In Ye Olden Days, I used to rant on this blog. I complained about indie games and game boxes, about colors and player numbers. I whined about people whining and respectfully stated why I didn’t respect highly respected games. At some point it faded away — which is too bad because I at least enjoyed those pieces. So, today I’m going to return to that old style of writing and rant about something that’s been bugging me.
The topic is player aggression, by which I mean the ability to wantonly and freely attack another player, to crush their hopes of victory, to see their resources driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women (or men). For a long time, eurogames were afraid to approach the topic at all, but as eurogames have spread beyond Germany — in particular as they’ve mingled and reproduced with American games — aggression has slowly come into the field.
That’s not a bad thing in itself, as aggression can be a fine ingredient in a game, but it has to be dealt with carefully, else you get a result that’s really 1957 — full of slick hairdos and not a lot of substance.
You see, when you introduce player aggression into your game — when you give players the opportunity to pillage and maraud, to steal sheep and rip off rock, to hijack highways, siege cities, and misappropriate monasteries — you gotta offer some controls. I mean there’s gotta be some law, doesn’t there?
Because if you don’t, a game just becomes a punch fest, with players making losers do even worse or keeping winners from ever winning. They’ll be taking out their foes while avoiding their family and friends. Totally uncontrolled aggression can unbalance a game and unbalance a social environment alike. It can make players cry. Or yell. Or throw a game across the room.
Fortunately, there are a lot of ways to combat the problem.
The Old Answers
In the Days of Yore, these problems weren’t completely ignored; it’s just that most of the ways to direct aggression rose organically out of the gameplay. The result was what I call “limited competition”.
The most traditional way to direct naked aggression in a game is through location-based limitation. That’s what you see in most wargames, including Risk and many more. Who you can attack is limited by where you are. Mind you, you usually still have lots of choices; in my experience most wargames allow you to attack everyone but 1 or 2 players. As a result, most of the problems with uncontrolled aggression stick around too.
Another organic way to direct aggression is through affirmative limitation. That’s a fancy-dancy way of saying that players will attack other players that have something they want: resources, money, land, Arks of the Covenenant, whatever. At least this gives a reason for an attack, so players don’t feel (as) picked on, but it can still result in many of the other problems of uncontrolled aggression, such as everyone picking on the loser.
Finally, a surprising number of classic games feature negative limitation of aggression: you attack a player because they’re the leader … or even more typically because they’re about to win. I tend to find this one of the worst ways to drive competition because it’s more full of faults than California.
For a start you have what I call Steve-Jackson-syndrome — from the fact that I find it in many classic Steve Jackson games like Illuminati, Hacker, and Munchkin. The syndrome works like this: someone is about to win, so players pounce on him, expending stop-the-leader resources until the leader is stopped. Then another player rises to power, and the pattern repeats. Eventually someone rises to power and the stop-the-leader resources are all expended, so that players fairly randomly wins.
I also feel like most games become negotiation games when competition is driven mainly by the desire to hurt others. “No, I’m not winning … Look! Over there! A castle! Isn’t that dangerous!? You should smash it!” If I wanted that, I’d play Chinatown or Traders of Genoa instead.
Perhaps some of these methods of directing competition are a step up from totally arbitrary decisions … but you could do a lot better, and a lot of games have, especially in the modern era.
A Few New Answers
I call it “controlled competition” when game designers have figured out ways to explicitly limit the aggression in a game. The best ones resolve many of the problems of uncontrolled (or limited) competition, while keeping the fun of beating people up and taking their stuff.
I’ve listed a few (mostly) modern takes on this topic, in my personal order of increasing coolness.
Cosmic Encounter: It’s pretty surprising to find such an old American game on this list, but Cosmic Encounter was controlling naked aggression far, far before it became cool to do so. The game’s answer is stunningly simple: a random deck of cards tells you which other player you can attack each turn, with the occasional wild warp giving you more freedom. There’s still a little bit of choice, as you can select a specific planet owned by the player to attack — but as often as not, this decision isn’t very meaningful.
