Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
39 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » General Gaming

Subject: What is kingmaking? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Alex Carr
United States
Reno
Nevada
flag msg tools
A fellow gamer and I discussed this very topic. I wonder what the Geek populace defines it as?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
mb
In broad terms kingmaking is defined as a game situation in which a player that has no chance to win will nonetheless choose which player does win through his actions - usually knowingly.

-MMM
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Grundy
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I always thought
a) this was the general term for a person behind the scenes who puts someone "on the throne" (no toilet humour please)
b) wrt games, I usually hear this term when a player who can't or won't win gets to effectively make the choice as to which other player wins. Especially if the "kingmaker" player's position (eg 3rd) will be unaffected by their choice. Also especially when the choice comes down to a single obvious game decision by the kingmaker player which sets the outcome.

Games which put players in this position seem to leave a little bit of a sour taste for many gamers.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M. Shanmugasundaram
United States
Sunnyvale
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, I looked it up, and found that the RPG.net wiki definition was pretty much the same as my instinctive definition.

In summary, "Although I cannot win, my actions determine who will."

From RPG.net wiki:
Kingmaker problem
A problem arising in game design - typically board or card games - whereby it is possible for a player who themselves has no chance of winning, to decide which other player will win. A typical case is a game in which an eliminated player is required to give all their resources to the player who eliminated them; in a game with two evenly-matched players and one who is behind, the trailing player can often choose which other player is able to eliminate them and gain their resources. A further common case is auction games, where a player can bid unnecessarily high and not only lose the game for themselves but give a permanent advantage to the player who recieved the bid resources. This is a problem because a kingmaking player, having no possibility of winning the game, no longer has any value for in-game resources; thus, their decision as to who to enable to win must be made via other factors, such as out-of-game grudges or friendships, or "revenge" for actions in earlier play (which can stagnate the game as players become reticient to attack each other for fear of revenge later on).

http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/RPG_Lexica:JKL
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
BotD wrote:
A fellow gamer and I discussed this very topic. I wonder what the Geek populace defines it as?


There are two forms of kingmaking, one offensive and one quite ignorable:

1) (the objectionable form) A player move in a game which hands the victory to a specific player when other players are still in contention, for reasons of malice, idiocy or simple inattentiveness. This is the case of the single player letting down the whole game and the rest of the players, and if a continued practice is fair reason to evict/ban people from play groups or to refuse to play with them.

2) A player move which maximises that player's ranking position in the game while also determining which other player will win the game (may also determine relative ranking for other players). Many games of compleat or near-compleat information with significant screwage capacity suffer from this second case to some degree, and while the players can recognise this and with good play minimise it, it is largely unavoidable in an absolute sense.

Note: some people feel that playing for maximal ranking after first is determined is gauche, and that play should continue until the winner is determined and then end immediately. The intimation is that there is a winner and a set of losers, that that is all that need be known. There is also an argument that players should play (only) for maximal score rather than maximal ranking. This latter view doesn't make sense to me given the basic logic of maximal relative delta being assumed and required in all prior portions of the game.

This of course leads to the second conclusion from #2: Kingmaking in that case, such as it is, is the fault and responsibility of the players. The kingmaking situation was developed and created by the players themselves, and they should admit and take responsibility for that. I like this viewpoint, especially as it applies to the various forms of equilibria in games: it is the making of those astable balances near the end of the game that typically creates a kingmaking situation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin H
Canada
Windsor
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
clearclaw wrote:
1) (the objectionable form) A player move in a game which hands the victory to a specific player when other players are still in contention, for reasons of malice, idiocy or simple inattentiveness. This is the case of the single player letting down the whole game and the rest of the players, and if a continued practice is fair reason to evict/ban people from play groups or to refuse to play with them.


Often this occurs when a player decides late in the game, not to "bash the leader".

They can bash the leader...they should bash the leader...if they don't the leader will win and the game will be over. And there is absolutely no benefit to the person in not bashing the leader.

This happened to me in a game of Settlers. An idiot ex-friend of mine's buddy was about to win the game on his next turn. I was very close to winning as well. My friend was waaaaay behind. So on my ex-friend's turn, he rolls a 7. He could have chosen to place the robber on his buddy (the leader), and steal a card from him. If he did this and happened to pick one particular resource, then the leader would not yet win and play would continue.

Instead of course, he places his robber on me.

It's called playing favourites. There's not really a point in wasting an hour of your day if people are going to be cliquey and choose each other to win regardless of play.

