[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

Mon, 08/30/2004 - 13:06

#1

jwarrend

Offline

Joined: 08/03/2008

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

Thanks, Aaron, for getting us off to a great start with this one. (And by the way, let Aaron serve as an example for others who haven't yet signed up to "moderate" these TiGD discussions. See how easy it is? Come on, you know you want to sign up.)

Since we spent a week lavishing praise on Puerto Rico (sort of) during the "role selection" thread, it seemed only fitting to spend a week exploring PR's achilles heel -- its dramatic seat order "problem". The "Drakon" example of this problem is an example of a game where there is a direct seat order effect; Joe's "Scream Machine" is another. In those games, the player to your right and/or left directly benefit/suffer from having you as a neighbor. Puerto Rico's effect is something more of an indirect effect. Since each phase in PR consists of all players carrying out the selected action, and since this always occurs in the same player order (albeit always starting with a different player), the player on your right has a profound influence on your game. For example, if you're both producing Coffee, most of the time, he'll get to put it in the Trading House before you.

There is a different class of seat order effects where one player has an advantage or disadvantage based on where he starts the game. The classic example is Chess, where the white player, by going first, starts with an advantage.

Now, seat order isn't as black-and-white of a "flaw" as something like Analysis Paralysis is; in a sense, it's just a "feature". It mainly becomes a flaw, in PR at least, when a weaker player "gives away" points to his neighbor by not making smart plays. So that is one thing we might talk about -- when designing games, what composition do you assume for the group that will be playing: all experts? all newbies? a mix? And should the design work will any mixture of experience levels? How do seat order effects help/hinder this aim?

Another open question is, what are contexts in which seat order effects present a problem? One I can think of is the "every player gets to be start player the same number of times"; should a design insure this? And is being "start player" equally good at all points in the game?

What are some ways of removing seat order problems (assuming that in a specific game, it is a problem)? Bidding for turn order? Others?

-Jeff

Mon, 08/30/2004 - 13:40

#2

Johan

Offline

Joined: 10/05/2008

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

Hello

My first reaction to this subject was that this is not a real problem (the reason was the example with Drakon. That game is build up around this as a mechanism). But the other examples have this problem. Games can have this "problem" as a component or get it by accident.

All auction games where there is an open auction has this problem, when its around the table. Porto Rico and other games everyone get limited resources and you take the resources in an order ( A majority of the games has this problem build in to the system. When you have a turn order and the game change when its your turn, have the problem.)

There are several ways to deal with this problem:
- Hidden movement order or hidden bidding (Pirates Cove is a good example where the order around the table is removed).
- The order depends on different things on the game board (a good example is Advanced Civilization where the order and resource handling depends on how many units you have).
- Bidding for the order (The old and not so good game Dragon hunt has this mechanism).

I believe that this unwanted order can only be avoided by many hours of play testing and corrections.

// Johan

Mon, 08/30/2004 - 18:30

#3

GeminiWeb

Offline

Joined: 07/31/2008

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

Another example of a game with a distinct 'seat order effect' is Scrabble. In particular, consider a 3 player game, where 2 of the players of very defensive in their tile placements, making sure not to open up scoring opportunities for the next player. The third person however just looks to maximise their individual score, often leaving open good scoring opportunities. As such, the player to the left of this third person is well placed to enjoy a good win.

What can we learn from the example? The effect exists because their is a strong relationship between the method for scoring and the opportunities available for scoring, which are heavily influenced by the previous player.

However, if scoring opportunities were always tight or always fairly open, the effect would be significantly reduced as all players would experience the same opportunities regardless of their seat order.

It also might be easy to say that the problem would go away if the third player played more defensively - other players in the game might point out the advantage this person is providing to the next player. However, we also (usually) don't want a game that forces people to play a specific way ... it kind of takes the 'free will' out of the game ...

Mon, 08/30/2004 - 19:26

#4

Scurra

Offline

Joined: 09/11/2008

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

One feature I have been experimenting with in recent designs is that of variable player order. This works fine during the course of the game (e.g. the players take their turns in sequence according to how many pieces they have on the board) but I have not as yet found a good way to determine player order at the outset since it is either determined randomly (which seems somewhat aganst the spirit of the whole concept) or by means of a system such as an auction which ends up being subject to seating order - which is exactly what I'm trying to avoid in the first place!

