Victory Point Architecture: Building a Point Salad or a Point Journey

Victory points are integrally tied to the end of a game. They can be used in two different ways that shape the entire experience of the game. Either as a Point Salad, where victory points measure performance during a period of play, like in a Soccer game. Or as a Point Journey, where victory points is the measurement that ends the game, like a tennis match.

Salads can be delicious or pungent.  Journeys can be a joy or a toil.  The question is not whether I enjoy Point Salads or Point Journeys, but do I understand what they even are and the implications these different victory point architectures have on a player's gaming experience.

Winning a Point Salad is not decided by being the first player to achieve a particular outcome. Instead, players are trying to pile on as many victory points as possible before the game ends. The game will end.  Be it in a certain amount of time, or rounds, or when some other in-game threshold is reached. The threshold can be a depletion of an in-game resource, or a resource accumulated by the players. The threshold can even be the amount of victory points, but once that is reached, players can accumulate more. After the game ends, players then compare their victory points to declare a winner.

Winning or losing a Point Journey happens immediately when a Victory Point condition is achieved. The condition can vary as simple as being the first player to 5 victory points, to being the first car to pass the finish line in a race.  The key is that once a victory condition is achieved players are clearly crowned as either winners or losers. If I am the player who defeats the last monster, I win, end of story. That does not mean there has to be a single victory point condition that defines the game.  In the same game everyone can lose if a critical system runs out of power, or when the capital is captured by aliens, and one player can win if they control eleven cities.

Monopoly is a Point Journey. When played by the official rules the goal is not the accumulation of most money over one's opponents. But that money helps you with your true goal, the bankruptcy of all the other players in the game. Once that happens it does not matter if all but one of your properties are mortgaged and you have $1 on hand, you’ve won.

Scythe is a Point Salad. During play players are trying to complete 6 of 10 goals. But while this feels like a journey game, after the goals are complete players then need to convert star tokens, territories, and resources into victory points (money) to determine the winner. And while the player who completed 6 goals first is usually the winner, if it were a true journey game there would be no need for the second step of seeing who has the most money at the end of the game.

Do not assume all games are either Point Salads or Point Journeys, there are hybrid games where the game can end as a Point Salad or as a Point Journey. In boxing either someone wins by knocking out their opponent, or if there is no knockout, by seeing which boxer has the most points after time runs out   Hybrid game designs are not limited to sports, 7 Wonders Duel is a hybrid system. In 7 Wonders the game will crown an instant winner if one player archives a scientific supremacy or a military supremacy; otherwise,  after completion of the three ages points are tallied and the player with the highest Victory Points wins a “Civilian” victory.

So now we are clear on what is a Point Salad versus a Point Journey, we can explore in the next Victory Point Architecture lecture the way each victory point system affects the player experience.

Colloquium on Games of Strategy: Chapter 9

Click here to directly download the MP3

Click here to watch the unedited version on Youtube

Welcome to the Colloquium on Games of Strategy.  Games of Strategy is a textbook on game theory written by Dixit (not the game), Skeath, and Reiley that we are reading to help improve our analysis of board games and board game design.  Paul Owen (owns 3rd edition) and I (own the 2nd and 1st editions) record a discussion about a chapter or two from the book every few weeks.

In the ninth episode we talk about how players respond to uncertainty and information within games.  Highlights include a discussion on the benefits of holding asymmetric information and tactics to counter your opponent's information edge.  Can players provide a creditable signal in your game or is everything just cheap talk.

You can find our previous discussion on Games of Strategy here.

Colloquium on Games of Strategy: Chapter 4

Click here to directly download the MP3

Click here to watch the unedited version on Youtube

Welcome to the Colloquium on Games of Strategy.  Games of Strategy is a textbook on game theory written by Dixit (not the game), Skeath, and Reiley that we are reading to help improve our analysis of board games and board game design.  Paul Owen (owns 3rd edition) and I (own the 2nd and 1st editions) record a discussion about a chapter or two from the book every two weeks.  

In the forth episode we talk about continuous simultaneous move games and criticism of Nash Equilibrium in Chapter 5 (there are some differences between editions).  Highlights include a discussion on how certain sequential Euro games are really slow moving simultaneous games and game theory's solution for strategic discussions when there is no Nash Equilibrium.

You can find our previous discussion on Games of Strategy here.

You can find our next discussion on Games of Strategy here.

