Welcome aboard, Matt! Like you, I’m puzzled by arguments that anyone makes about a style of games in which they question their right to exist or lay down a blanket assertion that they’re all bad due to some quality that inevitably is a matter of taste.

And I’ll flat out admit that I stink at negotiation. I’ve played A Game of Thrones four times, I think, and I’m baffled as to how one makes alliances when it’s clear that they can’t last more than a few turns, if that. Some social skill that I’m missing, I suppose. I also let someone win on (I think) the third turn in a six player game because I left behind minimal defense while playing Greyjoy(?) and Mr. Astute spotted my weakness immediately and sailed in to walk all over me. Sorry for the short game, guys!

Playing these types of games requires definite skills, skills that can be developed with time, and I agree that anyone who can’t see that is daft, willfully obtuse or just looking for an argument.

Eric

I too stink at negotiation.  I am incapable of lying convincingly.  Despite that, I did actually win a couple PBM (e intentionally not there) Diplomacy games.  I don’t think I ever solo won a ftf game.

My biggest problem with conflict games is the amount of time they take.  Both to play a single game and the fact that they are fragile, so games with first timers can be less than wonderful.

I used to love Brittania, but you need exactly four players that know what they are doing to play a fun game.  History of the World is another game where several hours the winner ultimately can hinge on one player “giving the game away,” with a bad decision.  My one game of Friedrich was ok, I might play again.

Puerto Rico (which I don’t play much anymore) does have some of the same fragility, but it only takes an hour or so to play.  Other “traditional” Euros are similar.

So I guess my aversion is from spending four or more hours and watching someone hand (or hand myself) the game to another player.  When I spend an hour, it’s not a big deal and we may even dissect the “goof” and play another game right away.  That is the type of kingmaking that I don’t like.

Through the Ages is a game that doesn’t seem to suffer from this issue.  You can’t easily directly target or assist another player, so intentional kingmaking is tough.  But more importantly, accidental kingmaking is not possible or at least much more difficult.

All that being said, my BGG badge lists me as an omnigamer and I think of myself that way.  I may not introduce a conflict game, but I’ll probably play.  And I certainly won’t discourage others from playing whatever they like (unless you consider mild ribbing to be discouragement).

"A big part of it is simply that I agree with Conan about “what is best in life”.”

You win big points for this!

Yay… I like how you’re thinking.  I lean heavily towards the Eurogame setting when I can, but also enjoy a good smack-fest.  I’m very much an omi-gamer with only a litle bias against pure abstracts.

Nexus Ops and Heroscape are two of the best games to come along in the past couple decades.  They are best for a type of timeframe and gaming situation, but they have a lot of things going for them.

-------------
Negotiation:
I am pretty good at negotiation games, but do struggle any time I play them with newer players as I like to be helpful when I can so its more difficult to try to walk a fine line of negotiating as strongly as possible and not taking advantage of a new player.  That said, I am not a fan of Diplomacy since I’m not as good at backstabbing, just the negotiating side of things… (ie. I’m really good at games that enforce agreements, but not others… I’m too trusting/trustworthy...)

--------
Titan:
You refer to the rerelease, but it seems like a fairly old-school game to me.  Players are often strongly discouraged from attacking each other (no large personal gain from an attack) they just weaken yourself relative to everyone else.  And the attack phases can last quite awhile while everyone sits and waits for those two players to resolve the battle.  The result is a lot of posturing mid-game with very little hurrying of things to an ending… Of course, I haven’t played it in some time, and may not remember the better games.

When reputation precedes negotiation skills, negotiation skills no longer matter. To each their own. Outside of a 2 player or cooperative game, these games hold zero interest for me… because if I want to know if two people can tackle one, I already know that answer and I don’t need a 6 hour arbitrary game with bells and whistles to tell me that.

I would play Diplomacy over Game of Thrones any day of the week because they are essentially the same game.... one just uses bells and whistles.

Heh. I never claimed to be any good at these sorts of games. I just happen to like them. It’s mine (and everyone else’s) misfortune that my group contains that rarest of combinations - a silver-tongued maths whiz. He wins everything :)

I’d actually argue that negotiation games are better for new gamers than some of the more standard Euro fare. Everyone knows how to negotiate. Not everyone knows or has an easy time figuring out the strategy in a game like RAILROAD TYCOON.

