergize well, you're just in bad shape. It definitely didn't seem kingmake-ey to me, though. If I recall correctly, one of the biggest points of direct interaction are the life-steal cards, which target everyone equally, so you can't unfairly help/hinder one opponent in particular
@@testoftetris My family and i love it! We took a bunch of games camping, and ONLY played Res Arcana all week. You're definitely at the mercy of your starting hand, which is why it's crucial to draft... and which is why, if any players are new, you should use the recommended starting decks from the manual. The situation we had was where i had 11 points and was sure to win at the end of the round. My youngest daughter Izzy could tip a card to check victory points and end the game right there, or not do that and give my eldest daughter a chance to catch up. She also had cards that would give other players resources, which she used. i had passed, because you get a point when you're first to pass. So Izzy stalled and gave her sister free reign to rack up 4 extra points (tho still an 11-10 victory for me). It felt like the game was Izzy's to hand over to either of us. A similar thing had happened the previous night.
@@NightsAroundaTable that makes sense. I'll have to try it with the draft when I can. Surprised to hear about those scenarios, hopefully they don't end up being too common!
@@testoftetris Drafting is 100% required imo. It was great because at the end of the game, my youngest complained about her cards. We reminded her that she picked 'em! "Yeah, but i didn't get very good choices!" Us: "You got the same choices as everyone else!" Really helps cut down on the post-game grousing. :)
I would make you King any time... really... just ask... I'll do it... no questions asked... well, apart from you asking me to make you King, of course... you know... anyway, another great video. I love your 101 series. :)
I think a big solution to king making is to be aware of the type of game it is, and make sure the social contract is in order. What stinks, is someone can go into a game expecting king making and back stabbing...but then 6 hours goes by and you are super invested, so it hurts way worse as an experience to see an anticlimactic unearned finish. Oddly enough, I think tabletalk helps this, because then everyone can collide and gang up on the leader. If the person being targeted has a problem, they need to be sneakier about their win condition and lay lower. Not much, but it’s the best advice I can give.
Nights Around a Table dudes on map area control stuff for sure. Sometimes the game only goes 3 hours, but that “anti-kingmake funk” can feel like 3 more.
Can't stand kingmaking, or when a game heavily encourages players to attack the leader or gang up on any individual (best exampled in Risk, Cthulhu Wars, etc.). Btw, is there a better term for "attacking the leader"?
Well, kingmaking does not kick in until its pretty clear a player will not win, and then his/her actions helps one of the runner ups for the win. In such an extent that it helps decide who wins. I believe you got a misconception about the term... it is NOT all actions which directly/indirectly help another player. He/she don't become a kingmaker until it's pretty clear he/she can't win AND his/her actions can influence who wins. You talk about a general problem of three player games. If two of the players get in each other way, the third benefits hugely in some games. I agree. Luckily there are some games which work well with three players: Like Biblios, San Marco, The King is Dead, Splendor and Samurai. I have encountered kingmaking in Catan, Ikusa and Libertalia. But Catan is worst.
Well, to my mind, kingmaking can happen (depending on the game) when one player's actions can CAUSE another player to pull way out ahead. Definitely not the case in games where it's unclear which actions have an effect on putting someone in first place, but there are certainly games (and Catan is one of them) where you can point to a single transaction and say "That's where Mike handed Sally the game."
@@NightsAroundaTable We disagree on this, and the BGG glossary support me: A player HAVE to be in a 'pretty sure' losing position himself to become a kingmaker, and the person he direct/indirectly 'helps' must be in a position were he/she can lose to the other runner-up/s (since if he is already far ahead, its not kingmaking). In multi-player games with interaction, many situations occur during a game which help direct/indirectly one or more opponent. But you can't start to call all of these situations for kingmaking, and that you hate kingmaking, then you basicly hate all multiplayer games with interaction. Kingmaking happens WHEN the conditions I stated occur, and its rather important this definition is used correctly. Example: A player attack another player, the attack went abit unlucky and he lost a lot of troops and so did the defender. If the attack had gone well, he could've become the runner up for the win. After the attack both his and the defender's chance for winning got reduced a lot. Yes, this situation was maybe match deciding, however it was NOT a 'kingmaker' action. The conditions for kingmaking were not present. You understand me better now? I love strategy games with interaction, however I hate kingmaking... a player who is in a losing position deliberate do one or more actions to decide who wins. This is why I like best games where the score is mostly hidden, and where end game scoring plays an important part, like Stone Age, or where the game naturally stimulates the player to optimize his own position, and then the actions vs the end are at least logical and can be predicted (even if they help one of the players). Like Tigris&Euphrates.
