I personally have never played a competitive game where everybody loses. The concept sounds really interesting to me. Maybe sometimes it's worth it to sabotage to try to get the group to loose.
This mechanic made me also think about designs where everybody "could" win. Games like that could be interesting as well but sadly I haven't played any like that.
For some reason I enjoy games where it is possible for everyone to lose, but not where everyone can win.... except if it is an explicitly co-op game. Co-op games where everyone wins or loses together (e.g. Massive Darkness 2: Hellscape, Cthulhu: Death May Die, Pandemic, etc.) are really fun. I just personally don't like games that can end in a tie. :)
I think "everybody loses" is very hard to pull of in a competitive game.
From the game theory point of view, the outcome for players are as following, from most to least desired:
1. I win.
2. Everybody "loses", including me, so it's effectively a draw.
3. Somebody else wins, I lose.
This leads to the logic: "If I'm not winning, then it's better for me to force a draw rather than play to win". If there are more than two players, now you have a team that plays _for_ the game _against_ the single winning player.
This happened with our group in CO2: after we've identified the leader, everybody started to kill ecology like crazy, because avoiding loss is now leader's problem. I haven't played Infiltration though, it might be not a problem if players can't trigger more alarms on purpose, or if the leader is obscured.
I find thematical explanations such as "ah but your character dies if everybody loses, while you survive if somebody wins" or "but you destroy the ecology" very fragile. If we would play based on theme, rather than rules, then it would make sense to yield in chess to save your pawn's lives. Mechanically though, communal loss conditions can quickly wreck the game.
Thank you for your comment! Also, to your point, you very much can trigger more alarms as a player. This can be done both (a) on your way out to sabotage those behind you or (b) to cause everyone to lose if you know you can't win.
I like when everyone loses. Archipelago is another game that plays with that space; if you colonize the islands too hard you get collectively overthrown by the indigenous population (i won't say the game handles these themes well, but i suppose it's better than the usual board game insistence that you're colonizing empty land).
I bring it up because it does something interesting with secret scoring cards that determine how the game ends and also how points are scored. One of the 10ish possible scoring cards makes you win if everyone loses, so there's a hint of social deduction to the game if things start to go off the rails.
Republic of Rome is also a great one. As members of th Senate, players compete against each other to become emperor, but at the same time must cooperate to defend Rome and make it thrive.
I played Archipelago once and forgot how this would have been another great example! That card that allows you to win if everyone loses is particularly interesting. Good call!
Arnt most RPGs about the possibility that everyone could die “lose”. To me, Win or lose it’s how you get there. Did you have fun or learn something. If you play again can you do better?
TTRPGs are an interesting case. If there's no risk of everyone "losing" then there might not be much fun. But if the risk is too great (TPK 10 minutes into first session) then it might also not be fun. The lethality in MÖRK BORG seems to dance on both sides of that invisible line.
I personally have never played a competitive game where everybody loses. The concept sounds really interesting to me. Maybe sometimes it's worth it to sabotage to try to get the group to loose.
This mechanic made me also think about designs where everybody "could" win. Games like that could be interesting as well but sadly I haven't played any like that.
For some reason I enjoy games where it is possible for everyone to lose, but not where everyone can win.... except if it is an explicitly co-op game. Co-op games where everyone wins or loses together (e.g. Massive Darkness 2: Hellscape, Cthulhu: Death May Die, Pandemic, etc.) are really fun. I just personally don't like games that can end in a tie. :)
I think "everybody loses" is very hard to pull of in a competitive game.
From the game theory point of view, the outcome for players are as following, from most to least desired:
1. I win.
2. Everybody "loses", including me, so it's effectively a draw.
3. Somebody else wins, I lose.
This leads to the logic: "If I'm not winning, then it's better for me to force a draw rather than play to win". If there are more than two players, now you have a team that plays _for_ the game _against_ the single winning player.
This happened with our group in CO2: after we've identified the leader, everybody started to kill ecology like crazy, because avoiding loss is now leader's problem. I haven't played Infiltration though, it might be not a problem if players can't trigger more alarms on purpose, or if the leader is obscured.
I find thematical explanations such as "ah but your character dies if everybody loses, while you survive if somebody wins" or "but you destroy the ecology" very fragile. If we would play based on theme, rather than rules, then it would make sense to yield in chess to save your pawn's lives. Mechanically though, communal loss conditions can quickly wreck the game.
Ah, the kingmaking problem! :) I wrote a three-part series on it, and it has elicited some strong opinions both for and against.
Part 1: https://www.skeletoncodemachine.com/p/three-player-problem
Part 2: https://www.skeletoncodemachine.com/p/kingmaking
Part 3: https://www.skeletoncodemachine.com/p/is-kingmaking-cursed
Thank you for your comment! Also, to your point, you very much can trigger more alarms as a player. This can be done both (a) on your way out to sabotage those behind you or (b) to cause everyone to lose if you know you can't win.
I like when everyone loses. Archipelago is another game that plays with that space; if you colonize the islands too hard you get collectively overthrown by the indigenous population (i won't say the game handles these themes well, but i suppose it's better than the usual board game insistence that you're colonizing empty land).
I bring it up because it does something interesting with secret scoring cards that determine how the game ends and also how points are scored. One of the 10ish possible scoring cards makes you win if everyone loses, so there's a hint of social deduction to the game if things start to go off the rails.
Republic of Rome is also a great one. As members of th Senate, players compete against each other to become emperor, but at the same time must cooperate to defend Rome and make it thrive.
If they fail, Rome falls and everyone loses.
I’m not familiar with that one. I’ll check it out!
I played Archipelago once and forgot how this would have been another great example! That card that allows you to win if everyone loses is particularly interesting. Good call!
Arnt most RPGs about the possibility that everyone could die “lose”. To me, Win or lose it’s how you get there. Did you have fun or learn something. If you play again can you do better?
TTRPGs are an interesting case. If there's no risk of everyone "losing" then there might not be much fun. But if the risk is too great (TPK 10 minutes into first session) then it might also not be fun. The lethality in MÖRK BORG seems to dance on both sides of that invisible line.
If a Living Card Game is discontinued but community supported, does it become an Undead Card Game? 🤔
Hah, you might be right! :)