SpielByWeb

daveszum · Joined: 28 Oct 07 Posts: 219 Location: CST

Do we really believe that there is anything really wrong with deciding who wins a game when you cannot? I would have a difficult time letting someone win who knocked me out of the game in the first place. I suppose if there were constant collusion (ie. your best friend and you always help each other), then I might see a problem, but, to be honest, even that is not insurmountable. People usually pick up on it and make adjustments. This is one of the reasons why I posted about table talk earlier. Sometimes I also observe moves that really do not benefit the one making the move but someone else in a big way and want to point it out and form a counter alliance. I have also been the beneficiary of such moves, even though I really did not know who the person was (other than a name and avatar). But then again, I am accustomed to a very socialized game environment where this happens openly and all the time. It adds a dimension that we found quite enjoyable. It also taught us diplomacy skills. Of course, those lacking such skills may not be so happy about this.....

Kanga

t_o_m9 · Joined: 14 Apr 06 Posts: 318 Location: Lakeville, MN

Bkruppa · Joined: 08 Nov 05 Posts: 241 Location: Fremont, Ca, USA

Kingmaking -- One who has the political power to influence the selection of a candidate for high public office

To continue with this analogy in this discussion, the strongest accusation that could be made is that a peasant aided his lord in battle. I.E. a better accusation would be collusion rather than kingmaking.

Personally, everybody on some level in any given game could be guilty of kingmaking if they don't win. Trying to score the most points possible, every single game, even if you will lose, is not proof of kingmaking; even if you "aide" one person more than another is not an absolute of kingmaking or collusion.

But then again, I don't win very often and have a tendency to try to thwart whomever is in the lead to make the finish more exciting, when I'm confident of my loss.

freduk · Joined: 18 Jan 06 Posts: 433 Location: Bristol, UK

Collusion implies that both parties benefit from the situation. Kingmaking (especially in gaming terms) implies that one person decides who the winner will be when they have no chance of winning themselves.
Santiago is susceptible to this, as someone with no chance of winning can offer a huge bribe on the last turn just so that the Canal Overseer gets a huge influx of cash and beats someone else who would otherwise have won.
It can be a problem, when a game is very close between 2 players who have both played well, and a third player who has fallen out of the running has the power to decide on the last turn who they want the winner to be. In my view the third player should leave well alone and let the other two battle it out. Other people see nothing wrong with someone who hasn't played well just decideing who they want to be king.

I'm rambling. I'll stop. Rolling Eyes

pallidcreatures · Joined: 03 Dec 05 Posts: 1 Location: SW England

You can't always leave the situation alone though. You have got to play a move and that move will almost always influence the dynamic of the game in some way.

Coming from a dispute resolution background, I like the suggestion above that Kingmaking means you have to exercise diplomacy, or at the very least courtesy, throughout the whole course of the game - and once it has finished also.