Pergamemnon: As I wrote in my recent article on Pergamemnon, the game has a lot of flaws and its turn ordering system — which integrates with its aggression control — is probably one of them. Nonetheless its aggression control is simple and effective, if a bit too mechanical. Essentially, after a player has been attacked he can’t be attacked again until everyone else has.
Cambria: Eric Vogel’s game of knocking down Roman forts is mostly a majority-control game — which is the sort of aggression that’s been broadly deemed OK by the German Board Game Licensing Agency (GBGLA? it presumably makes more sense in German). However, you also get the occasional opportunity to replace someone else’s majority-control cube with your own. Which is pretty raw aggression. However, this replacement ability is controlled with dice rolls, a control very similar to Cosmic Encounter’s cards: you need doubles to do a replacement, and the number rolled tells you where the replacement can occur. However, there’s a lot more control here than in Cosmic Encounter, as a single result can be used to target any of the paths leading into a couple of different cities. You can also save up dice rolls with “ships” to try and give yourself a better chance of rolling certain sorts of doubles.
Ticket to Ride Card Game: I find the Ticket to Ride Card Game to be an amazingly aggressive game, as you’re constantly wiping out the resources (cards) that other players are trying to collect. You do so by playing more of the same color of cards yourself. Surprisingly, this resource assault rarely feels personal because the destruction of someone else’s cards is essentially a side effect of your playing your own cards. (“Did I wipe out your red? So sorry! But what could I do? I needed to play red to make my own routes!”) Perhaps this is something like the affirmative limitation I talked about in the Games of Yore — as you’re being aggressive to get a benefit — but the fact that it’s a side effect of your own play makes it feel entirely different.
Epic Spell Wars: Finally we come to Rob Heinsoo’s newest game — a totally aggressive game of throwing nasty spells at other players. This could easily have been a Steve Jackson game and it could easily have fallen prey to the same problems. Instead Heinsoo controlled aggression in a simple but effective way. Each card says who it can be used to attack (player with most hit points, player with least hit points, foes to your left and right, player with least treasures, etc.) You actually have pretty good opportunity to attack whoever you want since you have several different cards each with their own limitations, but you have to make a choice: do you use your best constructed spell or do you attack the person you want to? Also, these attacks again feels less aggressive, because you’re just doing what the card says.
Conclusion
I dunno if there’s a place for unbridled, naked, and uncontrolled aggression in gaming generally, but it’s been my experience that games are usually better for at least some control. So, hats off to the folks over the years who have done so in clever ways.
Very nice article! One of the things I most detest when playing *ANY* game is playing with someone who is constantly saying things like, “why are you making that move? Person X is in the lead, you should do something to thwart them instead of me!” Especially when the person saying that is in lead, which is usually the case, or when Person X is clearly *not* in the lead or is still trying to grok the game. And, oftentimes, Person X is me, which makes it doubly unfun when I have no clue what I’m doing. I should point this article out to these people. 🙂
Agression can be recast as engaging your opponents. Eurogames are notably often weak in that area and I do question the virtue of simultaneous solitaire in the long run. Not that you’re _neccessarily_ arguing for that. I’d concur that mechanics can be shaped to avoid feelings of being singled out, but that is primarily because a game is most interesting if all players retain a degree of potency: a requirement that is at odds with the fundamental need to make a game ‘tippy’. It’s not very clear that you are really arguing against ‘aggression’ per se, when you think about it.
Yep. My problem isn’t with *aggression* (which is certainly a game style choice) but instead *naked aggression* (which is uncontrolled, undirected & unlimited aggression).
Hey Shannon, I’ve looked for your contact info on the site but can’t find it, so I figured I’d contact you here. I really connect with this particular blog entry, as the prevention of aggression and hostility was really important to me as I was designing my board game, Viticulture (it’s on Kickstarter now). If you might be interested in a guest post or interview on your blog, could you get in touch with me? My e-mail is jamey.stegmaier@gmail.com. Thanks!
Agression and hostility is actually pretty tied to theme.
A more important concept is “politics”, the way Donald X. Vaccarino uses the word. Doing something that sets back your opponents is fine, but when you get to pick and choose who to punish, it becomes political and as you say, deteriorates into a negotiation game no matter what game elements it uses.
