One of my main inspirations of starting this blog was to try and prevent myself from going into long-winded rants in various facebook groups’ comments. A topic that keeps popping up is the concept of quarterbacking, or the name that I learned it as, Alpha Player Syndrome. There seem to be a lot of misconceptions about it, so I’m going to try and give the full answer to what it is, why it happens, and what can be done about it.

Defining the Problem

Quarterbacking is a problem that occurs in a large number of co-op style board games where a single player takes control of the game at the detriment of other players. Different people have different thresholds on what counts, ranging from totalitarian grips on the game where every decision is made by the alpha player to having one player contribute more than any other player. Generally, the point at which it becomes an issue is the point where the majority of decisions are being made or approved by the alpha player.

The Myth

A shockingly pervasive theory on alpha players is that the way to avoid them is to just not play with alpha players. The same argument is often made with cheaters or casual players. The idea is that quarterbacking, like cheating, is a personal choice and is not the fault of the game or the designer. Or, alternatively, that if you find yourself not enjoying these games, you just shouldn’t play them, because it is inherent in the game. Both of these are untrue, and are just used as a way to cast blame off of the designer. A corollary to this myth is that there’s little to nothing you can do as a designer that can stop it if you’re designing a co-op game.

Fun vs. Winning

In my previous article, I describe the issue of designing a game so that a player trying to win does not have to sacrifice having fun, and vice-versa. That is the root of the alpha player problem. In order to have fun in a co-op game, you all have to communicate plans, rely on each other, and take risks. In order to win an average co-op game, you have to properly analyze the situation, form an optimal plan, and execute the plan with as perfectly as you can. While these two lists are not exclusive, the overlap on them is tenuous. Having fun requires everyone to play. Winning requires knowing what you’re doing. So what happens if not everyone knows what they’re doing?

It’s All Relative

In a co-op game with open information, the player with the most knowledge and skill in the game has the greatest chance of winning. Even if no one at the table has played it before, someone has played more co-op games, or maybe just more games in general. If all players want to win, then their best bet is to ask that player to tell them what to do. Keeping secrets worsens their ability to formulate plans, so it’s in the worse player’s best interest to reveal everything they know, all cards in hand and all tools available to them. If you build a game around making decisions that everyone can weigh in on, then there’s always going to be one person whose opinion tips the scales a little more.

So does this mean that the best player should start telling people what to do? Or if a player is new to the game, do they really have to ask for advice on every decision? Only if they want to win. If they don’t care about winning, then players can make decisions freely. But now you’re designing a game where players are discouraged from trying to win, which I hope I don’t have to tell you is a bad sign.

What to Do

So what can a designer do to prevent quarterbacking? The most common solution is hidden information. The alpha player can’t make every decision if they don’t know what the decision is, but this is more difficult than you’d expect. You can’t just hide information between players, you have to actively prevent players from communicating, and saying things like “players shouldn’t talk about cards in their hands” can often be circumvented by clever players who don’t realize they’re ruining their own fun. This is why games like Hanabi or The Mind are extreme and explicit about it. Another common tactic is to limit planning time by having some sort of real-time countdown, making it so the alpha player doesn’t have enough to to provide instructions to every player. Real-time pressure isn’t a great fit for most games already, and in co-op it can lead to some real bad feelings of disappointment or guilt. It also just doesn’t work sometimes if the alpha player is quick enough on their feet.

If you look closely at the problem, some other possible solutions appear. If the game is not heavily based around executing a plan, the alpha player has fewer reasons to assert control. A less helpful suggestion is to make decisions not matter. If the alpha player knows that turning left or right doesn’t affect the game, they will hopefully let the player make that decision. Lastly, if the plan is clear from the get-go, then there isn’t any need to boss players around. A game that does some of these wonderfully, and is the only classic-style co-op game I’ll play, is Flashpoint. It has completely randomized threats (though how threatening they are is more circumstantial) and the goals of “extinguish fire” and “save people” are so easy to grasp that no one ever needs to be told what to do. And yes, the decisions themselves have minimal impact most of the time, but at least that means no one gets too upset if you don’t do it quite right. Captain Sonar, while not technically a co-op game, actually has a role specifically built for the alpha player, the titular captain.

Good Luck

Hopefully this gives you the full rundown of a problem that still plagues many modern co-op games. Better yet, hopefully it can help with games you are working on. If you have your own ideas, or plan on using some of these, let me know in the comments.!