(I will note that the only auction game I can think of that isn't subject to seating order issues is "Merchants of Amsterdam" - but that has issues all of its own as a result :-)

Mon, 08/30/2004 - 20:03

#5

Anonymous

auction when it counts..

The game Evo has as it's rule set that the player whose dinosaur (btw, just a quick explanation of the game, you have to bid on traits to evolve your dinosaur which gives certain advantages in getting more dinos and keeping the changing weather from killing them off) has the longest tail goes first.

So while there is a turn order "problem", it is fixable because if you don't like going last, you can make an attempt at using your own victory points to bid on the tail to go first.

I think it makes for an interesting decision on where to put one's priorities, and wieghing whether or not your order is that important to you or not depending on the circumstances. (granted in this game when tied you roll the dice, higher wins, which isn't so great)

I think games have to either have a reason for why the turn(s) go in the order that they do, or mitigate certain positions being better then others through the rules because being penalized for simply sitting around a table isn't good.

Mon, 08/30/2004 - 20:33

#6

GeminiWeb

Offline

Joined: 07/31/2008

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

jjacy wrote:

Quote:

So while there is a turn order "problem", it is fixable because if you don't like going last, you can make an attempt at using your own victory points to bid on the tail to go first.

Interesting because this could strangely enough compound a player order effect ... just sit to the left of someone who likes going first and then you get to go second, without having to spend on the tail ...

Mon, 08/30/2004 - 21:55

#7

Zzzzz

Offline

Joined: 06/20/2008

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

Not sure if it is just me, but I think we might want to sometime consider these "problems" from an abstracted view.

As with other TIGD topics it is not always fair(or useful) to consider issues like "poor player syndrome", when trying to assess the Seat Order Effect problem.

Yes "poor player syndrome" amplifies the Seat Order Effect, but that is not why seat order is a problem. The problem with "poor player syndrome" is not playing the game to the maxium effectiveness. And if someone wins because of it, so be it. Hopefully the person who keeps making the bad plays will learn over time to better their play.

So left me try to state my stupidity from an abstract angle, Seat Order Effect is a problem when the actual position one resides, increases the chances of winning as a result of the rules/mechanics having a better influence on that position then the others.

Does this make sense or am I starting to go WAY OUT THERE?

So to me if you attempt to reduce or remove any unfair player advantage that could occur as a result of the rules/mechanics and a specific location of a player, you are on the right track to solving the Seat Order Effect.

Ah well it all started sounding good at first....

Mon, 08/30/2004 - 22:18

#8

GeminiWeb

Offline

Joined: 07/31/2008

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

Snipy3 wrote:

Quote:

The seat order effect is basically a factor in some games that relies on where a player is sitting (usually it effects the player on your left or right).

Zzzzz wrote:

Quote:

Seat Order Effect is a problem when the actual position one resides, increases the chances of winning as a result of the rules/mechanics having a better influence on that position then the others.

Okay. I'd say that seat order effect is not necessarily a problem (as it can be a feature). To distinguish it from an effect where it is more beneficial to go first or last, say, I would say that this focuses more on the relationship between one person's actions on the actions of the very next person to have a turn.

If the very next person gets an advantage due to a poor choice of action form the active player, we might call that 'poor player syndrome'.

However, at the same time, we often want one player's turn to impact on the other players.

In Peurta Rico, we have 2 player order effects.

(1) Within a turn. For example, you can't build something if there are no more of that type of building left, (which is probably more of a 'better to go first' effect) and your shipping options are almost contorlled by prior players (although sometimes early is good and sometimes late is good!).

(2) In choosing roles, it not onlly matters what has been taken because you can't choose that then, but it also has an impact on which of the remaining roles are useful. For example, your choice will probably be different if the previous person chose craftsman or captain ...

Anyway, I suppose I'm trying to say that the seat order effect can be a good feature when it encourages people to adapt their plans as the game changes around them in a localised sense (assuming of course that's what you want).

