Unorthodox scoring mechanisms and victory conditions

I do like the self limiting aspects, but it seems like you are imposing something like a handy-cap. Once a player starts winning, tie their hands. I can see people getting frustrated with it, but it could work.

Personally I like the early rounds to be worth less points, and the later rounds to be worth more points (so it is possible for the underdog to catch up and win).

Just some thoughts.

The reason people are playing for the lowest score is actually related to the game and makes perfect sense. Basically, it's secret organizations vying for control of the world, but having too much exposure hurts them.

And thanks for the comment.. I didn't really see it at the tying players' hands once they start winning, but my answer to that is that I would like a game where winning is actually hard to accomplish, and staying within the lowest amount of points possible would be very hard.

I like the dilemma you're setting before the players; high scores give you more actions, but low scores are what win you the game. Unfortunately, if there's no way to reduce your score, it may be hard to motivate players to actually want to beef up their scores, since doing so could be a sure loser.

I have a similar mechanic in one game, where there's a "threshold" effect, where above which, certain actions become available to you, but there's also some penalty associated with that. It's not connected to the scoring, but I think it's sort of the same thing.

There would be a way to reduce your own score. But the more I'm thinking, the less it would be possible to reduce your own score, since the more score you have, the more possibilities you have for increasing other players' scores. I find it to be pretty self-balancing, but I'm sure like in any other designs some kinks would pop up here or there.

However, I share Jeff's concern that if a player cannot reduce his own score in some way, that there will be very little incentive to gain some points in the first place. I understand that having more points also gives you the power to let others gain even more points, but doesn't this mean that those players in turn can give you even more points in return? I'm afraid that it might come down to being in the right place when the game ends and that only the tactical play of the last few turns may actually matter.

I was actually thinking that any in-game action can be directed towards any player, yourself included. So you could give or remove points to yourself or any player quite easily.

Well in theory yes, but when the leader is also the weakest player of the moment, why would you overtly bash him? I got an initial feeling of everyone actually bashing each other until almost everyone's points were somewhat equal, and then the better skilled player(either through negociation or tactical ability) would have a better chance of winning.

I was also thinking of maybe multiple ways to trigger the endgame. I liked how Civilization's endgame triggered when a specific player attained certain goals, but I wanted it to be more flexible in how you can trigger it. Maybe with multiple possible goals, you can set yourself to attain one and focus on it.