Kingmaking - Was Your Win Snatched Away? Or Did You Just Screw Up?

hey i'm alex radcliffe from board game co and today i want to talk about king making king making we'll start with the definition time stamps as always so that you can skip to whatever section you want but well let's get into it king making is the idea that through an action in a game you transfer the win condition from one player to another in other words just using the most basic example uh let's say sarah's about to win a game right now and then you through your action you take a move and then now john is winning the game instead you in other words transferred who is winning because of the action you took that's the general concept of king making it's the idea that you in some way adjusted who would win and the definition from there might stray my definition specifically and and again it's i think my definition to a degree is the generally accepted definition although you will definitely find i mean i'm sure you can find 50 page threads on board game geek about what king making is and is not my definition usually comes down to when you transfer the win condition in a way that didn't even further your own goals we'll get to that i'll go through my whole list of everything but again key making this idea that through an action you transfer who the win condition is it can be done in any way shape or form it could be as simple as when you're playing katan you sit there and you exchange goods and you trade goods with somebody else in a clearly inefficient trade that results in harry now winning the game because he's at 10 points any of the games on the table are inherently victim to king making area control is is very often a game style that can have keymaking in it because of the very nature that as i move into one territory i'm taking away something from you and that might switch the relative positions of somebody else games like ciclotties games like inish like kemet like bloodrage all of these games battle for rokugan all of these root root any of these games inherently have the possibility of king making within their dna against the nature of the fact that as i take from you i am switching the balance of power and that could result in the potential question about what is and isn't key making and who won the game but then we have games like qe and high society where the person who has the least amount of money inherently loses and that results in an interesting situation that you might be playing very inefficiently and about to lose and i'll win because of that but then someone else makes a terrible play and ends up switching themselves to having the least amount of money and now they're losing putting you in the win because you no longer have the least amount of money again it's not just area control even games like no thanks in colorado tiny boxes like this because of the nature of what you take and how what you take inherently infringes upon the other player in no thanks when i take a card someone else is not taking the card in colorado when i take a set of cards someone else is not taking that set of cards so through my actions i can not only adjust and affect my own score but the scores of somebody else and therefore the relative positioning of everyone else at the table and when i do so in a way that causes me to win it's obviously the right move when i do so in a way that does not result in me having the win but instead results in someone else at the table having the win that is when this conversation comes up and from there let's move to the second thing before we get into anything else this only matters it doesn't matter at all this entire video is silly i'm just talking about this video because i like talking about games i like talking about the subject of games but this video inherently is a conversation about who won or who didn't win that's the point of this video when when you won was it fair or was it king making none of this matters if you don't care about winning i did a video recently i'll link to it down below about the nature of winning in board games doesn't matter does it not and for me it does not matter i don't care who won the game i care about how i played and how i played and whether i played well or not doesn't change whether or not you king made someone else into the winner i don't care is it an interesting conversation about the fact that you did this should you have done that does it make sense is the right move of course it's an interesting conversation if you like talking about games but i want to emphasize strongly and potentially repeatedly across this video none of this matters i just like talking about games and that's why this video exists this doesn't matter if you don't care about winning and i do not secondly or thirdly depending on what step we're up to thirdly is these are my rules this is my definition of king making this is how i approach the subject feel free to use it or not use it feel free to remind yourself that none of it matters but this is just my own hierarchy of play of what i feel makes sense what i feel is a legitimate move when you make a illegitimate move according to my own definitions it doesn't really matter more often than not king making as a concept only really comes into play at the end of the game moves you make during the game and it can change sometimes you can have really inefficient game moves in a game that everyone would agree are just stupid but that's usually not the problem i play usually we're talking about endgame moves we're talking about that final adjustment as you transfer the win condition in the last few turns and so even if you do something that i think is not reasonable it doesn't really matter again i'm going to keep saying that none of this matters so let's get into it the hierarchy of play this for me is my own personal listing of what i consider the to be the hierarchy of play as far as what king making is and isn't what is a reasonable move what is not feel free to use these rules yourself feel free to not use these rules