$30.00
Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
55 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » General Gaming

Subject: Is "Multiple Paths to Victory" a meaningful distinction, or clever marketing mojo? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Magic Pink
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Lots of games don't have multiple paths to victory and yes it's a VERY meaningful distinction.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Timothy Young
United States
Ogden
UT
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
gameon39481 wrote:
...a meaningful distinction, or clever marketing mojo?



These are not mutually exclusive.


Edit: To be less obtuse- I feel like the concept of multiple paths to victory does exist and is important for gamers to be aware of. But just because it's legitimate doesn't mean some opportunistic publisher won't make use of the term in a less-than-honest manner.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Thunkd
United States
Florence
MA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In Power Grid you only have one path to victory. Getting power plants and fuel effectively and manipulating turn order is the only way to play the game. In Sid Meier's Civilization you can choose if you want to pursue a tech victory, culture victory, economic victory or military victory.

One game gives you much more flexibility than the other, both in terms of what to pursue and how to pursue it. This is a real and meaningful difference between the games.
19 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel B-G
United Kingdom
Leeds
W Yorks
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Multiple paths to victory is code for competing without competition or interaction. Typically it refers to pre baked strategies left for players to discover.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
that Matt
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
I'm a quitter. I come from a long line of quitters. It's amazing I'm here at all.
badge
I can feel bits of my brain falling away like wet cake.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DAAAN wrote:
Multiple paths to victory is code for competing without competition or interaction.

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Goch
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tumorous wrote:
DAAAN wrote:
Multiple paths to victory is code for competing without competition or interaction.




If there are five equally viable paths to victory in a five player game...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gregg Saruwatari
United States
Arroyo Grande
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think "multiple paths to victory" is being used in a consistent manner here. To me, MPTV means that you can pursue different strategies or endgame conditions in a meaningful way. Chess does not have MPTV because you only win by capturing the King and only need to defend against that to not lose. Pictionary only has one path- the linear game board moving toward the last space. Taboo only has one path- getting points of guessing words. If you try to do anything else in these games, you will lose.

Now take Magic: The Gathering. The standard way to win is by dealing 20 damage to the other player. This is implemented very differently based on spell damage or creature damage. But wait, there's more! Can I build a deck that can win by dealing no damage? I can make a deck that causes the other person to run out of cards. I can win by poisoon counters. I can win by card combinations that cause instant victory. MTG has MPTV.

Another game I enjoy is Race for the Galaxy. It has MPTV because consume/produce, develop, military, 6?, and other synergies can be the winning strategy in a given game.

This is in contrast to games where each turn is a tactical exercise in min/maxing trade value for victory points over x rounds. I haven't played it in a long time, but I think this could loosely relate to your le havre example.
18 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
But the drumbeat strains of the night remain in the rhythm of the newborn day.
United States
Riva
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:
tumorous wrote:
DAAAN wrote:
Multiple paths to victory is code for competing without competition or interaction.




If there are five equally viable paths to victory in a five player game...


    I personally get suspicious of any game that gets this trite phrase attached to it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gregg Saruwatari
United States
Arroyo Grande
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DAAAN wrote:
Multiple paths to victory is code for competing without competition or interaction. Typically it refers to pre baked strategies left for players to discover.


That doesn't make any sense. How do you reconcile that statement with a direct competition wargame where victory can come by land, by air or by sea? Or a Civ game where victory can come by elimination, by culture or technology?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Thunkd
United States
Florence
MA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
gameon39481 wrote:
Thunkd wrote:
In Power Grid you only have one path to victory. Getting power plants and fuel effectively and manipulating turn order is the only way to play the game. In Sid Meier's Civilization you can choose if you want to pursue a tech victory, culture victory, economic victory or military victory.

One game gives you much more flexibility than the other, both in terms of what to pursue and how to pursue it. This is a real and meaningful difference between the games.


Power Grid is a very good example. It suffers a great deal from the lack of map / plant / and resource scarcity variation--as evidence by the many expansions. As such the game is somewhat solvable, in that some plants are ALWAYS better than others, and the price which is reasonable to pay for that plant doesn't really change from one game to a next. If you and your opponents know all these calculations for a given map, you have little choice but to buy an expansion or a different game. The wildcard is if you have players in the game who don't know these calculations, as they will mess up the resource market and change the value of things slightly to which you must accommodate. The game is very fragile to static groups or experienced players in this manner.

