Collusion, Part 2 - Fighting it

Collusion is the bad form of cooperation, as discussed previously.

I started actively fighting collusion as its evil self, when I was active as a Magic judge. Players would collude to set a certain match result - maybe Alice pays Bob to lose to her, or maybe Bob offers her packs of cards to draw so that they both make it into the top 8 cut. It had to be secret, because it was illegal.

It was illegal, because it cheated others of a fair chance to get into the finals. It was illegal in the finals, because it cheated the system of its purpose - get the best player.

Fighting collusion took a lot of time and energy. It's secret, so you have to puzzle out if collusion is happening. It helps to know what benefits players would get for colluding, who would gain benefits from collusion, when collusion would take place, and where the bargaining would take place.

If there is still a large event going on, there won't be collusion at the lower-finishing tables. It won't affect prizes - they're playing to play. The top tier and near-top tier players are the ones who could possibly gain from collusion. Collusion will typically take place at the end of the event, so that settles the when - the colluding players would need to know what their odds are, and they can't know until the end. This also limits the "where" - they need it to be secret (as it is illegal), which generally means if you see pairs of players heading away from the event, it's not because they both just got a phone call.

Sometimes collusion happens because the players don't want to beat each other. Some top competitors might think, well...if we draw intentionally in round 1 when we're paired up, maybe we can still both make it in the finals. (Or they're friends, and don't want to knock their other friend out of the running.) A lesser form of collusion, and not always illegal.

A story - in high school chess, I remember playing a 30-minute round against a good friend of mine. The tournament director told us we weren't allowed to take a draw (it was okay in the rules, but he wasn't as well-versed in the tournament rules). So we played. During the event, he came by and insisted that if we weren't playing to win (we were), he would kick us out of the tournament and report us to the USCF for cheating. With 5 minutes left on the clock, we both started playing lightning-fast chess, making bad plays left and right. And several minutes into it, he came over and stopped the clock, calling it a draw. Ugh. Compounding his lack of rules.

So what happens when collusion isn't spelled out in the rules of the game? If you're playing in a tournament, you can call over a judge/referee - there's a higher authority. The average board game, you're playing with the people at the table.

1. Public discussion. Collusion requires secrecy for it to be effective in a game. Players can stop their collusion, or others could join forces for their own collusion.
2. Private discussion. It's possible that the players are not colluding on purpose. Talking with one or more of the participants could end it without a fight.

Either way, it's a tough sell. The players might not even think they're colluding, if they didn't have a verbal agreement. This can happen in war games - I attack Alice, Bob thinks "Jimmer is weak after his war efforts on Alice." Bob joins in when Alice counterattacks. And possibly Alice and Bob don't attack each other, because they perceive the other one as slightly better, or an even match. The result ends up with Jimmer always being tag-teamed. In a 3-player game, a recipe for bad games.

If players are actively colluding, there might be a measure of denial just to preserve the gaming atmosphere. Nobody wants to play with cheaters, right?

You'll have to work out what's best for you - indirect discussions, direct discussions - you know your group of friends better than I do. And hopefully the game spells out what limits exist for collusion. ;)

Collusion, Part 1

Collusion - it's not a word I was familiar with when I was a kid, but it happened often.

The definition from my Mac: "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, esp. in order to cheat or deceive others"

You can talk about collusion in games such as Diplomacy. Actually, Diplomacy could just be renamed to be Collusion: The Board Game, because that's pretty much the entire game mechanic. But collusion is generally considered cheating, if not just really bad form.

1. It's generally secret, which means you established some kind of alliance even before the game started.
2. If it's not secret, it's illegal - if not by rules, by general game conduct.
2. It's generally an alliance, which is not how most games are played - one winner.

My friend JW and I were debating this topic over beers and pool the other night. He hates collusion, in most of its forms. Specifically, in Settlers of Catan - you know, the point in the game, where the last place player also has longest road. The person who has a solid shot at winning is closing in on longest road. Everyone makes "friendly" trades to last place, so that they can keep longest road away from the potential winner.

