"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!