@@diamondmeeple Yep - i get you. i'm not talking about situations where a transaction goes one way in someone's favour, but it could have gone another. i'm talking about situations where people help other players in such a boneheaded way that they help them pull way out ahead. So in Catan, players A and B don't have any structures on brick tiles, and are neck-and-neck. Player C gives player A a brick card in exchange for a sheep card or some nonsense, that he doesn't really need right now. Player B spends that brick to secure a coveted spot on the island, a move that pays huge dividends for the rest of the game. Player C is a kingmaker, because he wasn't playing in his own interests, but being an unnecessary benefactor to another player of his choosing. But like you say, Catan is a game where most of the points are visible on the table. BGG's definitions are useful, but i try not to be too legalistic about these terms. Check out "rondel" for example! Game design evolves so quickly and creatively. It's hardly physics. :)
@@NightsAroundaTable I understand you want the use the word kingmaking about things that greatly help one of the opponents. I rather use 'being another's puppet', or 'feeding the win' or similar. The kingmaking is a spesific term with several of conditions. You should not make a video about kingmaking if you dont know fully what it is. I would have edited the last part of the video.
It has a similar problem as all tile laying games: playing well requires a ton In memorization. Usually this means memorizing the tile stack, because the game doesn’t provide a manifest (see Carcassonne). Scrabble DOES have a tile manifest... all you need to do to play well is to memorize an entire dictionary!
Like a lot of classic games it really doesn't work if there is a disparity in skill level, and there is no fun to be had if you know you are way behind with no way to catch up. Applies to chess, checkers, hive and the already mentioned Carcasonne.
Great timing, I just had a conversation about kingmaking over a game of root this weekend but there was a little debate over what it meant!
I drafted a house rule regarding kingmaking.
Kingmaking - A House Rule
Multi player games can be very fun with in-game issues such as set up, strategy, overall position as well as a number of meta-game issues like player reputations and personal relationships often playing key roles in determining who ultimately takes the win. This house rule is intended to ensure that multiplayer games are dependent on first hand ability, tactics, and insight rather than unearned support from other players. When a player behaves in a way that tilts the outcome of the game in favor of another player, without also providing themselves a substantive path to victory, it is called “kingmaking”. Note that there are many games where kingmaking behavior is a feature of the game itself, such as “deal making” games. This house rule does not seek to adjudicate or restrict player behavior in games such as these. Multiplayer games are notoriously difficult to balance because of the meta-influences to the game previously described. To help ensure an enjoyable multiplayer experience for all players, certain meta game behaviors in tactical games are expected to be observed.
Rule 1 Attempt to Win - All players should be attempting to win the game. Winning behavior takes two forms: attempt to assume the lead, or undermine the person in the lead.
Players with no clear winning choices or moves, should impede players perceived to be winning before players who are not.
Rule 2 Avoid Collusion - Assisting another player without a planned expectation that doing so will ultimately cause you to win is intentional collusion. Unintentional collusion occurs when a player is unwilling to identify and/or hamper the player in the lead. Collusion can also result when a player shares exclusive or secret information.
Players should avoid cooperation (or sharing of exclusive information) with one another unless doing so provides a reasonable expectation of exclusive or mutual victory.
Rule 3 Avoid Mercenary Advice - Sometimes less experienced players ask for advice or guidance. Care should be taken by all players to provide impartial advice under such circumstances.
Players should avoid advising another player when they are at risk of providing advice that unfairly affects the outcome of the game (particularly when it benefits them).
Rule 4 Avoid Table talk - Suggestions to harm a specific player constitutes manipulative table talk and can affect the outcome of a game in a non tactical way.
