SKAFF; GARFIELD, Rl. 2. Multiplayer Games When a game has multiple players, miny phenomena arse that ane absent in two-player games. We dseuss a number of them sn this section. Mest of them ar, propery speaking, phenome of mubisi ames when a game has three or moe sides, one side can be eliminated but the remaining sides continue to play, or pethaps two sides collude against the thd (an example of polit), or peshaps the losing side picks which of the two ontrunners actualy wins (ingmaking) is feist, though, to think of these phenomens in games where thee 1 Just one player per side, and ence we normally speak somewhat limprecsely simply of “rniplayee” games. Multiplayer games can allow a widely varying amount of internetion among the players. This amount of interaction will lead #0 excl aterences tn many aspects of play Some multiplayer (multsided) games can be categorized as races. aces ase generally gimes built up fram ane-player games. Other gimes ae best categoria at brawl, whieh are at their core ineducbly worplayer games with extta players added’ Many of the multiplayer charactersties of 3 game wil eome out of this distinction. In parila, races tend to have logial elimination (fined below) and low amounts of interactivity, poles, and Kingmsking: brawls tend to have high mounts of interactivity, polities, and kingmaking There ace of courre games that fall In beoween thete two extremes ‘yplealy they can sary between these two styles of ply insiée the rules, and agenilly difer in how the gimeplsy is expresed. Purposeilly constricted games can stempt to ct this Hne down the imidile: Rebtally 1s one example. Some of the tntost in playing such CHARACTERISTICS OF GAMES 4 game Is seing lust how the play develops from sesion to esion, Although many multiplayer phenomena eam be seen most caey in {ames where thete is one player per side (and three ot more ses, there ate, of couse, many important games that do have multiple Players on single side, The most basie case 4s the two-sided team same, lke soccer or bridge, In these games, sues of teamwork se—what roles do the diferent team members pay? How do they commaricale with one sncther? And, 1 a special ese, semetimes there ‘i only a single side, and all the players are on i, winning or losing, together. These ate the coopeative games, such as Hacly Sack or (Gometimes) Word of Wont They ar, quite simply, the team analog of singleplayer games, Just as twossided team games are the team, analog of eworplayer games Wes wonth spending a bit mone Kime discuting rac and bess before examining the multiplayer characteristics themselves, ‘aces ae ult? by slung together 2 number of copies of 2 foneplayer game, one for ech player. Each player 1 pursuing her own, itary condition, A footace, Sembble, and golf are all aces. Although thre are multiple players, one can imagine the race taking place with just one plyer (perhaps with sme rales teks). Frawly ate bult by taking a twoplayer game that Is not built up from one-payer games and adding more playes—think, for example, of adding more players to chess Rik and fe forall Stara! are examples, of brawls, Thre are few If any examples from classic games and spots, for reasons we will dscuss below. Unlike 2 race, it Is hard even to Imagine reducing a brawl to one payer ‘The winner of a race is typically determined by some sort of sealedELIAS, GEORGE SKAFF; GARI performance: a potnt score te, oF distance. Often players cannot affect ch others progress much The winner of a brawl is typelly determined by some variant of “tastpesion standing" the players knock each other out of contention ‘Payers definitly can afect each other’ progres, and indeed much of ‘he gameplay centers around jst that. Many games do not ft this distinction wel in particular poker and many other card games. Gameplay will tend to fellow not this categorization of construction, but rather other underying hanctersts such aS amount and type of intenctvty, type of elimination, and amount of polite. Our focus will be on these base characteristics rather than gone form 2.1 Characteriste: Payer Elimination 1m game, players can be clininatd: theyre out of the game, but the ame continues. Players cn be eliminated sity, in Ue sense that they ely out of the game, of loa, that dhey have no chance of winning lthough they continge to play Gin = sports season where the shject is to make the playots, this is umully refered to a “mathematica elimination”) Being out of a game is genecally Jess fun than being in i (or one wou! not play; Being im game but having ro chance to win i often even lest fun than that So hove 3 game handles player elimination can make a big difference tothe enjoyably of the game. CHARACTERISTICS OF GAMES ‘ovsockghoto some arrest (One can alo speak of offctie oF pce cimination: where + Player has a chance to win that is extremely lom, but not qulte 210, 30 that she is effectively eliminated, or she thinks of herself a all but liminated. Such a measure J highly subjective, of coutve—aferent Players in the same game, ofthe same player at diferent times, may perceive the same game sate in ifferent ways. The nature of the game Hse matters a. eat deal as walla player in a lottery might see himself as very much in the running with a iss than 1 percent ehance to win, wheres that same player aight fol effectively eliminated in a chess game where he had the same chance, Mayers who perceiveSKAFF; GARFIELD, Rl. themselves 10 be eliminated may be unhappy to continue the game, and they may resign if the game rules (ether writen rules oF social conventions) permit. one Sided Games ‘The situation here 1s basally equivalent to that of twostded gumes (below). Note that computer players are generally quite bod at conceding appropiate, though. In some computer games (eq, Clillzatin) the stance berwcen logic! elimination and strict elimination of one's computer opponent can be dismaying) great. In one-sided games where ‘he human payer perceives himsel as eliminated, thee is essentially no social pressure against reigning, The effective elimination problem i in serve ene halved. TwoSided Gamer ‘The analysis of player elimination is quite afferent depending. on the umber of sides. Ina twosided game, sit elimination poses no special problems: the game Is over, and someone has won. A new game cn now be state if the players wish to contine playing. ‘One exception occurs with two-sided team games, where i's possible te be out of the game (pethaps because of injury in a sport, or the climination of all your amis in at RTS) while your team py on As In any case of tit elimination, the eliminated player is converted Into 4 spectator, but in this caue he Hs a enore interested spectator, since is team i tn the game, Logis stimination can be an sue with two-sided games but there 1s an easy Solution: the eliminated (Le, losing) player can concede. If the losing player docs not concede, the