Dan’s Dilemma

Yo king, heavy lies the head that wears the crown and all that, but surely your mailed hood makes it heavier?

There’s a disclaimer on the front page of the rulebook for Hjalmar Hach and Lorenzo Silva’s The King’s Dilemma, the latest hot thing in legacy games. Written with an assortment of bolded words that would do a comic inker proud, it promises morally challenging situations, tough choices, and sensitive topics. “Remember that this is a just game,” it proclaims, flipping its grammar and its intended meaning. “You’re playing a fictional character. Even if the game world follows elements of the real world, nothing should be taken as real.”

What follows is everything I dislike about board game narratives, wrapped together in an exceptionally compelling package. At least the game is telling the truth about presenting me with “tough choices.”

Sand! Hygiene! Kings!

One type of story told by The King’s Dilemma.

One of the inherent difficulties about critiquing legacy games is the need to talk about the game without spoiling any of the things that happen in it — a near impossibility when the game is functionally a sequence of paragraphs. To fix this problem, I will pretend to be a guest author for The King’s Dilemma. Here’s how a single round might play out as we draw a single card:

A poor farmer supplicates the council on behalf of a negligible village a short distance outside of Brambleditch. [Pause a moment while Geoff finds Brambleditch on the included map. We have assigned him this duty because it’s funny to see him struggle to read all the fantasy names.] According to the farmer, swarms of locusts have invaded his fields, and the village is on the brink of total starvation. Unfortunately, the locusts seem to have made their way into our kingdom via the baskets of millet we imported from the Severine Kleptocracy. Should we halt all trade with the Severines to stem the tide of millet larvae across our borders? Yea or Nay?

At this point, we’re given a few glimpses of information. If we vote Yea, our kingdom’s prosperity will be harmed (because we don’t have any fresh millet), but morale will increase (because we’ve taken steps to safeguard our peasantry). Nay, on the other hand, will apparently award a sticker, a semi-permanent piece of legislation representing the memory of our people. This will be placed on the board, and may affect our house’s standing in future plays. Doing right by our people will increase our house’s strength and scoring opportunities; passing bad laws will, naturally, do the opposite.

The difficult part is that these outcomes may be the complete picture or only part of it. Sometimes there are unintended consequences. Moreover, we don’t know the scale of the outcomes. Perhaps our prosperity would decline by one pip on the game’s central track. Maybe it would decline by a whole lot, spurred onward by the card outcome and whether our prosperity token has “momentum” that will make it move faster. As in real-life dilemmas, we can only guess at how badly the millet-locusts will impact our kingdom’s agriculture. To an extent, this is our fault — we voted to import this millet two games ago.

Either way, it’s time to vote.

Tracks! More tracks! Also tracks!

The other type of story told by The King’s Dilemma.

That’s one type of story told by The King’s Dilemma. It’s told through the usual tools of legacy games: paragraphs of flavor text, an entire column of sealed envelopes, and names penned onto player shields and legislation stickers. But there’s a very different story being told at the same time, enacted mostly on the game’s resource tracks. There are five main resources, the morale and prosperity and everything else that informs the state of our kingdom. Whenever one of these trackers bumps up or down, so too will our kingdom’s stability, until it reaches the top or bottom and brings the current play to its conclusion. Or maybe we’ll draw so many cards that the current king dies. In both cases, the game wraps up with everyone checking the secret agenda card they drafted at the outset.

These secret agendas represent the lion’s share of your points. And, at a certain level, they’re incredibly clever, tied to the resource track in such a way that it invests you, the player, the councilor, the head of a noble house, as directly preoccupied with where all those resource tokens sit at the end of the game. If you’re “opulent,” you want as many resource tokens at the halfway mark or above, with increasing points awarded for more tokens. The “opportunist” wants the direct opposite, with resources down at the bottom. The game goes a step further with agendas like the “extremist,” who wants a huge gap between the lowest and highest resources, and the “moderate,” who wants them all clustered near the middle. Everyone has an agenda, and furthermore has an agenda that might intersect or clash with the other players at the table, sometimes aligning or bristling depending on the resource in question.

However, this is where The King’s Dilemma’s two stories begin to go their separate ways. There’s the textual story and the ludic story, one written in words and the other tallied in points. It’s a happy coincidence when they align. When they don’t, which is often enough to notice, the effect is jarring. In the above scenario with the millet-locusts, every player comes to the table their own goals, some of which are tied to the story and may require many plays before they emerge into the light. But those same players are also holding agenda cards, which foist goals upon them based on what was available during the draft. Worse, these two goals are often at odds. When considering the fate of the village near Brambleditch, it’s likely that your concern has less to do with millet-locusts and more to do with an agenda card that might or might not coincide with your long-term goals. To give an example, we were once asked whether to repress a heretical text. When we voted Nay, a decision based on keeping the game going a little longer, earning a sticker, or pursuing our scoring opportunities — meta-decisions, in other words — the card’s outcome claimed that we, the uncaring heads of household, “don’t want to suppress ideas.” Except we had suppressed ideas, gleefully and selfishly, on a half-dozen occasions previously. The story being told via play and the story being told by the text weren’t simpatico.

