I've played lots of TTRPGs with very good GMs who employ spotlighting techniques: deliberately shining the light on quieter players and delegating the decision making to them, to the point of telling more opinionated players to release their tight grasp on the strategy and let the story evolve.
I don't know if there is an equivalent that can happen in a board game, because there needs to be some kind of enforcement tool that protects the agency of the quieter players in the face of a more dominant player. But I think there is SOME kind of space that board games can take up here which harmonises a group against the forcefulness of a self-appointed leader.
Pandemic is one of my all-time favorites and I saw this come up frequently. It's hard to fix! My (somewhat inelegant) solution was - once we all knew how to play the game - simply to insist that nobody weigh in on someone else's turn unless they asked for advice or opinions.
I play a ton of Magic casually, and I see this come up a lot too when teaching folks how to play, especially at the EDH tables. From my experience, the best way is to just let folks play their cards and do things their way, let the chips fall where they may, and maybe talk about it later if they're open to it.
Having said all that, I do enjoy the idea of occasionally throwing in a game where someone's covertly working against the interest of the group. I found the old Battlestar Galactica games handle this in really fun ways.
This is why I think Daybreak shines as a co-op. Of course, that game is a way different beast in terms of goal setting and mechanical complexity. The main goal is to reduce your collective carbon emissions to negative ("negative" emission, but positive for the environment). Each player is a region of the world, and they have their own amount and types of emissions to solve. They play their own set of cards and build their own engines to reduce to regions' own emissions in this card-driven puzzle. There is rarely a lot you can do for each other unless certain global effects allow for card trading, taking on the other player's crises, and such.
In fact, it is practically a multiplayer solitaire game. The only thing you can share is venting how your continent is so bad at dealing with your problems, you might not be able to help a lot in the global situation. By doing well on your own can you actually make an impact for everyone else.
But, again, it is a different beast. I love that for that game. But I also love games that can be two-handed or three-handed as co-op. I also don't like quarterbacking, but overtime I realize that is so much s playgroup issue. Deciding what you are allowed to give/share early on helps. If you are a "if you want it done right" kind of person, then I guess I could just choose not to join you in the next game. It's an experience, not an intelligence competition, despite the nature of the activity.
A real-time element can solve quarterbacking problems. In real time games, your attention is a resource. You need everyone else's brains for your team to keep up with the pace of the game! Sure, an alpha player can command their team, but the "micro" of implementing those commands will still fall on the other players.
A great example of this is Captain Sonar, which pits two teams of players against each other in a real-time submarine duel. Each teammate has a different position: captain, radio operator, engineer, etc. Each position is just involved enough that they require the player's full attention. If the captain wastes time micromanaging their teammates, they will surely lose to a captain who moves quickly and trusts their crew.
Of course, I don't think Ascension needs a real-time element. But real-time play is my favorite solution to the quarterbacking problem!
Great note. Real time is a good potential solution I hadn't considered specifically. In practice, the real time restriction works like a communication restriction mechanic. Rather than constricting types of communication (e.g. talking in the Mind, specific words in Taboo), you use time to limit the practicality of group coordination by one player.
Thinking out loud: Kites does something similar. You need every player to play out their hand of cards to win, but to beat the timer, you definitely need everyone to think and communicate about their own hand.
I've played lots of TTRPGs with very good GMs who employ spotlighting techniques: deliberately shining the light on quieter players and delegating the decision making to them, to the point of telling more opinionated players to release their tight grasp on the strategy and let the story evolve.
I don't know if there is an equivalent that can happen in a board game, because there needs to be some kind of enforcement tool that protects the agency of the quieter players in the face of a more dominant player. But I think there is SOME kind of space that board games can take up here which harmonises a group against the forcefulness of a self-appointed leader.
Pandemic is one of my all-time favorites and I saw this come up frequently. It's hard to fix! My (somewhat inelegant) solution was - once we all knew how to play the game - simply to insist that nobody weigh in on someone else's turn unless they asked for advice or opinions.
I play a ton of Magic casually, and I see this come up a lot too when teaching folks how to play, especially at the EDH tables. From my experience, the best way is to just let folks play their cards and do things their way, let the chips fall where they may, and maybe talk about it later if they're open to it.
Having said all that, I do enjoy the idea of occasionally throwing in a game where someone's covertly working against the interest of the group. I found the old Battlestar Galactica games handle this in really fun ways.
This is why I think Daybreak shines as a co-op. Of course, that game is a way different beast in terms of goal setting and mechanical complexity. The main goal is to reduce your collective carbon emissions to negative ("negative" emission, but positive for the environment). Each player is a region of the world, and they have their own amount and types of emissions to solve. They play their own set of cards and build their own engines to reduce to regions' own emissions in this card-driven puzzle. There is rarely a lot you can do for each other unless certain global effects allow for card trading, taking on the other player's crises, and such.
In fact, it is practically a multiplayer solitaire game. The only thing you can share is venting how your continent is so bad at dealing with your problems, you might not be able to help a lot in the global situation. By doing well on your own can you actually make an impact for everyone else.
But, again, it is a different beast. I love that for that game. But I also love games that can be two-handed or three-handed as co-op. I also don't like quarterbacking, but overtime I realize that is so much s playgroup issue. Deciding what you are allowed to give/share early on helps. If you are a "if you want it done right" kind of person, then I guess I could just choose not to join you in the next game. It's an experience, not an intelligence competition, despite the nature of the activity.
I have something to add here!
A real-time element can solve quarterbacking problems. In real time games, your attention is a resource. You need everyone else's brains for your team to keep up with the pace of the game! Sure, an alpha player can command their team, but the "micro" of implementing those commands will still fall on the other players.
A great example of this is Captain Sonar, which pits two teams of players against each other in a real-time submarine duel. Each teammate has a different position: captain, radio operator, engineer, etc. Each position is just involved enough that they require the player's full attention. If the captain wastes time micromanaging their teammates, they will surely lose to a captain who moves quickly and trusts their crew.
Of course, I don't think Ascension needs a real-time element. But real-time play is my favorite solution to the quarterbacking problem!
Great note. Real time is a good potential solution I hadn't considered specifically. In practice, the real time restriction works like a communication restriction mechanic. Rather than constricting types of communication (e.g. talking in the Mind, specific words in Taboo), you use time to limit the practicality of group coordination by one player.
Great add, Josh. Magic Maze implements both real time and communication restrictions, leading to a co-op game with little quarterbacking.
Thinking out loud: Kites does something similar. You need every player to play out their hand of cards to win, but to beat the timer, you definitely need everyone to think and communicate about their own hand.