Player Elimination

How do you feel about player elimination as a mechanic? I think that player elimination can be very thematic for a game with a horror theme, and might also be very suitable for other types of AmeriTrash games, like maybe a survival-oriented game or something featuring warfare or some other form of lethal violence. And yet I can also appreciate that players typically want to stay in the game for the duration, instead of getting stuck on the sidelines.

And what do you think about various alternatives to player elimination? For example, is it okay to have an eliminated player re-enter the game with a new character? Or does that potentially undermine the thematic impact of death?

I think it's essential for certain games like Wiz-War, in which killing the other players is one part of the victory conditions. Thankfully, once one person is out, it isn't usually too long until someone has the other point they need to end the game (presuming they didn't end it with that kill.) In other games, even DOAMs, it's pretty rare for someone to be wholly eliminated. In fact, I can't think of too many other games where that's an active concern.

Back in the day, we played 2nd Ed. Talisman in which people could start up a new character if their first one died, no matter how late in the game it was. If they didn't feel like continuing, they were free to wander off, but if they did want to keep playing, it was a free-for-all. I actually won a couple games with 2nd characters, one from early in the game, and another fairly late: I think I was the Hobgoblin through the first half and started the Leprechaun after one opponent had already put his master plan into place (Start with the Troll, build up Strength, then turn in a magic item to become the Archmage, giving him massive spellpower in addition to high STR.) The other players (we started with 5) had already died off and I kept telling him he should just hunt me down and end it, but he was determined "to win right" (I think in response to my most recent victory to date, when I had hunted everyone down as the Rogue; a good thing, too, since the end was the Demon Lord and I would have been wrecked.) So I kept tossing Hex spells on the Portal of Power and generally being annoying while staying in the game, but he eventually got to the top and encountered, of course, the Horrible Black Void. Guess who wins the game by being the last person on the board?

I don't think player elimination is so much of a big deal anymore due to the abundance of people with smart phones. So nowadays if someone gets eliminated they just play with their phone instead of sitting at the table bored watching everyone else play. As long as its not a really long game it should be okay. In general I also prefer player elimination to those games where you make a first turn mistake (or get a bad draw), but have to stay in the whole game afterwards with no chance of winning.

i've always really liked player elimination since it gives a real motivation to doing well in the game since you'll have to sit in the corner otherwise. We mostly played player elimination games back in the day and would set up a side activity for people that got knocked out.

I don't like house rules that let them back in cuz the games go too long and often players try to suicide to start over with someone new.

I think there's a real motivation to surviving when player elimination is present that changes the way people play games (which is a good thing)

I'm fine with player elimination in anything that's, say, less than 4 hours. I'm kind of fine with it in longer games too since it means you can go get a beer and something else rather than have basically lost but be forced to continue playing.

It's a tough call.

We had many games of Shogun/Samurai Swords in college that fizzled out after the first player was eliminated. It was a downer as, yeah, we all wanted to game together. I really dig how Britannia doesn't have player elimination by the fact that each player has civilizations coming into the game over it's course. It's a brilliant design.

However, part of the allure of playing something like TITAN is being the last person on the board.

I'm cool with it when the game tends to end shortly after the first player dies. But if you get ganged up on and quickly taken out, that can suck. Watching other people play a game is kind of like going to the bar and not drinking.

Some games seem to get worse, or at best radically different, when down to the last two players. I don't like King of Tokyo with two, all the fun of damaging groups of players or ganging up on the monster in Tokyo is gone and I often find just wanting to get the game over with to move on. Texas hold 'em poker is definitely different and really not as interesting with two; liar's dice is even worse, although I've heard other people say it's their favorite part of the game.

Head's up hold'em is great! I always regret when I snap-offer to chop

Knizia (who called it "the antichrist of games") had a really interesting point about elimination that I had not really thought about before. It's a given that everybody wants to stay in the game, everyone wants to keep having fun...what is important is not this sort of final elimination where the player is removed, but in creating the possibility of defeat. We went on to talk about this a bit in Taj Mahal, for example, where there is meaningful elimination - just not from the whole game. When you play out a contest in that game, you have to basically choose to play or quit. And quitting can be an acknowledgement of defeat or it can be a strategic withdrawal. So even within that possibility of defeat, there are options and the player always has a chance to "get revenge" (as he put it). This makes a hell of a lot more sense than a four hour conflict game where somebody is out of the game on turn two...and there's eight left.

