Help support TMP

"Multiplayer Skirmish Games: Team-ups or Free For All?" Topic

9 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Game Design Message Board

628 hits since 11 Oct 2012
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

CPBelt Inactive Member11 Oct 2012 4:14 p.m. PST

I'm just curious since I have so little multiplayer experience. What is more common in multiplayer (3+ players) skirmish games? Do guys naturally ally themselves into two teams, like the good guys and bad guys in a Western? Or does each player play for himself, such as six players all fighting each other with their teams of characters?

chuck05 Supporting Member of TMP Fezian11 Oct 2012 4:47 p.m. PST

It depends. I ran a pulp game a few months ago where each team had their own objectives to complete. They could achieve their objectives without conflict with the other teams. There were plenty of suprises on the table ran by me to provide the conflict.

I like to intertwine my objectives between the teams. I have a game in mind where there will be some native headhunters/cannibals etc. One of their objectives will be to provide a sacrifice for their "god". Female prefered. Ill have women scattered among the other players' teams that will make wonderful unwilling sacrifices.

Twig6611 Oct 2012 4:58 p.m. PST

I agree, it depends. In Giant Monster games I find players/monsters tend to gang up on the weakest or the current leader. In dogfight games they naturally ally on two sides, as you would expect I suppose, but also sometimes sacrifice themselves for the team, volunteer to be "the bait" and so on. Gladiator games – trust no one and be as sneaky as possible.

My games are always with a bunch of friends, which probably makes a difference too.

PJ Parent Inactive Member11 Oct 2012 6:29 p.m. PST

I play with my two sons and they always gang up on me…. until one sees an advantage to turn on his brother.

CPBelt Inactive Member11 Oct 2012 7:27 p.m. PST

I play with my two sons and they always gang up on me…. until one sees an advantage to turn on his brother.

Hmmmmm… son seems to follow the same strategy, except he always turns on abelp01. Team up with Dad's best friend, kill dad while Dad's best friend is getting weakened, and then kill Dad's best friend to win the game. What a nice kid I've raised! LOL.

Pedrobear11 Oct 2012 11:05 p.m. PST

Depends. :)

If I have 3 players, I tend to prefer the free-for-all; with 4 or more teams may be easier.

One idea from an old issue of MW magazine had hidden, randomly drawn objectives, such as:

1. Attack A. If you are A, attack B.
2. Attack B, if you are B, attack C (etc.)
3. Burn the village.
4. Attack anyone who tries to burn the village.

I like to use that for starship games with each player starting with one ship at the edge of the map.

Yesthatphil12 Oct 2012 4:35 a.m. PST

It depends on the game and the group. Back in the day, the Slough Barbarians used to play rigorously individual agendas until someone got out in front – then everyone co-operatively reduced the 'public enemy no. 1': the usual result would be unrealistically drawn games with everyone kept in til the end.

I was quite surprised when I put the same games on with different groups and saw the weakest player get picked on early ('he was going to lose anyway')

For proper historical games, these contradictory group dynamics have to be controlled with explicit player briefings and some rewards (and careful role allocation) to encourage players to play their roles in the game rather than play 'their own' game.

richarDISNEY12 Oct 2012 7:22 a.m. PST

Depends on the scenario and the group that is playing.

Mako11 Supporting Member of TMP12 Oct 2012 2:08 p.m. PST

"What a nice kid I've raised!".

Sounds like he's a survivor, and well equipped to deal with today's dog-eat-dog world.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.