Skip to Content
 

Rules against Bad Playing

10 replies [Last post]
Wed, 08/04/2004 - 11:10
dr_Edge69
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969

I was wondering if it's absolutly necessary, to add rules or constraint to prevent player from playing with a bad attitude.

-Like rules to prevent "grouping against a player"
-Give disavantage or some kind of point loss to a player who always use actions that causes damage to other players strategy in a game
-Give bonuses to a player that was attacked a lot by the other player.

etc.

All these rules has one meaning, to help the pacific player and to try to stop agressive attacking players.

Is it really necessary?

Top
Wed, 08/04/2004 - 11:11
#1
rkalajian
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Rules against Bad Playing

I would say it depends on the game. If the game is meant for players to actively screw each other over then no. if the game's mechanics don't really on bullying and there is a player taking advantage of certain rules, yes.

I guess it really just depends on the game itself.

Top
Wed, 08/04/2004 - 11:23
#2
Anonymous
Rules against Bad Playing

I would personally shy away from these kinds of rules. I don't play that way, but some people find it fun (even the victims, because they could be the screwers later on). If such behavior breaks the game, then you need to look at balance. If the solution is to make rules against that kind of behavior, then work it into the game or theme. Make sure there is a reason for why ganging up, etc, is punished, rather than just "don't play that way."

Take a look at Steve Jackson's Munchkin. Ganging up against people is a big part of that game and there are both advantages and disadvantages to ganging up both for and against other players. It really adds to the gameplay in this case, but also provides some insight into how to moderate it.

Top
Wed, 08/04/2004 - 11:56
#3
OrlandoPat
Offline
Joined: 10/16/2008
Another way...

I don't know the flavor of the game you're thinking about, but another way of accomplishing this is to add a discussion of style/etiquette to the rules. Pente is a great example of this: you're supposed to tell your opponent when you have an open three, instead of sneaking up on the win.

Rather than simply saying "don't do this", you can use it as an opportunity to help set the mood.

Top
Wed, 08/04/2004 - 13:23
#4
Anonymous
Rules against Bad Playing

I for one say YES you do need them, but no so open. Make a game mechanic to solve this problem. For Example, Person in last place decided all Ties. Clever little mechanic that makes people think twice about picking on the last person. I feel that a good game gone wrong for a frustrating experience can leave a bad taste in someones mouth.

Top
Wed, 08/04/2004 - 13:32
#5
Dralius
Dralius's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
Rules against Bad Playing

Quote:
Give disavantage or some kind of point loss to a player who always use actions that causes damage to other players strategy in a game

I don’t know how others feel about this but I think weakening your opponent’s position is as valid a strategy as strengthening your own position. I would not consider it bad attitude at all to play this way.

Don’t be so quick to limit your players from having chooses, that’s what makes it a game. To say that you can attack another player but only a little is hard to define. You need to restrict it by some mechanic of the game like action points or using some recourse up so that in a multi player game attacking Player A may put you ahead of them but behind Player B. You can build in a mechanism so that a player that gets behind can have a chance like variable turn order. The player with the lowest score or fewest territories etc gets to go first. Ok I think you probably get the idea by now so i will stop rambling.

Top
Wed, 08/04/2004 - 14:06
#6
Joe_Huber
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Rules against Bad Playing

Since there's a fair amount of advice against doing this, I'll take the other side of the argument...

dr_Edge69 wrote:
I was wondering if it's absolutly necessary, to add rules or constraint to prevent player from playing with a bad attitude.

-Like rules to prevent "grouping against a player"
-Give disavantage or some kind of point loss to a player who always use actions that causes damage to other players strategy in a game
-Give bonuses to a player that was attacked a lot by the other player.

It depends upon (1) what you want the game to be, and far more importantly (2) what the players want the game to be.

There are a lot of times games go over poorly because they are being played in a manner that is not enjoyable. If you have a game that loses its appeal because of such actions, I'd recommend looking at both rules changes to make this action less appealing and ways to make the game more appealing should this occur.

For example - Clash of the Gladiators has a common problem among multiplayer wargames - it makes the most sense to attack the already wounded. The solution is not to discourage this behavior (which would like require a rather clunky rule), but to make it more fun for the player so beaten by letting them attack with animals.

I believe that the best choice is to not have rules explicitly to promote desired behavior, but having such rules is preferable to a strategy guide or the like and far preferable to having people dislike your game because they played it in a way it doesn't support.

In general, I find that games allowing complete (or nearly so) freedom to attack the leader (such as Munchkin) go over reasonably well with "American" gamers, and games providing virtually no opportunity to target the leader (such as Goa) go over reasonably well with "German" gamers. The middle can be hard to design to, but some of the biggest hits (Settlers, Ticket To Ride) among hobby games fall into that niche...

Top
Wed, 08/04/2004 - 20:06
#7
GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
Rules against Bad Playing

I tend to say 'no special rules', noting that its not quite that simple for the players ...