Colloquium on Games of Strategy: Chapter 2

Click here to directly download the MP3

Click here to watch the unedited version on Youtube

Welcome to the Colloquium on Games of Strategy.  Games of Strategy is a textbook on game theory written by Dixit (not the game), Skeath, and Reiley that we are reading to help improve our analysis of board games and board game design.  Paul Owen (owns 3rd edition) and I (own the 2nd and 1st editions) record a discussion about a chapter or two from the book every two weeks.  

In the second episode we talk about their discussion on sequential games in Chapter 3 (they are the same in all editions).  Highlights include a discussion on the limitation of anticipated payouts predicting player behavior and ways to ensure a sequential board game is unpredictable enough to remain relevant for players. 

You can find our previous discussion on Games of Strategy here and the next episode here.

You can also find a write up of Paul Owen's notes from our discussion here.

Market Mechanic Lecture: Credit (Loans)

Board game designers have to decide when they provide credit in a board game if that credit is issued by a person (credit mechanic) or if credit is issued by an algorithm in the rules (credit theme).  Both techniques have different challenges to make them work within a board game.  To better build a board game mechanic or theme I am first going to see how both concepts fare in the real world.

Lenders in the Real World:

In the real world lenders gauge the riskiness of their investment in order to protect their money.  If a real world lender thinks a business plan has a higher probability of failing it will find compensating factors to either increase its reward if you succeed (higher interest rates) or provide compensation if you fail (higher collateral requirements).  While not always successful, lenders will take time to supervise their investments to make sure they did not get duped into some sort of ponzi scheme.  The incentive to protect their money from bad investments results in bankers vetting the people and businesses they extend credit to.

Real world lenders are always open to opportunities to make more money.  At first, this might sound like stating the obvious, but this statement has a big implication in lending behavior.  This means that if a lender discovers someone with a good business plan, even if the person asking for credit is not rich, does not have a long credit history, or is already holding some debt, the lenders is still willing to extend credit.  Credit in the real world is about seizing opportunities to make money and assessments are made based on the likelihood of the projects success.  

Challenge for Lenders in Board Game:

The advantage lenders have in the real world is that everyone benefits from making more money.  In a board game with a lending mechanic, game designers have to worry if any credit will be exchanged whatsoever because players may purposefully default to damage the lender in the game.  Even if players were not worried about a strategic default to take down the lender, lenders may not be willing to loan other players money because that might result in the borrower becoming stronger than the lender.

Michael R. Keller address this issue in his game Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice by having lenders and borrowers play two different games at the same time that interact with each other.  In one corner borrowers are competing with each other to be the best producers of goods.  In the other corner, lenders are competing with each other to be the best at extending credit.  By separating the borrowers and lenders into their own sub games, lenders and borrowers no longer have to worry they are engaging in a direct deal with their opponent that will undermine their chance to win the game. Borrowers do not reduce their chance of winning the game when the person who loaned them money does well and lenders are not hurt when the person who borrowed money from them does well.  

This separation allows Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice to enjoy the benefits of a loan mechanic.  Lenders will adjust their offers to borrowers in response to their credit risk.  They will monitor the investment decisions of borrowers and extend credit to borrowers who have good business plans.

Algorithms in Real World:

Real world credit, like board game themes, also use algorithms to issue credit.  Credit scores result in some lenders automatically offering individuals a credit line. Meanwhile, pawn and car title loan shops will happily issue anyone a loan using an algorithm based on the value of the collateral.  

Algorithms are a way real world lenders can reduce the cost and time to asses the risk of extending credit.  Credit scores allow lenders to look at a single number instead of talking to everyone who has information on the borrower.  The reliability of the scores let lenders get rid of costly employees and replace them with computer algorithms to automatically assigned credit lines to people with specific credit scores.

Pawn shops and title loans utilize an algorithm based on collateral to reduce the cost and time of assessing borrowers risk.   Instead of taking the time to track down the borrower's credit history, they take on the easier task of assessing the value of the items being pawned.  Imagine you walk into the pawn shop with 2 pounds of gold and you ask for a loan equal to 80% of the value of the gold.  The pawn shop owners can spend countless hours talking to your friends, your employer, and past creditors or, they can look up the current price of gold and say, if you do not pay back your loan the pawn shop keeps the gold.  Assessing the value of the collateral is an algorithmic approach to loans that takes much less work than assessing the worthiness of the borrower.  This enables the pawn shop to issue loans at a relatively fast pace and extend credit to a wider swath of people.   

