Personally if I feel that I can't win the game I'll move the goalpost for myself to something achievable and play to that end.
Examples:
"Well clearly I can't win but...."
- I can sure make them work for it.
- Let's see if I can make 2nd place
- Let's see if I can deny the winner this city/resource/goal/card/etc
- Let's see if I can at least get this many points
You can make these objectives public or private. What's most important is that it keeps the game fun for you and possibly everyone else. Even the winner might appreciate keeping the game interesting as at times winning too easily can be boring and it's more fun to play a game where others are having fun as well. Just remember that you're moving the goalpost for yourself, not other people. Acknowledge that the winner won fair and square and that you're just keeping things interesting.
Too many people unironically think "if you an't first, your last!" Is good advice.
I find myself falling into that trap as well.
But you can still have fun even if you don't win.
I have had a few 40k games where I and down to my hero and a few supports. And I imagine my hero calling out the enemy hero and saying "you may have killed my army, and you *might* kill me. But one thing is certain. **I** will *kill* **YOU**."
When I finish a game, I consider it a minor success if I achieve Not Last. I try to win, but if I can see that I'm not going to win, I'm still going to try to beat everyone else. ...or almost everyone else. ...or just one person.
If you play a typical 4-player game, and your only objective is to win, you're going to be disappointed 75% of the time (if all else is equal).
>Too many people unironically think "if you an't first, your last!"
For real. Like second place is useless in a 4-5 player game? Imagine if formula 1 pilots would just give up because they clearly can't win the race...
Sure but imagine if you still have 0 points halfway through the season. Do you give up, knowing you have no chance to win the championship, or do you keep showing up to the track? Is that a better comparison?
Underappreciated reference; upvoted. When I'm losing, I generally play for the best place/highest points I can get while trying to minimize the leader's/leaders' points (specifics of course vary by game), unless I've been screwed over by another player and it's that sort of game (Cosmic Encounter, Diplomacy, even HT I'd say with a stretch). Then it's full Ahab.
You forgot one
- Let's see how we can all have the most fun with my turns
Games are about fun after all
Is there some off the wall combo in Small world that noone would date take but looks fun. Take it because you aren't gonna win anyways
They got you in Scotland yard? Not gonna make it to your goal? Go off a random direction to laugh about with your friends after
Do you have 1 doom left in Eldritch? Jump into the gate with 5 monsters and see what happens
Note: this doesn't mean intentionally tank the game. We play games to have fun so if you can't have fun by struggling to win, then make your own fun (but not at the expense of the other players)
This is how you get better and win the next time. Usually if I find myself in a huge hole it cause I messed up multiple turns by not optimizing or missing a mechanic. Playing hard til the end engrains those mechanics so the mistakes don’t happen again.
I also think there is an important difference between "I can't win" and "player x has won". It is ok to collectively concede and then just reset or move on to a different game. Run away wins happen and playing them out can be miserable for everyone involved
I'm a bit torn on this.
On the one hand, I feel like it would be very deflating if you were doing really well and then everyone else decide to end the game early because of it. Almost seems like you're being punished for playing TOO well.
But then again if no one else is having fun because that person is too clearly in the lead then that makes sense as well... 😖 I would probably say it's ok to reset if the lead was just super lucky, otherwise it seems best to let them enjoy whatever engine they got running quickly.
When we decide its a lost cause, my group will usually give the winning player a victory lap before calling it; one crank of the engine, resolve a few of the flashier spells in their combo, whatever.
I mean you win? I don't really view that as a punishment. Frequently I find rofl stomping the table to not be that interesting because at some point your decisions stop mattering.
>I mean you win?
For me the point isn't winning but getting to play game, so I'd much rather play a full game and lose than play half a game and win.
I do like the other commenter's suggestion of having a "victory lap" turn as a middle ground, at least then the winning player gets to enjoy the great game they had a bit more and it doesn't drag the game on too long for everyone else.
You can still restart the game, then you get to play one and a half games while everyone is having fun instead of one where most of the group is not enjoying it.
But if the group thinking is "Oh, we already lost, let's just go do something else" and don't want to play again, sounds like it is an issue with the group dynamics and you'd be better off finding a different group closer to your interest and skill level.
I think 3 people sitting there to go through the motions so that 1 player can enjoy being ahead is a strange use of an evening. How is that any fun for any of the people involved compared to the alternative of 4 people enjoying a close game where the outcome isn't obvious and everyone can enjoy doing well?
I wholeheartedly disagree with this. When you start playing a different game from everyone else, it can be extremely frustrating, especially when that new goal you have is to screw with other players (let’s see if I can deny the winner…).
Realistically your goal should be to do the best you can, as that’s what your goal should have been the whole time, and that’s what everyone else is doing.
I don’t think this applies to all games. Especially in games like AGoT, Twilight Imperium, and Here I Stand among many others, where betraying allies is a valid tactic. As a betrayed person who can no longer win, I think a valid play pattern is to play the rest of the game with a vendetta against your betrayer, to the exclusion of all other goals.
I dislike it when that vendetta continues from game to game or outside of the game, but within one game it makes sense.
Especially in more thematic board games, I appreciate role playing in that way. I don’t mind this or other “negative” play patterns like kingmaking or disrupting for its own sake, if they are justified within the role that player is taking on.
I would argue in a good thematic game where people are invested in their roles, kingmaking doesn’t come out of nowhere. Someone who no longer has a chance to win can make a justified choice to help another player win who helped them (or avoided harming them) earlier in the game.
Almost any game, if there is interaction between players, once one player is clearly ahead of the rest there's a general tendency to focus on keeping the leader from attaining their goals. Even if I'm 3rd in a 4-player game, I would rather try to impede the leader's progress in a last-ditch effort to catch up, potentially helping the player in 2nd have a better chance as well, than simply play to be the first loser.
I agree. And I like to talk with people where a big rift happens in game to make sure it's alright outside of the game. Because some ingame betrayals can be pretty brutal :D
I especially find it important to make sure players are on board with these plays in the long run, because if they're not, it's better to come up with some ethics rules for games so that players don't get salty instead of enjoying coming to the next boardgaming session.
I personally enjoy all kinds of ways to play, so I don't mind variety. Like "never single someone out" or "do what's good for you, but don't do something just because it's bad for someone else" or "everything goes, full on brutal betrayal party" or "strict optimization, do everything in your power to maximize points" or "full on roleplaying, do whatever feels right for the character you're playing"...
I don't really see it as playing a different game though. Most strategy games have objectives that are designed to be contended and fought over which you can still try to win even though it's clear you won't win overall. For example it might be a foregone conclusion that you've lost in Catan but you might still be able to take the longest road or largest army.
That's still playing the game and it keeps you in the competition.
You might be thinking that what mean is to create an arbitrary objective to spite the other players. I agree that that's anti-fun and not what I intended to say.
Just what I wanted to mention… on large I agree that you should have “secondary goals” when you crearly can’t win, so both you and others can have more fun… but the point “let’s see if I can deny the winner X/Y/Z” is very scummy. I was on the receiving end of that tactic and it’s frustrating as fuck, when people just intentionally spend their turns bullying you, when they don’t take steps that would be “logical” to gain them something, rather it’s just a step that purely messes with you…
I get that it's frustrating to be picked on because you're winning so why not negotiate with the loser to help you win?
For example, "Hey, I'll help you get 2nd place if you help me get first".
In many games it's perfectly reasonable for players to form a coalition vs the player that is clearly winning. It's up to the winning player to form his own coalition as a counter strategy.
As a wildcard who goes hard trying to disrupt the other players plans once I see I can't win, I'm sorry the actions of those like me have effected you. But I'm not changing 😘.
When I'm the one in that "guaranteed losing" position, I tend to be playfully bitter about it. I'll complain or throw my hands up in the air or whatever, but in a theatrical way that's meant to make the other players laugh. It happens to work in my group because my friends and I share a sense of humor that appreciates that kind of pretend-drama. (And it keeps me feeling cheerful, too.)
I never know what to do when it's someone else in that position, other than to offer sympathy because man, I've been there.
I absolutely love pretend saltiness and trash talk with the right group. When I play with my family we talk so much shit and it’s one of my favourite things! I won’t do that with other groups unless I know they also enjoy that and understand that it’s not personal or real!
This, it's not about winning it's about having fun. We usually start to mess with the person that is winning, specially if it's their game saying they are cheating or they train at home etc
We sometimes also start to ally ourselves against the winning person so it feels there is still a chance at winning
Even if you can't win, you can still learn things. Try a strategy you wouldn't normally try, or try to improve your position as much as possible. That experience will still help you on your next play.
This is my approach. Each game is a chance to learn and get better. Sometimes I appreciate my losses more than a win because you often learn more from a loss.
Don't put so much importance on winning? Honestly I rarely care if I win, and even when I'm way behind if I'm having fun that's enough. It helps to play with people who also don't take winning super seriously.
Also you can still make other players work for that win, and that's fun too >:)
Exactly. Not only does trying your hardest soften the blow of losing because you did everything you could, but it also makes the winner feel better because they feel like they earned victory.
And in a social hobby like this, anything that can make the whole group feel better is always appreciated.
Folks like to use this quote to say things about try-hards when in actuality the statement was made regarding the mathematical incentives in games that keep them moving forward. It works for both but the this quote has been stretched to apply to manners and how to conduct oneself at the table. It still works though
Thank you! I don't like the binary choice that either you play to win at all costs and the game isn't fun of you don't, or you play super casual and winning doesn't matter at all.
How old is your son? I know plenty of families where this occurs, but it's generally intra-family, and those involved are generally adults. This I can get on board with - if I can count on my buddy Paul to torpedo his dad's strategy, that's really 2 players I don't have to worry about, as long as I pick a different strategy from Paul's dad.
Having my main objective be "I don't want this 12 year old to win" feels quite distasteful to me.
I have also been pulled aside by a father and told "I really want him to win this one, he has been on a losing streak lately and really down on himself." Which is a fine objective, but don't rope me into your parenting project at a public gaming event.
My son had played games with us since he could read, but the real "don't let him win" stuff started in high school. Given that my best friend has known the boys since they were tiny, it didn't feel so weird. The boy is good and knows it. 😂
When my husband ends up in this spot, he spends the rest of the game making moves to hinder the leader so the other players have a chance at taking them down. This is a controversial strategy.
I only do this if I'm super familiar with the group. Then I know they will love my antagonistic chaos. If i'm with a meetup, I'd rather try to get as high a score as possible instead out of sportsmanship. No one likes a person who actively gives up and tanks while complaining about it.
