Is kingmaking cursed?

Cursed problems, conflicting player promises, and four techniques to use

Welcome to Skeleton Code Machine, a weekly publication that explores tabletop game mechanisms. Spark your creativity as a game designer or enthusiast, and think differently about how games work. Check out Dungeon Dice and 8 Kinds of Fun to get started!

John Company: Second Edition (2022)

This is Part 3 of a series on kingmaking. Don’t miss Part 1 and Part 2.

We’ve been looking at kingmaking recently.

In Part 1 we discussed the three-player problem and how kingmaking is one of the ways it can be manifested. Then in Part 2 we dug deeper into kingmaking as a specific problem, and why it might not be a problem at all!

This week we have Part 3 in the kingmaking series, where we explore the concept of “cursed problems” in game design… and if kingmaking is one of them.

A brief review of kingmaking

Root (2018)

Here is a brief review of what we covered previously:

1. The Three-Player Problem: In a three-player conflict game (e.g. a historical wargame) if there are three players, the two players who are behind will generally team up and attack the player in the lead.

2. Specific problem types: We can identify at least four design problems that result from multiplayer games with conflict:

   1. Turtling: A player focuses on defense and refuses to engage in conflict.

   2. Leader bashing: Players attack whoever is ahead.

   3. Sandbagging: Players try to hide how well they are doing.

   4. Kingmaking: A player who knows they will lose effectively chooses who will win, usually by attacking one of the remaining players.

3. Possible solutions: These are not unsolvable problems and some known design solutions exist: hidden victory information, lower player interaction, player elimination, and difficulty in targeting a single player. These are covered in detail in Part 1.

4. Most people dislike kingmaking: According to the poll, Kingmaking (42%) and leader bashing (23%) were considered the worst problems of the ones listed above. It’s notable that no one (0%) considered turtling a design problem.

5. But kingmaking isn’t always a problem: In Part 2 we explored kingmaking through the lens of Cole Wehrle’s Defense of Kingmaking:

   1. Kingmaking helps avoid narrative clichés, allowing for stories about manipulation, alliances, and betrayal that extend beyond just the mechanical parts of the game.

   2. Kingmaking makes sense when the goal of the game is shifted away from the individuals winning, and toward the intersections of the group’s goals and decisions.

   3. If the game focuses more on storytelling and less on victory points, players will want to keep playing even if they can’t win… or even if winning was never possible.

I’d encourage you to read Part 1 and Part 2, but for now let’s explore some cursed problems!

Cursed problems in game design

John Company: Second Edition (2022)

Readers suggested that I check out Alex Jaffe’s GDC 2019 talk called Cursed Problems in Game Design, and I’m so glad I did!

Alex defines a “cursed problem” as “an unsolvable design problem, rooted in a conflict between core player promises.”

Player promises are a game’s essential experiences. It’s why the players came to play, and is closely connected to Bartle’s Taxonomy and the Quantic Gamer Motivations.

Example of player promises include:

• A cooperative game experience

• A long journey to skill mastery

• A stable community of players with a broad variety of skill levels

• Varied loot drops and new equipment to find

• The ability to express yourself via creativity

• Socializing and social belonging

A design problem becomes cursed when multiple conflicting promises are made either explicitly by the designer or implicitly by player expectations. They can’t be solved because they are fundamentally opposed.

Two examples of cursed problems

Pandemic (2018)

Alex gives many examples of cursed design problems in the talk, but here are two to illustrate the concept:

1. The Quarterbacking Problem

In tabletop gaming, the quarterbacking problem is known as alpha gaming. In cooperative games like Pandemic (Leacock, 2008), alpha gaming is when one player takes undue control of the game and strategy. They might attempt to direct the other players actions, reducing the player agency of others at the table. It might help the group win the game, but it’s not particularly fun.

Cooperative games make two promises:

1. A cooperative game experience where all players act and make decisions as individuals.

2. A game where the goal is to win, which is best achieved via centralized decision making.

It’s impossible to equally resolve both of these promises, although there are ways to handle them… as we will see later.

2. The Free-for-all (FFA) Politics Problem

Another example given by Alex is what he calls the free-for-all (FFA) politics problem, which is similar to the three-player problem.

The FFA politics problem shows up when two conflicting promises are made:

1. A highly competitive game focused on individual skill and mastery, where the goal is to win.

2. Unrestrained politics and competition through social negotiations, alliances, and manipulation.

This problem is cursed because you can’t both have a game where winning is based on the individual while at the same time winning is controlled by the group’s politics. Instead this can only be solved by renegotiating the promises and/or changing the goal of the game.

