Skip to Content
 

Cooperative games -- player interactions

8 replies [Last post]
Fri, 12/31/2004 - 02:38
Kreitler
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969

This thread started out in the "Cooperative play--thoughts?" topic. We were discussing the effect of unpredicted player behavior on co-op play.

In particular, I mentioned that I've run several playtests of a co-op card game where players didn't quite "get it", in terms of helping their teammates, which forced everybody to shift tactics to work toward victory. In one case, a player kept using all his weaponry to attack his personal opponents instead of possibly helping out nearby friends who faced more enemies. In another session, one player kept forgetting to attack the next player's enemies after a certain event made doing so critical to success.

A few of us on the other thread wondered if anyone else had experienced this with any co-op game. Does this improve the overall experience? Add to replayability? Is it a "broken" feature? All thoughts welcome.

Top
Fri, 12/31/2004 - 03:02
#1
Anonymous
Cooperative games -- player interactions

No, but I HAVE experienced something similar in a competitive game, where one player attacks another for no reason over and over.

(Quit putting robber on me! GAH!)

Still need to try Knizia's LotR. Want to try it, I think they sell it at my EB Games, oddly enough.
:P

Top
Fri, 12/31/2004 - 12:45
#2
Kreitler
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Cooperative games -- player interactions

Dr_1010 wrote:
No, but I HAVE experienced something similar in a competitive game, where one player attacks another for no reason over and over.

(Quit putting robber on me! GAH!)

Most of the people with whom I play Siedler are so non-confrontational that we have the opposite problem ("where can I put the robber where it won't hurt anyone?") -- at least it works that way until someone pulls way ahead. :P

I just read of a variant where you move the robber randomly (it's an obvious tweak, but I never thought of it *smacks self on head*).

RE: LoTR -- I've played it twice. I recall it being well designed, but strangely not much fun. Granted, we had some rules wrong the first time, but even after sorting them out, I can't say I'd go out of my way to play it again. Not sure why. I'll be interested to see how you like it.

K.

Top
Sat, 01/01/2005 - 20:21
#3
Anonymous
not broken...

If one player isn't "being a team player" that doesn't mean the game is broken. It means that the player isn't making an optimal move, and that happens all the time in games.

Now I think the interesting thing in a cooperative game would be to have both common goals and team goals that may run counter to each other.

This would give the individual the stress of deciding how much to help out the team, or hold reserves for themselves. -Which I think was the/a big problem with Kninzia's LoTR game in my opinion, no reason not to sacrifice your cards or player for the common good.

Top
Fri, 01/07/2005 - 00:41
#4
Hedge-o-Matic
Hedge-o-Matic's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Cooperative games -- player interactions

I've found an unopend copy of LotR at a store for $14.00. Is this a good deal?

Top
Fri, 01/07/2005 - 03:47
#5
Cogust
Offline
Joined: 04/15/2009
Cooperative games -- player interactions

I played a home brewed commitee wargame some time ago where all the players were officers in the same army. We were on a campaign where the goal was to defeat the enemy army (don't remember the setting) and this was our common goal, then each player had a few special and hidden goals (like looting the enemy camp, commanding a flank of the army in battle, discovering the enemy army etcetera) that scored a different amount of points.

The overall commander had only one goal, the common goal, but his subordinates had widely different goals, many opposing each other and some might even endanger the whole endeavour. In the end we would score based on what we accomlished in the game to determine the winner, but if the lost the campaign then all players lost but the one with most VPs would be the biggest loser as he had made the biggest effort to further his own interest instead of furthering his team's interests.

A very neat concept IMO and we had great fun playing the game, out overall commander had plenty of trouble to move his chain of command and the friction created by the hidden agendas made the game fell 'real' to the players.

Top
Sun, 01/09/2005 - 13:19
#6
Kreitler
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Cooperative games -- player interactions

Cogust wrote:
but if the lost the campaign then all players lost but the one with most VPs would be the biggest loser as he had made the biggest effort to further his own interest instead of furthering his team's interests.

That's a neat mechanic, and one that solves what I considered a "problem" with co-op games where people still had individual objectives. It seemed to me that, if one player could still be named the winner, players would gladly jeopardize the co-op goal in favor of individual goals.

When you played, did you find that some players still pursued their individual goals relentlessly, endangering the success of the group? Did this game allow you to see sides of the players not normally visible during strictly competitive games?

K.

Top
Mon, 01/10/2005 - 04:40
#7
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Cooperative games -- player interactions

Hedge-o-Matic wrote:
I've found an unopend copy of LotR at a store for $14.00. Is this a good deal?

Yes, that's a good deal. Almost as good as the copy I got on Ebay for $6.

- Seth

Top
Mon, 01/10/2005 - 05:30
#8
Cogust
Offline
Joined: 04/15/2009
Cooperative games -- player interactions

There was a whole lot of interesting diplomacy between the subordinate commanders when we playes, everyone tried to get help from others to further his own agenda while claiming to help the team instead.

One player consistently insisted that we should attack any enemyheld village or town we came across so that we could force an enemy reaction and win the game. He just happened to score VPs for looting the same villages and towns and the costly frontal assaults on these towns weakened our army pretty bad before our OC decided not to attack anymore settlements and forbade us from doing it anymore.

Most of the other players helped the team first and foremost but tried to get themselves into situations where they could score VPs while not hurting the team too much so that they wouldn't draw unecessary attention to them and their secret goals (the village looter was eyed suspiciously for the remainder of the game and that really hurt his chances of winning, he was guarding the friendly camp during the final showdown with the enemy and that cost him a lot of VPs).

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut