"Multi-Player Games: Commanders or Spectators?" Topic

I've never been entirely convinced by the common approach of putting 2-4 players on each side and having them collectively command a single army. In my experience, one player usually emerges as the de facto commander while the others become subordinates or, worse, spectators.

I also find that uneven numbers can be awkward, particularly three players. It's hard to create three commands without ending up with two players ganging up on one.

I prefer games where each player has an independent command with their own objectives and decisions to make.

I am currently working on a Late Antiquity scenario featuring Late Romans facing Huns and Goths, each commanded by separate players with potentially different priorities.

Our forthcoming show games will have six players in a WW2 Market Garden scenario, where each player commands a distinct formation in a different sector of the battlefield. That's relatively easy because the game will be enormous. If all my pals turn up for a garage game, however, it becomes much harder to give everyone a meaningful role in a much smaller battle.

How do you handle multiplayer games? Do you prefer a single commander with subordinates, independent commands with their own agendas, or the traditional committee approach? And what do you do when the player count is uneven?

I'm totally convinced by multiplayer games. I have a practical maximum of 8 players per game now, but I depend on the chaos of "too many cooks" to make the C3 problems fun and interesting.

Do you prefer a single commander with subordinates, independent commands with their own agendas, or the traditional committee approach?

All of the above, plus all-players-vs-GM.

I've had mixed results, so I understand your ambivalence, but a lot of multi-player gaming comes down to social engineering. The most successful ACW games I ran, I assigned players to commands by personality based on what kind of overall behavior I wanted from that command – timid players got commands I wanted to waffle, aggressive players got commands I wanted to attack, skilled players got the commands I wanted to be most successful, bad players got commands I wanted to break or get defeated, etc. I still do a fair amount of this at conventions, with the minor caveat that there are always players who are unknown quantities.

I agree a 3-player game is awkward, unless it was designed that way. I usually make myself a player in those situations to get a 4-player game.

Our forthcoming show games will have six players in a WW2 Market Garden scenario, where each player commands a distinct formation in a different sector of the battlefield.

I have a dream of doing Market Garden essentially as you describe: a series of 2-player tables (Allied vs. German), with XXX Corps as a non-player-entity migrating from table to table as the game progresses.

BLOODY DAWN makes each player (up to five on the Mexican side) the commander of an attack column. It is dark and loud and when I did it with kids or at a con I forbad them from talking to each other. Same with the Alamo defenders.

More generally I would, when playing with up to a dozen kids at my annual wargames camps (at my school) explain a "no radios rule" and discourage talk about the game unless two kids' figures (always give them a mini that is THEM) are next to each other on the table. (Once two girls insisted on talking until we established that the 12" separating them on the table was about 50 yards and we all went outside and let them yell at each other!)

The kids generally understood the rules and would enforce it on each other gleefully. Middle schoolers are all lawyers anyway.

The practical limit is how many bodies fit around the table. The bigger problem is too long waiting for your next turn. But that can be solved, in part, by card activation so you are not sure who moves next.

YA, That's an interesting perspective. I can certainly see the appeal of deliberately creating C3 friction rather than trying to eliminate it. I will try this approach.

I also like your point about assigning commands based on personality. We tend to think about troop quality and leadership ratings, but the real-world equivalent of an aggressive player commanding an aggressive formation is quite appealing. Or vice versa.

Your Market Garden concept sounds very similar to what we're aiming for. Apart from the fact we've deleted the Americans. NB. no prejudice here. We needed to simplify the game – so two bridges & no Yanks. Also no-one has any US figures.

I still suspect the key to successful multiplayer games is giving each player meaningful decisions within their own sphere rather than having several people collectively trying to command the same force.

I must admit I'm still struggling with the three-player problem, though!

And I DO indeed encourage group discussions in certain contexts. My log cabins and blockhouse F&I games have the husbands from four cabins out together on a hunt when the alarm goes out. Do they stay together or each head for his own cabin? If together, where do they head? This happens first turn BEFORE the location of the war parties is revealed. I play the Indians and (especially if there are younger players) allow and even encourage discussion as to where and how to move.

Over the years I played a lot of JOHNNY REB games at cons, and though I enjoyed them, it was always frustrating because JR has a lot of tricks and tweaks that are not obvious to new players. Other gamers sometimes welcome but often resent and resist advice from another and more experienced player. I'd generally offer then wait to be asked. Of course seeing the idiot commanding the next brigade over mess it up was very much a part of the real Civil War battle!

Of course seeing the idiot commanding the next brigade over mess it up was very much a part of the real Civil War battle!

This is part of the entertainment for me. Especially as a GM.

I also like your point about assigning commands based on personality. We tend to think about troop quality and leadership ratings, but the real-world equivalent of an aggressive player commanding an aggressive formation is quite appealing. Or vice versa.

There's also the opposite problem to watch out for – bad players who drag the game down for everybody. If you know about the problem ahead of time, you can assign that player a command or mission or position that doesn't matter much in the proceedings anyway. Sometimes you don't realize until it's too late, and then it's just hard. Once in a while you need a Varro for your Cannae, and it all works out.

YA – the people in my little group are exceedingly nice – I wouldn't game with them otherwise. But if they were a "typical slice" with various peccadilloes etc, I think their personalities would be an important factor.

For example, if the game wasn't "fair", would I invite the person for whom winning is paramount to join? Or would the "individualist" be needed for a game with multiple players, needing a degree of co-operation etc? I think a bit of social engineering would be required to organise wargames.

