[TiGD] Runaway leader/leader bashing!

Thanks for a great opening essay! We put these seemingly separate topics together because, to me at least, they're two sides of the same coin. The key issue with these problems is that both render a significant portion of the game superfluous. With a runaway leader, the early part of the game dominates and the late stages are unimportant to determining the outcome of the game. With leader bashing, it's just the opposite; the early stages of the game are insignificant, since the player who leads in that stage will be hit and brought back to the pack.

These are a bit of a generalization, but I think they stem from a core idea that in general, the whole game should matter; after all, if the winner is known by the third turn, why play 10 more turns? Similarly, I've played far too many games in my group where the dominant strategy was "don't be leading in the first half of the game", since doing so would make you a target and the 2nd place player would just win. Now, certainly, to some extent, "leader bashing" is a player flaw; if players collectively gang up on one player, only to pave the way for another to win, then perhaps they shouldn't have hit the leader quite so hard. Still, philosophically, it just never sat well with me that the point of many games was to be "average" up until the very end. I just didn't find that fun in general.

There's also a "leader bashing" problem in games where one person can end the game by winning. Games like Illuminati have this problem; "If Joe succeeds doing [such and such], he will win, and the game will be over, so let's all hit 'Joe'". Then, after Joe gets brought back to the pack, it's Mike's turn to get hit, and so on. This is a slightly different problem, because it can really drag the game out.

I think the key to solving these problems is to make every part of the game important (but not necessarily equal in importance...)

1. Use accelerated scoring. In other words, scoring opportunities late in the game are more important than scoring opportunities early in the game.
Otherwise, someone who can pick up an early lead can basically maintain it as the game goes on.

2. To score early (and become the leader), some long-term scoring opportunity must be sacrificed. Carcassonne has a nice element of this with giving you a limited number of Meeples for deployment, which means you have to balance short-range scoring like cities with long-range scoring from Farms.

3. Make some of the scoring secret. This helps to make leader identification difficult, which doesn't always guarantee that players won't try to hit the leader, but that it will be sufficiently hard to identify who the leader is that people should use some caution when doing so.

I'm sure there are other ways to reduce these problems, but to me, the key is making the whole game matter; crack that, and these problems should be greatly reduced.

-Jeff

One of the problems I see sometimes with Runaway Leaders is in games where some sort of currency (money, VPs, etc) is used to buy resources, and the purchasing of said resources leads to more currency. This cyclical trait can lead to serious runaway leader problems. Let's face it, players like it when the game rewards them for making good game decision; however such a system that rewards for supposed good gameplay and penalizes (or simply doesn't give a reward) for 'bad play' can create a huge gap between the player(s) who are doing well and who are not rather quickly. Steve's Zoosim explanation is a perfect example of what I'm referring to. Somehow we as designers need to sever the direct link between game currency and game resources, or at least find a good method for providing better payouts to the underdog and lessened payouts to those players who are further ahead.

Just my 2 pence.
-Darke

Good morning everyone,

My girlfriend bought me last year a game called "Samurai & Katana". Although the game is in French, it has an interesting game mechanics regarding leading players. At the start of each turn, the player who has most honor points (VP of this game) receives the "Shogun" title. Having one free movement per turn is the only benefit of having this title. He has one big disadvantage though: whenever he loses a battle, he loses one honor point. The player with the least honor point receives the "Emperor" title. The emperor has the ability to decide the play order. These rules may not prevent a "Bash the leader" effect, but make part of the game evolve around this.

I would also like to add to Jeff's comments in regards to hidden victory points. Having hidden personnal objectives can prevent players from knowing exactly which player is leading. I used to play a game called "Labyrinth Master" when I was younger. In this game, you start the game by picking a card which gives you three objectives, treasures you must find in the labyrinth. A player gain points for each treasure found, but if he has that treasure in his secret list, he recieve even more points.

In Serenissima, I have seen odd things occur during the last turn. It was the complete opposite of the "Bash the leader" theory: "Leaders bash the weak". Leaders attacked the loosing players, in hope of gaining more victory points. It is more rewarding to strike at someone defenseless than someone with a large fleet.

I do not really like games where the "Runaway leader" situation occurs. I think one should always have a chance to come back. It is not about keeping a low profile during the first part of the game, but about players who, although they have tried very hard, have not had a chance to grow as much powerful as other players, but managed climb up to victory. I have seen many games like that in Settlers.

Darkehorse also mentionned to sever resources from currency. I would add to that: Sever resources and currency from game objectives. Give players a choice: "Do I score now, or invest so that I can score later". This could provide some interesting dilemas.

Well, there goes my first post :) Feel free to msg me if you have any comments about the post itself.

Have a nice day,

Jeb

Hello

I believe that "Run away leader" is one of the major problems in games.
A game that has a "Run away leader" early in the game will normally be considered boring.

