Good day to you fellow board game creators :)

On this day of January - I want to talk about something that won't always make people happy around the gaming table, which is player elimination!
This topic has many nuances to how and what is implemented it the games, but there are few opinions about it I believe, in general you can either live with player elimination or you can't. 

Fear not - this post won't be about my personal opinion towards player elimination or the psychological effect behind them ;) 
I want to talk about how you can decide whether or not it should be in your game - and how you can avoid and/or implement it in different ways... 

What is player elimination?
In short - player elimination refers to the fact that you might get eliminated from the game, before the game is finished. E.g. you are starting out 4 players, and while 2 of you might get eliminated sooner or later, the game doesn't end before the last 2 players have battled it out. 

Indirect elimination
There are also games out there - presenting players with indirect elimination. This meaning that they might not be "out of the game", but they can no longer "affect the game or win by any means". It can lead to the same feeling as being removed from the game - though here you have to sit and be reminded of your defeat every time it's your turn. 
  

Should you have player elimination in your board game?
The first question you should ask yourself is... should I have player elimination in my board game? 
Though many people doesn't like this factor - it is part of some games, and if implemented for the right reasons together with the right determinations / mechanics it may very well work.

Ask yourself some of these questions

• Does it make sense that you can't kill off a player? (e.g. in a war game)
  
• How will a player feel if eliminated like "this or that"?
  
• Does it make sense that a player has to stay around - if he/she has lost everything?
  
• Can I implement a rule where the game stops when first player leaves? (and how does this affect the game play?)
  
• Will the game automatically end when the first player is down? 
• Do I want the players to go for victory or for elimination of each other?

   

How to implement player elimination
You might think it doesn't take a genius to implement elimination in a game, and you would be quite right about it. Nevertheless it does take some thought to actually implement it in a way - so that players accept it as a natural outcome of the game. 

A player decision
One way to implement it is to create a visible barrier of which you as a player will have to cross in order to be able to be eliminated from the game. Here's some examples

• When you reach a certain tech level in a civilization game (allowing you for a build up without risk of destruction). 
• If you switch to the use of atomic bombs in a war game (chances of severely damaging both opponent and yourself). 
  
• If you declare "all out war / total war" (increasing your strength, but with a possible fatal consequence).
• If you gain a certain amount of points, value etc. (making it possible to become hostile towards you).

Giving people a choice of "gain vs. risk" can create an acceptance towards the ultimate failure. Or like some of the examples illustrate - if you as a player knows that when you enter the final stages of the game (reaching a certain level of points) you now have a risk of being annihilated from the game. 

Boosting your last efforts
While it's always a question about balance when it comes to the possibilities of players to catch up with the leader. It may be a good idea to include a somewhat "last stand chance" for players about to be eliminated from the game. Meaning that player might get boosted when in dire need of it. 
I'm sure many of you would agree that if you have to go down - an epic last stand is the way to go. Making the ending memorable, and maybe you might even survive to take an enemy haft way with you in your fall ;)

And at last... make sure you take into consideration how long a player might be out of your game, if eliminated. 
  

How to avoid player elimination?
Now that I have touched the aspects of implementing player elimination - I want to talk a bit about how to avoid it.
I've put together some examples on how you can achieve this. 

• Getting victory points rather than ground (players gain victory points as the main factor, instead of gaining ground from an opponent). 
  
• Making some places/cities/bases so easily defended that opponents will avoid these. 
• Creating a rule, stating that the game ends as the first player gets eliminated (victory then goes to the person with the most money, VP or similar).
• Make common goals / missions, that shifts the focus from crushing an opponent to completing objectives.
• Make it possible for a defeated player to become a "vassal state" - coexisting with the dominating player (here I must stress that not all would like that nor commit to the ruler's orders, which might jam the whole game from there).

   

How to avoid indirect player elimination?
While it might seem easy to avoid "total player elimination" by stating something in the rules. It doesn't really ease the pain - if your game consist of heavy indirect player elimination. 
By indirect player elimination I'm referring to the possibilities of a player to hinter, lockup or block another player off completely, in other terms eliminating that player from the game. 

A few examples on how you might avoid an indirect elimination

• Make room for maneuvers, meaning you can't effectively block off a player.
  
• Look at possible "catch up mechanics" for players getting beaten down several times in a row. 
• Establish rules that makes it hard for players to gang up on each other.
• Try to emphasize skirmish / light engagement, instead of one all or nothing engagement. 

  

Final thoughts
You can find many reasons why you shouldn't have player elimination in your game... but on the other hand, there's no denying a game might be more interesting if the risk is there. You wouldn't play paint ball if it didn't hurt when you got hit ;)

In the end - it's all about implementation...  
Happy gaming to all of you - and check out my newest game project Burning Suns, remember to sign up :)

Hi again fellow board game developers,

I wanted to take up a topic which has always been a interesting aspect in a game for me.
The concept of language neutral layout / design in a board game... this may seem strange to some, but for me - who have played with many different people with many different native languages - the concept in itself is a huge selling point!

As a Danish guy living in Germany with a Belarusian wife - it's not hard to see why I like the no-text board games ;)

With this in mind, I would like to go through a series of thoughts and pointers you might want to explore further yourself.
 

Why would you make a language neutral game?
There are some neat advantages in making a board game without any real text on the game board, playing pieces, cards and so on...

• It's possible to translate into several languages at once (you don't need to create different games, just include as many rule books as you have languages), it will positively lower the cost of different game versions.
• The game is more flexible towards some rule changes, which may only appear in the rule book (also to some extent after release). 
• It can have a strong thematic feel using visual stimulation instead of just writing a huge amount of text.
  

Of course this doesn't come without a "cost", or at least some important factors you have to consider carefully...

• No text, requires a big amount of explaining symbols, which can easily be overwhelming or confusing for the players.
• The game is less flexible toward rule changes that demands new symbols to be created, this will take a while.
• The bigger amount of symbols may demand that you change the layout of your cards/sheets considerably. 
• For some games - like RPGs - it might work the opposite way when creating theme, because the theme often include a lot of background history etc., which you can't neglect.
  

Examples of board game mechanics and so on - explained with symbols.
I've found some examples in games, where symbol explanations seem well implemented (though some of them still have text, you can argue whether or not that's necessary).
I'm sure you can find many more - and these will be the ones you should refer to - when trying to make your own game.

How to implement it.
If you choose to go for a game without text - you have to think about the implementation. How will you do it?

With text you can easily create associations - because you can tell the players to get them ;) But when you don't use text, you have to keep associations and visual explanation in mind all the time.

• What kind of symbols and icons go together?
  
• Are the illustrations explaining the specific action or just eye candy?
• Is there a rhythm in game which can be explained through a series of symbols (and does it make sense)?
• Can you put any special needed text in a player aid or in the rules, instead of on the player mats or cards?
  

There's a fairly big chance - that you'll have to do a bit more play testing with the "no-text" solution.. but it will be a sweet achievement when you have a game that can be memorized by symbols and actions instead of long text sequences.

Plus - you might be lucky to have players from all around the world playing your game, without the need of a total reprint of the game!
No matter what solution you come up with - I hope you'll have fun :)