It's totally a mix of both. An interesting moment I had was playing Pandemic early on with some friends who had never played it. I wanted them to go through the mental puzzle of what to do but because the group was fairly laid back, they asked me to quarterback them! It was really revealing to see how player personalities can affect the intended interaction. A game like Pandemic shines when all the players have the same temperament and engagement, but falls apart quickly if those are mismatched.

Kept an eye on the cat sleeping in the chair! They get up at around minute 15 if you are looking for cute cat action!

Thanks for this video, Jamey! I have strong feelings on this. For me, it's a player problem, but not in the way that most would assume. There's a social contract we unconsciously agree to when sitting down to play a game. Often, people join games with very different aspirations. Some sit down to win, and others sit down to have agency, or tell a story, or to have fun with friends (and these things are sometimes mutually exclusive). In a perfect world, the social contract would be clear. Are we here to win, or are we here to have agency in our own experience? The fact that this contract is not explicitly agreed upon before the game means it's a player problem, but it's not always the quarterbacker's problem! If one of the people in a 4-player game cares more about player agency than winning, and all 3 others care more about winning, then it can't really be blamed on the quarterbackers. I personally value story-telling and player agency above winning in games. But that's not the case for everyone.

Great video Mr. Stegmaier! You mentioned a handful of games that would make my list, so I'll just mention a few you didn't mention. Too Many Bones - Mostly because a lot of it is dependent on dice rolls. One of the most interesting parts of the game is the fact that each character has 16 dice that are unique to them, no characters have the same die. So as you unlock skill points to either increase your stats (atk, def, dex or cha) or unlock new dice, you are becoming more and more unique than the other players at the table. You can discuss certain strategies but really the battles feel like a big brawl where you just pick your dice and go for it! Nemesis - Similar to Shadows and Dead of Winter in that one or more of the players at the table could be a traitor (I enjoy in this one that you actually get two objective cards at the beginning, one is always a good mission, the other could be either a good or traitor mission, so multiple people could be in on the backstabbing!) but the game is intense enough thanks to the aliens that you need to work together to survive. Even if everyone at the table is good, your missions could all be different, and people could be bluffing so there's not really a way to tell them what to do. Incoming Transmission - I played this at a convention and backed it on kickstarter but it's been having some issues getting sent out. If it ever does get released it is one to check out for sure. A group of players control a pawn (the human) on a grid (the space ship) and you have to repair the engines before the time runs out. One person knows which parts need to be gathered, which ones are broken and need to be repaired, and where they need to go. That player is going to hand a number of tiles each round to the group of players who control the pawn (the number of tiles depends on the round) but there's always a couple extra tiles that have to be added in at random (also dependant on the round) so they'll go through a number of tiles, and need to choose which tiles they think actually didn't belong, and what order they should do them in "I think he wants us to go up, right, grab, repair, then come back down like he's trying to get us to repair this part and bring it back somewhere." It causes for interesting discussions and was fun to play both as the group trying to make the right moves with the pawn, and as the transmitter who had all the information. As far as thoughts on if it's a player or developer problem that's an interesting question, I think it could be either. I know some gamers who start quarterbacking even if the game isn't cooperative. Like you're playing Terraforming Mars and on your turn you're thinking for a moment, and that one guy at the table goes "Well if you have something that increases oxygen you're gonna wanna do that and try to play something off of here if you can because it'll get you this" But since there are ways to design a game where you literally can not quarterback (Hanabi being a perfect example) it could also be that the game lends itself to it.

I think Quarterbacking is often a combination of dominant player and design problems. In my gaming group, we have a really smart, strategic thinker. With Pandemic and Ghost Stories specifically, he was very able and willing to do all decision-making for other players and the games did not prevent him from doing this. It's partly the reason why I mostly own competitive board games - when you play, you make the decisions and you feel involved.

15:38 1. Just One 13:10 2. Shipwreck Arcana 12:05 3. The Mind 10:25 4. Mysterium 8:55 5. Mechs vs Minions 8:00 6. Flip Ships 6:35 7. Shadows Over Camelot 4:50 8. Hanabi 3:25 9. Spirit Island 1:10 10. Forgotten Waters

Thanks for the Flip Ships shoutout!

I think part of the alpha player challenge is if a game is difficult, there is a lot of pressure to win. So while players may have agency, it's stressful to know your decision could torpedo the game for others. So people are motivated both to alpha and to follow.