But politics don’t have to be about attacks. It isn’t just the robber which is political in Settlers, trading is, too.
Many good designers try to minimize the impact of politics. All good designers try to limit the impact of politics – if it’s not at least occasionally possible to win while being politically disfavored, the players might as well vote who should win. One fairly recent game which fails spectacularly on this is Nightfall – with more than two players, your deck/playing efficiency has to be more than twice your opponent’s to prevent political decisions (effectively randomness in this case) from deciding the game. That’s just not going to happen.
A negotiation game is not some lowest common denominator that a badly designed game “deteriorates” into, it’s a style of game, which many people actually like.
I know this is a rant and all, but I do wonder why so many gamers mistake their personal dislike for certain mechanisms and styles as an intrinsic fault of the game designers. Illuminati is a great example of this “political” game that does work quite well as an unmitigated aggressive punch fest. The mechanisms match the theme and it is a great fun to play, for those who like this type of game. SJG does go for this type and yes it is kind of their signature. Their sales, especially of Munchkin, which also falls into this category, continue to rise.
Not all games are like this nor should they be, but really is unmitigated aggression a problem in of itself? Should manipulation and negotiation really be regulated to second class skills status verses, what? Statistics, basic strategy, dice rolls?
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with some of what you say about issues involved and the necessary mitigation (but every game mechanism has issues to work through). Cosmic and epic spell wars are fantastic games (and I’m constantly defending the destiny deck to new players who want to attack whomever they want). But the premise that aggression of this kind is intrinsically bad game design is just plain wrong.
What you call “The Steve Jackson Syndrome” I have long called “Last Past the Post”, and yes, it has ruined many an interesting game. The worst victim was Wolfgang Kramer’s otherwise enjoyable MAGALON, where the ending turns into a free-fire-zone of total madness until someone manages, mostly by luck, to limp across the finish line.
Eric M, immediately above: It’s not that negotiation games are bad (notice that Shannon praises Chinatown and Traders of Genoa, which are almost purely games of negotiation); it’s just that, without some checks on aggression, *every* multiplayer game becomes a game of negotiation, even if the mechanics aren’t particularly well-suited for it. (Witness: almost every 3-handed Chess variant ever.)
reading this article as it was linked in a new one (june 2016 – “Making a dick move”)
The problem you speak about isn’t one of naked aggression, or any aggression for that matter, which is also why the solutions offered miss the crux of the issue.
The problem of free-for-all multiplayer conflict/combat games is often this one: as they do not offer a structure which would shape the free-for-all interactive space in a way which would get the most intersting gaming experiece these games can offer out of them, players will bring their own structure into the game. The problem with this games is that learnt and often unaware, behaviour of players will shape the game – basically the problem is groupthink and this groupthink is shaped by herding instict/hivemind of the group.
Bashing the leader is a quite traditional and perfectly fine idea about how to play in such a gaming environment. The idea is simple – you want to minimize the difference between your position and the leader in order to hopefully overtake the leader and eventually win the game. The problem is – many many players have no idea this is what they should be doing. Many of them also have a problem in identifying who this leader is. Furthermore it is common, and perfectly fine, for there to be “negotiations” and “convincing” others about who actually is in the lead. The problem is it might take many plays until all the players “get it” and play the game this way, which brings the most tension and thus enjoyment out of it.
The good thing about bashing the leader dynamics is that balancing the game isn’t left to a designer who will impose their will upon the gaming space with some sort of rigid structure. Instead players will actively balance the game. This brings the game life, dynamics, engagement of all the players. It’s just a more rewarding experience.
However I rarely have enough time and good will that I will persist with one gaming group until they manage to let loose of their inner herding programme and bring their collective behaviour into a conscious sphere of acting. I thus seek games which offer enough solid structure which actively and intentionally shape the shared social space within the game, instead of letting it be shaped by herding impulses. Games I pick are: Cosmic Encounter (destiny deck, telling players who to attack, plus it makes long term alliances meaningless, which helps this game), King of Tokyo (you only attack into Tokyo if you’re out of it, and from Tokyo out, if you’re in it). Chaos in the Old World and Diplomacy offer asymetrical powers – which means, it’s not personal, but I have to play against Nurgle or Russia otherwise they’ll be too powerful, while leaving Tzeentch, Italy and Austria alone is okay, as they’re weaker sides. It’s kinda like enacting a theatre – you’re not bashing the leader, but the sides which are known to be stronger.
