Coalition Design Journal #6: Carrots and Sticks, Negotiation and Bluffing

ROLE ABILITIES AND NEGOTIATION INCENTIVES

For the uninitiated: a “carrot” is a positive incentive for desired behavior. A “stick” is a negative incentive to punish undesired behavior.

After the last few playtests, I’m wondering: are carrots more useful than sticks in a game of Coalition? I don’t know the answer, and I’d like to hear your thoughts. Many of the role cards in the game are quite aggressive. I’m not fully certain of their place in the game. Please help me deeper my understanding of this beast that we’ve created!

Any role card that generates Influence can be used as a carrot. The Friar and Investor are especially good at this. There are also other carrots in the game: the Magistrate and Advocate can affect how Edicts resolve at their Council, meaning that they’re great for bargaining with players that wish to trigger or avoid certain effects – Independents are usually particularly interested in these roles.

Other role cards are usually sticks. Clergy cards like the Inquisitor only ever punish the opposition. The Guildmaster and Revolutionary can be used to threaten a Council Chair into cooperation.

You might even be able to use some “aggressive” cards as carrots by promising potential allies that you will punish their enemies. The Nobles’ Knight might convince a Clergy to work with them by promising to use their role to boot out the Merchant on their Council. Of course, depending on their dispositions, the Merchants might be less likely to work with the Knight after such a play.

You might also convince someone to work with you if they think your role ability makes you more likely to win a given bid. For example, the Nobles’ Countess card can be used to discard Influence cards that other players bid. A cunning Countess player at a hotly-contest Council might announce that she has the ability to discard part of the Rebels’ bid, making a Merchant player think that it might be less worthwhile to side with the Rebels.

CONSENSUS, COMPETITION, AND RESOURCE CONSUMPTION

Bidding during the Council Phase will usually go one of two ways for your Council: either you will reach a consensus, or you will have a competition.

Consensus is likely if all players on your Council share a Value. For example, a Council of Merchants and Nobles is very likely to draft a Wealth Article, since those parties have Wealth as their shared Value. Usually, the whole Council will bid a total of 1 Influence – or even 0, if they trust the Council Chair.

If there are a mix of Parties on a Council, competition is much more likely. A Council with a Merchant, a Rebel, and a Clergy is likely to go for either Freedom (shared by the Rebel and Merchant) or Justice (shared by the Rebel and Clergy). Securing the Rebel’s support will likely be key to victory. There may be a chance of consensus if the Merchant or Clergy is convinced not to bid – for example, by offering them a Sigil.

One of the most powerful plays you can make in Coalition is to have your Council reach a consensus. If your Council spends 1 or 0 cards to get an Article on the scoreboard, that’s great. That’s virtually no resources spent to gain a whole +10 points. Players at your Council now have an edge over players at Councils where there was competition. Your Council spent a round conserving resources and scoring points, while Councils that had competition now have fewer resources to spend in the following round. Alternatively, if you anticipate consensus at your Council early on in negotiations, you can use your resources to help other players compete at other Councils.

BLUFFING, BIDDING, AND DEFECTING FROM CONSENSUS

The simultaneous blind bid gives players plenty of opportunity to bluff, making the outcome of competition uncertain. In the above example of competition, if the Rebel and Clergy align, they have the resources of two whole teams available to bid. If they think that this might deter the Merchant, they might each bid low. However, the Merchant might still have a chance to win if they bid high, especially if they are given Influence cards by players on other Councils.

If a player faces a competition that they do not think they can win, they have incentive to bluff bidding more Influence than they actually do. If you manage to make your opponents spend more resources while you spend less, you will have an advantage going into the next round.

A player can also bluff about agreeing to a consensus. If the consensus agreement is nonbinding, they might defect from the agreement by bidding more in secret. This makes it harder for a Council to reach a consensus where they spend little or no Influence to draft their Article. Spending fewer Influence leaves your agreement vulnerable to defectors.

The real question is: when is it worthwhile to defect? Perhaps a Council made up of Nobles and Merchants might agree to bid for Wealth, but the Nobles might decide in secret to defect and instead bid for Order. The Nobles might feel incentivized to do this if the Merchants are ahead, especially if the Clergy are behind. The Clergy might even bribe the Nobles to do so. However, such a betrayal might make the Merchants less likely to work with the Nobles in future rounds. Lastly, as we have established, consensus is quite powerful – the Nobles in this situation would have to decide whether the benefits of consensus outweigh the benefits of defecting. Of course, if the Merchants suspect treachery, the Council might turn to competition instead.

ROLE ABILITIES AND CONSENSUS

Roles with “stick” abilities aren’t likely to be activated if there is a consensus. Meanwhile, carrot roles – particularly Influence-generating roles like the Duke, Friar, and Investor – will likely be activated whether there is consensus or competition. Does that mean that the “stick” abilities are useful less often?

Aggressive roles such as the Knight, Revolutionary, Guildmaster, and Inquisitor aren’t likely to be activated if there is a consensus. Meanwhile, carrot roles – particularly the Influence-generating roles like Friar, Duke, and Investor – will likely be activated whether there is consensus or competition. Does this mean that “stick” abilities are useful less often?

I’d argue that an ability’s frequency of activation isn’t necessarily an indicator of its usefulness. It could be possible that the “stick” roles are actually good for enforcing consensus by threat of activation.

Potential defectors might choose to instead participate in the consensus if they worry about punishment. If a player wants to remain on a particular Council, they’d do well to align with the Knight. If a player wants to remain Council Chair, they shouldn’t cross the Guildmaster. This all sounds good in theory – but how often does it crop up in practice?

ROLE ABILITIES AND COMPETITION

Of course, many of the “stick” role abilities are quite useful in a competition. Being able to take away resources from opponents or directly manipulate cards in bids is incredibly useful.

Roles like the Spy and Countess are particularly great at making competition expensive simply by threat of activation. If an opponent knows that one of them is at the table, then the opponent will realize that they need to bid more cards to overcome those potent role abilities.

Of course, as I stated before, many of the “carrot” abilities will be useful here, too. Accruing Influence is crucial to winning competitions in future rounds.

What if I have a card that’s good at competing, but never have to activate it? The Guildmaster can easily become the Council Chair if he has the right types of Influence in hand. But what if every Council Chair at the Guildmaster’s Council is willing to collaborate for the entire game? Would it have been better for the Guildmaster to move on to a Council where they could usurp an unfriendly Council Chair? Or would the ability have been useful even without being activated, providing a threat of activation to encourage the Council Chair to collaborate?

This scenario could apply to any “stick” role. The real question is: would it be better to go and use your role ability? Or is the “soft power” gained through threat of activation enough to make a card useful?

WRAPPING UP

None of the questions that I’ve posed here are rhetorical. I have lots of ideas about how things might work in theory, but I want to hear from my playtesters about their actual experiences. Feel free to comment below, or join the Coalition Discord Server for live discussion!

Thanks for reading. Until next time, Councilors!

Josh Ballagh, Lead Designer