It's a design problem first for me, and a player problem second. Because competitive gamers have the goal to win the game, they will take actions (such as giving advice they believe is helpful) that cause quarterbacking. Because competitive gamers are going to be wrong sometimes, even when they're trying as hard as they can to win, it's also a player problem because they're inadvertently sabotaging their own goals.

Totally agree on The Shipwreck Arcana. Dang, that game's so good and underrated. Nice list, Jaime! I think mine would have included Codenames Duet, The Crew, The Game, The Grizzled, and Spaceteam probably. Two of which are on your honorable mentions, so I'll count them.

Great list. One of my favorite games is Scotland Yard, but I cannot play it with one specific friend. His intelligence is off the charts and he wants to outwit Mr X so bad, that he ends up quarterbacking everyone's moves.

Great list! Thank you.

I just recently played a game called Yum Yum island with my young nieces and I think they took care of this aspect quite well. It's a dexterity cooperative game where you must drop food pellets inside some animals mouth while blindfolded. Depending on the result of a dice, you can sometimes help the active players by giving them some directions. But at other times, the dice will prevent anyone from helping the active player. I think it makes a nice compromise.

Great video! I love coop games and hate quarterbacking. Mechs vs minions is #1 on my wishlist for a long time now but is really hard to get. Same with shipwreck arcana (want to play that one since your favourite mechanism video on it). My favourite in this genre are Space Alert and Grizzled. Check them out.

Great topic. Thanks!

I would add to the list Kitchen Rush, Letter Jam, Codenames:Duet, The Game

This is an excellent list but I think I would have included Menara and Orléans: Invasion. Both have been among my favourite cooperative experiences where quarterbacking isn't an issue. Menara uses dexterity like Flipships but perhaps more satisfyingly and Orléans: Invasion has people work collaboratively but with very different individual goals to achieve the group victory.

The people that I play with typically don't quarterback due to their more reserved personalities (hopefully I don't either😄). I have played before with people who do, and for Pandemic as an example, it diminishes the experience for me. I hadn't thought about how game design could reduce this & found this topic & this list fascinating! I love Forgotten Waters & Just One & now I'm wondering if part of the appeal is because of this design facet. Thank you for sharing about this topic!

Been looking at Shipwreck Arcana for some time. I may have to pull the trigger on that one.

I feel like co-op in board games is a bit different from reality, which might be what sometimes causes some problems. Imagine if you work on a project at a company, then there's always gonna be a formal (or informal) leader present. Or if your plane crashes in the mountains and a group of people survives, there's gonna be (a will be highly needed) a strong leader to help with their continuous survival. But in board games, we're instead expected to save the world and all our friends/players without a clear leader. It's very difficult.

How nice of the cat to quickly pick up the phone so as to not let it ruin the video at 14:58.

Really great list Jamey! Per your comment at the end, I really feel when you dig a bit deeper, the quarterbacking issue is mostly a player issue (the perception that it's a design issue kind of makes it one, which is interesting and also worth discussing). To me, it comes down to the importance of promoting more empathy and conscientiousness towards less experienced players within gaming culture. I have played a number of competitive games in which the more experienced players are so focused on winning that they do not do a very good job of helping the first-time or less experienced players learn the game, which can lead to a frustrating and unpleasant game session for these players. In my experience, "alpha" types tend to exhibit similar behavior in both competitive and cooperative games, which leads to similarly negative experiences. For some reason, though, this isn't seen as a "design problem" in competitive games (the full responsibility of the negative experience tends to be placed on the newer player for not learning the game quickly enough on their own, or for blaming the game if they have a frustratingly bad first-game experience). I always appreciate when experienced players thoughtfully teach complex strategy games--often by sacrificing their own chances of winning to demonstrate alternative strategies, take less powerful roles in asymmetric games, use their "thinking time" to help newer players see what their options are, etc. These types of gamers don't tend to quarterback a co-op either, and we need more of them. Tbh, as much as this issue is discussed as a design problem, I have rarely seen the boogeyman of "quarterbacking" play out in co-ops, though maybe I just play games with nice people ;)

I think Forgotten Waters does a clever thing to prevent quarterbacking that you might have overlooked. Pirates choose actions in order based on their ranking, and the game will sometimes say certain actions are mandatory. Usually it's the pirates going last who are forced to do those important actions, even if they'd rather have a free choice and pick something that sounds more exciting. However, pirates can do things to gain popularity and climb the ranks, so they're not stuck doing the same actions over and over the whole game. In other words, the game itself is quarterbacking the players! And then it turns that into a mini-game of its own, where the players can rearrange who gets full agency, and who has to "listen to orders". Turning quarterbacking into a fair system within the game actually makes it fun to players, instead of making them feel like their voice isn't being heard.

