An interesting twist on playing games

[bobhikes]

I was looking on the back of a cereal box and it had the familiar dot square 8 by 8 where you connect 2 dots against your opponent and the one who finishes the square wins the box. The twist is the person with the least boxes wins the game.

This got me thinking how we play games and it seems to me its always the one with the most. Now in most games forcing someone to win wouldn't work but it would in others it may causing play and strategy to be different.

I imagine a 4 by 4 board using X's and O's force your opponent to get 3 in a row. Othello board game force your opponent to have the most color's at the end of the game. A card game like Uno where as you go out you lose. War the first one out of cards wins, indicating that war is bad.

2 Questions, What do you think?
Are there any games that currently do this, where to win you need to force someone else to get the most.
.

 

[suncowiam]

Actually, most games do do this.

It's called defense. A successful defense limits the amount the opposing player can attain.

Another strategy of winning is not by amassing more but forcing the opponent to having less...

 

[Father Heathen]

Actually, most games do do this.

It's called defense. A successful defense limits the amount the opposing player can attain.

Another strategy of winning is not by amassing more but forcing the opponent to having less...

I don't think that's what he meant. I believe he meant that you win by having less, like scoring in golf.

 

[Curious George]

I was looking on the back of a cereal box and it had the familiar dot square 8 by 8 where you connect 2 dots against your opponent and the one who finishes the square wins the box. The twist is the person with the least boxes wins the game.

This got me thinking how we play games and it seems to me its always the one with the most. Now in most games forcing someone to win wouldn't work but it would in others it may causing play and strategy to be different.

I imagine a 4 by 4 board using X's and O's force your opponent to get 3 in a row. Othello board game force your opponent to have the most color's at the end of the game. A card game like Uno where as you go out you lose. War the first one out of cards wins, indicating that war is bad.

2 Questions, What do you think?
Are there any games that currently do this, where to win you need to force someone else to get the most.

Lowball poker, but I don't know that you force your opponent to take more, you just go for what is normally less.

Best example I can think of quickly is Hearts.

 

[Father Heathen]

There is a PC game called "Stayin' Alive" that takes place at a nursing home, where one team are the nurses and the other team are the elderly patients. The nurse team tries to keep the patient team alive while the patients try to off themselves.

 

[bobhikes]

Actually, most games do do this.

It's called defense. A successful defense limits the amount the opposing player can attain.

Another strategy of winning is not by amassing more but forcing the opponent to having less...

Yes but the strategy I was looking at was forcing the opponent to have more and winning when you have less.

 

[SomeRandom]

You mean like Uno?

 

[bobhikes]

You mean like Uno?

Uno, is an example but with less strategy and more luck, same as war.