Tue, 08/31/2004 - 05:42

#9

Scurra

Offline

Joined: 09/11/2008

Re: auction when it counts..

jjacy1 wrote:

The game Evo has as it's rule set that the player whose dinosaur [...] has the longest tail goes first. [...]
(granted in this game when tied you roll the dice, higher wins, which isn't so great)

This is exactly the problem I've been having. Once a game that uses this sort of feature gets going, then I think it's reasonable to have a tie-break mechanism, although I agree that rolling the dice is a bad one! (Having said that, at least Evo uses it from the outset of the game so that it is consistent.)

Quote:

I think games have to either have a reason for why the turn(s) go in the order that they do, or mitigate certain positions being better then others through the rules because being penalized for simply sitting around a table isn't good.

Take Citadels for example. This exploits the idea of changing player order by essentially giving later characters access to more money and/or better powers (this is an over-generalisation, of course :-)) but making them more subject to interference (thus addressing your "mitigation" point.)

But I must confess that I don't think that you necessarily need to justify something as basic as "clockwise turn order" within a game; unless it is a major part of the game (such as in Citadels) then anything that interferes with that generally just causes confusion and lengthens the playing time.

Tue, 08/31/2004 - 06:48

#10

Johan

Offline

Joined: 10/05/2008

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

Hello

I agree on that this can be used as a component. I also agree on that this normally is no problem, but in some games there are. If you get an advantage or disadvantage because of the position around the table, then this is a problem.

If the position around the table can be used to totally block another player, then it is a major problem.

Example
Porto Rico has this as a problem. It is not in the order of play, but in the resource handling.
In a game of Porto Rica, the player to my right did always pick the same resources type as I did (and more of them). When resources was dealt, I would get fewer then the other players (there where no resources left to me, (except when it was my turn)). I was blocked for the whole game because of the order around the table.

// Johan

Tue, 08/31/2004 - 09:38

#11

Verseboy

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

I have a number of thoughts swirling in my head. We'll see if I can get any of them down coherently. First off, it seems to me that with virtually any game, the problems of seat order could be minimized by simply making turn order random. Say there are 5 players. At the beginning of each turn, 5 cards numbered 1-5 are dealt out. The player with the 1 card displays it and takes his turn. Then the player with the 2 card goes, and so on. I haven't played all the games that have been cited, but I can't think of any game I've played where it wouldn't work. (Let me qualify that. In Citadels you'd use these 1-5 turn order cards for the purpose of role selection. The King picks first and then the player with the #1 card picks second, and so on.)

Most of the problems with seat order are actually problems with poor players. The example of 3-player Scrabble was cited with one player having a different style than the other 2. That's legitimate, but my guess is it's uncommon. (And it would be solved by using my numbered turn order cards.) Most of the time, though, I think it's a case of a less experienced or less skillful player creating an advantage for the next in line.

At my house seat order can be a huge advantage when one is sitting to the left of my daughter, a 15yo with Down Syndrome. We call her The Randomizer. She actually takes pride in being The Randomizer. Her actions are often random, except in Citadels where she almost always takes the King so she can go first or the Assassin so she can whack someone and get a rise out of them. In some games the player to her left is at an advantage. When that happens, we take turns being at her left. (That's not the most satisfying situation, but it beats not including her in the game.) In other cases, her random actions are akin to dice rolls, sometimes they go in your favor and sometimes they don't. And sometimes she wins strategic games because there is no predicting what she'll do next. In most cases, she would be described as a poor player. It's her playing ability, more than the seat order, that turns games upside down. That takes me back to my original thought, which is randomize the turn order and you'll fix most of the so-called seat order problems. I'd only look to do that in games where turn order is a frequent culprit.

Steve

Tue, 08/31/2004 - 10:18

#12

jwarrend

Offline

Joined: 08/03/2008

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

Verseboy wrote:

First off, it seems to me that with virtually any game, the problems of seat order could be minimized by simply making turn order random.

There are at least a few situations, though, where this is impractical. One example is the "continuous flow of turns" model, like Risk or Monopoly, where players just continually cycle through their turns. To randomize turn order, you'd have to then impose a round structure on the game, and this would inevitably have other effects that you'd have to account for; for example, maybe a player who gets to take 2 turns in a row from this randomization gets a huge advantage as compared with someone whose turns come first in one round and last in the next.

