Board Games 101: What is Kingmaking?

What even IS "kingmaking" with regards to board games? Is it a good thing, or a bad thing? Ryan explains with a brief demo, and some suggestions.

View the full course syllabus here:

Fund an endowment:

.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.

Email Ryan: nightsaroundatable [at] gmail (dot) com

[RossArnoldSan]

Great timing, I just had a conversation about kingmaking over a game of root this weekend but there was a little debate over what it meant!

[coracastle]

I drafted a house rule regarding kingmaking.
Kingmaking - A House Rule

Multi player games can be very fun with in-game issues such as set up, strategy, overall position as well as a number of meta-game issues like player reputations and personal relationships often playing key roles in determining who ultimately takes the win. This house rule is intended to ensure that multiplayer games are dependent on first hand ability, tactics, and insight rather than unearned support from other players. When a player behaves in a way that tilts the outcome of the game in favor of another player, without also providing themselves a substantive path to victory, it is called “kingmaking”. Note that there are many games where kingmaking behavior is a feature of the game itself, such as “deal making” games. This house rule does not seek to adjudicate or restrict player behavior in games such as these. Multiplayer games are notoriously difficult to balance because of the meta-influences to the game previously described. To help ensure an enjoyable multiplayer experience for all players, certain meta game behaviors in tactical games are expected to be observed.

Rule 1 Attempt to Win - All players should be attempting to win the game. Winning behavior takes two forms: attempt to assume the lead, or undermine the person in the lead.
Players with no clear winning choices or moves, should impede players perceived to be winning before players who are not.

Rule 2 Avoid Collusion - Assisting another player without a planned expectation that doing so will ultimately cause you to win is intentional collusion. Unintentional collusion occurs when a player is unwilling to identify and/or hamper the player in the lead. Collusion can also result when a player shares exclusive or secret information.
Players should avoid cooperation (or sharing of exclusive information) with one another unless doing so provides a reasonable expectation of exclusive or mutual victory.

Rule 3 Avoid Mercenary Advice - Sometimes less experienced players ask for advice or guidance. Care should be taken by all players to provide impartial advice under such circumstances.
Players should avoid advising another player when they are at risk of providing advice that unfairly affects the outcome of the game (particularly when it benefits them).

Rule 4 Avoid Table talk - Suggestions to harm a specific player constitutes manipulative table talk and can affect the outcome of a game in a non tactical way.
Players may publicly call out when a player is demonstrably in the lead, but should avoid providing expectations, insight, exclusive or secret information or clues to provoke players into harming the prospects of another player who is not in the lead. It is each players individual responsibility to develop those plans.

Remedy
When a player believes another player has failed to observe one of the kingmaker rules above, they may call “kingmaker”. The objecting player has up to 60 seconds to cite the action they believe is in question. Game play is suspended, and the player has one minute make a case. Afterwards all players must cast a vote of “kingmaker” or “not kingmaker”. If the vote is “kingmaker” the player who took that action must justify their action or should consider an alternative action. Secret information is a suitable justification.

[Makcimak]

Most area control games have this problem, 4x or not. The best solution is to play in even player counts, where everyone can take on one opponent. The odd one player not investing in fights almost always wins

[Jeff_Pusch]

The last time I played Euphoria, there was an issue with Kingmaking. If you haven't played it, the winner is the first player to place all their stars. In this 4p game, two players were down to their last star while I and one other had 2 left. One of the ways to place stars is to place workers on spots to construct buildings -- pay the resource, and leave your worker there until the building is constructed (or pull your dude back, which is inefficient). In a 4p game, 3 of those spots must be filled for the building to be constructed. Player 1, with 1 star left, places a worker on one of those spots, seeing that the other players could help him finish it. But rather than go there, player 2 uses her doubles to place two workers on a different spot, allowing player 3 to complete that building (and place her final star). Since players 2 and 3 are sisters, I felt that it was unfair for player 2 to open up a spot for her sister to win, even though she herself couldn't do it. Really soured me on the game for that reason.

[mikeossman]

Nice video! I like having vocabulary for this stuff. Another 4x example -- Twilight Imperium 4 has a clear kingmaker issue with a diplomatic card called "support for the throne." Basically I make a deal with another player to give them a victory point and, if they want to keep it, they can't attack me anymore. In TI4, you win the game immediately when you reach 10 points. So, like your 1st example, if I've got a couple of opponents at 9 points and I'm at like 5, I could just decide who wins the game in one quick negotiation by giving away my "support" card. The solution here is obvious enough: just house rule that the game winning point cannot be gained through a "support" card.

