Most board games have a clearly-defined winner at the end; whether it’s a first-past-the-post mechanic or a complex tally of victory points, somebody walks away from the table a winner. Of course, winning isn’t everything, and sometimes victory comes at a cost.
There’s nothing wrong with trying to win a game you’re playing - that is the objective, after all - but a few games can leave winners feeling hollow, questioning if their fleeting moment of glory was worthwhile. If you play these board games, be warned; sometimes it’s better to come in second.
It’s Co-Op Until It Isn’t
Dead Of Winteris a brilliant game from the height of the “zombie renaissance” fueled by properties likeThe Walking DeadandThe Last Of Us.As the members of a beleaguered colony of survivors, the players all have to work together for the greater good… while secretly advancing their own agendas, which may or may not run counter to the group’s survival.
Depending on your character’s personal goals, winning in Dead Of Winter could meanletting the world burn down around you, remorselessly feeding your friends to the shambling hordes. Worst of all, you have toplay nice until it’s time to betray everyoneif you want to have a shot at pulling it off.
Risk Legacy (2011)
Nuclear Proliferation
What happens when you start winning in a game of Risk? If the other players at the table are smart, theyform a coalition against youuntil somebody else proves to be a bigger threat. If you end up winning regardless, you’re guaranteed to start the next game with a target on your back like Napoleon returning from exile.
Risk Legacywas innovative in a lot of ways, both in terms of how it changed board games and its approach to the normally-grindy gameplay of traditional Risk, but one thing it didn’t do was keep the front-runner from becoming public enemy number one. If anything, it made the problem worse; for every game you win on a Risk Legacy board, youstart all subsequent games with a nuclear missile in your arsenal, which you can use to swing battles in your favor.Winning games makes you even more dangerous in future matches, and thus more likely to attract the ire of your fellow players.
HeroQuest (1989)
The Game That Spawned A Generation Of Adverserial DMs
Swords-and-sorcery classicHeroQuestwas many players' introduction to tabletop roleplaying in the early ’90s, albeit in a simplified form. This collaboration between Milton Bradley and Games Workshop was focused solely on dungeon-crawling exploration and merciless monster-slaying, all under the watchful gaze of the game master in the role of Zargon the Chaos Sorcerer.
Whether it was intentional or not, HeroQuest seemed to encourage the Zargon player to really try to take the heroes down. If that’s the way you want to play, and everybody’s fine with it, then hey, it’s your game, but it’s a poor precedent to set when the time comes to move onto D&D or other proper TTRPGs. Remember, it’s supposed to be the playersandthe DM, not the playersversusthe DM.
Settlers Of Catan (1995)
Beware The Sheep Embargo
Winning atCatanhas many of the same pitfalls as winning at Risk; the other players will gang up on you, usually doing their best to keep you from getting the resources that you need. This enmity can spill over into future games, which is hardly fair or fun.
However, Catan also brings its own problems to the table, namely a skill and enthusiasm gap. Generally, you want everybody in the group to be at around the same level of enthusiasm for the game to be enjoyable; a casual table will have fun rolling dice and trading resources, while a more serious, competitive group can get into the minutiae of strategies that have made Catan a classic for decades. If there’s a serious player at an otherwise casual table, then they’ll probably win in a way that isn’t fun for anybody, themselves included.
Smash Up (2012)
It’ll Be Fun, They Said
Then again, if you actually like running roughshod over first-time players,you probably bring Smash Up to every board game night.Lighthearted, appealing, and only moderately balanced, Smash Up isthe game that mid-tier board game players use to gleefully stomp casuals. It’s billed as being easy to pick up and play, but if you know the combos, you’re in a league above those who don’t.
Like Catan, Smash Up is fine if everybody is on the same level, butbeware of sharks at the table, looking for an easy win. Don’t be the shark.
Tales Of The Arabian Nights (1985)
Who Said Anything About Winning?
As my colleagueJames Kennedynoted, if you approachTales Of The Arabian Nightslike a traditional board game, expecting to win, you’re not going to have a good time. This ultra-casual, cozy adventure is a collaborative storytelling exercise, and that’s where it excels.
Technically, there is a way to win in the rules, byamassing a sufficient number of Story Pointson your adventure, then returning to Baghdad at the center of the board to tell the tale. I’ve played the game maybe a dozen times, and I’m pretty sure we’ve always ignored that rule and just played until we were satisfied or until somebody had to leave. If you’re rushing your score up and then racing back to Baghdad to win, youmissed the point of the game entirely, and also probably denied the other players a chance to see what other cool shenanigans they could get up to.
Diplomacy (1959)
Congratulations On The Win, You Backstabbing Monster
One of the best pieces of board game advice I’ve ever gotten was"never play Diplomacy with friends.“Play it at conventions, with people you’re never going to see again. Play it with people you don’t know very well. Heck, play it with your enemies. Just don’t play Diplomacy with friends, becauseif you win, there’s a good chance they won’t be your friends anymore.
Diplomacy has all the coalition-building and temporary alliances of Risk, but with none of the randomness or dice rolls. A single betrayal at a critical time is all that it takes to lay an empire low, or reduce a player to irrelevancy for the rest of the game’sfour to six hour playtime. You don’t win a game of Diplomacy by being nice, andyour crimes will haunt you in every game you play,not just this one, for the rest of your days.
Chess (c. 700 CE)
Easy There, Kasparov
Somewhere along the line in our cultural zeitgeist, we decided thatbeing good at chess made you a genius.Perhaps due to its centuries-old status as the game of kings, chess carries an air of superiority. Your experience may vary, but there seems to be something about chess that goes to players' heads once they’ve won enough games.
Learning a new skill is an admirable goal, as is climbing the Elo rankings if that suits your fancy, so there’s nothing wrong with wanting to get good at chess. It just doesn’t make you smarter or better than everyone else.It just means you’re good at chess.