In a game that already has a round structure, randomizing seat order can still be problematic for a couple of reasons. The first is that sometimes, just as in the above example, random order can "unfairly" reward a player. A good example of this is one of my favorite games, Wallenstein, which only has 6 game turns, and which uses random turn order. The problem is that the statistics of random turn order don't really even out; one player will often go first, or last, more than statistics would predict. In that game, it's not a big deal because there are many other randomizers. But it shows, I think, the idea that if random seat order isn't given enough turns for statistics to even out, it can create different problems.

The other situation that comes to mind is one where many actions are to be taken, and the game involves quite a few players. My GDW game, "Profit and Provenance", is playable for up to 6 players, and there is a bidding phase where players place 6 different bids in turn order. Someone suggested we add "bidding for turn order", but I rejected it, because keeping track of "who goes when" just seemed so much more annoying than just going around the table. In effect, the problem was partly because the actions were so short; in "Samurai Swords", there is bidding for turn order, but because the turns last 30 minutes, and because each player only has one turn, it's not so bad.

So, bottom line, randomizing turn order will work sometimes, but not in all cases, and it can present problems in some cases that just clockwise order doesn't have.

Quote:

Most of the problems with seat order are actually problems with poor players.

I would say this is more accurately expressed as problems with "groups of mixed experience/skill". In a game of Puerto Rico with 5 first-timers, or 5 pros, the seat order effect is not likely to be much of a factor. It's only when one or several players differ in skill from the other players dramatically that seat order effects become pronounced in that game. It's a legitimate question as to whether one needs to accomodate such effects in their designs, but I think it's largely an aesthetic one. Some people like the idea in a game like Chess, a grandmaster will always beat a novice. Others like the idea that in a game like Settlers, even a rookie has a chance of winning once in a while.

Quote:

At my house seat order can be a huge advantage when one is sitting to the left of my daughter, a 15yo with Down Syndrome. We call her The Randomizer. She actually takes pride in being The Randomizer.

Cool story, and it definitely shows that at the end of the day, all this stuff is really just about having fun. Gaming is equal parts game and social interaction, and presenting a context by which players can spend time with people whose company they enjoy is really the bigger aim than designing an air-tight test to adjudicate who among the players is the "best". It's good to be reminded of that every now and again...

Tue, 08/31/2004 - 10:34

#13

Anonymous

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

Just a comment, nobody here can spell Puerto Rico correctly? lol

Tue, 08/31/2004 - 12:05

#14

daddyhasgames

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

One game I have designed has the players draw for color, which determines which side of the board they seat on and the order of play for the game.

Another game I have designed, allows a new order of play determined by the leader going first, then who is in 2nd and so on.

So, you might get a lucky draw for seating position on the first game and on the other game you can really pass others especially when you have come from behind and end up in first for the next turn.

Tue, 08/31/2004 - 14:24

#15

phpbbadmin

Offline

Joined: 04/23/2013

Hmmm

No one has mentioned this (I think) but I'll throw it out there. What about games like Elfenland where the turn order rotates so that each player (at least in a 4 player game) gets to go first once? Doesn't that mitigate the turn order problem (assuming each player gets to take the start the same # of times, otherwise it opens a whole new set of problems)? And have we managed to go away from it being a seat order problem to now a turn order problem? I.E. if it was a seat order problem, it would stem from where you sat in relation to the other players (I.E. Left or Right and how far, especially in games like Bang! and Unexploded Cow). However a turn order problem is actually different; it actually refers to what order you take your turn in and it seems to me like it is not dependent on your physical seating location in relation to the other players. Are we talking about both of these issues in this discussion?

-Darke

Tue, 08/31/2004 - 14:31

#16

jwarrend

Offline

Joined: 08/03/2008

Re: Hmmm

Darkehorse wrote:

No one has mentioned this (I think) but I'll throw it out there. What about games like Elfenland where the turn order rotates so that each player (at least in a 4 player game) gets to go first once? Doesn't that mitigate the turn order problem (assuming each player gets to take the start the same # of times)?

