TiGD : Multiple Victory/End Game Conditions

The VP track or scoring tokens (hidden or public) are the usual for me, but some of my games go away from that (especially race-style finishes). Some, by their very nature, lend themselves to it - players in opposite roles wherein one is undoing the other and there is not a common goal thematically.

I don't think of using the option of other victory conditions enough. Sometimes, it is merely adding too much unneeded complication. Other times, it is because the balancing would require too much time to get right.

As a gamer, I enjoy it... I think it adds differing strategies and choices to players that haven't succeeded at being competitive in the other strategy.

I think that these are worth pursuing sometimes, but if the game is solid and you can see the alternate win/victory working as an expansion, maybe just let the game stand as is and work on it if you get it published. This can be wildly unpopular if the game is one played seriously.... so it depends on the game.

Example - If Scrabble came out with a rule that said you spell 2 8-letter words and you win, competitive Scrabble players would try to vote it out of tournament play because they like the conditions as is. However, if Bohnanza came out with a rule saying that you can win the game by collecting 3 of every bean being played into your coin collection (forget the right terminology), that wouldn't have a problem with players because it is a little more fair and players of that game are a bit less serious.

CCG's like Magic: the Gathering are the best at implementing this... they produce a single card that can cause that sort of rule change. Ex. - If you have 50 life at any time, you win the game. If you have 15 creatures in play, you win the game.

Basically, card games that have rules bending, like Fluxx, are going to be way more agile at implementing these sorts of things than a board game. It's right on the card, immediately shapes the playing field, and introduces a new strategy. There is the drawback of knowledge, however... if a person doesn't know that the card exists and another does, that is an obvious advantage.

I tend to like them in games for the fact I can try different things to go for a win. I use them a lot in my games also. I think that if there are too many though it will cause too many problems since you will have someone find the most ideal way to get VP unless random factors are all around your game. But if straight strategy someone will always find the VP condition that is most beneficial over the others no matter how much you play test. So in that way it is bad. Unless you can tie other players into messing up that direction for the other player in some way or another. Like if they are collecting a certain resource to win in that way another player might use some card or something to deplete the market of that resource or something.

Good Topic!
Do you, as a designer, often consider adding in multiple victory/end game conditions?

I usually always start with a basic design/goal and then find ways through mechanics, victory conditions to acheive the desired feel. Usually always consider it, yes, but don't always build a design toward multiple victory conditions.

How do you normally reach the point of having multiple victory/end game conditions in your design?

Getting to the point of adding a victory condition is design specific. I usually always try to have multiple paths to victory or multiple victory conditions to provide more choices/play styles. I guess I reach that point most often when I have a design written up and begin playtesting. If it needs more or less I add or tweak.

ex: Walk the Dogs (Moon and someone else).
Fairly basic game > score most points to win.
Most likely added on later in the design:
How do we keep the game close, limit runaway leader >
ans: give 'bone' points to loser, allow players to steal from each other
How do we encourage collecting long chains of the same (for more points) when a dog catcher eliminates your longest chain >
ans: alternate VC get 5 in a row and automatically win!

Without the additional VC (victory condition) the game would be fairly cut a dry.

Do you, as a game player, enjoy games that offer multiple victory/end game conditions?

I do enjoy playing games with multiple aspects (choices) which may be a result of multiple VC or not. I feel that a game may have too many VC (although I haven't come across one) because I like knowing who is leading and relative scoring position. Having too many VC could make it too hard to determine the leader. I like the metagaming of jockeying for position.

What do multiple victory/end game conditions add to a game; tension? strategies? depth? choices? ...?

All of the above or none of the above depending on the game design. Typically I use them to add tension/depth/choices.

Are multiple victory/end game conditions worth the effort when attempting to design a game?

Usually.

What games do a decent job at implementing and supporting multiple victory/end game conditions?

I like the way Careers does it. Really just one VC = 60points. But each player creates their own formula to get 60. Could be $0, 30 Fame, 30 Happiness or $60, 0 Fame/Happiness, or 20 of each, ect.
Most of the games I am thinking of use multiple paths and not multiple VC. The ones with multiple VC still have single VC for each player like Mission cards in Risk. The ones I can think of with multiple VC often seem to have one for the specific purpose of creating tension, such as Get the Most to win and stop X players resource gathering. So at the expense of getting the most for yourself you can attempt to stop X other players and win that way.

I’m a big fan of multiple victory conditions or paths for the variety they potentially add to gameplay and the difference in choices that can be added by having options. The trade off however I feel is that balancing multiple paths so that they’re all viable choices doesn’t seem to be achievable for some designs – I can’t think of a good example off the top of the head but I’m sure we’ve all encountered games where options that seem interesting and viable on the first few plays later come to be recognized as a waste of time/resources by experienced players. Such player traps give the impression of depth and variety but don’t actually it, instead just hiding a simplistic and/or broken game behind poor choices.

I feel that all victory paths included in a game should be viable at any level of play under the right conditions. This is not to say the odds from each approach need be equal, as others have touched on different paths/conditions to attempt to catch the leader is a great mechanism for giving a chance without taking away from the achievements of successful players. Each approach simply needs to be a useful part of a good player’s bag of tricks, not an interesting concept that gets discarded after being identified as interesting but weak.

Finally to look at a quick and simple example (I’d mention Puerto Rico as well but that’s already been touched on) I’m quite a fan of the two player game ‘Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation’. It includes multiple different victory options for one player who needs to either capture a key opponent piece, occupy the opponent’s home territory with three units (game starts with nine a side and decreases steadily so this is not a small challenge) or, in the expansion, get a particular weak piece to their enemy’s home territory. From my experience the first of these options is almost always the one used since the others are quite difficult. The fact that those options are there however causes your opponent to have to guard against them or gamble on your strategy, allows you to fake out your opponent sometimes, allows you to pull an unexpected shift in strategy mid game should circumstances change etc etc. While the basic victory condition is normally the one attempted the simple fact the others are an option adds significant depth to the game.

It's an interesting topic, I think, partially because I think the difference between 'multiple victory conditions' and 'multiple ways of scoring VP' , for some games, is a somewhat arbitrary one. And yet, that arbitrary difference between "Play a set of four three times, or three runs of four, to win" and "Score one point for playing a set of four, or a run of four. Score 5 points to win." makes such a huge difference to the feel of a game.

As a designer, I don't think I've done enough games to actually answer this question. I do feel that multiple viable strategies to achieve victory, and/or multiple viable tactics to perform those strategies, is a very good thing in all but the simplest of games, and that multiple victory/end game conditions is a very valid way of achieving that. Weather it's the best way will depend on the game itself, however.

Very much so.

If done well, they can add all of those. If done badly, one or more of the end conditions isn't worth pursuing and so just serves to add chrome, and sometimes extra trackibels, to a design.

Chrononauts's three ways of winning and one way for everyone to lose seems to work quite well, I think.

As does the decking option (see below) in most CCGs, I think, due to it adding a drawback to the otherwise excellent strategy of cycling your deck, since cycling your deck. However, most CCGs are balanced in such a way that you're unlikely to deck unless your opponent is playing with a deck with 'cause the opponent to deck' in mind, which in lots of cases reduces the tension of 'increases options but can directly cause you to lose the game eventually'

In most cases I can think of (Magic, Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh have it, the Western version of Digimon doesn't, not sure if Vs has it or not), there are multiple victory conditions (well, more 'a victory and a loss condition') without going into card text. "Do primary goal" (getting all six of your prizes in pokemon, reducing your opponent to 0 life points/health points/whatever in Yu-Gi-Oh and Magic) for the victory, your opponent 'decking' [needing to draw a card at the start of a turn when their draw pile is empty] being the other.