The Coin’s Other Side: On Losing (and Elimination)

This post is going to be quite basic. Basic does not mean that it will be simple, but that it stands at the base. I may not give you answers here, but I’ll present something that any person who designs a game that is competitive, especially one where people win, should think of – the issue of losing, and the related issue of player-elimination.

You see, if your game has victory, there can be several ways in which you reach it, and many of the examples I’d use are from board/card-games. The question is what happens to the losers, and how they lose. This is more of an issue with story-games because of the length of time they may have to sit aside and the expectation of shared creative activity.

One option for winning is you reaching a personal goal, such as reaching level 10 first in Munchkin. Everyone plays till the bitter end, and everyone is more or less as effective in the end as they are in the beginning. This often leads to “King-makers”, players who know they will not win, but can be the ones who decide whether one player wins or another. In some cases, you need to play the other players more than you’re actually playing the cards.

Another option can be seen in Infernal Contraption, and in most competitive CCGs or war-games aimed for two players (Magic: the Gathering and Warhammer being  prime examples), where you don’t win by what you do per se, but you win by being the last player standing. This is not an issue when only two players play, because the game ends for the two players at the same time – one’s win is another’s victory. It is also less of an issue with games slated to run 15-20 minutes, because the loser does not get to sit idle for long.

However, story games and role-playing games have historically been more akin to the game of Diplomacy, where often players are eliminated in the first couple of turns of the game, which can keep going on for a couple more hours. I suspect this is also partially the reason some groups shy away from character-deaths, because it forces the player to stop being involved in the action, or at least they no longer have an active hand in shaping the story. In some groups the player with the dead character uses this time to come up with a new character, especially in mechanically involved games.

These days, it is sometimes less of an issue. Some games are designed to be of a shorter duration, so if one loses their character they are not out of the action for the whole campaign (at least as that character), or even for the duration of a session of a campaign – the game is meant to be played out in whole in one sitting. But still, I think like in board-games that take longer to complete, even an hour a player has to sit idle is less than ideal.

A “game” where this was somewhat solved which came up in my mind when a friend challenged me to design a truly competitive and cut-throat design was Survivor. Yes, the TV show. There the players eliminated after a certain stage get to be the king-makers in the end-game and little less, but it does require attention after they had been ‘eliminated’ from the running. Likewise, I feel that story-games with a competitive bent who decide on elimination should find a way to keep the players so eliminated not only interested, but let them contribute to the story further, and perhaps shape the competition as well ( if the story and the competition are intertwined, it may be so regardless).

Something done by story-games for a number of years now is that players get to affect the direction of the story even when their characters are not present. They get to reward players whose characters do things they enjoy (Primetime Adventures), or perhaps they don’t even have characters that are ‘theirs’, and all they do is guide the story (Universalis), or the designs  where they have characters and affect the creation of the world and shape the story (the “child” design of Mortal Coil, or Shock:).

But then a new question emerges, if you have competition and elimination: What is the measure of “Victory”, and why would you say those who have been ‘eliminated’ have lost? Perhaps they have just lose their chance to claim victory and their “superiority” over the others, but would you also have their effect on the story lessen? This is a Competitive Story Game, remember. I suspect this is one of the things alluded to by people I’ve approached regarding writing of competition and story’s interaction within their games, when they told me the game only has the veneer of competition, because if someone will try to win the game, it’d crack.

You have choices, whether victory is reached when the victor reaches a goal, or through elimination of all other players. Should you pick the former, you should consider how to solve the issue of king-makers, or keeping it in, unrestrained. Should you pick the latter, you should consider how to mitigate the effect of a player not having a hand in the story and game, and perhaps the issue of kingmaking will creep up again. Whatever you do, be mindful of this. Be aware that this is a design choice you are making, and a critical one at that.

This issue is also tied strongly to Social Contract, and to whether a certain group would play your game (at least as written). The issue of a player being left out of the game is something each party should discuss, and your game may not fit what a certain group is willing to accept. You may also consider adding a module in your game, where one can have elimination if one chooses, and play a somewhat different game if they do not wish for there to be such. Choices to be mindful of.

3 comments on “The Coin’s Other Side: On Losing (and Elimination)

  1. Callan says:

    I get what your saying about people sitting out but the game going on for hours. But you don’t have to have elimination – there can be a win condition and once someone gets it, the game ends for everyone. No one is removed from play except at the end, when everyones removed from play.

    I think what’s really happened is a fixation on death and that it MUST be involved and because of its nature, it means it’s an eliminator/the game involves eliminations/sitting out.

    Perhaps also because the idea of death has a fictional punch, while a RL game win condition isn’t about fiction (it’s an event in our real lives (even if only a small event relative to other stuff in our lives)). That might power the fixation on having death and all the elimination stuff that comes with it, which in turn has its negative sit out issue.

    Perhaps there needs to be more strong fictional win conditions, instead of us all fixating on death fiction?

  2. Guy Shalev says:

    Aside from the fictional side, which I’ll address in a moment, I did address victory above. In fact, I said that the manner of elimination in your game, if any, is dependant on your victory condition: There is no elimination in Munchkin and Settlers of Cattan, as it’s a personal victory goal, rather than a “Last Man Standing”.

    But here is a question, even in the fiction, if we do something like that, we have not eliminated the other players, but their characters will have lost, and in turn, so will the players.

    Watched the Wimbeldon final on Sunday? When Roger Federer won, Andy Roddick lost. He still got second place, but he looked decidedly unhappy to me.
    When one candidate wins the presidency, or whatever, we say he won. But all the other players had lost, all the other characters had lost.

    I still think, that yes, this is a much better solution, as everyone keeps playing till the finish line. Though as you’ll note, if you’re playing a Story Game which is not a Role-Playing Game as well, then there’s less of an issue, as the character can be eliminated, and so long the player remains with both equal investment and powers (equal, not the same), then it’s still game on.

    And yes, this requires good fictional reasons, and perhaps after elimination a good level of abstraction (Either the eliminated person becomes a future jury ala Survivor or he gains meta-level powers, sharing in the running of NPCs, the world, etc).

    There is going to be a follow-up article on “Small key Elimination”.

  3. Callan says:

    Hello Guy,

    You did give the munchkin example (no elimination until someone wins, then everyones out) – it’s just that you seemed to drift back to dealing with elimination again, despite having given that other viable option. So I was trying to address that drifting back.

    “But here is a question, even in the fiction, if we do something like that, we have not eliminated the other players, but their characters will have lost, and in turn, so will the players.”
    I don’t understand…yes, the other players have lost? I thought having to sit out was a problem – losing isn’t a problem, is it? Certainly in regard to that, I’m not sure looking at tennis stars for examples of handling losing properly, is a good idea >:)

    After that I’m not sure what you mean by playing a story game which is not a roleplay game as well. It sounds like your trying to shake off some cultural habits that the word roleplay brings to the surface. Fair enough, if you are! But I don’t understand the whole ‘it’s a story game and not an RP game’ and what you mean by it, in the meantime. Perhaps your follow up article will help with that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s