I actually just played Spirit Island and the shipwreck arcana two days ago. You also reminded me of how much I miss playing Just One! Currently it's kind of hard to get to the table… I also have a quite personal question, which is kind of related to your video and especially Just One. Your opinion would mean a lot to me! 😊 Sorry in advance for the longer text and especially for the following preface leading to my question: So, for a little context, the three things I'm enjoying the most in board games are 1. Challenging strategy games with meaningful decisions (I think there are a lot of these on the market) 2. Co-op games; I love how they combine strategy and communication and in general I like playing together with instead of against players a bit more 3. I absolutely adore association games (or maybe you call them word games). I just feel like the word games we currently have (Code names, just one, taboo, Decrypto, Dixit and so on) are more on the lighter side and lean more towards party or filler games. So, I've been wondering for some years if there is a chance for more challenging heavier word game, Something you would still want to get to the table if you are feeling like playing a “serious game” (no degradation to smaller games intended! 😉). Something like Spirit Island did for cooperative strategy games. Before spirit island these games used to be more catered towards casual players. I guess the one game that feels like a step in the direction I wanted to go was “Decrypto”, but it is still not there. So long story short I gave it a lot of thought, as well as 2 years of work and designed a more challenging and somewhat deeper, but still “elengent” word game. I've shown it to quite some people and also presented it at the annual board game meeting my city organizes and the people who liked it really seemed to like it. So my question to you as someone, who I think knows the current state of the board game market pretty much as well as no one else at the moment is: Do you think that there is a significant enough number of people, who want a heavier word game? The fact that there are just no such games makes me wonder if there's just no demand for such a game. or maybe I've just missed them so far. The way I designed it the difficulty level is very well adjustable from as easy as code names up to quite challenging, But for some it still seems to present some hurdle of entry, while I designed it for people who are like done with code names and want more. The game also teaches a deeper understanding of word association and Is a playful way to practice “deeper thinking”. While I kind of had a cooperative game in the back of mind I began with a competitive version. It was kind of the main critique point my friend said because they somehow need the feeling of play against someone, while I always felt that games like taboo being competitive feels kind of artificial while really being a cooperative game in it's hard. Then Just One got released, which finally gave me the courage to make my game fully cooperative. While I loved word games from the moment I played taboo for the first time, the market seemed to have needed code names to really realize how much people will enjoy them and now there are word games everywhere and every bored game company seems to want a piece of the pie, but there is still no deeper word game I feel like. Still I hope that the current flood of beginner level word games might just build a target group of people that someday will ask for a more challenging word game. You are one of my board game designer idols so your opinion would mean a lot to me! 😊

Speaking of co-op programming games, any thoughts on Plaid Hat's Quirky Circuits, Jamey? I thought it looked like a fun, silly time, but haven't gotten around to playing it as a lot of folks said that programming games like QC can be quite contentious from game group to game group.

I think quarterbacking is mostly a player problem, as players must learn to let go of controlling every situation and moment of gameplay. It is an exercise in patience. Watching a player make mistakes and then learn from them can be very satisfying for everyone, even if you might lose your first few games. The way I avoid quarterbacking is the following: If a new player isn't sure what to do with their turn, I allow the more experienced players (usually me) to provide the player with several options of things to do with their turn, with some "mediocre" and "bad" plays mixed in among the options (although I do not say which is which!). The players then compare the options and pick what they think is best, allowing them to perform a "guided" experiment with the game. This always seems to help the players see how to form these options for themselves... and after a few turns the players are making all the decisions themselves. Once the training wheels are off, players are not allowed to tell players what to do with their turn, but may answer questions about (for example) what cards/resources they have.

