Runaway vs. Equalizer

I prefer equalizers to runaway conditions and, as in Simons' excellent pool analogy, I like equalizers that are built into the advantages themselves, i.e., for every advantage you gain, there is a corresponding liability. For example, in the game I am working on now, a player can acquire an asset that generates substantial income (which is needed to win), but other players can steal funds from that player in proportion to the asset's income generating ability, thus enriching themselves and weakening their opponent. In addition, two players may form an alliance that insulates them from certain attacks from other players but leaves them especially vulnerable to those attacks from a treacherous ally.

In my experience, any game with a runaway leader quickly becomes frustrating and uninteresting for everyone else, and is ultimately dissatisfying even for the leader.

I personally prefer "catch-the-leader" mechanics to "hit-the-leader" mechanics. It's frustrating to be doing well in a game only to then get whacked by the other players -- this can often result in a strategy of "don't be the leader", or in other words, "make sub-optimal plays", which is not as interesting as trying to do the best that you can. It's better if a game makes the leader's path more challenging or expensive, so that the leader often comes back to the pack because the pack catches him, not because they've beaten him up until he relinquishes his lead.

Most of the games I find myself playing nowadays are of the "German" variety. Meaning NOT Monotony-style (my sister's name for Monopoly) games. I don't really like simply rolling a die (or dice) and moving and doing whatever it says on the space I land on.

I prefer the equalizer-style, but I don't really mind the runaway style because I ALWAYS try to prevent the win if I see someone getting close.

It doesn't mean I won't like a game if I don't at least have an option to try to prevent the win, but I do prefer that type of game. (the kind that gives me a choice and more control over what I can do in the game world).

EDIT: GAH! I kinda hate this reply now. I keep thinking of games that I DO enjoy that are more or less a dice roll and move type of game. I LOVED Fast Food Franchise. Sorta like Monopoly, but there are strategic aspects that make it MUCH more enjoyable. Guillotine is also a pretty good game. Very simple, and the cards give you lots of options for changing how the line moves, but the control aspect I mentioned earlier isn't really there. I'm not even sure why I'm posting at all as it seems that I'm contradicting my earlier arguments. Well...I might as well post this anyway.

Games having a leader are not bad until that leader in fact runs away. Players who give up on winning a game that will still take an hour to complete will start to resent it. And a leader who has secured victory will not likely enjoy the rest of the ride. A leader can add to the tension, a run-a-way leader destroys that.

As a game designer you should, in my opinion, always make sure the 'fighting chance' element is present in the game, meaning all players should be able to catch up with the current leader over the course of the game.
An easy way for that is a 'big scoring' final. Or a way around it is a secret scoring mechanism.

Equalizing should be viewed as giving all players equal opportunities to do well during play, not always keep them on the same level. If players seize these opportunities better than others, that just means they are better at the game. Players who miss or take less advantage of the opportunities presented to them will most likely lose, but recognize there is still a lot to learn and hopefully ask the winner for a rematch!

I am guessing that I don't share some of the bias against ganging up on a leader, and in fact think that can be part of the fun of the game. I always liked games like Diplomacy where duplicity, treachery and bullying were necessary elements. The person being ganged up on should expect it because it's inherent in the game's dynamics, and the frustration of being ganged up on is matched by the satisfaction of escaping or thwarting an attack.

In my game, I try always to balance any advantage with a disadvantage. So killing another player's asset is neither easy nor risk-free; it costs a lot even to attempt, has a low likelihood of success, and severe penalties attach for failure. It's designed to be a drastic, "Hail Mary" measure for the attacker as well as the attacked. Also, it doesn't preclude the leader from still winning, because he can acquire the needed asset from yet another player. In addition, there are only limited opportunities to attack a player and, once discharged, are not available again, so players must time their attacks wisely -- too early or too late, they won't be effective, and played against the wrong player may simply hand victory over to someone else. Finally, given the somewhat savage theme of the game, the inability to kill an asset would in fact be a noticeable lack.

That being said, I was intrigued by the comment that this punishes the leader and so encourages sub-optimal play. Perhaps I am too wedded to my current design and rule set, but I am wondering if "optimal play" can properly entail knowing when to take the lead, given the risks it might pose. A simple strategy of acquiring the most valuable assets whenever the opportunity presents itself can be less interesting than a strategy of acquiring those assets when you are confident that you have the resources to handle the attendant liabilities.

Anyway, just a thought.