by John Kanost
In a recent forum thread over on the Blue Peg, Pink PegGuild, [user=cuteusagi]Meghan[/user] asked this question, and it prompted me to ask myself, what are the different types of player interaction possible in tabletop board games? I started a separate list with my own definitions outside of the thread, and it eventually grew in scope until I decided not to post it there and instead add it to my blog here.Google defines interaction as "reciprocal action or influence.""Reciprocal" means "given, felt, or done in return", while "influence" is defined as "the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself." Interaction between players in a game, therefore can mean anything that one or more players do that has an effect on one or more other players in said game, and causes a reaction.
I've often seen reviewers criticize a game for having no or very minimal player interaction, and there's a common derogatory term that gets flung around quite a bit: "multiplayer solitaire". Think about this term: it is an oxymoron. A solitaire game is a game that one person plays alone, by herself, whereas a multiplayer game has... well, multiple players; at least two and probably more. (Rabbit trail: in Magic: The Gathering parlance, "Multiplayer" is a term used to describe formats that have more than two players. I'm using the term to mean any game that has two or more players involved.)
This particular criticism is not entirely objective; it assumes that more player interaction = a better game, but this metric isn't something that every gamer gives equal weight to when judging a game. Still, it seems like the majority of gamers are in this hobby because of the opportunities it provides to socialize and have fun with other people--so it makes sense that player interaction is widely regarded as an important factor in the games that we play.
As I compiled my list, I realized that I was conflating types of player interaction with genres of games. I believe this concept needs to separated from genre just like game mechanisms; in fact one could argue that all of these forms of interaction are game mechanisms.
Combat
Humans like to fight, don't we? Sure, we call it uncivilized, consider it our last resort, and try to avoid it, but there sure are a lot of board games featuring combat! These may be 2-player, but often feature multiple players. Combat is an element of many games even where the winner is determined by other means. In pure combat-driven games, you win by crushing your opponent: you or your units survive and theirs do not. One player attacks another, the defender glares across the table and swears retribution... Games with this type of player interaction are not for the faint of heart, but they do tend to generate lasting memories, with the players involved recounting tales of epic battles for years to come.
Examples:
:d10-1: Star Fleet Battles - I win when I destroy your ship, or deal so much damage to it that you must retreat or surrender.
:d10-2: The many varieties of Risk
:d10-3: Magic: the Gathering - the main goal of the game is to sap your opponent's life away!
:d10-4: Star Wars: Rebellion
:d10-5: King of Tokyo (despite the possibility of winning via "Stars", in my experience KoT is more often won by the last monster standing)
Combat is by its very nature an active form of player interaction. Someone initiates aggression against another; the other responds.
Diplomacy
Many games have official rules in the book for how to handle negotiating and the making and breaking of alliances. By necessity these games must be multiplayer, typically playing best at five or more. For some, the win condition is still to be the last one standing, but board games involving diplomacy frequently allow for a shared victory by an alliance. Some playgroups enjoy this type of interaction so much, they'll add it into games that were never intended to be played this way...my wife still recounts tales of Monopoly games with her brother's friend Keith, who always played with the goal of making as many "free ride" deals on his opponents' properties as possible!
Examples:
:d10-1: Cosmic Encounter
:d10-2: Game of Thrones
:d10-3: Eclipse
:d10-4: Twilight Imperium III (including this involves a blatant assumption on my part... I've never played it!)
Diplomacy also is an active form of interaction. Players are constantly talking, arguing, persuading, and eventually, backstabbing (but not always)! Wander past a table playing one of these games and it'll rarely be quiet.
Racing / Positioning
By racing, I don't just mean games that involve a race like PitchCar or Formula D--although by their very nature, I think all racing games include this type of interaction--I'm thinking of any game that feature some type of timing or speed element where the players are jockeying for position. Area Control games are based on this concept, even if they also involve combat or diplomacy interactions. At some point, points will be awarded based on the board state, and until that point it's a race to see who can gain or maintain their influence. I think of Mission: Red Planet, where this happens three times throughout the game; each time the stakes get higher! Even a euro game like La Granja has this in the form of the Siesta track where the players have to balance delivering sooner for first-come bonuses versus delivering more goods to town.
(Other) Examples:
:d10-1: Smash Up - players position themselves to be the one who busts the base
:d10-2: Matagot Trilogy (Cyclades / Kemet / Inis) - many think of these as high-conflict, dudes-on-a-map combat games, and they are, but how do you WIN? The combat is simply one of the means by which the players are racing each other to the victory condition.
:d10-3: Game of Thrones - the endgame is all about the shifting alliances as each player works their own angle trying to be the one to claim their 7th stronghold first.
This particular interaction is usually pretty active, but can sometimes take a passive form. It's usually a more thoughtful, deep-thinking affair to keep close track of what your opponents are doing while also trying to pull off your own perfect strategy... but there's often a fair amount of noise near the end of the game when everybody's pointing out who's about to win if we don't stop him! I particularly like how Inis handles it, with three potential ways to win; often the victor is the player who successfully convinces the others that she's coming at it from one direction when in fact she's already there and just waiting for the right moment to claim it.
Battle of Wits
The battle of wits between two or more players might be the lease "active" form of player interaction. It's found in games where you win by outthinking your opponent. This is how I define the interaction in most abstract strategy games. There are no dice to roll, no cards to play typically--more often than not, all the information is open and available to all the players. Each player must rely solely on their mental faculties to defeat the others.
Examples:
:d10-1: Chess
:d10-2: Go
:d10-3: Blokus
:d10-4: Hive
:d10-5: Onitama
I would characterize most abstracts as games where this is primary form of player interaction, but what's interesting is that it can be an element of almost every game. While there are certainly games that can be played entirely on gut instinct or physical skill, in most games you're not going to fare well if you don't devote at least some of your grey matter to the task.