Personally I count this type of game in the puzzle category I listed above. Which isn't to say I don't love Power Grid. I do. But it does suffer replayability with experienced players. Just as jigsaw puzzles are fun to do on occasion, but you don't want to do the same one every day. I guess I should have spelled that out more explicitly.
I'd love for you to play my group. As you've solved Power Grid, you should win every time!
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nathan Ehlers
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
I love you!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the distinction you're hitting on is actually the division between tactical and strategic plays. Tactical playing examines a single game state and then one makes the best possible move with respect to the agreed upon victory condition(s). By contrast, strategic playing will involve sets of moves which taken together constituted the best possible super-set of plays (again with respect to the victory condition). "Paths" usually refers to this strategic question. MPtV, then, suggests that there are more than one super-set of moves that can end in success (winning) as opposed to one particular super-set being necessary in most or all examples of a winning script, even if there's minor variations in the subsets contained within the superset.

For example, in a game where any given turn is about point maximization (in a "most points win" scenario) won't have a readily identifiable superset of moves because any given turn iteration within the same interval is indistinguishable from other turn iterations. Or more simply put, I'm doing the same thing (looking for the play that maximizes points) on turn one as I'm doing on turn 10. This is the essence of tactical playing. While in a fair and balanced game, any player can win, all players will win by doing the same essential thing. You can of course replace "points" with cubes or buildings or shipping or whatever the vernacular of a particular example is.

In our other example, the strategic game will have you make seemingly suboptimal moves (with respect to point/victory condition) because the reward for the subset of moves is much greater even if that same seemingly optimal move is repeatable. Consider something like Through the Ages. On turn one can take a card and play it to get 4 direct points (2pts per action used). Instead you can get a worker and put him to use producing resources. This gets you zero points (seemingly suboptimal when the victory condition is most points) yet over the life of the game that worker will return so many resources as to produce many times more than the 2pts per action you initially spent.

Broadly speaking, we like to describe games as having MPtV if they can be played in very different kinds of ways while still resulting in roughly the same competitive ending. It doesn't usually matter what that ending is, though extreme examples of this will have multiple, optional victory conditions in addition to MPtV. People like to debate the viability of a given strategy in comparison to another, but that really gets into the minutia of a given game. In my personal experience, people fall onto a spectrum and enjoy something ranging from complex strategy to complex tactical. I think that's just personal taste (I, myself, prefer intensely strategic games such as Roads and Boats).
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Goch
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thunkd wrote:
gameon39481 wrote:
Thunkd wrote:
In Power Grid you only have one path to victory. Getting power plants and fuel effectively and manipulating turn order is the only way to play the game. In Sid Meier's Civilization you can choose if you want to pursue a tech victory, culture victory, economic victory or military victory.

One game gives you much more flexibility than the other, both in terms of what to pursue and how to pursue it. This is a real and meaningful difference between the games.


Power Grid is a very good example. It suffers a great deal from the lack of map / plant / and resource scarcity variation--as evidence by the many expansions. As such the game is somewhat solvable, in that some plants are ALWAYS better than others, and the price which is reasonable to pay for that plant doesn't really change from one game to a next. If you and your opponents know all these calculations for a given map, you have little choice but to buy an expansion or a different game. The wildcard is if you have players in the game who don't know these calculations, as they will mess up the resource market and change the value of things slightly to which you must accommodate. The game is very fragile to static groups or experienced players in this manner.

Personally I count this type of game in the puzzle category I listed above. Which isn't to say I don't love Power Grid. I do. But it does suffer replayability with experienced players. Just as jigsaw puzzles are fun to do on occasion, but you don't want to do the same one every day. I guess I should have spelled that out more explicitly.
I'd love for you to play my group. As you've solved Power Grid, you should win every time!


Seriously. The relative value of the power plants depends heavily on the order in which they come out and how much competition exists for the related resource. There are no fixed values for the power plants even if some are (more or less) better than others.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrés Santiago Pérez-Bergquist
United States
Mountain View
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As many others have noted, Power Grid is the go-to example of one path to victory. You win by bidding for plants efficiently, buying fuel cheaply, and managing your buildout to remain right at the sweet spot. That's not to say that winning is easy. It's a mentally-taxing game of optimization that is highly dependent on player skill, but you're all trying to do same thing, just better than the other players.

By contrast, take a game like Puerto Rico, where it's immediately obvious that there's two major categories of winning strategies. You can focus on producing lots of cheap crops, mostly corn, then shipping it for victory points, or you can focus on producing fewer, more expensive crops, selling them for money, and using that to build buildings that grant victory points. A winner will likely make use of the two different strategies in some combination, but you can play very different games and still win.