Hey Jamey. Actually it’s both and design and a player problem. My Monday night game is usually Co-Op night. the design problem reasons you had dead on. Things that help to prevent this -Limited info, complexity, randomness and choices. Another way to look at it - excluding the party type games - ie - Mysterium and Just One, there really are very few truly cooperative games. What I mean is games that MUST be played cooperatively. If you can set a game up for even 4 players and you can make all of the decisions without ruining the spirit of the game, then quarterbacking can be possible. Hanabi and The Crew are two games that the game cannot work if one player simply played all hands. I love Aeon’s End, Spirit Island and Robinson Crusoe. But if all hands were face up then you can play the hands all by yourself. Now what my Monday night group has done to combat this is kind of meta to tell the truth. Each player handles their own character and each player also handles the game from a different perspective. We play with three usually - one handles all the board elements, like moving the bad guys or drawing the cards for the board. Another is the rules guy (my role) I handle making sure that the we keep to the rules as well as the spirit of the rules and I make sure that the grunt work like getting the minis ready for the next round and shuffling the decks. Player 3 (usually plays 2 characters) but keeps long term strategies in mind and questions when we are losing focus on the goal of the game. He also makes sure that the game state is clean by clearing off the discards or dead monsters. The biggest part for our trio and our favorite part of the co-op experience is the discussion of cause an effect of our decisions as we plan out each turn. Like.. “I can kill that level 4 monster, but I need someone to help me move an extra space to do it. or, “I can do this but I’ll be complete defenseless afterwards, should I wait until next turn instead?” This is honestly why Spirit Island and Robinson Crusoe are some of my favorite Co-ops.

I think one thing that sets MvM apart but is often overlooked is the engine building aspect of the programming. Your program is slowly built up and modified throughout the game. Many programming games have you choosing actions several turns in advance but building a programming engine has different, longer-lasting implications. This also helps to limit quarterbacking because you can only change your program/engine one card at a time out of 6 slots. It makes it largely unrealistic to tell people what to do when there are things they’ve built up throughout the game in their engine that they must do.

Love that you do these videos. Now I say it is a player problem. Not always Alpha player. Yet some players are nervous to make a decision. Why Magic maze, Escape, 5 min Dungeon are great options too, just gotta go!!! Jamey, what is name of game you are working on?

I think it's worth considering reframing quarterbacking as a 'design choice' rather than a 'design problem'. The design choice being allowing all information to be open, as opposed to certain actions/information only being available to one player. I think it's not the right approach to game design to look at 'how to solve quarterbacking in this game'. Hanabi or The Mind would not have been games without their design choices which happen to limit quarterbacking. Vice versa Pandemic would not be the same game had great design effort gone into preventing quarterbacking. Allowing open discussions with everyone having all the information, to me, is a great design choice. One that accepts the possibility of quarterbacking to deliver a chosen experience. I like games that limit quarterbacking if they are good games unto themselves. I like games with possible quarterbacking if they are good games unto themselves. Quarterbacking, just like backstabbing, luck, hurt feelings, requiring dexterity or what have you are all design choices, for the players to enjoy or not. I believe it's fine to mention games where quarterbacking can happen, but it's a disservice to our hobby to fault a design because of it. I don't enjoy games with backstabbing, but I wouldn't call it a 'design problem'. Some people love it, and that's great. It's just a design choice which leads to experiences I don't much enjoy. And that's why I dislike the term 'design problem' when describing a possibility of quarterbacking. Sorry for the long comment, it's just my 2 cents.

I think it can be designed out of a game but things like Pandemic are still great games if no one QBs. I have the issue that most games I play are mine and Teach to others. This leads to them asking can I do this/ what should I do. I know what I would do in their situation but I always try to give a few options to help them out but let them decide their final action. i.e: Pandemic, You could go to city X and clear it or you could go hear and build a research station or you head east and clear a few cubes.

I heard Forgotten Waters has solo and 2 player variants which work well.

I think coop deck builders work well to prevent alpha players as you’re in control of your own hand of cards. Hogwarts Battle is good, or Aeons End.

