Game theory games

[tromik]

I've been playing a lot of Risk and Catan with my friends recently, and I love the social aspects of the games: the alliances in Risk and the trading in Catan. Technically alliances aren't actually a part of Risk, but I couldn't imagine playing without them.

I was reading an article in Wired about Nixon and Kissinger's Operation Giant Lance, which was an insane scheme to make the Russians think Nixon had lost his mind by flying nukes over Russian airspace. The article explains how game theory was used, which is basically what makes these games so great in my opinion.

So, I know there's Defcon, but are there any other games have this sort of mechanic, whether it's built-in or not? I'm guessing there are more board games like this than video games, I'm fine with reproductions.

[metta]

I'm not sure what mechanic you're referring too (I guess the social interaction), but since my game group loves Catan, I thought I'd suggest two other titles.

Our main group is small (four players) and is not into direct conflict. Our games of Catan are usually very civil (unless someone upsets another player) until quite late in the game. Usually, a player needs to have eight points before trade embargoes start popping up.

So, with that in mind, here are two other games that we enjoy:

Shadows Over Camelot. This is co-operative, but you can also have one player be a traitor, acting in secret to screw with the goals of the group. You don't have to play with a traitor, but we like it. Great fun!
Blue Moon City. This is also co-operative, and has some terrific mechanics. It also takes less time to play than either Shadows or Catan.

Goodluckhavefun!

(p.s. I assume you were writing about the board game versions, yeah?)

[Ex-S Woo]

By game theory I'm guessing he's referring to the economic definition (well, applied math ala http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory) and not real game mechanics :)

[tromik]

Sorry, yes, I meant the game theory mechanic. Maybe I should have linked to its Wikipedia page.

Here's the gist of it:

Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual's success in making choices depends on the choices of others.

And an example from the Wired article:

You're standing at the edge of a cliff, chained by the ankle to another person. As soon as one of you cries uncle, you'll both be released, and whoever remained silent will get a large prize. What do you do? You can't push the other person off the cliff, because then you'll die, too. But you can dance and walk closer and closer to the edge. If you're willing to show that you'll brave a certain amount of risk, your partner may concede — and you might win the prize. But if you convince your adversary that you're crazy and liable to hop off in any direction at any moment, he'll probably cry uncle immediately.

I appreciate the board game suggestions, like I said, I assume there are more board games that use this mechanic, but I'm looking for video games. Or at least PC/console reproductions of board games.

[metta]

Ah, gotcha. Oh well :)

[lesslucid]

There's a certain element of this in Jason Rohrer's Cultivation, although it might not be quite the same thing. Basically I think the idea is that if you let people walk all over you all the time, you end up with no land to grow food on, but if you step into every territory conflict that comes up, you end up destroying all the land and then everyone dies. I think for a game design perspective the fact that the game almost always ends with "everyone dies" is a bit of a flaw, but it's still a genuinely interesting and different design that relates well to the stuff you're talking about.

http://cultivation.sourceforge.net/

[Ex-S Woo]

Hmm...actually, aren't you really asking if games incorporate a form of the Prisoner's Dilemma as a game mechanic?

Game theory could be applied to pretty much any game where the result isn't pre-determined mathematically (ie. Checkers/Tic-Tac-Toe will always end in a draw so it's out).

[malkav11]

Just to point out - Blue Moon City isn't cooperative. I mean, I guess fluffwise you're "cooperating" in the reconstruction of the city, but one player wins and everyone else loses.

[tromik]

Hmm...actually, aren't you really asking if games incorporate a form of the Prisoner's Dilemma as a game mechanic?

Game theory could be applied to pretty much any game where the result isn't pre-determined mathematically (ie. Checkers/Tic-Tac-Toe will always end in a draw so it's out).

Prisoner's Dilemma - yes! See, I'm looking for something exactly like that in a game form, I mean the trading in Catan doesn't sound anything like that really, but there is that "I will have to possibly help him win in order to win."