Onto the issues and quotes:
“I mean there’s gotta be some law, doesn’t there?”
There always is one, just a question whether it’s conscious or not and whether it’s helping the game fulfil its potential or not.
” with players making losers do even worse or keeping winners from ever winning. They’ll be taking out their foes while avoiding their family and friends. Totally uncontrolled aggression can unbalance a game and unbalance a social environment alike. It can make players cry. Or yell. Or throw a game across the room.”
Giving players freedom is a good thing as it can make the games more fulfilling, memorable and satisfying. But if players have no idea what to do with that freedom and start behaving headlessly, well, … it IS their fault, while yeah, it would help get them some guidelines which would help them get sooner into what they should be doing and how inside such a game.
The problem of these games isn’t aggression, is players not consciously shaping the shared collective environment, but letting their real life habits and biases do this for them.
“munchkin”
Problem is that balancing the game (bashing the leader) and ending the game are forces going in different directions, thus prolonging the game too much. This is solvable by game desing – makign a game that will eventually end. Cyclades Titans expansion manages this really well. Monopoly deal card game is also made in a way it will end in some 15-20 minutes as promised.
“Risk”
While not well known, RIsk is actually considered to be a negotiation game, not a multiplayer combat game.
“or a long time, eurogames were afraid to approach the topic at all, but as eurogames have spread beyond Germany — in particular as they’ve mingled and reproduced with American games — aggression has slowly come into the field.”
It’s the other way around. German games used to have more engagement and interaction than Eurogames do now. Now maybe at the time (2012) there were a couple of hybrids around mixing euro and AT design paradigms, but these weren’t technically euros.
Old “evil” euros: Area Majority (El Grande and many games from Kramer, then San Marco, and I’m sure there are many), Tigris and Euphrates, Condontierre,Neue Heimat. There are also many stock market games with a mixture or 18xx and eurogame influences – like Imperial, which is an eurogame. A bit unique one, but still.
@Tami Whitsett on August 28, 2012
What you need to do is get better at reading the game state. And get better at public talking/negotiating skills.Turn the tables, return the propaganda.
@vintermann on September 13, 2012
“Many good designers try to minimize the impact of politics. All good designers try to limit the impact of politics ”
Yes, the issue the blog post is about essentially politics – i.e. how the social space of the group playing the game will be shaped. However making such games appear to be of lower rank and as you imply “not something good designers will do” is complete bollocks. Social skills are skills which have as much of a place in boardgaming as optimising a spreadsheet, solving an equation and maximing victory points. I’m kinda fed up with “strategic gamers” trying to belittle certain sets of skills: social skills, psychological skills (bluffing, lying), speed, memory, sometimes also dexterity skills. These are all worthy skills, might not be your cuppa, but no reason to imply “good designers” will shape their games only to make people with maximising and optimising (“so called strategic”) skills win. There’s nothing wrong with a game just because it promotes a set of skills you don’t have or don’t prefer to use in boardgaming. Some do.
@Eric Matthews on September 13, 2012
“I know this is a rant and all, but I do wonder why so many gamers mistake their personal dislike for certain mechanisms and styles as an intrinsic fault of the game designers.”
Amen brother, AMEN.
@Kevin J. Maroney on October 5, 2012
“it’s just that, without some checks on aggression, *every* multiplayer game becomes a game of negotiation”
We’re 4 years later and now every multiplayer game has so many of these checks implemented that all of them had become multiplayer optimisation solitary puzzles. 😛
Now players are so protected between from themselves and other players they rarely notice they actually do share a table with live, breathing people.
How about different games be about promoting and rewarding different skills? Of course there are good and bad negotiation games, but there’s nothing inherently wrong or less worthy about negotiation games, just if you prefer some other games. 🙂