[TiGD] Player Goals 4 -- Cash acquisition games

Cash acquisition games. The first thing that comes to mind is: runaway leader problem. If money is both the primary resource and the way to win, it often means that a player who takes an early lead is in the best position to win. This is different from a game where VP's and resources are seperated, because in such a game a player who takes an early lead in VP's might be taken over later in the game by a player who had more resources earlier in the game.

"Settlers" is a very good example of a game that sometimes features a runaway leader. You build villages to gather resources, so you can build cities, so you can gather even more resources, until you eventually win. I think "Settlers" would have been a more interesting game if the way to win was a little more seperated from the primary way to gather resources (do I hear multi-millionaire Klaus Teuber laughing somewhere out there?).

For example, villages don't score any points and cities score only one point, but you can also build churches which score 2 points, but don't have any other use. You'd probably have to lower the total number of VP's to win the game in this case, and there would still technically be a runaway leader, but at least there would be a little more tension as to when to convert your resources to pure VP's rather than more resources.

The reverse of runaway leader may also be a problem. Sometimes in cash acquisition games, if you spend too much money early on and it doesn't pay off, you may dig a hole for yourself that is impossible to get out of. Examples of these are "Age of Steam" and also "Monopoly".

Actually, I don't think teh possibility of going bankrupt is necessarily always a problem, as it can also be a great source of tension in a game, if properly balanced. However, a way to prevent this possibility is to ensure that there is always a steady stream of money into the game so that players never really can go bankrupt, or simply to give the players enough starting money so they will never really run out of it. Now that I think of it, perhaps this is a design challenge for games with an economic system in general, not just cash acquisiton games.

Another potential problem for pure cash acquisition games is that sometimes the value of an item in the game becomes too easily calculable. For example, suppose I'm at the beginning of a game with three scoring rounds (or payout rounds) and I have the choice to buy one of two items. Item A costs 2 gold and will yield 3 gold at every scoring round. Item B costs 4 gold and will yield 4 gold at every scoring round. This means that Item B is the better purchase, because B=(3x4-4)=8 and A=(3x3-2)=7.

To make such a system work, you need to obscure the value of an item by adding a multi-layered scoring system and adding various uncertainties into the mix. Changing the game to a cash/vp system makes this a lot easier because then players have to ask themselves how much gold one VP is worth. This can be a tough question all by itself.

A final problem may be that sometimes in cash acquisition games a "do nothing" strategy can actually be the best strategy if you have to pay more for an item than it is worth.

There are positive sides to cash acquisition games as well, of course. I already mentioned "Age of Steam", which is a highly regarded game. Other examples of cash acquisition games are "Merchants of Amsterdam", "Modern Art" and "Medici". Interestingly these are all Knizia games, they are all auction games and they all start with an "M".

Auction games lend themselves well for a cash acquisition, because other players can drive up the price a bit to make sure you everything goes for a "fair" price, migitating the runaway leader problem somewhat.

"Merchants of Amsterdam" and "Medici" (to a lesser extent) also have a complex, multi-layered scoring system to obscure the "right" value of things. "Modern Art" confuses things by letting players pay other players for the items they buy.

"Merchants of Amsterdam" is a game where the "do nothing" strategy sometimes work, and this often has to do with the fact that a nerve wrecking (for some people) "Dutch" auction is used, where prices go down instead of up and the item goes to the one who bids first, rather than the player who bids last.

Enough for now ;)

- René Wiersma

The distinction between money and victory points blurs further when you consider games in which victory points can be spent. Evo is a natural example -- you score victory points throughout the game but spend some of them each round in an auction for new genes.

The runaway leader problem has already been cited, and unfortunately the solutions to it aren't very satisfying. Allowing players to "gang up" on a leader can eliminate the problem but at the cost of turning the game into a political one and thus appealing to a different group. Settlers tries to find a happy medium here -- players can refuse to trade with the leader or use the Robber exclusively on the leader, but their combined power to bring the leader down is often insufficient.

Ultimately I think pure money games, in which the victory condition can be effectively invested, need a great deal of thought as to how the early leader won't have an insurmountable advantage.

Hugs,
Chad