Embedded Files
Quarterbacking ruins co-op games - but is it the players' fault or the designer's? Quarterbacking in board games is where a player tells another player what to do. Typically this happens in cooperative or semi-cooperative games where there's a shared goal, but it can happen anywhere. Why does it happen? Sometimes people want to control the game, sometimes people are just trying to help - either way it can cause huge frustration for the players on the receiving end. This isn't a hit piece on people who quarterback. I'll admit I've done it before while trying to be helpful. This is instead a look at what are some of the ways designers have tried to resolve it and which of those actually work, similar to how I looked at Ticking Clocks in Board Games in a previous piece.
If you'd rather watch than read, check out the video below.
Why Does Quarterbacking Happen?
Quarterbacking can happen for a long list of reasons, and to a varying degree. As I mentioned earlier, players may be trying to help - perhaps they want to teach another player but are instead dictating. Maybe they're sure if they don't there's no chance of winning the game and they have to make sure the other player makes the choice which wins a game they may be investing a lot of time and thought into. I think in either case there's one underlying problem - board gamers are natural problem solvers. It's why we play games! Present them with a complete view of a game and whether they mean to or not they'll probably give some thought as to what the other players could be doing.
One of the reasons it can keep happening though is because it can be really hard to call out - it almost always comes across as an attempt to help.
Does Role Specialisation Fix It? - Pandemic
Some games attempt to prevent quarterbacking by using role specialisation - giving each player something unique to do. When all the players have different roles they're more likely to act differently and players should in theory have less understanding of how each others' roles play. The issue can still come out though once players know enough about a role.
I've seen the Pandemic board game make it even worse in fact. Certain roles like the medic can be really powerful. They also work largely on the board state which is completely visible - meaning it can be obvious to other players what the medic should be doing and so often they get told what to do.
The Real Fix: Limiting Information - Sky Team
One key element in a game which allows quarterbacking is public information. If everyone has access to the same information, everyone can make each others' decisions for them. Sky Team handles this really well - there's an open communication phase where you can talk about plans for the round but as soon as you roll your dice there's no more discussion. The dice stay secret and you'll take turns placing them, meaning even if someone tries to quarterback in the planning it can quickly go out the window once the dice come out.
Hanabi: Taking It Further
Hanabi takes hidden information board games one step further and has the players hold their hands facing away from them. The whole game is built around not knowing what's in your hand and having strict rules around how you can spend clues to tell people things - but also exactly what you can tell them. Quarterbacking becomes impossible.
Don't do what I do though and instinctively pick up and look at your hand meaning you need to reshuffle the cards and re-deal again...
Magic Maze: Quarterbacking as the Game Itself
One game which makes quarterbacking a key mechanic in the game is Magic Maze. Each player can do a subset of the actions for the pawns on the board and is played in real time - meaning you can be waiting for someone to do an action on a pawn before you can progress. The game is played in silence though, with one exception - the wooden hammer. It's the only communication allowed and has players frustratingly stamping the hammer in front of another player they need to do something but completely unable to tell them what it is.
It's chaotic, it's fun and it takes away the bad feelings of quarterbacking.
Eternal Decks: Intention Without Information
Another game which handles quarterbacking by limiting communication is Eternal Decks. Players take turns placing cards in rows, with specific restrictions on the order, to complete the row and collect cards so they don't run out and can complete objectives. Players can't communicate about their cards or each others' actions. They can though place their coloured token somewhere on the matt to indicate what they might do. If they place it 3 cards ahead on a row where each card value must exceed the previous, they probably have a high card. But they can't tell you how high so it's up to you what you play with that information.
Why Two-Player Cooperative Games Make Quarterbacking Worse
In a 2 player game there are fewer players to track and usually less state change between your own turns. This can mean it's even easier to plan ahead, possibly for both players. It leaves a game which doesn't put in some mechanism to manage quarterbacking at risk of being a really bad experience for one of the players.
Designing It Out: Containment Failure
For the last few months I've been working on a 2 player cooperative game and hence have been giving mechanisms for managing quarterbacking a lot of thought - something I think is fundamental to good cooperative board game design. Containment Failure uses hidden information and heavily limited communication, but integrates them tightly with the theme. The players are the last 2 survivors on a space station where something deadly has escaped and wiped out the rest of the crew.
In order to survive players need to stay quiet - and that includes communication. Whenever players communicate it's strictly one way and if they want to communicate without being co-located or having access to the specific comms tile on the station, it's going to be noisy. This means every time you want to tell the other player something you're increasing the odds the alien finds you and the other player can't respond. It turns communication into a valuable resource and one not to use lightly.
Since you're quietly sneaking around a station apart from each other, you can't show each other your hands either - unless of course you take one of those comms actions.
Conclusion
I truly believe 99% of quarterbackers either don't realise they're doing it, or think they're being helpful. Board gamers inherently enjoy trying to solve problems, especially when it's wrapped up in a game. The onus therefore should be on board game designers to make sure everyone has a great experience of their game and limit the ability for a player to dominate the table and quarterback the whole game. It's my design philosophy for Containment Failure and will be for any more co-op games I design in the future.
This is one of the first proper looks at how Containment Failure works under the hood — if you want to follow its development (and grab a free PNP of Station Decimus while you're at it), sign up below.
Google Sites
Report abuse