"The Ideal Game" Topic

In Warlord Games' Hail Caesar, the author at one point explains…

Our ideal game is played with two, three or more players on each side and frequently includes an umpire to reign over all.

Is this your ideal game, too?

There are enough guys in our club that are familiar with the rules we play that a consensus isn't that hard. If there is a deadlock then we dice off (or the game organizer calls it) and discuss it later. We only have a dedicated gm or umpire in our rpg sessions.

"Ideal game"? What? Most games "involve two, three or more players," and "frequently" does not mean always. Might as well say "sometimes." This sentence is therefore so generic as to be meaningless. According to it, any game involving more than one player, with or without an umpire, is potentially an "ideal game." Which would describe 90% or more of all games played.

"Ideal" is a word that implies the specific, even the unique. It is completely incorrect to use it in the broad fashion of this example.

What a nonsensical sentence, and thus a meaningless question.

Most games "involve two, three or more players,"

Read carefully. At least two players per side.

Yes those are quite fun.

Actually, I enjoy setting up and reffing a game with 1 or more players on each side. I find this ideal for WW2 for example, where I can create a scenario, provide each side with their forces, orders, an intelligence of what they might expect; and then adjudicate hidden deployment and movement.

IMO 4-5 players per side(that's 8-10 total players) is about enough for one ref to handle, unless most are experienced gamers, or it uses a very simple scenario and rules. That said, some of the most memorable games I have played involved more than 20 players. Maybe I just need more practice umpiring!

I rather think 'ideal' depends on the situation. I'm happy with 2 players or 50 players or anything in between.

Games with more players take more setting up and more effort to run.

Yes, I have umpired 50 players. I wouldn't want to do that for a club night game though.

Mea culpa. I should indeed have read more carefully.
However, I will still say that "ideal" is more specific than the usage covered by this sentence.

Basically, that's everything but solitaire. So with that breadth of category, yes, I think they're right.

"Ideal" is subjective, though. Still, I think the best games tend to have two players per side (3 or more tends to cause confusion, IMO) and one dedicated, knowledgeable, cheerful referee to add a fog of war element.

No ump.
But the 2 on a side is cool.

But the ideal game will have free cold beers served by redheads…

Umpire driven multi-player games are usually amongst the most memorable. But any game where you get lost in the history and almost forget it's a game ticks the boxes.

And as a rule, I much prefer a doubles format to singles.

Phil

2-3 per side seems to be ideal. 4 is workable, but beyond that things seem to rapidly spiral into chaos.

Not that I am totally opposed to chaos…

Multi-player games are quite fun. For me, 6 players (3 per side) is about all I can bear. Once you get past that, it can become a bit of a chore.

6 is definitely the optimum, two tends to turn into two neighbouring games, more does tend to get out of control. Of course at sea and in the air, the more the merrier. I think my record was over 30 players in a WWII air game during the '70s.

Nope. I prefer three or more players representing three or more sides. And no umps … gentlemen's agreements. Umps are more for tourneys (to avoid angst) or cons (to explain new games).