Explicitly denying the Kingmaker

That's the choice, isn't it? By doing that, you effectively make the game an elimination game. Kingmaker versus elimination. Interesting decision, isn't it? :)

I posted recently about a game I'm currently working on, in which spaceships race around a track. I decided to give the spaceship weapons, partially because I felt generous, but mostly because it would give racers who had fallen behind a quick way to catch up. However, if there were three ships racing, and one was way behind the other two, then I'd have a kingmaker situation; if the last place ship zapped one of the front-runners, then the other front-runner would win.

I'm trying to fix this issue by allowing the weapon to target multiple ships directly in front of the firing ship. Perhaps this would work in other kingmaker situations... the "take that!" action would affect all the leaders, not just one.

The challenge is making sure that the catch-up action doesn't feel too arbitrary. After all, I want the race to end sooner or later! In my game, the firing ship still has to line up properly; otherwise, it won't be able to hit all the leaders. If a leader moves his/her pawn cleverly, then that ship won't be easily targeted by a firing racer, but might still be in a good position to win the race.

I'm not sure how to apply this "attack all leaders, not just one" mechanic to other games, but it might be a useful tool.

Here's another way I've found to eliminate the Kingmaker: set your game end/victory condition to a quantitative value (victory points, number of colored blocks, amount of money obtained), rather than a unit of time (rounds, laps, hours).

The reason is that as long as somebody needs X units of something to win, then it is possible for any player to win, no matter how far behind he or she is. But if your game ends after a certain amount of "time" elapses (whether the time is fixed to "clock time," like an hour, or is set to "game time," like a certain number of rounds, or number of laps completed in a racing game), then it is possible for a player to be mathematically eliminated towards the end of the game.

It's these latter situations that really cause a "Kingmaker" situation to occur. Let me give you an example.

Ralph, Roger, Regis, and Nick are playing a simple card game. Let's say that in this card game, the winner of each hand gets a point. Ralph, Roger, and Regis are tied at 9 points; Nick trails with 5 points.

Now if this game takes fifteen hands to play, then there's no reason for Nick to continue playing, other than pride. Even if he gets his sixth point, he's still going to lose. This is an example of a game whose game end is linked to a unit of time - in this case, fifteen rounds.

If Nick does continue to play and gets lousy cards, he may be forced into a kingmaker situation; the card he discards may help or hinder the player sitting next to him. If he has a grasp on what Regis, the player to his left, needs (assuming the flow of play goes clockwise), he can decide whether Regis wins or loses.

Now, what if the game ended once a player reached 10 points? It might be unlikely, but it's still very possible that Nick's run of luck changes, or he suddenly figures out what he's been doing wrong the whole game. Maybe he does peel off victories through five consecutive hands, and the other players make him pay for dinner.

Nevertheless, the nice thing about pinning the game end condition to a quantitative condition is that there's always a tiny glimmer of hope for everyone; there's never a situation where a player is completely eliminated.

Interesting note: Attribut, vs. Apples to Apples. Both are light, funny party games. But Attribut is played over 2-3 rounds, meaning some players can be technically eliminated. Apples to Apples, on the other hand, is played until one player acquires a certain number of cards and wins. I much prefer Apples to Apples' way of ending the game, and I'm surprised that Attribut isn't played to a certain number of points.

I went ahead and read the rules. It states:

It is interesting that the order of movement of the chariots is determined by choosing the one in last place first, the one is second to last second and so on. This rule allows the kingmaker effect to become more likely.

My personal opinion, in the way they handle it, is pretty poor. It is admitting they have a problem in the game, and they get rid of it by a hack method of covering it up completely.

I would have personally liked a more creative solution to it.

Maybe, for example, off the top of my head, in the final series of straight cards, the order is reversed for that areas so the car in first position goes first, and so on. Or once a car enters the final straight, if no other cars can enter it on that turn, they give up.

I going to purchase Arena Maximus as I am working on a chariot racing game. However, just by looking at the rules, I don't think this one is a winner.

--DarkDream

I just purchased "Arena Maximus". I am hoping to play it this week or next week. It is definitely out there to be purchased.

--DarkDream