3 Player Games - Ethics?

[Grishnakh]

I would highly recommend, if you've never tried it, to play kill the team on your right. If you manage to kill the team on your right you win the game. At the same time you have to defend against the team on your left, as he is trying to kill you to win the game. If you attack the team on your left all you are doing is helping the third player win. This creates both a defensive and offensive game strategy that is highly entertaining. It also solves the gang up on someone problem.

[Lesur]

I just love the table talk. It becomes best bribe wins and hope people believe you when you say you'll send Drake, Braxas and Jotun if they send some units to the other player and stop attacking you. I play 3 player games a lot (usually unless Dad is there my brother stops half way through) and it turns out to be quite fair. Lots of backstabbing. We use 500 point armies and an extreme game is when I person is defeated the other 2 have 4 or 5 figures left (lots of squads are used) so it's pretty balanced. And lots of fun! If anyone is ganged up on its me but I can handle the challenge and usually it's only my brother - Dad attacks whoever while I mostly Turtle, Raid and Glyph. Fun!

[Lazy Orang]

I love playing three player games - I only get to do it rarely because of how long it takes and how busy my brother tends to be, but when I get them, they're great! There's often some backstabbery and unofficial diplomacy going on, and that's great fun. We do gang up sometimes during these battles, but never just choose someone to gang up on - it's always the losing players making a pact mid game to gang up on the guy who's winning, (usually my brother), so that's okay. The win condition we've always used so far is last man standing wins, so alliances are only ever temporary. And of course there's self serving 'advice' given by both other players during a third player's turn. Often this advice is genuinely the best thing they can do, but it will always be to the detriment of the other player you're dealing with and your benefit, even if it's to the benefit of the player taking the turn (not always the case ). The only concern about 'ganging up' I have is that there's often a central player who get's ganged up on - in future, if that's built into the map, I might give that player a points boost. One thing I've noticed in these games is that, while in 2 player games it's generally always a good idea to attack if you get the opportunity (excepting certain powers like Counterstrike), sometimes in 3 player it's best to leave an opponent's figure alone - if it's causing more problems for an opponent than it is for you, it should stay alive - for now.

As for the specific questions at the start here, here would be my responses:
1) No problems, if done for strategic reasons - if you have some people who just don't like the other player, then it's best not to play, as there will be ganging up. If, however, everyone's happy with each other, then you can keep this to when it's strategically viable (i.e. Player X is the best player and everyone knows it, Player X is winning and has the largest army left, Player X claimed the objective (if playing with objectives), Player X drafted Q9 etc.).
2) If someone's doing this, there may be some problems - I have no issue with self serving politicing to win the game yourself (that's part of the joy of 3 player, IMO), but if someone isn't trying to win but instead trying to make sure you lose, perhaps you should try to figure out what beef he has against you before palying with him again.
3) This is the sort of thing I'd rarely ever do - but just might once in a blue moon. Really, it's not that fair, but it's very clever. I remember in one of my very earliest games I was playing a three player free-for all against my family - I can't remember if I won or not (I think I did), but I just got Syvaris in a sniper spot making pot shots while they duked it out. At least I was involved in the fight - sort of.
4) Definitely okay! Temporary self serving alliances can be the lifeblood of your games! Just - watch out for those Airbornes you just boosted, as they will come after you if you survive. No alliance lasts in one of these games.

In short, these games aren't always 100% fair - but they're awesome none the less. These games are as much about diplomacy as tactics, IMO.

[twilkerson]

A recent 3 player game that I played involved a glyph control "king of the hill" scenario.

Whoever maintained control of the glyph of Brandar after 8 rounds would be declared the winner. We also gave a bonus of +1 to attack and defense for the figure on the glyph.

Each time a figure on the glyph takes a wound or is destroyed, the attacker could move the glyph three spaces in any direction. It played out like a rugby match!

Typically, whoever had control of the glyph was the target of attack.

[TheAverageFan]

It's almost impossible to create a fair 3 person game without somehow turning it into a sort of 2v2 (with one guy controlling twice as much). It can be somewhat rectified with height, glyphs, bonus armies, reinforcements, a time limit advantage, and so on and so forth. Regardless, whenever we used to play 3 players (which was the most common), usually a free-for-all with all the crazy politics included was the best way.