"Game."

Voting is the “game” portion of the game.

To a certain extent this division between different types of stories is to be expected. It’s possible that Hach and Silva didn’t even consider it a problem. Leaving aside the narrative’s toothlessness — as a historian I was thrilled at the rulebook’s warning, only to be disappointed at our medieval lords’ anachronistic enlightenment — it makes sense that the players’ goals and their characters’ goals wouldn’t always align. Alignment between what the game says you’re doing and what you’re actually doing is, of course, the brass ring of good game design, but it’s an exception rather than the standard. In The King’s Dilemma, this is even more understandable given its emphasis on competing agendas. Confronted with a heretical text, it makes sense that somebody might have avoided suppressing the book based on their house’s preference, in which case the text on the back of the card would prove accurate. A professional writer could have lampshaded the problem: “The official edict announces that we don’t suppress ideas, despite rumors that certain lords cared less for the principle than their own gain” would have been sufficient to cover all possible bases. But The King’s Dilemma wasn’t made by a professional writer. It was made by professional designers. And as such, its best element isn’t the story at all; it’s the mechanical act of casting votes.

And really, the voting is quite good, cycling between player interests rather fluidly. There’s the boilerplate Yea and Nay votes, which determine the outcome of the current card. Smartly, only the winning side spends their wagered strength tokens, a measure of how forcefully they pushed through their desired measure. Whoever bids the most gets to hold the leader token, and voting ends as soon as the player to the right of the leader finishes their bid. This means voting could take anywhere from one to a dozen goes around the table, depending on how often the leader token is claimed. It even leaves room for manipulation — say, by trumping the opposing side’s overall bid but not the leader’s specific amount, thus ending the vote just short of letting the other side respond. And if taking a stance is beyond your interest — or your strength — you can pass to claim the last vote’s spent bidding tokens or the moderator’s hammer for breaking ties. In practice, you’ll often find yourself bouncing between votes and passes based on what you hope to achieve.

The only real downside is that your sole currency for making deals is disappointingly worthless. You’re free to bribe rivals with coins, but aside from some bonus points (in denominations that vary depending on your agenda card), coins aren’t worth anything. This is a surprising oversight, wealth for wealth’s sake rather than for the doors and possibilities it unlocks. It isn’t difficult to imagine ways that coins might have been spent to keep the game from concluding prematurely, shore up a failing resource, or otherwise needle your rival houses.

The board is warped. Just saying. Doesn't bother me, but some people care A LOT.

Decisions are based on information that might be incomplete.

Still, the process of voting over your desired paragraph of exposition, stickering the board, and periodically shuffling new cards into the stack is both compelling and mercifully fleet-footed. A single play rarely consumes more than an hour, and sometimes only twenty minutes when the stability track tanks after two or three cards. And although certain narrative threads sometimes disappear only to reappear a half-dozen plays later, the storylines are colorful enough that it usually only takes a moment to remember what’s happening over in this other portion of the kingdom. This isn’t to say the writing ever becomes compelling in its own right, but there’s a lot to be said for the effectiveness of the cliffhanger; The King’s Dilemma knows to dangle its players over a ledge roughly every eight minutes. On most occasions, we played three times in a row to resolve a few of those dangling story threads.

I’m less enamored with the game’s broader handling of its story. In addition to the problems I’ve already mentioned, every play sees you accumulating two types of points. Sadly, it’s a very long time before it explains what they’re for. As a result, its individual threads come across as more intriguing than the tapestry they weave into. This is an appreciated flip-flop from the legacy standard wherein the overall experience is more enthralling than the individual plays, but it still leaves the meta-game feeling somewhat directionless. The big exception is the game’s garbage chute, a little slot in the plastic insert for dumping all the narrative beats you hit over the course of your play. I love the garbage chute more than anything. Which maybe tells you something about my fractured feelings on the game itself.

Can The King's Dilemma be put into the garbage chute? I intend to find out.

Hello, garbage chute!

As an ardent lover of stories and storytelling, I often feel a camaraderie with those who enjoy the narratives found in legacy games even as I groan about the stuttery pacing, disjointed telling, awkward point of view, and shaky prose that are almost necessary for breaking a story into discrete play segments. In those regards, The King’s Dilemma is as bad an offender as any. Yet it manages to wrap those offenses together in a way that’s very nearly coherent, with crises and opportunities arising and diminishing, sometimes across generations. For once, this is a legacy system I could see myself grumbling through a second volume of.

 

(If what I’m doing at Space-Biff! is valuable to you in some way, please consider dropping by my Patreon campaign or Ko-fi.)

A complimentary copy was provided.

Posted on February 25, 2020, in Board Game and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 13 Comments.

  1. This seems like a perfect mix of what I don’t like about Reigns and what I don’t like about legacy games.

    Except the garbage chute; must love that chute.

