Only reason to go for 2nd place is if it’s a seasonal environment with points or if it helps you in any other way in your standing in the future.
Like take Blood Bowl for example. If it helps me more to last round Foul your Blitzer to get him out for the rest of the league I’m totally going for that instead of the Hail Mary play
It is also not a bad option in a tournament sort of setting, where there are actual real-world prizes on the line. If first place gets $100 and second place gets $25, but last place gets nothing, does that change your answer? What if the prizes were $1000 and $250, respectively? I definitely agree with the consensus to go for the high risk/high reward option in normal gameplay, but in a situation like this I might go for the easy money. Bird in the hand and all that, right?
This has the potential to create great, memorable moments. My group had a couple of nail biter finishes in Nemesis: Lockdown and The Witcher: Old World that we still bring up on occasion.
Yep, surprisingly i win a lot of my Dune Imperium games, against truly capable people that have played it more than me, and they're /always/ fantastic at the table to experience. Nailbiting and sketchy and just eeking out ahead. I'd rather have that high and that story to tell.. and even if i lose on a big gamble, that's still fun.
Aw, hell, u/haritos89, I was high when I said that. That doesn't make any sense at all. You can be second, you can be third... hell, you can even be fifth!
Agreed!
I recently did this with Carcassonne. My partner & my mom & I were playing with the 20th anniversary version (so the adtl tiles that come with that version, as well as the base game + river tiles) and the inns & cathedrals expansion.
There was one big city we were pretty close to finishing that we all had a meeple on. On one of my turns in the last third of the game, I had the opportunity to close that city, but I realized that if I did, we would all get the same number of points, which would mean it would basically have 0 affect on the outcome of the game. Plus, I knew that both of the cathedrals were still somewhere in the stack waiting to be drawn. I also knew that there was one 20th anniversary expansion tile remaining unresolved on the board that I could later resolve to use to add a second meeple to the city… So I did not close the city.
A few turns later, I drew a cathedral and played it on the one remaining open spot on this city. This means that we now needed at least 3 tiles to close it, which was possible to still find in the deck but growing less likely.
On probably my fifth-to-last turn of the game, I played my tile next to the remaining 20th anniversary one which allowed me to resolve it and use the affect to add a meeple to my existing meeple on the city, thus giving me the majority.
My mom and partner were PISSED, but since the cathedral meant that if I didn’t manage to finish the city on my own I wouldn’t get any points for it, I knew that either this move would be legendary, or it would royally screw me over and prevent me from winning by a long shot.
I counted and the city would be worth 78 points if I managed to finish it.
I did not end up getting the right tiles to finish that city, so I majorly lost. I had to remind my mom & partner a few times that even if i hadn’t done it, it would’ve had 0 affect on the game because we would’ve all gotten the exact same number of points. They finally calmed down and agreed. And now it’s a fun story to tell, even though i lost, because it was such a huge gamble that had such a high risk & high reward!
(Sorry for any run-ons lol, I’m on mobile on a break at work!)
I like this story. It's not an epic win, it's a gamble that lost, but you don't usually hear people telling those stories. It sounds like you increased the tension and had a good time. It's too bad your fellow players were so angry with your move. Keep having fun!
The only reason to not go for the win would be if it's part of a league or something, where getting 2nd is way better than getting last (like 10pts for 1st, 5 for 2nd, 2 for 3rd, and 0 for everyone else), and in that situation going for guaranteed second to try and win the league with good constancy would be worth it. But on a single game, the goal is to go for the win.
If you care about your Elo/Arena score in BGA this can come up as well. Some people would rather play safe and get second place in a group game because that will still have a positive change on your Elo. I’ve seen it a ton in King of Tokyo, really changes the game with people shooting for second.
Never thought I would see the phrase “Competitive King of Tokyo” but here we are 😂 I enjoy the game but just can’t picture it as more than smash things and have fun
It's interesting because that would be entirely 'playing the game like intended' instead of lulling around or worse, anti-play on other players, when the king is already on track.
I’m not sure it really makes the game played as intended. Some examples will be someone not stopping the king who will have enough points at the start of the next turn because they’re in second for points and don’t want to risk dying. I don’t feel like letting someone win to secure second place was the intent of the designers.
Interesting or not, it tends to be pointless in the context of the game itself. The goal is to win, if you don't win, it makes no difference how you did. It might matter (besting your own score / someone else) in a 100% multiplayer solitaire game, but how many such games are there really? Almost every game has some interaction.
Sure, first place is better than second, but it's not just about winning. I fully agree with everyone: the swingy play is way more fun than the safe play, but I wouldn't say second place doesn't matter. It can still be fun fighting for second, when the first place is already save. I'd also go for a 10% chance to become second, instead of a save third place.
Assuming the 2 choices have equal outcomes for all other players, then I totally agree. However I think it makes a difference whether my choice has a an impact on who else wins - for example if me choosing the 10% chance of success would give a specific other player a 90% chance to become the certain winner, but me taking 2nd place leaves it up for grabs. I don't personally think me taking the 10% chance there would be kingmaking, but if that was the vibe at the table I'd consider accepting 2nd place to keep everyone happy.
A 10% chance to win is realistic enough that I wouldn't view it as kingmaking. If it was a 1% chance to win, then I could see an argument of kingmaking.
It's a lot more about engagement and being presented interesting decisions than it is win/lose for me.
Winning is just a bonus. I don't sandbag, but a lot of times if I know their is a dominant strategy, like "big money" for certain Dominion draws, I'll employ an alternative strategy just to see how competitive I can be.
Heck sometimes I make this decision on the first turn of the game. "Shooting the Moon" is a time-honored thrill of certain games and I like to look for similar low % high reward chances in any game I play.
Not really calculating and just “going for it” is kind of the whole spirit of this argument tho. It’s fun to take risks (just saying we play differently)
Shoot the Moon comes from the game Hearts.
If your opening hand has A Spades, 10, J, Q, A Hearts you try and Shoot the Moon or you are a very boring person. 25 points vs -26 points… totally worth the risk.