At the end of the day, nothing's truly balanced in a dice game--go all out I say.

[legoboy]

I enjoy the table/trash talking that goes on in a 3 player game. One of my favorite aspects of Heroscape is that its played with an actual person, with people its even better.

If you are having a hard time finding a way to keep it fair, try the Quests of Heroscape method.

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by TheAverageFan

It's almost impossible to create a fair 3 person game without somehow turning it into a sort of 2v2 (with one guy controlling twice as much). It can be somewhat rectified with height, glyphs, bonus armies, reinforcements, a time limit advantage, and so on and so forth. Regardless, whenever we used to play 3 players (which was the most common), usually a free-for-all with all the crazy politics included was the best way.

At the end of the day, nothing's truly balanced in a dice game--go all out I say.

This "it can't be done" attitude is contradicted by quite a few posts in this thread, two of which I reproduce below:

Originally Posted by Grishnakh

I would highly recommend, if you've never tried it, to play kill the team on your right. If you manage to kill the team on your right you win the game. At the same time you have to defend against the team on your left, as he is trying to kill you to win the game. If you attack the team on your left all you are doing is helping the third player win. This creates both a defensive and offensive game strategy that is highly entertaining. It also solves the gang up on someone problem.

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

One of my favorite tournament formats is the multiplayer FFA the way Clancampbell runs them.

It's what Lamaclown suggested right at the start of the thread:

Keep track of the point value of what you kill/wound. A single Krav Maga Agent is 33 points, for instance.

At the end of the game, the guy who's done the most damage is the winner.

The *great* thing about this format is that it discourages turtling in a way that traditional 2 player games do not.

There are others, including scenario play, and this thread lists many of them. If you read it, instead of just responding to a 3 year old OP.

[kolakoski]

Well met!

This thread could just as easily be about FFAs in general. I'm hosting one for the Gang in November - 4 players - in which players get points only for killing a particular hero from each player's army, which hero immediately reappears at a regeneration hex when killed. Thus no player is ever out of the game.

[1Mmirg]

Originally Posted by TheAverageFan

It's almost impossible to create a fair 3 person game without somehow turning it into a sort of 2v2 (with one guy controlling twice as much). It can be somewhat rectified with height, glyphs, bonus armies, reinforcements, a time limit advantage, and so on and so forth. Regardless, whenever we used to play 3 players (which was the most common), usually a free-for-all with all the crazy politics included was the best way.

At the end of the day, nothing's truly balanced in a dice game--go all out I say.

D_S has already offered you a helpful response with many things I'd say as well, but let me add that I have likely played almost as many 3-player games as I have 2-player games. And I love them.

I almost always play the kill your neighbor on the right format. It makes for really fun strategy and tricky choices as you try to balance out wiping out Player B, while knowing that the more you hurt him, the less he has to pour into Player C--who is killing you. And as you sometimes even move to protect C long enough for you finish off B. It's a fun format.

In fact, I really dislike both 3-player that tries to be 2v2 (except in the case of a few well constructed official scenarios) and FFA. I avoid playing either format as actively as I can, though I'll play an official scenario.

(I haven't tried the point method. You've mentioned it several times, D_S, but I never remember to try it when I actually go to play. Got to remember to try that next time.)

[weebaer]

I have found 3 player free for all games to be fun as well. Capuan Arena is my favorit map for it. (just make the startzones for 3 players instead of 2. Each play has a startzone in front of them and one on the other side of the map.)

[Dysole]

I've played as many as 7 or 8 player FFA games. Of course, the natural evolution of these games caused alliances to be made and broken back and forth like a giant game of diplomacy. (Kato/Ashigaru and Viper builds were my favorite for this since I could cause a lot of damage early, die fast, and then wait out until the endgame when I had the best hero left on the board) Teams has also been done and it's certainly an interesting experience. I think players matter as much as anything else. With the right group of people it rarely turns into everyone ganging up on some guy.

~Dysole, who hasn't tried the kill the person on your right strategy but it sounds fun

[Not User Name]

The best part about three player games is making an even map. I always try to make my own map when it comes to three way games. I've learned that if you are getting teamed up, the best thing to do in a high point game is put Viking spirits on Marro Warriors. Two fronts of 3 attack 4 defense Warriors is pretty solid.