But yes, in a two player game or a game like Wiz-War where it is a "deathmatch" style concept, elimination has to be there. And when it's a really short game like King of Tokyo then it makes sense- also because of the setting. I also actually really like endgame elimination - where a player has to effectively "qualify" or be "eligible" to win at the very end of the game by meeting certain criteria and if you don't, you're eliminated at that stage. And really, co-op games often have TPK elimination. Which is acceptable. All of these, along with this idea of selective conflict, create that "possibility of defeat".

Actual, literal player elimination in a multiplayer game is actually quite rare and you really only see that in older games or games where someone is trying to emulate an older game. There is a reason that we don't see it in many games at all. Much more common is effective elimination, where a player just can't do anything. This is a HUGE problem with games like Diplomacy, where a player may be functionally DOA from the first turn. And have 10 hours of game remaining. This is not "cool", and it is not an antique design principle to rhapsodize over. It's the product of a different gaming culture and a different time, and it is obsolete.

Elimination is also a major problem in Titan with more than two players. Frankly, it's crap design. I get it that the stakes are high, I get it that it creates a lot of drama...but like in Titan, you can wind up out VERY early in the game just by bad luck and a bad decision or two. What's the point of that? It doesn't demonstrate anyone's superiority or better play. It just sidelines somebody. Titan is good with two, terrible with more because of this. Maybe if it were 1980 I'd feel differently abou tit.

The purpose of a design should never be to eject a player - it should draw them in, encourage them to try again.

I am currently playtesting a homebrew game with player elimination, not with an eye towards publication, but for a very particular fanbase at an upcoming convention. Ten players, five hour time slots, and my game comfortably fills those requirements. But in playtesting, I have found that player elimination is a definite possibility, and can even happen by the second turn of the game. So I have been running with the idea of letting the eliminated player start with a fresh character and a fresh start. Elimination still has a sting, due to loss of cards and progress towards victory. And yet if the player is lucky and opportunistic, even a late restart can still lead to victory. More likely, a player eliminated after the midpoint of the game is going to play more of a role as a spoiler or even kingmaker. Is this bad? The theme is Machiavellian nobles scheming to take a throne.

Player elimination is obsolete ? What year did that edict come out, did I miss an important post sometime ? ... possibly I was drunk, there are months I don't remember much.

I'm not keen on player elimination on one hand, but the alternative is having a player basically acting as kingmaker/troublemaker. Part of me would rather just have the player be gone than be there, playing half-heartedly and being resentful.

It's something I've thought a lot about, and one of the only true merits of Euro games - they are designed with catch up mechanics so that every player has a chance to at least finish closely, so that everyone feels like they have skin in the game and doesn't just start being a troublemaker.

The worst part about Player Elimination in a game is when someone decides NOT to use it.

I was playing a 3-Way X-Wing Game and I got hit hard early and was down to a Z-95 with just a hull or two left, at this point I was going to be a non-factor in the game since they were both still at 80% or so. What happened though was that one of the players who had a clear shot and could have ended it for me (which would have been met with my approval) decided to be my benevolent savior and take a very outside chance shot at the other player (which did nothing).

Michael Barnes wrote: Actual, literal player elimination in a multiplayer game is actually quite rare and you really only see that in older games or games where someone is trying to emulate an older game. There is a reason that we don't see it in many games at all. Much more common is effective elimination, where a player just can't do anything. This is a HUGE problem with games like Diplomacy, where a player may be functionally DOA from the first turn. And have 10 hours of game remaining. This is not "cool", and it is not an antique design principle to rhapsodize over. It's the product of a different gaming culture and a different time, and it is obsolete.

This is actually the game I was thinking of too. You see both kinds of player elimination in Diplomacy. Somewhere like Serbia can be player eliminated very quickly but can also be pared down to a single territory with no chance to win as well.

Ugh, fuck diplomacy. A brilliant mechanic in search of proper game (which came later in due course).