Why Free For All Multiplayer is Cursed

An Indie Dev and a AAA Dev discuss Kingmaking and how it can ruin free-for-all multiplayer games.
Hosts:
Forrest Imel
forrestimel.com/
Gavin Gray Valentine
www.ggvart.com/
Join the Distraction Makers Discord: / discord

[@trixmtll1393]

To help solve this kingmaking issue, you have to introduce mechanics that reward altruistic actions. And mechanics that punish inactivity.

[@draftmagicagain1000]

Can you give me an example of altruistic action in a game where your objective is to terminate all the other players? (I’m not trying to be smug, I’m really just asking for examples). Good comment.

[@trixmtll1393]

@@draftmagicagain1000 thats too complex to elaborate for free

[@solsystem1342]

​​@@draftmagicagain1000 Diplomacy is a good example. For most of the game the only way to not be losing centers is have at least one other player working with you (it's also frequently the only way to make progress against your opponent(s)). In order to win you'll likely have to genuinely work with several people throughout the course of the game to get into a position where winning is possible. Tldr: it's a game about the little strategic details other games tend to miss. Giving up ground somewhere to ensure someone works against the person attacking them rather than you, making peace with your long time enemy to stop a bigger threat, brutally betraying your ally at just the right time, knowing when it's time to try and make a draw and give up on your hopes of winning, etc.

[@dreadgray78]

I feel like as it applies to commander this is a feature not a bug - assuming the objective of a game is to win - let's leave out scenarios where you aren't trying to win (like playing Chaos or Group Hug), or are just making spite plays or collusion/kingmaking (ie hurting someone else without providing any benefit to yourself or blatantly helping another player to win) not sure that this is really a problem. The correct way to work within the social aspect of the game is for player who are behind to team up to catch up and slow down the leading players. Taking it into a tournament setting - and bringing draws into the equation - what in a casual setting would be considered 'kingmaking' can actually be used to force draws which are better than losses and therefore you can actually use what someone might consider a 'spite play' in a multi-player format to make sure no one can win, which is to your strategic benefit.

[@distractionmakers]

Good points. Our discussion revolves around the idea of what is fun and what is optimal and how those two things can come into conflict. In a tournament setting with draws these dynamics are mostly ok. The real issue in competitive play is collusion. As for casual play the issue we’ve run into is there being no rules mechanism to settle disputes about behavior, only social norms. So, when there is a discrepancy of the interpretation of events you end up with arguments instead of having fun because there’s no rule to point to.

[@damnjekyll]

Not wanting to talk about Magic (cuz folks got upset) and then using this card as your thumbnail is such a huge nuts move. 💪 💯

[@Lastprogramer]

wow this is, actual behavioral player theory, real live game theory, I love this sort of analysis.

[@Volcanopyre]

No idea how this channel popped up in my feed but the discussions here are fantastic

[@MagicTheIsolationist]

Just dropped by whilst perusing said discussions to agree!!

[@brennantmi5063]

Perhaps a hot take, but as far as kingmaking goes and games coming down to the player in second always wins I think it is the problem of kingmaking is directly inversely proportional to the skill level of the players at the table. If the players have a great understanding of win conditions and tactics players know how to jockey for position and wait to push for fist place once they think they can or they think they should go all in. In munchkin if you are not strong enough to fight through the table, then if you try to fight the table you lose so instead you more slowly until you have amassed enough advantage to win. The "meta game" at higher levels in these multiplayer games results in "winning" being a lot more complicated than just running to the finish line. cEDH does a good job encapsulating this. Most decks can win on turn one, but games rarely end in the early turns. Winning is not about sitting back and doing your thing, its gaining incremental advantage until a lead can be leveraged into pushing through the table. Being able to evaluate the strength of ones positions in relation to the positions of other players with both public and hidden knowledge is quite difficult for an experienced player, let alone one who has no idea what is going on. This is all disastrous for new players in these kind of game. In order to understand the complexities of working towards a game state that makes it safe to push for first place you have to have a fairly nuanced understanding how most pieces of the game fit together. In your munchkin example you use in the video you talk about how often the person in first loses. Well, if they always lose then they are not in "first" in a meta game sense even if they have the most points because they don't have the strategical position necessary. But when you are new the game says get the most points to win. Without a lot of gained knowledge there is no way to know if you actually have or are working towards a winning position. In situations like this the outcome often feels like chance and it often is because if you don't know all the facets of navigating the game within the game you are basically playing blind. It kinda feels like a catch 22. Multiplayer free for all games are social games and thus are most fun played casually. However, multiplayer free for all games require a lot of complex "game withing the game" knowledge to avoid being played blindly. Thus, unless you have a group of super dedicated people multiplayer free for all games boil down to either the fun gets sucked out of it because blindness leads to loss of agency or the fun get sucked out by having to be super sweaty and try hard in what is meant to be a relaxing fun time.

[@distractionmakers]

Great input! This is basically what we were trying to get at. Waiting until you can beat the table incentives inaction. If everyone is playing most optimally for that strategy you’re effectively just playing lands. It makes sense when you look at how cEDH decks are built. Tons of fast mana, counter spells, and combo pieces. They nearly all play the same, just have different combo lines. If we contrast this with 60 card, the dynamics are such that other strategies can emerge because the race to combo can be beaten by doing 20 damage because your not going to be killed by a third player for expending your resources to beat your opponent. You’re forcing your single opponent to expend resources to interact with you or lose.

[@CptManboobs]

A lot of EDH games feel like assembling a gun under the table and hoping no one notices. Everyone else at the table is also assembling a gun, also hoping that you don't notice.

[@jfb-]

Dominion designs things to mimimise politcs and kingmaking as much as possible; as attack cards always affect all opponents equally. There are some situations where you can affect one player a bit more than others or leave the game in a state where the next player is likely to win, but you can rarely specifically target one player.

[@Somethingsomethingyoutube]

Goad is my favorite mechanic. I play with a couple who 9 times out of 10 are the last two players alive. Goad takes that agency away. Funny enough, goad is also one of their many hated mechanics. I am starting to hate commander.