game is now pointless for both CHARACTERISTICS OF GAMES Players, a least fom the point of wew of winning. So why would the Tesing player not concede? There ate atleast thrce posible reasons, Fist the losing player may not understand that he has lost. He right fal that he i merely behind but still with a chance to win. This Is most likly to oecut in games with a great det of shill where the less shiled player is behind. (t can aso occur in games with Iden Information, where the losing player doesn't See the information that Would let him understand he & losing) His postions! heures may simply be inadequate. This wil be somewhat fastating to the more skilled player, but the les sled player fels he i playing a teal game, so its not expecilly franteating to him (other than the frustration het fee for losing) second, the losing player may simply be stubbom or fel that its ight” to “Bnsh the game” In fat, in some playgroups, this may be the prefered or expected behatior On some level, the feeling that 2 hopeless game should be played to completion (or more generally, how hopeless game has to be before conceding makes sens) Is Justa socal convention, If both players share the same understanding, i's not often 4 problems sf players have difeing views (speci common enlin), frustration can ensue Its interesting that some clanie games that often have an especially long period of effective elimination have developed extensive cultures of resignation. Chess provides the best example of ‘this The game has solved this problem agentilly over time, and clear evtations from accepted resignation standards in competitive play can be the saute of sandal ‘hind, the losing player may understand that itis annoying to the ‘winning pliyer to be forced to contin playing, and deliberately draw ‘out the game to frustrate het. This less common in games amongLIAS, GEORGE SKAFF; GARFIELD, fends (in prt because ends presumably ar less Ukely to want to annoy each othe, and in part because anyone who gets in the habit of pliying this way will Aid whatever fends he has cemaning are unlikely to want to play games with him). Its mote common in tournaments It seven more common online, where inhibitions agaist antisocial behavior are few, and where losing players can even hope to set win by concession from their fasted opponent. ln RTS games, fe can take the paricla form of “hide the frm": 9 defeated player wil bulld 4 small building in an outothesway place in the hope that it wll ake the winning player a long time t0 find i (ee the dscussion of gucfing In section 7:5). Im environments where losing players are lkly to draw out games, Ws usually best Hf the game mechanics allow 2 winning player quickly anid cally to tar a lglslly eliminated player nto a stily eliminated ‘one. Automatically revealing hidden buildings of an RTS player who has ‘ho aemy and no economy Is one example of such a mechanic Muniplayer Games ‘When one player istic siminate, the others typically keep playing (On the one hand, this can be seen as bad thing: the eliminated player 15 no longer able to have the fun of playing the game. IF the game takes 4 long time forthe remaining players to Bnish, the climinated player may well desde to go do something ce and thus not be saiabe t0 Join the next game, leading the session to break up (On the other hand, the altemative is often for that player to be loglaly eliminated, which can be wore. Race gumes, such as Scrabble, ae pacticulny prone t thi-the simplicity of the race game positional neuritic makes it easy to sce that you have no chance. Paying a game CHARACTERISTICS OF GAMES when you have no chance to win i fusing. And f you are sactly timinated, a least you ean go to the bathroom, get a smack, or simply relax fora few moments. The length of time unt the next game starts 1s probably the largest factor in how annoying players wil ind it ta be knocked out of = game (beyond, of coun, the annoyance of losing) I ‘oket, people sit out ands al the time and it's no big deat because the ret hand starts qulely. In Monopoly or (multiplayer LAN) Starra, players may stout for quite a while In party games, where people are more focused on being together socially and relatively less focused on the game itself (and who is winning it, and by hove mach), strictly eliminating a player expecially costly. So avoldng strict player elimination in party games Is espectly Important, particalady if long walt umes are savoved, and logiat limination, while stil bad i perhaps not quite ap bad asf would be In @ more competitive game. Monopoly used to live in the party game Space but has to some extent been supplanted by games like Pony and Tv! Para; Long wait times for eliminated players may be part of the reason ‘Although being sriclly eliminated is often preferable to being forced to play while logically eliminate, fr better i not #0 be eliminated at ll. Many games are designed to allow players, even ones Wino ate leary behind, stil to have some chance to win. Tal Parsi, for ‘example although it sa race game, has no upper limit to how far one can progres in a singe tum. Thus any plyer has @ chance of taking the lead at any point oe cea at's occmincily wand 16 ts cimiont Ho imac i card games where the object sto ciminate one’s hand, such as Old Maid, people stop plying once they have won, and the potental losesLIAS, GEORGE SKAFF; GARFIELD, continue t0 play. In a fotrace, players drop out of the race begining ‘vith the winner The same considerations (eg, Keeping wait times shor for those sting out) st apply, but the annoyance of elimination Is considerably lsened psychologically by the reward of winning. Ending the gre with the climization of a single mer is mother posibiity, see ectlon 23 for futher dlscutsion ‘Overall, though, « game tends to be faced with three base options, ach of which ears ts oom sks 1, Stlely eliminate players. 