Its easy to gang up on last place, but last place isn't your threat ...

I played my first game of Pirate's Cove a few weeks ago and we had a 3 way fight between pirate ships. I was the weakest and took an early hit, nearly crippling me. However then I was able to deflect attention back at the other two as I was no longer a threat and the strongest ship would beat the second biggest ship unles sthe second biggets ship had my help ... and that ship was more of a threat so they became the new target ... (And as luck would have it ... I won that fight but at the very least, they would have suffered more anyway!)

That game also has a semi-catch-up mechansim where later ship improvements cost more ...

Top
Wed, 08/04/2004 - 22:16
#8
jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Rules against Bad Playing

I would say that not only is it not necessary to adopt such rules, it's not even desirable to do so. If someone can do well in the game by attacking other players, and you don't want that to be the case, then your design isn't done. Go back and change some stuff.

To answer your initial question, and what I thought the topic was actually going to be about from the title, I don't know if there's always a way to prevent someone with a "bad attitude" from spoiling the game. We've discussed this before; what if, for example, a player decides he's had enough of the game and wants to sabotage it for the rest of the players. Should you, the designer, explicitly create rules or systems to prevent this? My feeling is that you have to assume a basic level of sportsmanship from your players, as a bad sport, even if he can't break the game, will still spoil the evening, so worrying about such people isn't worth your time.

However, in the context of a player attacking other players, I don't at all consider that to be a "bad attitude", so long as he's acting in his own best interest. If doing so helps him win the game, then why shouldn't he be aggressive? Now, if you don't want this kind of behavior to be a part of the game, then simply adding a "meanie penalty" is silly, but a simple variation of such a concept that I've used is, for example, a "pay to fight" mechanic, so that players' warlike tendencies can only keep pace with their ability to pay for warlike actions. There are plenty of other ways to reduce aggressive tendencies. As for "one player gets hammered by everyone else", the game "Paris Paris" has a cute mechanic whereby everytime you get one of your shops "bumped", it goes into a bag, and the player with the most shops in the bag at the game end gets some points.

But the bottom line is, any game will reward certain strategies, and if you don't want aggressive strategies to be rewarded, change your game; don't just slap in a clause in the rules that punishes those strategies.

Now, if someone is being aggressive and it doesn't help him win the game, there's not much you can do about that; they should find pretty quickly that this play style doesn't correlate to more wins, and knock it off. If they won't, the problem is probably with them...

-Jeff

Top
Thu, 08/05/2004 - 07:29
#9
Joe_Huber
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Rules against Bad Playing

jwarrend wrote:
I would say that not only is it not necessary to adopt such rules, it's not even desirable to do so.

...and then...

Quote:
However, in the context of a player attacking other players, I don't at all consider that to be a "bad attitude", so long as he's acting in his own best interest. If doing so helps him win the game, then why shouldn't he be aggressive? Now, if you don't want this kind of behavior to be a part of the game, then simply adding a "meanie penalty" is silly, but a simple variation of such a concept that I've used is, for example, a "pay to fight" mechanic, so that players' warlike tendencies can only keep pace with their ability to pay for warlike actions.

That's exactly the type of rules I'm advocating - _all_ rules should be well integrated; I've always thought of that as a given. But a "pay to fight" rule, for example, could be very well integrated into a full ruleset.

For a concrete example - Lost Valley is a recent release that will be far less enjoyable if players refuse to take altruistic actions - putting up fishing nets and wood mills to the benefit of all. Rather than requiring players to do this - which would be a very clunky rule - players are given a set of materials at the start of the game that encourage the building of these items. Player may choose other actions - but will likely have to throw away items to do so.

Top
Thu, 08/05/2004 - 12:39
#10
Anonymous
Rules against Bad Playing

jwarrend wrote:
My feeling is that you have to assume a basic level of sportsmanship from your players...

Very well put!

I agree with the general feeling here that it is undesirable to put in rules in an attempt to keep players from ganging up. etc. Players will likely ignore such rules if it seems counter-intuitive or overly fiddly.

As it has been said, it depends on the scope of you game. If your game is meant to be cooperative (LotR leaps to mind), then the mechanics alone should be enough to encourage players to act in unison against a common threat--it is in their best interest to do so. It works because the mechanics of the game make it an optimum strategy. If the Goal of LotR had been to be the last remaining hobbit, then the game mechanics would sorely fail to encourage cooperation.

I am working on a game whereby players fight monsters and gain experience to their betterment. I keep players from ganging up on each other by removing the experience from such situations. Players COULD beat up each other, but they would not gain experience and advance in the game at all. It is not in their best interests to do so.

If you're more concerned about the kingmaker effect, then join the club! There have been numerous posts here and abroad about this effect in gaming. Many have looked for ways to keep it from happening. I don't think the answer is in fiddly rules.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut