OK...I realize that this sounds strange, but my game idea involves the possibility (a great possibility) that players will drop out of the game due to falling behind. This may sound like a negative, but theme-wise, it is bound to happen. My game is based on the US Primary season. Players will vie for the nomination of their party by winning the primaries in the states and collecting the delegate points.
Due to the nature of the game, I believe that, like in real life, players (candidates) will likely be forced to drop out of the game due to the inability to gather enough delegates to compete.
So, my question is (finally!), does anyone have any ideas as to how to keep the players active in the game so they are not just sitting aside waiting for the game to end? Thematically, I thought that they could drop out, endorse another player and then each turn, have the ability to "campaign" for the other candidate, influencing their standing in 1-3 states.
Players will be adding cubes to the states to keep themselves up in the polls, so the "campaigning" dropout could add maybe 3 cubes per round? I want to make sure that one player doesn't just run away with the game, although in real life, that does happen. It could happen in this game too, but I thought it would be fun to add the opportunity for those dropping out to help weaker players get back into the game, or at least to close the gap from a runaway leader.
I realize that you may have to have more info on the game in order to answer my question, so if you want more info, just ask.
Thanks in advance for any ideas!
Need ideas on how to keep players active after dropping out of a game
I had an idea regarding a game based on the primaries some time ago which you are welcome to cannibalise if any of it is useful to you:
My thought, specifically with regard to player elimination, was that players were not just trying to achieve one goal (nomination) but rather to achieve the highest political influence. At game end, whoever is nominated gets a points bonus toward their influence total but it may not be enough to win the game.
Players would be dealt cards at the beginning of the game detailing their objectives (like "+1 influence point for every level of commitment the nominee has made toward supporting military spending" or "-1 influence point for every scandal suffered by the nominee") which represent their personal wishes, the idea being that when you run for nomination you hope that even if you are not nominated you help to shape the eventual nominee.
Once they drop out of the race, players continue to try to amass influence points by, for example, getting jobs as pundits on news channels, starting a Super PAC and leaning on the remaining contenders in exchange for support ("I'll give you $5million if you add some support for military spending").
At the end of the game, everyone reveals their secret objective cards, adds these to the points they've accrued from other activities (being a news pundit, fundraising etc) and the nominee (who probably had to sacrifice some of these things) gets +10 or whatever for getting nominated. The person with the most influence points is the "real" winner which might be the nominee or it might be the person who is the "power behind the throne" who has shaped the nominee the most.
I think you are on the right path with the "back other candidates" idea. If everyone is in the same political party, then it would make perfect sense for some people to drop out and back other candidates. Howerver, if the goal of the game is to become the most influential party member rather than winning the primary, then you could easily have a good multi-phase game where all players start out trying to win the primary, but as players drop out of the primary race they continue to earn points by backing other players. In the first phase, players try to get a good start on their primary campaign, but at some point, they must commit to finishing the primary or move to a "backer" role. Players that go the "backer" router, now earn points by having successful fundraisers, giving speeches, etc. instead of earning points by gaining support for their primary campaign. From a scoring standpoint, winning the primary would earn a lot of points, but would it be enough to overcome the points earned by the players that helped you win the primary?
I think this would hold up if all but one player moved to a backer role. I could even see this working if all of the players went the backer router although you might need an imaginary candidate for them to back.
Good luck with your design!
Like real life, they would back the primary winner. This MAY also have the added feature where whoever wins the primary can't win it too unfairly, as they want whoever they defeat to help them win the general election. So HOW you win the primary can affect whether or not you win the general election.
Although the backer should probably have a reduced role of some sort. They can go around stumping for their primary winning candidate, but there is a difference between seeing the actual candidate and the person that they beat in the primary.
I love steve's idea
For balance, you could have issues that you campaign for. Instead of backing whoever is in the lead, you back whoever is most similar on the major issues. This could add a fun thematic element where you end up wanting the candidates who are most similar to you to go out first so you get their support
Yes, Steve's idea is great. I had an idea once for a political game where players had secret objective cards that remained hidden throughout the game. At the end, you got to find out how corrupt everyone chose to be in order to obtain power.
Perhaps include more hidden information so that players don't drop out too early, or only drop out right before the election.
Thanks to everyone that replied with ideas and input. That is what is great about this site...everyone has ideas coming from their own experiences and thoughts. It certainly makes the process flow better when you have more than one or two people's input.
Thanks again!
RGaffney, I like the idea of the candidates having specific plank issues that they are pushing. I already incorporated a deck of cards for the 3 debate rounds that will start the game. The players will deal out cards that have issues on them (abortion, taxes, etc). The cards will have plus and minus points on them. The players can either play a card on their turn in their favor or play a card on their opponent. The card played must match the issue started by the moderator (a token that is passed clockwise, giving each player an opportunity to start a topic that may favor their cards) and must be played in front of them if it is the only card in their hand that is specific to that issue.
Going back to your idea, maybe each player will have two or three specific issues that they are more knowledgeable in. Players will choose those issues in the setup, secretly, and reveal them when the game begins. Multiple players may have one or more identical issues, adding to the element you referred to of pushing those opponents out early to gain their support. The special knowledge may give them a benefit in the debates or in the game through other aspects.
To avoid a runaway leader situation you could simply add a win condition that says whenever a candidate has x amount MORE influence than the candidate behind them they have won the game. Perhaps x becomes smaller and smaller as the election draws nearer.
stevebarkeruk, I like the idea of keeping the points separate from winning the nomination. In fact, as one person wins the nomination, the next step is to announce their vice president pick. Maybe the secondary influence points could be tracking the VP picks. Then the winner, the nominee, can announce the VP as the "other" winner of the game.
This would mesh well with my idea to create another version that is for the general election. I was planning to make it a 2 player game with their influence being spread between the candidate, his VP and a campaign manager, all with special abilities. The game could also be a 4 or 6 player game with the other players fulfilling the other roles, rather than one player utilizing them all.
Thanks for the ideas and input.