Consider the following situation:
4 people are playing a game in which only 1 person can eventually win.
It's late in the game, and on Player 1's turn, she gains an advantage that poises her to win–– She will win on her next turn unless another player takes action to stop her. But whoever does so will be unable to take any other action that turn (i.e. to advance their own position).
Now comes Player 2's turn. Player 2 will lose (just like 3 and 4) unless one of them expends their turn to stop Player 1.
From an abstract perspective, I think this is a very interesting dynamic. Players 2 and 3 can afford to be selfish (and further their own positions) because Player 4 would have to be insane to not make the choice to stop Player 1. In practice, however, I'm doubtful about how fun it really is.
One position might be that putting your opponents into situations where their only choices are "do X" or "lose" is simply good playing in a multipolar setting. On the other hand, feeling like you're left with the job of holding the game together while your opponents all act selfishly seems like a bad situation – like you've lost control of the game and are now just holding to the bumper as it drives away.
Certainly it's more 'fun' to feel that you have a choice in a situation. On the other hand, in virtually any game, a player can make enough consecutive bad choices that they eventually put themselves into a situation of 'do this or lose'. Given that this is true of almost any game, it seems dubious to attribute it to bad design.
There are some circumstances that can alleviate the feeling of being unfairly bound.
In a cooperative game (Player 1 is an evil Cylon, and that 2, 3 and 4 are a united team of Humans) my impression is that people feel a lot better about taking the action to avoid loss, because, there is a lot more of a feeing of 'this is my job'.
Another situation is when one of the players is expends less comparative effort in the thwarting.
For example, let's say that the players also have Money, and in order to thwart Player 1, one of the others need not only expend her turn, but also spend a Money. Player 2 has 2 Money, Player 3 has 5 Money, and Player 4 has 10 Money. In this situation, I feel that (as Player 2) I would be more justified in being selfish, and (as Player 4) I would expect this, and feel less bad about being put in the binding situation. After all, Player 2 would have to spend halfher money, whereas Player 4 would have to spend a tenth.
Now, let's replace the Money with cards – either red, or green – and in order to thwart Player 1, the others need not only expend their turn, but also play a green card from their hand. Player 2 holds 2 cards, Player 3 holds 5 cards, and Player 4 holds 10 cards. In this situation, my instincts tell me that it's totally fine for Player 2 to be selfish, because it's plausible (from her opponents' perspectives) that she might not even have a green card anyway. And from her perspective, it's a shrewd move, because she can be reasonably certain that Player 4 will be holding a green card. It also creates a more exciting psychological dynamic, because all parties have an interest in denying that they have any green cards, but they're each risking everything if they count on the next player to have one when there's a chance she doesn't.
The reason these last two situations are interesting to me is that they strike me as less un-fun for Player 4 – but only due to personal perspective and the plausible deniability of her cohorts: She's still in a bind, and it's still the result of the selfishness of the others. Another way to look at it is that (it seems to me) having opponents that are unable is preferable to having opponents that are unwilling, even though the results are the same. And that's especially weird, because normally you should expect your opponents to be selfish (they are your opponents, after all), but in this situation it seems pretty sucky when they are.
Agree/disagree? Any thoughts?
What exactly is going on here?
How do you feel about being made 'slave to the obvious correct move' ?