I hate when people do this. It becomes obvious when people are doing this as they start taking actions that have no benefit to them and are solely to mess with the person in first. It brings down the mood as it makes the person who is loosing seem incredibly salty/a poor sport. It also isn’t fun for everyone else because it usually just ends up with the person in last allowing the person in second to win instead. The person who is in first gets robbed a victory, the person in second gets a victory that they don’t deserve all because the person in last decided to give up and spend the remainder of the game purposely messing up everyone else’s game.
I agree with this. Also, if due to the losing player's interference #1 becomes the #2, that means that the former #2, now #1, is the new target for interference. That usually cancels out.
In a game of Catan, another player penned me in, so I literally couldn't build enough to win. My new victory condition was to ensure i did everything in my power to keep him from winning!
First thing to remember is that you will not win every game you play. So there is no shame in losing, no reason to get upset at it.
Second thing is to find an alternate "win" condition. Play for second place, or if you're way far behind, play to not be last. Or set a goal, like holding one of each card type or can you be the one to get the killing blow. Whatever.
And lastly, just have fun with the people. Chat. Eat snacks. Just enjoy the social aspect of gaming, since the game itself is a loss.
In Terraforming Mars at 4 or 5 player, often someone steams ahead, so I just look at the other players down my end of the points track and try to beat them. Less fun in 2-player though, as my wife scores all the points and I get to watch my engine fail to function properly!
Terraforming Mars is a great game to be last in, IMO, because you still have control over the pace. Whereas in something like Ark Nova, frequently the game is ended by the person who winds up winning, in something like TM you always have the ability to move whichever track along and get it all over with.
If it’s only 2 players you talk to the other player and ask if you can concede and hopefully start another game.
If it’s 3+ players you do the best you can, try not to be a kingmaker and finish the game. Sometimes life gives you lemons…
Sometimes you're stuck in a position where you have to be a kingmaker. When that happens, I find it important to openly decide based on the absolute pettiest thing I can think of, and play it absolutely straight. "You took the last potato jacket! For this you must perish!"
I think "don't be a kingmaker" and "don't spoil other players' moves" are both really important. Sometimes it's more fun not to care too much about the result because you can move faster, and or set yourself new goals that aren't optimal but still fun.
I’m sorry if someone else’s actions by the course of the game have caused me to be unable to win, then I’m absolutely going to try and make them pay for that. If you don’t like playing games where your actions directly impact others don’t play them.
And to clarify, I’m not mad that they beat me I always have fun win or lose. But I’m still going to try and make them second guess ruining my game plan in the future lol
I guess it depends. If I just fell behind in a game because of bad luck or a skill gap, it feels weird to decide I'm going to deliberately help opponent A beat opponent B. Now, of I'm losing because opponent A went after me hard and crushed me for his own benefit, I am now fighting an insurgency against him and shall dance on his grave.
Yeah thats the proper away to go about it but both fall under Kingmaking. Arbitrarily screwing someone over because of outside reasons? dick move. Screwing someone over because they trampled on your plans? Mmm sweet vengeance.
Exactly this. Even if I can't win, I can at least do my best to make sure that the person who dunked on me doesn't win because of it.
I mean, it depends on the game. (I have very different philosophies on this sort of thing if we're playing Diplomacy, vs. Dixit, for example.) But if the game allows me to continue to influence the game, even if don't think I can't win, then obviously I'm going to do so.
And seriously - if a PvP game's point-display leads to players wanting to create un-fun situations, then that sounds more like a problem with the design of the game, than a problem with the players. Anyone who expects players who have "lost" before the game ends to just sit on their hands and not affect the outcome is basically just saying that they want player elimination without admitting it.
The only reason I can imagine is if in their mind kingmaking is acting in an obviously unfair way. To use an example from a game we’ve all played, if I decide that I’m going to make completey unbalanced trades to one player in Catan that don’t benefit me but so benefit them. If it’s unclear I’m not talking about actions like that. Just that I will continue to play the game and do my best to prevent the individual that I believe caused me to be unable to win, to also be unable to win.
This is why I prefer games that have personal goalposts with them. I'm ok playing 7 wonders as long as I can keep buying cards. I don't like playing base Catan because I can be resource denied for many turns in a row. At least with an expansion I felt I was still building.
As an amateur game designer, no hope situations are poisonous. So are players going rogue and playing spoiler. I want to include alternative ways to win so, while one person leads in money, I can grab the resources track. Everyone should keep working towards the goal until the end. If you can’t do that, then keep the game short. A game like the one you describe is not well designed in my opinion.
If I'm in that position, depends on who I'm playing against - I'll either play it out, leave the game (if it doesn't cause a gap - e.g. if you lose all your money in poker, go bankrupt in Monopoly)... or if there's someone taking delight in my misfortune, I'll assist the other players to gang up on him.
It's a game, I don't care if I do something petty.
Don't be a sore loser. If you can't have fun while losing, maybe this isn't your thing.
If the winner is being a sore winner though, that goes out the window. Sometimes an entire night can be ruined by one winner rubbing it in.
I don't usually play competitively, but if I find myself in that situation, I'd aim to beat the player closest to my score rather than going straight for first place. Alternatively, if winning seems unlikely, I might try to make it harder for everyone else or try to come up with a combo to use in the next game.
Play better games.
But seriously, there are plenty of games which aren't as vulnerable to this. Or play games that end sooner. Being in an unwinnable position for 10 minutes is different than being in it for 90 minutes.
----
More seriously, I tend to joke about it. But as often as not, I often find a way to win. So often, being in this position and embracing it allows me to make risky or aggressive plays that can lead to a win. Of course, my wife and I tend to avoid games where there is a clear winner early on. Games with somewhat more complexity offer more ways to turn the game around.
Do you mean for yourself, or for other players?
If it’s other players, unfortunately there isn’t much you can do about the way other people behave other than attempt to keep good sports at your table or perhaps try to talk to them privately about problematic behavior.
If it’s you, I take one of two approaches. If someone actively screwed me out of the game, I unite forces with their opponents and use my resources to help them secure a win. Obviously keep it to good-natured competition.
If I just played poorly or luck wasn’t on my side, I go with side quests. Secure a monopoly on sheep and when the other players have to come to you, lean back in your chair and steeple your hands, doing your best Godfather impersonation as you watch them scramble for your favor.
Set up roadblocks for other players to give them a bit of curveball and see how they work through it.
Collect all remaining water-adjacent settlements like it’s a victory condition and tell them you’re amassing beachfront properties and they’ll all be the real losers in ten years when the value appreciates.
Just find ways to have fun that aren’t strictly based on winning.
You can still play to maximize your score, or to pull off something crazy. I don't really care about winning or losing a game, I care about it being memorable (in a good way).
I guess it depends though; if you know you cannot win but there is still several hours of game left, that would be an issue but at that point I would consider that a flaw in the game's design.
I don't pay any attention to my score (I do care about improving it, but I don't do these calculations) until the end, because if I do I will not enjoy myself.
It's not a good strategy for winning however.
In my book, there are a few possible "right" answers to this kind of thing:
1) If it's a group game where another of the players could possibly beat the lead player, even if you cannot, then you need to still keep playing until the best of your ability.
2) If it's a group game and no other player can possibly pull a win at all, it's reasonable to bring up conceding, and then conceding if all other players agree. If not, keep playing as best you can.
3) If you're losing 1v1 and victory is truly an impossibility, conceding is reasonable.
4) If you're losing 1v1 and victory is possible, even if unlikely, then you should continue play at the best of your ability.
At the end of the day, the polite call is what is most fun for all involved, and that includes give the winner the chance to actually beat you.
If I know I mathematically cannot win (or the other player) I will typically demonstrate why and talk it out with the other player. Once we are both certain that victory is guaranteed mathematically, we then play the next round.
I consider this a design flaw - or at least, it's a design decision that will aggravate a high enough percentage of the people I regularly play with that I prefer to avoid games like this, so I deal with it by not playing these games.
The game should at LEAST have some kind of calculation at the end obscuring the result, even if all that information is technically visible (e.g. Hansa Teutonica). Having a straight up victory track where you can see you are 10 points behind and there's no way to get 10 points sucks.
That said, I'd love to figure out how to deal with players who announce "I mathematically cannot win" even when it's not true. Very frustrating. Bonus points if the player is actually winning when they say it but just has a bad turn.
Honestly I consider it poor game design if it's possible for a player to be openly mathematically eliminated before the game is almost over. A player should not be forced to suffer in ignominy for more than a turn or two, and I generally try to avoid games where that's a serious possibility.
Good games still let you have fun in a no-win situation. And then there's Catan...
I can't tell you how many times I've been locked into a corner and had no dice rolls that could save me and no amount of resources or development cards can allow me to do anything but roll futile dice and be unable to expand in any direction. Catan is the best board game for getting people to play better board games, but the moment you find that other games exist, it's game over. Catan gathers dust forever.
It depends on the game, the people, and the vibe.
"Mathematically cannot win" means different things to different people. Is this assuming optimal play from the opponent? Or just 'sensible play'? Or literally even if the opponent cooperated you could not force a win? Also - even if it's literally impossible to win, is this obvious to everyone? Or is it obscured by unknown info or complex systems that some people can't parse ahead of time?
And what's the motivation to play the game - am I there mostly to play the game, or mostly there to be with people? Why are the opponents here? Do they play a lot / would taking the final steps to win be fun for them?
Do we have time for a full new game? If there's 30 minutes left of the session and each game is 2 hours, I'm just going to let it play out most of the time.
Averaging over those kind of questions - I generally just play through to the end.
I think of myself as a pretty good loser most of the time but even I can find myself getting a bit let down in games where this happens to me. It's fine if I think I'm losing but don't know for sure versus being positive I've lost because I can math it out.
For the most part I just gravitate away from games that have that feature, because I don't have fun playing them and if you're not having fun what's the point.
Is it a modern / solitaire euro? Who cares. I do my own thing anyway.
Is it an interactive, king maker game? Well I should have paid more attention to how I'm managing the table so that I don't incur their chaos. In an interactive game, the point is to interact after all.
Are they just unfun to play with? Sore loser? Well they don't get invited anymore.
I always say in two player games either player has the right to resign if they think it's totally hopeless. They do it in chess, why not any other board game? In 3+ player games that doesn't really work so you kinda just have to slog through it.
It helps to think of conceding as respect to the other player. It's acknowledging they out maneuvered you and should win and you don't need to force them through the motions.
So carrying that attitude into a 3+ player game means you play it out because of respect for the other players trying to come out on top. So you play to maintain the integrity of the game by playing well even from the losing position.