Challenge of Algorithms in Board Games:

Algorithms (aka credit themes) in board games face two challenges that do not exist in the real world.  First, in the real world, if someone has a good business plan that does not fit into a pre-existing algorithm, they can pitch their plan to lender who has the discretion to offer them credit.  In the game of Monopoly, you cannot tell the bank that if it lent you the money to build the hotels on Park Avenue and Boardwalk that you would win the game.  Your credit opportunities are completely constrained by the algorithms followed by the bank.

Second, board games with a credit theme, unlike the real world, cannot alter its algorithms in response to new information.  If a player finds a loophole in a board game algorithm that lets them run a ponzi scheme then there is no adjustment to stop them.  If a person in the real world found a way to run a ponzi scheme due to a loophole in an algorithm then lenders would change the algorithm to protect themselves from future exploits.

That said, properly designed credit themes have one big advantage on credit mechanics.  Algorithms ensure credit will be extended to players playing the same game, even if credit gives one player an edge over another.  Algorithms are automatic, and potentially available to everyone.  As long as players meet the correct conditions they will have access to credit and be able to use credit gain an edge on other players.

A Dr. Wictz List: 10 Ways to Procrastinate within a Board Game

After having a hard time getting this weeks post down on paper I decided in a moment of panic to think of all the different ways I could procrastinate writing this post within a board game.

1. Engage in no trades in the game of Monopoly.


2. Only conquer one territory a turn in Risk.


3. After castling in Chess only move your king back and forth for rest of the game.


4. Hoard resources in Settlers of Catan by never turning in any cards to get anything.


5. Never move your back line in checkers.


6. Order all units to support in Diplomacy.


7. Every move of Clue goes between the Kitchen and the Study.


8. Shoot no one in Bang!


9. Do not complete any objectives in Firefly.


10. Play Twilight Imperium.

Market Mechanic Lecture: Trade

To understand why trade mechanics are important in board games you have to first understand why trade is important outside of board games.  When I say trade I mean someone actually trading something with someone else.

People can trade physical objects--I trade a banana for a coconut.  People can trade actions--I will rub your shoulders if you rub my feet.  People can trade actions for objects--I will babysit your kids and in exchange you will give me a shrubbery.

Why do People Trade?

The reason I trade a rubber ducky for a golf ball is because I value the golf ball more than the rubber ducky.  If you gave me a golf ball for a rubber ducky then you value the rubber ducky more than the golf ball.

Why can I say with confidence that I value the golf ball more than the rubber ducky and you value the rubber ducky more than the golf ball.  Because we each voluntarily made an exchange with each other, and by exchanging we revealed our preferences.  If I thought the golf ball was worth less than the rubber ducky then I would not have exchange the golf ball for the rubber ducky.  

Since we both value the goods we received in trade more than the good we exchange, we are both better off by making the trade.  This is true even if someone complains about the price of the exchange prior to trading.  If I spend the whole time arguing that the rubber duck is really worth two golf balls and not one, but I still exchange the rubber ducky for one golf ball, guess what, my reveal preference from the trade shows that I really value one golf ball more than a rubber ducky.

People complain about prices for a variety of reasons.  Much of the time they are just wishing they were able to get more bang for their buck.  If I was willing to accept one golf ball for a rubber ducky there is no question I would happily also accept two golf balls for a rubber ducky.

Notice we end up trading not only because we have things we value differently, but we each have something the other person wants.  If I had a rubber ducky and you a ripped t-shirt covered in horse poo, there is nothing I am willing to give you for your ripped t-shirt covered in horse poo.  I just do not want it and in a world of volunteer trading, I am not going to give you something to take it.

Trade in Board Games

Like real life, people make trades in board games because each person values what they are receiving in the trade more than what they are giving up in the trade.  When I trade two wood for a stone with another player in Settlers of Catan that means I value the stone more than the wood and my trade partner values the wood more than the stone.

If you are designing a game that utilizes a trade mechanic it needs to motivate players to value different goods differently.  When everything is worth exactly the same there is no need for player trades.  If a green cube is worth one victory point, and a red cube is worth one victory point,  players have no incentive within the game to exchange cubes.  Neither player gains any edge in gameplay by making an exchange.  They are in fact the same good that happen to be different colors.

Game designers desiring trade in their game need to also make sure trades exist where the players trading can benefit from the exchange.  I am not going to make an exchange with another player unless I think it helps me win the game.  The same goes with the person making the exchange with me.  A player is not going to trade me three stones in Settlers of Catan if it will enable me to upgrade a settlement to a city and provide me with the last victory point I need to win the game.  