[@misomiso8228]

1:48 'All multiplayer games are social games'. This is a huge insight into game making that changes the way you think about board games. What you really need is to then marry this to RANDOM Elements (Drawing cards, Monopoly rolling dice etc, then you can have a lot more dynamism. finally, Kingmaking isn't that bad - it teaches a lot of skills like sometimes how 'the least disliked person' gets to win over the 'most liked'. It teaches social skills!

[@letsmakeit110]

the shadowfist CCG is designed from the ground up to be played multiplayer. The most important feature is that advantages snowball. Terrible for 1v1, but it's entirely possible to win from the archenemy position. It's also possible to sneakily win from second like every other game. Like if you've ever seen a bike race sometimes the breakaway stays ahead and wins, and sometimes the pelaton reels them in and the sprint finish determines the winner.

[@distractionmakers]

We’ll have to check it out!

[@RisinTyson]

So as a kingmaker in commander I'll tell you now its 100% fueled by my petty.

[@distractionmakers]

Hahaha the only way it should be.

[@PoeticMistakes]

My friend recently introduced us to a terrible deckbuilding game called "queen by midnight" Halfway through this game everyone secretly picks someone to support if they die. and if they are that player's first supporter and that player wins, they win too. which i find an interesting but failed attempt to solve this issue

[@diegopicchetto5250]

On the topic of Root also, the Cats look stronger and start with a very broad position, but they are very weak and have hard time recovering and closing out, so there is a balance there.

[@brianmattei7134]

Bringing up Munchkin right before bringing up Commander makes me feel so justified considering the Competitive EDH discourse happening lol. The game is just personalized Munchkin.

[@patricksullivan6988]

This is why I prefer strictly two-player Magic. Though, when playing multi-player, rather than free-for-all, I prefer 2-Headed Giant or playing where you can only interact to players immediately to your left and right.

[@lilguyfinish]

Its been great marathoning threw your catalog of videos. only 11 more to go tho, keep it coming 😈

[@shorewall]

I think it's funny seeing competitive players trying to wrap their heads around Commander. Commander is like playing DnD. It is about the social aspect. Politicking is part of it, relationships are part of it, the Social Contract is part of it. Winning the pod isn't the only goal or even the main goal. I think the main goal of Commander is to create an interesting deck, and get to do your thing. If someone gets their deck to go off, even if they lose, it feels good. If they don't get to play their deck, it doesn't feel good. You can go full speed and become the archenemy, you can pillow fort up, you can try to hide until you get your combo to go off, you can just play to be a part and show off your deck. It is a casual, inclusive, relativistic experience, that really needs a good friend group, just like DnD does. DnD is a collaborative experience, and so is Commander. The horror stories of DnD are similar to the horror stories of Commander. The difference is that DnD is its own thing, whereas Commander is an offshoot of MTG, which is a 1 on 1 competitive game. I remember going to an FNM, and playing a guy who wouldn't talk to me. I tried to make conversation and even praise some of his plays, and he wouldn't even look at me. Now, I've played MTG for years and had fun with my opponents, so I know it's not all the time. But it's ok to do that in Single player MTG. It would be so strange to see in Commander. You need to talk and politick and bluff in Commander. You talked about Smash Brothers, which I think is a great example. What about Mario Kart? Imagine trying to play serious competitive Mario Kart? It's a casual game. There are so many mechanics that do not reward merit, and may even punish it. FFA MTG is the same. The very structure of the format sets up potential situations where merit may not only goes unrewarded, but may actually be punished. And that is because it is not intended to be competitive. I see it as just further on the spectrum of the mana system. Something that introduces variance, where every game can be different. Kingmaking allows players to have an effect on the game, when they aren't good enough to win, and that brings more people in, which is why Commander is the most popular format. It is not for everyone, arguably it is for a very different type of player than those who play FNM or competitive. I think the main problem is expectations, which is what the social contract is for. But that even requires talking and understanding, which isn't required in competitive MTG.

[@distractionmakers]

I agree on all front. The big issue being that commander is built on the structures of a 1v1 competitive game and it retains that baggage. Dnd is decidedly co-op (at this point) and multiple editions have changed the rules to better facilitate that style of play. Dnd isn’t trying to be both things with the same ruleset. This is why cEDH solves so many social issues of the format, you don’t have a misalignment of playing motivation. Everyone’s goal is to win. In casual commander some people want to win, others just want to have fun. If those two players are in the same pod someone wanting to win ruins the others fun and someone’s fun ruins someone’s winning. Our opinion is that the game rules should be solving this problem, not the players.

[@101arg101]

Great video! You guys are highlighting some great points, especially noting the conflict of interest between avoiding getting targeted by not playing the game and playing the game. At 5:50 you start to talk about how some games have some kind of stealthiness aspect to them, and some don’t. I just want to point out that MtG was created with hiding info as part of it. Cards in your hand are hidden, face-down cards are hidden, and the punishment for attempting to cast a spell you couldn’t legally cast is that you’ve revealed your spell before the game rewinds to correct it. There are cards that directly interact with hidden info like sphinx of jwari, telepathy, and thoughtseize. You also reveal important info about your deck when you play a blood moon or chalice of the void. I’ve played a good amount of commander/cEDH, and the way i take kingmaking is that it’s usually done as a way to make players who’ve lost a lot that night feel good about themselves when they win. I think that’s acceptable so long as it’s not in a tournament. The kind of kingmaking i find to be rude is the punitive kind. When someone targets another player simply because they got targeted themselves, so they try to prove that they’re covered in thorns by taking revenge. The solution to kingmaking is proper threat assessment, but that varies from game to game.

[@distractionmakers]

Good insight! I think where the sneakiness is a concern for me in commander is that you’re heavily incentivized to do nothing and have other players expend their resources. In 1v1 you would just lose the game. So if each player in commander is taking this same approach a whole lot of nothing happens until one turn things explode. If that’s a play pattern you enjoy that’s great, but there’s not a lot of variance in that strategy.

[@MagicTheIsolationist]

@101arg101 you sound like someone I'd like to have in my pod 💯 lol

[@benrafferty8903]

As a followup to this I'd really like a video from you guys talking about the design of the 4X genre, particularly in multiplayer. It's one of my favourites but it's kind of dead these days.