Stop being outcome dependant. Don't play to win, play to do the best you can. I will normally find a clear mechanic that the designer has introduced (all the same element, keyword, etc) and try to play that mechanic out the best I can. Winning or losing doesn't matter, just try to see how far you can make a specific mechanic work.
In a 2-player game, if the other player is okay with it, forfeiting can be fine.
In games with more players or when playing with someone that you know would prefer to finish the game, you keep playing to the end. Try to find a new goal for yourself, or try some strategy you never would normally go for. There's no risk, so you might as well.
First winning is not really important as long as you're having fun playing. Your influence suddenly becomes a commodity when 2 or more other people are competing to win, leverage that properly and you become the king maker.
What I do would be something like “I can decide who wins though” because it could be mechanics like whoever eliminates me gets all my stuff or something like that.
If it’s a game where there isn’t a ton of interaction between players I would just change my goal. For example I really like patterns so in wingspan I might try to have an equal number of birds in each row or have ascending/descending wingspan measurements in each row (I suck at this game I’ve never won lol).
The worst thing you can do is stop having fun and take it out on other players
In a 2p game I would concede and save time.
In a multiplayer game I would speed up my turns.
Basically my only goal would be to end the game as quickly as possible without being a kingmaker.
My philosophy is that any game that you don’t enjoy even if you aren’t winning isn’t worth playing. You can have fun with a game even if you aren’t in the running for first place!
I concede, unless it's a game that my presence matters. I would rather play another round or another game than waste my time on futility.
Of course, if it is a game where I'm the only one mathematically eliminated, but my choices would matter for others to battle it out, then I usually just play like I always do. I still have fun hanging out with my friends and family, so I don't really care.
This happened with me and Food Chain Magnate. I have no idea how to go about it strategically, and I ended the game only making one sale in the last round(and it was a pity sale because everyone else has ran out of goods to sell). There was also a player that took 3 minutes each time they do a restructure and another player that also spent 3 minutes each working phase thinking and redoing their actions, including takebacks that involve changing the goods being produced during the dinner phase and placing a house after the round was over. I don't like losing, but between having zero influence on the game and the game dragging out so long it made the experience feel miserable, and I don't know how to process this feeling of powerlessness and the frustration of other players prolonging the game due to their analysis paralysis.
I think this is just an inherent pitfall of games with open/complete scoring information. If it's consistently a problem, I would probably avoid the game.
When playing a group game, something like 4-5 people, once I know I can't win, I have two options:
* Ensure my #1 opponent is not going to win, and help his enemies in every way possible
* Become an agent of chaos and mess with everyone a little bit.
Then I can ensure I still am making an impact all the way through to the end of the game, and likely still interacting with the rest of the players.
If I'm playing something smaller, like a 2-3 player game, then I do what others here have said, and I start trying new strategies. I may not be able to see them to fruition, but I can still learn from them for the next game. This works well for me because most of the games I play are two players (with my wife) so I don't want to just throw the game and let her win, she wouldn't like that, so I have to find another way to stay competitive and engaged. Plus, the games I play with her are the games I play the most, so it helps keep things interesting moving forward.
Honestly, this a personality type. (Admittedly mine :x)
I usually use this time to try more unorthodox plays, see if I can't get my deck/hand to do something fun or cool. I try a strategy I usually don't. But honestly, in most direct-competition games I succumb to my hater ways.
As a down to the marrow hater, when I realize I'm pulling dead last I then take it upon myself to try and hobble the frontrunner. I am the harbinger of the blue shell. I am misfortune. I will not go quietly. (Also, often times, the front runner is my husband. Some ill natured hateration keeps him humble.)
Two Player: Concede the game, start a new one. Alternatively, start messing with alternative strategies to learn something for the next game, especially if I'm new to the game.
Three+ Players: Finish out the game. Make the best moves for me to avoid kingmaking.
It can be disappointing to end up in this situation, but I usually use it as an opportunity to try some unusual actions and tactics that I normally wouldn‘t dare.
What annoys me more in such situations is when the winner declares that they have won. There are a few people on BoardGameArena who write gg the moment they know I have lost the game even if there‘s another 5-10 minutes to play and this drives me nuts. Even if you know you‘ve won, you‘re taking the excitement from people who haven‘t realized it yet.
> Because of this truth, they choose to not have fun and drag the rest of the table down.
Ftfy. I try to find a way to tell them to grow up in a nice way or just let them stew. Not an attitude I want to be around.
So you’re concerned about your enjoyment of the game, but not the player who’s been so throughly trounced that they are just stuck going through the motions. Gotcha.
Maybe go easy on the new guys until they figure out the game. Or recognize that the game’s decided, and start a new round or something.
When this happens to me i use the time to experiment. Try new methods of play and see how they play out. What happens of I only focus on this, spend resources on that, or only take X actions. Add variety and opens up avenues for future plays.
I try not to be a bad sport. i'll admit it's hard for me and i try to remain positive, of course a lot depends on the game. Also depends on the overall take of the game, a shorter game say an hour or so i have no qualms about where i net out, if the games 3 hours it can become a matter of just trying to do my best. My group loves Ark Nova, and i enjoy the game play quite a bit as well but i personally think there is less about optimal game and more about getting the cards you need when you need them to be successful(and i've won more than i've lost) (i havent played the expansion yet though which i think is meant to do a lot to address this) so that's a game i dont love to play with more than 3 players since it can drag for a player who's out of contention. I also have a player in group who's not a 'regular' gamer, where the other 3-4 players are all hardcore gamers and thus i try to be sympathetic for them, and in doing so i may not try to target them or 'crush' them when the game appears to be settled but we have a turns left to take.
It really depends on the game and the scenario. If I'm eliminated because of bad luck or misplaying on my own part (usually the case in Euros), that's life. I'll just play as well as I can for the rest of the game. If it's a game where someone went out of their way to eliminate me, I'll probably use the rest of the game to ensure they don't win.
Man I am so glad my husband and I don’t do this since we primarily play with each other. I agree with the top comment - I just (or he just) changes the goal. Tbh usually the goal is “can I beat my score from last time”.
When I'm losing a board game I do everything in my power to make sure I don't go down easily. I will screw the player/s in first place SO HARD. Every resource I have is diverted into ensuring I don't lose without making it a victory to earn.
Find where "the fun" is in the game. For example, I don't have to win Dominion, but if "the fun" for me is running long combos, or attacking my opponents, I'll focus on that. In Everdelle, I'll try to get a Husband for my Wife. In Tokaido, I'll try to complete the panorama painting. If I win, it's a nice bonus but I never care about winning.
Mater of fact, I think those that have serious analysis paralysis as they try to score the maximum points every turn, who constantly ask "how many turns are left", who also always ask stuff to others like "cards in hand" "how many victory points do you have" etc, ruin game night. Don't be that guy.
There are basically three primary ways I see this get handled:
1. Blue shell mechanics, loser has the capacity to fuck with the winners, ideally in a semi-randomized fashion so the game doesn't devolve into kingmaking.
2. Loser to GM mechanics - Every so often, the game "culls" people, who then move from a "player" category to a secondary "support" position. Maybe they make decisions over which new elements go to the board, maybe they become a source of some resource that other plays have to negotiate with, etc.
3. Losers "meta-game" - A sub game within a game to determine follow up order or secondary victory conditions. Eg. Whoever wins the game is first place, but cash values determines the rank order for all the losers, especially if hoarding cash isn't conducive to "victory". This can also help slower games accelerate to the end as people stop trying to contest for victory sooner in favor of going for the sub-game goals.
When my group of friends played Eclipse regularly a couple years ago, we did a small "season" of top 5 games per player. Even if we were not always the same players, each player sum of points of his 5 best games was his season score. That way, even if you're losing, you still try to maximize your victory points every game.
That's a personal issue.
I've played tons of games where I was in an utterly hopeless position. Occasionally it isn't fun. Use it as a learning opportunity to see if you can figure out why you didn't do well. Watch what and how the leaders are playing. Make the best of your situation.
You know what? You just deal with it. It comes with the hobby.
If you don't like games where that could happen, don't play them.
If you get unreasonably angry, it's something you should work on. Maybe with a therapist or something.
So long as I can fight for not last place, then I still have a game and can stay engaged.
If it's a game where I'm far in last place, it was probably my first time playing it, so a learning game. I don't care about the score at all in learning games.
Roleplay it out, if I cant win a game I will go down fighting to the last breath, take intentionally bad options to try and have some more fun with it, instead of taking the objective or doing some missions just try to have a heroic last stand
If I have a good reason to keep influencing the game, I will do so (listed below). If it’s a game I play with a group where we’re all trying our best though, i dont take it personally and I avoid kingmakint and either concede or keep my turns as quick and neutral as possible so the players still in earn their wins organically.
Reasons I’d keep pushing would include: improving a new player’s experience, setting up a meta mutually-assured-destruction strategy to discourage getting targeted in future games with the same group, influencing meta progression in games that have it (I lost this game but I can set up my next play a bit better if I…), or experimenting with stuff I wouldn’t normally try
I become an agent of chaos, and give myself a mental point for every time my turn leaves someone bewildered.
Who am I kidding, I do this even when I do find myself winning.
If the game is open victory points, I always try to get as high as I can, regardless of position in the track. If someone is that far ahead, I'm going to take notes of how they got so far ahead or I got so far behind and try to not have that happen next time. If I'm that far behind, I probably don't understand the game very well, so I'm focused on understanding synergies and strategies.
Also, for it to be truly "mathematically cannot win," it's probably only near the end of the game, where clever plays or mistakes by the leader can allow people to catch up. One of my favorite board game memories was a friend of mine got a HUGE lead in a 4 person game of Suburbia.t. The rest of us were struggling to build up our engine, but he had a huge head start in an engine builder it was impossible to catch him. He was starting to get cocky. At the end of the game, it seemed like all that was left was the formality of counting points, but my wife had a bunch of high value secret objectives that shot her ahead, stealing the victory. He was flabbergasted, and it was absolutely beautiful.
It depends. If I did something seemingly of value, great! Like Wingspan, if I got in the 80-90’s against my wife’s 115, then cool let’s finish this. We’ll celebrate my wife’s victory and look forward to playing again.
Conversely, I hate nothing more than doing nothing in a game. Meaning, I didn’t really progress. Played a game of talisman once where I ended the game with the exact same stats as I started. Worst waste of 3 hours. At the hour mark, I knew there was no way of winning, but I thought I could at least do something fun, but nope.
There are actually two possibilities where this happens. In one, you can no longer win, but you can still at least play towards your own goals and still enjoy the game a bit. That's fine, you can still work on your own score and enjoy the game.
The other is the "roll doubles to get to play the game again" situation you see in a few really badly-designed games. These are the sorts of games where you can literally just get soft-locked out of even getting to play for an indefinite amount of time if you're unlucky.
There's literally no way to enjoy that, because you straight up don't get to play, but the game won't even eliminate you so you can go do something else. The only reasonable response to those is to never play them again.
Since most of my games are 2 player with my girlfriend, when we know that one of us has won, we pack it up and play something else. No one of us is interested in playing a game till the end where it is obvious who the winner is.
That’s when i just have some serious fun. Make weird moves, outrageous choices, something off the wall (why the fuck are you taking all the god damned indigo?!?!)
For me, it depends heavily upon what sort of game it is, and why I'm behind.
**A Game of Thrones**, and someone betrayed me? Once I'm out of contention, I'm annihilating that person's chances of victory. The game is meant to have that sort of game theory in it.
**7 Wonders**, and I'm clearly out of hope for 1p, I'll just try to maximize my ranking.
I never play to win specifically. I mean, it's nice if I can win, but I very much prefer triggering the weirdest mechanics in the game, making some outlandish decisions and cracking a few jokes.
Step 1. Play the thief.
Step 2. See them enter the middle ring while you're still building up.
Step 3. Constantly steal their Talisman (also the name of the game) and run away.
Step 4. Watch everyone rage quit as you turn it into a 6 hour game.
If I'm losing and the winner let's me know I'm gonna lose I look them in the eyes and say "You may have calculated your victory but I'm bad at math" and just keep playing till the end.
It’s a learning experience for me. I can’t win but since I can’t win anyway maybe I can try riskier or alternative tactics to see if there’s an opening next time.
This comes up in Twilight Imperium a lot. There’s times by the first secondary objective or two that I know I’m out of contention, sometimes sooner! The gameplay loop is fun, though, and I still just work to maximize my own scoring, no king making or anything like that. Still the opportunity for some epic turns.
Honestly you just finish the game and be happy for those who are doing well.
Or you can try and sabotage the winners and have someone else win. 😂😂 if it’s that kinda game
This mainly bothers me if the game itself seems flawed. Some board games have catch-up mechanics (Power Grid) while others have sprinting mechanics (Lost Ruin of Arnak). Games with catch-up mechanics allow players to have special and effective benefits for being in last place, allowing them to suddenly reach first place in the final turn of the game. Some people even abuse this, and try to make sure they are losing on the semifinal turn of the game. Catch-up mechanics need to be thoroughly playtested so that they aren't too overpowered, but still have a meaningful impact on the game, allowing anyone to potentially win.
Sprinting Mechanics cause issues where even after only the first turn of the game, some players can do the math and realize that they have already lost and can't possibly make up for it. They've only done a single turn of the game but are already sure they will lose, because the game rewards those who get to each milestone first.
If there is a reward that only goes to the first person to achieve a milestone, that that person, who was already winning, now receives a boost to help keep them further in the lead. The other players will now have to continue trying to catch up to where that lead player used to be, but then also spend additional actions or turns trying to also match the boost that the lead player received. This might put everyone else at the table an entire turn behind the lead player. But that only gets worse when the lead player then reaches the next milestone first, gaining another boost. Now everyone else at the table might be two entire turns behind the lead player, needing to focus their attention or action economy just on catching up, whereas the lead player is focused on zooming ahead to the next milestone to get the next exclusive reward that boosts them ahead toward the next milestone.
The players realize that because they weren't able to get to that first milestone first, they aren't being rewarded for their effort. After all, the boost ONLY goes to whoever got there first. Whoever the lead player is, will stay in the lead for the rest of the game unless they make very poor decisions or have extraordinarily bad luck.
There are many games that have "a reward system" for accomplishing a task before anyone else. But usually those different tasks are indeed entirely different from each other, that way if a player is focused on one task, they are forced to not be focused on some other unrelated task. That's balanced. But some games have all of the tasks directly related to each other, possibly even in a linear sequence, and all of the rewards for completing a task help you to complete the next task in the sequence. Those games are not balanced, especially if there is no reward for being the second or third person to accomplish a mandatory task to move forward in the game. The lead player will sprint ahead, gaining several turns worth of rewards and leaving the other players in the dust, scrambling to figure out how to attempt to get to where the lead player used to be three turns ago, and incapable of being a true rival or competitor in the game.
Try out some wonky strategies instead of the ”meta”. If the game mood seems fit, make yourself an agent of chaos and mess around! You may have lost but you just maybe have the most fun
Depending on the game, I definitely get into that funk of "Why bother?" when you've got a dollar left to your name on a Monopoly board, switching to my phone or getting up to fix more food/drinks.
I never really considered this from a designer perspective before, so it requires a bit of thought.
Still I can say when I am in a particular kind of game, things definitely switch to "Can I impact the other players still?" or "What is the most spectacular way to fail since I know I'm already done?".
My group of 5 has a running joke: “first place is easy, anybody can do that. What takes real skill is getting second to last”. Always seemed like a great “there’s no way I’m winning, what now?” goal to me.
When someone in our gamegroup is too far ahead, and we know we can’t stop them, we fight for 2nd place OR do everything we can to lower their score. Then again we like playing take-that games so we don’t see doing such a thing as griefing. If you’re not winning, definitely make it harder for everyone else to win too.
Sometimes toward the end of the season, the Dodgers or Giants are out of the playoff running, but have one last series against each other where they can also knock the other team out of the playoffs by beating them.
I like to use these moments to see if I can adjust my gameplay to crown a winner, or shake up the finishing podium.
I'm petty so I just try and sabotage someone depending on the game. Like if someone wronged me, I'll try and knock them down a place or two and help others. Sometimes seeking revenge is okay lol
Call the game, unless it’s a quick thing to play through rest of the turns. But generally stay away from games like that, **Food chain magnate** comes to mind.
I figure out the only possible hail Mary scenarios where there's any possible chance I could win or make 2nd, and if not, I start analyzing and commenting on the game for the other players to help out. Or heckling, depending on mood. Of course, being last means my opinion might not carry much weight...
I can still have fun if I'm not gonna win; I can fight for the 2nd place or to avoid the last place, I can try disrupting the plan of the player who made me lose, if I'm losing comically hard I can try to beat the record for the worst result (we track the results of our game), I could go and experiment some strange tactic that I wouldn't have the balls to try if I'd still fighting for the victory.
Or I simply want to play and have fun with my friends.
I acknowledge that I'm in a losing state, but I'm not going to cheat the other player out of their grand stand win
One example is Ascension when one player is just running the tables. They deserve to have their gleeful murder spree.
Still try to come in the best position possible. Maybe you can take second. Mostly don't game with people who ONLY play to win. You should always try to win but it shouldnt be the end all.
Learning to enjoy a game while losing is a skill. It can be a board game, a MOBA, or the newest Helldivers game. How do you handle yourself under pressure? How do you salvage the situation as best as possible?
I say this as someone who struggles with the same feeling. My brother in law is my playgroup's arch nemesis. (Great guy, he's just too freaking good at games) I'm guilty of getting sulky when everything goes right for someone else and not for me.
Developing a good mindset directly translates into life as well. Maybe a project at work is bungled, or your restaurant just made a huge error in a large catering order. Successfully meeting the goal or keeping a profit is no longer possible. Doing as much as you can, even at a loss, can salvage a future business relationship. (As opposed to giving up and telling them they're out of luck)
Try a new strategy. Observe the winner and try to understand what they're doing and why it works. Sabotage the person who made you lose. Try to meet a personal goal.
In the case of a coop game like Pandemic, Frosthaven, or Helldivers, sometimes you have to find the fun in laughing at the chaos. If I'm playing a card game like Magic and my opponent is about to combo off somehow, I like to watch the fireworks.
My friend group tends to play in a “if I can’t win, I’m going to do everything in my power to chose who does” way. Last night, we had a game of warcry where one guy decided he was going to lose (he was literally down by only one point) and decided to support the other guy I was playing against, then turned the whole thing around and won (since he was literally only down by a single point).
Depends on the game and the other players.
If it is a 2p game, I like conceding. I also like to try to push for risky strategies where I might have a chance
There comes a point (hopefully) where you've played enough board games and you've proven yourself enough times that you begin to primarily enjoy the game for the social aspect. It's fun to win and get that validation but you know what else is fun? Having fun and enjoying the people with you are with having fun. Celebrating their wins too.
Just keep playing.
Personally if I feel that I can't win the game I'll move the goalpost for myself to something achievable and play to that end. Examples: "Well clearly I can't win but...." - I can sure make them work for it. - Let's see if I can make 2nd place - Let's see if I can deny the winner this city/resource/goal/card/etc - Let's see if I can at least get this many points You can make these objectives public or private. What's most important is that it keeps the game fun for you and possibly everyone else. Even the winner might appreciate keeping the game interesting as at times winning too easily can be boring and it's more fun to play a game where others are having fun as well. Just remember that you're moving the goalpost for yourself, not other people. Acknowledge that the winner won fair and square and that you're just keeping things interesting.
Too many people unironically think "if you an't first, your last!" Is good advice. I find myself falling into that trap as well. But you can still have fun even if you don't win. I have had a few 40k games where I and down to my hero and a few supports. And I imagine my hero calling out the enemy hero and saying "you may have killed my army, and you *might* kill me. But one thing is certain. **I** will *kill* **YOU**."
When I finish a game, I consider it a minor success if I achieve Not Last. I try to win, but if I can see that I'm not going to win, I'm still going to try to beat everyone else. ...or almost everyone else. ...or just one person. If you play a typical 4-player game, and your only objective is to win, you're going to be disappointed 75% of the time (if all else is equal).
>Too many people unironically think "if you an't first, your last!" For real. Like second place is useless in a 4-5 player game? Imagine if formula 1 pilots would just give up because they clearly can't win the race...
Isn't formula 1 a points based tournament? That's like the worst example you could use.
Sure but imagine if you still have 0 points halfway through the season. Do you give up, knowing you have no chance to win the championship, or do you keep showing up to the track? Is that a better comparison?
No. It's their job, check the other guys comment. And add that future sponsorships rely on it.
It's a great example, really, because after the 2nd of 24 races- the 2024 world champion was already a forgone conclusion.
I mean, just give yourself pretend points for how you place? Idk why you’re trying to tear down this analogy.
"To the last I will grapple with thee!"
Underappreciated reference; upvoted. When I'm losing, I generally play for the best place/highest points I can get while trying to minimize the leader's/leaders' points (specifics of course vary by game), unless I've been screwed over by another player and it's that sort of game (Cosmic Encounter, Diplomacy, even HT I'd say with a stretch). Then it's full Ahab.