In some cases, I think so, but with this, one is presupposing that it's equally advantageous to be start player in the beginning of the game as late in the game. In a game where each player will get to be start player many times, it's likely that this supposition washes out, but in a game with few "rounds" (say, only enough so that each player gets to be start player once) but substantial action in each round, it could be that there's an advantage to being an "early game" start player vs late game start player. It's probably pretty game-specific, though.

Quote:

Are we talking about both of these issues in this discussion?

Yes, I think both "left/right" issues and "1st/last" player issues are on the table.

-Jeff

Tue, 08/31/2004 - 14:57

#17

Verseboy

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Re: Hmmm

jwarrend wrote:

Quote:

Are we talking about both of these issues in this discussion?

Yes, I think both "left/right" issues and "1st/last" player issues are on the table.
In my post I found myself using seat order and turn order interchangeably. In games where play proceeds to the left, I think this is pretty much the case. It is possible, however, for seating order to be an issue independent of turn order. In Clue, for instance, the fact that the player to my left goes after my turn mostly doesn't matter, and it could be changed by adding a randomized turn selector. (See my previous post. I'm not advocating it; just saying it could be done.) But the fact that the player to my left is ALWAYS the first one to attempt to disprove my suggestion, can be a big factor. I'm still not sure what I think of Mystery of the Abbey, but one thing I like about it is I can direct a question to any player, not just the player at my left.

Steve

Tue, 08/31/2004 - 15:35

#18

RookieDesign

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

Johan wrote:

If the position around the table can be used to totally block another player, then it is a major problem.

I must say that I disagree with most of the observation on Puerto Rico. Being block by the player at your right because he is producing the same goods as you do, isn't a seating effect. You just don't look at what's going on. The only seating advantage seens on Puerto Rico is the opening where the third player have a bit of the advantage.

Evo is a correct example of bad seating of bad tie breaker. Same thing with Amun-Re. After the offering to the god Amun-Re, the player receiveing the bonus in case of the tie is determine by seating position from the player having the Amun-Re idol in front of him. This is in my eye a very bad tie breaker. The fact that I'm sitting in front of this player impair me of the bonus in case of a tie.

I work alot on tie breaker and seating position. The game I'm plating to realease to the GDW is base on unique card. (Same idea in RobotRally) the card have an action number and the action is resolve in order of the card.

I you want to see the game without any issue with the seating position, I would recommend Blackbeard from Avalon Hill. Active player is determined by the card.

Just my two cents.

Have a good day.

Tue, 08/31/2004 - 15:39

#19

Anonymous

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

Darkehorse wrote:

No one has mentioned this (I think) but I'll throw it out there. What about games like Elfenland where the turn order rotates so that each player (at least in a 4 player game) gets to go first once?

In one of my games, there is a distinct advantage to going last in any round of play, so I created a mechanism whereby players rotate who starts each round. It does work out that the game will not ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to start, but the games go through enough rounds where that isn't really a factor.

I do agree with what others have said regarding the seat-order having a significant affect on play style. For example, in chess, the player that goes second can alter their playing style to counteract any advantage the other player has from going first. The same holds true for many (not all) other games. Player order will also affect playing style to offset the affect of player order.

I have played a few games where player order in any given turn is affected by game play, either players take turns in order of score or players bid for turn order. These have helped mitigate the overwhelming advantage of player order (games in which the advantage cannot be overcome through game play).

Tue, 08/31/2004 - 16:22

#20

Johan

Offline

Joined: 10/05/2008

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

RookieDesign wrote:

Johan wrote:
If the position around the table can be used to totally block another player, then it is a major problem.

I must say that I disagree with most of the observation on Puerto Rico. Being block by the player at your right because he is producing the same goods as you do, isn't a seating effect. You just don't look at what's going on.

If this is not a "seet order problem", then I must have missunderstand the subject. If a player can play a game and always block the player to his left with his actions, the I see it as a "seet order problem".
If the blocked player, plays the game poorly, that is another thing.

// Johan

Tue, 08/31/2004 - 18:17

#21

GeminiWeb

Offline

Joined: 07/31/2008

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

Verseboy wrote:

Quote:

In Clue, for instance, the fact that the player to my left goes after my turn mostly doesn't matter, and it could be changed by adding a randomized turn selector.