[@arbit4468]

The only multiplayer MTG mode I've ever enjoyed was "attack left, first blood". You'd play one of your regular 1v1 decks, and the rules were you could only attack the person to your left and whoever killed the player to their left first, won the game. It keeps things short, there was no ganging up on anybody (at least through combat), and politicking was fairly straight forward. Free for alls like Commander are just obnoxious to me. Commander games take forever, so everyone pulls their punches because you don't want to take someone out early and have them sitting around until the game is over, so the game takes forever. It's a positive feedback loop of stalling. And it's ultimately unsatisfying when the winner of the game (whether it's me or someone else) by all rights should have been knocked out several times but wasn't because no one wanted to look like a bully.

[@MagicTheIsolationist]

We beat the crap out each other in my LGS pods. There are different power level pods, for those who enjoy 5 minute games (LOL), but we don't pull punches nor do we expect them pulled. I like to joke and say "this ain't book club, let's get to killing each other" 😂

[@wavpainter]

I suppose your discussion applies to survival in nature as well. There are many more animals that hide, flee or group rather than hunt.

[@MatheusFreitasOrangeMaths]

Kingmaking is a form of politics. Assuming all players want to win, when faced with the situation where you probably won't win, simply say to the player with the most resources and who's most likely to win "help me or else I'll make do everything in my ability to make you lose". At this point you created a lose/lose situation to them and they have no options. In this situation, hardly the other two players will be in equal footing, so by not making anything you're still choosing who wins. The best you can do is use this forced choice to try and win yourself imo.

[@Loren_Law]

I think commander would be better if players stopped trying to enforce etiquette rules and just let the game be what it is. I have such a hard time having fun with commander because when when the game grinds out the board becomes a confusing nightmare, so I build decks that try to win before this happens, or win without engaging in combat but then my opponents make me feel rude for it. So I guess commander isn't for me, but all my friends permanently moved to commander, my pioneer decks are collecting dust. commander is a curse :'(

[@distractionmakers]

It’s a tough spot to be in. It is a way of playing magic that wasn’t designed for when magic was made and it’s become the most popular way to play. I wonder if there will eventually be an evolution of the commander rules that fixes some of its weaknesses.

[@BanditZRaver]

Thats exactly what should be done but too many people default to the wrong idea that a "Social Interaction" has to be, "nice and wholesome". Which means what? Being friendly is easy, but there is no way youre convincing me that "being friendly" means i give up the moment you start fake crying. Too many people are convinced that EDH is "lets all be friends and not care about winning" mode. Its just another card game, Uno is extremely casual, but no one playing Uno is suddenly going, "wait i havent done my cool thing yet dont win!"

[@azraksash]

@@BanditZRaver The problem is that winning via abusing rules loopholes that allow infinite combination of cards is hardly winning the game in the way it was intended by the designers of the said game. You can play single player game, if you want to play something solitaire and win (and it will be probably be more challenging). Unfortunately, commander is in the same game state as other eternal formats in terms of gameplay unless the players want to actually play a game of Magic unlike you or the other poster above - you want to win (probably abusing fast mana and loop at turn 2-3 to one hit everyone on the table), not to play.

[@Ironpecker]

I don't understand how some players don't like some combo decks, literally just put some pressure on them through combat damage or whatever else your deck is good at, don't assume that no board=no threat. There are some super consistent/fast combos and fast mana that feels bad to play against, but as long as the combo deck reaches a "winning state" by around the same time the rest of the table does then there's no problem imo. It's cool building a board of creatures don't get me wrong, but people have to put them to good use

[@dancingmathusalem5451]

@@azraksash Ah yes, the classic commander cope of "If you don't play 8 mana battlecruiser 0 interaction wholesome chungus you must be playing turn 1 wins". Somehow, the people running interactions and trying to find windows to win are the ones playing solitaire, as opposed to the people who just want to spin wheels and see all the cool little synergies they put in their decks. Infinite combos are not "Abusing rules loopholes", they're a central part of the game. Combo is literally one of the three central archetypes the game is designed around. Stop pretending that combos are cheating, you are objectively wrong. You haven't found the secret correct way to play magic. When you play control decks with lots of interactions/boardwipes and slow wincons, commander players will make you feel bad about it. When you play combo decks with many varied and weird lines, commander players will make you feel bad about it. When you play an aggressive deck with lots of aoe/fast damage, commander players will make you feel bad about it. When you play a streamlined midrange with 7 mana turn 4 and play bombs, commander players will make you feel bad about it. All of these have happened to me personally. If I listened to all the interminable "Commander etiquette" rules I've seen online, I'd only play group hug, MAYBE a midrange if the average CMC is 5+ and I don't actually have any interactions/finishers A "casual" experience does not automatically imply a collaborative experience. You can be casual while still being adversarial. Just because there's nothing on the line and we're playing for fun, doesn't mean I have to throw games or give you resources for no reason. Playing magic without trying to win is akin to playing basketball without dribbling. You can do it, but at that point why even play basketball in the first place?

[@kevinfelixclausell5244]

Kingmaking isnt a problem, its a part of the experience.

[@Sidnv]

For me, one of the most interesting things about multiplayer games is the shared incentive structure that a game creates. Games in which players create the economy tend to do this best (The Great Zimbabwe, Container and the 18xx series being the best examples). These games provide players the ability to make cooperative moves implicitly, simply by reading incentives and understanding that is in an opponents interest to work with you. Like Root, what these games are really about is the act of reading player incentives and then figuring out how to maneuver them so that you end up on top at the end of the game, i.e. continuously evaluating how to correctly kingmake (but Root doesn't do this quite as well because it has the issue where players can just punt a problem down in turn order till the last person before the "archenemy" is forced to deal with it).

[@Lockfin]

I think MTG Commander has a lot of problems but the non-engagement issue you discussed is not one of them. Actual non-engagement by refusing to build up one’s board is a fast track to losing the game because your opponents are actually trying to win, and you cannot stop them, let alone win yourself, without card advantage and mana engines. Feigned non-engagement in service of assembling a game winning combo in hand to deploy in one turn can work against inexperienced players, but vs anyone who’s in the know your accrual of resources without a clear avenue to victory is a red flag that you are quietly assembling a combo and will get you killed unless you can protect yourself at which point you are forced to engage.

