Games of chess are rarely played out to a “proper” finish.  What usually happens is that either one player concedes defeat and resigns, or the two players agree that neither of them is likely to win and they settle for a draw.

As you say, the mechanism is harder to implement in a multi-player game, because even when it is obvious to you that you’re bound to lose, there is the enjoyment of several other people to take into consideration.  However, in the group I play with, if it is obvious to everyone that player A is going to win, the rest of us will jointly offer our resignation so that we’ll have time to play something else.

Watten and Mus would be examples of multi-player games with this game value escalation mechanic. Watten supports 2-4 players, Mus is strictly 4 player. In both games, the 4 player version is played in partnerships. Watten’s betting is restricted to increments of 1 but this can still lead to a single hand deciding the entire game, while Mus’ betting is unrestricted, its “Ordago” bet acting much like an “All In” does Poker.

http://www.pagat.com/trumps/watten.html
http://www.pagat.com/vying/mus.html

Interesting that you would post on this topic today.  Last night my wife and I were playing Dominion (the deck size set) about halfway through the game my wife conceded defeat as my deck was chaining through my cards while hers wasn’t up to speed yet.

I was a bit downcast as a result as I didn’t get to see my deck-building efforts come to fruition.  In an abstract game such as poker/chess/backgammon I can see conceding a game as very useful.  However, in a more involved game (such as an economic engine one) conceding a game could be disappointing as players do not get to see how well their “built” economy performs.

This brings to mind the concept of “Fight or Flight,” especially in game design. In the competitive realm, conceding a game is a big no-no, but you can give up a play in order to position yourself better for later in the game. More elements, present in different games:

- “Life-or-Death” in Go.
- The “Fielder’s Choice” in Baseball.
- Any sort of Gambit in chess.
- Giving up early on the Road or Army cards in Catan.

However, I am not as familiar with the concept of “escalating stakes,” since I’m not an avid poker or backgammon player.

Very difficult if not nigh on impossible to implement in a multiplayer game.

Also possibly not worth it.  I have seen a number of games where people have come back from what seem to be untenable positions to pull off a win.  I remember a game of Puerto Rico that I thought I was doomed and Melissa had run away with the victory when we were about half way through, yet much to my amazement I won.

There have been plenty of other games where we have thought that player X was written off yet they have managed to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

Some games you may be able to call the winner ahead of time, but the number of times I have seen those predictions go wrong, proves that one should never be too sure.

It is more feasible in a two player game, and the doubling cube in back gammon also adds that nice gambling aspect to it.

There are a few multiplayer games out there that allow a player to restart voluntarily or after being wiped out.  Tongiaki and Air Baron are a couple that come to mind.  I wonder if this could be made a more common concept.  For most games, you’d have to give the eliminated player an advanced start and I’m not sure how that would work out.  Maybe allow “quitting” to come back in an “average” position?  Hard to define average, though.

Actually, upon further reflection, Through the Ages actually has formalized the ability to resign your position.  No chance to come back, but at least you can officially concede defeat.

The doubling cube as such only makes sense when a game is being played for stakes, or when a series of games are being played and the ultimate winner has the most points.  Let’s ignore the case of money.  If a series of BG games are being played with the doubling cube, then really the entire series is “the game” and each so-called game is actually one round.  A player can quit a round.  After all, if you’re truly giving up the game, then it’s over and points are irrelevant.

To me the essential aspects of the doubling cube are:
-One player may say: either concede what was at stake or accept increase stakes
-The other player may concede, but if he chooses not to, he gains in the upside potential as much as the first player.

The latter requirement makes this different than “double or nothing” in which the second player can double his losses, but at best he can break even if he wins.

Essentially, the latter player has a risk/return equation to make.  Either lose one point, guaranteed - or accept the uncertainty of either gaining or losing two points.  If he takes the risk, he might lose one point more than if he conceded, but he could gain three points over conceding - so there is considerable possible reward for accepting the risk.

In Blue Moon, once players toss a certain number of cards into a fight it becomes worth more.  So a player in a slightly weaker position, seeing the battle escalating, must decide whether to abandon or else continue, knowing that doing so raises the stakes for both players.

There is an element of the feature in certain majority control games where an area scores more when more resources play into it.  For example in Manhattan, if a player challenges your tower, you can let him have it or contest him for it - but as you do, you make the tower larger and potentially worth a bonus.  In Merchants of Amsterdam, similarly, when more people play into a given region, that region becomes worth more (although it’s also worth more for 2nd place too, so it can have a win-win element).  Tycoon/El Capitan also has this feature.

The way I see it, multiplayer games fall into two categories:

1). player elimination, where I suppose you could just resign your position at the point where you stand.  The inherent problem is that PE games continue until the last man is standing, so resigning only means you have longer to wait while they finish, which does not satisfy your end goal of “starting over”

2). no player elimination, in which case your presence on the board is integrated into the development and final outcome of the game.  At best, the general rule is that it’s difficult to extricate yourself from this entanglement.  Depending on the game, I’d actually say it’s more on a bell curve of sorts, where people can be lenient about quitting (or joining) in the first round when nothing has developed, or in the closing round(s) if you can’t significantly impact the final outcome.  The same issue remains, though: if only you resign, then only you are ready to play the next game; everyone else is still in the middle of the current one.

As an aside, I’ll add 2a.) the “multiplayer solitaire” game, for people who feel they could walk away from a game of e.g. Dominion or Race for the Galaxy with no impact on other players.

The problem to solve is getting consensus on ending the game collectively.  In a 2-player game, that’s easy enough: one player quits, the other wins.  For each player you add, you need to have more incentive for each player to agree to end the game before its natural conclusion.  But how do you get multiple people with different goals, different approaches, and different ideas about how the game is going, playing with a mechanic that makes it okay - and sometimes even desirable! - to end the game in the middle, without removing the incentive to play through to the end in the process?  How do we incorporate both into the same game without having one compromise the other, or exploding both in the attempt?