Ocasta

Last weekend was Baycon, one of only a small number of organised game events I go to. Ever since our local weekly game sessions were transformed into play test sessions for Reiner Knizia these are my main opportunities to play the popular games of the moment.

One of the games I played over the weekend was Power Grid. A game that many hardcore gamers rate highly. There are a couple of elements in this game that led me to think about what I refer to as a negative decisions. There are actions in the game that if I take them (for my own reasons) the impact is of greater benefit to another player. In Power Grid it could be buying a power plant that makes another, highly desirable plant available.

These decisions usually lead to at least one player being quite vocal about why you shouldn't do it. Generally these outbursts are motivated by self-interest. A rival is being given an unearned boost. You are supposed to take the option that is less good for your own position because it is for the greater good. Unfortunately nobody else has to make this decision. That doesn't seem like good design to me and is by no means limited to Power Grid.

It doesn't have to be this way. Find a way that allows players to avoid having to choose between two bad decisions, enable positive alternatives. It is even possible for a design to embrace the conflict of self-interest and the greater good, for instance: Republic of Rome.