13th of February 2025
Recently while playtesting The VOW, I had a friend ask me: “why does it matter if someone wins?” To answer that question requires a quick delve into the intention behind the game and its inspirations.
When I set out to make The VOW, I was inspired primarily by board games. In particular, games like Dune, Twilight Imperium, Diplomacy, and Smallworld. What these games have in common is strong tactical and political gameplay. However, I always felt that there was opportunity to push the politics of these games even further. The more I thought about it though, the more it became clear that this couldn’t happen in a traditional board game. Instead, the system needed to be flexible, able to handle the strange deals and unexpected politicking that can occur in the real world. (E.g., Who would have thought we would be discussing whether the Gulf of America should be a thing)
Thus, the only system that could ever handle this type of politics is a Role Playing Game. A GM is infinitely more flexible and adaptable than a ruleset or even an AI is capable of being.
Although there are systems within the game that encourage competition, the moment playtesting began I very quickly realised that players were naturally gravitating towards co-operation. Players were generally positive towards one another and worked together where they were able to.
So what’s the difference? Why are competitive players in a board game so positive towards one another in this RPG?
I suspect there are a couple of things at play here. The first is that I have been offering players the ability to win together. This immediately encourages cooperation between players, compared to a game like Twilight Imperium, where only one player can win. Secondly, a significant portion of the game involves speaking to the GM and convincing them to give you benefits in response for the actions that you’re taking. It’s a subjective system, and therefore not necessarily one that is perfectly balanced, all of the time. Players are rewarded for role play (as they should be), but not necessarily in a perfectly fair way. I think that this may disincentivise players from playing to win because there is not a sense of mastery that can be found in other games. Players can’t necessarily perfect their knowledge of the system, because the system is just as much created by the players over the course of play as it is something that exists as written explicitly in the game rules. Thirdly, I have so far only playtested with new players, some of whom were strangers to one another. I suspect that new players are far more friendly and forgiving because they don’t yet understand the rules and what they can get away with. My friends in our first couple games of Eclipse encapsulate this well. In our first playthrough, we sat there in a cold war doing nothing until the final turn, becuase we didn’t yet understand when players were vulnerable and when there was an opportunity to be taken. In addition, I suspect new players who are strangers are even more forgiving, because they don’t know the other players and don’t want to upset their feelings by attacking one another.
I have some plans in the works to further test the system with returning players and some tweaks that may be made to specify benefits so that they are more intentional/consistent. We shall see whether these changes make the game feel more competitive.
Although this brings us back to the question of “What does it matter if someone wins?”
Despite settng out to make an explicitly competitive game, some players have been less certain that it needs to have a winner or be a competitive game at all. This is something I may need to explore, but for now I am continuing with the intention of keeping the game competitive. At least in part, this is so that players are encouraged to be more thoughtful and intentional with their politics. I think there is more reason to be careful and engaged in dealmaking if there are more dire consequences for things going wrong. In addition, I think it helps play into the ongoing narrative and meta-narrative of a potential campaign. If a player has consistently been winning previous sessions, others may be increasingly incentivised to work together against them. But then the question becomes which of those new players is likely to win – will one betray the others for a shot at victory?
“What does it matter if someone wins?” is a question I may have to revisit in the future, but for now, its back to playtesting!
