Some links in this article are affiliate links. If you buy through them, The Ludarium may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. As an Amazon Associate, The Ludarium earns from qualifying purchases. How affiliate links work here.
Kingmaking happens when a player who has no chance of winning makes a move that decides which of the other players does. The kingmaker cannot be king. They can only crown one. It is one of the most common sources of hard feelings at a game table, because the winner feels their victory was handed to them and the runner-up feels it was stolen.
This article explains what kingmaking is, why it is almost unavoidable in games with three or more players, which kinds of games invite it, what designers do to limit it, and what you can do about it when it shows up on a Tuesday night.
What is kingmaking, exactly?
Picture a three-player game of Catan in its last turns. Anna has nine points. Ben has nine points. Carlos has five and is out of the running. On Carlos’s turn he rolls a seven and must move the robber. He can block Anna’s best hex or Ben’s. Whoever he blocks almost certainly loses.
Carlos is the kingmaker. His decision matters enormously, and nothing in the game gives him a reason to choose one way or the other. So he decides on something outside the game: who he likes more, who beat him last week, who said something annoying an hour ago, or simple whim.
That is the structure. Three parts:
- A player who cannot win.
- A decision that player controls.
- An effect that determines which other player wins.
Remove any one of the three and it is not kingmaking. If Carlos could still win, his move is just strategy. If his decision does not affect the leaders, it is just a turn. If it affects them but not decisively, it is normal interaction.
Why is kingmaking so common?
Because most multiplayer games put every player in contact with every other player, and because by the end of a game someone is usually behind.
Two-player games cannot have kingmaking. Every move you make that hurts your opponent helps you. Cooperative games cannot have it either, since there is only one side. The problem lives in games with three or more competing players, which is most of the hobby.
The second ingredient is the hopeless position. In a game with a clear score, players usually know when they are out of it. Once that happens, the game’s incentives stop working on them. The rules say “score the most points,” but that goal is gone. What is left is other goals: spite, friendship, finishing fast, or a vague sense of fairness. None of those are in the rulebook.
Our article on catch-up mechanics covers one way designers reduce the number of hopeless players, which is the root of the problem.
Which games invite kingmaking?
Some types are worse than others.
Games with direct attacks. Risk, Munchkin, and most take-that card games let a trailing player dump everything on one leader. The eliminated or hopeless player chooses a target, and the target loses.
Games with trading or negotiation. Catan, Chinatown, and Diplomacy let a losing player give a leader exactly what they need. A lopsided trade near the end is kingmaking with a handshake.
Games with area majority. Where you place your last pieces can tip a contested region to one player or another, even if you cannot win the region yourself. El Grande and Blood Rage have this.
Games with shared public goals. If a card gives points to whoever ends with the most of something, a trailing player’s choice to compete for it or not can decide who gets it.
Games with low interaction, such as Wingspan or most roll-and-writes, have little room for kingmaking because players barely touch each other. That is a trade-off: they also have less drama and less table talk.
If this is useful, the newsletter sends more like it.
How do designers limit kingmaking?
Several tools, none perfect.
| Design tool | How it helps | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Hidden scores | Nobody is sure who is winning, so nobody knows whom to crown | Tigris & Euphrates, many trick-takers |
| Catch-up mechanics | Fewer players fall hopelessly behind | Power Grid’s turn order, Mario Kart’s items |
| Scoring that rewards position, not spite | Attacking the leader costs you points you could score elsewhere | Scythe’s popularity track |
| Short games | Less time for a hopeless position to develop | Most 30-minute games |
| Simultaneous turns | No single late turn can decide the game | 7 Wonders’ drafting |
| Scaled interaction | Attacks hit everyone, or hit the attacker too | Many cooperative or shared-threat games |
Hidden scoring is the strongest fix and the most controversial. If nobody knows the standings, a trailing player cannot deliberately pick a winner. But hidden scores also make it hard to play well, since you cannot tell whom to stop. Designers accept one problem to remove the other.
Reiner Knizia’s games are a good study here. Many of them score in ways that make it hard to know who is ahead until the last count, and the lowest-set-wins rule in Tigris & Euphrates means a leader in three categories can lose to a player who is balanced. The kingmaker rarely knows they are one.
Is kingmaking actually a problem?
Opinions split, and the split is worth understanding.
The case that it is a flaw. A game should reward playing it well. If the outcome rests on a player who is not trying to win, the game has stopped working as a contest. The winner’s achievement is diminished and the loser’s skill went unrewarded. Competitive players feel this strongly.
The case that it is a feature. Multiplayer games are social. Managing the players who are behind, staying friendly with them, not humiliating them early, is part of playing well. A kingmaker who crowns your rival may be responding to how you treated them three turns ago. That is politics, and politics is a skill.
The second view has a point, but it also has a limit. If a game’s outcome depends mostly on who the trailing player likes, it rewards charm over play, and groups with a tactful person and a blunt person will see the same winner a lot. Most players want some politics and not too much.
How should you handle kingmaking at your table?
A few practices help, in rough order of usefulness.
Pick games that fit the group. A group that gets heated should play games with hidden scoring, lower interaction, or cooperative goals. A group that laughs it off can play anything. Match the game to the people, not the other way around.
Agree on a norm before it comes up. The most common norm: if you cannot win, play to maximize your own score anyway. That gives the kingmaker a rule to follow and removes the personal element. Some groups add: if your score does not change either way, hurt the leader, because that is at least consistent.
Do not announce the standings for others. “Carlos, if you block Ben, Anna wins” is table talk that creates kingmaking where there might have been an honest mistake. Let players read the board themselves.
Do not lobby the kingmaker. Asking Carlos to help you is asking him to decide the game. If you are the leader, win on the board or do not. Our piece on handling rules disputes covers the broader habit of settling things before they get personal.
Shorten the end. Many kingmaking moments happen in a long final round when everyone knows the score. Games that end abruptly, or that hide the exact trigger, have fewer of them.
Let it go. If someone crowns your rival once, it happened. If it is a pattern, talk about it or change the game. Grudges cost more than any single win.
FAQ
What is a kingmaker in board games?
A player who cannot win but whose move decides which other player does. The term borrows from the medieval sense of a noble who installs a monarch without being one.
Is kingmaking cheating?
No. Every move a kingmaker makes is legal. The complaint is about the game’s incentives, not the player’s honesty.
Which games have no kingmaking?
Two-player games and fully cooperative games cannot have it. Among multiplayer games, those with hidden scoring or low interaction have very little.
What should I do if I can’t win?
The common norm is to play for the best score you can and ignore who benefits. If your move cannot change your score at all, be consistent, and tell the table the rule you are following.
The crown and the table
Kingmaking is what happens when the game’s goal stops working on one of the players. Nothing in a rulebook can fully replace that goal, because the person behind it is a person. Which is the whole point of playing with people instead of a screen. The game is the reason. The people are the point.
We write about the small frictions that make or break a game group, and we send each piece to subscribers first. Subscribe to The Ludarium newsletter for new articles, and keep an eye out for our membership lounge opening in Indianapolis.
Get the next one in your inbox.
Board game picks, strategy, and shelf advice from The Ludarium.