Errata: The Benefits of Player Elimination
This week I got into a discussion with a friend about gaming. We discussed our most and least favorite aspects of games, and he agreed with me that player elimination is the worst mechanic. In fact, I’ve previously offered it up as the only “bad” mechanic in all of gaming. But then …
Gamer Friend asked, “Why even include player elimination at all? It’s just lazy.”
So, while I still hate player elimination and tend to specifically avoid games that feature it, allow me to make a moderate defense of the mechanic. It does one thing really, really well. It vastly increases the tension in a game. If you know that a bad decision costs you three victory points, you might consider the consequences and then take the risk. If you know that a bad decision costs you the fun of playing the game, you may be less willing to risk it.
A game like King of Tokyo is a great example. The players can attack each other. Being at low health is only scary if there is a consequence. If the consequence was “lose points” instead of being out of the game, then it would simply be another calculation. “How many points am I likely to lose if I reroll these hearts to get something better?” Figure it out and make a choice.
But if you know that riding the line has the potential to get you kicked out of the game, then suddenly the equation changes a bit. It isn’t something that you can come back from or make up for later. This makes the attacks and health far more meaningful. In that sense, player elimination can make the experience more fun – at least as long as you’re still playing.
Still, I’m not a fan of the mechanic and I do think it’s tossed into far too many games than it needs to be.
Got questions about strategy, specific games, or the hobby in general? Post them in the comments here, email me at geekinsight at gfbrobot dot com, or send them to @GeekInsight on Twitter and check back next week for answers!
Thanks for posting the article. I must admit, in my designs, I never even consider including a player elimination mechanic. But suddenly I’m reminded that as a designer, “I am not my audience.” Does that fact that so many player elimination games exist mean that I should give it another look? Hmmm….
Sorry, website was posted incorrectly in last comment. Meant to put my twitter handle, @BenjaminRosset
I think the reason so many games feature Player Elimination is that it’s a very easy/lazy way to generate a winning condition and/or create the tension you speak of.
I think Player Elimination can be okay under very specific circumstances – the most important being that it is not a required element of the game. In the King of Tokyo example you mentioned, it’s definitely worth mentioning that elimination of other players is not required to be the victor. In cases like that, the elimination can definitely be used to up the tension.
As another example, Twilight Imperium allows player elimination. I’ve never seen it happen in my own players or anyone elses – and eliminating a player would require a whole lot of effort and resources that wouldn’t necessarily help you win the game, so it’s not encouraged by the rules. However, the fact that it exists puts some power into the negotiation/diplomacy side of warfare. If you can attack an uppity player who’s threatening you and push back their forces enough so that there is a good chance they WILL be eliminated, you can get them to surrender with terms. It makes the warfare aspect so much more interesting and adds a layer of strategy that wouldn’t be there without it.
If Elimination is going to be required, it better take place right near the end of the game (or perhaps the game goes really fast regardless), but games like Monopoly that kick people out early and still last quite awhile… that’s no good.
The other, and perhaps bigger, “advantage” to player elimination is that it’s realistic. If the theme would logically involve the elimination of a faction or person or whatever, then it just makes sense that the player taking the role of the entity would be eliminated from the game.
In Bang!, for instance, you’re having a gunfight. How much sense would it make for you to get all shot up enough to lose all your health and not be eliminated?
And frankly, as nice as it is to have rules precluding elimination in some games (like when you just aren’t allowed to attack someone’s home base in a conquest game), it’s also very “gamey” and artificial if there would be no “real-world” reason that you couldn’t as per the theme.
The challenge of including player elimination, therefore, is finding a way or a pacing in the game that elimination is still a realistic consequence based on the theme, but that it will be done in a satisfying and timely enough manner so as not to impair the investment and agency of the players.
Chris is correct. It’s far more realistic. I don’t know where this “laziness” idea is coming from. Elimination games are tense and ups the darker tone. I prefer my games to have player elimination.