Then there's the old, "Here you can have all of my cards/resources", like you'll often see in Monopoly or any game with trading.

Sickening...yuk

So really the gamer code is 2-fold:

1.) Do everything in your power to win the game...for yourself...

2.) If a leader will very soon win the game if nothing is done to stop him...bash him, bash him, bash him.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
MontyCircus wrote:
So really the gamer code is 2-fold:

1.) Do everything in your power to win the game...for yourself...

2.) If a leader will very soon win the game if nothing is done to stop him...bash him, bash him, bash him.


From my gamer's perspective:

1) The only things to be imported to a game are the player's abilities and the only things exported are the results. Each new game is a blank slate.

2) Always maximise your ranking, maximise your delta from the players behind you and minimise your delta from the players ahead of you. This is the definition of "playing to win".

3) There is nothing that is off-limits within the game in the attempt to win. It is your obligation and duty as a player to exploit that fact without restraint.

4) Everything in every game is personal, but only until the game ends. Then there is nothing but the results and the blank slate begins anew.

5) Opposing players are your mortal enemies: They are following the above rules as well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
MontyCircus wrote:
There's not really a point in wasting an hour of your day if people are going to be cliquey and choose each other to win regardless of play.


Sheesh! This may sound crazy, but if I spend an hour having fun playing a game, that hour won't be wasted just because I happen to lose.

Senator (/game/12296) often ends in a kingmaking situation, but that doesn't bother me at all because it's so much fun to play. So you got to choose whether I or the other guy wins, and you chose the other guy? Heh heh heh. I still did pretty well then, didn't I.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Von Ahnen
United States
Dallas
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I thought it was when you got your checker to the last row.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Yehuda Berlinger
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
See my answer here: http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/Ethics1.shtml, under Kingmaking .

Yehuda
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Malme
United Kingdom
Peterborough
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I seem to be in a minority here, bit I believe that kingmaking is not always something to be ashamed of.

If you are kingmaking for reasons outside of the game (friendships etc), then I would tend to agree that this can be a bad thing.

But consider this strategy. Player A is in a weak position, and Players B, C and D are more or less equal to each other. B is in a position that he can soon eliminate A from the game completely, but A warns him that if he attacks him, he will use his last couple of moves to assist either C or D; whereas if B assists A, he will work with him against the others.

B attacks nonetheless, so what does A do? Unless A is willing to go through with his threat and kingmake one of the other players, his threat is an empty bluff that has been called by B. A's only option is to see it through and punish B for attacking him, even if this gives the game to someone else.

Being in the weakest position, A's only power is the threat of kingmaking.

Chris
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Brosius
United States
Needham Heights
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
As you imply, in many people's view kingmaking is not objectionable when it occurs in a strongly diplomatic game like (for example) Diplomacy. JC is correct to say that if the reason for kingmaking comes into the game from outside (e.g., a person deliberately hands the win to an opponent simply because that opponent is his or her spouse,) almost everyone would condemn it.

On the other hand, if your Austria has attacked my Italy, I see no reason not to take you down if I can't win the game myself. In fact, the threat to take you down and the initial stages of actually trying to do it could turn the game around for me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walking on eggshells is not my style
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
It is my opinion that a given player should play to maximize his own score. If by doing that another player benefits, so be it.

Unfortunately there are too many players who, if they don't win, don't care. It doesn't matter to them if they finish 4th, 3rd, or 2nd, if they can't win they pout and play simply to favor one player over the other.

It is my working theory that such players are generally poor losers and are just trying to exert some control over the game so that they still feel as if they were important to the outcome.

King Making is only an issue for me when a player is playing with the goal of favoring one player over the other. I would not classify revenge for a clever backstabbing within the scope of a game as king making.

For example: if another player makes a promise to take a certain action and doesn't, it would not be king making to do a suicide run against him in my book. That would simply be an expected repercussion of the backstab. The backstabber should have calculated his move a little better and been sure that the person being backstabbed couldn't get you back.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Grundy
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
...It is my working theory that such players are generally poor losers and are just trying to exert some control over the game so that they still feel as if they were important to the outcome.

King Making is only an issue for me when a player is playing with the goal of favoring one player over the other. I would not classify revenge for a clever backstabbing within the scope of a game as king making.

99% agree.

