You may have discussed this elsewhere, but this reminds me of the drastic difference culture can have on expectations for win conditions. In my experience, for example, many Brits (who are used to sports like soccer and cricket which frequently end with no winner) are completely comfortable with ties or 'shared victory' in board games and view multiple layers of tiebreakers as arbitrary and silly. Meanwhile many Americans (whose popular sports insist on overtime even during regular seasons with over 100 games per team) feel that not specifying sufficient tiebreakers to always result in a clear winner is a failure of the designer's duty.
One of my favourite sports, Test Match Cricket has two teams going at it for five days trying to win. There is a win condition but if you don't win before the time runs out, the game ends in a draw (which is different to a tie). So a match has a result but doesn't always have a winner. This setup can create these wonderful and tense matches where one team may be losing and will stop playing for the win and start playing for the draw. If they can resist for long enough, sometimes for an entire day, they will have turned that pending loss into a draw and to them, it will feel like a win. The team that was winning and ended up with a draw will have felt like they have lost.
Interesting! I love games that give an alternate win condition (or just end game in this case). Are there penalties for 'slow-playing', or any mechanism to keep things moving?
The game dictates that there should be 90 overs in a single day. Slow play results in fines to the players match fee and reductions to a team's ranking. 1 point for every over behind schedule. Winning the game gives you 12 points towards your ranking.
Both of these are external levers to the match. The only in-game lever is that on the final day, after 75 overs have been bowled, the final 15 overs must be bowled and players are to continue playing until all are completed (or a team wins). There are then many rules around rain interrupted play and bad light.
These are some interesting thoughts for designers who are creating more experiential games. I've been playing a lot of "Blood on the Clocktower" of late and although there is a win condition for each of two teams, no one really cares who wins -- they are more interested in how the game mechanics interacted and whether they played their own part well. That game creates experiences rather than wins/losses (though some people do keep records). If you're designing a classic Euro, though, and you don't include a standard win condition, you probably just have a lot of pissed-off players.
It is SO good. It takes about half a dozen games to really click but when it does and you can start doing more advanced scripts it is just such a great puzzle. Part logical deduction, part social deduction and different every time. I am truly bowled over by how great it is.
Geoff, I skipped over the Schrodinger's Cat description at your recommendation (I'm intrigued) - is it worth playing at two players? BGG wasn't any help there.
Thanks for sharing! I come from a family that ALWAYS keeps score, so this was good for me to read and consider.
I've never tried solo gaming, but your mention of "Endurance" makes me want to at least try. That's one of my very favorite books and the BGG link looks really interesting. Has anyone here tried "Endurance" and enjoyed it?
You may have discussed this elsewhere, but this reminds me of the drastic difference culture can have on expectations for win conditions. In my experience, for example, many Brits (who are used to sports like soccer and cricket which frequently end with no winner) are completely comfortable with ties or 'shared victory' in board games and view multiple layers of tiebreakers as arbitrary and silly. Meanwhile many Americans (whose popular sports insist on overtime even during regular seasons with over 100 games per team) feel that not specifying sufficient tiebreakers to always result in a clear winner is a failure of the designer's duty.
Yup! I talked about this in a Ludology segment:
https://ludology.libsyn.com/webpage/gametek-classic-192-ties
Fascinating stuff!
One of my favourite sports, Test Match Cricket has two teams going at it for five days trying to win. There is a win condition but if you don't win before the time runs out, the game ends in a draw (which is different to a tie). So a match has a result but doesn't always have a winner. This setup can create these wonderful and tense matches where one team may be losing and will stop playing for the win and start playing for the draw. If they can resist for long enough, sometimes for an entire day, they will have turned that pending loss into a draw and to them, it will feel like a win. The team that was winning and ended up with a draw will have felt like they have lost.
Interesting! I love games that give an alternate win condition (or just end game in this case). Are there penalties for 'slow-playing', or any mechanism to keep things moving?
The game dictates that there should be 90 overs in a single day. Slow play results in fines to the players match fee and reductions to a team's ranking. 1 point for every over behind schedule. Winning the game gives you 12 points towards your ranking.
Both of these are external levers to the match. The only in-game lever is that on the final day, after 75 overs have been bowled, the final 15 overs must be bowled and players are to continue playing until all are completed (or a team wins). There are then many rules around rain interrupted play and bad light.
These are some interesting thoughts for designers who are creating more experiential games. I've been playing a lot of "Blood on the Clocktower" of late and although there is a win condition for each of two teams, no one really cares who wins -- they are more interested in how the game mechanics interacted and whether they played their own part well. That game creates experiences rather than wins/losses (though some people do keep records). If you're designing a classic Euro, though, and you don't include a standard win condition, you probably just have a lot of pissed-off players.
I really need to try Blood on the Clocktower. My LGS has a copy for sale and I keep circling it...
It is SO good. It takes about half a dozen games to really click but when it does and you can start doing more advanced scripts it is just such a great puzzle. Part logical deduction, part social deduction and different every time. I am truly bowled over by how great it is.
Geoff, I skipped over the Schrodinger's Cat description at your recommendation (I'm intrigued) - is it worth playing at two players? BGG wasn't any help there.
Also there are several "Schrodinger Cat" games listed on BGG - this is the one I was talking about: https://ikantkoan.com/product/schrodingers-cat/
It's only for two players, so yeah! Be aware though that it is very much an art piece of a game, so go into it with that in mind.
Ah ok, wasn't sure cause it's listed as 2+ (2-12 on BGG oddly).
This will challenge my wife's instinct to crush me under a pile of victory points, so I'm looking forward to it.
Thanks for sharing! I come from a family that ALWAYS keeps score, so this was good for me to read and consider.
I've never tried solo gaming, but your mention of "Endurance" makes me want to at least try. That's one of my very favorite books and the BGG link looks really interesting. Has anyone here tried "Endurance" and enjoyed it?