2 Lnglealy or effectively siminate players 3. Give everyone a chance to win unl the very end, ‘The st option, common in brawls, ess making the eliminated players unhappy. The second, common in many games, rske making them ‘unhappy (once they realize thelr state) and leaves them in the game wine they may disupt play for othats. The thd is teky to do, and ray lead to a game where only the very lst portion of the game Praying for Points Some games, bridge for example, tack points in each subgame so thst & pliyer cares how much he loi by. That means there is no logic elimination (or, f you prefer, that logis eliminations pernicious side effets are avoided), because Its always valuable for a player to eke out 4 fw more points even if he i fated to lose that particular subgame Without the pressures of logical elimination to deve It, strict, elimination becomes unnecesary in such games 25 wll 0 elimination tm general is pretty much » nonissue CHARACTERISTICS OF GAMES (Games played for money ae particulary good examples of how 2 point system can prevent the problems of logical elimination, Money can be thought of as a pointtnicking mechanism that matters even alter the game is over, $0 that no matter how far behind you ae, you stil cae about playing as wells you ean. In poke, even if you have ro chance at having the most chips atthe end of the night, you stil ‘are about how you do in those lat few hands Informally, plays who are losing in games with logical elimination may play in an analogous fashion, playing to do as well as possible according to some simple postional heute, usualy sore oF distance slong stack. For example, in Scrabble a player who may have no chance of getting the most points, and thus winning the game, wil, probably be playing to get as many polnts as possible anyway. (Of course, ifs hard to ply this way in games without simple postion heuristics) This way of playing allows paysts who are losing still to find some meaning in thei chokes and in thelr play of the gume, and thus presumably to find some enjoyment despite being. logically liminated. Sometimes this behavior willbe called "paying for points” (the game has points) or playing for second” (or tied, ete). tna game thet llows for this sort. of ply itis often an unpoen Social convention that paves should play thls way If they are logically climinated. If «player who has no chance to win forgoes this syle of Play and insted chooses to focus om affecting the ply of other players In an attempt to determine which other plyer wail win the game, the soup will not be plesed. Such ply ts called *kingmaking” ands nline PaySKAFF; GARFIELD, ‘The lope of player elimination shifts somewhat with online pay Some things get worst: many Kinds of behavior that ae ay are in facetofice gaming become more common online. For ewoplayer games, the additional problems are enough to take player elimination fom 4 relative nonissue in paper gaming to a moderately serious one in computer gaming “Hie the fam and other files t9 concede are the most vows examples, Some things get beter: stct elimination can generally be solved by Inving the efimimied ployer inmasticcly beyin swe gone. This Solution comes with is owm set of problems, though: repeat ply with he same group of people becomes more dit, and playes who are only losing by a bit may just quit to try again, leading to some usatisying games. Phyers that perceive themselves as eliminated enerlly have a much stonger recourse during online play than in physic play. They can ether Join a mew game instantly or begin fiefing the other players by reaming as long as posable. In many ways the electvly eliminated player has gained power atthe expense fof others. This can be an especially Lage problem if a players perception of his chances afer gresty ftom his teammates He may eave a game stil being comtsted ten dooming his side premabrely Direct social presure virally eliminates this possblty In ofine play ‘The anonymous nature of most online psy provides challenges for lesgner tagging to wie socal structures to solve problems of effective elimination inthe same way the chess community does Sl, although the flequency of the various problems may be citerent, many of the fundamental sues ate the same. And for some forms of online play, such as a group offends wishing to play several CHARACTERISTICS OF GAMES {games n a tow, the stution can look very similar to fee to-ace ply. xerdse 21: Describe the suet and logical elimination in werewolt Descbe the effective elimination. fxercse 22: Descabe the stict and logleal elimination in_Sunivr. Descibe the effective elimination Exercise 23: How much logical elimination Is there in chess? Discus, the effective elimination in chest. How does it vary based on player aan? xerese 24: How much logical climination 1s there In soccer? How ‘uel effete elimination? Why is tesgation 2 common past of chess, but mot scour? 122 Characteristic: interactivity Games vary widely in thelr snteractivy: the billy of player to Influence the progres of players other than themssivss” A boxing match, of a game of ches, is highly interactive A footace Is almost ‘ately noninteractive, Note that we do not use the tem Jneractviy the way Its wed In computer gaming, meaning something ike the reciprocal action of the player and the game system on each other (se chapter 6 of Slen and Zinmerman’s Rules of Play for extensive discussion).pots and kingmaking pusue the subject in more deta some games, each player is ying #0 adhleve a result, and players cant influence each other (or can't do So very much). IF a winner i edared in a race game, st will be based on some sort of Score often winner, but t may be some other score, a8 in gol. Clase spots aces more interactive variants, 38m the ease of the eae game Spt ven in games where players can't drctly influence each other they often can eesct to each other’ progres by altering ther stitegy. A longer race, tke a marathon or in our sense of ace") a golt tournament, fs more kly to give opportunites fr sich a reaction. The reaction may simply be one of tying hander (physelly or inte of preseyourick srategy when ahead, be conserve; when behind, 1k falling even further behind in an effort to win, Examples of pres-youtluck element include Yahtae and Can't Sop. Note that a game can be more or less of a race, just as an acuity all ou definitions), A sprint 6 very much 2 rac, since players harely Interact a all A marathon ofa game of Yahtzee i exsentally a ace, but Backgammon Is somewhat like a race, in that both players are heading toward their own personal win condlon. And after a cetan Pieces having passed each other and no longer able to Interact But Dackgaminon is somewhat lke & bral in thatthe level of interactionLIAS, GEORGE SKAFF; GARFIELD, think of chess as a race at all. Note that in backgammon one can Imagine plying sole with no enemy pieces on the bose, attempting t win as quekly as possible, something dificult even to smagine wath chess. Sometimes payers are tring to interfere with one another ae ln braw, and strong player Interaction Is but right into the system, Just as vans game features can be added to crease interaction in 2 race (think for example of the sll in Maro Kar limits can be added toa bral to contol its level of interaction. Bt in the absence of such limits, brawls wil exhibit certain common features that we discuss in sections 23 and 2.4 on politics and Kingmaking, And! in the absence of added imeractity, races will not exhibit these features So while the race of bal core of a game may push i in a cenain diection, imately € the level and hind of interactivity that ling, Targeted interactions 1s tefl to bres down the interstion between players not only by amount, but aso by the degre of contol over the interaction a player has. a player has an opportunity to Interact with another payer, and that fst player may choose which player to Interact with, we flee