Certainly I always play simply to optimise my own rank. Many's the time when a hopeless case became, well, hopeful again as a result.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
marc lecours
Canada
ottawa
ontario
flag msg tools
mbmb
1. The kingmaking problem only occurs in multiplayer games.
2. It starts the moment one or more players have absolutelly no more prospect of winning and more than one player still have a chance of winning.
3. Until that point all players are assumed to be playing in such a way to help their own case and win.
4. In a sense, games where the kingmaking situation occurs are broken from that point on, unless, like in "Diplomacy", kingmaking and revenge are an integral part of the game.
5. Hidden points help a little, but in theory the players can still keep track of the points in their head unless the points are truly unknown (example: Secret tickets in "Ticket to Ride" make for an unknown score.On the other hand in a game like Puerto Rico, the endgame is a bit broken because a player who is out of it chooses a captain instead of a builder to maximize his score and by doing that chooses which of two other players wins.)
6. I will repeat: games where a kingmaking situation occurs regularly AND leaves bad feelings amongst some of the players, have essentially a broken endgame (games should finish pleasantly in my opinion since gaming should be about having fun and making friends.)

The solution:
1. Accept kingmaking as part of the game.

or

2. Have a generally accepted etiquette for deciding player's startegy and tactics after the kingmaking point has been reached.

Unfortunately this is not easy to achieve. In the above posts, players have shown that they have very diverse ideas of what constitutes proper etiquette to avoid being labelled a kingmaker.
1. If I continue to maximize my score til the end of the game, then I will be labelled a kingmaker by some.
2. If I ignore my score and go all out against the perceived leader then I will be labelled a kingmaker by others.
3. If I misjuge who is the leader then I will be labelled a kingmaker or a fool.
4.If I play the way the historical nation would have, then I am labelled a kingmaker.
5. If I do nothing then I am labelled a kingmaker.
6. If I continue to play the way I was earlier in the game so as not to change the character of the game, then I am also labelled a kingmaker.

There are also some metagame strategies I could adopt:
1. revenge on the person who hurt my chances the most. In a sense that player was kingmaking by screwing my chances badly. If that player hurt me without having improved his own position then that player was guilty of kingmaking in the early game.
2. trying to end the game quickly. This involves helping whoever is ahead. This is justifiable in multiplayer wargames sinces historically weak powers have helped strong powers.
3. trying to prolong the game. This will happen in games where the process of the game is enjoyable whether you win or lose. This involves playing to maintain a balance of power between the leaders.
4. Helping a friend. This happens a lot when parents help young children get ahead of other adults. Sometime a player will help a spouse (but not always!)
5. Helping the weaker player defeat a player who almost "always" wins.
6. In a tournament or multigame situation, hurting a player who is a more serious threat to your chances in the overall tournament.

If you leave metagame and revenge considerations out of the equation then there are two basic philosophies:
1. Not only is winning important, but your overall finishing position as well. After you are out, you continue to maximize your score and play as well for yourself as possible. You know that you are out of it, but you continue playing in the spirit of the game as if your score mattered. This is a good philosophy to keep the playing field level. Your contribution to the equilibrium of the game continues in a similar way to the earlier part of the game. At the end of the game you take pride in the fact that, at least you did not finish last. Also you take pride in the fact that your position was not sacrificed to do some leader bashing. After all the player in second place never sacrifices his position to bash the leader. The player in second place complains that by your inaction, the leader was handed the game on a plate.
2. Winning is important and finishing in any other position is equivalent. In most games there is a winner, and we presume that all the others are equal losers. Therefore once you are out of the running to win you should maximize the length of the game. The idea is that maybe, just maybe, if everyone concentrates on holding back the leader (and the player in second place a little also) you might have your time in the sun again. This leads to exciting finishes. All the players ganging up on the leader and suddenly the player who was in second place takes the lead. Then alliances shift and everyone gangs up on the new leader. Eventually someone wins. Fun and exciting ending. The initial leader is a little pissed off that all his work in the early game counts for less than how the alliances shaped up in the end game.

