First | Prev || Next | Last
¿Question #677?
wtrollkin2000: Is Kingmaking always a bad quality in a game?

TheGrimReeple: Kingmaker (1974) is pretty well regarded for a game of its age. Apparently there's a new edition coming out soon.
imyourskribe: We hates it, preciousssssss
ocdspectrum: Unless it's a teams based game, yes.
PredicateD: No, but it's usually a bad quality in a gamer.
Grayle84: Not always
jimwithatwist: Yes. (maybe...)
Caerid: Nope
Woelf: Unless it's intentionally built into the mechanics of the game as a desired component, yes.
Felimid: Well, at least in one game, there's always a way of double-checking them.
Septic: not always.
Spirit of 70: Not in Kingmaker.
daveroswell: If you can make your own position better and then change someone elses place from 2nd to first, fine. Otherwise, meh. Frankly, I think it's a game and if someone is that concerned about winning, they should have played better to get bette positioning. Or the game is broken ;)
ozjesting: no.
gmcash: no
Hector Vortac: Often enough
onibaloney: Nope
Giorflee: Sure....
ZiggyZambo: yes
Andrew Snyder: game don't make kings, people make kings. unless the game is king maker...
DHEK: I suppose... I can't think of any situation in which it would be good, if everyone plays individual sides and not as part of teams.
gbohrer: Nothing is ever always bad in a game, except poor balance
malloc: no
aleo09: not always
POvidiusNaso: It can be, if the investment was really really high.
dstephens: Yes
tagger418: No, What about citadels
KentuckyKid: No. A necessary inconvenience, but not a big problem.
purvisa: No, though it can lead to bad blood.
rawdawg: no
greglios: Yes it spoils the game if you win because of it and spoils it if you don't win because of it.
brainrob: No
GornTC: No.
Igloo cool: It is good to be king
crimsonking: No
Chris Page: Not in Checkers.
orodreth: It's GOOD to be the King!
Kazin: No. It makes for good backstabbing.
bigbadsteve: i wouldnt say always
Joanna Olsen: Yes
korppu: No
LemonyFresh: Yes.
m:cafe: Sometimes the winner of a game is an ass-hole. At these times, Kingmaking is the best thing about gaming.
Fawkes: No - there is no such thing as kingmaking.
billgoode: It certainly isn't a good one.
shawn_low: Usually. Unless you're the one being made king.
twixter: Not necessarily always; the possibility that it may occur could motivate players to focus more on the game in order to avoid it.
acetate3: Usually yes.
Tushratta: No.
mats-k: No
scriptorum: No.
javelin98: No
nm156: Yes!
Dorque: Yup.
Longbow: no
obob: sometimes, maybe often, but not always
Gialmere: Yes (unless I'm the one doing it.)
erli: Sometimes you can't help but be the queen
skrutsch: not always
Lord_Prussian: Not at all
saulsehy: nope
anson: Yes.
ssmooth: No
kennyb: its all part of the game
Windopaene: For the most part, I'd say yes
The Unbeliever: 42
Sceadeau: Yes
Karlsen: No
Jern: Almost
AWildEep: ye
MisterCranky: Of course not.
berserkley: no
heli: uhhh... YEAAAAAAAH
Wintergoblin: no
Komodo: Nope
m_r_tyler: I wish you would have asked, "Name a game in which kingmaking works very well for the enjoyment of all players."
Dave: I hate committing to "always", but... yes.
DenverWolf: No
isolated: Not really.
jpact: No.
arkibet: No - some games require negotiation
gnomehome: No
GeminiWeb: No
UhhhClem: Pretty much.
PghArch: Not necessarily. It is a bad quality in many games though.
Aelf: It depends on the mood of the group. Definitely not for players who take the hobby too seriously
Chris__M: No
Wernazuma: not necessarily
Johan: Depends on if it is part of the game
shippert: No, but usually.
GuyHill: often it is
fsumarc: not in diplomacy
Blackwind: not always
Bluenose: No. Games are for fun.
yossarians: no
Snooze_uk: Kingmaking for no reason is always bad. Kingmaking to improve your own position is always acceptable.
RichardT: No
mfrederick: Yes. At least I can't think of a case where it's not.
fellonmyhead: No
puffinge: usually not always
StormKnight: Not always, but usually.
DangerMouse: No
sumo: Yes.
djlg: No
chaddyboy_2000: No.
BobDodgerBlue: Not always
Eric Haas: No
Vince Londini: Not if you really want the game to end!
CheetohFingers: no
rickkeuler: Usually, unless its not obvious, then maybe that's not true kingmaking though...
Ludocrazy: Sometimes it's fun
jaredh: Yes.
netfilterz: no
louiseh: Not if it's light enough that no-one worries too much about the winner.
Gomez: No
Shakar: It depend on the game.
CDRodeffer: No
ejmowrer: Not always.
Pseudo Nymh: Yes. Unquestionably.
snoozefest: yes
queequeg: not necessarily
Flyspeck23: No.
jttm: Not if you play Succession: Intrigue
Mike A: It makes it all that much sweeter when you win anyway despite the attempts to help someone overthrow you. Oh yeah.
CortexBomb: Yes. It is by its nature arbitrary and unpredictable, two things which always drive me crazy
hakko504: Not ALWAYS, but most of the time.
ynnen: No, as long as there's a means to in-game punish the King or the Kingmaker
skelebone: Yes, when it always picks the same king, and one has little chance to affect it.
Debate: yes
toucana: no.its natural
shumyum: no
ValJor: Yes, I hate it both ways (either if I'm the one kingmaking or being kingmade).