to ‘he interaction as tage: A common example in a game with customized cirds 2 card that allows the user to choose another payer and do something bad to him (yplcaly take one of his asses, Le, take fone of his chipssee below). This distinction 1s beously meaningless Im weoplayer games, but K€ becomes very important in multsided ones, 1 we wll 0m se, Note that despite the terminology targeted interaction often 1s not negative to the player being targeted. The abitty to trade with other CHARACTERISTICS OF GAMES Players gis a postive game sate change to the two trading. Sable provides another example, where playing Jong words and stetcing the hoard might give an advantage to the curtent player and the one Immedistely following. In a Ueeplayer Soubble gume, depending on Player sill an the board sate, by desing how defensively to play, ‘one Is effectively targeting one of the other payers Interactivity and the Number of Players “The ight way to think about Interscvty depends very much on the number of playes, or more precisely on the number of side. Interactivity ats most complex and most problematic in games with rote than two sides, and, after a bef discussion of the simpler case, that ease le the one we wil focus on, both in thls section and the related sections to follow, Fer toe oneplayer games, thers withing to dicate other players means no one to Interact wth For “one and a half” player games, dlscusions of interactivity ran along. the lines of such ousions for two-player games, with the imagined of computer ‘opponent taking the place of the human one in the twoplayer ese. A computers behavior, of course, will often be diferent from a human's computers se not good st conceding appropriately, but ace otherwie unlikely to engage in grifing. The underying level of gameplay Interactivity yl be about the sme In two-sided games (of which two-player games are of course 2 special cate, Interactity Js elavely unproblematic, at least in Principle. By and le, ss good forthe player tobe able to unluence ‘ach other, Because it makes the gime more interesting. Ifthe players, can't influence cach other at all, they might as well play soltaieSKAFF; GARFIELD, Rl. gansta set score 50 why goto the touble of finding an opponent for ‘such a game? And indeed, two player races are are? The vast majority of two-sided. games are highly Interactive—hess, socet, fencing, 2 oncon-one Starcraft match, and Mortal Kabat, to name just afew tn mmultisided games, as we wl ee, the situation Is quite dierent, xenite 25 Deseibe the degree of interactivity. and targeting in ‘werewolf player interaction. Exerse 26: Describe the degre of interactivity and targeting in Swvior player interaton xerdse 27: What is the dice of interactiviy in (outing) bieyde cing? Why 1s is form of race no longer an indvidual event (he ‘our de Rance start as an individual even)? 23 Characteristic Polis ‘The Chip-Taking Game Imagine + game, which well call the Schiptaking game,” where each player starts with a ple of ten chips. Payers take turns going around ‘he table. On her tum, a player may take one chip fom any player and scart, The winner Is the last person with any chips Ie. Most people would not enjoy paying this game for long. There Is no real sil inwoved, other than the sill of convincing other people not to take your chips. And even if you possess that ski, once the other players notice you have I they will probably react by uying to iminate you ts. Unfortunate, many muliplayer games reduce to the chiptaking game, in the Sense that most of thelr game features are relevant for CHARACTERISTICS OF GAMES etermining the winne, who i Insead chosen ultimately in chip-aking fashion, All that’s necessary that the game be highly interactive, fn the Sense that players can affect the postions of other players, and also that player can tanget whoever they acc" Payers ean simply choose to ure (ake chips from’) the leader ing whatever means the game cotfes. Even iF the leader i highly sie, he 1s unltely to be able to withstand the onslaught of ll the other players. Once the leader is liminated, or at least knocked back from his leading postion, the Player can attack some new player AS a simple albeit artidal example, suppose we modify the chipaking game so that on a players tum, she chooses another plyer and plays a game of chess against him; If she wins he dlcards wo chips, and Af she loses he dicards only one. This game has al the compenty an skill of ches, but fe doesn't matter. Kaspoy i 90 more Mkely to win than anyone ele at this game, and probably less the ‘other players ae likely to choose him consistently until hes eliminated, “Targeted Interaction, Poles, and Voting Games (Our previows obstvaton om te retated a game with a high fre of targeted interaction will td to be a chiptaking game, Note that dott Interaction (in the sense that players can significantly affect other Players’ game state) and targeting (payers can choose who they wil affect) are necessarywre 23 SKAFF GARFIELD, Rl CHARACTERISTICS OF GAMES ovscckphots comune Stebeget ‘When players can target other players man atitrary way that tferentialyaffets thelr game states, we weer to this as polis. The higher the degiee of interaction (ability 10 affect each others game state) and the higher the ability to target specie player, the more political the game 1s. A game may have political mechanics insde it without is general character dnninated by polis Some les otis examples of politcal mechanic i. games include the trading in Sette of ata or Mongpoly. Hete the players are not choosing someone to hurt, but rather someone to help. The politics ising from trading in these games are mitigated by the rules or by social convention and for most playgroups do not dominate the rst of the game ‘Another wy to deeibe 2 game with alot of polis Isat a vatng me: the players are essentially clecting a winnex!