it doesn't matter none of it matters only sometimes i can say it but it's it's just it's worth repeating this is a a video dedicated to who won and who didn't win and is so antithecal to to what i believe that i have to say again and again this is just a conversation for the sake of talking about board games so the prime focus in my opinion is are you doing something to in any way further your chances of winning that's the first rule if you are doing anything that furthers your chances of winning then it doesn't matter what you did it is the correct move in other words when i sat there and i took those cards from you no thanks and therefore transferred the win from you to jessica keep coming with random names here it doesn't matter if that was the right move for me if it was the move that in any way in any marginal percentage of a chance way increased my chances of winning then it's the right move if it does not increase my chances of winning and if you can point to it and say this that the other but if it did not increase my chances of winning if i took a move that transferred ownership then that is the wrong move and that is king making the second rule moving on directly from this is directly from this is anything i can do to improve my score or relative position within the hierarchy is again the right move and this one will already be more debatable i mean every one of these will be debatable by different people different groups of people and by all means chip in the comments down below what your own perception of king making is what's allowed not allowed and all that but if i do anything to improve my score or relative position it is again the right move if the score is currently 94 87 80 and i can bump myself up to 89 but by doing so someone else will now be winning it is still the right move because you're always trying to do your best i think about it from a thematic stance which is weird because i usually have more mechanics first but thematically speaking of course i should be trying to improve my position and so if you did something if you set yourself up in a position on the board in the game in a way that relies on me not furthering my own relative position even if i won't win that doesn't seem like it's thematically appropriate so you have to defend yourself against all comers you have to in some way make sure that you're trying to win but do so while understanding that everyone will always be trying to further their score and if you didn't account for that if you then result in you not winning that's on you so again starting with the fact that you want to always try to win however small percentage from there you always want to improve your relative positioning or score even if you know for a fact even if it's the last move of the game no one else is acting after you but by taking your last move you will improve your points you will improve your score and now you're transferring transferring the win then then go for it then just do that that's that's that's all you need to do it's fine as far as my rules go number three if you take an action that transfers who's winning in an effort to extend the game giving you a chance to win even if that action does not actually change anything else for you it is still the right move there are a few games or times where this can happen and this is a good example ciclotties is a good example uh the climbers is a good example there's a bunch of these small games where sometimes the move you take will not further your own score it will not increase your chances of winning although in a way it does because of what we're talking about here but what it does is it extends the game and it transfers the win condition but if you didn't extend the game you would lose so again it's the same idea as improving your chances of winning inherently by extending the game you will improve your chances of winning because if the game ends now you don't win if the game goes on further you might win so extending the game is always the right move even if it transfers the even if it transfers the current winner and by the way i'm going through these in order of how controversial i think they are i think the most basic one is improving your chances of winning from there improving your score from there extending the game with no impact whatsoever i think is more controversial as well people like you literally just transferred the owner you didn't even help yourself you transferred the winner and you didn't even help yourself and i'm like i know i didn't help myself but i'm still playing and so inherently i have helped myself number four is possibly possibly the most controversial i would i would say it's not possible it's almost certainly the most controversial anything you do in the name of revenge when it's clear you can't win anyways when it's clear you're down to the wire let's use nothing personal as a good example because i've actually had this happen in nothing personal nothing personal if you're in the game and it's down to the wire and something you can do that's in the name of revenge but doesn't improve your chances of winning but might transfer who is winning if you can take a move that hurts somebody else but earlier in the game and to be very clear by revenge i mean within the meta of the game itself not within the large meta of anything else going on in your life or prior games but if i screwed you early game in order to put myself at the top and it comes down to the wire and the last turn of the game and you can screw me out of the wind i betrayed an alliance let's say we agreed to do something we're playing rising sun i agreed with you i backstabbed you i betrayed you i took you out of the game early and now i'm about to win and it's the final turn and you can't win but you can ensure that i don't i still think it's the right move because again approaching this thematically if i betray all my allies if i in some way do something that screws someone else over i should and could be prepping for the fact that they will come back and hurt me