Some games even make this explicit, like Chaos in the Old World, where you can win either via victory points by focusing on board domination or by advancing your dial via focusing on your faction's unique advancement condition. There's also my poster child for alternate victory conditions, Liberté, where if you fall behind in the main race for victory points via winning elections, you can end the game via two alternate win conditions, either via getting the royalists to control certain key provinces or by getting a radical landslide in the election.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kyle
Canada
Toronto
flag msg tools
Show me something that beats a natural 20 and I'll show you hateful lies.
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There seems to be confusion between multiple paths to victory and multiple victory conditions. You do not require multiple victory conditions to have multiple victory paths. Any game with decent tactical play can claseify as multiple paths, and any game with it's salt will not put you in lock step. So yes, it is merely marketing bs.

To refute above, just because chess ends in check mate, does not mean it does not have multiple paths to victory, it merely ends at the same point, regardless of path taken, just like any game that is score the most points. Race for the galaxy, your counter example, ends with the most points (and chess can be argued first to score a point wins) therefore they have the exact same victory condition.

TL;DR yes, it is marketing fluff, no game worth playing has a single viable strategy regardless of number of win conditions.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kyle
Canada
Toronto
flag msg tools
Show me something that beats a natural 20 and I'll show you hateful lies.
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
gameon39481 wrote:


sirgalin wrote:
In our other example, the strategic game will have you make seemingly suboptimal moves (with respect to point/victory condition) because the reward for the subset of moves is much greater even if that same seemingly optimal move is repeatable. Consider something like Through the Ages. On turn one can take a card and play it to get 4 direct points (2pts per action used). Instead you can get a worker and put him to use producing resources. This gets you zero points (seemingly suboptimal when the victory condition is most points) yet over the life of the game that worker will return so many resources as to produce many times more than the 2pts per action you initially spent.


Hmm, that seems like a pretty obvious choice to me and not terribly unintuitive. How is that different from tactics? Aren't you just choosing the best choice from the current game state? It seems like the better choice from the information you gave (investing in engine rather than quick points if the end game is still far away).


Sounds like standard point salads, which I ironically find to have the real choices as they are literally point crunchers. They are also some of the most guilty of being more solitaire experiences, with less tactical play and are summed up by 'make the best move'.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gregg Saruwatari
United States
Arroyo Grande
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
gameon39481 wrote:
GrimThunderbrew wrote:
I don't think "multiple paths to victory" is being used in a consistent manner here. To me, MPTV means that you can pursue different strategies or endgame conditions in a meaningful way. Chess does not have MPTV because you only win by capturing the King and only need to defend against that to not lose. Pictionary only has one path- the linear game board moving toward the last space. Taboo only has one path- getting points of guessing words. If you try to do anything else in these games, you will lose.


First off, thank you, Gregg, for including some explanation and examples. Chess is actually not won by capturing the King, it is won by checkmating the King. And if some bursting-with-the-excitement-of-a-secret-to-tell 8-year old came up and said: "Psst! I know the secret to winning Chess. ...Checkmate!" we would all probably chuckle knowingly. Well, yes, that's true. But did you checkmate them with only queen and king (running them down to a nearly empty board). Or did you checkmate them with a queen backed by a bishop in the famous 3-move-checkmate? Did you checkmate them with a single protected knight, letting their own clumped-up-ness be their downfall. Or did you checkmate them with two rooks because they were too wide open? Did you run them around in and out of check for 10+ moves laughing sadistically? Did you check them early so they couldn't castle? Did you castle? Did you gambit any pieces for positions? It's hardly one strategy, or one path to victory--they are nearly endless.

GrimThunderbrew wrote:
Now take Magic: The Gathering. The standard way to win is by dealing 20 damage to the other player. This is implemented very differently based on spell damage or creature damage. But wait, there's more! Can I build a deck that can win by dealing no damage? I can make a deck that causes the other person to run out of cards. I can win by poisoon counters. I can win by card combinations that cause instant victory. MTG has MPTV.


So one possible definition is MPTV == multiple victory conditions? For example card games where you win by playing all your cards first OR having the least amount of cards at the end of the game? It seems like those definitions are very different.


Multiple end game conditions and multiple victory conditions can help a game have more paths to victory, but are not necessary. Nathan kinda said what I was considering saying about tactical and strategic play. You are correct about Chess being a strategic game and not meshing with my argument completely. It is true that you don't win chess by making the seemingly optimal move every turn. However, pictionary and Taboo advance you toward victory at a constant rate by achieving the same activity.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Blumentritt
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
So one possible definition is MPTV == multiple victory conditions?


That's how I tend to define it, but I have to see a real distinction between these "multiple victory conditions" that aren't just slight variations on the same thing.

E.g. If you win by:
1) Having the most VP at the end of the game.
2) Hitting 100 VP at any point in the game.
3) Having a 20 VP lead over the 2nd-place guy at any point.

