"Three's A Crowd" Topic

I don't play 3-sided wargames but from my experience with LARPing, 3 sided scenarios tend to turn into 2 vs. 1 scenarios, which stink.

I agree with Warwell. I had a similar experience at a convention tournament. 3 people signed up for the event, the GM said, OK, you all play a free-for-all. Player 1 looked at Player 2 and said, "Let's attack him" (me). They ganged up, destroyed me. Then reset and played each other…..

I normally prefer, and play, 2-sided games, but the occasional multi-sided fracas like Pig Wars can be a lot of fun.

+1 Florida Tory.

I have a liking for nominally two sides but with players on the same side having differing victory conditions.

x42

I like multiple side games. But I don't necessarily prefer one over the other. I like multi-player/side board games like Britannia, Third Reich and Civilization.

There is a difference between multi-player and multi-side. I like more than one player on a side because I like the team concept. Get together and arrive at a common goal, a common plan.

But three players in general as noted above becomes one on two situation but that is not always a bad thing. Sometimes you don't have enough players to do more than three.

I am talking about one side has one player and the other side has two players. The only bad things are you don't have a teammate to discuss strategy with, which could be a benefit or not so much and if it is a large game it could wear you out.

I don't like 3 sided games, however 4 sided or more have given me the most enjoyment. I remember winning a 17 sided game, which over a matter of hours devolved into 4 equal factions. Then with the defeat of one of them it became 3 and soon after 2 (which resulted in a surrender as it was 12 v 3 with two of the three offering to attack their "allies".

I am with Jefritrout here – I like a nice four sided or more game; I also think that three sided becomes 2 on 1 pretty quick

Doesn't bother me,solo player so I always win :-)