Competitive Cooperation

As you anticipated, there have been versions of the idea of “competitive cooperation” that have been implemented in various forms, but I’m not aware of a game where your sole standing at the game end is determined by how much you helped others. I’m not exactly sure it woud be possible to make a sensible game that worked this way. If your only goal is to help other players along, then it must be asked, helping them along towards what? It sounds like you’re envisioning a game where the board is some sort of course over which the players progress and you win if you are the most helpful. But this really gives cooperation in name only.

Let’s envision a game that consists of a track with 4 spaces. Each player gets one colored pawn, and places it on space 1. On your turn, you can move any 1 pawn 1 space forward. You get 1 VP if you move another player’s pawn. The game ends when one pawn crosses the finish line. Now, setting aside the problem that the game will probably end in a tie, the route to winning this game is, by definition, to move the other players’ pawns. But you aren’t helping them; you’re just moving their pieces. But let’s add a rule where you get bonus VPs according to the position your pawn occupies on the track. Now, we have a cooperation element: by moving a player’s pawn, you actually are helping them to achieve a higher score, but you’re helping yourself as well.

This is exactly the kind of approach I took in my game “Disciples” where taking certain actions in the presence of other players gives you extra points, but also gives points to those players. The idea there is that your own score will be higher if you actively boost the scores of other players as well, but to win the game, you want to be sure you’re spreading the rewards around so that you gain a net advantage over the rest of the players.

There are different approaches that can be taken. One is that of games like Diplomacy where a player wins by himself but must negotiate with the other players to get them to help him along. (TV’s “Survivor” works the same way). There are also games like Republic of Rome and Terra where each player is trying to win individually, but if players don’t work together, it’s possible that no player can win.

Bottom line, I think the idea of cooperative competition is fine, and indeed, has been explored by several other good games. The key to making it work is that if you are going to give out points for “helping” the other players, then doing so must improve that player’s position in some way -- be it by giving them access to resources, or VPs, or whatever -- otherwise, you just have a competitive game in which you move the other players’ pieces rather than your own.

-Jeff

Depends on what you're looking for in the game. In my experience, there are basically two kinds of theming: "chrome-theming" and "mechanics-theming". In a game that is "chrome-themed", the gameplay doesn't actually reproduce the feeling of the theme; the theming comes more from the atmosphere created by the artwork on the cards, the names and titles given to the various components, etc. In contrast, a "mechanic-themed" game has the theme built into the mechanics themselves. I think it's definitely possible to get a game that actually involves cooperation between players, but is competitive -- a "mechanic-themed" game. In fact, I know it's possible: it's been done. But it seems what you're talking about more is a theme that puts the players into a setting where they're "pretending" to cooperate, as a way to inject some humor. Ok, that's fine.

That's a cooperative game, though.

But this is just my point -- there's no undercurrent here. If helping is the only action that's rewarded by the game, then it's the only action people will take.

I think it's only an oxymoron because you've tried to have the sole scoring system relate to "helping others". But "helping others" is only well-defined if there's something you're helping them to do. To make a competitive cooperative game, that must be some variation of "helping them toward winning the game", or else it's meaningless. What I'm arguing is that this can be done quite effectively; there's no need to "half-ass" it.

Yes, so long as there's a goal over and above "helping other players", there is a chance for the idea to work. And as I've said, there are many games in which you must work together with others to do well. Any trading game serves as a perfect example: Settlers, e.g. A player would be hard pressed to do well in the game without trading, and yet that is by definition a cooperative mechanic.

This is very much like how my game works, but there's really nothing malicious about it in my game. I think it might be funny to make a game that was all about helping the other players when your help is unwanted. It reminds me of "The Incredibles", where superheroes must go into hiding to avoid lawsuits over helping people who didn't want helping. Maybe a game about proving who is the most polite ("No, really, after you...I insist!") or avoiding being the "most helped by other people" or something. Could be pretty funny!

-Jeff

Action cards allow you to move around the mountain. Help cards you use to help someone up a level of the mountain, or across a gap. The catch is that many of the cards, after using them, will leave you in a "Precarious Position"--or PP for short. When you go into PP, then you tip your piece on its side, and you cannot move until someone else helps you.

That's how you earn points! Helping someone up a level is worth points, helping someone up and going into PP yourself is worth more, helping someone up from PP is worth still more, and helping someone up from PP and going into PP yourself if worth the most points. This way, you want to use the Action cards to get above other players so you can use your Help cards, and by earning yourself the most amount of points, you present an opportunity for everyone else to earn those points off of you, especially the guy you just rescued. Intriguing, huh!

There are a few more twists and details in the game, but that's the general idea I came up with. What do you guys think?

Hmmm, I hate to be a naysayer, but this game idea isn't really a cooperative game. Even though you have cleverly disguised the theme to make it appear that way, it really isn't. The goal of the game is still to score the more points than anyone else. Don't get me wrong, it's a great theme for a game, I'm just not sure how cooperative it really is.

-Darke