To me, that's not multiple paths to victory, even though it is technically multiple ways to win.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Goch
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I usually see the "multiple paths to victory" tag stuck onto VP salad games with multiple action types that can be specialized in. Engine building and so called economic snowball games with a few different paths for converting resources into resources into points. Whoever builds the most efficient engine wins. If two or more players choose the same "path" they lose.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
L S
Germany
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
gameon39481 wrote:
It just seems somewhat ridiculous to me. Are gamers really so gullible? Somehow a game where you can "construct buildings" for 1 to 3 points or "go to war" for 1 to 3 points each turn has multiple paths to victory, but a game where you can only "gain points" for 1 to 3 points each turn doesn't?

While I agree that "multiple paths to victory" has also become marketing jargon, I'd claim that it's actually the other way around: If a game offers multiple paths to victory, such as "buildings" and "war" in your example, then there must be a neutral medium (victory points) that allows for a meaningful comparison of progress on each respective path. As long as "buildings" and "war" cannot be converted into each other directly but only through a third category that abstracts from their distinctive properties, the paths are not simply permutations of the same mechanic. Additionally, the most positive examples of MPTV done right that come to mind include mechanics that put conversion rates and end conditions themselves at stake during the game.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Derek Carver
United Kingdom
Cobham
Surrey, UK
flag msg tools
designer
Re: Is "Multiple Paths to Victory" a meaningful distinction
Whilst the posed question in the original posting can be approached from different perspectives this is a boardgaming group and for us the phrase has a specific and well understood meaning.

A week ago I was taught a game. In it I progresed my pieces through the board until the end acquiring points along the way.

My opponent on the other hand didn't bother with that. He played a completely different game making no attempt to get to the end but instead spent his time collecting end of game bonus cards, which I hadn't bothered with at all.

The result was close. He beat me by 2 points.

These were not 'multiple' but we two alternative 'paths to victory' and that is what we understand by the phrase and is how it should be used.

Alternative 'strategies' to victory on the other hand - well that's something different.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gregg Saruwatari
United States
Arroyo Grande
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
gameon39481 wrote:
GrimThunderbrew wrote:
gameon39481 wrote:
GrimThunderbrew wrote:
I don't think "multiple paths to victory" is being used in a consistent manner here. To me, MPTV means that you can pursue different strategies or endgame conditions in a meaningful way. Chess does not have MPTV because you only win by capturing the King and only need to defend against that to not lose. Pictionary only has one path- the linear game board moving toward the last space. Taboo only has one path- getting points of guessing words. If you try to do anything else in these games, you will lose.


First off, thank you, Gregg, for including some explanation and examples. Chess is actually not won by capturing the King, it is won by checkmating the King. And if some bursting-with-the-excitement-of-a-secret-to-tell 8-year old came up and said: "Psst! I know the secret to winning Chess. ...Checkmate!" we would all probably chuckle knowingly. Well, yes, that's true. But did you checkmate them with only queen and king (running them down to a nearly empty board). Or did you checkmate them with a queen backed by a bishop in the famous 3-move-checkmate? Did you checkmate them with a single protected knight, letting their own clumped-up-ness be their downfall. Or did you checkmate them with two rooks because they were too wide open? Did you run them around in and out of check for 10+ moves laughing sadistically? Did you check them early so they couldn't castle? Did you castle? Did you gambit any pieces for positions? It's hardly one strategy, or one path to victory--they are nearly endless.

GrimThunderbrew wrote:
Now take Magic: The Gathering. The standard way to win is by dealing 20 damage to the other player. This is implemented very differently based on spell damage or creature damage. But wait, there's more! Can I build a deck that can win by dealing no damage? I can make a deck that causes the other person to run out of cards. I can win by poisoon counters. I can win by card combinations that cause instant victory. MTG has MPTV.


So one possible definition is MPTV == multiple victory conditions? For example card games where you win by playing all your cards first OR having the least amount of cards at the end of the game? It seems like those definitions are very different.


Multiple end game conditions and multiple victory conditions can help a game have more paths to victory, but are not necessary. Nathan kinda said what I was considering saying about tactical and strategic play. You are correct about Chess being a strategic game and not meshing with my argument completely. It is true that you don't win chess by making the seemingly optimal move every turn. However, pictionary and Taboo advance you toward victory at a constant rate by achieving the same activity.


Pictionary is probably my favorite party game. But say the word is "handstand". You might draw a person performing a handstand. You might draw instead a hand first, and then next to it a sheet music stand. Isn't this multiple paths to victory?