Titan is fairly old school, and I don’t think any of your recollections are wrong, but that doesn’t stop it being brilliant or way ahead of it’s time. The “posturing” and attack-discouragement problems you refer to are usually signs of inexperienced play but, in fairness, it’s still a long game. I’ve never found the downtime an issue because I like to watch the fights, and it gives me an opportunity to talk to my friends, go for beer or the bathroom or whatever but I can appreciate YMMV.

The point about playing Diplomacy rather than GoT has some validity, but that’s because they’re both games in which negotiation is the biggest part of the game. It falls down because the negotiation is different in each game because the setup and strategies are different. It also fails when you extend it to other conquest games, such as many of the ones mentioned in my article, in which negotiation becomes *a skill* which sits alongside other consideration rather than *the skill* that rules the game. And reputations cut two ways - you get yourself a reputation for winning negotiation games and just watch how fast everyone else cuts you down to size.

I agree with much of what you’re saying, Matt.  I’ve written my own “Leaders Are Made to be Bashed” column, I enjoy games of conflict (although not straight wargames), and have no problem with games where the players use their diplomatic skills to further their aims (as long as it doesn’t devolve into pure whining).  I may not get the same visceral thrill you get from disemboweling an opponent, but I can still enjoy these designs for the good gameplay they provide.

I do have to question a few of your positions.  You defend the use of dice in games by saying they’re being used in more enlightened ways, but you give no real examples.  I don’t mind dice per se (in fact, I love dice games).  But dice are often used to resolve combat and other interactions between players, and resolution luck (where the players cannot react to the randomizing event) is my least favorite form of luck in games.  I was just talking about this with a fellow gamer and we agreed that while the use of dice for combat resolution isn’t necessarily bad, it can feel like a lazy design decision.  We were thinking specifically of some of the Martin Wallace games of conflict (and we both adore Wallace).  Maybe something a little more refined could be employed after all these years.  I KNOW there’s randomness in real life combat, but these aren’t simulations I’m talking about, so utilize the things that make the game play better and maybe give the players a little more control.

I have a bigger issue with your defense of kingmaking.  Kingmaking isn’t necessarily the kiss of death when it appears, but I’d still say it’s always a bug and never a feature.  Being the player who has to determine which opponent wins when I have no chance myself is always a rotten decision and diminishes the overall gaming experience just a bit.  It can be a difficult thing to exterminate entirely and some kinds of games are more prone to it than others.  But my problems with it have nothing to do with game duration; it’s simply an unfortunate thing to have in a game.  If I win, I want it to be because I played better than the other folks, not because Fred over there flipped a mental coin and decided to let me prevail over the second place player.

Anyway, I liked the column and look forward to future efforts.  A very nice start.

Glad you enjoyed the column.

My point in the paragraph about dice was to point out that there are conquest games for you *however* you feel about luck, not to defend luck itself (I could, and might well, write a whole column about that itself). So asking for specific examples is a very good question.

Half the answer has nothing to do with dice. Much as I love them they’re a pretty blunt instrument when it comes to representing randomness-with-control as you describe. Cards work better - see FRIEDRICH for an example of how to do it.

However I’ll stand by my position that there are better and worse ways of using dice. An old but effective favourite is to throw a lot of them and let the probability curve take care of itself, as in TITAN. A more innovative and recent solution is to use some specialist dice, like CONQUEST OF THE EMPIRE. Yet another is to make the effectiveness of the dice roll hinge on some tactical decision as NEXUS OPS does. I’m not enough of a mathematician to be able to explain why the system in MARE NOSTRUM - roll a fistful of dice, total and the enemy looses a unit for every multiple of five - is effective at giving a satisfying balance between riding probability and the occasional thrilling surprise, but it does.

Bottom line though is that any good game which makes an effective use of dice will place more emphasis on non-dice parts of the game than the bits with dice. That way you can have your cake and eat it - a solid strategic game that still has the adrenaline rush of rolling the bones.

The whole kingmaking thing ties into diplomacy. Persuading someone to be your kingmaker is part and parcel of the game. And if it’s a relatively short game (and you’ve got a sensible enough group of people who’ll remember it’s just a game) it works for me as another exciting twist on the whole negotiation thing.

First, congrats on the column! Very interesting first column here.