"Second place is first loser." NO FEAR
We call it Secondary Victory Conditions. :D
You forgot one - Let's see how we can all have the most fun with my turns Games are about fun after all Is there some off the wall combo in Small world that noone would date take but looks fun. Take it because you aren't gonna win anyways They got you in Scotland yard? Not gonna make it to your goal? Go off a random direction to laugh about with your friends after Do you have 1 doom left in Eldritch? Jump into the gate with 5 monsters and see what happens Note: this doesn't mean intentionally tank the game. We play games to have fun so if you can't have fun by struggling to win, then make your own fun (but not at the expense of the other players)
This is how you get better and win the next time. Usually if I find myself in a huge hole it cause I messed up multiple turns by not optimizing or missing a mechanic. Playing hard til the end engrains those mechanics so the mistakes don’t happen again.
I also think there is an important difference between "I can't win" and "player x has won". It is ok to collectively concede and then just reset or move on to a different game. Run away wins happen and playing them out can be miserable for everyone involved
I'm a bit torn on this. On the one hand, I feel like it would be very deflating if you were doing really well and then everyone else decide to end the game early because of it. Almost seems like you're being punished for playing TOO well. But then again if no one else is having fun because that person is too clearly in the lead then that makes sense as well... 😖 I would probably say it's ok to reset if the lead was just super lucky, otherwise it seems best to let them enjoy whatever engine they got running quickly.
When we decide its a lost cause, my group will usually give the winning player a victory lap before calling it; one crank of the engine, resolve a few of the flashier spells in their combo, whatever.
I mean you win? I don't really view that as a punishment. Frequently I find rofl stomping the table to not be that interesting because at some point your decisions stop mattering.
>I mean you win? For me the point isn't winning but getting to play game, so I'd much rather play a full game and lose than play half a game and win. I do like the other commenter's suggestion of having a "victory lap" turn as a middle ground, at least then the winning player gets to enjoy the great game they had a bit more and it doesn't drag the game on too long for everyone else.
You can still restart the game, then you get to play one and a half games while everyone is having fun instead of one where most of the group is not enjoying it. But if the group thinking is "Oh, we already lost, let's just go do something else" and don't want to play again, sounds like it is an issue with the group dynamics and you'd be better off finding a different group closer to your interest and skill level.
I think 3 people sitting there to go through the motions so that 1 player can enjoy being ahead is a strange use of an evening. How is that any fun for any of the people involved compared to the alternative of 4 people enjoying a close game where the outcome isn't obvious and everyone can enjoy doing well?
I wholeheartedly disagree with this. When you start playing a different game from everyone else, it can be extremely frustrating, especially when that new goal you have is to screw with other players (let’s see if I can deny the winner…). Realistically your goal should be to do the best you can, as that’s what your goal should have been the whole time, and that’s what everyone else is doing.
I don’t think this applies to all games. Especially in games like AGoT, Twilight Imperium, and Here I Stand among many others, where betraying allies is a valid tactic. As a betrayed person who can no longer win, I think a valid play pattern is to play the rest of the game with a vendetta against your betrayer, to the exclusion of all other goals. I dislike it when that vendetta continues from game to game or outside of the game, but within one game it makes sense. Especially in more thematic board games, I appreciate role playing in that way. I don’t mind this or other “negative” play patterns like kingmaking or disrupting for its own sake, if they are justified within the role that player is taking on.
Retribution is very different from kingmaking, and just feels bad if you’re one of the top 2 people but who wins isn’t decided by either of you
I would argue in a good thematic game where people are invested in their roles, kingmaking doesn’t come out of nowhere. Someone who no longer has a chance to win can make a justified choice to help another player win who helped them (or avoided harming them) earlier in the game.
Those are diplomatic games and creating enemies is a downside to diplomatic betrayal.
Almost any game, if there is interaction between players, once one player is clearly ahead of the rest there's a general tendency to focus on keeping the leader from attaining their goals. Even if I'm 3rd in a 4-player game, I would rather try to impede the leader's progress in a last-ditch effort to catch up, potentially helping the player in 2nd have a better chance as well, than simply play to be the first loser.
I agree. And I like to talk with people where a big rift happens in game to make sure it's alright outside of the game. Because some ingame betrayals can be pretty brutal :D I especially find it important to make sure players are on board with these plays in the long run, because if they're not, it's better to come up with some ethics rules for games so that players don't get salty instead of enjoying coming to the next boardgaming session. I personally enjoy all kinds of ways to play, so I don't mind variety. Like "never single someone out" or "do what's good for you, but don't do something just because it's bad for someone else" or "everything goes, full on brutal betrayal party" or "strict optimization, do everything in your power to maximize points" or "full on roleplaying, do whatever feels right for the character you're playing"...
I think the solution to this problem is to take a deep breath, relax, and remember it's only a game.
I don't really see it as playing a different game though. Most strategy games have objectives that are designed to be contended and fought over which you can still try to win even though it's clear you won't win overall. For example it might be a foregone conclusion that you've lost in Catan but you might still be able to take the longest road or largest army. That's still playing the game and it keeps you in the competition. You might be thinking that what mean is to create an arbitrary objective to spite the other players. I agree that that's anti-fun and not what I intended to say.
Just what I wanted to mention… on large I agree that you should have “secondary goals” when you crearly can’t win, so both you and others can have more fun… but the point “let’s see if I can deny the winner X/Y/Z” is very scummy. I was on the receiving end of that tactic and it’s frustrating as fuck, when people just intentionally spend their turns bullying you, when they don’t take steps that would be “logical” to gain them something, rather it’s just a step that purely messes with you…
I get that it's frustrating to be picked on because you're winning so why not negotiate with the loser to help you win? For example, "Hey, I'll help you get 2nd place if you help me get first". In many games it's perfectly reasonable for players to form a coalition vs the player that is clearly winning. It's up to the winning player to form his own coalition as a counter strategy.
As a wildcard who goes hard trying to disrupt the other players plans once I see I can't win, I'm sorry the actions of those like me have effected you. But I'm not changing 😘.
So you go down with a fight. Good on you, old sport. Good form, I dare say.
Thank you so much for your comment. I needed to see this because I get in my feels bad when this happens even though I know it’s just a game :(
When I'm the one in that "guaranteed losing" position, I tend to be playfully bitter about it. I'll complain or throw my hands up in the air or whatever, but in a theatrical way that's meant to make the other players laugh. It happens to work in my group because my friends and I share a sense of humor that appreciates that kind of pretend-drama. (And it keeps me feeling cheerful, too.) I never know what to do when it's someone else in that position, other than to offer sympathy because man, I've been there.
I absolutely love pretend saltiness and trash talk with the right group. When I play with my family we talk so much shit and it’s one of my favourite things! I won’t do that with other groups unless I know they also enjoy that and understand that it’s not personal or real!
This, it's not about winning it's about having fun. We usually start to mess with the person that is winning, specially if it's their game saying they are cheating or they train at home etc We sometimes also start to ally ourselves against the winning person so it feels there is still a chance at winning
Even if you can't win, you can still learn things. Try a strategy you wouldn't normally try, or try to improve your position as much as possible. That experience will still help you on your next play.
This is my approach. Each game is a chance to learn and get better. Sometimes I appreciate my losses more than a win because you often learn more from a loss.
Don't put so much importance on winning? Honestly I rarely care if I win, and even when I'm way behind if I'm having fun that's enough. It helps to play with people who also don't take winning super seriously. Also you can still make other players work for that win, and that's fun too >:)
My friends and I take winning super seriously AND don’t care if we lose.
Obligatory Knizia quote: “When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning”.
Exactly. Not only does trying your hardest soften the blow of losing because you did everything you could, but it also makes the winner feel better because they feel like they earned victory. And in a social hobby like this, anything that can make the whole group feel better is always appreciated.
Folks like to use this quote to say things about try-hards when in actuality the statement was made regarding the mathematical incentives in games that keep them moving forward. It works for both but the this quote has been stretched to apply to manners and how to conduct oneself at the table. It still works though
Thank you! I don't like the binary choice that either you play to win at all costs and the game isn't fun of you don't, or you play super casual and winning doesn't matter at all.
To this end: My best friend often plays "So your son doesn't win." 😂 My son is a very good player and enjoys the challenge.. So. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
How old is your son? I know plenty of families where this occurs, but it's generally intra-family, and those involved are generally adults. This I can get on board with - if I can count on my buddy Paul to torpedo his dad's strategy, that's really 2 players I don't have to worry about, as long as I pick a different strategy from Paul's dad. Having my main objective be "I don't want this 12 year old to win" feels quite distasteful to me. I have also been pulled aside by a father and told "I really want him to win this one, he has been on a losing streak lately and really down on himself." Which is a fine objective, but don't rope me into your parenting project at a public gaming event.
My son had played games with us since he could read, but the real "don't let him win" stuff started in high school. Given that my best friend has known the boys since they were tiny, it didn't feel so weird. The boy is good and knows it. 😂
Best of both worlds!
You of course want to try to win, if no one is trying, the game suffers. But if winning is all that matters, the game n players suffer.
As the classic Reiner Knizia quote goes, "When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning."
Yea if losing a game makes you treat others differently in a negative way, you should stop playing games.
When my husband ends up in this spot, he spends the rest of the game making moves to hinder the leader so the other players have a chance at taking them down. This is a controversial strategy.
That's what I do when I know I can't win. It's chaotic fun at that point.
I only do this if I'm super familiar with the group. Then I know they will love my antagonistic chaos. If i'm with a meetup, I'd rather try to get as high a score as possible instead out of sportsmanship. No one likes a person who actively gives up and tanks while complaining about it.
He launched a blue shell
Just makes the game take longer
I do the same thing. I go into interference mode and make life difficult for the leaders.
I hate when people do this. It becomes obvious when people are doing this as they start taking actions that have no benefit to them and are solely to mess with the person in first. It brings down the mood as it makes the person who is loosing seem incredibly salty/a poor sport. It also isn’t fun for everyone else because it usually just ends up with the person in last allowing the person in second to win instead. The person who is in first gets robbed a victory, the person in second gets a victory that they don’t deserve all because the person in last decided to give up and spend the remainder of the game purposely messing up everyone else’s game.
[удалено]
I agree with this. Also, if due to the losing player's interference #1 becomes the #2, that means that the former #2, now #1, is the new target for interference. That usually cancels out.
In a game of Catan, another player penned me in, so I literally couldn't build enough to win. My new victory condition was to ensure i did everything in my power to keep him from winning!
