[usrusr]

They are part of the game to keep it somewhat interesting for those who were unlucky in the early buildup. How would a game designed to minimize kingmaking not end up being an isolated race to the high-score?

Maybe you would not mind these forms of interaction so much in a game that is more upfront about them? On the surface, Catan seems to be almost cooperative, I could imagine the "politics" to catch some players by surprise, over and over again. Something with a darker theme might help to put some distance between personal relationships and gametable betrayals.

Junta for example, my all time favorite despite some really crude game mechanics is all about bought loyalties and backstabbing (or maybe I like it because of the crude mechanics, there is even an annoying Risk minigame that occasionally pops up to completely change the pace) Informal alliances sometimes rise and fall apart before the even first turn is over.

[vkou]

There's games that have less kingmaker impact - where your choices restrict the choices other players can make, but not to the extent that Settlers does. Consider just about any worker placement games where, say, five players compete for three three worker spots on a particular resource tile.

It sucks if you were one of the two players who didn't get a chance to place - but it doesn't feel quite as shitty as when someone occupies the only worker spot for a particular tile, just to spite you.