Highest-Low Victory

A game mechanic that has been particularly compelling to me has been the "highest-low victory." Highest-low victory, which is what I will call it (I couldn't find it in the "mechanics" section of boardgamegeek), is a type of victory condition in where players earn points in several different catagories, but the winner is the player with the highest number of points in their lowest catagory. For an example of a game that uses highest-low victory, check out Reiner Knizia's "Ingenious."


Highest-low victory provides two main incentives. First, it encourages diversity. Since it would be impossible to win the game by only improving your score in one area, players have to diversify their attention to each of the catagories. Second, it encourages competition. Players are required to compete for the same resources, which causes each resource to become more important.

As I look forward to taking on more managerial responsibilities, I am considering the ways in which a highest low mechanic can be used. Some possibilities include:

-Providing incentive to do what nobody wants to do: Specifically assigning one person boring/annoying tasks could cause that employee to feel targeted or singled-out. Furthermore, the employee assigned to the task no longer has any incentive to complete the task as fully as possible. By including the less desirable tasks within a list of required and more desirable ones, and by scoring the task that is completed least, then there is incentive for everyone to choose to do the mundane or the annoying. People will compete for the opportunity to do what they don't want to do.
-Completion of individual tasks: Employees with various individual responsibilities may tend to shirk certain responsibilities. For example, a resident assistant is required to work hours at the front desk, spend time with residents, complete paper work, and make fliers and advertisements. Highest-low victory could ensure that even paperwork gets completed.
-Requiring/Limiting Break Time: When the organization has incentive to get employees to relax, then breaks/vacations/fun tasks can be included as a category that will be scored according to highest-low victory conditions. When time-off is scored along with time-on, then it provides more incentive to work especially hard in the other areas so that they don't fall behind. This also allows employees to feel that they have control over when/where/how they relax.
-Providing incentive to learn and improve: When the highest-low is scored, then employees have incentive to improve in the areas where they struggle the most. In jobs where skill or knowledge correlates with efficiency then employees will seek out their own training tools to improve their lowest score.


Methodology of course would vary in each of the above scenarios, and one of the most important things to consider would be the type of reward given to the player with the highest low. If the reward does not match the amount of work then the game will cease to be relevant. My suggestions for the application of the Highest-Low Victory are a means for improving worker efficiency and for broadening the reach of work related incentives, as well as for giving employees a greater sense of volition in the work place.

Economy Game

I'm watching the news today. The US government is trying to fix the economy by adding and changing rules. Rules? The economy is a system that runs on incentives and choice. In other words, the economy is a resource management game with a very complex web of rules that very few people understand. I don't follow the news very often, and I don't claim to be an expert on anything relating to politics and economics, but I am familiar with one thing. Whenever games I design get too complicated, or whenever the system doesn't work, the better option is usually to reduce the number of rules not add more. New rules sound like great and exciting ideas. This will make the game really fun! But there's a nasty hitch to some rules, and you can't know how the new rules will impact the game until you test them out.

2 Rules

A beloved middle school teach of mine by the name of Mr. G____ summarized all the expectations of classroom behavior into two short and concise rules: "Be Here," and "Be Nice." While I am convinced that many middle school teachers would have nightmares about ruling a class with such simple guidelines, I am equally convinced that students, and people in general, respond to simplicity, and more importantly, to the respect that simplicity offers. I will vouch for Mr. G____'s method by saying that the freedom we experienced in his class begot knowledge and growth.

Additional rules, while they may seek to ensure conformity and standardization, confuse the process and undermine the goal. Instead of being asked to develop in maturity, a student may be asked to obey a number of set number of behavioral rules (do not shout, do not kick the chair in front of you, be here on time, bring your notebook to class everyday), which besides assuming the student's propensity to do such things, fails to accommodate all possible transgressions. "But Ma'am, I wasn't kicking Billy's chair, I was pushing it with my foot!"

On the contrary, we can assume that any sort of transgression is possible AND likely. In order to create order, therefore, rules must address the essence of the problem, not the various heads that it rears. I'm reminded of another Man who instituted a two rule system. Jesus said, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind'. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 37-40). Jesus clarified all the laws of the Old Testament in two clear, easy to understand rules. The two rules summarize the nature of the problem, give a large measure of freedom, and enable the opportunity for personal growth and integrity.

As a peer manager of college students I assume two things to be true. First, that they do not need to be told how to sit at the front desk, for to do so would be to insinuate that they lack intelligence, and second, that when people feel respected, they will do whatever they can to live up to that respect. I follow the lead of others, therefore, when I summarize all the desk expectations into two concise rules: "Be Here," and "Be Alert." All other aspects of the job stem from these two rules, and I try to give my workers as much freedom as possible to determine how best it means to follow the rules. It does not matter so much that these rules are stated, but that they are understood. It would be counter beneficial for me to post these two rules now at the desk as if to say, "You don't get it, let me explain," but if I were to begin again I might call attention to them.

Perhaps I have not adequately related this discussion to game mechanics and theory, but I am not sure that a correlative connection is necessary. Suffice it so say, people are more likely to play the game correctly when they can remember and understand the rules, and I am more likely to be pleased by the system I create when the participants do what is right, not because everything has been explained in line item form, but rather because they are fulfilling my trust in their ability to think for themselves, to understand, and to grow in maturity.

Note on Game Looks

Tonight a friend of mine unpacked his new copy of "Wasabi" and I got a chance to hold it. It felt good, but, more importantly, it looked amazing. I stood near a group of people and they immediately took notice. "A game about sushi! Cool! Let me look at it!" This, coming from non-gamers. It was simple and gorgeous, and they wanted to play it. It looked even better after we opened it up, and I found myself envious that people were not so enthusiastic about the games that I own.

Games and scheduling

As a part of my day job I schedule a staff of about 20 people to work a front desk in a building on campus. Last night one of the workers said, "For some reason I enjoy scheduling for the desk so much better than other things. Its like a game." I was pleased to hear this. My method of scheduling is like a game.

In Fantasy Baseball drafts, managers are given a draft number. Number one picks first, and then everyone else picks in order until the last person, who picks twice. Then everybody else picks in reverse order until number one, who selects twice, and so on. It looks like this: 1,2,3,4,5,5,4,3,2,1,1,2,3,4,5,5,4...

I use the draft method for picking hours on a schedule because it is fair and fun. Every draft number has equal value and participants can plan their "draft" ahead of time by ranking the hours they want according to the likelihood desirable hours will still be open when their turn comes up again.

In addition to using a draft, I draw the entire schedule on a large white board using dry erase markers. When hours are selected I write (in corresponding color) the name of the participant who selected them. The white board provides a visual representation of what hours remain, and in a way is very much like a game board by which participants can plan their next move.

Lastly, I hand out playing cards numbered 1-X according to how many people are participating. The playing cards increases the game feel and gives players a tangible game piece for identification in the process.

The cards also present opportunities for game expansion. Players could trade cards on their turn, or select a new card from a random stack of unchosen cards. Players could have a joker which could give them a special extra move when they need to make a power play for important hours.

Scheduling could easily be mundane, but by applying game mechanics to the scheduling process it has become interesting and, for some, entertaining. Draft style is a very simple mechanism that corresponds perfectly to scheduling. The application of similar mechanics to other lugubrious interpersonal tasks could yield similar results.