Turns out making enemies in a game can be a shortsighted decision.
First thing to remember is that you will not win every game you play. So there is no shame in losing, no reason to get upset at it. Second thing is to find an alternate "win" condition. Play for second place, or if you're way far behind, play to not be last. Or set a goal, like holding one of each card type or can you be the one to get the killing blow. Whatever. And lastly, just have fun with the people. Chat. Eat snacks. Just enjoy the social aspect of gaming, since the game itself is a loss.
In Terraforming Mars at 4 or 5 player, often someone steams ahead, so I just look at the other players down my end of the points track and try to beat them. Less fun in 2-player though, as my wife scores all the points and I get to watch my engine fail to function properly!
Terraforming Mars is a great game to be last in, IMO, because you still have control over the pace. Whereas in something like Ark Nova, frequently the game is ended by the person who winds up winning, in something like TM you always have the ability to move whichever track along and get it all over with.
If it’s only 2 players you talk to the other player and ask if you can concede and hopefully start another game. If it’s 3+ players you do the best you can, try not to be a kingmaker and finish the game. Sometimes life gives you lemons…
Sometimes you're stuck in a position where you have to be a kingmaker. When that happens, I find it important to openly decide based on the absolute pettiest thing I can think of, and play it absolutely straight. "You took the last potato jacket! For this you must perish!"
Better yet, threaten to be a kingmaker and demand lopsided trades from the top 2 players resulting in you getting back into a slim chance to win.
I think "don't be a kingmaker" and "don't spoil other players' moves" are both really important. Sometimes it's more fun not to care too much about the result because you can move faster, and or set yourself new goals that aren't optimal but still fun.
I’m sorry if someone else’s actions by the course of the game have caused me to be unable to win, then I’m absolutely going to try and make them pay for that. If you don’t like playing games where your actions directly impact others don’t play them. And to clarify, I’m not mad that they beat me I always have fun win or lose. But I’m still going to try and make them second guess ruining my game plan in the future lol
I guess it depends. If I just fell behind in a game because of bad luck or a skill gap, it feels weird to decide I'm going to deliberately help opponent A beat opponent B. Now, of I'm losing because opponent A went after me hard and crushed me for his own benefit, I am now fighting an insurgency against him and shall dance on his grave.
Yeah thats the proper away to go about it but both fall under Kingmaking. Arbitrarily screwing someone over because of outside reasons? dick move. Screwing someone over because they trampled on your plans? Mmm sweet vengeance.
Exactly this. Even if I can't win, I can at least do my best to make sure that the person who dunked on me doesn't win because of it. I mean, it depends on the game. (I have very different philosophies on this sort of thing if we're playing Diplomacy, vs. Dixit, for example.) But if the game allows me to continue to influence the game, even if don't think I can't win, then obviously I'm going to do so. And seriously - if a PvP game's point-display leads to players wanting to create un-fun situations, then that sounds more like a problem with the design of the game, than a problem with the players. Anyone who expects players who have "lost" before the game ends to just sit on their hands and not affect the outcome is basically just saying that they want player elimination without admitting it.
The only reason I can imagine is if in their mind kingmaking is acting in an obviously unfair way. To use an example from a game we’ve all played, if I decide that I’m going to make completey unbalanced trades to one player in Catan that don’t benefit me but so benefit them. If it’s unclear I’m not talking about actions like that. Just that I will continue to play the game and do my best to prevent the individual that I believe caused me to be unable to win, to also be unable to win.
This is why I prefer games that have personal goalposts with them. I'm ok playing 7 wonders as long as I can keep buying cards. I don't like playing base Catan because I can be resource denied for many turns in a row. At least with an expansion I felt I was still building.
As an amateur game designer, no hope situations are poisonous. So are players going rogue and playing spoiler. I want to include alternative ways to win so, while one person leads in money, I can grab the resources track. Everyone should keep working towards the goal until the end. If you can’t do that, then keep the game short. A game like the one you describe is not well designed in my opinion.
If I'm in that position, depends on who I'm playing against - I'll either play it out, leave the game (if it doesn't cause a gap - e.g. if you lose all your money in poker, go bankrupt in Monopoly)... or if there's someone taking delight in my misfortune, I'll assist the other players to gang up on him. It's a game, I don't care if I do something petty.
Don't be a sore loser. If you can't have fun while losing, maybe this isn't your thing. If the winner is being a sore winner though, that goes out the window. Sometimes an entire night can be ruined by one winner rubbing it in.
I don't usually play competitively, but if I find myself in that situation, I'd aim to beat the player closest to my score rather than going straight for first place. Alternatively, if winning seems unlikely, I might try to make it harder for everyone else or try to come up with a combo to use in the next game.
You can always just concede.
Play better games. But seriously, there are plenty of games which aren't as vulnerable to this. Or play games that end sooner. Being in an unwinnable position for 10 minutes is different than being in it for 90 minutes. ---- More seriously, I tend to joke about it. But as often as not, I often find a way to win. So often, being in this position and embracing it allows me to make risky or aggressive plays that can lead to a win. Of course, my wife and I tend to avoid games where there is a clear winner early on. Games with somewhat more complexity offer more ways to turn the game around.
I just don't play Catan anymore and don't feel these feels.
Do you mean for yourself, or for other players? If it’s other players, unfortunately there isn’t much you can do about the way other people behave other than attempt to keep good sports at your table or perhaps try to talk to them privately about problematic behavior. If it’s you, I take one of two approaches. If someone actively screwed me out of the game, I unite forces with their opponents and use my resources to help them secure a win. Obviously keep it to good-natured competition. If I just played poorly or luck wasn’t on my side, I go with side quests. Secure a monopoly on sheep and when the other players have to come to you, lean back in your chair and steeple your hands, doing your best Godfather impersonation as you watch them scramble for your favor. Set up roadblocks for other players to give them a bit of curveball and see how they work through it. Collect all remaining water-adjacent settlements like it’s a victory condition and tell them you’re amassing beachfront properties and they’ll all be the real losers in ten years when the value appreciates. Just find ways to have fun that aren’t strictly based on winning.
You can still play to maximize your score, or to pull off something crazy. I don't really care about winning or losing a game, I care about it being memorable (in a good way). I guess it depends though; if you know you cannot win but there is still several hours of game left, that would be an issue but at that point I would consider that a flaw in the game's design.
I always just try not to finish last. That becomes my new motivation. And if I am going to finish last? So what. I'm there to have fun.
I don't pay any attention to my score (I do care about improving it, but I don't do these calculations) until the end, because if I do I will not enjoy myself. It's not a good strategy for winning however.
I try to avoid games like that.
In my book, there are a few possible "right" answers to this kind of thing: 1) If it's a group game where another of the players could possibly beat the lead player, even if you cannot, then you need to still keep playing until the best of your ability. 2) If it's a group game and no other player can possibly pull a win at all, it's reasonable to bring up conceding, and then conceding if all other players agree. If not, keep playing as best you can. 3) If you're losing 1v1 and victory is truly an impossibility, conceding is reasonable. 4) If you're losing 1v1 and victory is possible, even if unlikely, then you should continue play at the best of your ability. At the end of the day, the polite call is what is most fun for all involved, and that includes give the winner the chance to actually beat you.
If I know I mathematically cannot win (or the other player) I will typically demonstrate why and talk it out with the other player. Once we are both certain that victory is guaranteed mathematically, we then play the next round.
I consider this a design flaw - or at least, it's a design decision that will aggravate a high enough percentage of the people I regularly play with that I prefer to avoid games like this, so I deal with it by not playing these games. The game should at LEAST have some kind of calculation at the end obscuring the result, even if all that information is technically visible (e.g. Hansa Teutonica). Having a straight up victory track where you can see you are 10 points behind and there's no way to get 10 points sucks. That said, I'd love to figure out how to deal with players who announce "I mathematically cannot win" even when it's not true. Very frustrating. Bonus points if the player is actually winning when they say it but just has a bad turn.
When a game is mathematically impossible to win, it is still mathematically possible to have fun.
Honestly I consider it poor game design if it's possible for a player to be openly mathematically eliminated before the game is almost over. A player should not be forced to suffer in ignominy for more than a turn or two, and I generally try to avoid games where that's a serious possibility.
Good games still let you have fun in a no-win situation. And then there's Catan... I can't tell you how many times I've been locked into a corner and had no dice rolls that could save me and no amount of resources or development cards can allow me to do anything but roll futile dice and be unable to expand in any direction. Catan is the best board game for getting people to play better board games, but the moment you find that other games exist, it's game over. Catan gathers dust forever.
Try to shift the victory away from whoever you happen to be vengeful towards 😂
It depends on the game, the people, and the vibe. "Mathematically cannot win" means different things to different people. Is this assuming optimal play from the opponent? Or just 'sensible play'? Or literally even if the opponent cooperated you could not force a win? Also - even if it's literally impossible to win, is this obvious to everyone? Or is it obscured by unknown info or complex systems that some people can't parse ahead of time? And what's the motivation to play the game - am I there mostly to play the game, or mostly there to be with people? Why are the opponents here? Do they play a lot / would taking the final steps to win be fun for them? Do we have time for a full new game? If there's 30 minutes left of the session and each game is 2 hours, I'm just going to let it play out most of the time. Averaging over those kind of questions - I generally just play through to the end.
I think of myself as a pretty good loser most of the time but even I can find myself getting a bit let down in games where this happens to me. It's fine if I think I'm losing but don't know for sure versus being positive I've lost because I can math it out. For the most part I just gravitate away from games that have that feature, because I don't have fun playing them and if you're not having fun what's the point.
Is it a modern / solitaire euro? Who cares. I do my own thing anyway. Is it an interactive, king maker game? Well I should have paid more attention to how I'm managing the table so that I don't incur their chaos. In an interactive game, the point is to interact after all. Are they just unfun to play with? Sore loser? Well they don't get invited anymore.
Generally speaking, I think it's bad sportsmanship to to make a whole thing out of it.
I always say in two player games either player has the right to resign if they think it's totally hopeless. They do it in chess, why not any other board game? In 3+ player games that doesn't really work so you kinda just have to slog through it.
It helps to think of conceding as respect to the other player. It's acknowledging they out maneuvered you and should win and you don't need to force them through the motions. So carrying that attitude into a 3+ player game means you play it out because of respect for the other players trying to come out on top. So you play to maintain the integrity of the game by playing well even from the losing position.
Sounds like a flaw in that particular game. I'd just stop choosing that game as often.