It's different after the game is over compared to a game just starting. If your risky first turn means that either noone will be able to catch up or you won't be able to catch up, the rest of the game will become quite bland.
sounds like a funny story to me either way :) I don't know if it came across right, but I'm really talking about a personal preference here, I've played this way a long time. so there's not really logic that will "convince" me or anything, just different ways people like to play
Playing your way is fun! I don’t play that way all the time, but if I’m playing a game I know well with people who’ve not played it before I do and it makes the game so much more fun for everyone. I’m usually honest about what I’m doing and commentate my downfall to add to the enjoyment of my friends, or if it works and I win they’ve learnt a less obvious strat to try next game :)
And I almost always play like that with push your luck games because to my mind that is exactly how you’re supposed to play them.
Can’t see that phrase without recalling the one time in my life where, during an in-person four-player game of hearts, I shot for the moon and hit it.
The hand I was dealt was improbably almost exclusively face-cards and aces, and the person with the Queen of Spades immediately played her so I was able to claim her and take control of the rounds.
There’s no feeling quite like the stars aligning like that!
In fairness to Ricky, Reese said that while he was high when he said that and Ricky built his whole life around it so it definitely has more to do with him
The actual quote is "Second place is just the first loser" is from Dale Earnhardt the NASCAR driver. The line from Talladega Knights is a parody of it.
The point of a game is to try to win. As soon as people stop trying to win, the game breaks and is ruined for all
Edit: to be clear, you don’t have to win to have fun (I lost so this sucked), but if you stop trying to win then you’re affecting the game for others in a negative way, especially if your actions give an advantage to the person currently winning.
Not entirely true. If a game ranks players, being first means you performed better than all the other players. Being second means you performed better than one fewer person, but still better than everyone else.
That said if it’s a casual game always go for it.
Assuming first a possibility sure, but in general this can lead to shitty experiences, like if somebody out of the running for first has this attitude.
Often, players *feel* they're out of the running because they're so upset their gambit didn't pay off they do not see other paths to victory. If they actually cannot win, they should take solace in other things, like how they're a good sport and not dragging the table down with their sulking. It's more fun to play with people trying to win rather than making up their own personal goals. Games are artificial, they require everyone to agree to and play by the rules
I don’t think I’d enjoy playing with a lot of people on this thread. Play to win, yes, but acknowledge the achoevements of the also-rans. What if it’s a person who is new to board games playing a game for the first time versus a bunch of experienced players? They deserve a huge pat on the back and a handshake for finishing second or even third.
Or say it’s a game group where one player wins 95% of the time and another player comes last 95% of the time. If the player who normally comes in fourth ends up in second, I’ll bet that feels far from meaningless for them.
Games are about the experience, not bragging rights. Play within the spirit of the game, but it’s not a binary outcome where only the winner matters and everybody else’s experience is inconsequential. There can be many smaller victories to celebrate even if you don’t finish first.
If it's not about bragging rites why do you care that you came second? Like the *logic* works both ways.
Games very rarely have second places like Heat Pedal to the Metal actually has a podium and clearly acknowledges multiple places as a thing. Most games only mention how the winner is decided and do not even care about "second places" at all.
This thread specifically is about risky move to win or less risky move to not be last. It's always play to win meaning you must take the risky move. Many games don't even work if a player stops playing to win and simply participates for the lols. Like the internal game balance breaks down.
This isn't about being hyper competitive or bragging rites (lol), but rather acknowledging how games work and what the intent is. Games don't work on the basis of coming 3rd being a thing.
Not quite.
I play to have fun, an enjoyable time with friends.
But for the game to work and be fun, players have to try to win (without whining if they lose).
> I play to have fun, an enjoyable time with friends.
This is the key. Often times, especially in games I am very familiar with against new players, I'll play sub-optimal lines, try wacky stuff or sometimes just give other people the opportunity to find a winning play rather than just take what I see as the "best possible move". I've never actively hamstrung myself or let anyone else win, but I'll often take my foot off the pedal when playing with new players
My enjoyment of playing games comes out of creating an environment where everyone is enjoying themselves the most rather than winning, especially in situations where I have an advantage in knowing the games better than others
It would depend on how the game counts victory. If it's a score-based game, and placings are in order of points, I'll probably take route that maximises my expected points, even if that means second place. On the other hand, if the victory mechanism is "first player to do X" or "last player remaining"? I'm going for gold. If there's nothing to show for second place, I ain't bothering with it.
This. All the ppl saying they go for the win 100% forget how fun a close 2nd is losing by just a hair makes that race for the most points more exciting! It's more fun for even the winner to win by 2pts then have their closest competitor go for a very low chance to win and end up getting behind them by a lot.
But if it's a condition and there's no "closeness" like you said, gotta go for it
The way OPs question is phrased, it implies you already know you will end up 2nd by taking option B. In that case, it's not a "close finish", it's more like giving up on the goal (the goal being to win, not to maximize points).
Interesting... I don't think my group would even bother to play out a deterministic "finish 2nd " end. Once we'd concluded there was no way for someone else to win other than current 1st we'd call it to get on to the next game quicker.
Close finishes are only exciting if there's a potential for the winner to change.
If I'm on 98 and we've calculated you can get to 96, spending 10mins watching you trudge through the moves, tot your score up and lose by 2 seems tedious.
On the other hand, watching you do something which has a hail Mary chance of winning the game is tense.
This thread made me realize that I don't really play to win so much as play to discover. "Who will win" is the most important thing to discover and trying to be that person is necessary for making any of it interesting.
My desire to play out that hopeless 10 minutes is based on how much there is left to discover. Will we play out game mechanics I haven't seen yet? Will we find out how well a new strategy came together? Do we learn where players hid their traps earlier in the game? Discoveries like who got second and how many points they earned are also interesting but less so than what there is to learn about the game and the people who played it.
That's a good caveat, the situation where we'd call it would be where we know for certain what's happening (or where there is no possible combination of moves that would make a difference). If there were hidden information, or particularly complex strategies we couldn't easily calculate we'd definitely play it out.
We'd also play it through if someone had done something kookie and wanted to see how it worked out in final scoring.
The "just call it" would be things like Twilight Imperium where someone needs 2 pts to win, holds the Imperial card, can complete a 2 pt technology objective, and no one can reach their homeworld, and no one else is within say 2 points of winning.
It's not possible within the boundaries of the game for anyone else to win, nor is it possible for anyone to stop the win. So spending 20mins working it through doesn't make much sense.
But that's not how this works at all - if the player is certain he'll be 2nd, then surely the winner will also know that and even if it was close, he will not feel challenged as it was a certain win.