We have also the other side, that I call the "Speed bump" problem. That is when a can not win and the player is reduced to a "speed bump". Nothing he/she will do will effects the game. That is another but related issue.

Why do we have a "Run away leader"? Is the "Run away leader" an effect of:
- Skill
- Experience (I use to dived skill and experience in two categories, one will normally give the other but not always).
- Luck.

If the reason for "Run away leader" is based on skill or experience, then we can introduce some kind of handicap in the game. Normally that will work fine.
Luck is something that has to be build away in the design.

Let see how some games have solved the problem (see it from the other side):

King Me! and Magic Realm has hidden goals. You will not know who is winning until the game is over.
Ticket to ride has half of the score hidden (the goals give around half of the final score) You have can see some scoring but not all of it).
In History of the world, the player with the lowest score draws the next civilisation first, and keeps it or gives it to any player around the table. The leader will probably not get the best civilisation this time.
In Kremlin, the goal is not hidden, but your playing pieces are.
Knightmare chess, Go, ASL and Magic Realm has handicap systems.
In Ave Cesar can the leader not use all his cards.
Advanced civilisation has a system where all players benefit from when more players can trade.
In Republic of Rome the game itself is a player and can win (there is a common enemy and the leader will also lose if the game win).
In Talisman you don’t have to be the strongest player to win, just the player that has the courage to face the danger can win.

I have also experimented with campaigns (in WHFB) where the winner gets less and less resources (representing that the winner will go longer away from home base and get less reinforcement). This work well both as a handicap system and if somebody join the champion later.

// Johan

One disturbing manifestation of the problem is the "no apparent leader" issue (although there may well be a runaway leader, they are hidden.)
This occurs in one of two ways. Either there is a scoring mechanism which disguises player positions (a classic example of this would be Ticket to Ride, although I find the otherwise enjoyable San Marco to be my own personal bugbear.)
Or the game is structured in a series of phases such that it requires a positive action to push the game forwards (e.g. Power Grid) which often results in the first player to bite the bullet being badly burned and frequently knocked out of contention.

Although leader bashing is often used to mitigate a runaway leader problem, I do think runaway leader and leader bashing are two seperate issues.

Runaway leader

I think that a runaway leader problem typically occurs in games where you use the game's resources to accumulate more resources, which you use to accumulate even more resources and so on. Once you fall behind in this rat race it can be hard to catch up. This is a problem, because players who are behind know they cannot win the game long before it is actually over, which is not fun. It makes the beginning of a game very important and the endgame pointless, which is not a good tension curve.

Then again, "empire building" games, where you use previously attained resources to get even more and/or better resources and expand your "empire" this way, are among the most satisfying of strategy games, so it would be nice if there were some way to implement this mechanism without the nasty effects of a runway leader. There are many ways of doing this.

I think it is often a wise idea to seperate the resources from the winning condition. If you have a design in which you use money to make more money, and the player who is the first to get to $1000 wins, then that is a good recipe for a game with a runaway leader problem. If you seperate the resources from the winning condition, then the player has to think about when to convert his resources into winning conditions. A player who starts off well resource-wise may mess up when he tries to convert these resources into winning points and a player who does this more efficiently may be able to catch up and win.

It also helps if the difference between the amount of resources the players get at each point in the game is relatively small. This sounds kind of vague, but "Puerto Rico" is a good example. Whenever the "Mayor" is chosen everyone gets a few colonists, when the "Builder" is chosen everyone gets to buy a building, when "Settler" is chosen everyone gets a plantation. Sure, there is some difference in what each player gets, but the increments are small. The roles that do sometimes make a huge difference are the "Trader" because of the limited space in the trading house, and the "Captain" because of the limited space on the ships and these are the roles that create the most tension in the game.

Another great trick is, as Jeff already noted, to have increased scoring as the game progresses. This doesn't solve the problem of runaway leader, if there is one, but it does keep the game exciting until the end. It is of course important not to make the end scoring so important that the early rounds become useless.

"Taj Mahal" is a great example of increased scoring. Whenever you win a commodity, you get one point plus one point for each commodity of the same type you have won in previous rounds. This means that one player can get ahead in the scoring by winning a lot of different commodities early in the game, but that may be overcome by careful play and specializing in a particular commodity, for big scores in the late game.

"Puerto Rico" also has increased scoring. Special buildings, such as the Wharf, Harbor and Small Warehouse can produce some big point swings in the late game and the "big" buildings can do the same. This means that a player who gets the best or most resources out of the early game, could still lose if he is outplayed in the late game. This gives other players an incentive to keep playing.

Is runaway leader always bad? For most multi-player strategy games the answer to that question is yes. However, there are some situations where you actually want a runaway leader, because otherwise the game would never end, or end in a stalemate.