Creating an environment conducive to trading is challenging in board games since many board games, unlike the real world, are zero-sum games.  A zero-sum game means that for one person to succeed everyone else must lose.  When I win the game of Monopoly everyone else playing the game lost the game.  

In the real world, when I trade maple syrup I made with the butcher for a pound of beef, neither one of us is worried that the trade is going to give the other person an edge to defeat the other.  I am excited because I now have some delicious beef to grill and the butcher is excited because he is going to use the maple syrup to glaze a ham.  The butcher making a glaze ham has no negative effects on me.  And me grilling some beef to eat has no negative effects on the butcher.

But in board games, every trade I make has the risk of hurting me by giving my competitor a new resource he can use to beat me.  That makes people guarded about the trades they make within a board game and makes it harder to construct a game where trading is a relevant mechanic to game play.  

Trade Theme vs. Trade Mechanic

A game with a trading theme is a game where gameplay is centered on a story where a player makes a trade with a real person or some defined other to get a good.  In Acquire, people trade stock with a stock market.  In Monopoly, players trade property with each other as part of the theme on making real estate deals.  Settlers of Catan, players exchange goods with each other to represent trade between different colonists on an island.

A trade mechanic is when players voluntarily exchange with other players.  When I voluntarily exchange wood for stone with another player we are utilizing a trade mechanic in Settlers of Catan.  Not all games with a trade mechanic have a trade theme.  Compounded is a game centered on making compounds in a chemistry lab.  Players can exchange elements with each other to help them construct their compounds.  The game is not marketed as a trading game.  The story does not centered on who makes the best exchanges.  But players can utilize a trade mechanic to help them win.     

Acquire is a trade themed game without a trade mechanic.  Players are not making trades with each other.  Stock buying in Acquired is just the theme for making strategic bets.  The bank does not benefit when players buy stocks.  It merely converts money from one value to the next based on a formula that calculates a number based on laying of tiles on the game board.

Paying rent on property in Monopoly is not a trade mechanic either.  Players are forced to pay rent by the rules of the game.  Players do not negotiate with different property owners over which property to rent and enter into a voluntary agreement.  They are told by dice rolls that you must rent this property and pay this fixed rent.  Otherwise, you are not playing the game.

In short, to prevent confusion over whether a game has a game mechanic or not you can always rely on answering a simple question.  Do players voluntarily exchange with each other?   For the game to contain a trade mechanic then players must engage in exchange voluntarily.

Market Mechanic Lecture: Introduction

I am an unabashed lover of market mechanics in board games.  Let me be clear, the emphasis in that last sentence is Market Mechanic.  Why the emphasis, well as Michael R. Keller of Visible Hand Games and I discussed at UNPUB 4, many people mistake market themes with market mechanics.  A few people avoid all market mechanics because they mistakenly associate them with bad market theme games that do not use any market mechanics. 

That is why I am starting a new lecture series examining different types of market mechanics and how to use them in board games.  But before I discuss specific market mechanics that can be used in board games, I need to clarify what is the difference between a market theme and a market mechanic.

Difference Between a Theme and a Mechanic

Themes are stories.  Stories can be spun so that a particular action represents something occurring within the story.  When I play Formula D my friends and I are telling a story about driving a race car.  Am I actually driving a race car, no, but I am taking a series of actions that lets me pretend I am driving a race car.  The grafting of a story to a set of actions is a theme.  

A mechanic is undertaking a particular set of actions to achieve something.  For example, in Monopoly I can roll a dice and move my pawn.  The mechanic is roll and move.  I am physically rolling dice and moving it along a board.

Because I use a roll and move mechanic does not mean I call it that within the game.  Theme lets me pretend the act of rolling and moving is achieving an imaginary outcome, be it go to work and collect my salary in Monopoly or advance my car in an auto race in Formula D.

Mechanics and themes do not have to be different things.  We can play the game 100 yard dash by physically running the 100 yard dash and seeing who can finish the race first.  The theme and mechanics is the 100 yard dash in the 100 yard dash game.  

Should Mechanics and Themes Always Be the Same?

Each mechanic needs to be assessed on how it will contribute to the enjoyment of the game.  Some mechanics are a great theme by themselves.  Charades is a game built on a mechanic of acting.  Acting is fun, acting is silly, acting makes a great game.  Others mechanics are events you never want to experience in real life.  For example,  I personally do not want to play a game of Werewolf were the sheriff eliminates a players by physically shooting and killing them.