Actually, I think it can matter quite a bit in Clue (Cluedo down here in Oz) wit respect to the player on your right.

Now, if you happen to have the card for the person on your rlght (or they are the murderer), once you work out the room of the murder, go to a room you have the card for. Then proceed to call your right hand player ever turn to your room as you try to figure out the murderer and the murder weapon. They will probably never be able to leave the room and if they ask a question, they will always be shown the room ...

This can be done on other players too of course, but they might actually get a bit of info before you get the chance to show them the room ...

Wed, 09/01/2004 - 18:43

#22

Anonymous

turn order and seat order are the same in my posts...

Where I really have a problem with one's seat order is in games where one "deals out the whole deck or deals out all the tiles", and if you have certain numbers of people they get fewer or more cards/tiles (which can be benificial either way depending on the game).

This to me just stinks outright and I don't like the solution of "discard X cards depending on the number of players at random" mostly because then there is the whole other element added to the game of perhaps a good card being gone, or imperfect information for those of us who try to count cards (which I'm bad at, but try).

It seems that any mechanism to cancel out "bad seat order" can have its own concequences.

Wed, 09/01/2004 - 19:09

#23

Scurra

Offline

Joined: 09/11/2008

Re: turn order and seat order are the same in my posts...

jjacy1 wrote:

Where I really have a problem with one's seat order is in games where one "deals out the whole deck or deals out all the tiles", and if you have certain numbers of people they get fewer or more cards/tiles (which can be benificial either way depending on the game).

Of course. sometimes that's part of the point of the game - The Great Dalmuti being an excellent example, since it's whole thrust is that "life isn't fair", so one of the ways it illustrates this is to give more cards to the higher ranked players, which should make things easier for them overall. (Of course, sometimes it screws them up badly, but hey, "life isn't fair" ;-))

Fri, 09/03/2004 - 19:38

#24

Anonymous

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

RookieDesign wrote:

Johan wrote:
If the position around the table can be used to totally block another player, then it is a major problem.

I must say that I disagree with most of the observation on Puerto Rico.

See as soon as I state that nobody spells Puerto Rico correctly you all curiously look it up on the internet so that you look better =)

Tue, 08/02/2005 - 11:28

#25

lordpog

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

Power Grid has a good system for dealing with turn order:

Whoevers network is smallest (bad) gets put in favourable positions in each phase, while the largest network (good) is ranked last. This also gives players another dimension to think about on top of fuel, power plants, where to go etc. eg. Do I build to one more city so I can make more money, or hold back to get a more favourable turn order placement?

Auctions still go in clockwise order however, but this has a less dramatic impact.

In Risk I have come across the scrabble problem about defensive vs. flamboyant play mentioned earlier:

Inexperienced players frequently spread themselves too thinly, while better players will consolidate their continents before they go rampaging across the world.

Often the best seat is the one to the left of the weakest player, so that when they make a mistake you are the one who can capitalise on it.

Wed, 08/03/2005 - 05:44

#26

Scurra

Offline

Joined: 09/11/2008

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

lordpog wrote:

Power Grid has a good system for dealing with turn order:

May I respectfully* disagree?
I think that the fact that the player order is used several times during a round is a good thing, but that it's not used in the same way every time is terrible. There are three points at which player order matters; two of them go from last to first and the other goes from first to last, and despite having played a number of times I still cannot reliably remember which is which. [Note: I don't have a problem with the idea of a changing player order though - I use that system a lot myself.]

As far as the mechnics are concerned I don't really have an issue with a "up or down" system (although it seems horribly clunky), but from a play experience point of view I think it's terrible. If you're going to have elements in which player order is important. then I really think it's equally as important to use the same system each time!

(*meaning "with no respect whatsoever" ;-))

Wed, 08/03/2005 - 07:55

#27

Gargoyle

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

hi everyone,

i've found this to be a really interesting discussion... i'd noticed a bit how seating position can affect you in games like PR (obviously) but never considered HOW MUCH effect it can have.

I also should add this qualifier: i'm relatively new to gaming and don't have a lot of experience/knowledge about the different mechanics used and how they fare, but i just thought of this which *might* work in some circumstances.