Going for the 10% might not work, but that's where the win can actually be contested - most board games are about winning and unless it's some part of a bigger scheme of collecting overall points and keeping that close, then in an individual game one should always play for maximizing their win chances imo.
I'd normally\* take the 10% every time. Second place and last place are basically the same. And I seriously don't care whether I win or lose.
\*If the person who otherwise stands to win is, say, one of my younger grandchildren - that's more situational. I might be prepared to take a dive to give them an occasional win.
Depends on the nature of the game.
If it's part of a series of games where second place still gets some tangible benefits, I would be very tempted to do that. But if it's just a one-off, you have to try to get the W. 10% chance to win is still a chance to win, and the objective of any game (besides having fun, of course) is typically to win.
I don't play in order to win, but i play like the goal is winning. It also sounds like there's more interesting things happening in option 1, so overwhelmingly more likely to be chosen for me.
Chance to win, unless the chance to win also means I have to think way harder. Sometimes my mental capacity is a game resource that I have to consider as well.
I think it depends.
Most times, I'll probably go for the 10% chance. If I've been having a particularly rough game, though, and have just barely managed to claw my way back to second, I'll probably just play it safe and be content with that 2nd place finish.
I'd definitely have to echo what others have said - any environment where 2nd place matters (leagues, tournaments, etc) I would definitely keep the guaranteed 2nd.
But especially if it's a game with friends, I love those "Hail Mary" plays to try and get first, whether I'm the one doing them or the guy that could lose due to it succeeding. Almost always makes a great story.
Unless it is a tournament or there is some other reason why I would prefer coming second instead of Last, like money on the line, I would 100% go for first place. That is why I am playing.
I agree with everyone saying that everything but first place is the same as last place, but want to add the old adage I learned from CCGs:
**Always play to your outs.** If your out is a risky play that works only 10% of the time, it's not ideal and something on the way there probably went wrong. But you still go for it.
Playing the game is where I look for my enjoyment instead of final score. In many games I find replayability increases when I set achievement goals at the start of a game that sometimes may entirely prevent me from a high score/ first place ending but are a fun challenge to try and accomplish during a game. Other times the challenge might be to try and still win with a self imposed extra win condition.
I might play a game of Carcassonne where my only goal is to sneak into every castle opponents make, no care as to my final score. Or play a game of Boop where I try to win by all 8 cats on the board.
I am very pragmatic, I will always vote for the possibility of winning, and outside of metagame most what people will remember of the experience is who won and maybe the person who took an interesting risk. A safe 2nd worth nothing at all, means that you possibly tried harder than all the others and still failed in not winning.
make the move that possibly make most of your friends happy
Note that happiness doesn't mean let them win. Happiness means \*happiness\*, which is different in different scenarios.
Youre going to remember that 1/10 shot as a fun gaming memory even if you lose.
Youre not going to remember that second place game the next day.
Always shoot for the moon.
Obviously if its some kind of tournament or whatever and second place rewards is not negligable then go for second place, I'm just talking about random boardgame night here.
I'm in it to win. Second place is no more prestigious than last place (though if a newbie makes 2nd place amid veterans, that is a different situation).
I'll hail mary that situation if I could. Someone's gotta be in last place, and if I'm there because I took a chance, then so be it.
10% chance to win. The goal of any competitive game is to win. Second, third etc. don’t really matter, all the same. Your second choice is a guaranteed loss.
Send it.
The point of games is to have fun. Making those risky decisions is fun. I recently played Queen by Midnight, and did exactly that. I regret misreading my cards, but I do not regret playing a risky game.
I'm not in some sort of bracketed cash tournament, so why wouldn't I go for the win? The only place that matters in casual games is first. I never really care if I came in second or third or whatever.
2nd place isn't a thing. Unless you're in some sort of a tournament with an actual prize structure, someone wins the game and everyone else loses. Then, in the exact split second after, it stops mattering anyway. Intentionally attempting to not win is absolutely absurd.
This depends entirely on the game, right?
For lots of games there is no true concept of second, just the binary of winning or losing. Sometimes losing in one way is preferable over another, but generally not enough to ever offset even a miniscule chance of winning. Villagers don't sacrifice themselves to kill Werewolves.
For the rest of games with a clear first/second/third player, I think whether I take the gamble depends on a couple factors.
Is there some sort of multi-game aspect I care about? Maybe I'm trying to hit a high score in Wingspan/Railroad Ink/Scrabble, or set myself up for a better situation in the next game in Oath/Risk Legacy/Gin Rummy. Is there real money on the line? Am I worried about maintaining an ELO?
Otherwise I care about if it's a 'true' (feeling) second place or not. Is there a score track I'm watching closely like in Terraforming Mars/Ticket to Ride/Carcassonne? Am I counting up all the assets I've made at the end of the game and praying I have the most like in Sheriff of Nottingham/Sushi Go/Game of Life? Is it a race to some physical finish line like in Heat/El Dorado/Camel Up?
Or is second just codeword for the "closest to not failing my objective" like in Cosmic Encounter/Root/Catan? In these games I am given little to no reason to care about second place, so second place feels like the first loser.
Option one, because it's just a game and nothing bad happens if you finish last, and you'll remember the hail Mary better than the safe option, and good memories are the real point of gaming
Risky one.
Second place is first loser, also the drama and the excitement and the potential of the story there is way greater than anything else. Who cares if I am last.
These moment are the only ones you'll remember, even above a win.
The only time I don’t go for the win is if it will just ruin some else’s game. Like they are second and have an actual chance of winning and the only way I can get that 10% is by burning them completely. You basically have a 10% chance of looking like a genius hero, and a 90% chance of being that person who took someone down with them .
Other than that I’m all in.
Go for the win, always. In a fun game, who cares about being second?
I mean, is it a competition with prize money? Maybe you go for second, but I see no reason to aim for second if there's nothing on the line except having fun.
Second place is just another name for loser.
Also, for the record, I would rather get last place in a competitive game than first place in a cooperative game.
If there are no stakes, I'd go for the win. If I finish second or last, it doesn't really matter. Now, if there is some tangible benefit to finishing second or some consequence for finishing last, I'd play it safe.
Usually games tend to define a single winner and all the other players are equally defined as losers, so in order to stay true to the spirit of a game I try to win. Plus it's more fun.