Players may publicly call out when a player is demonstrably in the lead, but should avoid providing expectations, insight, exclusive or secret information or clues to provoke players into harming the prospects of another player who is not in the lead. It is each players individual responsibility to develop those plans.
Remedy
When a player believes another player has failed to observe one of the kingmaker rules above, they may call “kingmaker”. The objecting player has up to 60 seconds to cite the action they believe is in question. Game play is suspended, and the player has one minute make a case. Afterwards all players must cast a vote of “kingmaker” or “not kingmaker”. If the vote is “kingmaker” the player who took that action must justify their action or should consider an alternative action. Secret information is a suitable justification.
Holy cow! These rules are well considered and articulated, but... like, are they posted on your game room wall? What happens in the case of non compliance? Do you have a set of stocks nearby? :)
We had a situation last night where one player was too far behind to win but, by his final action, could hand the game to one player or another. What does your group prescribe for a situation like that?
Nice video! I like having vocabulary for this stuff. Another 4x example -- Twilight Imperium 4 has a clear kingmaker issue with a diplomatic card called "support for the throne." Basically I make a deal with another player to give them a victory point and, if they want to keep it, they can't attack me anymore. In TI4, you win the game immediately when you reach 10 points. So, like your 1st example, if I've got a couple of opponents at 9 points and I'm at like 5, I could just decide who wins the game in one quick negotiation by giving away my "support" card. The solution here is obvious enough: just house rule that the game winning point cannot be gained through a "support" card.
A trickier example from TI4 - suppose I'm in the same situation as before, with the "support" house rule now in place. I know this is the last round and I have no chance to win, but I've got a big ol' space fleet sitting on the board, positioned to strike. I could attack one of the 9-points players and damage their chances of winning, possibly handing the game to the other player or at least giving them a lot of help. That ending could still leave a bad kingmaker taste in people's mouths, but there isn't an easy way to house rule it away (not that I can see anyway). And having a bad ending really sucks in TI4, considering the game takes like 8 hours to play!
Ultimately, kingmaker issues like the second one seem to require good faith players, which I am fortunate enough to have in my gaming group. So I may have to say, "okay I'm just gonna play defensively this turn, since I'm not in a position to win." Which is boring for me, but it might be the only respectable move.
Yeah - with a complex enough situation, sometimes it just comes down to “welp... that’s how it goes!” and you take your knocks, and hope that you get ‘em next time. That might not come as easy after 8 hours of TI tho ;)
Most area control games have this problem, 4x or not. The best solution is to play in even player counts, where everyone can take on one opponent. The odd one player not investing in fights almost always wins
The last time I played Euphoria, there was an issue with Kingmaking. If you haven't played it, the winner is the first player to place all their stars. In this 4p game, two players were down to their last star while I and one other had 2 left. One of the ways to place stars is to place workers on spots to construct buildings -- pay the resource, and leave your worker there until the building is constructed (or pull your dude back, which is inefficient). In a 4p game, 3 of those spots must be filled for the building to be constructed. Player 1, with 1 star left, places a worker on one of those spots, seeing that the other players could help him finish it. But rather than go there, player 2 uses her doubles to place two workers on a different spot, allowing player 3 to complete that building (and place her final star). Since players 2 and 3 are sisters, I felt that it was unfair for player 2 to open up a spot for her sister to win, even though she herself couldn't do it. Really soured me on the game for that reason.
Ah! So you've identified a third type of kingmaking - kingmaking through inaction. It's so common! i remember it most clearly in Small World, where i would PLEAD with the other players, "Listen: if we don't stop so-and-so, he's gonna win."
Thanks for the video!
What pops up first is Star Trek: Ascendancy, but I can imagine that most 4X games have kingmaking issues. So far we've played 5 rounds and in 3 there were obvious kingmaking turns. But as it is more an adventure you play together rather than a tough strategy competition I don't find it really problematic.
I thought I would remember more games, but when I look at my collection I don't really see a game with serious issues on that. Of course point salad games with open victory points cann all have the potential for kingmaking turns (as long as there is not an extended end game scoring which doesn't let you count the winner out in advance) - so I guess by hiding the VPs you can abolish it to a certain extend. An example is Small World, which would most likely have kingmaking issues if the VPs were known. So if you want to avoid it and you can just not use the tracks on the board and give players coins or something to put in a cup or whatever.