[@Lockfin]

At the highest level of play every deck has a defined win condition it is trying to assemble, and they can do so VERY QUICKLY, so non-engagement becomes untenable. When various UBR piles can threaten a win on turns 1 and 2 you must have cheap or free interactions available to stop them or you lose. The control-sequel decks played at that level are almost all “Stax” decks, relying on playing out cards that limit what players can do in the game in order to disrupt enemy gameplans while advancing their own. I’d say at all levels of commander, if your opponents are competently trying to win the game it demands proactivity rather than nonengagement

[@tonysmith9905]

@@Lockfin You misinterpreted what they meant by "non engagement". They simply mean you don't expend your mana, removals, and protections and various other resources to try and get in the way of the other peoples' fighting. Thus while they expend every thing on one another you're simply left with the most amount of resources to win the game with. It is a very common tactic to save your resources until some thing absolutely has to b dealt with, either a game winning piece or some thing that totally wrecks what your win con is.

[@AB-qp2tm]

Honestly when left in a king making all in position the key is to pass it one more turn so you're the last person to clean up the 3 turns. It's now you're turn to nudge the game while being able to survive.

[@billtodd2194]

I had a discussion about this on BGG, but IMO the issue of kingmaking isn't so much that kingmaking will occur (as it obviously can and will directly or indirectly), but what happens when you have players with different placing goals in the game? Are you playing Game of Thrones tagline "you win or you die" and 1st place is the only one that matters? Or are you playing ranking style such that securing 2nd place is a reasonable choice? Both completely valid ways to play, but let me tell you you will get some serious fireworks at the table if someone throws the game to the winner to lock in 2nd or 3rd rather than fight for 1st when no one else was playing that way.

[@distractionmakers]

Great point. I think expectations really are a huge issue.

[@Arvensa]

Admission that this is a divergent topic and kind of only tangentially related, but it's still something I think about a lot whenever discussions of action versus inaction in games comes up. (And in fact, now that I've written the body and introduction of this in that order, I'm going to also copy-paste this over to the comments on this channel's video titled Heuristics. It's maybe more appropriate overall there, though I still want to submit it here. Edit: scratch that-- I've written it in such a way that I'd have to rewrite it almost entirely to fit with the framing of application of heuristics rather than agency/kingmaking-adjacent discussion and I'm out of time and focus to do that right now.) A problem in multiplayer games related to action/inaction arises in League of Legends ARAM mode. It's a multiplayer game with only two teams, but each team is made up of five players, which represent anywhere from one to five distinct groups of people that signed up for the game together (or solo). You immediately run into social contract problems about: 1. who drafts what kinds of character from a limited and randomly accessed pool of the total character pool of the game's roster. 2. Who vollects the most resources from minions and player kills based on the effort they put into securing those kills gor the team versus which player's character benefits the most from having them (and by extensiom benefits the team the most) 3. What pace the game is played at. -- Often one team will be at a compositional disadvantage in the early game which dictates patience in surviving to collect what resources you can while the enemy expends health and mana accumulating a minimum of kills (ceded to them in order to protect the objective and collect minion kills) with which to spend the resulting kill gold once they eventually fall (spending gold is gated behind death), and thus prevent the advantaged enemy from snowballing always beyond the shorter-ranged team's ability to reach a critical mass of total resources at any reasonable semblance of relative parity, and thereby catching up enough to sieze agemcy in the tempo swings of the game as it progresses toward a conclusion. Many players show up just wanting to throw down and end up soft-geiefing their team by fighting prematurely and over-frequently, both depleting their own HP&Mana in the short term and feeding the enemy a stream of resources with which to remain oppressively ahead until they eventually win in a fashion more demoralizing than it would have been even had they been favored in the first place given correct counterplay strategy. The biding of time while accruing incremental advantage to only cash in at the most opportune or least-detrimental moments according to the short-term tempo and long-term tide of the game-state looks too much like severe inaction to many players despite it being somewhere along a spectrum of engagement, which is plenty often enough highly engaging from moment to moment, highly skill-testing, and highly-nuanced when fully committed to in good-faith from at least a majority of if not all ten players in the game. Unfortunately a large number of games are prevented from experiencing this tensioned equilibrium where the balance rewards second-third-fourth-etc. Order Optimal play over simply first-order optimal play because the intelligemt management of tempo will allow the losing team to rubber-band themselves through intentional agency applied to the game systems. It seems like the Venn Diagram between the group of players who just want to brawl nonstop and the group which complains when one team is at a huge advantage has a huge amount of overlap. There is a widespread refusal to examine and distinguish between advantages granted by the initial randomized distribution of characters between the teams, and advantages gained through intelligent and disciplined game actions performed with an awareness of that and other context (and also the mechanical/tactical skill required to make and execute each of those decisions in a real-time setting).

[@distractionmakers]

As one of the few who haven’t played much LoL I appreciate your insight. I’ll have to do more of a deep dive into the dynamics.

[@tinfoilslacks3750]

The alternative consideration though, is that when the optimal play pattern is unengaging, passive, and purely about risk mitigation by not engaging with the core elements of the game, we can consider that a game design failure because the rules of the game create a what is correct to do from a strategic standpoint and what everyone desires to do from an intuitive engagement standpoint are diametrically opposed. If the central gameplay and draw of the game is high tempo, high APM, high micro player to player combat but the game's mechanics want you to disengage, bide, and durdle, there's a conflict there. And not the good kind of conflict where people have to make interesting diverging decisions, the kind of conflict where people are actively not enjoying, arguably not *playing* the game because the essence of the game is opposed to the strongest strategy. If you designed a first person shooter where the dominant strategy is to never fire your gun, you designed the game wrong.

[@Knokkelman]

@@tinfoilslacks3750 THIS. So much well worded truth. I tried some LoL, hated it. Then tried DotA, hated it even more. HotS imo did a better job in preparing new players for what the game is about, and some multiplayer pvp was fun, but in the end it seems I just don't like MOBAs and their social dynamics. Maybe the existence of "smurfing" is a reason, and maybe having a steady 5 man team would make a big difference, but there must be a reason why MOBAs are infamous for being even more toxic than most other genres, and I think it's exactly the "dissonance" you described.

