Ben Baldanza: Two for the Show—Predatory vs. Non-Predatory Games

Predatory is defined in the dictionary as “characterized by plunder, pillage, robbery, or exploitation.” In game terms, this means that in order to win, some physical thing or things must be destroyed. Chess is a predatory game, as there are no tournament games on record where no pieces are captured prior to a checkmate or draw (excluding forfeits, of course). Any game can be predatory or not, but the topic is most interesting for two-player games because the idea of “one against the other” lends itself more to predatory contests.

Most war games are designed for two players because most wars are one entity against another. Most war games are also predatory in nature as the destruction of at least some of the opposing force is usually essential to victory. Many people would equate “predatory” with “war”, but in theory a war game could be non-predatory especially if the war is of ideals, as in Twilight Struggle. That game would still be classified as predatory given the way it plays, but in concept it need not be. Franz-Benno Delonge developed a two-player game about the Cold War where each side tries to control the wealth from a set of developing nations. The theme is the same as Twilight Struggle, but the games are completely different and Delonge’s game is non-predatory.

At first it may seem odd to even make this distinction. Winning is winning, and if something must be destroyed to reach that goal, isn’t that in line with most cultures? Kadon Games makes it a corporate philosophy to publish only non-predatory games, and most of them are for two players. Kadon is based on the belief that game play is best when engaging the mind without the element of implied violence. The competition is in overcoming obstacles, not destroying opponents. I know of no other game company that distinguishes their product line across this dimension. Every American or German company I can think of has both kinds of games in their lineups.

Many two-player games are non-predatory. Medici vs. Strozzi, the new two-player version of the Knizia classic, is a good example. You have to outwit and out-think your opponent and make a better set of decisions, but nothing is destroyed in the process. This doesn’t make it a good game or better than a predatory game; it just is interesting that it succeeds without the destruction. There is a curious interest and beauty in a well designed two-player game that has players fighting the game elements versus each other. Good examples of this are Blokus, Fjords, Pacal, Einfach Genial, Dirk Henn’s Texas (later Rosenkönig), Kupferkessel Co., Twixt, and 1825 Unit 3. Many different themes and ideas can create a non-predatory but effective and intriguing two-player game. Resource games, development games, abstracts based on position versus dominance, and dexterity games all lend themselves to non-predatory development even though each could be made predatory as well.

From my top-10 list in the last column, six are non-predatory and four are predatory. Every two-player game rated above an eight on Boardgamegeek is predatory, and most are war games. This may mean that the more successful way to take advantage of the two-player format is to design a good predatory concept. Comparing my list to the Geek list has made me wonder if I’m a closet pacifist, and I don’t think that’s true given that Twilight Struggle and Richard Borg’s Battle Cry/Memoir/Battlelore/Ancients collection get a lot of play in our house and are always fulfilling.

When introducing new players to gaming, there are two distinct advantages to non-predatory two-player games. The first is that they are more approachable to play with children, especially younger children. A smart eight-year-old can play Battle Cry or Lost Cities, but Lost Cities is probably better for that age. (Many people will disagree with this of course, but toy guns are also a top-10 seller in the toy section at Wal-Mart). The second advantage is that a non-predatory game is less likely to create personal animosity and this is an important feature in getting some people to stick with gaming initially. You may be outplayed, but at least you weren’t killed.

I’ve played a non-predatory version of Union vs. Central by removing the destruction-oriented cards, and the result was a fascinating game that rewarded the best planning and logistics. I still prefer the game with the full card set, but anyone who’s played the game can tell you the frustration in having a landslide or flood kill several hours’ worth of work. When playing this game with someone for the first time, the non-predatory version is preferable so that the newbie can focus on getting their rail built and their delivery system established. This concept is probably workable with other two-player games as well though likely not always advisable.

I have no real conclusion to reach from this discussion other than taking stock of the need for destruction is a useful and sometimes enlightening thing in the game design. Sometimes it makes the game better, and sometimes it detracts. Among the world of two-player games, I would estimate that the ratio of well-designed predatory vs. non-predatory games is about five to one, compared with my similarly non-scientific estimate of a two to one ratio for multi-player games. This means that the two-player gamer best be prepared for a bit of plundering to take full advantage of the best designs.

Next Issue: Trick-Taking for Two

Comments:

< Back Home