Resource Competition
If you define it broadly enough, you could argue that all games include this type of interaction. The resources that players compete for could be anything. In Catan, it's real estate on the map. In Tiny Epic Galaxies, it's the planets you're racing to claim. In Ticket to Ride, it's routes on the map. I would put most worker placement / action selection games into this category as well; you're all competing for the best spaces on the board; the best actions for your strategy in these games.
(Other) Examples:
:d10-1: Scythe - Encounters, Factory Cards
:d10-2: Terraforming Mars - Milestones, increases of the global parameters
:d10-3: Russian Railroads - every worker space on the board
:d10-4: Power Grid - power plants, cities on the map
I think the key to defining this type of player interaction is that the resource must be something finite. Once claimed by a player, the resource in question can only be used by that player. This is what generates a sense of tension in the game, and why it feels so satisfying when you claim something that elicits groans of frustration and dismay from around the table.
Trading
The trading of resources in games feels similar to games with diplomacy, but in brief. The dynamic of trading in competitive versus cooperative games is really interesting to me. In a co-op, you want to engineer trades that are win-win; the interesting part is getting everyone involved in a discussion to hash out what is actually best for the entire group in order to win the game together. (This is where the alpha player problem in co-ops can be really annoying--when one player insists they know what's best for the group and brooks no discussion.) To me, trading in competitive games is far more interesting, however--your goal is to make trades that advance your position more than the other player. Even so, trading may be one of the most boring mechanisms; most games that feature inter-player trading have many other elements going on as well (like Catan's resource competition) to focus on. The most "pure" trading game I can think of would be PIT, which would be supremely boring without the real-time element introducing a hectic, almost-panicked frenzy to the players to simulate the feel of trading stocks on the open market.
Examples:
:d10-1: Catan - who will give me Wood for my Sheep?
:d10-2: Monopoly - without the trading of properties, there's no end game!
:d10-3: Above and Below - found more than you need of some resource? Put it up for sale to the highest bidder!
I almost included 7 Wonders as an example of trading, albeit one of the most simplified forms it. 7 Wonders is a game I've often heard criticized as "multiplayer solitaire", and its "trading", if you can call it that, is one-sided, and only with your nearest neighbors. Is it really trading if the only interaction between two players is "oh, I'm buying something from you; here's your money"? I would say not.
Team-Driven Collaboration
Games featuring this type of player interaction are complex, taking place on two levels. The competitive aspect could be classified as any of the other types of interaction, but in these games you must work together with the other members of your team to defeat your opponent, be it a single player in one-against-many style games, another team that is also working together to defeat you, or the game itself.
Examples:
:d10-1: Specter Ops / Letters from Whitechapel / Fury of Dracula - work together to capture the bad guy!
:d10-2: The Resistance / Battlestar Galactica / Dark Moon - work together to defeat the opposing team! Figuring out who your team is? That's all part of the fun!
:d10-3: Flick 'Em Up - only when played with teams, of course.
:d10-4: Pandemic / Sentinels of the Multiverse / Commissioned - work together to beat the game.
There's some interesting overlap to explore between this type of player interaction and that found in some games with Diplomacy. I'm thinking of Cosmic Encounter in particular, where you can win on your own or as a team--if all the members of an alliance are fully on board with no thoughts or plans for betrayal, I'd say their interaction has become collaborative.
Take That
This is where you get to deliberately ruin something that another player or team is building or planning. This might be the most "controversial" player interaction mechanism... in the moment, nobody enjoys getting put to the screws, and while some gamers might enjoy messing with their opponents, others dislike participating in these actions because even though they win, they dislike feeling guilty about it.
Examples:
:d10-1: Machi Koro - particularly if you play with the Millionaire's Row expansion and the Renovation mechanic
:d10-2: Dice City - you can attack your opponents' buildings to shut down their production
:d10-3: Mottainai - features many cards with abilities that shut down, interfere, or outright steal from your opponents
:d10-4: Smash Up - Most factions have action cards that kill or disable the other players minions and actions.
:d10-5: Crazy Karts - shoot the other teams' karts! Play unwanted Power Us on them to make them speed up and crash into obstacles!
:d10-6: Black Fleet - no one is safe when everyone is a pirate! Take their stuff and sink their ships!
For me it's often all about who I'm playing with in a game featuring this element, and how those players respond. If it's fun for them, it's fun for me, and vice versa. I feel like Programmed Movement games often include this type of interaction, with the added fun of having guess or second-guess what your opponents are doing in order to successfully screw them over while advancing your own agenda--games like Colt Express or The Dragon and Flagon.
Come One, Come All
After careful consideration, I decided that my preferred type of player interaction is tight competition for resources. I love games that make me think and make tough choices about how to proceed, when to take action and how to execute my plan at the perfect moment. I enjoy the tension in Ticket to Ride when the ticket colors I need finally come up on my turn, but to take them I risk losing the last available connection that I have to get to complete a high-value ticket. The frustration I feel in a game of Tzolk'in when the person going just before me takes the spot on the wheel that I wanted is worth it for those times when I'm the one whose plan falls into place perfectly.
But aren't the best games are those that combine many different forms of interaction into a seamless whole? My personal top ten is full of games that pull this off. Scythe, with its combination of combat, the race to six achievements, and the competition for the various resources on the board! Terra Mystica, where only one player can make it to the top of each cult track, and you can really stick it to a neighbor by swiping that spot on the map that they couldn't quite finish terraforming to their terrain type!
What's your favorite type of player interaction? Can you think of any that I missed? Let me know in the comments below!