[@Lockfin]

I’m not sure where the idea that not engaging and avoiding third-party situations in battle Royal games is good is coming from. It is perennial wisdom that the best way to succeed in a BR game is to third-party existing fights because you are entering the fight with a clear understanding of the situation that the other two parties lack, and with more resources to eliminate the weakened belligerents.

[@distractionmakers]

Exactly. If everyone was behaving in this way no one would ever engage first incentivizing inaction.

[@zenchess]

@@distractionmakers Except in a battle royale there is a shrinking circle so if everyone does not act eventually they will be forced to act, on top of that you get advantages for attacking other players like increased power for a kill

[@Arvensa]

This discussion is the evolution of second- and third-order optimal tactics.

[@marcello9476]

If you like Root, I highly recommend Oath also by leder games. It's pretty much better in every way, but I bring it up because the entire game is about kingmaking. It's a legacy lite game where you are basically trying your hardest to convince other players to king make you, potentially by leveraging rewards in future sessions. It's also just an amazingly fun game with a masterfully designed ludonarrative interaction between the mechanics and their "lore" implications

[@LibertyMonk]

Kingmaking is named such because it's a big part of human nature, and history. It should be designed around in any FFA game, possibly multiple ways in games with an expectation of homebrewing or rule 0 customizations. Risk and (proper) Monopoly have this problem, players can aggressively work together to not let anyone collect a Continent or Monopoly bonus, or they can trade or team up to allow someone to progress the game. On the one hand, they weren't exactly designed to solve the "stall or kingmake" problem, on the other hand, original design intent (as evidenced by their names) is that the games are broken to make a political statement. If you block monopolies & hoard houses etc, the it takes a lot longer for people to go bankrupt. If you never let anyone hold a bonus, they won't snowball and win the game, but there's a risk someone beyond your influence will do that instead.

[@zbaschtian]

Warcraft III solved FFA kingmaking through the hero leveling. You can stay on your base and not engage with other players, but you'll fall behind on your most powerful units and be unable to catch up. It's a form of surrogate interaction, but maybe something that can be adapted to MtG. Battles are a good start, but they need better functionality. Artifacts and Enchantments are the preferred permanent types in Commander because they're less susceptible to removal, and still allow you to attain progressive advantage through fulfilling secondary objectives (usually economic development).

[@distractionmakers]

Super interesting idea!

[@shelby142]

Kingmaking is a complicated topic...I'm gonna start from the top with my general thoughts on what's wrong with it and how to address it. Pure, unambiguous kingmaking is when player A is forced to arbitrarily decide whether player B wins or player C wins. It's a very awkward position for player A, and can be downright frustrating for players B and C, as it feels very similar to the game ending in a coin toss (denying player agency), except the outcome is someone's fault. Worse (amonst friends/etc), it often comes down to a popularity contest ("who do you like more?"), or at least can seem as such, which is not only unfair but potentially hurtful. Typically, the most reasonable way to handle these situations is either for the deciding player to literally flip a coin, or for them to go through the steps of "well, if I actually had any chance of winning still, I'd do something like this", but either way, the puzzle your game presents should never be "How do we make this feel less miserable and avoid hurting anyone's feelings?". In really poorly designed games, it can also downright discourage player interaction, to the point that the optimal thing to do is stall, and the first person to play the game as intended loses. Kingmaking can be a serious problem in multiplayer games, depending on player expectations and the way it's handled by the game. One clever solution, which you all touched on with Root, is to adjust player expectations. In a game about that revolves around bashing the leader and negotiation, having the winner be decided by another player makes more sense, and with the right narrative, can even feel natural. While this doesn't fix the issue of popularity contests and hurt feelings, the game can provide ways to minimize this (e.g. by encouraging alliances and backstabbing, or providing some other rubric by which players can decide the winner), and more importantly, as a social game, these issues are more innate, so people at least know to expect those sorts of things going in. Also, I don't feel like you all talked much about how to actually minimize kingmaking itself -- there are ways of doing it, and ways of making it more pronounced. Talking about pure kingmaking, where someone is forced to make a completely arbitrary decision, the solution is pretty straightforward (on paper) -- don't allow players to make decisions after they've lost. Or, more usefully, ensure that players always have a chance to snatch a victory until the moment a winner is decided. This notably does not require dice rolls, etc.; hidden information can provide this uncertainty, and can obfuscate what may already be certain until it's revealed to everyone. Either way, this means players always have a viable wincon to pursue, so any 'kingmaking' is not some arbitrary decision, but instead an inadvertent result of them playing the game normally. This is an important difference, not only because it resolves that player of awkward decisions, but it means that their decision is *predictable*. This largely solves the inadvertent kingmaking problem as well, because it means that (in a good game) other players have the opportunity to play around their decisions, meaning that the winner is actually determined (at least in part) by their own decision-making and skill -- not as just some arbitrary byproduct! Of course, you'd always want to avoid dynamics like "players A and B fight at a cost, benefiting player C" dynamic (anyone know a name for this?). This isn't inherently bad, e.g. the decision of when combat is worth it can be interesting, but generally unskilled players will play these situations suboptimally, causing kingmaking, and poor designs can also force it to happen. I see there being 3 general approaches to "fixing" this dynamic: - Focusing on positive interactions, especially ones that benefit the table. Instead of denying your opponent resources and opportunities, player interaction will present resources and opportunities to your opponents. The skill comes from minimizing how much you give, and capitalizing on what your opponents present you (this can happen both on a turn-to-turn tactical and long-term strategic level). A board game that does this well is Calimala -- you play tokens on actions spaces, and whenever someone plays one on top of yours, you get to take that action again. So whenever you play a piece, you're giving actions to the last 3 players (possibly 1 player multiple times) who used that space, while also predicting that people will want that space enough in the future to give you free actions. Of course, this can cause a similar dynamic ("player A benefits player B, player C falls behind"), but if players have relatively equal opportunity to capitalize on the decisions of other players, this can be minimized. - Conversely, instead of attacking individual players, attack everyone! If the attack effects everyone equally (or at least, if it's each player's own fault that it did or didn't), then this tends to be more fair and not lead to kingmaking. However, note that "symmetric" effects are often asymmetric in practice -- for example, "Dark Hole" in Yu-Gi-Oh, which destroys all monsters on the field, doesn't hurt a player who didn't have any monsters in play, or maybe just didn't value theirs as much. - Keep using 1-on-1 combat/interaction, but change the parameters so that players A and B don't go down in resources. They *will* lose something, but if they gain other things in return, it can keep them from falling behind the rest of the table. For example, player A attacks player B because they want to fulfill some objective (claiming a territory, getting points for winning combats, whatever). As a consolation prize, player B gets more resources to spend on their turn (cards, mana, whatever). Player A traded resources for something they wanted, and probably forced player B to give up something they probably wanted, but by balancing the costs and benefits, you can avoid unsavory dynamics, while still making 1-on-1 combat a viable path to victory. I could keep rambling, but that's probably enough 😂

