by Alex Harkey
[This blog post has been adapted to the blogging feature of BGG. To view this post in it's optimal format with full pictures and illustrations please visit GamesPrecipice.com]Author: Matt PavlovichOf the three pieces of information that grace the sides of every board game box (the length of the game, the age range, and the number of players), the first two are approximations that can be determined by the publisher and/or the designer during playtesting or post-production, but the number of players is explicit in the design. The dimension of gaming we’ll talk about this week is
player count, the use of different player numbers as a mechanic or design decision. We’ll also talk about
scalability, the ability of games to scale to accommodate different numbers or configurations of players.
Classification by player numberAs I talked about in an
introductory post back in December, one of the many ways to classify games is by the number of players. Player number is a deliberate design choice with implications for strategic depth, length, pacing, and complexity.
Single-player games, sometimes called solitaire or solo games, are a bit different from other player configurations in that they mostly pit a player against an objective or goal rather than against other players. In the MMO world, a game mode like this might be called “player vs. environment” or PvE, in contrast with “player vs. player” or PvP. “Collaborative” games like
Pandemic might also share more in common with single-player and PvE games than with multiplayer strategy games.
It’s become a bit of a trend in recent games to include single-player variants or solitaire modes;
Agricola,
Le Havre, and
Ascension (with an expansion) all support a version of the game for one player. But other media (especially video games) handle single-player gaming much better than strategy games do. Solitaire variants are nice additions that might generate some extra plays or additional buzz but probably aren’t going to represent the most popular way to play the game.
2-player games are often the purest contests of strategy between players due to the importance of symmetry occurring in player interaction. An interesting corollary to that point is that 2-player games, when played by players of approximately equal skill, are often good test cases for comparing strategies. In
Dominion, if two players commit to vastly different lines of play, the lack of influence of a third player means the strategies can be directly compared against each other.
As a designer, including a 2-player game mode can be advantageous to expand your game’s audience in the form of couples who want to play a game together. But simply throwing in a “dummy” 2-player variant that’s worse than–or simply different from–the few-player game is not the same as actually designing for a robust two-player experience.
Design considerations for a 2-player game::coal:
Symmetry: how symmetric or asymmetric is your game, and is that symmetry/asymmetry intentional?
:coal:
Robustness: is your 2-player mode supported in its own right, or does it more closely resemble the 3-player game with a dummy player?
:coal:
“Zero-sum” interactions: denying you two points is effectively the same as scoring two points for myself.
:coal:
External balance issues: does going first (or going second) confer a significant advantage?
:coal:
Repetition: does the game have enough variety of mechanics that the 2-player game isn’t simply a repetitive back-and-forth sequence?
3-player games are much more significantly different from 2-player games than from 4+ player games. The addition of a third player makes games less deterministic and changes the math behind how to acquire points. If player A prevents player B from getting five points in a 2-player game, then player A is five points closer to winning. In a 3+ player game, then player A might simply have opened the door to player C winning.
3-player games also introduce a type of variance in gameplay called
player driven chaos. This variance is a byproduct of player interaction that introduces randomness into a game which remains under the control of the players. Most commonly this is visible when a player observes a very different game state between turns. This differs from traditional 2-player games in which a player is able to immediately respond following each turn or action of an opponent.
In
Hey! That’s My Fish! players move penguin pieces around the board to enclose ice flows and score fish which count as points. The 2-player game is a perfect information game where players block and have complete control over their final position in the game. By adding an additional player, each player loses individual influence over the control of the game as the board situation can change considerably between the turns of a given player.
Therefore, in “strategy game” design, 3 players, up to about 7-8, represents a “sweet spot” of games that aren’t simply back-and-forth deterministic but can still be mechanically balanced. Over that range, 3-4 player games are by far the most common.
3-player games in particular exhibit a fascinating example of
positional balance that can be described as a
“tripod effect.” If one of the legs of a tripod is longer than the other two, then the other two will naturally bear more weight to compensate and keep the tripod balanced on the ground. Similarly, in a well-balanced 3-player game, the two players not in the lead will often team up to keep the leader in check, which in games like
Risk can result in a near-infinite loop of shifting alliances.
In
Coup, the player deemed the greatest current threat frequently becomes the default target of the player who makes the next assassination or coup action. A situation can occur in which three players each have one influence card remaining while repeatedly accumulating coins. As players reach the seven coins needed to use the coup action, they will find themselves in a
Mexican standoff situation. As each player can eliminate exactly one other player during a turn, the first to take this action is assured of being eliminated by the final remaining player.
When designing 3-player games, consider an externally imposed end-game condition (like “the game ends after seven turns”) instead of ones based on the game state (like “the game ends when one player controls seven out of ten provinces”). This can help a game bypass the tripod effect and help to keep the objective of the game as the primary focus.
Design considerations for 3-4 player games::trash:
Crowded market: aside from the ancient abstracts, a vast majority of games support 3-4, which can be a double-edged sword for designers. On one hand, it can be easy to develop an audience for your game; on the other hand, it can be tough for your game to stand out.
:trash:
Strategy saturation: are there at least three or four legitimate paths to victory? If two different players in a 4-player game are forced into pursuing the same strategy, it can be difficult for either to win.
:trash:
Player interaction: designs beyond 2-player games open up a greater potential for several game mechanics. Most auction systems generally need 3-players or more to function effectively. Stock holding games usually play best with at least 4-players so that interesting relationships may develop between players who share a common investment. Trading games thrive with at least 4-players as the diversity of potential trading partners can help players locate a deal that is worthwhile for both sides.
:trash:
Pacing conditions: direct confrontation in 2-player games frequently boils down to players trading blows in a knockout style game. When an additional player is added to this situation it can become a game of endurance where a player is more interested in survival than inflicting damage.
:trash:
Partnerships: with 4-players a game has the ability to use partnerships and in many cases providing teams can align objectives and help reduce player driven chaos.
As games grow to
5-players and beyond, practical issues with downtime can emerge especially in strongly turn-based games. Waiting ten, fifteen, or more minutes to take a next turn can easily sour players on a game. A number of creative solutions to the downtime problem exist:
Design considerations for 5+ player games::nuclear:
Interactive turns:Bohnanza supports up to 7 players, but players can participate in trades even on other players’ turns.
:nuclear:
Simultaneous turns:7 Wonders also supports up to 7 but has virtually no downtime because the process of each turn is taken at the same time.
:nuclear:
Rules modifications: in
Settlers of Catan, each player can build settlements at the end of any player’s turn, but only when playing with 4+ players.
The Settlers solution works mechanically, but it does represent a significant departure from the “standard” 2-4 player rules. The “special build phase” in Settlers brings up an important point in game design: when designing for different numbers of players, making a game playable is not the same as preserving a consistent feel.
For the second half of this article including Scalability and how games shift over multiple player counts please visit us at http://www.gamesprecipice.com/player-count-scalability/
