play situations in which a game by a player who is no longer fighting for the victory is decided, are frequently controversial. Such situation is called " Kingmaker scenario "(or kingmaker situation). The severed player can increase his train is either the one or help the other leaders to victory. His decision for or against a particular train, therefore, decides on who wins the whole lot in the end. If at the coronation of the winner will also interpersonal considerations ("I will not sleep on the couch today ...") come into play, winning the minds cook over very oriented players then ever thought about and the escalation is inevitable. In almost every tactically or strategically-inspired multi-player game can be constructed ways in which such considerations arise:
- TransAmerica - I choose on my way to my last city, the route that leads me through a previously connected city and care therefore possibly that of sitting in front of me wins and I make the little detour and the player wins for me?
- Settlers of Catan - Who should I negotiate my last ore, at least to build a settlement still can?
- Puerto Rico - I take the master and distribute the final victory points, or I choose the builder, and allow just that of the miners took to build his last building? Or would you prefer the mayor, so that the whole great building can be occupied at least yet?
me everything's going too far. In my opinion, belongs in every game, in which more than two persons or parties involved, the social aspect so fundamental to the game (and fun) to ensure that a separation of these influences is not possible. Of course, during the entire game my decisions have ensured that now Player A and Player B in the first place in this situation. Of course, A and B have failed during the entire game, is enough to set off from their opponents, so that it could only arise for this end. The last day of a possible move for several hours game is never the only or even the most important decision I make.
You can even talk about whether it is up to that king-maker's decision is legitimate to favor one player. Then you have to talk also about whether agreements, negotiations, general tips and the table talk is allowed. THE me is too much trouble, too restrictive, too little fun, and above all too little game.
from my experience I think I can say that the allegations of the "King Maker" (more hard), often simply are just whining. I do not know anyone who does not like to win. From this perspective, the Kingmaker of the person who lose his decision would put pressure on the effect that it possesses moral concerns are inculcated. But that is again only a form of negotiation and diplomacy. Since this "negotiation" but the meta-level at the table includes ("That's unfair, if you decide that now ... it destroys the whole game!"), Bites here in the cat's tail. The king-maker to prohibit the inclusion of certain considerations or reproach, is in turn a game foreign element.
kingmaker situations will give it time and again. I can live with. However, if this social pressure at the table is created, the story goes too far. Players, the fear of loss have a lot by a king-makers should focus on perhaps two-person games. There they will find it much easier.
Maybe I'm in a kingmaker situations just so so relaxed because I am almost never the beneficiaries. If there at a table (with my usual rounds) the decision is whether I or anyone else should get the advantage, I almost always draw the short straw. Nevertheless, I makes playing fun. Really funny, right?