I think that the kingmaking problem is not easy to solve. The best place to solve it is to avoid designing games where the situation arises. Some games have more kingmaking postential than others.(I am thinking of "Attika" where a player is about to make a connection between temples and the leader in tile placement is angry that you did not sacrifice you position to block). Solutions:
1. In some games even if you gang up on the leader you can't hold him back a whole lot.(In a 3 player game of 7 Ages we find that empires are reasonably robust. It takes many turns to make a dent in the leaders position. One empire can be hurt, but another starts up)
2. In some games there are some unknown random victory points.(Ticket to Ride)
3. In some games weak players can team up with the leaders to claim victory. (In emperor of china, there is a possibility of becoming part of a team when you get conquered. Thereby claiming a part of the victory)
4. In some games kingmaking is tolerated and is sort of part of the game.(Diplomacy)
5. In some games, alliances are restricted (struggle of empires)
6. In some games, multiple players can win (shadows of camelot)
7. The most common solution is to keep all players in the running until the very last turn. What usually happens is that the better player has a 60% chance of winning by the end of the game, the next player a 30 % chance of winning and the last player a 10 % chance of winning. The better player is rewarded by having a better chance of winning. But no one is ever completely out. (ex: Can't stop. Someone way behind can be lucky and climb the 2,3 and 12 mountain all on one turn)

There are certainly other solutions. But some games regularly get more complaints about how 3rd players affect the results of the game (ruining the game experience. Probably the games I hear this about the most are Puerto Rico and Attika, but there are certainly others)


2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Irving
United States
Salinas
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
kuhrusty wrote:
MontyCircus wrote:
There's not really a point in wasting an hour of your day if people are going to be cliquey and choose each other to win regardless of play.


Sheesh! This may sound crazy, but if I spend an hour having fun playing a game, that hour won't be wasted just because I happen to lose.


No, randy, that's not what it is about.

No matter what the "touchy-feely crowd" says, games are about competiton. Everyone is striving for, and giving their best effort for, the win.

What a kingmaker does is no longer strive for the win--but decides which other player does. He or she is breaking the implicit social contract of the game (everyone trying their best to win) and letting down the other players in the game.

Giving your best effort and losing is perfectly OK. Not giving your best and giving the game to someone else (even me) disgusts me. The crowned winner knows his win wasn't earned. The uncrowned (not-)winner knows it was taken from him for no ther reason than spite.

Quote:
Senator (/game/12296) often ends in a kingmaking situation, but that doesn't bother me at all because it's so much fun to play. So you got to choose whether I or the other guy wins, and you chose the other guy? Heh heh heh. I still did pretty well then, didn't I.


Senator is a mediocre game because it likely ends in a kingmaker situation. Ever wonder why its rating is so low?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bernard Donohue
United States
Newark
California
flag msg tools
Kneel puny Doomtrooper before the might of the Ezoghoul!
mbmbmbmbmb
I was wondering, how many people that are pro-kingmaking (or generally ambivalent about it) have found themselves on the recieving end of it? How many people that are anti-kingmaking find themselves in last place frequently? In other words, how often do you find yourself in the position of having to live by the guidelines you propose?

In my game group I tend to be one of the leaders usually, and hence have the most to lose from the guy in last position deciding to concentrate his efforts on stopping me, specifically, from winning.

It gets annoying to hear it stated blatantly. "Well, as long as Bernard doesn't win, I'll have fulfilled my objective in the game".

During a game of Roborally, I had one player station themselves at the last flag for the express purpose of keeping me from tagging it. They managed to hold me off for 4 rounds, as the other players closed in on my huge lead.

On the other hand, I can understand where they're coming from. There's no chance of them winning. They aren't at all a contender. For them kingmaking is a way of staying involved in the game. I don't like it, but I understand it.

Besides, if I still manage to win despite the concerted efforts of a kingmaker (as I did in that game of Roborally), it really is the sweetest victory.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harald Torvatn
Norway
Trondheim
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
rubberchicken wrote:
1. The kingmaking problem only occurs in multiplayer games.
2. It starts the moment one or more players have absolutelly no more prospect of winning and more than one player still have a chance of winning.
3. Until that point all players are assumed to be playing in such a way to help their own case and win.
4. In a sense, games where the kingmaking situation occurs are broken from that point on, unless, like in "Diplomacy", kingmaking and revenge are an integral part of the game.
5. Hidden points help a little, but in theory the players can still keep track of the points in their head unless the points are truly unknown (example: Secret tickets in "Ticket to Ride" make for an unknown score.On the other hand in a game like Puerto Rico, the endgame is a bit broken because a player who is out of it chooses a captain instead of a builder to maximize his score and by doing that chooses which of two other players wins.)
6. I will repeat: games where a kingmaking situation occurs regularly AND leaves bad feelings amongst some of the players, have essentially a broken endgame (games should finish pleasantly in my opinion since gaming should be about having fun and making friends.)