The only thing I was sure of was that your #1 would be T.I.M.E. Stories. I've never played it - does that have too much quarterbacking to make the list? I have 2 on my list. For me, the perfect cooperative game: -Has no quarterbacking -Is truly cooperative (so people can talk to each other) -Makes each person feel like they are providing something unique With these considerations, my favorites are Captain Sonar and Spirit Island. Gloomhaven almost works as well as Spirit Island, and for the same reasons, but the game does put some artificial constraints on conversation. Captain Sonar is just brilliant, though. Each person has a role, you are constantly talking, and each person has a separate domain of responsibility. And it uses a mechanism that doesn't appear on your list: real time. I guess Captain Sonar might not qualify because it's a team vs. team game, not a true co-op. Personally, I really hate games that don't let you talk. I think that just kills the fun of cooperating. So Mysterium is definitely out, as it Mountain of Madness (which interferes with talking through the hackneyed "madness" mechanism). I agree Hanabi is an exception as is Just One (a fine game). I can also tolerate The Mind due to its brevity. The Mind can be fun, but it can also just be a dud if you're losing fast, which can happen. Yes, when you win you feel clever and like you were in tune with the other players, but when you lose hard it just feels like a stupid activity. A good co-op should be fun whether you win or lose.

Deadline is another game which, like Hanabi, restricts the information you can give to other players. I can't tell you what to do because I can't see your hand of cards. You can tell me thematic things like "I'm ready for a fight" but not "I have 3 cards with guns on them".

with all the things you said about Hanabi, I'm surprised "The Crew" didn't make your list

It is a player problem, always.

I think it's a player problem insofar as players want to do other players' thinking for them. The proof that it's the player here is that you can see it in *competitive* games-someone once tried to teach me Go, and it was a misery because instead of letting me learn by doing they were constantly going “no, don't go *there* !” without even being able to articulate why not beyond that *they* could see that it would put them in an (uninterestingly) strong position. I think it's a design problem insofar as players aren't given distinct rôles. Whether those rôles are conceptually symmetric (and kept distinct by symmetry breaking randomness and information limitations) or asymmetric (in which case they are naturally distinct) is not terribly germane once the game has started, but a lack of distinction between what players do, is. Importantly, saying “you move the red piece and I move the blue piece” ceases to be enough once coöperation is introduced, since the red piece now can't be moved without considering the blue piece. In essence, introducing a truly *shared* planning problem layer between the players and their pieces competes with the identification between the players and the pieces. I do wonder if you can break down the quarterbacking problem on a social level without adjusting the strict game mechanics. As a thought experiment, imagine saying to the players, “Blue, you're the Safety Officer! When we plan our moves, it's your job to keep everyone safe! Red, you're the Danger Officer! When we plan our moves, it's your job to make sure that plenty of dangerous things happen!” Just a tiny nudge away from complete focus on winning the game and towards having fun doing it…? [Almost complete aside: one of the most brilliant moments I've ever experienced GMing was when the starship's xenobiologist (who had previously said “I'm going to screw around in the lab for a bit while we're in flight to the next planet”) walked onto the bridge for the mission briefing and said “I'm carrying a huge black pill! I shout ‘Astral travel!’, down the pill, and instantly pass out on the floor!” So … I had to improvise some astral travel rules :). A consequence, I think, of a game framework whose foundational principles include “you do not have to ask for permission”. The mental connection here is that sometimes in gaming chaos is the better path? My players were not merely not quarterbacking, they were deliberately throwing curveballs, and it was great.] [Edited for KZfaq not understanding the interactions between boldface and punctuation.]

I only hear about the quarterbacking problem online and I hear it often. Never had this problem. Due to me hearing about it online I really try to avoid to quarterback.

I think the inability to directly discuss cards being played in Gloomhaven is the obvious answer to this. Such a simple but elegant way to prevent perfect strategies and alpha gaming at the same time.

My favorite cooperative game is Spirit Island and I once played with a three-player game of it with an alpha gamer. It was irritating and not an enjoyable experience..

For me is player problem. I have played lots of Pandemic in different context and different groups and never felt that someone took the lead of the group

Like in The Mind, Quirky Circuits involves playing movement cards silently for your robot to cooperatively complete the task. I think when we play coop games, we tend to specifically choose to let others make their own choices....so we are making a mental note NOT to be alpha gamers. If playing with kids, we might give them some options, but still let them choose. Choosing is the fun part! There have been times when I thought my kids were making a horrible mistake and they ended up winning the game for us, so it’s a good reminder that my way isn’t necessarily the best way. I’ve played with an Alpha gamer before, and the next time I play with him, I’ll just mention to the table that we want to let others play their turns and make their own choices.