As another Omni-Gamer, I think you’re slightly off when you say “Indeed I’d go so far as to wonder whether, in the modern age, people don’t just critique these games out of sheer panic at the thought of having to play a game that involves them talking to their fellow gamers.” Two relatively interactive games where players must talk to their fellow gamers in negotiations and very recent are Lifeboats and Santiago.

Lifeboats requires that players discuss who to throw out of a boat each round, and Santiago requires that players try to bribe the canal overseer (often together to make it more expensive to choose another option). While I didn’t enjoy Lifeboats that much, I love Santiago and both games do get praise from those who try them.

I think more accurately, having open ended negotiations, as opposed to the more limited and direct negotiations of the two games I mentioned, is the true argument.

I also think I’m lucky as I try to liven up the demos I run, and admittedly games with a “take that” kind of action gets a stronger response than one that doesn’t, but games with enforced silence seems to be a boring way to play any game, no matter what the theme/game style. I’ve seen my share of silent Puerto Rico games, but also just as many silent wargames from absolute die hards. I’ve also seen my share of raucus laughter from a game of Power Grid and reactions from extreme die rolls in Clix games.

Most of all, I play to have fun, and don’t enjoy playing a game again if it wasn’t fun at all, even if it was a good game.

Santiago is an interesting game, no doubt about it, and one I own and have enjoyed playing. However, another thing I don’t doubt about Santiago is that you can play it as a straight-up analysis game, heads bowed, never saying a word to anyone. Why anyone would want to play it like that is another matter - but you certainly could.

I haven’t played lifeboats, so I can’t comment on that.

***Most of all, I play to have fun, and don’t enjoy playing a game again if it wasn’t fun at all, even if it was a good game.***

Couldn’t want a better summation of the real reason we should be picking and playing games.

Fair enough, Matt.  I’m not picking on dice; like you, I believe there are better and worse ways of using them in games.  For example, in a Risk-like resolution system, I’d be much happier if both sides always lost *something* with each roll (for example, if the results were Attacker/Defender losses of 1/2, 1/1, and 2/1 instead of the current 0/2, 1/1, and 2/0).  With the former method, you have a worst case you can plan from; with the current one, there’s no such thing as a guaranteed win, which makes planning almost impossible.  My problem isn’t the dice, but the way they’re used.

“The whole kingmaking thing ties into diplomacy. Persuading someone to be your kingmaker is part and parcel of the game.”

Ah, in that case we’re talking about a difference of playing styles.  We like to complain about being picked on and insist another player is winning.  But when it comes down to a naked “make this move and Player A wins, make this other one and Player B wins”, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone in our group try to influence the result.  We make a determined effort to keep metagaming out of our games and I don’t see how it could be affected by anything else but that.  Just the way we play.

Dice are just another method of using probability to effect “outcome” in a game.  I have no problem with dice.  “Managed risk” is all that is and it promotes adaptability and flexibility into an ever changing strategic dynamic.

This whole “kingmaking” thing is overblown too.  The runaway leader problem injects another level of complexity that also needs to be managed… and introduces additional variety and complexity into a game.  Certainly not good in some games designs… but certainly a necessity in others. 

It’s too broad a brush to automatically paint “lazy design” with.

To close:  It all comes down to what you like in a game. 

---------
Excellent article.  Nice to see a distinct opinion expressed.  Well done, Matt.

And I love Conquest of the Empire...(the Eagle Games basic way of playing it.)

I think Larry nails it when he talks about the difference in playing styles playing a role in enjoyment of direct conflict games.  Very rarely (read nonexistent nowadays) do game rules clue players in on how to negotiate and form alliances.  More often the non-conflict game style of playing is one of “make the best move for the best return assuming all other players will always be doing the same (and not hold grudges)”

A classic example is TI3.  Played one way every player defends every border and each turn attacks where they can gain the most and hinder the leader.  Played another way (with full alliances and diplomacy) two players can ally and leave their borders with one another undefended—which not only allows them to double their forces on their active border, but allows them to play a faster game as they aren’t wasting time on planning a fight on that allied border. and again none of these dipolmacy heavy play style ideas are in the rules.

For a session report example with lots of alliance strategy ideas check out silverbeard’s “Shogun is a dish best served cold” at http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/167265

Matt --
welcome to the roster!

A great column.
I look forward to reading more in weeks to come

dale