I've been tweaking my game design Yeti Mountain quite a bit lately (which reminds me I need to make a journal entry one of these days) and I'm feeling that if I do a game layout with 9 yeti then the best number of players is 2 to 3. I could do a layout with 12 yeti which I think would well with 3 to 4 players but then the scale would not work well with 2 players. Also, even though both layouts would work fine with 3 players I think there would be at least a slightly different feel between the two. I'm leaning toward going with just the 9 yeti layout and labeling the game as just 2 to 3 players only. At the moment both layouts are *self contained* so even though the board layouts are built with cards I can't just take the 9 yeti layout and add cards to make the 12 yeti layout.
Is '2 to 3 players only' for a game acceptable?
If you feel your game is right with just 9 yeti, then go with what you feel is right.
I'm not an expert on this topic, but I feel that 2-3 players is better than 3-4. Many people live with their spouses and if they don't have a visitor, they can't play the game if at least 3 players is required.
How long does the game take? If it's a short game, a larger group can play it taking turns. If it's a long game, then this isn't really an option.
Also, how much are the production costs for the game - could you put two of them in the box, so that a larger group could play at the same time, without the price becoming unreasonable?
Just some ideas on top of my head.
There's a legit need for 2-3 player games for the above-mentioned reasons. Lots of people only have 1 friend into boardgames, only a wife/husband to play with or even 2 parents w/ 1 kid.
2-3 players games are really tricky to design, most of the time a 2p game does not work well with 3+ while a 3+ game does not work well at 2.
I don't know the shape of your board, but it could be possible with a modular board to make a game extensible to accommodate more or less players.
Else if your game is as fun as a 2 player than 3 player then fine, but I just want to warn you that there ware not many game that could acheive that.
I'm fine with designing games that will play with a limited number of players. I like two players because you're not having to deal with gang-up situations or kingmaking. There's also a place for games with larger play groups as well. I guess I'm saying don't overlook something as an option just because.
You can absolutely do it both ways. Having both versions will be a good thing for you. Having a 2 player to give as a pnp is a good way to go as it gets players into the game system and satisfies the need for 2 player games as mentioned.
I find that STARTING small is easier than GOING small. It's always easier to add to a game because you can expand a game easier than you can contract it. More components and more opponents change the game and suggest their own strategies and mechanics. It's much more difficult to cut cool things out of something you've slaved over.
YMMV.
2-3 isn't a bad number, as discussed above. Things can get a little tricky if it turns out your game is perfect for 2 or 4 players, but not 3 - but I know some people who would prefer a game to be like that because they tend to either be playing alone with their partner or with another couple there, but not partner + 1 more. If the game can scale, you could also make it expandable - Small World comes to mind, which has different maps depending on whether you have 2, 3, 4 or 5 players.
If there is a static board then you could always follow Smallworld's example and make it double sided.
- If you are not designing with a particular audience in mind, design it for whatever it works best for. Don't feel the need to force things that don't work, or work but are unenjoyable.
- That said, the smaller your player count range is, the smaller your potential audience is. After factoring in other common audience-reducers (like theme, mechanics, usability, availability, etc), having a narrow player range often will put a game into a very niche category. Which is not to say that it's bad, just that it's something to keep in mind.
Personally I think that 3P games occur quite rarely and if it ever happens, a 2-4P game can easily accommodate that situation. Perhaps focusing and making it ideal for a 2P scenario could be another way to go. When adding a 3P variant, additional rules, restrictions, loopholes and balancing needs to be thought of. Just because it CAN play between 2-3P doesnt mean both scenarios provide the same EXPERIENCE.
I keep on thinking of Jaipur (an awesome 2P game btw) and how a 3P version of it would totally ruin the mindgames, flow and gameplay.
At game clubs, games that accommodate more players are usually preferred.
Games that are really good for three players are rare (because too often, if someone believes he is going to lose, he can often determine who will win), and perhaps therefore valuable.
2-4 seems to be the standard for Eurostyle games.
But some games cannot be forced into a particular mold, some "demand" to be one set of parameters or another. In that case you should probably go with what the game "wants".
At this point I've pretty much abandoned this design but not necessarily the theme. I'm chocking it up to design practice. I am however using some of the elements from this design in my current project 'Diver Delve'.
http://www.bgdf.com/node/13482
This one for sure just a two player game.
I did a playthrough last night with two people and I'm leaning towards labeling it as a two player game. With three players I feel there's a chance there could be a game lockup but I want to test it out to see for sure.