Similarly in Taboo. You might give personal clues because of your relationship to the team members guessing. "First grade homeroom teacher..."--"Mustache!" Or you might give pop culture clues: "Hit me with your best ____"--"shot!" Or you might try for erudite or sophisticated words they didn't think to put on the card: "Octogenarian Domicile"--"Elderly home?" Aren't these multiple paths to victory?

I mean, I don't think either of these games would advertise as having multiple paths to victory. I don't think the audience of these games care. But it seems like euro-gamers really care about this. And yet I can't really find any eurogames which don't have many many many paths to victory. More surprisingly, it seems like those that advertise it, seem to have less than the others...


You drew a clue that someone else guessed. You got one point or roll for it. If you are not good at drawing clues that other people guess, you have no other options. That is not MPTV. That is simply different actions to achieve the same effect. If I play a game where I can go to the forest to get 1 point, or I can go to the town to get one point, that is not MPTV. But that is analogous to your pictionary and taboo anecdote.

I am not here to argue about games that advertise MPTV and the correlation to how good they are. All genre's of games have bad game examples and many have good game examples. Many of the games that advertise MPTV may very well be liars. But MPTV is a real thing.

Euro gamer's don't really care about MPTV. Look at the enormous amounts of "get stuff, trade for points" games. Many MPTV games have engine building since "greater than the sum of its parts is a good way to offer alternative ways of playing compared to tactical point getting each turn. However, like you pointed out in Chess, engine building is not required to have 10 lesser moves create a victory condition over 10 "optimal at the time" moves.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Chiriboga
United States
Oviedo
FL
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
You say chess has multiple paths to victory because you'll make different moves every game. But that's generally not what people mean when they say that. By their definition, chess might have multiple paths to victory if you could win by either a) checkmating your opponents, b) moving your king to the other side, or c) moving at least 4 of your pawns to the other side.

The multiple paths are more distinguished than what you're saying.

(As a caveat (who am I, Healey?), I have only read the first post)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Smith
Canada
Halifax
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
For me it's simple. "Multiple Paths to Victory" means multiple strategies are possible that all have reasonable chances of victory.

Chess and Puerto Rico are good examples. I played a lot of chess against a buddy of mine in Calgary. His usual strategy was to try to win material, often just a pawn, and then simplify like crazy until the 1 pawn advantage produced a winning endgame, usually promoting a pawn to a queen. That's not the only viable strategy of course. You could try to set up a winning attack on your opponent's king in the middle game, or you could try to force your opponent into a small space and prevent them from making any productive moves while you slowly improve your position leading to winning significant material. There are others.

In Puerto Rico there are 2 main strategies as were already mentioned - lots of buildings and lots of shipping. I've seen either strategy win, it depends on how well a player implemented that strategy, and how well the other players disrupted it.

The point is that unless a strategy is viable, it isn't a path to victory. A game could have 5 different victory conditions, but if one of them is much easier to achieve, then the game might only have one path to victory. Unless there were multiple strategies that could be used to achieve the one viable victory condition.

Cheers!

Chris
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keith Doyle
United States
Modesto
California
flag msg tools
mb
Randombias wrote:

While I agree that "multiple paths to victory" has also become marketing jargon, I'd claim that it's actually the other way around: If a game offers multiple paths to victory, such as "buildings" and "war" in your example, then there must be a neutral medium (victory points) that allows for a meaningful comparison of progress on each respective path. As long as "buildings" and "war" cannot be converted into each other directly but only through a third category that abstracts from their distinctive properties, the paths are not simply permutations of the same mechanic. Additionally, the most positive examples of MPTV done right that come to mind include mechanics that put conversion rates and end conditions themselves at stake during the game.



Yes, MPTV is not equivalent to multiple end-game conditions, though the latter might imply the former, I don't think the former is necessarily dependent on the latter...

--

Zebo
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keith Doyle
United States
Modesto
California
flag msg tools
mb
ChrisSmith4773 wrote:
For me it's simple. "Multiple Paths to Victory" means multiple strategies are possible that all have reasonable chances of victory.


Yes, this is a definition that works for me. And I would agree that it likely applies to a lot of games-- maybe even most games, and maybe too many for it to be a useful term I suppose...

But I would caution about your "viability" criteria-- what's viable may very well depend on how good your opponent is at the game. A really lame Chess strategy that no half-decent chess player would fall for might be perfectly "viable" on a newbie.

You may be trying to add a condition like, "there are multiple strategies that would work against opponent X, if opponent X were to play the same opposing strategy against all of them." But I think that's a bit too restrictive. Still, I understand the desire to make the term more meaningful, but-- good luck with that, it appears to have become marketspeak at this point...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.