Occasionally, near the end of an otherwise uneventful game, I'll
find myself explaining to my fellow players that the idea of "Second Place"
is a myth, not unlike Santa Claus or the idea that Jay Leno is a funny
guy. "You see," I calmly explain, "at the end of this game, there
will be two types of people: winners and loser. The winner
will be the person who comes in first Place; the losers will be everyone
else. Pick one of the two -- there are no other options."
Well, I'm usually a smidgen more tactful than that, but not by much. This particular lecture typically follows a move by a fellow player that defies, in my mind, all logic of game playing - a move that's almost always because the person in question is playing for Place instead of Position. It's a mistake that is as common as it is, to me, infuriating.
Here's a recent (admittedly exaggerated) example. Whilst playing Settlers of Catan, Player A had amassed 9 points, Players B and C had 7 points, and the Player D had 5. Everyone knew that Player A was hoping to build a city on his next turn and win, but was lacking ore; for this reason, he had been suffering under a trade embargo for several turns. Suddenly, Player D offered Player A an ore for a wood and a brick, a deal he greedily accepted. After making this trade, Player D then build two roads, thereby taking the "Longest Road" card from Player C and reversing their scores: he now had 7 points, while Player C was reduced to 5. Player A was next, and he built a city with his newly acquired ore to win the game. When asked why he had opted to break the embargo, Player D simply said, "well, A was going to win anyhow, and this way I didn't come in last Place."
Poor benighted Player D: playing for Place rather than Position. Most casual game players think of the two as being synonymous: the Place you are in, at the end of the game, reflects how close you came to winning. But I see a fundamental difference between the two. In my mind, there is not a spectrum of loss: you either win or you don't. Furthermore, I believe that it's every player's duty to play before Position (rather than Place) even if he believes he doesn't have a realistic chance of winning the game. Using this a guide, the Player D would do everything in his power to prolong the game, in the hopes of a reversal of fortune. Trading with Player A, however, would certainly be taboo.
Let's look at another example, this one more abstract. Imagine
a zero-sum game in which players only get points by taking them from someone
else. It's Player A's turn, and it's the last turn of the game. The
scores are: A - 20, B - 22, C - 25, D - 27. A only has one
option available: take three points from another player and claim
them as his own.
A cannot win. If he is playing for Position (as I am advocating)
he should take the three points from D. Finals scores: A --
23, B - 22, C - 25, D - 24. C wins and A comes in third place, but
is only 3 points from a winning score. If A were playing for Place,
on the other hand, he would take the points from C; final scores:
A - 23, B - 22, C - 22 and D - 27. In this instance A comes in second
place, but is 5 points from a winning score - an inferior position than
he had in the first case.
This is obviously a very simplified (and poorly designed) game, but
the situation shows up in the game Manhattan quite often. Do you
cap (i.e. steal) the leader's building and improve your position, or cap
a building belonging to the person in a place just ahead of you and improve
your Place? The problem becomes even trickier when taking
from the leader gives you fewer points than taking from someone else who
is trailing. Many people would argue that more points is always the
better alternative, but I believe that the ethics of point-stealing are
completely situation.
While playing for Position applies to most games on the market, it doesn't apply to all. In some games, playing for Place is completely appropriate - in fact, it's the entire point! Take "The Great Dalmuti" (nee "Presidents") for example. In this enjoyable party game, people change seats each turn to reflect their current rank: the person who gets rid of all his cards first is the Great Dalmuti, the second place person becomes the Lesser Dalmuti, the penultimate person to go out is the Greater Peon and the final person is the Lesser Peon. No one is ever crowned the "Winner" of Great Dalmuti - you just play, constantly changing places, until you're tired of the game. A person playing for Position in the Great Dalmuti would be just as erroneous as someone playing for Place in Acquire.
Another objective that crops up in some games (specifically casino games) is playing for Accumulation. In Poker or Craps, for example, your object should be to amass as much money as possible, without regard to how the others are faring. A more recent example would be the Lord of the Rings game, where everyone is on the same team, striving to win the game with the most points possible.
A fourth way people may play a game is simply for Fun. In this scenario, nothing really matters except that the group has a good time. Most role-playing games fall in this category (although some players may be more concerned with the Accumulation of "gold" or "experience points"). A popular game in my game group is "Once Upon a Time", but we have found that we only enjoy the game is we play it for Fun rather than for Position. Those who play for Position typically tell boring, terse stories as they string together the shortest sentences possible ("The troll ran. Then he saw a frog. The frog spoke.") in an attempt to use their own cards without using any superfluous verbiage that would allow someone else to cut in. This is certainly the optimal way to play if you want to win, but sucks the life right out of the game.
The important thing isn't so much how players play a game, so long as they are all playing the same way. Before a round of "Once Upon a Time", for example, I make a point of saying, "Tell a wordy story - the point of this game is to have Fun and tell a good tale, not necessarily to win." When playing, say, Modern Art, you may not think you need to issue such a warning to players, but a single person making outrageously high bids "just for fun" can ruin the game if everyone else is jockeying for Position. And for crying out loud, unless the game specifically rewards players based on the Place they come in, identify those who still believe in Myth of Second Place and shatter this illusion once and for all. The fewer people who are suffering from this delusion, the happier I'll be.