® As a concrete model, consider the game where in every round, players Mterally vote for someone t0 be liminated, until only wo people (who are the cowinnes) are left Calling 2 game poliical calling ita cuptaking game, or calling tt 2 voting game ae all broadly similar A game with few resrctions on the amount or targeting of tang fas into thls etegory 35 well Poltial is the most general term; cipaking emphasizes the ability of players to ‘éamage the postions of other player by targeting: vot emphases the fact that players are choosing a winner according to thelr tastes rather than thatthe game process Is ehoosing a winner based on some combination ofthat inne’ sill tnd whateres Iocé my be inherent tn the game.SKAFF; GARFIELD, Note that viewally no caste boardgame, card games, oF sports fall Into these categvis; examples of highly poltisl games are almost ll from modern. games, Perhaps this is because polities tends to be “evolved out” of games, or perhaps people's taste in games i changing ‘Ako Keep in mind that all these tems, and indeed this ente section, apply only to games with thre or more sides. You ean choose among opponents if you only have one opponent. xerse 28; Play Truc” (true), fn tls game, thre players take tums shooting a targt of thei cholce One player as an 80 pescent it chance, one 60 percent, one 40 picent™ A player who Is hit 1s out and the winner Is the last person et Rotate who gets the fst shot in each same. Pay thity or so games. What ate the tesuls? Ae you surprised? ‘What explains your results? Strategies Found in Politica Games Polen! games and chiptaking games lead to certain common behaviors among players such a8 + Lyng low so that players donot perceive you as a threat + Waiting while ether players fight i out and then mopping up the lees + Cajling, whining, or beguing othe players not to hut you. + Ovfering. outotgame benefits ("I get yous Coe") or making foutot game dheats (Youll have walk home!) to influence other players’ behavior + Hurting the player who last hurt you (revenge") + Thrctening revenge in an effort to get another player to choose 2 CHARACTERISTICS OF GAMES erent victim, + Deliberately taking an action that harms another player but also husts your own chance of winning, due to anger of in order to establish credibility asa player who will indeed avenge huts (the ater may be thought of as 2 rational attempe to win more often i repeat pla) ‘Tuking tums hurting other players, or deciding randomly who to hut pestaps to be “ae oF to seduce victims’ deste for revenge. + Explaining tothe vietim why your ehoice was the rational one given the current game state (or reasons similar to taking tums above), + Arguing that » players choice of you a the victim isnot optimal, and that their chances of winning would be higher If they chose another + Arguing that some other payer should “fall on the grenade": make 2 “Mctilfice to tap the leader from winning (or geting to far aes + Detbertely posing up an opportunity to stop the lender trom Winning when your tum comes, so thatthe list remaining player who has a chance to stop her forced to “fll on the grenade.” + Kingmaking: near the end of the game, a plyer who has no chance to Win determining which of the players stil in contention actually wis (@iseussed in the next secon), ‘We will sometimes refer to these sons of behaviors as “poi Note how generic these fects are, In the sense that they occur Independent of the game mechanics of any particular gime Uf the ‘pme fas targeted interaction, the shove effets will cru IF the game has enough targeted Interaction, the above effects will dominate the same, and In some sense all games with enough taygeted interaction ae the same game” One's ability fo win such a game will depend more onLIAS, GEORGE SKAFF; GARFIELD, ‘ne’ sll with the above behaviors than with any sills specie to that piu game's mechanics, Problems with Poitier 1f poiseal games have & problem, it is not that politcal interactions Inherently uninerestingsithowgh there are some players who play ames hoping to avoid that wort of thing—bst that ft can ovr the rest of the game Skil at the game doesn't necestaily Increase one's chances of victor: and in fet it may decrease It a5 one becomes more ofa target forthe other players 1 one considers games from the point of view of heutsics, the potential problems of pobitial games are highlighted. Norm positional eure become ligely feelevant: if at any point any player can be “picked on” and eliminated by group consensus, how ean one know tot es potion in the game 1 And if positional hewiies ce Imeevant (or, more precisely, sf postional heurstcs relating to the rmechanis of that particular game are replaced by general social heuritis nvolving rations of who is ikely 40 60 what to whom), ‘hen drectional heures (agatn, of other than the socal kind) are heise ielevant Depeoing on the playgroup, climbing the Inmisties tee in highly poltcal games can be very interesting, Without a good grasp of the ‘ssc positional heuristics (hose independent of polis), the effect of political interaction can be mitigated, Once a set of players has developed a good set positional heurstes Independent of the polls, the game can often be reduced toa simple voting one, but that proces of understanding who ii the lsd and how to stop them is ote an teresting one CHARACTERISTICS OF GAMES Games with targeted Interaction ae more prone to angumens, In 3 {ame without targeted inteaction—a twopliner game like ches, for ‘xample—there's no need to argue with someone that she Is following the wrong stategy Ifthe other payer Is hurting hess, then so much the beter for your chances.” But if someone is taking one of your ups in 2 game with targeted Interaction, it Is to your advantage to onvinee him to take someone else's chip. Pehaps there are good reasons for him to tke someone elie chip, and you need only make him understand that-and how frustrating if he does not! But if the Jame is very politcal, and his choice is exentally abitrary, there I tl, some prewre on you to convince him to make a cifrent, but stil ubitary, choie, 2 stuation unllkely to lad to enjoyable or productive Payers’ problems with polities can also be mitigated in situations ‘where there i some consensus that a particular move is forced due to its cleatly being the best option, For instance, consider a toy gume where players on thelr tur can elther ad two chips to thelr total ot take one away from another player The game ends when any player get to ten chips. If players A,B, and C have to chips each, and player A decides 0 take 2 chip away’ from player B, you are likely to hear complaints I instead the chip totals are respectively two, eight, and two, and player A takes a chip away fom B (hose tum Is nex, the soci ststion, for most groups, al be much diferent This toy game i ilustetive of a not uncommon pattem of Interaction in poltal games, namely playess uy to avold Interactions fect another payer diferentilly until they ether feel they can win despite others poten! actions against them or they fet they must Interact negatively with a particular player, the leader, to have anySKAFF; GARFIELD, Rl. chance of winning. Ty avoid misunderstanding, should be mentioned that although politcal games commonly contain argument, cussion, or debate, these features are not the defining featues of poles. A fst.paced ame—say, a freeforall RIS—may move t90 guely tallow argument. But it stl as police eciwse people con attack other playess for ubiuary eensons: the basic ingredients of intection and targeting are ssl there. And a tosided game like weewaltfmafa has a eat deal of @scussion and angument, but no polis as we are defining With only two sides, there i no possibilty of choosing an opponent, hence no scope for politic ™ Some Advantages of Poltcs In general, we have been taling about polities a» ba thing in games, bout im practice allowing room for poltal