For me, the secret alliances bug me. They might even be secret to the players themselves, that they key-in on the same things in the same way. I remember my first game of Twilight Imperium - be the best aliens you can be! It's a longer game, with the standard (what I call) Risk-diplomacy. You know the kind - "Attack this other guy, not me, for these reasons..."

W & K were the primary gamers in this circle of friends. They knew what buttons to push, what they could get away with, and who they could wipe out. Sitting in on Twilight Imperium, was a clear game of "their sandbox". Imagine a table of 6 players...2 hustlers, 2 regular victims, and 2 outsiders (where the outsiders are not aligned together). It quickly evolved into 4 on 1 on 1, where W & K maneuvered their semi-willing tools into place. At the end of the game, there were only two possible winners - guess who they were?

I've called it Risk-diplomacy for other reasons as well. Risk was really my first board game exposure to how someone can play favorites inside a game. Secret alliances happen amongst kids, where they do it to find boundaries...or even just to mess with their friend(s). It's a practical secret, not the secret that has no effect.

Alliances don't even have to be secret, but they work better that way. If W & K had made a pact in the beginning of the game in front of the others, it could have changed the dynamic into 2 on 4. W & K probably didn't even have to make a secret pact, if they always play games that way - it could have become a regular habit in that group.

So there's the illegal part, the secret part, and the alliance part. Next, we'll talk about fighting collusion...this bit was short, but fighting collusion is its own thing!

When is too many?

I've recently been on a kick to trim down my game collection. I had more than two closets full of games, and established a fast goal of 1 closet. I don't think I'll make it though.

Criteria for what games to trim down:
* Games that were played several times, but stopped soon after
* Unopened games that never made the cut to being opened
* Games that hadn't been played in several years
* Games that require a huge chunk of time to set aside

I'm keeping 2-3 games that take more than a couple hours to finish - more than that...most of my gaming time is limited. Hopefully we could play two games of something in the time it takes to play the super-endurance games.

Some of the older games just seem dry, when compared to some of the more recent games - they lacked the uniqueness to start. They had enough of something for me to pick it up, but the mechanics aren't elegant or engaging enough to drag it out of the dustbin.

Unopened games, really shouldn't exist. Sometimes I'd pick up a game to get free shipping or a game-design friend tells me to get it. I picked up a copy of Siena in Essen, based on what I witnessed of the demo - maybe I won't sell it. (Based on this, I think the packaging didn't sell me on the game that I had already bought on other criteria. Tough love!)

The largest category is the 'several times played' category. It was good enough to try again, but in the end not addictive enough to keep. Ideally a game has something to bring a player back to the table with it. I'm not a super-fan of Agricola, but it has a lot of replay value with the amount of occupations and minor improvements. It could also be a case of playing the game - let's face it, not all mechanics have the same kick to them...and perhaps I sometimes buy a game before it's been thoroughly reviewed.

Reading over that, you can see some emerging criteria on how to buy games.
1. Check for reviews, and play it with friends several times if possible. Some stores have demo copies lying around...less of a financial risk for you, and saves on shelf space. (And the employees might know the game if you get stuck on a rule.)
2. Don't buy games that won't get played immediately. Buying online means that you sometimes pay extra, just to get free shipping - if you're going that route, talk to friends if they're looking for anything. Not quite as good as buying at your local game store, but people do it. And by immediately, I mean something in the next several weeks - you might not keep the passion you had when you picked up the game.
3. This is a hard one. Older games can completely be an equal to anything put out today. Caylus led to Le Havre - both games are solid in their own right. But average games from 5 years ago will not improve. Check out BBG for game reviews, and it'll save you questioning your value system.
4. Long games are fine, if you have the gaming crowd that likes that kind of thing, and have time to play it. If you're all young professionals with boyfriends/girlfriends/Xboxes and 8-5 jobs, you'll find yourself with less and less time for heavier games. Having a collection of 10, playing 1 every two weeks means that you might get 2-3 plays of each game in a year.

With those ideas in mind, it affects what type of games I like to develop on my personal time. A strong set of mechanics, good replay value, attractive to the eye, and 2 hours or less to play.

Overall, board games have solid entertainment value - you might spend $30 for movie tickets/snacks for two...2 hours of enjoyment, compared to multiple plays of a good board game...I know which one I'll choose.