I was pretty sure I’d find The Reckoners on your list. You mentioned it repeatedly for a while and now it seems to have fallen off your radar for some reason. It’s still one of my favorite coop games. What happened ?

Space Alert!

5 Minute Dungeon should probably be on your list too.

I agree that quarterbacking is mostly a player issue. but, I have found that when a game's structure does not prevent quarterbacking, its not that fun to play if you generally can sense what needs to be done, but don't want to be playing quarterback. For instance, I don't like playing Pandemic generally because I tend to be able to see what other players to do, but I also try to restrain myself from telling them that. then, I get annoyed when we are not playing the game as effectively as we should be. so, I think some of the comments about we're all just here to have a good time are a bit disingenuous because somebody who might be a quarterback and is actively restraining themselves are themselves possibly not having a good time.

I think its first of all a player problem bu can be influenced by the design. Limited information is a good way to reduce quarterbacking why i prefer card driven coop games which always have some amount of limited information in contrast to e.g. classic dungeon crawlers. Im not a big fan of limiting the content of conversation because to me it often feels artificial and edgy. I would like to see a game limiting the moments of conversations and planing (for example sharing the same space) and then every one tries to achieve different tasks on their own.

Design can make a game truly cooperative, as with Hanabi, but I think most supposed cooperative games are effectively just single player puzzles with multiplayer written on the box. With these, if you're playing with others there's an opportunity to develop team skills and it's the conversations and interesting discussions around choices that's important and entertaining. An alpha player will simply ruin this in their blind attempt to simply beat the game. Traitors and nonsense rules about what you can and can't say is in your hand can feel tacked-on, forced, unthematic and unintuitive. I have found that if people understand at the start that the game is actually a puzzle that we are ALL helping with, and that players must be allowed their own 'turn', it can help keep things fun for everyone. This works for my family group but to be honest I'd rather always play competitive games with most everyone else!

Quarterbacking is not always bad though, its great for playign with people that would otherwise not be interested enough in the game to make all the decisions on their own. I think its more of a player problem, I only quarterback when it is needed (the other player is overwhelmed with info), I never quarterback something like Pandemic, as its too easy of a game to grasp, so people know whats going on.

Anybody that has anything nice to say about shadows over camelot has never been on the grail track.

Spirit Island is interesting because you sometimes have "popularity" problems Like you have an ability that everyone at the table wants and beg you for help every round

I think the majority of the problem is a player problem. It fits into the magic circle we all step into when we play a game. When you play a game of chess, you agree that you're going to follow the rules for movement of each piece, this does not have to be stated, it is a given. The same goes for a co-op game, we agreed to play the game together, by choosing to play by yourself, someone does not get to participate and is in violation of the magic circle we all agreed to when we sat down. With that said, the additions of limited information and traitors does prevent this from happening, and will almost guarantee a better first play of the game for most players. So it's a player problem, that can be helped by design.

Quarterbacking is always and only a player problem. I understand that if you have a alfa gamer in your group you need to seek for games that prevent it. My groups don't have that problem so I actually find most of those limited communication games bit dull. Because the point of co-ops is to together come to the best solution, you can't do that if you can't openly talk. Often if you prevent quarterbacking you also prevent the best part of cooperative play. For example Spirit Island sometimes feels more like multiplayer solitar, because you don't have the brainpower to think trough everyones most optimal move compared to what others are able to do. So some games do allow more quarterbacking, but those games are the ones I like the most.

For me it is a player problem. Having played pandemic (with open hands) and similar games in many groups I’ve experienced plays where quarterbacking was a problem and plays where it was not. I admire and enjoy games that prevent quarterbacking including many on this list, but I don’t think that all cooperative games should have that aim. In the right group games like pandemic can be so much fun *because* of the open collaboration and discussion among players. That is a strength of pandemic-like games, and it only becomes a problem when an alpha player is at the table. Limited information games offer a different challenge and experience and a different type of enjoyment. As an experienced player pandemic-like games offer a teaching challenge and one has to be conscious to take a back seat when playing with a newbies to not become the problem and to let the group explore the game themselves.

Quarterbacking is only a player problem. If you keep telling people what to do, you value winning over your friends having a good time. You are not obligated to say what you feel is the best move.

It's 99% a design problem/decision!

All the people insisting "it's a player problem" are actually alpha players.