My in-progress game has a square-shaped board with players choosing one of four quadrants to play in, pitting 2 players on opposing sides against each other. It involves resource collection and spending, and prices are based on 3 components: "your resources", "your neighbor" (both players beside you, not the player across from you), and "your nemesis" (just the player across the board from you).
My issue is with playing the game with 3 people; it works amazing with four people and pretty well with two, but with 3, the nemesis rule only applies to two of the players. How can I involve all three in this mechanic without fundamentally changing the game?
I've considered listing which player is your nemesis (the one on your right is nemesis, left is neighbor), for each player, but that proved a little difficult to balance aggression from your neighbor and aggressiveness towards your nemesis.
Also, managing purchasing of cards; I just now, as I'm writing this, am remembering the 7 Wonders method of only using certain cards for 2 and less, 3 and less, etc., which sounds like a viable option I want to explore, but how can I balance the theme of nemesis with only 3 players?
WEFA A
Thanks for the ideas! The only issue is the game is restricted to 2-4 players, non-negotiably, and they are all separated in the four quadrants which are split thematically on the board, and difficult, therefore, to mix and match (think goblins v elves, Romans v Greeks).
I did just think of a defector mechanic where you get to control the fourth player's resource collector on your turn, gaining all or half of the resources it receives, but losing control after your turn, but that just feels like duct tape on a 4p game that I can't turn into a 3p. Like when designers make a game 5p when it really shouldn't, I don't want my game to be stuck with 2 or 4 players, because 3p would feel pretty darn good, and widen the appeal!