"Do you play Competitive/Collaborative Games?" Topic

Yes.
No.
What the is that?

Competitive/Collaborative Game – a game where multiple players on one side have to work together in order to win, but there is a ranking of players within the winning side.

Example: In the Bombardment of Sweaborg the British and French commanders at sea are attacking the Russian and Finnish commanders in the fortress Viapori. No commander has enough forces to take on the enemy alone. Each commander gets "glory" points for certain types of casualty and for their own surviving forces. Players take glory penalties for retreats and withdrawals.

One side will "win" the battle (the Russians and Finns in the historical one), but only one commander will have contributed more to the victory. Depending on your point structure, you could have the British and French withdraw when their supplies run out, but have destroyed so much of the fortress that it can no longer defend Helsinki, and thus "win".

Example: All players are beset by a horde of zombies. Nobody can make it out solo. And there aren't enough resources and bullets for everyone to make it. Surviving players get victory points based on zeds destroyed and supplies carried out.

Rarely but it can be fun.

No.

Yes. One of the games that I play most frequently when I have a chance is Settlers of Catan -- which is one of the best examples of a competitive/collaborative game that one can find.

Kevin

Try Science v. Pluck by Howard Whitehouse; it is the best collaborative game around.

sure

I'll play anything.

I wonder if this qualifies.
I run a game called "Escape from the Wyoming Massacre".
To the settlers, obviously any Indian is a valid target. However the leader who behaves most heroically will have the best prospects in elections post war.
It really changes the dynamics of the game from a straight "Run away!" type of game.

Short answer: sometimes but not often.

I have nothing against such games but do not seek them out.

On occasion – particularly if we have a scenario with different commands and different objectives; yet having to work together to meet a common goal/enemy

Yes

I've played in a few games as described, and enjoyed them, but I haven't run them much. Setting up victory points and victory conditions for two sides is usually enough work for me.

I play collaborative games (generally players vs umpire in an RPG style) as it is much better way of modelling command structures.

Generally they all stick to the common objectives in the briefing although I do run WW1 games where the various divisional commanders compete with each other.

Escape From Colditz.

Pandemic, great fun even though we lose about 90% of the time.

Charlie Company is about as close as I come.