[@brandyourfan9244]

I think Kingmaking is fine, when prizes aren't on the line. If it's a casual game, being able to help decide the victor, even if it isn't you, is a fun aspect of the game. Once the game becomes more competitive though, Kingmaking isn't acceptable. You should only be playing toward a potential win, not playing for someone else specifically to lose.

[@porkt3887]

smash bros has it too, I played the most out of my friend group so they would always team up to try and get me out first. it was pretty fun to keep things interesting for everyone, since I did feel bad always beating them so much in "fair" fights

[@simplegarak]

Hm. Would love to play Cthulhu Wars and our own game with you sometime to get your feel for it whether the curse remains or if the needle gets threaded just right. EDIT: Oh yeah! "Love Battle High School" - it's like... multiplayer competitive kingmaking. It's a very interesting and fascinating game.

[@kuystalheim5427]

I love that about Commander Magic, makes it about reveals and not telegraphing (putting hidden information into known information zones, face up, normal exile, battlefield, graveyard, etc.) your position until you have a secure path to victory. My Blim deck builds around trying to convince another player to tie the game, or make it so players cannot lose the game unless I lose the game, etc.

[@thetruetri5106]

I am suprised you didn't mention the technique of letting Players gain resources when successfully defeating/advancing against another Player.

[@Adunapheth]

In Solium Infernum, Kingmaking is a feature and a legit way to win.

[@isambo400]

I never got into commander because there is no purpose to the format. CEDH may solve this but I haven’t tried it

[@distractionmakers]

For competitive minded folks cEDH outside of a tournament is likely the best option for approaching the format. Collusion becomes a serious issue in a tournament setting.

[@joshprice4855]

I wouldn't say EDH has no purpose. You make your own purpose, but also keep in mind what the table is doing. I have a "Make your choice" Saw the movie themed deck where I offer my opponents a myriad of damned if you and damned if you don't cards. It does a lot of damage, and I'm just as likely to kill myself with it as I am other players, so I rarely set out to win. If my opponents spend even a few minutes arguing, if they want to let me have a captive audience or a curse of the cabal, then I already had a great game. Of course, if it turns out that everyone is playing to win and keeps me from doing that, I have a few decks I can swap into to match that.

[@MagicTheIsolationist]

​@@joshprice4855you should name the deck "Would you like to play a game?" 😂👌

[@ardenorcrush649]

Kingmaking is what makes Commander fun. It's perfectly fair to prefer 1v1 competitive play, I also play Modern/Pioneer and enjoy it. But when I play Commander is to be goofy (and counter the first overloaded Cyclonic Rift I see with Guttural Response NO MATTER THE CONTEXT) not to try to be the very best big brained Master Planeswalker Champion of the Cards. We have 1v1 tournaments to prove actual skill.

[@SDMartin]

When we play munchkin and its someone's turn we always say "Anyone going to fuck me?"

[@wrathisme4693]

I think the point being missed here is that King making is not often a direct decision by someone, though it certainly can be, it's mostly the decision of someone else leading that person to win. I really don't see a problem with this in any kind of multiplayer game, that's just strategy and it happens in almost all of these games. With your Catan road example, the amount of times that I have bills a spiteful road just to box someone off and the amount of times that someone has done the same to me is quite common. I really don't get what the issue is, you definition of king making seems to just be the goings-on of any multiplayer game that has strategy and interaction

[@distractionmakers]

Catan is an example of a game that has limited free-for-all interaction. Kingmaking is when at some point during gameplay a player who cannot win can determine who will win through their direct actions. In Catan, players cannot build a road anywhere, they can only build a road connected to a road they already have. So it is possible kingmaking can happen in Catan, but less likely.

[@wwcyfd22]

Twilight Imperium has a lot of king making rules as well. You can literally give other players victory points through cards or political votes

[@brianmattei7134]

Yeah, I would love for them to discuss Twilight Imperium in the context of this topic.

[@JaywoodJablowme]

I've only seen a couple of these videos but WOW they are so informative and reasonably easy to digest. I've been teaching my friends and family how to play MTG and these videos are awesome to help me explain certain nuances of the game.

[@distractionmakers]

That’s great to hear!

[@tinfoilslacks3750]

Dr. Garfield himself knew this 30 years ago. Before even creating Magic he had observed that (and I'm paraphrasing from one of his books here the quote won't be exact): "inevitably, any game with a political element will come to be dominated and determined solely by that political element". Anyway, I've always believed, and I will die on this hill, that commander just isn't a good game, period. People do not have fun playing commander. They have fun hanging out with friends in a social setting, and playing commander is a weak pretense to do that.

[@draftmagicagain1000]

That’s why Richard Garfield didn’t create Magic to have a Political element. 1vs1 Magic has No politics. Just Battle!

[@eighteentwilight8547]

I wish WotC would fix/support their other formats so ya’ll could go back to playing them and the “Commander is broken and bad”, cold takes would start to die off.

[@Minisauro]

Everyone have to have city of solitude in their deck. I do. 😅

[@twinwoodsman]

A big example of this is the "free-for-all" format in competitive pokemon that got big on youtube and was a playable gamemode in-game in gen 7 and became a playable metagame on showdown also. In its current state on showdown it's unplayable competitively (no penalties for forfeiting early and the game continues until only one player is left) and attracts the lowest common denominator of players (its popularity as a youtube format encourages this too). There has been some pushes to develop FFA as a competitive format, but they never picked up steam as you need four players and a lot of time to have a competitive game (in it's optimal state, pokemon FFA is a slow-paced meta built around a lot of incremental advantage, other metas like this such as gen 2 OU have very small playerbases). Getting an actual fun game where all or even most players are actually trying to win on ladder is nigh-impossible. I have been playing competitive pokemon for a long time, but I'm recently getting into MTG, and my experience with pokemon FFAs confirm to me that Commander would be just as miserable, and everything I've seen seems to show me it has the exact same problems as FFAs does, almost exactly. Rewards inaction which a lot of the casual playerbase finds unfun, games go too long because the win condition is being the last one standing. At least there are potentially game-ending combos in MTG to shorten games, there isn't really anything similar in pokemon.

