I'd love to get some opinions on the following idea:
A game where the victory condition is optionally cooperative OR personal.
For example: Imagine if Settlers of Catan's victory condition was replaced by the following:
If, at the end of 15 rounds, each player has at least 7 VP, the players win the game. Otherwise, all players lose the game. If, at any time, any player has 10 VP, that player immediately wins the game and all others players lose.
What is your gut feeling about how this would go down?
What I like about it:
• It's different. Categorizing the game would be impossible; the entire tone of the game would be defined only by the player group.
• In a certain way, it has a beautiful 'art imitates life' thing going on. This dynamic, although rare in the game world, is pretty common in reality and literature. For example, any time someone incited a civil war and/or staged a coup, you can basically describe it as forgoing the duty to a group in an attempt to be the lone winner.
• In that respect, it allows people to follow their personalities. Does a group victory satisfy you as much as a personal victory? Each player can decide for themselves, and act accordingly.
What I don't like about it:
• Seems like it has the potential to cause upset on account of the different expectations people arrive at a table with. Like, if you like co-op games, and you've decided to play towards a cooperative victory, you might be quite upset if the rest of your group is self-centered. I think people generally prefer knowing what kind of game they're getting into when they sit down to play. If someone can't adapt to a different dynamic and has a bad experience because of that, is vocal annoyance justified? Probably not. But would still be a very common reaction.
• I don't really like co-op games! The impression I've got is the most designers don't really like co-op games either.
Notes:
• There is a game called Red November almost has this kind of thing going on–– players are all trying to save a submarine from sinking, but each has the option of abandoning ship. (If the submarine survives, the castaways lose, otherwise, they win.)
• For reference, the game I'm considering this for a highly political game where individual player agency is utterly enmeshed. Although VP cannot be lost, per se, players can take action to impede an opponent's progress, and also (at some expense) take action to award each other VP. If the whole table is allied to keep one player down, that player will likely be indefinitely stalled. However, I'm first interested in the superficial reaction to the notion of an optional co-op victory.
