"Win-Win" Topic

Do you often play games where all sides can achieve their objectives … where objectives are not necessarily mutually exclusive?

Most of the games we play are like that. Most of the time this is achieved by objectives having different levels of success. F'r'ex, "Take out as many border observation towers as possible." vs "Protect as many border observation towers as possible."

Usually, they are "deep" objectives with multiple facets. Border tower survival is one layer, own force preservation is another, and opposing force attrition may be a third. Often while the factors are known, the relative weighting of your factors is not known to the other side.

Sometimes the value of an objective component isn't known until after the end of the game. From the above example, an observation tower might be "destroyed" (as far as you can see at the time during the fight), but actually end up easy to fix compared to others, so not "worth" as much "victory". While this last bit is rarer, it seems to reflect modern combat better – I did a thing and I know I did that thing, but predicting how it actually affects adversary future state is not so sure.

All that said, we usually have a "points scale" attached, so that there is a winner. Beyond the possibility of exact point ties, there is also usually a Pyrrhic victory range that defines ties in the broader sense.

Many of our games are co-operative, against solo system opposition, so if we get out with our hides intact, we all win, or all lose!
Happy days!

Yes, all the time.

One side could have "Take & Hold Battlefield" and the opposing side "Kill Enemy General", and both could achieve their objectives…

No

It depends on the missions/scenario.

The last few miniatures games I've run have been basically role-playing games using miniatures, so the players have all been on the same side.

Who cares who wins? We play interesting scenarios, take the hill was last nights, based Very Lossely on HILL 112. Who won? Did not quite finish, too much chatter but both thought it a fun game and still up for grabs. No idea who would win but neither cared it was a good game. All our games are like that. You play to win but who cares if you do if the Game offres interesting tactical insights and challenges.

Who cares who wins?

Certainly not the OP. That's not even vaguely the topic of discussion.

We set objectives, those at best seem credible (but sometimes we get it wrong. The point is its about playing to some extent the objectives are just the motivation, part of the "story". Whether they are really achievable is immaterial to the enjoyment provided it proves and interesting and challenging game. Sometimes the objectives are not directly addressed, its up to the player to play out the scenario as he sees fit, in effect he decides the scenario objectives. This tests a players ability to think on his feet and adds an extra layer of challenge and interest to both sides.

I've tried to establish objectives, however my core group of players are not satisfied if an enemy soldier or asset is intact. Case in point. I ran a Wings of War WWI scenario where I placed objective markers on the table. Infantry positions artillery and aerodrome locations and all they had to do was to overfly those places to be successful. Both sides could have easily achieved their victory conditions. Instead they went after any enemy aircraft totally ignoring my instructions. So now I refrain from actual historical accounts and set up a balanced slug match with both sides having the same troops and equipment. It does give a better accounting of the rules as both sides have equal strength at the start. Sometimes you have to accept the will of the people.

No, usually my games are either based around both sides going for the same objective or one side trying to prevent the other from achieving their goal. I'm not at all against the idea though.

Actually, Burrows and Badgers often has hidden objectives for each side on top of the specific scenario goal, which can often result in a sort of tie even though one team ostensibly won.

I try to design convention scenarios for Ogre and Galactic Knights that have non-exclusive goals for each team, or even each player, with neither side knowing what the opponent's goals may be.

For example, one side may have a goal of destroying or occupying a certain location, while the other side may have an objective of escorting certain units on or off the map.

And at the end of the game, it's interesting to ask the players their thoughts on which side won.

non-exclusive goals for each team, or even each player, with neither side knowing what the opponent's goals may be

Do you use competitive-cooperative goals? Goals where players on the same side have aligned goals, but are competing to be the best of the winning side (subordinate commanders looking for the most glory in a win for … reasons) with possibly asymmetric goals (I gain VP for killing LEO and don't lose for killing civilians; you have automatic VP (status going in) but lose when civilians are killed; neither of us wins if the drugs don't get off the board)?