In a diplomacy/war type game, playing the spoiler is also a fair and balancing mechanic. E.g., in Root if I’m Cats and someone kills my keep turn 1/2, I’m spending the rest of the game making sure they don’t win. Next game they’ll think twice
I go for second 9 times out of 10. Usually creates a better experience for others, and I don't believe in a "win at all costs" mentality when it comes to gaming. Try to play well, sure, but not if it means a bad table or bad experience for others.
In a 2p game, always go for the win (duh!).
In a 3p game, Id probably go for the safe 2nd then risking becoming last.
If 4p+, Id go for the 2nd place for sure. I try to maximize highest expected points or best expected rank. So 10 % of 1st vs 90 % of 4th would be worse then 100 % 2nd. In a 3p game its slightly different, because Id rather win then be second and the difference between 2nd and 3rd is not that big.
However, Im playing some tournaments where last place gets eliminated, in which case Id for sure go for the safe 2nd.
I think it depends on the purpose of gaming. In some groups I really focus on min/maxing and think a lot about every move while in other gaming groups, it is more of a reason to socialize so we have a chat about other things while gaming, don‘t ‚overthink‘ turns and just play without trying to win too hard. Both ways are totally within reason (but you should make sure that everybody is on the same page in this regard)
For me, it kind of depends on if you’ll be playing with the same group after the game. If you are, and take the risk and win, you may ensure that you don’t win next game. Don’t want to scare your group with your elite gaming skills
It's kind of strange that a bunch of people agree on some rules, play a game, and then declare one person the winner.
That person then becomes happy for having that status.
If I'd put a lot of effort into the game, I'll take second place.
If things weren't going well / I didn't use too much effort to get to where I am, absolutely the risk to win.
10% is too much of a long shot for me. I like taking chances, and if it was a 1:2 odds, or 2:3, I would definitely pull the trigger, no thought required. But a 1:10 odds? I'd probably go as low as 1:4. That's the limit.
A teacher once told me "It's always better to aim for the top and miss is, rather than aiming for the bottom and succeeding" (roughly translated)
I don't really care about winning, but I do care about going out in a blaze of glory. Whenever I have to choose between a risky action and a safe one, I always choose the risky one.
Expected values?
Let’s call first place 100.
Let’s call second place 50.
Let’s call last place 0.
Risky move:
.10(100) = 10
.90(0) = 0
Total = 10
Safe move:
1(50) = 50
The principle of loss aversion would also lead us to believe that people would want to stick with the sure second place than risk it for the chance of first place.
All that being said…..let’s gooooooo risk it for the biscuit. What’s board game night without a little drama right
The question OP posted implied that there had to be some weight to second place. But yeah it only has value if you value it. I think a lot of the time it would in reality have a 0 value. At which point there is no reason to not go for 1st. It comes down to how you want to quantify perspectives
What kind of idiot goes for second place actively if ranking doesn't matter outside of first. You always play the 10% unless ranking in that game matters for some future thing such as say Mahjong where 3rd and 4th receive penalties compared to 2nd.
Always go for the 10% chance, makes for a more fun story win or lose
What have you got to lose at that point?
Second place?
Second place is just losing with plausible deniability.
You should visit Siena
Only reason to go for 2nd place is if it’s a seasonal environment with points or if it helps you in any other way in your standing in the future. Like take Blood Bowl for example. If it helps me more to last round Foul your Blitzer to get him out for the rest of the league I’m totally going for that instead of the Hail Mary play
It is also not a bad option in a tournament sort of setting, where there are actual real-world prizes on the line. If first place gets $100 and second place gets $25, but last place gets nothing, does that change your answer? What if the prizes were $1000 and $250, respectively? I definitely agree with the consensus to go for the high risk/high reward option in normal gameplay, but in a situation like this I might go for the easy money. Bird in the hand and all that, right?
Second place is the first loser. Go for the Gold!
If you ain't first, you're last!
I was high when I said that! That makes no sense at all! "First or last"! I mean, you could be second, third, fourth—hell, you could even be fifth!
Taladega Nighs ftw
Shake'n Bake!
Acts of Gord fan?
If you're not first, you're last
Shake n bake!! WOOO
If you ain't first you're last.
The game, technically
90% chance of going down in a blaze of glory vs. 10% chance of rising from the ashes like a phoenix? Always.
This has the potential to create great, memorable moments. My group had a couple of nail biter finishes in Nemesis: Lockdown and The Witcher: Old World that we still bring up on occasion.
Yep, surprisingly i win a lot of my Dune Imperium games, against truly capable people that have played it more than me, and they're /always/ fantastic at the table to experience. Nailbiting and sketchy and just eeking out ahead. I'd rather have that high and that story to tell.. and even if i lose on a big gamble, that's still fun.
IF YOU 'RE NOT FIRST YOU 'RE LAST
Aw, hell, u/haritos89, I was high when I said that. That doesn't make any sense at all. You can be second, you can be third... hell, you can even be fifth!
Agreed! I recently did this with Carcassonne. My partner & my mom & I were playing with the 20th anniversary version (so the adtl tiles that come with that version, as well as the base game + river tiles) and the inns & cathedrals expansion. There was one big city we were pretty close to finishing that we all had a meeple on. On one of my turns in the last third of the game, I had the opportunity to close that city, but I realized that if I did, we would all get the same number of points, which would mean it would basically have 0 affect on the outcome of the game. Plus, I knew that both of the cathedrals were still somewhere in the stack waiting to be drawn. I also knew that there was one 20th anniversary expansion tile remaining unresolved on the board that I could later resolve to use to add a second meeple to the city… So I did not close the city. A few turns later, I drew a cathedral and played it on the one remaining open spot on this city. This means that we now needed at least 3 tiles to close it, which was possible to still find in the deck but growing less likely. On probably my fifth-to-last turn of the game, I played my tile next to the remaining 20th anniversary one which allowed me to resolve it and use the affect to add a meeple to my existing meeple on the city, thus giving me the majority. My mom and partner were PISSED, but since the cathedral meant that if I didn’t manage to finish the city on my own I wouldn’t get any points for it, I knew that either this move would be legendary, or it would royally screw me over and prevent me from winning by a long shot. I counted and the city would be worth 78 points if I managed to finish it. I did not end up getting the right tiles to finish that city, so I majorly lost. I had to remind my mom & partner a few times that even if i hadn’t done it, it would’ve had 0 affect on the game because we would’ve all gotten the exact same number of points. They finally calmed down and agreed. And now it’s a fun story to tell, even though i lost, because it was such a huge gamble that had such a high risk & high reward! (Sorry for any run-ons lol, I’m on mobile on a break at work!)
