Some board games have different design “problems”. Either they last too long, are too complicated, or got an unbalance. “The King Maker Problem” can be far subtler. Also, the opinions about this “problem” diverge. Kingmaking happens when a player who, ostensibly, has no chance at winning affects who ultimately wins the game by choosing who (or who not) to attack, block, inhibit or "help". I would note that a player’s actions, ANY action, before he/she ostensibly has no chance of winning, is not considered kingmaking. In some games even an early chain of actions can destroy the winchances, both for the player executing them, and the player affected by the actions. But this is a different design problem. I would also like to add that some games got something called “The Runaway Leader” problem. Thus, actions by a player can give an opponent an uncatchable lead. If the player ostensibly is not in a losing position before he/she performs the “mistake”, then it’s not related to “The Kingmaker Problem” either.

In a 2-player game there is a straightforward kind of outcome; either a match ends in a win, draw or loss. Both sides want to win and knows how the starting order and mechanics affect the outcome. It’s a “clean” level of competition. Several “modern” board games with 3 or more players got "open scoring" and mechanics to stop "Runaway" leaders. This will often create kingmaking issues during a match. For some people this is considered a negative player experience, since it eliminates agency from those in the lead. In other words, their skills in the game ultimately didn’t have much of a say in who won. Political maneuvering is of course part of the skills required to win in many multiplayer board games. However, these are the main problems I have with kingmaking:

• When a game pretends to emphasize on smart strategic and tactical decisions (building, placing, moving and/or trading++), but is instead more about political maneuvering and “WHO knows/likes WHO best”. The famous Settlers of Catan is one of the best examples of such a game
• When a game with kingmaker issues doesn’t provide the players optional rules to play the game with no, or reduced, kingmaking

From my experience, also players suddenly in a losing position really feels the dilemma. Especially if they understand the consequences of their actions. Thus, kingmaking can be “double bad”! Generally, I think a player should always try to improve his/her position throughout a game, and this also goes for the end game. However, if the player obstensibly can't improve his/her position, he/she should try NOT to interfere directly or indirectly with "the runner ups" for the win. If the game is really about political maneuvering, he/she should of course be "free" to support the player he/she thinks has done the best "job".

Some games has rules or mechanics to handle the kingmaker problem:

• The players no longer able to win can't make moves in the final stage
• Player elimination
• Hidden, or partly hidden scoring (It's not easy to track who is really in the lead, and how much)
• The options to attack/inhibit, or help other players, are limited. Or gets more limited vs the end

If a game has kingmaker issues, I advice people to talk about it before the game starts. And discuss how to "handle" it. Another option is to agree on some "house rules" that reduces the problem. If all the players are "happy go lucky" and don't care about winning, and "just" playing a game - Forget my advice!

Return to About Games