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Prisoner's Dilemma is central to any game with alliance mechanics. The game theory concept there is that if two people make individually optimal choices to screw each other, both will face a suboptimal outcome; both would have been better off maintaining their agreement. Over the course of a game, you'll have lots of little PD moments, which means that the central issue becomes when you "defect" and how often you can do it without losing the game altogether. (The problem of iteration in Game Theory is a study unto itself. For PD, it was determined that Tit-for-Tat was the most optimal strategy against other strategies.)

Diplomacy has some Prisoner's Dilemma stuff going on, but since it's a game that is so reliant on human interaction (as a lot game theory is) it hasn't translated well to the computer. Most true game theory stuff doesn't work well for the same reasons; GT is more description of the problems in analyzing potential payoffs than really prescription for game mechanics. Taking the human stuff out of it weakens it quite a bit.

Troy

[lesslucid]

If you're looking for boardgames, Reiner Knizia's "Quo Vadis" is a very clean and simple, "should I be nice or not?" kind of negotiation game. In order for anyone to progress, they need to help each other. But be too helpful and you're just helping someone else to beat you. I've only played it a couple of times but it's certainly interesting, at least conceptually. ;)

[ravenight]

PBEM Diplomacy games are great for alliance-based strategy games using a computer. Most multiplayer computer games, though, tend to enforce teams in order to prevent a priori alliances (two buddies on the phone cooperating the whole time) from ruining the balance.

[stormslayer]

galcon has a lot of the essence of many game theoretic games in it, so check it out. Check out the class of games named "colonel blotto" -- there's a fair bit of research on this and the best academic paper is by scott page at michigan.

Kissinger was also a big diplomacy fan, and you can play online games.

Sadly, game theory has very little to say about games like diplomacy (for a variety of reasons) or most other games. A lot of time is spent on Prisoner's Dilemma (and it's iterated form) b/c it's 2 person and symmetric (and easy); most of the people who try to use game theory to analyze situations in the real world are making gross analogies.

sd

[Aeon221]

As reining Diplomacy champ of Qt3, I find it vaguely unsettling that an evil buttmunch like Kissinger was a fan of the game.

[spiffy]

Conquest of the Empire ( http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/97 ) has a really cool alliance mechanic. At the beginning of every year, you have to actually bid (and spend hard earned money) on who you want as your allies (depending on their threat to you, their strategic position, armies move quicker through allied territory etc). Then, for the next (3? 4?) turns, they are your allies and you cannot attack them. We had six players, 3 on allied on each side, and it was quite a fiasco when the bidding time came around. The shift in allies could create crazy reversals, and it was awesome to plan cooperative short term strategies, trying to get as much done in a year as you could with your allies, but making sure no ally got too powerful in case they switched alliances later.

The game had a very cool mixed force combat mechanic too, where it as best to attack with a mix of units (soldiers, cavalry, catapults, ships) even though of course, some units cost much more (ships), or were ineffective all alone (catapults).

It was NOT a short game to play though. I think our session lasted 8-10 hours.

[ravenight]

As reining Diplomacy champ of Qt3, I find it vaguely unsettling that an evil buttmunch like Kissinger was a fan of the game.

Kennedy liked it too...

Also, a lot of two-player games have strong game theoretic aspects to them (lost cities, for instance, is pretty cool for that). However, the question is whether you are looking for specifically madman theory-style mechanics (that is, games in which you can influence opposing strategy by misrepresenting your own strategy) or just competitive interactions that can be analyzed?

[tromik]

Kennedy liked it too...

Also, a lot of two-player games have strong game theoretic aspects to them (lost cities, for instance, is pretty cool for that). However, the question is whether you are looking for specifically madman theory-style mechanics (that is, games in which you can influence opposing strategy by misrepresenting your own strategy) or just competitive interactions that can be analyzed?

I'm not looking for anything that specific.