A good solution, where possible!
I'm new to your channel but like your content a lot! Thanks for sharing!
Thanks so much, Dan! Welcome! The Board Games 101 series is intended to help newcomers to the hobby get up on all the terminology and concepts very quickly, so they can start playing and collecting games they'll enjoy. It'll be a good resource for people once the syllabus is more complete. i make these videos while i toil away in the background producing more time consuming videos, like my How to Play vids.
Interesting! Didn't know about this term. I thought it was going to be the name for a mechanic--like in Checkers when you can double-stack your Checker piece to ... make it more powerful? Not sure. It's been a long time since i've played Checkers.
i didn’t research the origin of the term, but you’re right - i wouldn’t be surprised to hear it came from checkers.
I've been collecting and consuming a lot about board games for a while, but this is the first time I'd heard the term. I've also realized that I am the Petey of Scrabble.
Don’t feel bad. You’re the reason we get dessert.
I feel like most prominent examples of kingmaking are related to turn-order. Tom Lehman has talked a bit about this before with regards to how he designed Race For The Galaxy. When you design the game around simultaneous play, then it really doesn't matter if you happen to sit next to an inexperienced player.
That’s interesting, because it was Lehman’s game Res Arcana that prompted me to make this video!
@@NightsAroundaTable how is Res Arcana? I've only had a chance to play it once. It felt a little to me like you're at the mercy of your starting deck. If those cards don't synergize well, you're just in bad shape.
It definitely didn't seem kingmake-ey to me, though. If I recall correctly, one of the biggest points of direct interaction are the life-steal cards, which target everyone equally, so you can't unfairly help/hinder one opponent in particular
@@testoftetris My family and i love it! We took a bunch of games camping, and ONLY played Res Arcana all week.
You're definitely at the mercy of your starting hand, which is why it's crucial to draft... and which is why, if any players are new, you should use the recommended starting decks from the manual.
The situation we had was where i had 11 points and was sure to win at the end of the round. My youngest daughter Izzy could tip a card to check victory points and end the game right there, or not do that and give my eldest daughter a chance to catch up. She also had cards that would give other players resources, which she used. i had passed, because you get a point when you're first to pass. So Izzy stalled and gave her sister free reign to rack up 4 extra points (tho still an 11-10 victory for me). It felt like the game was Izzy's to hand over to either of us. A similar thing had happened the previous night.
@@NightsAroundaTable that makes sense. I'll have to try it with the draft when I can. Surprised to hear about those scenarios, hopefully they don't end up being too common!
@@testoftetris Drafting is 100% required imo. It was great because at the end of the game, my youngest complained about her cards. We reminded her that she picked 'em! "Yeah, but i didn't get very good choices!" Us: "You got the same choices as everyone else!" Really helps cut down on the post-game grousing. :)
I would make you King any time... really... just ask... I'll do it... no questions asked... well, apart from you asking me to make you King, of course... you know... anyway, another great video. I love your 101 series. :)
I think Catan has a high King-making risk via the trade mechanism.
Absolutely! And it's one where the kingmaking can be either deliberate, OR inadvertent due to player inexperience.
Try playing a 12 hour game of Twilight Imperium and watching one guy kingmake his neighbour for the whole game :(
i don't think i will!
I think a big solution to king making is to be aware of the type of game it is, and make sure the social contract is in order. What stinks, is someone can go into a game expecting king making and back stabbing...but then 6 hours goes by and you are super invested, so it hurts way worse as an experience to see an anticlimactic unearned finish.
Oddly enough, I think tabletalk helps this, because then everyone can collide and gang up on the leader. If the person being targeted has a problem, they need to be sneakier about their win condition and lay lower. Not much, but it’s the best advice I can give.
It sounds like you may have a specific game in mind?
Nights Around a Table dudes on map area control stuff for sure. Sometimes the game only goes 3 hours, but that “anti-kingmake funk” can feel like 3 more.
@@fwj777 heh.
Now i want to bust out some slap-bass and lay down a track called "Anti-Kingmake Funk."
Great video!
