Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

A Game of Thrones: The Board Game (Second Edition)» Forums » Variants

Subject: Alternative victory condition rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Dragutin Brigljević
Croatia
flag msg tools
Hi, all

looking for some help since I am having trouble with current way the game ends. All games in which I have participated ended with someone (or even a few players) gave a victory to a weaker house in order to prevent a victory from more powerful player.
If any player does have advantage in a mid game he s surely going to loose at the end since he had made enemies, and half the board won t let him win just for the sake of it. Then some passive house steps in and wins in one round with support of other houses just so that the strong house loose.

This is troubling me since I don t feel good either winning or loosing this way so I'm looking for of a way to change this and any help would be appreciated.

Thanks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seli L
Czech Republic
flag msg tools
Oh well, welcome to the club.

This has already been debated at least in these places, probably more:
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/744511/whatre-we-doing-wrong
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/734668/a-rather-disappointin...
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/732667/questionable-cases-of...

There are some ideas in those discussions, but I'm afraid that (as also some people said in those discussions) this is not a problem with rules but with players. You can try e.g. having a prize for winning so that people always try to win for themselves or you can rank all players instead of ending with 'one winner, rest losers', but there's really nothing that would force them to play that way, and IMO the game stands and falls with players trying or not trying to win themselves. The game's not about making somebody else lose, it's about making yourself win. And then some people would tell you that the game was right the way you players it and the winner is the one who played best by annoying other players the least and thus won by having the best diplomacy (I disagree here, because in my eyes such play ruins the game, but there are people with such opinion).

It all boils down to playing with people who have a similar view on where the fun is when playing the game. So I think your best option is talking to other players about why you don't like the game that way and then they either play better, or you can play with them regardless, or you don't play with them.

I expect the only rule that can fix your problem is "kingmaking is forbidden, nobody is allowed to help somebody else to win", but if it's forced rather than automatic then you'll run into gray areas.

I don't see how any other rule would fix the problem. If the winner is determined by something else on the map, it's the same game. If the winner is the one with most power tokens or units, the winner will be whoever just sits and hoards the stuff. If the winner is the one with the most victorious battles, then the winner can be somebody who's just skirmished the most about something irrelevant. If the winner is voted on by the end of the game, somebody passive wins. And so on. And none of this is proof against the original problem anyway, as all of this depends also on other players' actions and so there's enough room for kingmaking again (e.g. you can try to fix the voting by giving votes based on number of territories/castles/whatever, but with 6 players weak players can again outvote the strongest player).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darren Nakamura
United States
Columbus
Mississippi
flag msg tools
http://www.destructoid.com/author.phtml?a=1364
badge
Darren@destructoid.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Here's a rule that may help the problem.

The player on top is the winner, every other player is a loser. Upon completion of the game, each of the losers must buy the winner a beer (or other comparable item in the case that the winner doesn't want 2-5 beers).

Or you could go with the "Risk Legacy solution."

Keep track of the winners from each game in a fifteen game series. At the end of fifteen games, whoever has the most wins is the supreme winner, and is forever known as a demonstrably better board game player than all of the other players. Maybe let that person Sharpie his name on the board to solidify it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seli L
Czech Republic
flag msg tools
Actually, I probably can think of setting up victory conditions in a way that would solve this problem. Just use victory conditions similar to the ones used in games like Diplomacy or Risk, where you would not win when controlling 7 castles or after 10 turns, but you'd win by dominating the game. It doesn't necessarily have to be last-man-standing, IIRC Diplomacy is won by controlling more than half of the map. That could solve the problem, no time limit would mean that players wouldn't need to give up, and helping somebody else to win would ensure that this somebody will sooner or later beat you into irrelevancy.

Of course, there would be downsides, like player elimination and its consequences, or the game probably needing a lot more time. It would also take away the keeping of the delicate balance.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fractal Energy
United States
Northridge
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think this sort of gameplay is even somewhat thematic. What would you do if you were the head of a big house of Westeros losing the fight for the Iron Throne? I'd throw my weight behind the contender of my preference (may or may not be the person in first) and hope to make amends after the war .
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dragutin Brigljević
Croatia
flag msg tools
Thank you all for your responses.

I love the books and know that this ending may be thematic, and ofcourse I appreciate diplomacy skills of a player who achieves victory this way but metagame that develops is utterly passive, and it makes "Littlefingers" of all the players.
Secondly I don t like that theme destroyes my board game session.

I m considering calculating victory points at the end of every turn and then proclaiming a victor who achives greatest sum at the end of a game. That would, I think, give chance to more aggressive game style as well. I m even considering proclaiming an instant victor if he achives some sum of victory condition at any time.

basically something like this:

big castle - 2 points
small castle - 1 point

Calculate the victory points at the end of each round.
At the end of round 10 victor is a player with highest sum.
If any player achives 50 victory points at any time he is pronounced king.

For further tactical variation I m considering calculating barrels for victory points too since that vould make more areas tacticaly interesting.
Downside to this is that king could be proclaimed who at the time of crowning ownes just 1 castle.

Any thoughts on this?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nacho Facello
Uruguay
Montevideo
Montevideo
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mrki_Zeko1 wrote:
I m considering calculating victory points at the end of every turn and then proclaiming a victor who achives greatest sum at the end of a game. That would, I think, give chance to more aggressive game style as well. I m even considering proclaiming an instant victor if he achives some sum of victory condition at any time.

basically something like this:

big castle - 2 points
small castle - 1 point

Calculate the victory points at the end of each round.
At the end of round 10 victor is a player with highest sum.
If any player achives 50 victory points at any time he is pronounced king.

For further tactical variation I m considering calculating barrels for victory points too since that vould make more areas tacticaly interesting.
Downside to this is that king could be proclaimed who at the time of crowning ownes just 1 castle.

Any thoughts on this?


I think it would discourage attacks, in fact. A passive strategy would mean safer points, while overstretching (which now should be the normal strategy to get to seven) would in the short run give you points but in the long run lose you more.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.