To assess if a market mechanic contributes to game play we need to understand how different market mechanics work and how to separate the market mechanic from a market themed game.  This lecture on market mechanics will not only empower us to answer the question when market themed games work better with market mechanics, but also when do market mechanics contribute to non market themed games.

Classics Lecture Series: Negotiations - Risk

When I used to play Risk with the neighborhood kids the strategy was pre-determined, take Australia and South Africa, or barring that, take North America as fast as I can. The real game was how well I could get the other kids to allow me to do this.

Who wins and who loses in Risk is driven by negotiations. I’ll let you have Africa, you let me have South America.  If we do not work together then Sam over there is going to take over North America while we fight each other.

I still play Risk every once and a while online without anybody talking to anybody, and though the mechanics have not changed, it’s a completely different game. Player negotiations is a game component that adds multiple dimension to a board game.

Negotiations Create Player Options

Negotiations opens up options for players as how to pursues their goal.  Without negotiations a game of Monopoly is fixed by the roll of the dice as to who gets what.  To be honest, if players do not haggle, barter, and trade, then Monopoly is just a very long game of roulette.

With negotiations players create new property combinations that alter the balance of who is favored to win the game.  Players are no longer just waiting for the right die combinations.  Players are actively engaging each other, sizing each other up, as they look to find trades that will give them a chance to win.  The options created from trade changes the game from a game of just chance, to a game of skilled negotiations with some chance.

Negotiations Counters Runaway Winners

Through negotiations players are able to keep others from running away with the win.  If we can coordinate to not destroy our chance to win in Risk by fighting each other to the death than we can also negotiate to work together to prevent another player running away with a win.

Using negotiation to coordinate player action to prevent a runaway leader even occurs in games where negotiations may be limited.  In Settlers of Catan players will not only boycott trading with the player in the lead, they will also work together to move the robber, exchange resources, build roads, and settlements to contain the player in the lead.

Negotiations Personalize the Player Experience

Negotiations necessitate personal interactions.  I have to convince you to work with me.  That means success or failure becomes dependent on player personalities.  Are you vindictive?  Are you pragmatic?   Do you have trouble trusting people?  Do you have trouble trusting me?  Are you forgiving?  These personality traits alter game negotiations and alter game experience.

If you do not trust me in Risk then you might hesitate to enter an agreement with me to attack another player because I may exploit your undefended border.  Just finding my personality abrasive can alter what I can achieve in negotiations.  Someone might not trade with me in Monopoly because they just think I am a mean and horrible person.

Different players have different personalities.  Each time you play with a group of people you are dealing with a different combination that creates a completely different game experience.  That means a game with a heavy negotiation element plays as a new variant every time you play it, just like Risk Legacy.  Even if you play the same game with the same players, they will remember what happened last time and adjust how they treat the other players.

Winning and Losing Negotiations is a Game Itself

Navigating your personality amongst other player’s personality is a game within itself.  Which player can best navigate their personality strengths and weaknesses amongst everyone else’s strengths and weaknesses?

Take the game of Pandemic.  Players are constantly negotiating with each other to form a consensus on how to fight the epidemic.  Players who do not adjust well for the negotiating strategies and personalities of their teammates will not work well together and will fail to coordinate to save the world.

Risk and The Resistance shows that winning negotiations gamers are not just about building coalitions, they are also about negotiations that successfully destroys them.  Players are battling each other to either build trust or destroy it.  If you are not part of the coalition that appears to be winning the game then you need to use your best negotiation skills to break it up.

In Risk, the player leading the game sees everyone attempting to form an alliance to counter their growing power.  A good negotiator does not sit ideally by and let a new alliance form to prevent their rise to glory.  They walk over to the player with trust problems and remind them of all the times the other players stabbed a partner in the back. Next, they quietly stroll over to the players who are known for stabbing others in the back and tries to make them an offer they just can’t refuse.

While playing The Resistance, I need to figure out what is the best tactic to convince the leader that someone else is a traitor and not me.  I weigh the success of deflecting attention from myself by attacking others, versus using such aggressive tactics backfiring and drawing attention to myself.  At the same time I have to decide if vocally professing that I am not the traitor will lead more or less people to trust me.  If a group challenges my loyalty I must work to undermine the credibility of those who label me a traitor and sew seeds of mistrust within the group itself.

Risk is not Risk Without Negotiations

Risk without negotiations is not risk, its multiplayer chess with dice.  Negotiations turn simple mechanics into an intense meta game of wits among the players.  Players are no longer just trying to solve a simple puzzle, they are actively competing with each other to achieve a diplomatic victory that will hand them the game.