Victory Points: For or against

I like to use victory points because they allow for a diverse group of players to play the same game. If the group has a new player or two, they can focus on a singular victory condition while the experience players can fight it out for the overall prize. Depending on the design of the game, the "smaller" victory conditions can be used to sabotage the larger valued victory conditions. This will allow the less experience players to feel like they have a chance in a game where the rest of the table has more experience with the particular game.

Telling the rookie, "if you get 3/4 of all the rum in the game, you get a bonus!" would be a great way to give them hope/motivation and it would also force the experienced players to pay attention to the rookie and force some "light interaction" but not bring down the "full furry" of an experienced player(s).

Victory points are also fun in a Co-op setting. The group is playing as a whole but there is still an individual winner. I liken this to a saboteur in the group but instead of a saboteur being assigned, but the saboteur can be anyone and change at any point in the game.

What I don't like about VP is the process of figuring out balance. Especially when there are wildly different tasks involved in attaining the various conditions. There is a concern of taking away from what makes sense when it comes to counting up points.

That being said, finding balance in a game is a major component of game design, so while finding balance for V-conditions may be a pain in the realm of balance, it is worth taking the time for the sake of versatility and inclusiveness.

I'm ok with the mechanism of victory points. The act of collecting some resource as a means to victory in and of itself doesn't bother me... My problem is when they are actually called "Victory Points" in a game. At the VERY least, I like to have them disguised as some related theme based resource. Money, the heads of your enemies, provinces, buildings, trophies, anything. One step better is if you can have another layer of abstraction over that which makes the victory condition more concrete. You collect some resource to purchase some other thing in the game which nets you the win. For instance, you collect money to purchase lavish items to decorate your palace. When you've filled your palace with luxury items you win. In reality, you are just measuring victory points in this case, in that you'll always need some set amount to win... But now it has lots more theme and is more engaging.

[quote=zmobie...My problem is when they are actually called "Victory Points" in a game...[/quote]

I totally agree with this and feel that once you call something VP, there is some potential that is lost. By digging into the thematic aspect of your game, you can usually get somewhat creative on the naming convention of these "VP".

Is it a monster rampage game? Perhaps go by "Demolition Chunks". A game about speed/distance/racing? Perhaps something about clicks or a unit measure like miles. A money oriented game? Foreshadow the future or make up a story of the past by choosing an existing currency like Yen or Kroners.

The concept of Victory points are great. It is a common value where multiple paths contribute to ones victory. Even though having Victory Points makes it obvious to the players as to what they are fighting for, I still feel that there are other ways of going around it without actually calling it "Victory Points".

I'm actually with Lew on this one, all games are "Victory Point" games.

As he said, chess awards 1 victory point for capturing the king. It also connects the only way to earn VP with the game-end condition, meaning there is only ever 1 VP. Player elimination games can generally be phrased as 1 point for each player eliminated before you. Most "racing games" could be looked at as awarding 1 point for crossing the finish line, but in reality, you could consider each space on the track as a VP, and the end condition is the first to gain "X" VP's, where X is the length of the track.

I could go down the list, and get more and more granular. I honestly think it's very important for designers to understand that all games are VP games. It's one of the core concepts that helps you understand the cogs and gears behind mechanisms.

I am making a game about pigeon post during a war and cant really think of any thematic term other than victory points since sending urgent messages is helping your nation achieve victories in the war. Still, it would be nice to call it something else.

Now "messages received/acquired" would make sense for half of the game's point system but scoring also comes from intercepting messages (or from opponent mistakingly intercepting messages) so that doesn't quite fit.

Sometimes Victory Points (VPs) are necessary to help assign value to certain completed objectives, for example, Ticket to Ride. Ticket to Ride has varying points for how many trains you lay down. If you lay all of your trains down one at a time, you'll get very few points (I know that's not technically possible). On the other hand, if you only go for longer routes (4-6 spaces long) you'll end up score a lot more points. VPs in this game help give value to longer routes. Naming them anything other than points would be, wait for it, pointless. *buh dum tish* If everything though that you are collecting though is always one VP, just give them names and carry on.