I went through a handful of different subject titles on this one ... but here
All for One ... or All for Themselves?
I
I
Kingmaking means that a player not in the race for the win decides who wins the game.
For example in an imaginary game, Adam is out of the race, but both Bart and Chris are close to winning. Adam can choose one of two actions in his turn: he can either build a road or build a town. If Adam builds a road it means that Bart wil win on his next turn. However if Adam builds a town then Bart cannot win on his turn but that will give Chris the win.
Kingmaking is usually a bad thing, since it will feel as if a hardfought game is decided by the whim of a player who is not even in contention. It might be less of an issue in a game of politics, negotiation or diplomacy, where Kingmaking is simply the ultimate act of backstabbing. If Chris had been harassing Adam the whole game, then giving Bart the win would simply fair from Adam
Here
Well, I prefer games more like your description of Keeps and Moats - ie: games where player interaction is integral to the furtherance of the game. Civ type games do not appeal to me as much, because the players are too independent of each other.