i should not be relying on the idea that well it's the end of the game and you shouldn't betray me because you're just king making no i screwed you and so i should be on the defensive and prepared for any assault back the entire time i am fine with a move that transfers who wins the game if it's in the name of revenge revenge within the meta of the individual game being played again this is easily the most controversial from all the ones i'm saying here potentially depending who you are you may either agree with me because you're like of course i mean what's it called let's go with another thing harry harry backstabbed you earlier in the game of course you're going to betray him back now and other people are like no no no it's the final turn of the game and you can't in any way improve your chances of winning it's too late the die has been cast what harry did is done and over you can't just transfer the winner of the game i'm like screw you harry you shouldn't betray me and keep that in mind because i believe in the meta by the way i believe in the met and how it transfers over game to game i believe the idea and i get to be clear the revenge should not transfer game to game if i inflict revenge on this game because something you did to me last game that is a whole different conversation which we're not getting into and i mean again these are my own definitions so take them as you will for anything else for anything outside of those actions if it doesn't improve your chances of winning if it doesn't improve your relative score if it doesn't extend the game so that it improves your chances of winning and if it doesn't act in the name of revenge then i believe neutrality is the right action not taking an action that transfers the winner i believe is the right action at that point although again chaos theory anyone can say what they want do what they want believe what they want these are only my rules if at that point if none of those rules are fulfilled and if you take an action that transfers who the current winner is to someone else but does not in any way fulfill any of the above other conditions that is what i believe personally speaking is king making what's the takeaway nothing i told you already there's no takeaway here if winning doesn't matter to you this is all hypothetical this is all game theory which to me this is what it is this is game theory this is the idea of discussing what should and shouldn't be done the things that have violated these rules have certainly happened in my game groups in the past and it has resulted in healthy enjoyable debates with the people at the table and not a single person sitting there going well i'm not going to play with you again no you do you believe that king making is this i believe that keep making is that who cares if you don't care about winning this is just game theory and it's just a discussion if you do care about winning i have a solution for you if you do care about winning and it violates your own rules of what king making should and shouldn't be pretend that you won who cares what other people said if you believe it's key making they believe it's not king making then they can think they won and you can think you won does it actually matter who cares why does it have to be why do you have to convince them that you're right if you have an app if you log your plays log that you won the game if you believe that based on your rules log that you do what you want to make yourself happy in this context i am all for it for me this is just about the discussion what is king making what follows the precepts the rules the violations king making is something despite all this emphasis on the fact that i'm saying it doesn't care it is something that can bring disharmony to a game group it can be frustration and betrayal i've only had a handful i've been playing games now for was a 2011 for nine ten years and in that time in the thousands and thousands of games that i've played i have probably had two or three sessions of frustration at game nights frustration like as in a slight underlying hostility at the table not just debating not just arguing with slight underlying hostility one of those was about betrayal not king making per se but a betrayal backstabbery someone backstabbed somebody else later in the game they came back and backstabbed them they felt it was unfair the other person felt it was fair that was one time another time it was a wasn't even related to the game at play it's happened very infrequently try to cultivate and grow your game group around the idea that people are there to have fun these conversations to me are fun but they are just about the conversation so that's basically it these are my rules to keep making i'm curious what yours are what what difference what things did i miss where do you disagree with me or more importantly a lot more importantly more interestingly do you believe that an early game revenge a late game revenge play is the right move if you were betrayed early game and you're inflicting revenge for some betrayal on betrayal by the way to be very clear does not mean some tiny little tiny little infringement oh you took the cards then and i wanted those cards no no it means it means something tangible not that i incidentally took something you wanted but we had an alliance and i screwed you i marched into your kingdom and took something over something actually actually worthy of betrayal and then the revenge move comes later do you believe that that's fine or no that's terrible and i should be thrown out of your game group because i'd be violating king making rules that's basically it this is a conversation an interesting one a little different than the usual thing but i just i always like talking about this stuff and even though it doesn't matter at all i wanted to have the conversation until next time i'm alex radcliffe from board game co and i hope you have a good one

Channel: BoardGameCo

Views: 3,463

Keywords:

Id: inyAlZo7vRo

Length: 15min 32sec (932 seconds)

Published: Sun Feb 13 2022