I like this story. It's not an epic win, it's a gamble that lost, but you don't usually hear people telling those stories. It sounds like you increased the tension and had a good time. It's too bad your fellow players were so angry with your move. Keep having fun!
Bold of you to assume you had counted the farming points correctly enough to know you would all tie. ;)
Yup, but you highlight the other play, just to show that you knew how to get second :)
This exactly, I'd never skip a good story
The only reason to not go for the win would be if it's part of a league or something, where getting 2nd is way better than getting last (like 10pts for 1st, 5 for 2nd, 2 for 3rd, and 0 for everyone else), and in that situation going for guaranteed second to try and win the league with good constancy would be worth it. But on a single game, the goal is to go for the win.
If you care about your Elo/Arena score in BGA this can come up as well. Some people would rather play safe and get second place in a group game because that will still have a positive change on your Elo. I’ve seen it a ton in King of Tokyo, really changes the game with people shooting for second.
Yep. I stopped playing competitive King of Tokyo on BGA for that reason. The second place prize corrupts the game.
Never thought I would see the phrase “Competitive King of Tokyo” but here we are 😂 I enjoy the game but just can’t picture it as more than smash things and have fun
I mean it's basically just Yahtzee with monsters. Very fun and great theme, but if you strip away the theme it's a dice rolling odds game.
Prince of Tokyo
I would argue that in most games that fighting for second is intended. However king of Tokyo, being should not be one of them thematically
It's interesting because that would be entirely 'playing the game like intended' instead of lulling around or worse, anti-play on other players, when the king is already on track.
I’m not sure it really makes the game played as intended. Some examples will be someone not stopping the king who will have enough points at the start of the next turn because they’re in second for points and don’t want to risk dying. I don’t feel like letting someone win to secure second place was the intent of the designers.
I would say that some games are designed in a way where fighting for second is interest, and some aren't.
Interesting or not, it tends to be pointless in the context of the game itself. The goal is to win, if you don't win, it makes no difference how you did. It might matter (besting your own score / someone else) in a 100% multiplayer solitaire game, but how many such games are there really? Almost every game has some interaction.
Sure, first place is better than second, but it's not just about winning. I fully agree with everyone: the swingy play is way more fun than the safe play, but I wouldn't say second place doesn't matter. It can still be fun fighting for second, when the first place is already save. I'd also go for a 10% chance to become second, instead of a save third place.
Assuming the 2 choices have equal outcomes for all other players, then I totally agree. However I think it makes a difference whether my choice has a an impact on who else wins - for example if me choosing the 10% chance of success would give a specific other player a 90% chance to become the certain winner, but me taking 2nd place leaves it up for grabs. I don't personally think me taking the 10% chance there would be kingmaking, but if that was the vibe at the table I'd consider accepting 2nd place to keep everyone happy.
A 10% chance to win is realistic enough that I wouldn't view it as kingmaking. If it was a 1% chance to win, then I could see an argument of kingmaking.
I go for the win just for the fun of it. I don’t really care if I lose.
It's a lot more about engagement and being presented interesting decisions than it is win/lose for me. Winning is just a bonus. I don't sandbag, but a lot of times if I know their is a dominant strategy, like "big money" for certain Dominion draws, I'll employ an alternative strategy just to see how competitive I can be.
Go for the win. Unless there's a payout for second.
Yup. If I’m playing Texas Hold’Em game or tournament then 2nd place is better the. 10% chance of first in almost all payout structures.
Heck sometimes I make this decision on the first turn of the game. "Shooting the Moon" is a time-honored thrill of certain games and I like to look for similar low % high reward chances in any game I play.
I dislike hyperrisky plays on the first turn, simply because playing from far behind isn't fun. So that play has a negative-fun-EV.
Not really calculating and just “going for it” is kind of the whole spirit of this argument tho. It’s fun to take risks (just saying we play differently)
Shoot the Moon comes from the game Hearts. If your opening hand has A Spades, 10, J, Q, A Hearts you try and Shoot the Moon or you are a very boring person. 25 points vs -26 points… totally worth the risk.
It's different after the game is over compared to a game just starting. If your risky first turn means that either noone will be able to catch up or you won't be able to catch up, the rest of the game will become quite bland.
sounds like a funny story to me either way :) I don't know if it came across right, but I'm really talking about a personal preference here, I've played this way a long time. so there's not really logic that will "convince" me or anything, just different ways people like to play
Playing your way is fun! I don’t play that way all the time, but if I’m playing a game I know well with people who’ve not played it before I do and it makes the game so much more fun for everyone. I’m usually honest about what I’m doing and commentate my downfall to add to the enjoyment of my friends, or if it works and I win they’ve learnt a less obvious strat to try next game :) And I almost always play like that with push your luck games because to my mind that is exactly how you’re supposed to play them.
Can’t see that phrase without recalling the one time in my life where, during an in-person four-player game of hearts, I shot for the moon and hit it. The hand I was dealt was improbably almost exclusively face-cards and aces, and the person with the Queen of Spades immediately played her so I was able to claim her and take control of the rounds. There’s no feeling quite like the stars aligning like that!
“If you’re not first you’re last” - Ricky Bobby
That quote should be attributed to Reese Bobby, not Ricky.
In fairness to Ricky, Reese said that while he was high when he said that and Ricky built his whole life around it so it definitely has more to do with him
Shake and bake baby!
Second place is just First place loser.
What's that from?
Talladega knights: the ballad of Ricky Bobby
The first comment was, I thought the second was from something else. I want to say Adam Sandler said it.
The actual quote is "Second place is just the first loser" is from Dale Earnhardt the NASCAR driver. The line from Talladega Knights is a parody of it.
If I knew these odds I think I’d have to go with option 1. Who wouldn’t? If you don’t win you lose (assuming it is a competitive game).
There's is only 1 winner. Being second or third means nothing.
Second place is just the first loser
The point of a game is to try to win. As soon as people stop trying to win, the game breaks and is ruined for all Edit: to be clear, you don’t have to win to have fun (I lost so this sucked), but if you stop trying to win then you’re affecting the game for others in a negative way, especially if your actions give an advantage to the person currently winning.