The Four Techniques

Forbidden Stars (2015)

Cursed design problems can’t simply be solved via normal game design methods. The inherent tension between opposed player promises will always remain.

Alex does, however, give four helpful techniques that can be used to minimize the negative effects of the problem:

1. Barriers: Remove or reduce affordances that break player promises. This could be as simple as outlawing the bad things via rules (e.g. not allowing player communication during the game). It could be enforcing limited ability to impact other players.

2. Gates: Hide some of the information so you don’t know you are losing. Limit visibility of player success or victory points. Either directly hide player scores or make it hard to calculate.

3. Carrots: Provide incentives to avoid the bad stuff. Provide tournament points for coming in second or third place, giving a reason to keep playing even if you aren’t going to finish in first place.

4. Smores: Make the game so much fun that the players no longer care about some of the promises. Give players tools for deep political play, diplomacy, and secrecy. The game is less about specific win conditions and more about the story along the way.

You might recognize some of these techniques from the possible solutions in Part 1: hidden victory information, points for coming in second, and low player interaction.

Techniques with a cost

Root (2018)

These techniques do come, however, with some important trade-offs.

You can hide victory point information behind a gate, but you’ll sacrifice some of the tension as the game comes to an end. There won’t be a chance to have a “buzzer beater” feeling of victory, because players won’t know how close they are to winning at any given time.

You can add barriers such as limiting talking between players or simply adding rules that say “you can’t do that.” This will, however, reduce the individual player agency, control, and fantasy of the game, potentially making it feel more mechanical.

Each technique or potential solution can improve the game, but comes at a cost. The cursed problem remains unsolved.

Kingmaking as a cursed problem

John Company: Second Edition (2022)

At the end of the talk, Alex takes some questions from the audience. He’s asked about kingmaking, and mentions that he watched Cole Wehrle’s GDC talk! Although he notes he hasn’t played Root.

Kingmaking, he says, is a special case of the FFA politics problem. Players can get so far behind in the game that they know they will lose, resulting in a “dark antipattern in games.”

It’s a tough problem to solve, and may require changing what the game is about. The player promises need to be diminished or modified.

Perhaps, he suggests, the game could be about kingmaking!

Links and references

Root (2018)

Here is a summary of the links and references from this series on kingmaking:

• Tabletop: Analog Game Design by Greg Costikyan & Drew Davidson, published by Carnegie Mellon University ETC Press.

• "King Me": A Defense of King-Making in Board Game Design by Cole Wehrle

• Do board games need victory conditions? by Amabel Holland

• Cursed Problems in Game Design by Alex Jaffe

• Welcome to the Yard Sale: A Practical Framework for Holistic Design Iteration by Zak Mclendon

• Characteristics of Games by George Skaff Elias, Richard Garfield and K. Robert Gutschera, published by MIT Press

Thanks to Skeleton Code Machine readers Medieval Cat and David Pawley for suggesting Alex Jaffe’s talk on cursed game design!

Conclusion

Forbidden Stars (2015)

Some things to think about:

• Watch for cursed design problems: A “cursed problem” is one resulting from an inherent contradiction of goals. It is when there are conflicting player promises that can’t be solved at the same time. It’s like promising something will be both wet and dry, or it will be both heavy and light at the same time.

• Cursed problems can show up in TTRPG design too: As noted in an r/rpgdesign thread, cursed problems aren’t limited to board games and video games. Designing a TTRPG that promises both deep character creation and a particularly lethal game can be a cursed problem. The same if promising both extremely fast/short combat and deep strategic/tactical combat.

• Cursed problems may not be solvable, but techniques exist: Certainly the player promises can be modified or renegotiated, but methods can be used to improve the game’s design. The four techniques above and the solutions from Part 1 can be used, but with some costs and trade-offs.

What do you think? Is kingmaking a cursed problem? Can it be solved? Does it need to be solved?

— E.P. 💀

P.S. If you enjoy reading Skeleton Code Machine, nominating it for "Best Blog or Article Written in the TTRPG Space" is a great way to show your support! Nominate Skeleton Code Machine! Submissions end May 31, 2024.

---

Skeleton Code Machine is a production of Exeunt Press. All previous posts are in the Archive on the web. If you want to see what else is happening at Exeunt Press, check out the Exeunt Omnes newsletter.