Can't stand kingmaking, or when a game heavily encourages players to attack the leader or gang up on any individual (best exampled in Risk, Cthulhu Wars, etc.). Btw, is there a better term for "attacking the leader"?
Well, kingmaking does not kick in until its pretty clear a player will not win, and then his/her actions helps one of the runner ups for the win. In such an extent that it helps decide who wins.
I believe you got a misconception about the term... it is NOT all actions which directly/indirectly help another player. He/she don't become a kingmaker until it's pretty clear he/she can't win AND his/her actions can influence who wins.
You talk about a general problem of three player games. If two of the players get in each other way, the third benefits hugely in some games. I agree. Luckily there are some games which work well with three players: Like Biblios, San Marco, The King is Dead, Splendor and Samurai.
I have encountered kingmaking in Catan, Ikusa and Libertalia. But Catan is worst.
Well, to my mind, kingmaking can happen (depending on the game) when one player's actions can CAUSE another player to pull way out ahead. Definitely not the case in games where it's unclear which actions have an effect on putting someone in first place, but there are certainly games (and Catan is one of them) where you can point to a single transaction and say "That's where Mike handed Sally the game."
@@NightsAroundaTable We disagree on this, and the BGG glossary support me: A player HAVE to be in a 'pretty sure' losing position himself to become a kingmaker, and the person he direct/indirectly 'helps' must be in a position were he/she can lose to the other runner-up/s (since if he is already far ahead, its not kingmaking).
In multi-player games with interaction, many situations occur during a game which help direct/indirectly one or more opponent. But you can't start to call all of these situations for kingmaking, and that you hate kingmaking, then you basicly hate all multiplayer games with interaction. Kingmaking happens WHEN the conditions I stated occur, and its rather important this definition is used correctly.
Example: A player attack another player, the attack went abit unlucky and he lost a lot of troops and so did the defender. If the attack had gone well, he could've become the runner up for the win. After the attack both his and the defender's chance for winning got reduced a lot. Yes, this situation was maybe match deciding, however it was NOT a 'kingmaker' action. The conditions for kingmaking were not present. You understand me better now?
I love strategy games with interaction, however I hate kingmaking... a player who is in a losing position deliberate do one or more actions to decide who wins. This is why I like best games where the score is mostly hidden, and where end game scoring plays an important part, like Stone Age, or where the game naturally stimulates the player to optimize his own position, and then the actions vs the end are at least logical and can be predicted (even if they help one of the players). Like Tigris&Euphrates.
@@diamondmeeple Yep - i get you. i'm not talking about situations where a transaction goes one way in someone's favour, but it could have gone another. i'm talking about situations where people help other players in such a boneheaded way that they help them pull way out ahead.
So in Catan, players A and B don't have any structures on brick tiles, and are neck-and-neck. Player C gives player A a brick card in exchange for a sheep card or some nonsense, that he doesn't really need right now. Player B spends that brick to secure a coveted spot on the island, a move that pays huge dividends for the rest of the game. Player C is a kingmaker, because he wasn't playing in his own interests, but being an unnecessary benefactor to another player of his choosing. But like you say, Catan is a game where most of the points are visible on the table.
BGG's definitions are useful, but i try not to be too legalistic about these terms. Check out "rondel" for example! Game design evolves so quickly and creatively. It's hardly physics. :)
@@NightsAroundaTable I understand you want the use the word kingmaking about things that greatly help one of the opponents.
I rather use 'being another's puppet', or 'feeding the win' or similar.
The kingmaking is a spesific term with several of conditions.
You should not make a video about kingmaking if you dont know fully what it is. I would have edited the last part of the video.
There's other reasons to hate scrabble, like it makes me feel stupid.
It has a similar problem as all tile laying games: playing well requires a ton In memorization. Usually this means memorizing the tile stack, because the game doesn’t provide a manifest (see Carcassonne). Scrabble DOES have a tile manifest... all you need to do to play well is to memorize an entire dictionary!
Like a lot of classic games it really doesn't work if there is a disparity in skill level, and there is no fun to be had if you know you are way behind with no way to catch up. Applies to chess, checkers, hive and the already mentioned Carcasonne.