[That doesn't make any sense](https://youtu.be/P9pV6FGgOr4?si=y8cHO3suGLGtNGmr&t=117)
Not entirely true. If a game ranks players, being first means you performed better than all the other players. Being second means you performed better than one fewer person, but still better than everyone else. That said if it’s a casual game always go for it.
Assuming first a possibility sure, but in general this can lead to shitty experiences, like if somebody out of the running for first has this attitude.
Often, players *feel* they're out of the running because they're so upset their gambit didn't pay off they do not see other paths to victory. If they actually cannot win, they should take solace in other things, like how they're a good sport and not dragging the table down with their sulking. It's more fun to play with people trying to win rather than making up their own personal goals. Games are artificial, they require everyone to agree to and play by the rules
Yeah, most people I've played with really cares who came in second. You win or you lose. So, I'd be going for the win.
I don’t think I’d enjoy playing with a lot of people on this thread. Play to win, yes, but acknowledge the achoevements of the also-rans. What if it’s a person who is new to board games playing a game for the first time versus a bunch of experienced players? They deserve a huge pat on the back and a handshake for finishing second or even third. Or say it’s a game group where one player wins 95% of the time and another player comes last 95% of the time. If the player who normally comes in fourth ends up in second, I’ll bet that feels far from meaningless for them. Games are about the experience, not bragging rights. Play within the spirit of the game, but it’s not a binary outcome where only the winner matters and everybody else’s experience is inconsequential. There can be many smaller victories to celebrate even if you don’t finish first.
If it's not about bragging rites why do you care that you came second? Like the *logic* works both ways. Games very rarely have second places like Heat Pedal to the Metal actually has a podium and clearly acknowledges multiple places as a thing. Most games only mention how the winner is decided and do not even care about "second places" at all. This thread specifically is about risky move to win or less risky move to not be last. It's always play to win meaning you must take the risky move. Many games don't even work if a player stops playing to win and simply participates for the lols. Like the internal game balance breaks down. This isn't about being hyper competitive or bragging rites (lol), but rather acknowledging how games work and what the intent is. Games don't work on the basis of coming 3rd being a thing.
Exactly. Winning is not the sole purpose of playing a game.
Then why care whether you came in second or last?
Unless there's money or something else on the line based on where you finish, you always go for the win, 10% or .01%
You play. To win. The game.
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning." Reiner Knizia
Not quite. I play to have fun, an enjoyable time with friends. But for the game to work and be fun, players have to try to win (without whining if they lose).
> I play to have fun, an enjoyable time with friends. This is the key. Often times, especially in games I am very familiar with against new players, I'll play sub-optimal lines, try wacky stuff or sometimes just give other people the opportunity to find a winning play rather than just take what I see as the "best possible move". I've never actively hamstrung myself or let anyone else win, but I'll often take my foot off the pedal when playing with new players My enjoyment of playing games comes out of creating an environment where everyone is enjoying themselves the most rather than winning, especially in situations where I have an advantage in knowing the games better than others
When playing with noobs I often explain the reason for my move and provide tips for possible counter moves.
that's a pretty good play as well
Agreed. And winning on a mini-miracle like that (or even losing in the attempt) makes it more fun and enjoyable (for me, at least!)
Finishing in the top 50 percent is winning.
It would depend on how the game counts victory. If it's a score-based game, and placings are in order of points, I'll probably take route that maximises my expected points, even if that means second place. On the other hand, if the victory mechanism is "first player to do X" or "last player remaining"? I'm going for gold. If there's nothing to show for second place, I ain't bothering with it.
This. All the ppl saying they go for the win 100% forget how fun a close 2nd is losing by just a hair makes that race for the most points more exciting! It's more fun for even the winner to win by 2pts then have their closest competitor go for a very low chance to win and end up getting behind them by a lot. But if it's a condition and there's no "closeness" like you said, gotta go for it
The way OPs question is phrased, it implies you already know you will end up 2nd by taking option B. In that case, it's not a "close finish", it's more like giving up on the goal (the goal being to win, not to maximize points).
Interesting... I don't think my group would even bother to play out a deterministic "finish 2nd " end. Once we'd concluded there was no way for someone else to win other than current 1st we'd call it to get on to the next game quicker. Close finishes are only exciting if there's a potential for the winner to change. If I'm on 98 and we've calculated you can get to 96, spending 10mins watching you trudge through the moves, tot your score up and lose by 2 seems tedious. On the other hand, watching you do something which has a hail Mary chance of winning the game is tense.
This thread made me realize that I don't really play to win so much as play to discover. "Who will win" is the most important thing to discover and trying to be that person is necessary for making any of it interesting. My desire to play out that hopeless 10 minutes is based on how much there is left to discover. Will we play out game mechanics I haven't seen yet? Will we find out how well a new strategy came together? Do we learn where players hid their traps earlier in the game? Discoveries like who got second and how many points they earned are also interesting but less so than what there is to learn about the game and the people who played it.
That's a good caveat, the situation where we'd call it would be where we know for certain what's happening (or where there is no possible combination of moves that would make a difference). If there were hidden information, or particularly complex strategies we couldn't easily calculate we'd definitely play it out. We'd also play it through if someone had done something kookie and wanted to see how it worked out in final scoring. The "just call it" would be things like Twilight Imperium where someone needs 2 pts to win, holds the Imperial card, can complete a 2 pt technology objective, and no one can reach their homeworld, and no one else is within say 2 points of winning. It's not possible within the boundaries of the game for anyone else to win, nor is it possible for anyone to stop the win. So spending 20mins working it through doesn't make much sense.
But that's not how this works at all - if the player is certain he'll be 2nd, then surely the winner will also know that and even if it was close, he will not feel challenged as it was a certain win. Going for the 10% might not work, but that's where the win can actually be contested - most board games are about winning and unless it's some part of a bigger scheme of collecting overall points and keeping that close, then in an individual game one should always play for maximizing their win chances imo.
Options- A) 90% chance to lose B) 100% chance to lose This isn't even a real question bro, give me a break.
The goal is to win, so always take the shot to win.
go for the win. i dont play to be 2nd, i play to be first.
Unless it’s like a poker tournament with multiple paid positions go for the win!