interaction has. many. acllent ets ‘One advantage of political games, of pola! variants of nonplitcal ames (uch a6 feeforall Maye ot Starcraft that they can provide ‘opportunities for low-skilled players to participate in hlgh-slled games (surviving and perhaps even winning because the high-slled players auact more atention). While some highly sil players may objec in Principle to this leveling of the playficd, im practice it allows them t0 play more games due to an Inctemed potential audience ze ‘adtenally it makes thote games intresting, wheres otherwise they may not be, due to the natural dampening effect on skill that politcal tmterction can have. Finding players to pay games Is gency speaking the hardest part of playing the average game, and anything that can Incteate the potential audience size Is extremely valuable to both player CHARACTERISTICS OF GAMES fand publisher This 1 an important effect in family games and tildes games, where the set of people playing 2 particular game is fixed and wide skill ranges are common. Mari Kart and. Mario Paty find much advantage in ther limited poliics at a way 10 keep riplayer games interesting for 3 single family or fend group Pola games tend to be exciting tthe very end (on the downside, epending.on the game design, they may. dag on too long). The lead wel change many times, each new wlan is pleted on in tn. Any player has a chance to win (the flipside of this i that any actions other than those near the end of the game may not matter much). One ean think of “pick on the leader” as a catch-up feature, Like any eatchp feature, it can become problematic when It 1s too powerful (ee section 42 on snowball and catch-up), but i can be perfectly reasonable sa somal doses—many miliplayer gamer use it good eect Some people just plain enjoy the social Interaction, give-andake, allance making and breaking, and other behaviors that ate common in political games. Since complex game mechanics tend to get wiped out by polis, ies vsully best to keep the game relatively simple for this ttudience. A good example isthe boardgame Diplomacy there's no need to have countess kinds of miltry units and detailed combat simulations with chars and ie rolls Sich detals would only be washed out by the negotiations, allances, and betrays tha ae the reat heart of the game, Poltcal games can be fun to watch, even H you don’t know the azlls of how a game is played: the ebb and flow of human socal, interaction is something eyeryooe oma, relate to. Ontoye nad betel make for good theiter 2s well, The TV show Suvior Is just one example, (Survio i an extreme example of Kingmaking tm partularELIAS, GEORGE SKAFF; GARFIELD, Rl theres even an ext Hingmaking step where stictly eliminated players ae brought back to vote on the fis] winner) ‘A ey to understanding the place of politics in a game is Understanding i audience. While clic games have evolved slong ith thelr player bases so there is 4 matching of political interaction with the stomach for It among the players, a new game needs to ake his snto account fom the design Is the game intended to be pimarly fox eompetive players Interested in differentiating ther ail from one another? If so, it Is probably best to keep politics to 2 minimum by. ‘making it twostéed, making it lss interactive, giving players rewards for their absolute instead of relative finish, or hampering player’ ability t target one another spetially. For a more casual intended audlence, polis can be 2 wful way of increasing the effective ential mass for play, since more widely varying skill sets can find interesting games together. Addonally, intensity of play is not neatly as much of 2 prerequisite for wining in politi game The Diffiuty of Analyzing Strategy for Targeted Interaction: The Balloon Game Picking om the leader isnot polities in the marrow sense of the term an axbitary decision that does not sffct one's own chanee of winning Wes often a natural strategy of other payers who ace imply attempting to win themselves. But people inetion may lsd them t0 pick on the leader more than they shoul, asthe following simple game shows ‘Theee phyers, A,B and C, each have a balloon. They each simultaneously choose an opposing balloon and drow a dar at i Anyone whose Balloon is popped is out (if all three hit ofall hres mis, eveyone goes again). If only one person is knocked out the CHARACTERISTICS OF GAMES remaining two play forthe win, repeating If necessary until one of the Suppose A has 2 60 percent chance fo hit his target, B 2 SO percent chance, and 2 40 peicent chance. The “obvious” strategy I fr each person to go forthe bigest target (A alms at, 8 and © both aim at ‘Ay This gives B a 19 percent chance to win. I Bsultches tC, though, thon B has a 28 percent chance 19 win, Exerce 29 Compute the above chances ‘Thus i B takes the natural “pik on the leader” strategy he actually gets worse results. Although the balloon game may seem ariel, many rultiplayer game situations are not that diferent in road outline: thrce ayes, one inthe lead, and both of the players who ate end attack the leader, Depending on the details of the game, that may or may not be the comet strate. The player who isthe lade, if he understands the station, will be copecialy frustrated that the other players are conspiring agaist him, ven to the point of their own detiment, Me may argue against the other players actions, but will not necessarily be believed, for his anguments will appear slfserving (whlch Indeed they are, although they ae stl comet is hurting both A and himself by attacking A and C is the real beneficiary of BS incorrect choice. Such 3 payer wil, probably avold chip-taking games. OF some Inet the dficuky In antng relwold police In a on-wo-pry system, This Is analogous to the suaon in the balloon | ‘ime The amount of power a gen pay ss 4 pinment may Rave rela ts eats canbe extremely deceive nthe simple example of 3 singe mujonty sot with panies of size 6 percea AS pekent, and 9ELIAS, GEORGE SKAFF; GARI cent lular which pany ol the mot poner Any mo of thes res tgather an decile the sue a pesumaly ea 0 fate wees Players with a detailed conscious understanding of politcal and hiptaking dynamics are ze but many skilful payers have at east Some snuiion that polities works against them. One can see this, for example, in RIS games, where "selous payer avoid feccforal variants and prefer oncon-one games or twosided team games. xerdse 2.10: What do politcal games do to state heusstes in general? xercie 2.111 How much politics i thete In werewol? Why does fel ke a pottal game? eerie 2.12 If the state heusstles In a highly Interactive two-player ame ate poor, how might this affect the politic in a multsded version of the ame? 24 Charactesiic: Kingaking ‘Often in a multiplayer game, Ht happens that players A/and B ate in contention to win, nd player C has no chance f the game has any Intecacton, it may be