Most of us
have been caught in a game that we cannot win, cannot end, and cannot
leave. It’s the Triangle of Torment, and
it’s too late! Sometimes, we can avoid
this because we know the game lends itself to this particular type of torture. Risk and Monopoly are the best known perpetrators, but there are far
more. At other times, it happens because
a game is outside its “sweet spot”. This
is the number of players the game really
supports, really produces a great experience, not what is on the box. Sure, you can play Monopoly with six, but do you really want to? Every game is lengthened by adding
players. At a minimum, more decisions
are being made, and that will slow things down.
Yet, some games are relatively unaffected by the number of players. They scale well. This post will identify some of the signs of
a game stretched too thin, or a game that can tolerate a wider range in the
number of players.
Rule 1:
If the number of players supported has a wide range, the game probably
doesn’t play well at the upper limit.
The most obvious hint for how many players can play a game is the number
of players listed on the box. That’s
useful information, just not perfect.
Generally, a game cannot be stretched past the top number of players due
to the components included. The number
of pawns, player mats or something other piece is the limiting factor. If someone wants to play Scrabble with five, there aren’t enough tile racks. It would probably be a good idea to politely
say “no”. After all, there is a reason
the game says 2-4 players. Beyond that,
many games are not great when played at the upper limit of their player
count. If the box says it plays 2-6
players, there is a pretty good chance it isn’t very good at six players. This is particularly true when the spread of
players supported is four or more. Games
where the spread is one are generally safe; Ticket
to Ride: Nordic Countries says 2-3 players, and that’s accurate.
Rule 2:
Sometimes a game has a number of roles
that define the best number of players. War of the Ring is a 2-4 player game
where victory is achieved by good overcoming evil or vice versa. There are two sides: good and evil. Only two people need play. In fact, unless you like the role of Igor, it
is going to be a bad game with more than two.
This is true in so many games, which can be generalized this way: don’t
count the number of players, count the number of roles. Most historical wargames have two sides:
North vs. South, Axis vs. Allies, Romans
vs. Carthaginians. An exception is Diplomacy, which, like Risk, has multiple roles. This is exactly the reason why Axis and Allies is great with two or
five, but not with three or four. The
game is either played with two roles (Axis / Allies), or five roles (Germany /
Japan / United States / Soviet Union / Great Britain).
Rule 3:
The conditions that determine the end of the game indicate how
additional players impact the play. Many
end game conditions are actually similarly structured, with a few defining
characteristics. The first thing to look
for is whether or not the game uses a common pool of resources that directly impact the endgame, or if
resources are separate or immaterial to the end game. Take Scrabble
for instance. The game essentially ends
when the 100 tiles run out, plus a turn or two.
It is a common pool of tiles, so whether two people or four people are playing,
they have to play 100 tiles. Game length
doesn’t overly suffer. In Pandemic, there are three ways to lose:
run out of disease cubes in any one of the four colors, run out of player
cards, or have too many outbreaks. The
number of each is fixed, regardless of the number of players. The game will end in roughly the same period
of time – sooner if you manage a win! On
the other hand, resources have nothing to do with the end game in Monopoly or Risk, they are essentially infinite, and therefore more players
will definitely increase the game length.
Rule 4:
How much confrontation a game has, along with how it is structured, have
a big impact on game length with respect to the number of players. Non-cooperative games without confrontation
tend to last longer in direct proportion to the number of players
involved. If each person is trying to
get to ten points, and the score of an average loser is 8, then a game with an
extra player will have 8 extra points scored – more time. If there is confrontation, the next question is
does the game play with replacement or
without replacement. If I am playing a game where my ninja heals
if not killed, then each attack, no matter how many players, has to kill me
from full strength. (This game could go on forever!) However, if there is no replacement, each
attack weakens me, regardless of the source of the attack. If I am playing 4-way chess, with the goal of
eliminating everyone else, there are more pieces playing, but Player A taking a
rook benefits Players B and C just as much, and the damage is cumulative. The game is less impacted by the number of players.
Armed with
this, you can avoid that never-ending game – you will see it coming. Maybe you can redirect to a game that is
better suited to the number of people sitting around. After all,
It’s
Your Move!