[@distractionmakers]

Wow I had no idea a FFA format was developed for Pokémon. It’s been awhile since I’ve researched the scene. Thanks for your insight!

[@twinwoodsman]

@@distractionmakers It had an interesting organic development that let it evade the "last man standing" problem for a while. It started in gen 6 by having four players enter a Doubles Multi Battle with three pokemon (intended for team-based 2v2 play) where the game would continue until the two players on one side were eliminated, at which point the game would end and the remaining players get to argue among themselves about which one deserves the win. Game Freak then created an in-game, officially supported free-for-all format in gen 7 that used a scoring system based on knockouts to reward aggressive play. It had a three-mon limit and the game would end when a player was eliminated. These are all great choices, but a lot of players seemed to prefer the "last-man standing" win condition. Also, the gamemode was poorly implemented into the story which soured a lot of people on it, not to mention that playing against NPCs in it was apparently quite frustrating. The gamemode wasn't brought back for future games. Nowadays FFA on Showdown uses four teams of six mons each, and the game continues until the last player is eliminated. Both of these factors probably make the game more relatable to the average player, but they make the average game much longer. Although the format has relatively high playerbase, it gets basically no discussion on the forums and is in fact shunted to a different subforum due to its perception as a "gamemode for casuals". The problems feed each other, I imagine, but I get it.

[@brennantmi5063]

Six mon last man standing free for all sounds like purgatory for nerds. Some commander tables are cut throat affairs were the players are jockeying for position against each other in order to accrue an advantage state to punch through the other players defenses. Other tables view using card effects on other players cards a griefing and trolling thus games play out with everyone playing solitaire and no one trying to win. Most tables are somewhere in the middle although from my tone you've probably surmised how I feel about the latter table playstyle. I personally call such matches games of "bystander" as no one is doing and commanding and instead just faffing around. I find it amusing how dramatically different people want to play and how emotionally invested they are in their own way. Kind of reminds me of real life how you will get populations of people who have to live together but have dramatically different values. There is a lot of discourse within the commander community about the art of playing with strangers because of how when you sit down to play you have to agree on which one of the many social etiquette shades of commander you are all agreeing to play as it is a pretty negative experience when people come together to play foot ball but once play starts it becomes clear some people are trying to play European football and others American football.

[@LightPink]

Another solution is allowing joint victory like in cosmic encounter.

[@distractionmakers]

I’ll be curious to see if/when we get join victory commander cards. It would make for some interesting gameplay for sure.

[@ekolimitsLIVE]

I’m working on a game that gives the players an option to win by “Highlander” style of last one standing or by casual methods of most prizes.

[@rysander]

Isn't EVE Online an enormous instance of this?

[@distractionmakers]

Haha yeah I suppose so.

[@TheUltimateRey]

I think Kingmaking will always be a part of the format even if you don’t intentionally king make someone sometimes one action could potentially “kingmake” someone and allow them to win that game but that’s the nature of it anything can happen and change in an instant and you can’t be prepared to stop it in every single scenario

[@V2ULTRAKill]

Ehhh In cedh theres not really any of that Everyone is rushing to their gameplan, and also to shut everyone else out Theres not enough turns to kingmake, intentionally or not, the winner played best or got luckiest with a god hand and no mulls

[@altromonte15]

Slow control decks exist in cedh, not every game ends on turn 3 ​@@V2ULTRAKill

[@00101001000000110011]

i think there are 2 games that addressed this curse directly and with relatively great success that get very little debate and praise for it: - Fortnite - Mario Kart - most ppl play fortnite for the daily quests and stuff and completely go in with no expectation or intention to finish as the round winner. you could view it as a "solitaire" type of alleviation, but the fact you are still on the same map as the other 99 kiddos and they can attack you are any point on your path, or you them, etc, makes it so your round will be loosely still very similar to those players going in fully and solely to compete for being no.1.. - in mario kart, being in 1st makes you the main target without much way to defend yourself to stay there. the rubber banding, the item algorithm, the bot AI if those are in, even the tracks themselves, the whole game design will be unfair to whoever is running 1st and enfuse or embrace chaos towards the pack. nintendo clearly doesn't want MK to be a competitive arcade racing game and rather have it be a fun for all arcade racing game. very deliberately. to the point that if you want to finish 1st in MK, you either better be able to stay so far away ahead constantly that the pack cannot catch up even with all the hazards coming at you, OR more commonly, that you keep yourself 3rd for the entire race and then cut to 1st as close to the finish line as possible. PS: so if you have a group of competitive mario kart experts playing together, knowing that the 1st racer is just the biggest target, you then see a dynamic of ppl actively pacing down to avoid the danger and competing shoulder to shoulder to see who can both keep close to the front ready to take the lead AND manage to actually take the lead at the finish without getting taken down.

[@distractionmakers]

These are good example, but Mario kart falls under the “incentivized to not play” problem. It’s not as bad as commander magic, but still feels a bit suboptimal to me.

[@00101001000000110011]

you guys really love kingmaker topic ahahah Armello is a kingmaker digital boardgame

[@distractionmakers]

Haha yes. We’ve both worked on solving this issue recently in games we’re working on.

[@Mostexcellant69Dude]

I recommend breaking up the conversation into sections and going down point by point. for example, what is king making? how to prevent king making? etc . this video is like 5 minutes too long or 20 minutes too short .