An interesting point is that the point kingmaking starts depends on the players attitude to leader bashing: in some situations, it may be possible for a player in a poor position to win if the leader is bashed, but not if he is not.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hunga Dunga
Canada
Maple Ridge
British Columbia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
But some games regularly get more complaints about how 3rd players affect the results of the game

Someone (with more knowledge than myself!) should put together a geeklist of "kingmaker-worst" and "kingmaker-best" games.

Rubberchicken's comment here has got to be one of the best comments I've read on this site.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ray
United States
Carpentersville
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kingmaking is a powerful tool available in interactive games whereby one player can help another player to achieve victory.

There's a controversial saying that says "guns don't kill people, people do". So too is this issue true about kingmaking: its just a tool that works best when not used, but threatened to be used. Some folks know how to use it diplomatically, don't want to use it, but threaten to use it. Others don't even know what it is and what it does and may use it by accident. Finally there's the people that use it every time they are not winning who have yet to realize its best strength is in not using it, but threatening too.

If you knock someone out of a leading position expect them to help another player more than you (the person that knocked them down). So how does one win against grudge holding players? If you take the lead have it strong enough to survive this. If you can't (and again we are talking interactive or attack the leader games here) consider not holding the lead until the final stretch when you bring out your reserve resources to jump into first place. Of course this introduces the issue with attacking the person who's not highest score in the game because they may hold the resources to put them into a leading position. It's out guessing, it's chaotic, but it's more diverse than crunching the numbers to win a multiplayer solitaire game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ray
United States
Carpentersville
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
But the most upset cry people are the kids that grow up playing video games. They are use to there being no consequences of what they do and get upset when there are consequences. They expect their fellow players to act like AIs robot and not feign/hold a grudge when they do something harmful just for the sake of getting the best score at the moment to them in a position in a game. They don't know how to negotiate an alliance before taking harmful action against other players and they hate kingmaking without understanding its subtleties. They fear (and thus hate) chaos and that which they can't control. They are so predictable. devillaugh
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pedro
Portugal
Lisbon
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think a couple of points are being missed in this discussion:

- Kingmaking can be involuntary, because there are games where the player with the weakest score will be forced to choose the winner between 2 better positioned players. It's that situation where if you bash the leader, the guy in 2nd place will win but if you don't, the leader will take the victory. I've been in this situation myself, had to make the choice, and then took the flak for "giving him the victory"...
- In some games, smart players will use threat of kingmaking to their advantage. I won countless settlers games, holding back until the near end of the game (and calling for leader bashing from everyone, "because if we don't attack him, he'll win"), and then taking victory at the last moment with a well planned move. I think the ability to do this in some games is also a part of what distinguishes a good player from an average one.

So, in my opinion the only rule should be that everybody tries to win the game or, if that's not possible, to maximize his/hers score. If everybody does that, I don't mind if someone's move will benefit another player, even if that means I'll loose the game.

The only thing I don't like is the "I'll make you win, not because I'll do better, but because I like you" syndrome...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nigel Buckle
United Kingdom
Thornton Heath
Croydon
flag msg tools
designer
Omega Centauri
badge
Published in 2014
mbmbmbmbmb
There's also the 'grudge' effect which carries over from game to game.

"you backstabbed me in the game last night, so tonight (once it's clear I'm not going to win this game) I'm gonna pay you back" (ie. spend the rest of the game ensuring you don't win, sort of bash the leader but instead it's bash you).

Or you might be fortunate enough to have the sort of gamer who just likes picking on someone for the reaction, so every game they have their own secret objective 'annoy the hell out of X' rather than win the game. End of the game if X is annoyed as hell they consider that they've won. shake

What to do if you have these types of gamers in your group? Err, educate them, find another group or maybe just play diplomacy all the time
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Stimson
United States
Menomonee Falls
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'd say "Kingmaking" is not a problem in general. In fact all good games have "Kingmaker" situations, if your choices don't matter, then the game isn't much of a game. So if you regard having to choose a winner from time to time as a sign of a game being "broken" then there is something wrong with you.

To me "kingmaker issues" is a sign of a good game.

I've won and lost 100s of game for various reasons stated by a kingmaker, in the end the reason doesn't matter.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Carr
United States
Reno
Nevada
flag msg tools
Jumping back in, our main point of dispute revolved around the possibility of an unintentional kingmaking. That is, if a player plays weakly and in doing so hands the game to a player. From most of the definitions proffered above, I would say no.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  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.