3 Players
The best board or card games for a group of three players... Just missed the cut:
Also nominated:
- Attika
- Carcassonne
- Carolus Magnus
- Cartagena
- Caylus
- Cosmic Eidex
- Das Ende des Triumvirats / End of the Triumvirate
- Expedition/Wildlife Adventure
- Goa
- La Citta
- Puerto Rico
- Samurai
- Settlers of Catan
- Sticheln
- Ticket to Ride
- Wyatt Earp
For comparison, the top five games from 2002:
The Apples Pickers expressed a number of preferences here:
- They liked "vanilla" Carcassonne & "vanilla" Settlers better for three players than utilizing one or more of the expansions - though not by a substantial margin.
- Expedition & Wildlife Adventure finished in a dead heat.
- The original Ticket to Ride was slightly more popular than Marklin... and much more popular than Europe.
- And, no surprise here, Web of Power is much better liked than China.
Labels: Subjective Yumminess
posted by Mark (aka pastor guy) at 7:45 AM
10 Comments:
Typing fast to see if beat Mark here :)
Have never understood why people are crazy for both San Marco and Schnäppchen Jagd, though both are certainly okay. I think the end-of-the-round banishment is wonky in San Marco (also the banishments, in general, are no fun). And Schnäppchen Jagd has never offered me the really interesting choices and tricky cardplay that others seem to think it has.
Every time I play one of these - and I'm not against playing either of them - I think, "Okay, maybe this is the time I see it."
But enlightenment never comes.
I'm going to climb out a limb and state I think most pickers picked games they think play best with three rather than great games that play well with three. That's a big distinction.
If someone wanted to come up with a buy list for three player games I'd suggest bypassing the "winners" and pick from the just missed and also nominated lists. There are far better games there.
Not to say the winners aren't good games, shoot I love Ra, but as a grouping I think the non-winners are a better whole than the winners.
Ditto to what Mark said (i.e., ditto to what Nick said).
Some games are excellent AND demand a certain number of players. For example, El Grande is one of the highest ranked games on BGG - but I generally don't want to play it with 3 players. Ditto for Wallenstein.
Other games are excellent and scale nicely. Euprhrat & Tigris and original Settlers both remain good games when played with 3 or 4.
Some games reach their best at 3 players. Big City rapidly loses merit as a game as you add more players. But many of us like it fine with exactly 3 players.
I think Nick's point is valid. I personally think Flaschenteufel and Web of Power are very nice 3-player games. But I didn't vote for them - because even though they may be at their best with 3 players; I felt other games were even better (even if my selected games might be improved with a 4th player).
After 2 appearances on the winning list, I really ought to try Schnäppchen Jagd.
I find the drop of Carcassonne interesting. I suspect if there had been no Carcassonne expansions it might still be on the winning list. I hear a lot of sneers lobbed at Carcassonne anymore. But I remain a fan. I think it has become fashionable to diss the game. I guess success has its price.
Like Craig, I think this is a great list. And I not only agree with Nick's point, but I think that's the way it should be. We all have enough games that it makes sense to play games with their optimal number. The fact is, when ou group has three players, we most often play the games on the list. Even if you love Settlers, why play it with three if you think it's better with four? There will be an opportunity soon enough to play a four-player game.
Flaschenteufel, Schnappchen Jagd, and Web of Power are all great games and all play best with three. I'm one of 6 1/2 people who actually prefer to play San Marco with four (it's much more fun to split for two than for three), but it's still a great three-player. I don't care for Ra with any number, but if I had to play it, three players would be my choice.
I actually did choose one great game that plays well with three: Caylus. But that's because I think it plays best with three. In addition to Flaschenteufel, Schnappchen Jagd, and San Marco, I also chose Carolus Magnus, which I think is a fine three-player game. Reef Encounter was one of my nominated games and its omission is a bit surprising to me. I also picked Hansa, another excellent game (I'd pick it over WoP). My other nominees were Cartel and Um Krone und Kragen.
And while I think that three is no longer a number to be feared, I still think Mark Haberman's contention that there's more games that work with three than any other number is just a little bit loony.
In reference to Larry's remark: "We all have enough games that it makes sense to play games with their optimal number."
For the vast majority of the people Mark chose to partake in this exercise this is probably true. But for people that buy or play most every game that makes its way into publication is this list even relevant? I go into this thinking how best to help the gamer that doesn't have a weekly game group and attends cons three times a year.
For the guy that gets together a few times a month with a couple buddies wouldn't the knowledge of some great games for three players be more usable then telling him what games play best with three?
And that's why I call it a big distinction. While Schnappchen Jagd is a good game and does play best with three how many people's top ten list do you think it shows up on? I'd guess you'd be hard pressed to find it on many if any.
What games play best with three can make for an interesting list and discussion in itself but that really wasn't the question posed by Mark, but I think that is what a lot of the pickers read into it and answered accordingly.
Nick, your point is correct and certainly this list would look very different if we had been instructed to aim it at one particular audience or another. But there's all kinds of groups we could have tailored this for and none of them were singled out. To be honest, I'm glad, as it's tough enough figuring out how I feel about the games in all these categories without having to step outside my own brain and decide how my choice will influence Group X. So I'm content with this simply being the views of our little group as a whole. I don't think Mark necessarily cared about utility too much; it was just a fun exercise. Maybe it's an opportunity lost, but I expect many more categories than this one would have changed if our intent was to assist the casual gamer.
Schnäppchen Jagd, Sticheln, Carolus Magnus, Big City, and Kardinal & Konig are among the games that do work best for three players, and I guess that's why they're on this list. Daytona 500, Siesta, Palermo, Queen's Necklace, and certainly Katzenjammer Blues belong on the list as well. We've also listed some that I think DON'T work best with three players: Puerto Rico, Ra, Ticket to Ride, and a number of other borderline cases.
Generally speaking three is the EASIEST number of players to fit into a game. There are a number of strictly two-player games, a number of games wanting more than four players, and a few that want exactly four for one reason or another (partnership games, Silberzwerg, Tonga Bonga, Blokus, Lowenherz, and Um Reifenbreite come to mind), but most games that take multiple players take three and work fine.
Nick writes:
And that's why I call it a big distinction. While Schnappchen Jagd is a good game and does play best with three how many people's top ten list do you think it shows up on? I'd guess you'd be hard pressed to find it on many if any.
Well, it's on mine, for whatever that's worth.
Joe says:
"Well, it's on mine, for whatever that's worth."
I follow:
Joe, your take on games is so often the exception in so many areas that I think it being on your top 10 list pretty much makes my case!
I say that half in jest and half in seriousness - if that is analytically possible.
Post a Comment
<< Home