This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/boardgames by /u/Trainor123123 on 2023-09-27 16:42:16.
I was having a conversation with a friend about board games and he was turned off by games that have player elimination.
I can totally understand his view because I had that view for a long time myself. But recently, I it dawned on me that most of those player elimination games that left a bad taste in my mouth had a lot of luck elements to it where I did not feel there was anything I could do to change the outcome.
In games where players have more agency, I think player elimination is fine. Of course, no one likes the idea of being out of a 2-hour game within the first 15 minutes but if you have some control over the situation and you specifically can influence the game state with your wit and decisions then it can be absolutely empowering.
Finally, in player-elimination games where players have more agency, I might be out of it before the game ends, but I have usually left thinking about what I could do to player better. If it were more luck based, then it’s harder to feel that way as it was mostly out of your hands. Chess is a good example of this (and I know many here don’t like chess).
I think luck-based games can help players come back but in the end, it doesn’t feel like I earned it.
Just wanted to share my ramblings