Is it possible for a game on BGA to last forever?

[unicornivan]

This is an interesting situation I have encountered. Since I couldn't find an answer after reading the FAQs and searching through the forum, I'd like to ask if anyone can offer a solution to this problem

Let's say in some games, the rules grant players the choice to skip turn(s) voluntarily without any consequences. If at some point of the game, both players decided to skip turns indefinitely because making a move puts them at a disadvantage; and if the players both refuse to abandon the game, nor do the game rules offer a game termination condition in this scenario, can this game last forever on the BGA server? If one of the players wants to abandon the game but the other refuses, how can the player get out of the situation without losing points?

Thank you in advance for reading and any suggestions

[Strode]

I wondered about this when playing Mexica. Players have to agree that an unplayable token be removed from the game. If someone refuses, the game won’t end. But I’m pretty sure the developer has accounted for this and forces its removal. Though I’m not certain.

[nik592]

I wouldn't expect it to be the case that any mechanism exists to prevent a game going on forever. But you do still have the option to quit, take the penalty, earn it back in relatively short order (since if it's your first recent penalty, it will only be 10 points, which means if you finish 10 games without time penalty, you'll be back to 100%), and red thumb the obnoxious player. While it's not ideal to have to do that, it should be a pretty rare occurrence, so shouldn't adversely impact your play if you do take the penalty (similar to how if you have a, hopefully rare, internet disconnection during an RT game, you'll also possibly take a penalty, but if they're rare, this shouldn't really be an issue).

Note that if both players stop playing turns, a game will time out after a period of inactivity - but also at least one player would end up out of time in this case, and would run the risk of being booted by the other player anyway (the inactive period is far longer than the time banks provided for any RT or TB games).

[Fuchur]

This is an interesting situation I have encountered. Since I couldn't find an answer after reading the FAQs and searching through the forum, I'd like to ask if anyone can offer a solution to this problem

Let's say in some games, the rules grant players the choice to skip turn(s) voluntarily without any consequences. If at some point of the game, both players decided to skip turns indefinitely because making a move puts them at a disadvantage; and if the players both refuse to abandon the game, nor do the game rules offer a game termination condition in this scenario, can this game last forever on the BGA server? If one of the players wants to abandon the game but the other refuses, how can the player get out of the situation without losing points?

Thank you in advance for reading and any suggestions

Hi, can you give any examples of games with incomplete rules (= not preventing this case) on this site ?
(Chess, for instance, terminates in a draw if you make 50 moves without capturing any piece (if i remember that special rule correctly))

[Mathew5000]

Hi, can you give any examples of games with incomplete rules (= not preventing this case) on this site ?
(Chess, for instance, terminates in a draw if you make 50 moves without capturing any piece (if i remember that special rule correctly))

There are lots of games whose end is triggered by a player achieving a certain number of victory points; for example Catan. In Catan, if at some point all players decide to pass every turn without doing anything to acquire VP, I believe the game could go on for an arbitrary, unlimited length of time.

By the way, I don't agree with your implication that this means Catan has "incomplete rules".

[MarkSteere]

I apologize in advance for the shameless self promotion, but as an indie abstract designer, it's part of my job description.

All of my games are naturally finite and decisive. There can't be a cycle of moves, even if players cooperate to try to have one. There's no need for superko, or the 50 move rule, or any other tacked on aesthetic abomination. Voluntary passing is not allowed, though if you don't have a legal move, your turn is skipped.

There can never be a tie or a deadlock or any type of inconclusive outcome. There will always be exactly one winner. All of my connection games are fundamental, meaning that if you fill the board with black and white stones, in any proportion, there will always be a winning path for one, and only one, of the players.

Some designers invent so-called "soft finite" games, meaning that if both players are trying to win, and are playing reasonably well, the game will end. I don't do soft finite. As a matter of principle, I only do finite.

These are topics of seriously acrimonious debate in the abstract game designers community.

[nik592]

Any game that's dependant on the players actually playing the game and doesn't have a fixed number of rounds, of which there are many - Terraforming Mars for example doesn't end due to a scoring condition, but due to terraforming completion. You can pass every round and never terraform Mars. But why is a person playing a game if they're not actually going to PLAY the game? For a game to be worth playing, the rules should not have to account for if the players decide to just sit there doing nothing.

Admittedly, I've occasionally fallen victim to missing a crucial rule that made a game progress more slowly, or seem harder than it should - but usually we recognise that as a cue to go back and check the rules. That situation usually applies more often to IRL play, not on BGA, which prompts you to do what you need to do for the most part (even if you can refuse to do so in some cases).

[FrankJones]

No. Nothing lasts forever. Even Cold November Rain.

[Meeplelowda]

All of my games are naturally finite and decisive. There can't be a cycle of moves, even if players cooperate to try to have one. There's no need for superko, or the 50 move rule, or any other tacked on aesthetic abomination. Voluntary passing is not allowed, though if you don't have a legal move, your turn is skipped.

There can never be a tie or a deadlock or any type of inconclusive outcome. There will always be exactly one winner. All of my connection games are fundamental, meaning that if you fill the board with black and white stones, in any proportion, there will always be a winning path for one, and only one, of the players.

Some designers invent so-called "soft finite" games, meaning that if both players are trying to win, and are playing reasonably well, the game will end. I don't do soft finite. As a matter of principle, I only do finite.

There is a certain beauty to this. That doesn't mean I think it makes combinatorial abstracts the pinnacle of human achievement , but I can appreciate this aspect.

"Soft finite" kind of reminds of me of something I read recently about games being "weakly solved" vs. "strongly solved."

Ed.: I guess it's lame to throw that out there without explanation. Weakly solved means a solution for perfect play exists beginning at its initial position. Strongly solved means there is a solution for perfect play beginning from any arbitrary position for that game. I believe strongly solved assumes a position that can be reached by a sequence of legal moves beginning at the initial position.

[Meeplelowda]

But why is a person playing a game if they're not actually going to PLAY the game? For a game to be worth playing, the rules should not have to account for if the players decide to just sit there doing nothing.

Best response to what is mostly a philosophical discussion given that the OP didn't actually specify a game where this has become an actual problem, even if it could theoretically happen in a number of games.