R&D Journal
The Social Game
by Nate French
Over the past couple weeks, some of our players have expressed a desire for a multiplayer game that feels more like head to head play. A game in which you are not potentially at the mercy of the table, where you do not have to answer for your behavior, where the constantly changing social relationships that exist around the table are not sometimes just as important as the cards that are laid out on the table. Making such a change to the multiplayer game is not our intent; the A Song of Ice and Fire novels are, first and foremost, driven by the personalities and behaviors of the characters as they interact with one another, and we feel that a more social, interactive multiplayer format is the best way to capture the essence of these novels in the card game.
For me, the challenge in working towards interesting and worthwhile multiplayer design is not trying to eliminate the social aspects of multiplayer play, but to give players the tools to take advantage of their social skills. The cards, in other words, are props through which we can tell a story to the rest of the table, using them to present ourselves along a variety of spectrums: "Am I aggressive or passive, consistent or inconsistent, threatening or threatened, malleable and open to negotiation or hell bent on pursuing my course, friend or foe, rich or poor, confident or nervous, straightforward or tricky? Look at my cards, listen to my words, and try to figure it out. Chances are good I'll be doing the same with you…"
For me, a good multiplayer card (or rule) is one that allows us to add to the stories we are trying to tell, or one that allows us put an opponent to a test that makes them take a stand in the story we are trying to decipher. An even better multiplayer card is one that allows us to tell multiple stories, to different players, at the same time. The multiplayer title cards were all designed under this principle, and you can look for a similar attitude behind the new multiplayer tournament rules. As I work on the design files for A Time of Ravens and the Core Game, I'm finally starting to get the hang of these principles, and the game is moving into a new, ambitious frontier. Which isn't to say the cards are useless in head to head play, you can still use them to crush a single opponent without worrying about the statement you're making or the story you're telling… they're just a lot more exciting, when they're used for such purposes, in front of an audience.
Of course, this all sounds very Poker-like, and it is. One of my favorite descriptions of Poker is that it is not a card game, but rather a game of people played with cards. I like that, and believe that the same can be said of multi-player Thrones.
A Test of Conduct
One of the advantages of a game that places an emphasis on our abilities to interact socially with one another is that it allows players with those abilities to shine. One of the disadvantages of such a game is that… well, let's just say that it allows players who don't have those abilities to, err, not shine.
In other words, I'm talking about issues of sportsmanship. Ultimately, "sportsmanship" (and its evil counterpart, "unsportsmanlike" behavior) is a social concept. You cannot demonstrate good sportsmanship if you do not engage with an opponent before, during, and after the game. Further, all examples of poor sportsmanship (whether before, during, or after a game) are either a negative engagement with an opponent, or a refusal to engage with an opponent at all. Increasing company support for the more social multiplayer game provides the opportunity for our players (already regarded as one of the most sporting of all CCG communities) to demonstrate even higher levels of sportsmanship. Unfortunately, the increased level of social interaction such a format demands also provides the opportunity for unsportsmanlike behavior to rear its ugly head and plague the game experience. In this light, the game becomes a mirror through which a player's character (and I'm not talking about cards here!) can be seen.
Personally, I do not feel that the threat of poor sportsmanship is a serious threat to the Game of Thrones community, but, as they say, it only takes one bad apple to ruin the whole bunch. As a precaution against such a threat, Fantasy Flight Games does encourage its Tournament Organizers to adopt a no tolerance stance against unsportsmanlike behavior. This means that a TO is well within his or her rights to eject a player from a tournament for unsportsmanlike behavior. Depending on the circumstances (and the TO's discretion), it may be fair to give a warning first, but, again, this is left to the judgement of the TO.
No tolerance is all well and good, you might be saying, but what is unsportsmanlike behavior? Again, this is something that is situation and context based, and while we can offer up some guidelines and starting points, these judgement calls are one of the reasons we have TOs at sanctioned events.
In my experience, there are four primary criteria that can be relevant when making a "unsportsmanlike conduct" call. These criteria are: opportunity, means, motive, and history.