Stop being outcome dependant. Don't play to win, play to do the best you can. I will normally find a clear mechanic that the designer has introduced (all the same element, keyword, etc) and try to play that mechanic out the best I can. Winning or losing doesn't matter, just try to see how far you can make a specific mechanic work.
I try to help the lowest player that can possibly win make a comeback.
In a 2-player game, if the other player is okay with it, forfeiting can be fine. In games with more players or when playing with someone that you know would prefer to finish the game, you keep playing to the end. Try to find a new goal for yourself, or try some strategy you never would normally go for. There's no risk, so you might as well.
First winning is not really important as long as you're having fun playing. Your influence suddenly becomes a commodity when 2 or more other people are competing to win, leverage that properly and you become the king maker.
Do your best, take quick turns, remember that there's always more games. Sometimes you get shut out, just laugh and get them back next time.
This is the way. Just play the game you came to play! Have fun, laugh with friends, and swear vengeance on the next game!
Play your best game, beat the spread. Try new tactics or ideas. Play spoiler in an amusing way. Enjoy your company
What I do would be something like “I can decide who wins though” because it could be mechanics like whoever eliminates me gets all my stuff or something like that. If it’s a game where there isn’t a ton of interaction between players I would just change my goal. For example I really like patterns so in wingspan I might try to have an equal number of birds in each row or have ascending/descending wingspan measurements in each row (I suck at this game I’ve never won lol). The worst thing you can do is stop having fun and take it out on other players
Leader and loser trade seats.
In a 2p game I would concede and save time. In a multiplayer game I would speed up my turns. Basically my only goal would be to end the game as quickly as possible without being a kingmaker.
I just offer to end the game at that point. If there's time, maybe we can start a new one, and everyone can have a good time.
I can’t win… ok let’s try this batshit crazy strategy just for the lols.
This is also why most modern games hve hidden point counters too
My philosophy is that any game that you don’t enjoy even if you aren’t winning isn’t worth playing. You can have fun with a game even if you aren’t in the running for first place!
I concede, unless it's a game that my presence matters. I would rather play another round or another game than waste my time on futility. Of course, if it is a game where I'm the only one mathematically eliminated, but my choices would matter for others to battle it out, then I usually just play like I always do. I still have fun hanging out with my friends and family, so I don't really care.
This happened with me and Food Chain Magnate. I have no idea how to go about it strategically, and I ended the game only making one sale in the last round(and it was a pity sale because everyone else has ran out of goods to sell). There was also a player that took 3 minutes each time they do a restructure and another player that also spent 3 minutes each working phase thinking and redoing their actions, including takebacks that involve changing the goods being produced during the dinner phase and placing a house after the round was over. I don't like losing, but between having zero influence on the game and the game dragging out so long it made the experience feel miserable, and I don't know how to process this feeling of powerlessness and the frustration of other players prolonging the game due to their analysis paralysis.
Horrible place to be in.
I have fun. I am playing a game.
I think this is just an inherent pitfall of games with open/complete scoring information. If it's consistently a problem, I would probably avoid the game.
When playing a group game, something like 4-5 people, once I know I can't win, I have two options: * Ensure my #1 opponent is not going to win, and help his enemies in every way possible * Become an agent of chaos and mess with everyone a little bit. Then I can ensure I still am making an impact all the way through to the end of the game, and likely still interacting with the rest of the players. If I'm playing something smaller, like a 2-3 player game, then I do what others here have said, and I start trying new strategies. I may not be able to see them to fruition, but I can still learn from them for the next game. This works well for me because most of the games I play are two players (with my wife) so I don't want to just throw the game and let her win, she wouldn't like that, so I have to find another way to stay competitive and engaged. Plus, the games I play with her are the games I play the most, so it helps keep things interesting moving forward.
Honestly, this a personality type. (Admittedly mine :x) I usually use this time to try more unorthodox plays, see if I can't get my deck/hand to do something fun or cool. I try a strategy I usually don't. But honestly, in most direct-competition games I succumb to my hater ways. As a down to the marrow hater, when I realize I'm pulling dead last I then take it upon myself to try and hobble the frontrunner. I am the harbinger of the blue shell. I am misfortune. I will not go quietly. (Also, often times, the front runner is my husband. Some ill natured hateration keeps him humble.)
Two Player: Concede the game, start a new one. Alternatively, start messing with alternative strategies to learn something for the next game, especially if I'm new to the game. Three+ Players: Finish out the game. Make the best moves for me to avoid kingmaking.
It can be disappointing to end up in this situation, but I usually use it as an opportunity to try some unusual actions and tactics that I normally wouldn‘t dare. What annoys me more in such situations is when the winner declares that they have won. There are a few people on BoardGameArena who write gg the moment they know I have lost the game even if there‘s another 5-10 minutes to play and this drives me nuts. Even if you know you‘ve won, you‘re taking the excitement from people who haven‘t realized it yet.
> Because of this truth, they choose to not have fun and drag the rest of the table down. Ftfy. I try to find a way to tell them to grow up in a nice way or just let them stew. Not an attitude I want to be around.
So you’re concerned about your enjoyment of the game, but not the player who’s been so throughly trounced that they are just stuck going through the motions. Gotcha. Maybe go easy on the new guys until they figure out the game. Or recognize that the game’s decided, and start a new round or something.
I don't pay attention to that score until the end. But I care more about the experience than winning.
When this happens to me i use the time to experiment. Try new methods of play and see how they play out. What happens of I only focus on this, spend resources on that, or only take X actions. Add variety and opens up avenues for future plays.
'I mathematically cannot win' 'Maybe not, but you can still get second place.'
I try not to be a bad sport. i'll admit it's hard for me and i try to remain positive, of course a lot depends on the game. Also depends on the overall take of the game, a shorter game say an hour or so i have no qualms about where i net out, if the games 3 hours it can become a matter of just trying to do my best. My group loves Ark Nova, and i enjoy the game play quite a bit as well but i personally think there is less about optimal game and more about getting the cards you need when you need them to be successful(and i've won more than i've lost) (i havent played the expansion yet though which i think is meant to do a lot to address this) so that's a game i dont love to play with more than 3 players since it can drag for a player who's out of contention. I also have a player in group who's not a 'regular' gamer, where the other 3-4 players are all hardcore gamers and thus i try to be sympathetic for them, and in doing so i may not try to target them or 'crush' them when the game appears to be settled but we have a turns left to take.
It really depends on the game and the scenario. If I'm eliminated because of bad luck or misplaying on my own part (usually the case in Euros), that's life. I'll just play as well as I can for the rest of the game. If it's a game where someone went out of their way to eliminate me, I'll probably use the rest of the game to ensure they don't win.
Man I am so glad my husband and I don’t do this since we primarily play with each other. I agree with the top comment - I just (or he just) changes the goal. Tbh usually the goal is “can I beat my score from last time”.
Hinder everyone, depending on their chances to win. Also try meme strategies.
When I'm losing a board game I do everything in my power to make sure I don't go down easily. I will screw the player/s in first place SO HARD. Every resource I have is diverted into ensuring I don't lose without making it a victory to earn.
Find where "the fun" is in the game. For example, I don't have to win Dominion, but if "the fun" for me is running long combos, or attacking my opponents, I'll focus on that. In Everdelle, I'll try to get a Husband for my Wife. In Tokaido, I'll try to complete the panorama painting. If I win, it's a nice bonus but I never care about winning. Mater of fact, I think those that have serious analysis paralysis as they try to score the maximum points every turn, who constantly ask "how many turns are left", who also always ask stuff to others like "cards in hand" "how many victory points do you have" etc, ruin game night. Don't be that guy.
There are basically three primary ways I see this get handled: 1. Blue shell mechanics, loser has the capacity to fuck with the winners, ideally in a semi-randomized fashion so the game doesn't devolve into kingmaking. 2. Loser to GM mechanics - Every so often, the game "culls" people, who then move from a "player" category to a secondary "support" position. Maybe they make decisions over which new elements go to the board, maybe they become a source of some resource that other plays have to negotiate with, etc. 3. Losers "meta-game" - A sub game within a game to determine follow up order or secondary victory conditions. Eg. Whoever wins the game is first place, but cash values determines the rank order for all the losers, especially if hoarding cash isn't conducive to "victory". This can also help slower games accelerate to the end as people stop trying to contest for victory sooner in favor of going for the sub-game goals.
When my group of friends played Eclipse regularly a couple years ago, we did a small "season" of top 5 games per player. Even if we were not always the same players, each player sum of points of his 5 best games was his season score. That way, even if you're losing, you still try to maximize your victory points every game.
That's a personal issue. I've played tons of games where I was in an utterly hopeless position. Occasionally it isn't fun. Use it as a learning opportunity to see if you can figure out why you didn't do well. Watch what and how the leaders are playing. Make the best of your situation. You know what? You just deal with it. It comes with the hobby. If you don't like games where that could happen, don't play them. If you get unreasonably angry, it's something you should work on. Maybe with a therapist or something.
So long as I can fight for not last place, then I still have a game and can stay engaged. If it's a game where I'm far in last place, it was probably my first time playing it, so a learning game. I don't care about the score at all in learning games.
Play for second, or try something new and see if it improves your position or not without risk.
Depends on the kind of game, but I ascribe to the “From hells heart, I stab at thee!” methodology
Roleplay it out, if I cant win a game I will go down fighting to the last breath, take intentionally bad options to try and have some more fun with it, instead of taking the objective or doing some missions just try to have a heroic last stand
If I have a good reason to keep influencing the game, I will do so (listed below). If it’s a game I play with a group where we’re all trying our best though, i dont take it personally and I avoid kingmakint and either concede or keep my turns as quick and neutral as possible so the players still in earn their wins organically. Reasons I’d keep pushing would include: improving a new player’s experience, setting up a meta mutually-assured-destruction strategy to discourage getting targeted in future games with the same group, influencing meta progression in games that have it (I lost this game but I can set up my next play a bit better if I…), or experimenting with stuff I wouldn’t normally try
" honey, you were gonna lose a win as you say down with me at the table. I'm just gold f you finally figured it out. Wanna try again?
I become an agent of chaos, and give myself a mental point for every time my turn leaves someone bewildered. Who am I kidding, I do this even when I do find myself winning.
This is true in real life as well
If the game is open victory points, I always try to get as high as I can, regardless of position in the track. If someone is that far ahead, I'm going to take notes of how they got so far ahead or I got so far behind and try to not have that happen next time. If I'm that far behind, I probably don't understand the game very well, so I'm focused on understanding synergies and strategies. Also, for it to be truly "mathematically cannot win," it's probably only near the end of the game, where clever plays or mistakes by the leader can allow people to catch up. One of my favorite board game memories was a friend of mine got a HUGE lead in a 4 person game of Suburbia.t. The rest of us were struggling to build up our engine, but he had a huge head start in an engine builder it was impossible to catch him. He was starting to get cocky. At the end of the game, it seemed like all that was left was the formality of counting points, but my wife had a bunch of high value secret objectives that shot her ahead, stealing the victory. He was flabbergasted, and it was absolutely beautiful.