that C & im a postion to determine the winner by choosing which of the two players A and B to interact with. Tis commonly refered to a8 ‘kngmaking™™ This choice 1s necessary pola, im that C is astumed to hive fo choice of vsinning, and thus ingmaking lke polite in general, property of games with thie of more players (os, more precsly, thee or more sds) CHARACTERISTICS OF GAMES ‘The key ingediens of Kingmaking are imply targeted interaction and the existence of logisly eliminated payers Payers generally, and the player who was in contention but not chosen athe winner in particular, fee Kingmaking is unfa In some env, Singmaking i nll te problems of politics wit lage at 2 single ‘moment the wry winner of the game is determined by the cholee of 2 Player not In contention, an all the skill and strategy (oF luck) of the other contenders is for naught, Mayer ase of Kingmaking is a big, reason 10 avold logical elimination of players, ether by always giving Players a chance 10 catch up or by ensuring they ae stuetly eliminated ‘once they ae logically eliminated. And player dni of kingmaking v3 big part of the reason that vitwally no competitive multiplayer gamesSKAFF; GARFIELD, Rl. te high interaction witha lot of scope for tageted intercon. Highly polieal games ull almost aliays have Kingmaing. Buti possible for = game that is not otherwise 9 chiptaking game sill to suffer fom kingmaking. fa game includes many mechanisms to give players reasons to attack one player over another (@g, resources that ‘might be easier to seize from one potential victim than ffom anothed, « rest det! of polities can be eliminated. But Kingmaking may remaln once a players out of contention, his ingame Incentives to choose one ‘tim over another largely vanish, and he makes a politcal decision ihether he wants 19 oF aot (games played for money, o other ongoing point systems, ate an exception). One example is Swiss tournament ire 2 player who Is out of contention can influence who makes the top eight by conceding to a player Who is borderine—while a player i stl in contention, she's hardly ikely to concede to alter the fates of others, but alter she’s out of contention she may well do x22 (One example om “clasic™ sports is that of a commissioner for a Teague. is gute common for 3 team tobe loglsly eliminated toward the end of a season and effectively liminated long before that In the real wotd, teams are often given benelis for winning individual games beyond! the benefits for winning of placing well within the season, such a revenue from ineresed attendance. In fantasy sports leagues, ower, Similar pressures are usually nonexistent, requiing 2 commisioner to approve all tides Were s¢ not for this, kingmaking could become + ‘ually insurmountable issue in those groups, as players who had no chance to win the seaton mide unrenonably generout trades with fiends who were in contention. In the world of physical sports, revenue pressures prevent such “giveaway” trades. n the fantasy leagues played faceto-ace or among groups of fiends an agentia pressure to CHARACTERISTICS OF GAMES “do your best™ can inhibit them: but tn online fantasy spoets leagues 3 ‘commissioner Is needed Another less extreme type of kingmaking is blind kingmaking, where 4 player adds randomness to the choice of winner but does not Preferentilly ehoowe a specific winner. Examples ate poker, where a bad Player in the pot will esentlly give random presents to other players atthe tble, oF Apples to Apples, where a player might decide to judge the winner (whose identity is unknown to the judge a the time of the ecision) of 2 hand randomly rather than according to how well they have matched the taget word. Kingmnaking in many realtime computer {ames has fol somewhat similar to that of lind Kingmaking, becase the cholees happen so gulekly and there often isn't time for rat iscussion beforehand (although somehow there always seams 10 be time for recrimination after the ft). Stil, though, the decision was made delberately, so negative feelings on the part ofthe victim can be ih, Factors Limiting Plies and Kingmaking Felties in gene, and kingrling in pirical, ave commen in ruliplayer games beesuse & doesn't take much for them to are all that 16 needed Is the ability for players to tert, and a detree of choice as to the targets forthe interaction, If these effets ate strong, enough, the gume may reiuce #9 2 version of the chipaking game, Which may not be what the designers or players want, Thus many rliplayer games include mechanisms fo inkbié politics in some wy. Of course, as we discussed above, there are advantages to polis in games as well as disadvantages. In small doses there maybe moee fun ‘than harm, and even extremely politcal games have an audience, ButLIAS, GEORGE SKAFF; GARFIELD, having spent some time looking st factors that cause politics and ingmaking it makes sense to spend a litle time looking at factors that nb the, ‘One very basic way a game with many players can avoid plitcs i by being @twosided tam game. There ate many players, but with only to sides, polities nt 2 problem” Sometimes It makes sense for the campaign to be about indivicuals competing, but forthe games ytin he campaign still to be teamasedfor example, World of Went bstlegrounds randomly assign people to teams for each game, but tack svcess overtime on an indvidul level 1 a game has more than two sides, then limitations to the games pois come mainly from limitations to intercity, Questions to ask about the game include: How stong 1s the Intractivity—that 15, how rch can players alec the fates of other players? Ate they limited in leh other players they can select ae thelr victims? IF they are not ‘much limited, do they at leat have reasons to choose one victim over another reasons involving in-game benefits that acerue to the choosing, phyer? “The extreme example here isthe ace: no (or almost no) intracaty AMlowed, Races sre therfore not limited to two players, and at a consequence often take advantage ofthis fet by adding players up to other, usually physical, limits. Highly interactive games on the other hand ate slmost always two.sded asin: they have been pled for many years and achieved “clase” status Ina tworpayer situation, theres no presure to limit interacuvity, so the greater Interest intecctivity tiumphs (aed those who don't want interactivity wl probably be dawn to one-player games). But In mutplayer games, one ay to solve the problems of interctvty H to have the game be a CHARACTERISTICS OF GAMES AReltvely fw games are pure races nthe sense that there 6 no Player interactivity all (prints and bicycle time teas probably come the lost Very common, though, are games where the baste Hrveine is race and same amount of intertetiity layered on top: 1m Pare! you can Blockade or send pieces home, in most European Doardgames you ate accumulating polnts but your actos wil affect the avallbilty