Is Diplomacy considered a hard game? Some of the friends I play with aren't big gamers, and aside from Catan, I don't think any of them have played a non-Parker Brothers boardgame.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Is Diplomacy considered a hard game? Some of the friends I play with aren't big gamers, and aside from Catan, I don't think any of them have played a non-Parker Brothers boardgame.

The movement rules can be a little confusing to newcomers, but they aren't really complicated since they are a matter of counting.

The game isn't hard, but it is very time consuming since most of a turn is taken up with trying to privately persuade people that you really aren't trying to screw them over. It's a great game because it is so simple, with no real luck involved and people skills being as important as understanding the mechanics.

Troy

[lesslucid]

Diplomacy is also famous as a game which destroys friendships, marriages, &c. One of the core elements of diplomacy is that you lie to people and betray them. Some people are able to readily appreciate and understand the concept that "I was lying to you within the context of the game, a game which is built on the assumption that players must sometimes lie in order to win". Others find that they dislike being lied to enough that it overrides any sense of boundaries about what is "in the game". Personally, I would not recommend playing it with people who are "not big gamers".

If Catan's as far as they've gone beyond Parker bros territory, why not try Carcassone with them? Carcassone has as its basic mechanic a tile-laying system which at first seems to be just about luck. But the deeper strategy in the game is about deciding whether or not to give advantages to other players and yourself or smaller advantages just to yourself or to go out of your way to wreck other people's stuff. For non-gamers, I would rate it as being even more accessible than Catan is.

[wildpokerman]

Illuminatti caused a few rousing almost fistfights with my friends back in the day.

Game theory games get old pretty fast though because it usually just exposes the social bonds that are already there outside the game.

[Aeon221]

Kennedy liked it too...

Also, a lot of two-player games have strong game theoretic aspects to them (lost cities, for instance, is pretty cool for that). However, the question is whether you are looking for specifically madman theory-style mechanics (that is, games in which you can influence opposing strategy by misrepresenting your own strategy) or just competitive interactions that can be analyzed?

Great, another maniac who nearly ended the earth loved it.

[tromik]

Diplomacy is also famous as a game which destroys friendships, marriages, &c. One of the core elements of diplomacy is that you lie to people and betray them. Some people are able to readily appreciate and understand the concept that "I was lying to you within the context of the game, a game which is built on the assumption that players must sometimes lie in order to win". Others find that they dislike being lied to enough that it overrides any sense of boundaries about what is "in the game". Personally, I would not recommend playing it with people who are "not big gamers".

We already get into pretty heated fights in these games. But nothing like Cheat. God I love that stupid game.

If Catan's as far as they've gone beyond Parker bros territory, why not try Carcassone with them? Carcassone has as its basic mechanic a tile-laying system which at first seems to be just about luck. But the deeper strategy in the game is about deciding whether or not to give advantages to other players and yourself or smaller advantages just to yourself or to go out of your way to wreck other people's stuff. For non-gamers, I would rate it as being even more accessible than Catan is.

I do like Carcassone, but I've only played the XBLA version. It does have help them/screw them to help myself thing, but it doesn't seem to have that social "thing" I'm looking for. I dunno, when you play the real game do people try to tell others where they should place their tiles? I could see that being interesting, maybe. That doesn't come across in the XBLA version.

[JonC]

I think you should give Bohnanza a try. As well as being an excellent game, it presents a lot of opportunities for choosing whether to help yourself *and* someone else or screw the both of you. It's basically a trading game that forces you to trade, resulting in some classic situations where people refuse to trade with you because you are ahead and they don't want you to get further ahead, even if it would advantage them to do so.

It's also funny how angry people can get about bean farming. :-)

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/11

[lesslucid]

I do like Carcassone, but I've only played the XBLA version. It does have help them/screw them to help myself thing, but it doesn't seem to have that social "thing" I'm looking for. I dunno, when you play the real game do people try to tell others where they should place their tiles? I could see that being interesting, maybe. That doesn't come across in the XBLA version.

The rules stipulate that when you draw a tile, you should show it to the other players and discuss where it should go. Often in games I've played it seems like this doesn't really happen, maybe because people are a bit shy about telling the active player what they should be doing? Still, there can be quite a bit of negotiation that goes on when someone starts trying to "steal" another person's city...

[tromik]

The rules stipulate that when you draw a tile, you should show it to the other players and discuss where it should go. Often in games I've played it seems like this doesn't really happen, maybe because people are a bit shy about telling the active player what they should be doing? Still, there can be quite a bit of negotiation that goes on when someone starts trying to "steal" another person's city...

Okay, now that sounds pretty interesting interesting. Thanks!

[Foxstab]

Risk is awesome.
But I can't find anyone who will sit down and play with me (and it's best to play with 3-6 players).
The preparations phase alone turns many people off, then comes the game rules.
Chess alone scares most people from playing with me, so Risk...

[ravenight]

Illuminati is a great game for the social dynamic if you are looking for a kitchen-table game...it is fairly easy to understand and built thoroughly around the dynamic of shifting coalitions. Unlike something like Munchkin, it also doesn't devolve into "hold everything back for the last turn", since there are multiple potential goals and it is possible to build unstoppable power if you are left alone.

[malkav11]

A classic game would be Cosmic Encounter, which plays fairly quickly, has very simple basic rules (because the key mechanic is that everyone receives an "alien power" that lets them break those rules in a specific way), and is heavily oriented to temporary, shifting alliances. There's an online version playable here, although I've never messed with it. I find that the game isn't twisted enough for me with the default one power per player, and use a house rule when I play that each player draws three powers, keeps one, passes one to the left (or right, if you prefer), and dumps the third.

[tromik]

Thanks guy, I'll look into some of these.

By the way, are there any card games (regular or CCG) that have these types of elements? I'm a huge fan of the game Cheat, which I'll admit has nothing to do with the Prisoner's Dilemma, but there is some game their stuff in there.

Also, I'm not usually a fan of boardgame variants, I always prefer the originals (also because they're usually cheaper), but this version of Risk looks incredible. Too bad it was so limited, especially since the redesigned version they're bringing in doesn't look like a huge upgrade, and the board itself is a bit ugly.

I could probably get a lot of my non-board gaming friends to play this just because it looks like it has something to do with CoD4 or Tom Clancy.

[magnet]

By the way, are there any card games (regular or CCG) that have these types of elements?

Maybe you should check out Cutthroat Caverns, a recently released card game. The premise is that the players are allies in a dungeon crawl, facing a succession of randomly-selected monsters. The goal is to have the most prestige after the last monster is killed. The trick is that the only player who scores prestige is the one who actually lands the killing blow ...

Each round, you play a card that specifies the amount of damage you do, and naturally you'll want to save up your powerful cards until the monster is near death. But if everyone does the same, the monster will never die. In fact, the monster might well end up eliminating some of the party members. Now, you might think it's an advantage to have a little less competition, but there's another twist: the monster difficulty level is fixed according to the number of players at the start of the the game. So, if you start with a party of six and lose half of them in the first encounter, the three remaining adventurers will have to face a string of monsters that are geared toward a much larger party. And if everyone is eliminated, then nobody wins.

There are a bunch of other tactical decisions to make, as well. For example, you could score some Alchemist's Fire, which does substantial damage to monsters but also incurs splash damage on all the other players (oops! it was worth it, guys!). You can divert monster attacks to other players with "My hero!" cards (the card reminds you to thank them for their selfless sacrifice). You can steal healing potions from other players. You could even use healing potions on other players - which heals the other player but gives you a big prestige bonus (yes, players can refuse to be healed!) And so on... Overall, it's reminiscent of Munchkin but much more tightly focused on the continual tradeoffs between screwing your allies and surviving the game.