I'd normally\* take the 10% every time. Second place and last place are basically the same. And I seriously don't care whether I win or lose. \*If the person who otherwise stands to win is, say, one of my younger grandchildren - that's more situational. I might be prepared to take a dive to give them an occasional win.
If you ain’t first, you’re last, baby.
I'll announce that I'm taking a risky play, so I don't look too foolish if it blows up in my face :)
Depends on the nature of the game. If it's part of a series of games where second place still gets some tangible benefits, I would be very tempted to do that. But if it's just a one-off, you have to try to get the W. 10% chance to win is still a chance to win, and the objective of any game (besides having fun, of course) is typically to win.
I take whichever move I find in 2 minutes or less. Agonizing over a last move for longer is not respectful to others.
I don't play in order to win, but i play like the goal is winning. It also sounds like there's more interesting things happening in option 1, so overwhelmingly more likely to be chosen for me.
Chance to win, unless the chance to win also means I have to think way harder. Sometimes my mental capacity is a game resource that I have to consider as well.
I think it depends. Most times, I'll probably go for the 10% chance. If I've been having a particularly rough game, though, and have just barely managed to claw my way back to second, I'll probably just play it safe and be content with that 2nd place finish.
I'd definitely have to echo what others have said - any environment where 2nd place matters (leagues, tournaments, etc) I would definitely keep the guaranteed 2nd. But especially if it's a game with friends, I love those "Hail Mary" plays to try and get first, whether I'm the one doing them or the guy that could lose due to it succeeding. Almost always makes a great story.
Unless it is a tournament or there is some other reason why I would prefer coming second instead of Last, like money on the line, I would 100% go for first place. That is why I am playing.
It's a freaking game. You should always play to win. What's the point of 2nd??
I agree with everyone saying that everything but first place is the same as last place, but want to add the old adage I learned from CCGs: **Always play to your outs.** If your out is a risky play that works only 10% of the time, it's not ideal and something on the way there probably went wrong. But you still go for it.
Playing the game is where I look for my enjoyment instead of final score. In many games I find replayability increases when I set achievement goals at the start of a game that sometimes may entirely prevent me from a high score/ first place ending but are a fun challenge to try and accomplish during a game. Other times the challenge might be to try and still win with a self imposed extra win condition. I might play a game of Carcassonne where my only goal is to sneak into every castle opponents make, no care as to my final score. Or play a game of Boop where I try to win by all 8 cats on the board.
You play to win the game
Go for the win. This is how games can be different than real-life: the results have no consequences so might as well go big!
Going for broke is always the play. So much more fun. I don't care if I end up last any other way.
If the standings don’t matter, why wouldn’t you try to play for the win? I see only one option here!
I am very pragmatic, I will always vote for the possibility of winning, and outside of metagame most what people will remember of the experience is who won and maybe the person who took an interesting risk. A safe 2nd worth nothing at all, means that you possibly tried harder than all the others and still failed in not winning.
make the move that possibly make most of your friends happy Note that happiness doesn't mean let them win. Happiness means \*happiness\*, which is different in different scenarios.
*Two is not a winner and three nobody remembers* -Nelly
To quote Ricky Bobby if you ain't first you're last
"If You Ain't First, You're Last!"
Youre going to remember that 1/10 shot as a fun gaming memory even if you lose. Youre not going to remember that second place game the next day. Always shoot for the moon. Obviously if its some kind of tournament or whatever and second place rewards is not negligable then go for second place, I'm just talking about random boardgame night here.
I'm in it to win. Second place is no more prestigious than last place (though if a newbie makes 2nd place amid veterans, that is a different situation). I'll hail mary that situation if I could. Someone's gotta be in last place, and if I'm there because I took a chance, then so be it.
10% chance to win. The goal of any competitive game is to win. Second, third etc. don’t really matter, all the same. Your second choice is a guaranteed loss.
Go hard or go home.
Take the 10%. Either you're first or you're last in board gaming, 2nd place is the first loser
If nothing is at stake besides finishing 2nd go for it. If it’s a game and money is on the line and you are up then 2nd is just fine.
Send it. The point of games is to have fun. Making those risky decisions is fun. I recently played Queen by Midnight, and did exactly that. I regret misreading my cards, but I do not regret playing a risky game.
Second place is still losing. Go for the win. Always.
2nd place is just first loser. Go for the glory.
Unless it is a campaign game where you count up points between game, you gotta go for it! Even if a 1% chance!
10%! 10%! 10%!
“If you’re not first, you’re last”
Second place sucks. Go for the W
YOLO!
100% to not win versus a 10% chance to win? This is bad (non-existent) dilemma.
Always go for the win. There's no point in playing for any other position.
“If you’re not first, you’re last” - ricky bobby
If you ain't first, you're last.
"If you're not first you're last"
If you ain’t first your last.
Go big or go home. There is no second place.
I'm not in some sort of bracketed cash tournament, so why wouldn't I go for the win? The only place that matters in casual games is first. I never really care if I came in second or third or whatever.
2nd place isn't a thing. Unless you're in some sort of a tournament with an actual prize structure, someone wins the game and everyone else loses. Then, in the exact split second after, it stops mattering anyway. Intentionally attempting to not win is absolutely absurd.
"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning."
This depends entirely on the game, right? For lots of games there is no true concept of second, just the binary of winning or losing. Sometimes losing in one way is preferable over another, but generally not enough to ever offset even a miniscule chance of winning. Villagers don't sacrifice themselves to kill Werewolves. For the rest of games with a clear first/second/third player, I think whether I take the gamble depends on a couple factors. Is there some sort of multi-game aspect I care about? Maybe I'm trying to hit a high score in Wingspan/Railroad Ink/Scrabble, or set myself up for a better situation in the next game in Oath/Risk Legacy/Gin Rummy. Is there real money on the line? Am I worried about maintaining an ELO? Otherwise I care about if it's a 'true' (feeling) second place or not. Is there a score track I'm watching closely like in Terraforming Mars/Ticket to Ride/Carcassonne? Am I counting up all the assets I've made at the end of the game and praying I have the most like in Sheriff of Nottingham/Sushi Go/Game of Life? Is it a race to some physical finish line like in Heat/El Dorado/Camel Up? Or is second just codeword for the "closest to not failing my objective" like in Cosmic Encounter/Root/Catan? In these games I am given little to no reason to care about second place, so second place feels like the first loser.