Some people mentioned the potential of random turn order (determined by, lets' say, drawing cards to see the order). Of course this becomes mere luck and some people don't like that idea (and there's also the problems of people who get 2 turns close together (end of one round, start of next)) so what if there was some auction-style as well?

here's what i thought, i think it would only work in games of 4+ people: each player draws a card with a position on it (i.e first to play, second etc.), THEN players can put their card facedown in the middle, and all players who do this can either randomly choose someone elses, or you could shuffle those ones and redeal. So, if you're happy with your initial placing, you keep it, otherwise you try for a better one.

there are still the problems that some positions are just better, but it would vary it a bit...

viable? probably not, but i thought it was different at least :)

Sat, 08/20/2005 - 16:38

#28

larienna

Offline

Joined: 07/28/2008

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

Thanks gargoyle, that's one of the thing I was going to say. In my game, I determine initiative with cards. You "bet" a card phase down and the highest card wins. Of course, if you are not interested in having initiative this round, you can keep your stronger cards for later. There will also be cards with special ability to add some spice.

One game that I know that turn order is important is "Uno" since all the cards you play influence the next player. But then again, the game is pretty random since your play depends on the cards you have drawn. So if you have a good hand, the next will have an hard time. So my point is that if you have a random game, the influence of player position will be reduced. So "Uno" plays perfectly well.

Generally, the player position influence the game if a) what you play influence directly the next player(like in Uno), or b) if the next player can draw the card you have just discarded.

A game that solves almost all seating problem is mah-jong. First there is a system that will determine exactly where the players are seating on the table and who will be the 1st player. Second, then you take a tile from another player to fulfill a suite, there is a way to indicate from which player this tile has been stolen. This can influence the scores since some hands can only be achieved by not stealing.

Sun, 09/04/2005 - 11:39

#29

lordpog

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

Quote:

lordpog wrote:
Power Grid has a good system for dealing with turn order:
May I respectfully* disagree?
I think that the fact that the player order is used several times during a round is a good thing, but that it's not used in the same way every time is terrible. There are three points at which player order matters; two of them go from last to first and the other goes from first to last, and despite having played a number of times I still cannot reliably remember which is which.

I agree tha its slightly confusing at first, but it's really not that terrible when you think about it

First off, PG is a game that helps you if you are doing badly, and penalises you if you are doing well, so just think about what order would correspond to that:

For buying a power plant, its bad to go first since there will generally be worse power plants in the market and you will have more people bidding against you, raising the price. Also, the last player to buy can get a power plant at face value, since no one else is able to make a bid.

When buying fuel, it is (trivially) best to buy first (so you can buy the cheapest fuel, duh).

In the building phase, it's also best to go first, since you can nick all the best spots and (either accidentally or on purpose) box people in.

Sun, 09/04/2005 - 14:01

#30

Sebastian

Offline

Joined: 07/27/2008

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

lordpog wrote:

Power Grid has a good system for dealing with turn order:

Whoevers network is smallest (bad) gets put in favourable positions in each phase, while the largest network (good) is ranked last. This also gives players another dimension to think about on top of fuel, power plants, where to go etc. eg. Do I build to one more city so I can make more money, or hold back to get a more favourable turn order placement?

I disagree. The turn order mechanism in Power Grid overcompensates in helping people who are behind. This has the nasty effect turning it from a game about building a power grid, into a game about worring about turn order. Unless the game has a good reason for it, turn order should inform rather than dominate play. In my not especially humble opinion.

I'm beginning to get a nasty feeling that the same is true of Zeptre of Zoranda (or whatever it's called - the remake of Outpost), however, I'm going to have to play that a few more times until I can pass judgement.

[TIGD] Seat order effect (Common Problem #3)

User login

Navigation

Apr 18 2024

Apr 16 2024

Apr 15 2024

Apr 13 2024

Apr 12 2024

Apr 9 2024

Apr 6 2024

Apr 4 2024

Apr 1 2024

Mar 28 2024

Mar 21 2024

Mar 20 2024

Mar 19 2024

Mar 13 2024

Mar 8 2024

Mar 5 2024

Mar 4 2024

Feb 28 2024

	TradeWorlds — Smuggler's Run (7) by questccg
	Single Item Shipping at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter