"Do 3-Way Scenarios Really Work?" Topic

Have you ever played a three-player scenario that worked?

Or did two guys just gang up on the third?

(Two-man team vs enemy player scenarios don't count.)

I think they work if presented as three forces might actually meet. Such as two forces competing for some asset in a town, but the townspeople (a larger group, also able to disappear into the terrain) just want to push both invaders out. I've played variations on that successfully with fighting on all sides and no cooperation.

I've had 3 guys in my wargame group for a while now. Yes, it can be done. I've created some good ones. And some not so good ones. It's always a crapshoot with 3 way battles.

It really depends on victory conditions and deployment…

Almost never. You really need asymmetric objectives to make it work well.

The best example I think I've seen (shockingly) might be the Star Wars Risk: Classic Edition. It has three factions with different very objectives, making for a good 3-player game.

If the scenario is designed with some care they work … especially if historical, and where ganging up just wouldn't have happened (and where the players aren't just playing to win).

A 'slung together' evens 3-sider will often disappoint, though …

We've done it with 4-5 players and it works well. But as stated, it depends a lot on the scenario.

Kingmaker comes to mind. As one player pulls ahead the alliances shifted to take him down.

Agreed Phil. The trick is scenario design and victory conditions. Ideally if two gang up on one, they both lose.

Three-ways are good in theory, but usually awkward, messy and unsatisfying in practice.

Wait, you meant wargame scenarios?

Depends on the scenario design.

Occasionally.
-Kle.

Either secret objectives, or objectives that are not mutually exclusive.

If objectives are open and such that only one player can win, then of course 2 players will always gang up on the winning player. Why wouldn't they?

Best mutiplayer games are those in which 2 sides are playing each other, but within each side, each player has still his own objectives.

We had an interesting Roman/Greek/Punic campaign for Sicily. Someone was always joining in a 2 to 1. It led to politics as well as battles. Beware Punic treachery!

if your fighting over a center objective and some sub ones with a time limit, ganging up does not help you

No.

Tons of them..most of my scenarios involve more then one group, and you never know who your real enemy is until they shoot you in the back…
Kevin

It can work, you just have to plan it carefully.

I think it only really works with skirmish level games, where each player or group of players has their own adjenda.

Some I've done and/or planned:

Each group has their own thing to do (points driven):

Wild West: Townspeople, Lawmen, Indians, Bankrobbers (interesting when two gangs try to rob the same bank at the same time.), etc.

Star Wars: Imperials, Rebels, bounty hunters, gangs, Jawas/Sandpeople, etc.

Modern Middle East: Insurgents, Allied troops, Contractors, renegade insurgents, etc.

Zombies: Different groups of survivors (2 or more competing for limited resources), Zombies, etc.

-David G.

Really, I think almost any scenario that has an allied team can work as a 3-way contest. Allies generally have their own agendas that don't always coincide with each other. Give them all separate victory conditions and you have a 3-way scenario.

I've run several Border Reiver, Prohibition Era Gangsters & Pig Wars skirmish games with 3 factions with 3+ players. As timlillig said, 2 mutually hostile groups fighting over a 3rd's cattle cattle herd, brewery or village works well. If I have 3 sides with 2+ players each, I also give the players goals such that the leader of a faction can't cooperate with either of the others, while each subordinate will have a secondary goal that conflicts with that of his boss. Thus rather than 2 or more players ganging up on a 3rd, I usually see 1 or 2 players hanging back from the action, hoping that an ally will whittle down the opponents so that they can swoop in & mop up. This seems realistic to me & causes much dramatic tension.

Dunno. Ask Napoleon Bonaparte to get the answer to this one.

I played the Aliens, in a 'traditional' WW II scenario, Germans vs. Americans. My alien forces were invisible, initially. It took the other two sides a while to figure out what was hitting (both of) them, with devastating power, which seemed outside of their enemy's capabilities. When they finally realized they were playing a Twilight Zone scenario, they quickly ganged up on me, destroyed my forces to the last creature, then they happily went back to their Axis-Allies battle, as if I had been a minor annoyance.

I did, however, thoroughly enjoy dropping stun grenades out a 2nd-story factory window, on troops walking below. My Aliens then walked along their line, with light sabers in hand, relieving them of their heads. The GM really had not planned/foreseen that tactic, and I think he was somewhat uncomfortable with me decimating the infantry troops as I did. It was great fun, while it lasted, then I became a spectator at just another ordinary WW II scenario… ;-)