A good example of this is Chess. If one player is able to get an advantage over the other player both in material and position on the board then that player will be able to use that advantage to get even a better board position and win more material and this will ultimately lead to a win, barring any silly mistakes of course.

Does this mean that Chess is a bad game? I don't think so. Chess is a 2-player game, so if one player is losing, he can simply give up. This is something that is "not done" in multiplayer games. A lot of stuff that doesn't work in multplayer games is OK in 2-player games and vice versa and a runaway leader is one of those things.

Leader bashing

I don't think that leader bashing is always a problem. In any multiplayer game where you have interaction, you will be able to hurt who you think is the leader in some way. This isn't bad, but you will have to think about how much leader bashing you want in your game.

"Settlers" and "El Grande" are two games where you can actively mess with other peoples resources, so those two game have lots of room for leader bashing. Then again, those are two very popular games and I wouldn't be surpised if that is because of the overt interaction. I think there are a lot of players who like that kind of interaction. That reminds me of a line from a very bad horror movie: "I may be bad, but I sure feel good". I think a lot of people feel that way when they send the Robber your way during a game of "Settlers".

So, I don't perceive leader bashing as a design flaw per say, but rather as a feature which, as a player, you may or may not like.

- René Wiersma

I don't mind a runaway leader if I know there is a good reason, like skill or good luck verses bad luck.

I like the runaway leader to be able to win the game in a reasonable amount of time.

I always try to balance fun and time when making a game

If you're winning and I'm not (or more to the point, if I THINK you're winning and I'm not), it's quite natural for me to do everything I can within the framework of the game to attempt to stop you, *even while* playing to the best of my abilities to enhance my own position.

I think that's just part of any competition or competitive environment.
I disagree. There are games where you can spend most of your time trying to build yourself up and make points and only a small amount of time having to ensure that the leader isn't getting too far ahead, and there are games where you have to spend most of your time nailing the leader even though you'd like to be spending it advancing your position. The first type I call fun and the second type I call bad. Even worse are games where even the player in last place has to focus on keeping the leader from advancing at the cost of ensuring his own loss. Games like Munchkin, in the last 1/3 to 1/2, are plagued with the need to bash the leader in lieu of building yourself up.

I've played many fun published games that were very competitive, and many unfun published games where constant leader bashing was the only way to have any hope of winning, and definitely see it as a problem.

-- Matthew

There's no necessity that a game without leader bashing must necessarily be seen as multi-player solitaire. Puerto Rico is but one of many games that provide substantial player interaction, but don't have an explicit leader-bashing mechanic. Think of it as the difference between speed skating and roller derby. Both have a strong ingredient of interaction, in the sense that you're racing against your opponent, but roller derby adds a "leader bashing" element. Obviously, it's part of the appeal of the sport, but in gaming, leader-bashing is generally a bad thing if it drags out the end game. A classic example of this is the game "ThroneWorld", whose end game can drag on for hours.

In general, I prefer "catch the leader" mechanics to "hit the leader" mechanics, but I know there are some who don't like those either, and for good reasons. I think mild "hit the leader" mechanics are ok, but when it becomes a cycle of "one player goes for the win, he is beaten into oblivion, then another player goes for the win, repeat endlessly", it's just not good. So maybe the problem isn't with leader-bashing alone, but (for me at least) when it results in a neverending game.

-Jeff

You mention wargames, and I think you're missing an important consideration when you do so: in almost any two-player game bashing the leader is improving your position. Leader bashing isn't hardly a problem at all in two-player games (unless it can put the game into a form of stalemate where every advance must be countered and you can never make any advance of your own, and even there some wargames are just fine like that, especially if your goal is to do something like "hold the bridge" or "repel the invaders").

It's in multiplayer games where it becomes a problem. If I have to hit the leader in order to prevent him from winning but the end result is effectively to help everyone else just as much (or more) then frustration begins to set in. That's the "problem" of leader-bashing games.

-- Matthew

FastLearner: I think we more-or-less agree then. Yes...if you must choose between advancing your own position and holding the leader back, then it's a game mechanics issue that needs to be addressed, but keep in mind that there are many (perhaps even a slight majority of?) wargames that are not the two player variety (Axis and Allies springs to mind as the most commercially accessible example, but my closet shelf is filled with others). I also agree that most any two player game is gonna see some level of leader bashing (either direct (hit him) or indirect (denial)), but this is not problematic in and of itself, given the two player design.

So yes...I concede that leader bashing CAN BE a problem, but only for a fairly specific sub-set of games. Taking gaming as a whole....I don't buy it.

-=Vel=-

Axis & Allies is basically a 2-player game. Yes, you can play it with more players, but there are still only two-sides in the conflict.

Leader bashing is never a problem in a 2-player game, but in almost every true multiplayer game it is a potential problem that has to be addressed.