Defining “kingmaking” and “team play”

[TiltAWhirl]

In a game of King of Tokyo, I said to another player that I’d stay in Tokyo if he did, thinking we’d both be better off. Somebody said they’d heard table-talk like that wasn’t allowed because of the prohibition on “kingmaking” and “team play.” We looked it up and there’s no real definition. So: how do folks view them?

My view is that “kingmaking” means taking a move that hurts your position, and “team play” means multiple players coming into a game planning to help each other out, usually across multiple games. Secret agreements are probably also
not kosher, at least in most situations. (And some games may have their own rules against table talk, like Bridge.)

In that view, then publicly saying “we need to beat up on So-and-So before they run away with it” or “I’ll stay in Tokyo
if you do” are fine. Certainly, that’s been fine in virtually every home game I’ve ever played. But I don’t know if that’s the majority view or just my own.

What say you all?

[Meeplelowda]

In a game of King of Tokyo, I said to another player that I’d stay in Tokyo if he did, thinking we’d both be better off. Somebody said they’d heard table-talk like that wasn’t allowed because of the prohibition on “kingmaking” and “team play.” We looked it up and there’s no real definition. So: how do folks view them?

My view is that “kingmaking” means taking a move that hurts your position, and “team play” means multiple players coming into a game planning to help each other out, usually across multiple games. Secret agreements are probably also
not kosher, at least in most situations. (And some games may have their own rules against table talk, like Bridge.)

In that view, then publicly saying “we need to beat up on So-and-So before they run away with it” or “I’ll stay in Tokyo
if you do” are fine. Certainly, that’s been fine in virtually every home game I’ve ever played. But I don’t know if that’s the majority view or just my own.

What say you all?

The "table talk" comment is just plain silly because there is no secret information in KoT (I'm not referring to the card in the deck that are secret to everyone unless you have the card that let's you peek at the top card). Also, it is perfectly fine to say "renew the cards because he can afford Sky Scraper on his next turn" or something like that.

The person who made those comments is trying to take what is one of the most interactive games there is and turn it into chess where you just stare silently at the board.

[bionic20]

In a game of King of Tokyo, I said to another player that I’d stay in Tokyo if he did, thinking we’d both be better off. Somebody said they’d heard table-talk like that wasn’t allowed because of the prohibition on “kingmaking” and “team play.” We looked it up and there’s no real definition. So: how do folks view them?

My view is that “kingmaking” means taking a move that hurts your position, and “team play” means multiple players coming into a game planning to help each other out, usually across multiple games. Secret agreements are probably also
not kosher, at least in most situations. (And some games may have their own rules against table talk, like Bridge.)

In that view, then publicly saying “we need to beat up on So-and-So before they run away with it” or “I’ll stay in Tokyo
if you do” are fine. Certainly, that’s been fine in virtually every home game I’ve ever played. But I don’t know if that’s the majority view or just my own.

What say you all?

Kingmaking means, well.. making another player a king, giving them the game. You telling another player to stay in Tokyo with you helps your gameplay.

KoT, specially, 5-6p games, its a game when table talk is literally part of strategy. Directing people to attack monsters running amok in Tokyo, highlighting players who are about to win on xp or telling people to buy Evacuation Orders when needed its completely normal. I do it all the time on games such as KoT and Lov Letter, and the best games are when there is an active table talk, even if it goes against your wishes. That being said, if youre vocal in game chat youre gonna get some redthumbs here and there like you just did. Haters gonna hate

[voriki]

By what I personally define as Kingmaking is that actions are predetermined, whom to target first before the last 2 players(the kingmakers) deal with each other who wins. This is always done in secret.

Openly discussing public knowledge(in King of Tokyo everything is public, no hidden cards in your hand, etc...at least till Evo's ever get implemented) is not against the rules. Some of those discussion could be "do this", or "don't do that or otherwise player x is able to gain the last needed VP to win...".
While the endgoal is to 'win', this can be only achieved by 'not losing', thus making tactical decisions.

Leaving or staying on Tokyo with 2 has a lot of tactical advantages, but the player who decides first, does not know if the second player will follow his lead, so a single message is certainly possible. Otherwise both players end up waiting for each other to make the first move, and every other player loses time waiting.

My personal judgement, discussion public knowledge is not Kingmaking, as long as it's done for tactical advantage, and not discriminatory in any way(Player A and B deciding to gang up because they live in the same country or something, and discussing this in public).

[MoiMagnus]

What say you all?

Kingmaking:

Where you still playing for the first place? If yes, then that's not kingmaking.
If you gave up the first place and tried to ensure second place by making someone win, that would be a gray area, as not everyone agrees on what "winning" is.
If you made a move that favour a player but doesn't serve you in any way, then that would clearly be kingmaking.

(Additionally, there is a gray area about blunders. Does kingmaking require intention? That's a difficult question to answer)

Teamplay:

Did your alliance involve any factor not in the game? (Secret conversation, identity and rank of the players, previous games, etc) If yes, that's teamplay.
Public table conversation leading to alliances are definitely not illegal on BGA, as some games rely on it to be interesting. At most, this could be considered as a lack of good sportsmanship if you do so in games that did not intend for peoples to make alliances (but don't forbid it either).

[Silene]

If you made a move that favour a player but doesn't serve you in any way, then that would clearly be kingmaking.

Not making that move would favour the other player concerned. So either way you cannot get around "kingmaking" in that situation.

In my opinion, if you are in a losing position but still have moves to do, it is fine to do them by your own favourite playstyle. Like "I enjoy attacking" or "if i do this, I will still be last, but at least have 2 points more" or "I'm last anyway, so I favour the person that hasn't hurt me during the game".

It's fine as long as it doesn't involve any matters that come from outside the table (like being friends, specific nation/gender, profile pics or names,...).

[RicardoRix]

If I play co-up in real-life with family and friends, then the whole table talk in centred around "don't get me, kill him', 'if you kill them then I won't kill you', etc.
so in general, complete back-stabbing, bluff and lying.

For this reason, some games on BGA are very difficult to play with strangers, and/or lose the feel of playing the same game in real-life.

King-making is not king-making if you increase your own chances of winning or in getting more points or improving your position. That's very hard to judge in a lot of cases.

Table talk persuasion, for some players, is their best skill. From memory, a quote from the world champion monopoly player, suggested that negotiation was a skill that allowed him to win many more games than he should.

[dschingis27]

If you made a move that favour a player but doesn't serve you in any way, then that would clearly be kingmaking.

Not making that move would favour the other player concerned. So either way you cannot get around "kingmaking" in that situation.

In my opinion, if you are in a losing position but still have moves to do, it is fine to do them by your own favourite playstyle. Like "I enjoy attacking" or "if i do this, I will still be last, but at least have 2 points more" or "I'm last anyway, so I favour the person that hasn't hurt me during the game".

I think you very nicely summarized the situations that should not be considered kingmaking. However, I assume MoiMagnus was referring to a situation where you favour another player without any of the reasons you mentioned.

Imagine in Can't Stop, 2 players already finished 2 columns while you, the 3rd player, finished zero columns. You are very likely to end up 3rd place, no matter what you do. However, if you and another player are close to the finish in one particular column and you do not attack that column if you can, but instead attack a neutral column where you have lower chances, I would consider that clear kingmaking.

[frogstar_A]

What say you all?

Kingmaking:

Where you still playing for the first place? If yes, then that's not kingmaking.
If you gave up the first place and tried to ensure second place by making someone win, that would be a gray area, as not everyone agrees on what "winning" is.
If you made a move that favour a player but doesn't serve you in any way, then that would clearly be kingmaking.

(Additionally, there is a gray area about blunders. Does kingmaking require intention? That's a difficult question to answer)

Teamplay:

Did your alliance involve any factor not in the game? (Secret conversation, identity and rank of the players, previous games, etc) If yes, that's teamplay.
Public table conversation leading to alliances are definitely not illegal on BGA, as some games rely on it to be interesting. At most, this could be considered as a lack of good sportsmanship if you do so in games that did not intend for peoples to make alliances (but don't forbid it either).

I don't think blunders is a gray area at all. A blunder is not kingmaking. Firstly because an honest mistake can't be cheating and secondly kingmaking is forbidden by the site rules and it makes no sense to say making blunders is forbidden. I'd love to never make a blunder but j can't control that!!

[FSKFSK]

Suggesting that another player make a move that benefits himself AND yourself is not team play. Using the King of Tokyo example again, there was one game where another player reminded me to refresh the market, because it contained a card that was a powerful combo with a card another player had (and he would have bought on his turn). That isn't kingmaking.

In any game that involves negotiations, it isn't wrong to discuss with other players. For example, in a game like Blood Rage, it would be normal for people to make deals or point out good moves to opponents.

Team play would be two players always playing the same game together, and then one account making moves that explicitly benefit the other. There was one example I saw of team play at No Thanks. After the halfway point of the game, one player passed cards that helped his partner, and kept every other card. That was flagrant team play. I checked their history and the two of them always played together and had a similar pattern in every other game.

Team play is NOT suggesting an opponent make a move that benefits both of you.

There was one example someone gave which I actually thought was OK but others would consider cheating. If you're playing Race for the Galaxy at 3+ players, and two players are going with a produce/consume strategy, they could agree "This turn I'll pick Consume and you pick Produce. Next turn, you pick Produce and I'll pick Consume." It's problems like that which is probably why people only play Race for the Galaxy 2 players, which makes it a completely different game.