That said, I'm perhaps more interested in the mechanics than the personalities. Assuming a group of reasonably compatible players, how do people actually structure commands when the numbers don't divide neatly? In particular, how do you make a three-player game work without one player becoming a spectator or two players effectively ganging up on the third?

Likewise, if six players turn up for a game that would naturally suit four commanders, do you split commands, create additional formations, introduce hidden objectives, or do something else entirely?

I pretty well only play multi player games and I generally prefer to have a proper command structure.I try and ensure everyone has something useful to do.

Depends on the game of course, and the personality of the players.

I think it depends

For Ancient games you could argue that each of the various barbarian warbands was kind of an independent command

We mostly though do multi-player games in later periods – in which case we tend to have 3 – 5 players per side but much like Martin Rapier pre-game we work it out as to who commands what and who is "the big boss" – very agreeable group, no problems

Which does not mean that there is never a "break from the plan and launch a suicidal charge" moment, but such is the nature of combat – overall, works very well

Regularly do a variety of multi-player games at the FLGS and conventions. Depending on the game, the command structure can be any of the above, but tending towards committee (even if there's a nominal CinC).

@ Minimo, committee-style command is actually the approach I like least, although I appreciate many groups make it work.

My issue is that it often seems to reduce the number of meaningful decision-makers. If four players are collectively commanding one army, in practice one usually emerges as the dominant voice, one or two contribute occasionally, and another can end up largely observing. Everyone is involved in the discussion, but not necessarily in making independent decisions.

Asindicated above by Martin & Frederick, I tend to prefer giving each player a distinct command, sector or objective. Even if their decisions are not optimal, they are at least their decisions, and the resulting friction, confusion, and occasional disasters often feel more realistic than a committee reaching a consensus.

What is it that you enjoy about the committee approach? Is it the social interaction, the quality of the decisions, or have you found ways to ensure that everyone remains actively involved?

A question about 3 player games, how many are set up as 2v1 with the one getting 2x the forces? I uaually see 3 equal forces but 3 players against each other. For multiplayer games how many have a cnc? I see many multiplayer games be 2 sides if individuls not coordinating or having a single overall goal. Is it a desire not to tell others how to play?

Multiplayer is my preferred format.
Ideally 2 or 3 a side.
Even numbers best, obviously, as people can generally pair off; but 3 vs 2 is OK too.
When it gets up to 5 a side, that's usually the point where making one a C-in-C is better than splitting into tiny forces, in terms of making sure everyone has enough to do.

If there are only three of us, then obviously it becomes 2 vs 1. But that can still work well, eg last month's Kennesaw Mountain game where the Union army was twice the size of the Confederate. I've played that with three players and with four. We all had plenty to do each time.
link

Rules and scenario structure have an impact. If victory depends on simple "kill them all" army breakpoint criteria, or if the rules rely on allocation of limited command points or similar, all the action may be focused on one part of the pitch and other players may be left out.

Our preferred ruleset (BBB) lets players proceed in parallel rather than in sequence and gives every unit a chance to act every turn. The BBB scenario format typically determines victory according to possession of 6 or 8 objective locations spread around the table. That means each player is likely to have two or three objectives to attack or defend in his sector, hence his own mission within the overall one.

Mark Smith's famous Christmas games are special in that we have rather more players (up to 12 once, I think), each of whom has his own secret set of objectives and victory points.
link
This is a lot of work so not the kind of game we can play every week but worth the effort once a year (not that I'm the one making the effort).

What is it that you enjoy about the committee approach?

I have a dream to play WWII battles as two competing committees: Players assume a role of command at approximately colonel level (fresh battalion to worn brigade, or similar size hoc combat grouping); the plan for the battle is already in place as orders from the next command level up, but there is no CinC player; it is up to the players to perform their assigned duties and coordinate to victory.

I really prefer multi-player games. In fact it is unusual for any of us to play one on one. I like team work and situations that requires a council of war. Multi-player games are more fun. We often play big games and we need the extra players.

When I run the game I designate the general in charge for each side and I let that side assign the commands. I want group discussions. I want disagreement. All of this for me is realistic and fun. Historical Miniature Gaming is a team sport.

The number of players to a side is totally dependent on the size of the game, number of commands and the number of players that showed up. Sometimes it's uneven, no problem. I will either jump in a play or let our best player present on one side against 1 to 3 players.

I don't play multiplayer games very often, but when I've done so it's usually been with each player having his or her own command, but with collective victory conditions for that side. Teammates can advise one another, but there's no CinC who can order the other players on that side to do this or that.

(Of course, depending on player personalities an ability to advise can be tantamount to one to order, but it's not been a common problem in practice, in part because the would-be CinC generally is too occupied handling his own command to find time to micromanage another's.)

In my games being the General in Charge has specific duties.

1. Roll initiative dice.

2. Take responsibility for the loss and no credit for the victory. He is the fall guy.

I find the inveterate problem is the unrealistic level of communication between the players, otherwise I routinely run multiplayer games giving each player a defined number of units to command

My experience is that many players do not like being told what to do and consider themselves smarter than their commander. They are often right.

Wolfhag

I find the inveterate problem is the unrealistic level of communication between the players,

I encourage players to communicate with each other as much as they want. That is part of the fun.

At the Battle of Gettysburg the Union forces on both flanks communicated to Meade using "wig-wag" flags. Is that how you expect the players in your game to communicate?