A trickier example from TI4 - suppose I'm in the same situation as before, with the "support" house rule now in place. I know this is the last round and I have no chance to win, but I've got a big ol' space fleet sitting on the board, positioned to strike. I could attack one of the 9-points players and damage their chances of winning, possibly handing the game to the other player or at least giving them a lot of help. That ending could still leave a bad kingmaker taste in people's mouths, but there isn't an easy way to house rule it away (not that I can see anyway). And having a bad ending really sucks in TI4, considering the game takes like 8 hours to play!

Ultimately, kingmaker issues like the second one seem to require good faith players, which I am fortunate enough to have in my gaming group. So I may have to say, "okay I'm just gonna play defensively this turn, since I'm not in a position to win." Which is boring for me, but it might be the only respectable move.

[shachna]

I've been collecting and consuming a lot about board games for a while, but this is the first time I'd heard the term. I've also realized that I am the Petey of Scrabble.

[TabletopGamesBlog]

I would make you King any time... really... just ask... I'll do it... no questions asked... well, apart from you asking me to make you King, of course... you know... anyway, another great video. I love your 101 series. :)

[matthewjohnson]

Try playing a 12 hour game of Twilight Imperium and watching one guy kingmake his neighbour for the whole game :(

[quibily]

Interesting! Didn't know about this term. I thought it was going to be the name for a mechanic--like in Checkers when you can double-stack your Checker piece to ... make it more powerful? Not sure. It's been a long time since i've played Checkers.

[chriswalter]

I think Catan has a high King-making risk via the trade mechanism.

[Danschumac]

I'm new to your channel but like your content a lot! Thanks for sharing!

[Johannes_W]

Thanks for the video!
What pops up first is Star Trek: Ascendancy, but I can imagine that most 4X games have kingmaking issues. So far we've played 5 rounds and in 3 there were obvious kingmaking turns. But as it is more an adventure you play together rather than a tough strategy competition I don't find it really problematic.
I thought I would remember more games, but when I look at my collection I don't really see a game with serious issues on that. Of course point salad games with open victory points cann all have the potential for kingmaking turns (as long as there is not an extended end game scoring which doesn't let you count the winner out in advance) - so I guess by hiding the VPs you can abolish it to a certain extend. An example is Small World, which would most likely have kingmaking issues if the VPs were known. So if you want to avoid it and you can just not use the tracks on the board and give players coins or something to put in a cup or whatever.

[fwj]

I think a big solution to king making is to be aware of the type of game it is, and make sure the social contract is in order. What stinks, is someone can go into a game expecting king making and back stabbing...but then 6 hours goes by and you are super invested, so it hurts way worse as an experience to see an anticlimactic unearned finish.
Oddly enough, I think tabletalk helps this, because then everyone can collide and gang up on the leader. If the person being targeted has a problem, they need to be sneakier about their win condition and lay lower. Not much, but it’s the best advice I can give.

[testoftetris]

I feel like most prominent examples of kingmaking are related to turn-order. Tom Lehman has talked a bit about this before with regards to how he designed Race For The Galaxy. When you design the game around simultaneous play, then it really doesn't matter if you happen to sit next to an inexperienced player.

[ethidian]

Can't stand kingmaking, or when a game heavily encourages players to attack the leader or gang up on any individual (best exampled in Risk, Cthulhu Wars, etc.). Btw, is there a better term for "attacking the leader"?

[grandad]

There's other reasons to hate scrabble, like it makes me feel stupid.

[diamondmeeple]

Well, kingmaking does not kick in until its pretty clear a player will not win, and then his/her actions helps one of the runner ups for the win. In such an extent that it helps decide who wins.
I believe you got a misconception about the term... it is NOT all actions which directly/indirectly help another player. He/she don't become a kingmaker until it's pretty clear he/she can't win AND his/her actions can influence who wins.

You talk about a general problem of three player games. If two of the players get in each other way, the third benefits hugely in some games. I agree. Luckily there are some games which work well with three players: Like Biblios, San Marco, The King is Dead, Splendor and Samurai.

I have encountered kingmaking in Catan, Ikusa and Libertalia. But Catan is worst.