On Victory Points

Victory points are a weird thing. They are almost always used in themed games, but they often aren't themed. Instead, they are representative of value accumulation. This sushi dinner in Sushi Go! has this much value; that dinner has that much. 

Value is different from worth. How much something is worth implies a consensus for an exchange rate. Put more simply, worth implies cost or price. Value can be more individualized. I have many possession that are not worth very much, but I value them highly. Value can also apply a moral or ethical component: this action aligns with my values. 

When a game assigns points to objectives, those points represent how highly each objective is valued. The real world cost of resources is less important within the value system of a game than the overall player experience. "Is sashimi more or less expensive than a maki roll?" is not a question I ask when playing Sushi Go!. Instead, I ask "What card will give me the most value for my turn?" 

When we assign points to objectives, we assign in-world values to those objectives—"This piece of sushi is more valuable than that piece." Sometimes the values we assign are conditional; wasabi only has value when played at the right moment. Values can be interrelated, affecting one another. 

Assigning values conveys cultural information to the players. We are saying that in the world of the game, certain actions or resources are more culturally important than others. For example, in the real world we have artificially restricted the supply of diamonds to the market in order to preserve their perceived rarity. And in our culture, rare things are valued more highly, regardless of usefulness. 

Most Euro games place high value on efficiency. I am reminded of the so-called project management triangle: "cheap, fast, good—pick two." Many Euros focus on cheap and fast, but what if we let players pick which development path to take at the beginning of the game? Some games do this, allowing players to focus on producing fewer, more expensive resources or more, cheaper resources. But what about taking longer to produce better quality for less expense? I'm sure it's been done, but I'd like to see a game that really leans into the choices inherent in this triangle. 

A system of values is also a values system. Is efficiency the most important moral value in the game? The game Kanban EV is self-aware that the values inherent in a hyper-efficient system are perhaps not the most ethical and leans into it. Some games ask players to make clear moral trade-offs in order to win, asking players what they are willing to sacrifice for victory. Other games do away with victory points (and the value judgments they incur) altogether, but these games are often still efficiency puzzles that have similar values systems despite not having victory points. 

Designers should be aware of the value systems they design into their games. Simply renaming victory points to honor points, etc, doesn't bypass the issue. Using currency instead of points allows for more ethical flexibility (we are all used to the idea of money being used for unethical purposes), but still conveys the value of importance and worth. Of course, objectives and win conditions also convey values, but in a less granular and relative way. When victory points are assigned, each objective can be ranked against the other objectives, producing relative values. 

So, should you use victory points? Sure! But be aware of the value system you create by doing so. I, for one, would not use VPs to represent humans lives. And I designed a game about murder.

ShippBoard Games is a board game design blog that updates most Mondays.