Opinions on 3P Kingmaking

[ArgyleUltor]

For the fast / engine setup, I'll tend to minimize my loss point differential - ie - in these cases - usually fast terraforming. Kind of feels like the way the game is meant to be played. Also, usually a bit more based on card draw, so, a mildly better chance of catching up.

[ArgyleUltor]

Maybe it works as a priority list
1. Win, if possible
2. Improve placement, if possible
3. Improve 'score' including tiebreakers relative to other players, if possible
4. Play in character for the game, generally maximizing amusement value
(Somewhat different for Illuminati and Suburbia)
5. Maximize spite towards players who've metagamed against me (Argyle won last game, let's nuke em early)
6. Maximize amusement value and stuff played

Sometimes, this will change the eventual winner... But, usually not by a lot. And, every choice picks a winner in those cases, so this seems defensible. Also, possible to play around. (The winner should pick moves assuming I'll come as close to winning as possible.)

Generally, objectionable king making is more frequent in strongly interacting games, eg, Munchkin. (Honestly one of the reasons I avoid Munchkin. And, sometimes, with plausible deniability, maybe think less and effectively give someone the win. Dunno, could try harder, but feels like gambling on spider races anyways.)

[Agbisweird]

I hope by now we have 'consensus' that null action is, indeed, an action and should never be 'socially contract' expected of a player. If they can act, and it can further their own score, they should act, regardless of how that affects other players; they are there to play the game and should be (and are by the rules?) allowed to make the game moves they want.

I also hope by now we have consensus that, in general, if the active player can make a move for themselves and their own scores, and there are many other variations of that move, some of which benefit player A more than player B; in general we all agree it is fairer for active player to play the move that preserves the scores of A and B as they stand as far as he can tell. Of course, multiplayer games are not inherently fair; so while we agree about what we feel if fairest for the active player to do... he can affect the standings and that is allowed by the game rules, correct?

It is also allowed by BGA rules?

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts.

[Doudzer]

I send a cash app link in the conversation and the first one to send me a dollar get's to be the king. Best way to chose lol