[@00101001000000110011]

MtG Commander mode is flawed, but it is not impossible to fix. if it were up to me, i would introduce a system of rewarding aggressive action. did you kill an opponent's creature? get reward. did you take an opponent's hit points? get reward. did you force milling? get reward. did you exile cards? get reward. did you force discard? get reward. have a pool of rewards like: get temporary free mana; draw a card; get a free generic weak permanent; get a deals 1 dmg instant; scry... lots of ways to implement such a type of system and it incentivises more interaction instead of just hunkering down while others play, but the key factor is you would also need to reward players for losing permanents,taking dmg, etc from oppponents. this way you also address the "let's all gang on that guy" problem. i would begin by having the player that took the hit also getting a reward when the one hitting does, albeit a lesser reward.

[@distractionmakers]

This does help some. In fact magic has introduced quite a few cards that do this. They’re enchantments that go on a player and reward players for attacking them. Honestly we likely need to do a part 2 because we didn’t even cover the real poison pill of competitive free for all multiplayer - collusion.

[@00101001000000110011]

@@distractionmakers kingamker is a great game design crossroads of design challenges and player psychology problems

[@TheRealLachlan]

If you want to play with additional rules there is planechase. No one plays it. The reward is that you took a game action that put you ahead. If it doesn't then don't do it The way you don't 'king make' is to get better at the game, at communication with the table and at deck construction. It's a fun and multifaceted puzzle to try and solve.

[@00101001000000110011]

@@TheRealLachlan i don't think planechase is in the same ballpark as commander apart from the part that both are >2 MP MtG formats. it's like comparing fortnite to BattleField, not like comparing Dota to LoL. but gotta hand it to WizardsotC, at least they did try something... i am always happy when they try.

[@V2ULTRAKill]

​@@00101001000000110011 I mean the real issue is on the lower power end of commander where everyone wants to spin their wheels and politics On the competitive end, unless theres actual out of match collusion these additions would completely ruin the format

[@DreaWaldron]

sneaky sneaky

[@thetruetri5106]

🤔I think uno is an exception to this

[@distractionmakers]

For sure. Limiting who can interact with the player who is winning helps to solve kingmaking. There’s actually a magic card that does this but I can’t remember its name. I think it limits who players can attack to the player to your left. The issue with this solve is that in a game with a theme it’s hard to justify why you can only interact with the person next to you.

[@lomalindasmogcheck1]

Bad threat assessment is pseudo king making. I see a pre-threat set up and my opponents target me or someone else. Even if I point it out it'll be disregarded or the threat player gets defensive/offended.

[@tatybara]

why are you guys so against the emergent gameplay that comes up in free for alls? Seems like it’s not really an issue with the game and more about whether player’s should be centering the designers intent or not…

[@distractionmakers]

Hmm, we tried to make it clear in the video that we’re not against it. It’s about player expectations and design intent. We’re calling attention to these potential issues as something to be aware of if you’re making or playing a free-for-all game. That these play patterns are part of the deal and it’s up to you what you want to do about them.

[@shaunbarber2325]

Kingmaking can be not malicious. Say for the sake of argument, you have a 25% chance of winning right now, and if you fail a second player guaranteed wins the game. However, if you dont try now, you will never have another opponent again due to something a third player has. Do you take it? Is that kingmaking?

[@distractionmakers]

Kingmaking occurs when you cannot win, but can decide who wins through your actions. If you’re attempting to win you can’t be kingmaking.

[@strifetrinity9507]

Uno

[@altromonte15]

I don't understand your argument. This is exactly how magic is intended to be played, use resources efficiently and recognize when you must use them and when you can ignore a problem or let others deal with it. That is the whole point of commander, and it inherently balanced by the fact that everybody at the table is doing it.

[@distractionmakers]

Did you know magic existed for decades before commander was created? 1v1 is the intended experience for the systems design of magic.

[@altromonte15]

@@distractionmakers i was about to reply but i feel like it would be pointless, if you misunderstood what i said this badly

[@JohnFromAccounting]

Commander is a non-serious format because players make decisions that do not get them closer to winning. In 1v1 formats, I know that my opponent is doing everything they can to win, and I am doing the same. Commander doesn't work like that because it's a social game. Players give up certain information and resources for the sake of the social experience, but that doesn't achieve victory.

[@N4chtigall]

I don't think kingmaking is bad. Games like MTG are social games and humans aren't robots which makes 100% logical decisions. You can make friends, make enemies, have some fun- it makes the interesting and can affect the way you play. There are literally decks which focus on the political aspect of the game.

[@distractionmakers]

For sure. Our goal is to discuss what we think about as designers when including it in our games. If the experience you want to create is the one you’re referring to then there is no problem.

[@brianmattei7134]

MTG was designed around 1v1 play lol.

[@deeterful]

Kingmaking only happens when you're bad at, or inexperienced at, multiplayer games. I play FFA Magic, and no not Commander, and our group plays to win. We include cards that will net us games. The only time kingmaking happens in our group is if one of us is about to die and we can take out the player taking us out. But this is not the norm. Because our games are not Commander the strategies are more consistent and resilient, so the games are faster and more aggressive. And yes, the player doing the best will get taken down by the others, but this can be mitigated by better play strategies and card inclusions. When I see kingmaking happen in multiplayer Magic games, Commander and other, it's because people are bad at the game and card choices. I grew up playing a lot of Risk, and I play FFA multiplayer Magic in a style similar to how I played risk, trying to defeat all my opponents. I assume every game I join in that I'm the archenemy and they're all after me. I'll back stab anyone who wants to play "politics" at the table. My bad, hot take: kingmaking is a result of people not being clever enough to not play that way.

[@distractionmakers]

I get what you’re saying and I think it’s true in the broadest sense of kingmaking and the outcomes of avoiding it. But the actual kingmaking scenario is unavoidable. In a free for all game with more than 2 players and direct interaction there will inevitably be a time when one player cannot win, but can determine who of the other two will with their actions.

[@deeterful]

@@distractionmakers , yes I do agree that it can happen and is even unavoidable at times. But I do not believe that it is a prescriptive inevitability. And when it happens it isn't necessarily always a bad thing. Which I do believe you stated in the video. My entire point is, that the more experienced a playgroup is at multiplayer, the less purposeful kingmaking there can/will be. I feel that there is a very distinct difference between kingmaking happening as an organic outcome of the game's interactions verses players actively engaged in kingmaking. Whether they are aware that's what they are doing or not. At my LGS I see a lot of people actively being kingmakers all the while not knowing that that's what they are accomplishing.