Most players will only act in an unsportsmanlike manner when they think it is to their advantage to do so, and when they think they can get away with it. This is what opportunity is all about when it comes to abusing sportsmanship issues. If a player is taking a long time with only 5 minutes on the clock, the opportunity to change the outcome of the game by hitting the time limit is much more relevant than if the player is taking a long time during the marshaling phase of the first turn. Opportunity is also situation based, in some cases, in that it needs a target to work. Maybe there's a player who thinks he can intimidate and browbeat weaker players into doing what he wants them to do. At a table with 3 grizzled veterans there is no opportunity for this thuggish tactic to work; at a table of newer players, he's much more likely to succeed. TOs need to be aware of these factors, and act accordingly. Players are also more likely to try something unsportsmanlike if they don't think anyone is watching; if there is an audience (or if the TO is nearby), there is less opportunity for unsportsmanlike behavior. Watch each other's games, and watch your opponents; ask the TO to walk the floor; keep the pace moving early so the time doesn't become an issue later. If you don't give people an opportunity to break the rules and have it work out in their favor, they're much less likely to even make the attempt.
Means is the act (or lack of action) by which the unsportsmanlike player is gaming the system. Stalling is one means, rushing an opponent through actions and constantly trying to call him for stalling is another means through which an opponent may attempt to achieve an unsportsmanlike advantage. In and of themselves, acts mean little; when combined with opportunity, motive, and history, all of our acts at the gaming table are filled with sporting or un-sporting connotations. The means is important, however, in that it is the specific behavior by which a player is taking advantage of an opportunity and pursuing his motivation in an unsportsmanlike way. If you call a TO over and tell him your opponent is unsportsmanlike, be prepared to answer the question, "How so?"
Motivation is the question of what a player has to gain through the behavior. Of course, there are some of us who just like to be jerks, and that's all the motivation we need for anything. Of course, along with that, the rest of us as players aren't really bothered by someone who does something "just to be a jerk." We'll laugh at their jerkiness, and serve them up some equally jerky behavior in return. (Although this too has its limits, and it also creates quite a history over time, and a "jerk" reputation can work against a player when and if a more serious issue arises.) It's when someone does something to seize a competitive advantage that it really bothers us as players, and becomes an issue in the game. At this point, we need to identify what that competitive advantage is, and we have established a motivation for the alleged unsportsmanlike conduct.
In some situations (like a local scene where the players have known one another for years), History is the simplest concept in the world. If a player has developed a reputation of slowing down towards the end of tight games that seem to be creeping away from him, chances are good that he's known as someone who tends (consciously or unconsciously) towards stalling. Both his opponents and the local TO will know this, and they will be wary of such situations in the future, ready to act on a moment's notice.
At a large tournament, or a tournament with a bunch of players who don't know each other, history is a more complex entity that will need to be established. Game to game, round to round, players will need to feel each other out and try to get a read on the behavior of their opponents. Discuss your observations with the TO, ask questions about what is and isn't acceptable behavior, share your opinion on things your opponents did and did not do. If you are legitimately concerned about something, chances are good that other players will be concerned about that same thing, and it is only through communication that these concerns can be brought to the attention of the group, the TO, and, ultimately, those of us at FFG who can provide even stronger feedback and guidelines in the future.
A Time for Melee; A Time to Joust
Much has been said over the Poker/Chess analogy, and it continues to exist in my mind as a powerful statement in comparing the experience of head to head and multiplayer play. Some have tried to question the analogy, by pointing out areas where Poker is different from the multiplayer game, or where Chess is different from head to head play. This kind of discussion does not really address the analogy, which, like all analogies, says that where comparisons are valid and can be made regarding all four of the involved items, multiplayer Thrones tends to be like Poker, and head to head Thrones tends to be like Chess. So, to really thwart the analogy's usefulness, one would need to argue that multiplayer AGoT play is more Chess-like, and that head to head AGoT play is more Poker-like. I'd be interested in hearing that perspective, and would love to entertain the idea, but I'm fairly sure it does not, and maybe even cannot, exist.
As powerful and resilient as the Poker/Chess analogy may turn out to be (I find myself discovering new areas where it holds up on a daily basis), there is one that may prove to be even more apt: Multiplayer AGoT tends to be like a Melee tournament in George R.R. Martin's novels, and Head to Head AGoT is like a Joust.
In Martin's world, a great warrior must prepare him or herself for any environment, and to be recognized publicly as such that warrior must show competence in both the Melee and in the Joust. Each field, however, is only one half of the total package, as the Joust tests your training and the Melee, your instincts. The new, two-day, dual format World Championship tournament will test the entire range of a player's A Game of Thrones skills, and only the most complete player can rise to the top and claim the title of A Game of Thrones World Champion. I can't wait to see this epic tournament play out at GenCon 2008, and my only regret is that I won't be competing myself.
Until next time, Happy Shuffling!