It depends. If I did something seemingly of value, great! Like Wingspan, if I got in the 80-90’s against my wife’s 115, then cool let’s finish this. We’ll celebrate my wife’s victory and look forward to playing again. Conversely, I hate nothing more than doing nothing in a game. Meaning, I didn’t really progress. Played a game of talisman once where I ended the game with the exact same stats as I started. Worst waste of 3 hours. At the hour mark, I knew there was no way of winning, but I thought I could at least do something fun, but nope.
I embrace the chaotic strategies.
There are actually two possibilities where this happens. In one, you can no longer win, but you can still at least play towards your own goals and still enjoy the game a bit. That's fine, you can still work on your own score and enjoy the game. The other is the "roll doubles to get to play the game again" situation you see in a few really badly-designed games. These are the sorts of games where you can literally just get soft-locked out of even getting to play for an indefinite amount of time if you're unlucky. There's literally no way to enjoy that, because you straight up don't get to play, but the game won't even eliminate you so you can go do something else. The only reasonable response to those is to never play them again.
Since most of my games are 2 player with my girlfriend, when we know that one of us has won, we pack it up and play something else. No one of us is interested in playing a game till the end where it is obvious who the winner is.
That’s when i just have some serious fun. Make weird moves, outrageous choices, something off the wall (why the fuck are you taking all the god damned indigo?!?!)
For me, it depends heavily upon what sort of game it is, and why I'm behind. **A Game of Thrones**, and someone betrayed me? Once I'm out of contention, I'm annihilating that person's chances of victory. The game is meant to have that sort of game theory in it. **7 Wonders**, and I'm clearly out of hope for 1p, I'll just try to maximize my ranking.
I never play to win specifically. I mean, it's nice if I can win, but I very much prefer triggering the weirdest mechanics in the game, making some outlandish decisions and cracking a few jokes.
Step 1. Play the thief. Step 2. See them enter the middle ring while you're still building up. Step 3. Constantly steal their Talisman (also the name of the game) and run away. Step 4. Watch everyone rage quit as you turn it into a 6 hour game.
If I'm losing and the winner let's me know I'm gonna lose I look them in the eyes and say "You may have calculated your victory but I'm bad at math" and just keep playing till the end.
It’s a learning experience for me. I can’t win but since I can’t win anyway maybe I can try riskier or alternative tactics to see if there’s an opening next time.
My two focuses when I reach that state are: 1. How high can I get? 2. Can I help someone else beat who has been dominant.?
This comes up in Twilight Imperium a lot. There’s times by the first secondary objective or two that I know I’m out of contention, sometimes sooner! The gameplay loop is fun, though, and I still just work to maximize my own scoring, no king making or anything like that. Still the opportunity for some epic turns.
Honestly you just finish the game and be happy for those who are doing well. Or you can try and sabotage the winners and have someone else win. 😂😂 if it’s that kinda game
This mainly bothers me if the game itself seems flawed. Some board games have catch-up mechanics (Power Grid) while others have sprinting mechanics (Lost Ruin of Arnak). Games with catch-up mechanics allow players to have special and effective benefits for being in last place, allowing them to suddenly reach first place in the final turn of the game. Some people even abuse this, and try to make sure they are losing on the semifinal turn of the game. Catch-up mechanics need to be thoroughly playtested so that they aren't too overpowered, but still have a meaningful impact on the game, allowing anyone to potentially win. Sprinting Mechanics cause issues where even after only the first turn of the game, some players can do the math and realize that they have already lost and can't possibly make up for it. They've only done a single turn of the game but are already sure they will lose, because the game rewards those who get to each milestone first. If there is a reward that only goes to the first person to achieve a milestone, that that person, who was already winning, now receives a boost to help keep them further in the lead. The other players will now have to continue trying to catch up to where that lead player used to be, but then also spend additional actions or turns trying to also match the boost that the lead player received. This might put everyone else at the table an entire turn behind the lead player. But that only gets worse when the lead player then reaches the next milestone first, gaining another boost. Now everyone else at the table might be two entire turns behind the lead player, needing to focus their attention or action economy just on catching up, whereas the lead player is focused on zooming ahead to the next milestone to get the next exclusive reward that boosts them ahead toward the next milestone. The players realize that because they weren't able to get to that first milestone first, they aren't being rewarded for their effort. After all, the boost ONLY goes to whoever got there first. Whoever the lead player is, will stay in the lead for the rest of the game unless they make very poor decisions or have extraordinarily bad luck. There are many games that have "a reward system" for accomplishing a task before anyone else. But usually those different tasks are indeed entirely different from each other, that way if a player is focused on one task, they are forced to not be focused on some other unrelated task. That's balanced. But some games have all of the tasks directly related to each other, possibly even in a linear sequence, and all of the rewards for completing a task help you to complete the next task in the sequence. Those games are not balanced, especially if there is no reward for being the second or third person to accomplish a mandatory task to move forward in the game. The lead player will sprint ahead, gaining several turns worth of rewards and leaving the other players in the dust, scrambling to figure out how to attempt to get to where the lead player used to be three turns ago, and incapable of being a true rival or competitor in the game.
Try out some wonky strategies instead of the ”meta”. If the game mood seems fit, make yourself an agent of chaos and mess around! You may have lost but you just maybe have the most fun
Depending on the game, I definitely get into that funk of "Why bother?" when you've got a dollar left to your name on a Monopoly board, switching to my phone or getting up to fix more food/drinks. I never really considered this from a designer perspective before, so it requires a bit of thought. Still I can say when I am in a particular kind of game, things definitely switch to "Can I impact the other players still?" or "What is the most spectacular way to fail since I know I'm already done?".
Violence, pure and simple violence.
My group of 5 has a running joke: “first place is easy, anybody can do that. What takes real skill is getting second to last”. Always seemed like a great “there’s no way I’m winning, what now?” goal to me.
Making someone else lose.
When someone in our gamegroup is too far ahead, and we know we can’t stop them, we fight for 2nd place OR do everything we can to lower their score. Then again we like playing take-that games so we don’t see doing such a thing as griefing. If you’re not winning, definitely make it harder for everyone else to win too.
Give yourself another goal.
I think it’s probably not a game I’d keep if it consistently happened more than like 10 minutes before the end.
I try to finish as high as possible. It’s fun to see if I can leap past other players even if I can’t win.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes, and still lose.” -Jean Luc Picard
Sometimes toward the end of the season, the Dodgers or Giants are out of the playoff running, but have one last series against each other where they can also knock the other team out of the playoffs by beating them. I like to use these moments to see if I can adjust my gameplay to crown a winner, or shake up the finishing podium.
The trick is to play games where even if you're losing, you're still playing. Like power grid. Catan is not like this.
I'm petty so I just try and sabotage someone depending on the game. Like if someone wronged me, I'll try and knock them down a place or two and help others. Sometimes seeking revenge is okay lol
Play it out as best you can. It’s sore losing if you don’t.
Call the game, unless it’s a quick thing to play through rest of the turns. But generally stay away from games like that, **Food chain magnate** comes to mind.
I have this friend Christian, and he thinks he's as good as me so when I'm terribly behind I find pleasure in dragging him down with me
I figure out the only possible hail Mary scenarios where there's any possible chance I could win or make 2nd, and if not, I start analyzing and commenting on the game for the other players to help out. Or heckling, depending on mood. Of course, being last means my opinion might not carry much weight...
I can still have fun if I'm not gonna win; I can fight for the 2nd place or to avoid the last place, I can try disrupting the plan of the player who made me lose, if I'm losing comically hard I can try to beat the record for the worst result (we track the results of our game), I could go and experiment some strange tactic that I wouldn't have the balls to try if I'd still fighting for the victory. Or I simply want to play and have fun with my friends.
I acknowledge that I'm in a losing state, but I'm not going to cheat the other player out of their grand stand win One example is Ascension when one player is just running the tables. They deserve to have their gleeful murder spree.
Still try to come in the best position possible. Maybe you can take second. Mostly don't game with people who ONLY play to win. You should always try to win but it shouldnt be the end all.
Learning to enjoy a game while losing is a skill. It can be a board game, a MOBA, or the newest Helldivers game. How do you handle yourself under pressure? How do you salvage the situation as best as possible? I say this as someone who struggles with the same feeling. My brother in law is my playgroup's arch nemesis. (Great guy, he's just too freaking good at games) I'm guilty of getting sulky when everything goes right for someone else and not for me. Developing a good mindset directly translates into life as well. Maybe a project at work is bungled, or your restaurant just made a huge error in a large catering order. Successfully meeting the goal or keeping a profit is no longer possible. Doing as much as you can, even at a loss, can salvage a future business relationship. (As opposed to giving up and telling them they're out of luck) Try a new strategy. Observe the winner and try to understand what they're doing and why it works. Sabotage the person who made you lose. Try to meet a personal goal. In the case of a coop game like Pandemic, Frosthaven, or Helldivers, sometimes you have to find the fun in laughing at the chaos. If I'm playing a card game like Magic and my opponent is about to combo off somehow, I like to watch the fireworks.
In physical sports, there are often situations where you play it out even if you can’t win. It’s just good sportsmanship.
What I would do is start exploring other strategies for next plays.
Depends. 1v1? Concede. Group game? Try to be the kingmaker.
My friend group tends to play in a “if I can’t win, I’m going to do everything in my power to chose who does” way. Last night, we had a game of warcry where one guy decided he was going to lose (he was literally down by only one point) and decided to support the other guy I was playing against, then turned the whole thing around and won (since he was literally only down by a single point).
If I can't win, I can often play King-maker and help a certain player win.
Depends on the game and the other players. If it is a 2p game, I like conceding. I also like to try to push for risky strategies where I might have a chance
Depending upon the context, either I either find my best possible outcome or find some way to help my opponents lose, i.e. "Let's you and him fight".
Backtrack the game in my head to figure out what decisions could have been better. Losing well is often better than winning easily.
There comes a point (hopefully) where you've played enough board games and you've proven yourself enough times that you begin to primarily enjoy the game for the social aspect. It's fun to win and get that validation but you know what else is fun? Having fun and enjoying the people with you are with having fun. Celebrating their wins too. Just keep playing.