of various pointaccumulaton stateples to the other Player, and in Go Fish players are racing to complete books but may steal cadsffom other players The higher the level of interactivity, the less the game wil fel lke 2 race (a soltale game where you are Tooking over your shouler to Sce how others ae doing) and the more it wil partake of the phenomena we've been discussing 1 the game is at 1s core a brawl, wil be highly interactive. But ‘here can be limits to which other players a given player Is allowed to Ancrat with—that 4s, limits to targeting. These limits can arse by means of geography: in Risk you can tack anyone you please, but only players your places are adjacent to n Quaky, you can only shoot at players in the coom with you. In Maye: The Gathoing, » standard rltiplayer variant allows you only to interact with the players to your Ioft and right And even a chess tournament can be thought of a8 & ‘muluplyer game whore you are allowed to interact with only one perion at time (namely your opponent for the current round, = ‘esson you do not choos, Note that» mechanism ike “you can only ‘stack thote near you" is rarely choten consciously, and ie more often the result of the favor of the game (eg. It natural for weapons to have a limited range. I’ good to be aware of what game favor Is Going to game mechanics, though. And if a designer wants to make 3SKAFF; GARFIELD, Rl. game that suays ftom established conventions, this anarenes Is vit WE players have 8 lot of choice sto who they ean interact with, you «an sil control politics by giving them ingame benefits for intercting ith specfle other playes. IF a player attacks another player because she conttols alot of cay, 2 resource he wants, then he in’ atacking someone just because she's inthe lead, or Just because he doesn't ke her And she's less ly to fel picked on—afer all 1s “ale that he's attacking her, because he does wane the cay Behaviors that involve hanging back and doing nothing are ptculanly pernicious, because iF everyone engages in them the game tinds to hale. tn the absence of inducements to fight, hanging back ‘can be tempting, because one can hope to mop up the wesksned survivors. So i often good to have rewatds for attacking other players. Jn Risk, you atack enemy players because you want ther resources Moreover, you are encouraged to eliminate them beenuse then you get thle cards as well In feeforall Ser, you might be inclined to hang beck and let others Right: in Warcraft M, however, you might ‘want to-do some fighting s that your hero gains experlence However, gumes with mechanisms to encourage players to attack one player rather than another may’ sll be prone to Kingmaking. A player who fas no chance to win vill be less sly to be influenced by. wiatever incentives ate placed before him. So kingmaking might requle separate contol, such a making sue that players who ate about &o Jose won't be able to influence the game too much, o¢ ways tO convert loglily eliminated players to stacy eliminated ones (4 they won't be stound for too long coming toubhd), or at lest few mechanics that forcibly Limit targeting CHARACTERISTICS OF GAMES [Note that some mechanisms that Init the bitty of losing players to et the game don't affect player imerction per se, but can stl help limit kingmaking. I the game is highly sklLbasd, that can sometimes make a difleence, because {t can limit the ability of a losing player (bos presumably fess sie) ko aren a player in contention-think of 3 Quate deathmatch, whese Jow-klled player can do Ile to harm, 4 high-tledplaye.fven If lack of sll is not the reason a player i losing, sometimes the very fact of beng in 3 lasing position means one his lest inflvence—think of an RTS, where a player close to climination usually does not have enough power to influence the outcome (an ‘exception might be a player whose economy is completly destroyed ‘while he stl has a large army nthe fel this puts him in 2 postion snalogous to the aforementioned player who is out of contention ata tournament, with no chance of winning but nevertheless an ability to Infuence the tournament's outcome) xerie 2.18: How much kingmaking is therein werewolf? Exercise 2.14: How much kingmaking is thee in Suniir? xerise 2.15: Give some examples of kingmaking in Movopb xercie 216: Give some examples of kingmaking in fantay sports ‘What rules are inttate to combat this? 25 Characteitle:Teamwork In games with several players, sometimes two oF mote of those players faze on the same side—that 15, they foum 2 team. Payers pursuing the same gouls behave, of course, very diferently trom players pursuing ‘prong goal. la this scion we dieu the dynamics among temELIAS, GEORGE SKAFF; GARI members, with focus on the roles of the vasiows players (how they ach contubute to the tam’ sucess) and on the communication Fore 25 (One important special case 1 the cooperative game, whee all the pliyers are on the same team and succeed ot fail together We wil argue that the right way to look at cooperative games is simply as a combination of singleplayer games and team games. Nether singleplayer games nor tem games ae especially mysterous, although ofcourse each type has ts own spell sues, and so cooperative games don’t have tobe thought of as something mysterious ether CHARACTERISTICS OF GAMES Payers in a team game wil potentially hae all the deses they would In a monteam game, suchas dese to win, ora dee to tmprove thelr stills by climbing the hewsties 1202” But theyll have @ new goal as well: the dative to contribute to thei tam. A succesful term game all need ways fr all he players to feel they ate contributing. In part, what per can contribute to team’s chances depends on What role the game assigns to that player Sometimes those roles are symmetical: tn Counter, every player has the same game abilities as cevery other OF course, players will bring thelr own strengths and vweakneses to the game, but in tems of the gime's mechanics, one player is Uke another, In Team Forse, however, there are specific cles such 35 Meteor Scout, with diferent gameplay capabilites. Wel have much mote to say about the symmeuy, or lack thereof, in players expabilies in section 15, For now, thonghy 4. beef discus will suffice. ‘Those roles within 2 tam, when they exist, can be sjstem, 3s in ‘he Team Foress example, of agent, Many tear games, spots in particular, have roles (Le, postions) that are not but into the rues, but nevertheless ate so standard as to be considered very much a part ‘of the game: in basketball, for example, the postions such as point guard or power forward have no special rules status. In socer, the gall hae special status within the rules but all the other positions are In games with systemic roles, there: may be additions) agen cos layered on top of them. For instance, World of Werf classes such as Wari, Rogue, ot Druid are but into the sytem directly Roles such as