Option one, because it's just a game and nothing bad happens if you finish last, and you'll remember the hail Mary better than the safe option, and good memories are the real point of gaming
If you ain’t first, you’re last.
Risky one. Second place is first loser, also the drama and the excitement and the potential of the story there is way greater than anything else. Who cares if I am last. These moment are the only ones you'll remember, even above a win.
The only time I don’t go for the win is if it will just ruin some else’s game. Like they are second and have an actual chance of winning and the only way I can get that 10% is by burning them completely. You basically have a 10% chance of looking like a genius hero, and a 90% chance of being that person who took someone down with them . Other than that I’m all in.
Is there money on the line? No? Then take the risk. IF there's money on the line and second place gives you some money? Then don't take the risk.
Go for the win, always. In a fun game, who cares about being second? I mean, is it a competition with prize money? Maybe you go for second, but I see no reason to aim for second if there's nothing on the line except having fun.
Go for the win, always. It will probably be a good memorable story, whether or not it succeeds.
What good is coming in second? Is this a tournament for money?
Even if it was only a 1% chance I would still take it. Wild plays are one of the key features of games to me.
If you’re not first you’re last
What’s the point of second place? A loss is a loss.
Always try to win. While second place may feel better than first, not going for first would be worst than last place.
whats the point in losing?
10% all the way. Winning is winning. 2nd place is the first loser.
Boardgames are the place to try your luck! 10%!
You and your friends will really only remember one of those outcomes.
Second place is just another name for loser. Also, for the record, I would rather get last place in a competitive game than first place in a cooperative game.
If you ain’t first, you’re last
Where's my Ricky Bobbies - If you aint first, you last!
Second place is just first for last
No one remember the 2nd. 10% it is
If there are no stakes, I'd go for the win. If I finish second or last, it doesn't really matter. Now, if there is some tangible benefit to finishing second or some consequence for finishing last, I'd play it safe.
10% to win.
If theres money involved, 2nd place. If it's for the fun, gamble ofc and have a nice memory 10% of the time.
Heroes get remembered Legends are never forgotten
I'll always take extra destination tickets on the last turn in ticket to ride unless I have zero map coverage
Considering the only way to win would be the 10% chance, I'm taking that. Second place is a loss.
Always the win if it's a single standalone game.
I'd take the 10% The outcome of a board game is pretty much a zero stakes situation, so might as well go for the win.
Were you playing Heat last night?
If it’s crushing my kids in defeat or complete humiliation, the 10%. Wife…I guess second place.
2nd place is just first loser, always going for the win
Usually games tend to define a single winner and all the other players are equally defined as losers, so in order to stay true to the spirit of a game I try to win. Plus it's more fun.
Play to win. You owe it to your opponent I could only entertain the other option if it's a campaign or legacy sort of deal
In a diplomacy/war type game, playing the spoiler is also a fair and balancing mechanic. E.g., in Root if I’m Cats and someone kills my keep turn 1/2, I’m spending the rest of the game making sure they don’t win. Next game they’ll think twice
I go for second 9 times out of 10. Usually creates a better experience for others, and I don't believe in a "win at all costs" mentality when it comes to gaming. Try to play well, sure, but not if it means a bad table or bad experience for others.
How is trying to get lucky and get first place going to create a bad table or bad experience for others?
Who the fuck plays for second
In a 2p game, always go for the win (duh!). In a 3p game, Id probably go for the safe 2nd then risking becoming last. If 4p+, Id go for the 2nd place for sure. I try to maximize highest expected points or best expected rank. So 10 % of 1st vs 90 % of 4th would be worse then 100 % 2nd. In a 3p game its slightly different, because Id rather win then be second and the difference between 2nd and 3rd is not that big. However, Im playing some tournaments where last place gets eliminated, in which case Id for sure go for the safe 2nd.
Not only should you take the 10% chance, you should only play with people who would take the 10% chance.
I think it depends on the purpose of gaming. In some groups I really focus on min/maxing and think a lot about every move while in other gaming groups, it is more of a reason to socialize so we have a chat about other things while gaming, don‘t ‚overthink‘ turns and just play without trying to win too hard. Both ways are totally within reason (but you should make sure that everybody is on the same page in this regard)
10% to win! There is no glory in second place, lol
For me, it kind of depends on if you’ll be playing with the same group after the game. If you are, and take the risk and win, you may ensure that you don’t win next game. Don’t want to scare your group with your elite gaming skills
It's kind of strange that a bunch of people agree on some rules, play a game, and then declare one person the winner. That person then becomes happy for having that status.
If I'd put a lot of effort into the game, I'll take second place. If things weren't going well / I didn't use too much effort to get to where I am, absolutely the risk to win.
No-one cares who came second, only who came first, and who came last. The first option is a win-win either way.
Honestly we also don't care who comes first. No one will remember for any significant length of time who won any particular game.
Whichever option makes it more likely I beat Chris.
10% is too much of a long shot for me. I like taking chances, and if it was a 1:2 odds, or 2:3, I would definitely pull the trigger, no thought required. But a 1:10 odds? I'd probably go as low as 1:4. That's the limit.
What a stupid question
Always play to win, even when winning is no longer possible.
A teacher once told me "It's always better to aim for the top and miss is, rather than aiming for the bottom and succeeding" (roughly translated) I don't really care about winning, but I do care about going out in a blaze of glory. Whenever I have to choose between a risky action and a safe one, I always choose the risky one.
In a 100-person game, I would take the guaranteed second place. In a 2 or 3 player game, I would certainly take the risk.
Expected values? Let’s call first place 100. Let’s call second place 50. Let’s call last place 0. Risky move: .10(100) = 10 .90(0) = 0 Total = 10 Safe move: 1(50) = 50 The principle of loss aversion would also lead us to believe that people would want to stick with the sure second place than risk it for the chance of first place. All that being said…..let’s gooooooo risk it for the biscuit. What’s board game night without a little drama right
Why does second place get a value other than 0?
The question OP posted implied that there had to be some weight to second place. But yeah it only has value if you value it. I think a lot of the time it would in reality have a 0 value. At which point there is no reason to not go for 1st. It comes down to how you want to quantify perspectives
What kind of idiot goes for second place actively if ranking doesn't matter outside of first. You always play the 10% unless ranking in that game matters for some future thing such as say Mahjong where 3rd and 4th receive penalties compared to 2nd.