The card game Old Maid is played until there is only one person left, the person stuck with the old maid. This is different than most games in that the object is to get out, not really to win. That is, there is one loser and multiple winners.
Knucks is the same way – you want to get rid of your cards so you don’t get stuck at the end getting rapped on the knuckles.
Musical chairs works in a similar way, as does hot potato.
Are there other card or board games that work the same way?
ETA: Musical chairs isn’t really the same. Sorry. You end up with multiple losers in that game. I haven’t played in, oh, 35 years or so, so I had it backwards.
In Bang!, you can have multiple winners & losers. In a sufficiently large game, you have a Sheriff, a Deputy, and multiple Outlaws and Renegades. The Sheriff & Deputy are trying to kill the Outlaws and Renegades, the Outlaws are trying to kill the Sheriff, and the Renegades are trying to kill everybody, with the Sheriff dying last.
So, if anybody kills the Sheriff, all remaining Outlaws win. If the Sheriff & Deputy kill the others, they both win.
The card game Asshole/President/Hand of Caesar pretty much has one loser, though I guess you could argue that there’s only one winner, several neutrals, and one loser.
The Fury of Dracula board game applies if the hunters win and Dracula loses.
Neuroshima Hex can also apply if playing with more than two players and all but one of them tie for first.
Are we talking about games that always have multiple winners and one loser, or just games that can have that end state?
Mafia/Werewolf, assuming the villagers find the werewolf(ves), will result in as many losers as there were werewolves and as many winners as there are surviving villagers.
I guess I was thinking of situations where there is one loser and a bunch of non-losers (like Old Maid). That is, the object is to get out of the game. Who gets out first or second doesn’t matter – all that matters is who is left, and that player loses.
Thanks for the replies so far. To be honest, I’ve never heard of any of those (other than Russian Roulette, of course). I’m surprised that there are not more common games with the kind of ending I’m after.
Cosmic Encounter ends when a player acquires X (5, I think) off-world colonies. But, if multiple players acquire their winning colony simultaneously then they all win together, and the alliance mechanics make that very likely.
Basically, on a player’s turn that player must attack another randomly selected player. If she wins, by having a bigger attack number than the defender, she gets a colony. But, both sides may invite whoever they wish to join in the attack or defense, increasing that side’s chances of victory. So more often than not, that last attack becomes a coalition of everyone who can win that turn versus everyone who can’t. Well, after the inevitable grudges are factored in. It’s actually possible in some very rare circumstances for everyone to win simultaneously.
There was a board game we used to play with the kids called Scotland Yard. It’s been years since I played but IIRC if the players who are police manage to catch “Mr. X” then they are all winners and he is the one loser.
There are lots of hidden team games with a mechanic where multiple people win. Mafia/Werewolf, The Resistance, Battlestar Galactica, Dead of Winter, Shadows over Camelot, Bang!, etc… Essentially, teams are (at least partially) hidden so you have to assess who’s on your team. If the good guys win, they all win. If the bad guys win, they all win. There are tweaks to this formula, but it’s one of my favorite genres.
I think Scotland Yard is a retheme of Fury of Dracula. I’ve never played either, but the mechanics seem similar to Clue: The Museum Caper where a single thief steals paintings while a team of investigators tries to track and catch the thief.
The board game Betrayal: The House on Haunted Hill is played cooperatively until one player during the course of the game becomes the Traitor turns against the rest of the players who are now the Heroes. The traitor has specific winning conditions to accomplish while the Heroes have to do something specific to stop him (without either side knowing exactly what the other is trying to accomplish). Frequently the Heroes will all win while the Traitor is the sole loser.
My main issue with that game is it’s kind of a “What’s the point of playing the first half?” game.
Why not just play the whole thing with a hidden traitor from the get-go?
At least in BSG, the chances of everyone being a human to start is slim. (Though, by dumb luck it happened the second time I played. And the cylon ended up not having an ally, so we three humans kicked his ass.)
While Hearts doesn’t technically have one loser each round, whoever gets the queen of spades usually feels like *the *loser, unless they shoot the moon.
I loved that game as a kid. There’s a good mix of luck and strategy involved.
Scotland Yard came first (1983 vs 1987). Mr X’s position is only revealed every so often, and the other players have to figure out the best way to cut off the escape routes, while also managing their own stocks of travel tickets.