  2. I’m really curious how King’s Dilemma compares to Oath—both seem to be mining a similar thematic vein, but doing it with very different tools.

    Also, is there a way for narrative-focused games to navigate the Scylla of disjointed, punctuated storytelling (like TotAN) and the Charybdis of being almost completely on rails (like a Choose Your Own Adventure)?

    I think the answer is taking a whole nother route towards RPGs, but that’s unsatisfying for those of us whose lives allow only enough time/organizational capacity for boardgames.

    • Well, one answer is that Oath’s narrative is far more player-driven. Rather than choosing between A and B envelopes, there are no envelopes at all, just the narrative that arises from player actions. It probably helps that where The King’s Dilemma is a serviceable game wrapped around lukewarm text, Oath is rather playable even as a single session game.

      I’m still wrestling with how I feel about narrative in board games, especially since, as you’ve pointed out, not everybody has the time or inclination for RPGs. I think where it often trips me up is the emphasis on blocks of text. Being a game designer doesn’t automatically qualify somebody as a fiction writer. Far too often, that disconnect shows in the writing.

  3. Interesting to have my excitement so effectively tamed. After Quinns’ hearty review of the game on SUSD I was curious whether it would fill the same niche as Oath (whenever that arrives) for my group.

    TKD seems interesting in getting an adjacent Game of Thrones-houses-esque vying for power game on the table, but immediately having these disconnects between game story and player story makes me wary. I do agree with your hesitations with narrative in board gaming – too often has my group slogged through Gloomhaven’s passable work, or other titles with much more tiresome writing.

    I definitely lean more towards the stories told by players after a game is finished: Rebellion, and the brave story of the wookies who ultimately earned the ire of the Empire after defying them to rise up on Kashyyk, only to meet the green lance of a death star’s ultimate weapon head on; TI4, and the wild ride of a black horse, wormhole-reliant, ‘Ghost’ species who surged from nowhere to nearly steal the Mecatol throne, uniting the galaxy against them and unintentionally freeing a position for the Spess Lions to steam ahead; Root, and the wispy tale of a wily Beaver who kept to himself, crafting this and that until he began slaughtering many Cats for his own ends, in the midst of a three-way war.

    These are stories my group still talk about and are fresh in my mind from our recent games. I would like to think that we would still find them more memorable than a tale forcefully told to us.

    • Right, and I think that’s the difference — those were stories told by you and your friends, born of the interactions between a game’s setting and systems. Flavor text can be used to spice up a game. But define it entirely? I’m less convinced. The King’s Dilemma isn’t bad by any means, but you’re making branching choices in somebody else’s vaguely medieval fantasy tale. There’s only so much it can accomplish with that setup.

  4. Without any experience of my own I get the impression that you fill the gaps that SUSD’s review left unanswered. Taste might differ, but what didn’t convince me watching SUSD was how a written narrative combined with some abstract tracks and accumulated dots translates to an coherent narrative worth hours of continuous plays. Discrepancies between narrative and its resulting impact on game play would be a culprit for me.

    With a feeling of regret I decided to not back Oath, despite it looking to be a game I really could enjoy. However, playing it as it’s intended will never happen. Neither I or the group of people I play games together with, will have the time and opportunity.

    • I still haven’t gotten around to watching SU&SD’s review. From the comments, I’m gathering they liked it! Fair enough; it seems like the sort of social experience they’d appreciate. The interactions between houses are enjoyably frictional. With my group, it was an effect that lessened with each play as the game’s limitations became clearer — the disconnected story, the lack of real consequence, the abstracted tracks, the coins not being worth much.

      But hey, it’s a fine game. Just not an investment I’d personally recommend. And if you don’t think you can get Oath played, this isn’t necessarily going to be any better.

  5. This reminds me a bit of your review of Fog of Love and my own experience with the game. I think beyond the player story/mechanical story being out of sync, it sounds like it suffers from the same narrative-flattening-by-my-points-requirement-on-my-secret-agenda agenda card. Nevertheless, it does still sound like it contains a lot of good ideas that may make it worth picking up anyways.

    And I mean… That Chute.

  6. Nice review. This design is very interesting to me because the legacy element seems superfluous to the actual design, ie what you actually do. It seems that it does two things. First, it imposes an internally consistent narrative on the players instead of trusting them to be able to supply the connective tissue to a set of “problem cards” drawn at random. Second, it creates time bomb effects. “Remember the grain thing three games ago? Oops, now that one is going to go off!”

    But I’m now especially interested in the Oath approach to the latter sort of effect. Cole has said that events in one game will have ripples and ramifications for many games to come. Is that just hyperbole or does it actually come through? How do you think this game and Oath compare in terms of ripples and time bombs?

    • The sense of having an effect is far greater in Oath than The King’s Dilemma, because your gameplay actions are influencing the next play’s deck makeup, geography, and victory condition. That’s a much more free-form “cause and effect” than picking a pre-written A or B choice. As for hyperbole, I really don’t know what Cole has said, but I was impressed by how much it actualized player decisions without relying on an inordinate rules burden.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: