Larry Levy:  Two-Player Preferences

Like many of you, I suspect, my hobby is viewed by most of the non-gamers in my life with disinterested tolerance, at best, and complete disdain and hostility, at worst.  But I have to admit that things aren’t easy for someone who tries to show polite interest in how I spend my free time.

“So,â€? one will say enthusiastically, “you play games!  Things like Monopoly, I guess?â€?

“No,� I reply, “not unless I’m forced to.�

“Oh,� they continue, with only a slightly diminished smile, “so you’d rather play something like Poker or Scrabble.�

“No, I don’t really care for those games, either,� I respond.

“Well then,� they persist, and you can hear the edge of desperation in their voice, “I guess you’re a big Chess player.�

“Actually, I haven’t played Chess since I was in high school.�

At this point, my friend will either hotly accuse me of lying about my hobby (no doubt to hide some dark secret concerning women’s underwear) or will simply walk away, shaking his head sadly and mumbling under his breath.

To be fair, my lack of interest in more traditional games isn’t necessarily the norm.  A number of hardcore gamers enjoy Monopoly.  Even more like to play Scrabble or Poker.  And quite a few consider themselves serious Chess players.  If not Chess, then Go or Shogi, or some other standard two-player abstract.

It’s that last group that I want to talk about.  My Chess playing days are long over and I’ve never even tried to seriously learn about Go.  Why?  The short answer is that abstract games in general don’t interest me.  It isn’t that I miss a theme that much; it’s more that a theme makes it easier for a designer to add additional mechanisms to a game and I usually prefer these multi-faceted designs over the more elegantly simple abstracts.  A theme also makes it at least a little bit easier to become engaged in a game.

But there’s more to it than that.  My favorite two-player games are quite different in nature from the ones I like to play with more players.  My favorite multi-player games are usually pretty heavy, with lots to think about and many difficult choices.  I like the mental workout these games provide.  But when I play with two, I usually prefer something lighter.  Not a simple game—I still want to engage the old noggin—but not necessarily something that will have me staring at the board for a minute or two.

I’m not completely sure why this is.  Part of it probably has to do with the difference in dynamics between a two-player and multi-player game.  With three or more players, there are usually multiple threats and opportunities one must deal with.  These don’t necessarily have to be dealt with immediately, because there are others to shoulder the load.  But in many heavy two-player games, there’s a kind of thrust and parry going on.  Your opponent makes a move, threatening something, you respond; your response raises its own threat, so she responds.  I don’t care for those kind of games.  It’s the principal reason I’ve been avoiding Kreta with two players, even though many have reported it plays well with that number.  Several session reports detail Player B responding to each of Player A’s moves in the same area, with the same role card.  Back and forth, like a tennis match.  That just doesn’t sound like all that much fun to me.

There are certainly some heavier games that I like to play with two, most of them games that usually feature more players.  Tikal is fantastic with two.  Goa plays surprisingly well with two and I also enjoy E&T with that number (although both play better with four).  The official two-player Puerto Rico variant is very good, although I’ve only managed to play it a few times.  But these games tend to be the exception, rather than the rule.  For example, Stephenson’s Rocket is one of my all-time favorite games, but I’ve never played it with two players, despite the fact that I’ve heard many times that it plays wonderfully with that number.  Part of this is lack of opportunity, but it’s also partly because I truly wonder if this is a game I’d enjoy with two.

So what games do I like to play with two players?  Mostly card games.  I still like them to require thought and feature a lot of decision making, but they still tend to be somewhat lighter and more luck dependent than the multiplayer games I prefer.  StreetSoccer is another good example—it’s a fine game with plenty of skill required, but it certainly has a reasonable amount of luck, probably more than I’d be happy with in a multiplayer game.

The reason this has come to mind is that I’ve been looking at some of the massive number of reviews, session reports, and ratings comments about Caylus on the Geek.  And it seems that many players play this game with only two (and therefore base their ratings on the game in this form).  This really isn’t that surprising, given that the best estimate of the game’s length is thirty or so minutes per player.  Moreover, Caylus is the kind of game that might attract Chess players or wargamers, both of which would be more likely to play with two.  The (potential) problem is that Caylus may very well be the sort of game that I’d find more attractive as a multiplayer contest than with two.  It just seems as if the gameplay will be richer, with more defensive possibilities to worry about, with more players.  Of course, I really can’t say until I try it with two, so this may be a needless concern.  But I figure to have many more opportunities to play this multiplayer than with two (I rarely get the chance to play two-player games of this length and complexity).  And if a significant portion of the buzz of the game is based on how it plays with two, it may turn out to be less of a phenomenon than I had hoped, at least for me.  Oh well, I guess I should stop worrying and just play the damn game some more.  All I need is a few kind souls willing to play it with me!

Games Played

Tikal – Speaking of two-player games, I got a special treat this week and was able to play a game of Tikal with my wife.  Sheryl still can’t be described as a gamer, but there are more and more games that she’s willing to play with me.  However, with one exception, she really has no interest in trying out the truly heavy gamer’s games.  The exception is Tikal.  I taught it to her soon after it came out.  She was sucked in by the beautiful components, the theme (she loves archaeology), and how easy it was to learn (really, all the information you need is on the player aids).  It doesn’t come out that often, but she does like to play occasionally and last Thursday was one of those times.

What a wonderful game this is!  The fidelity to theme, the straightforward but nonetheless deep gameplay, the gorgeous components (I love to look at the board midway through the game—it really does look like a partially cleared jungle).  It’s just tremendous.  And it plays equally well with two, three, or four players.  In this particular game, I focused on the temples, but let my lovely wife grab too many of the treasures.  Consequently, it was all I could do to defend my hard-earned turf, while she was scoring a gaggle of points each scoring round from her supply of trinkets without having to use a single man.  It was close, but she stormed from behind to post a well earned victory.  Oh well, regardless of the outcome, I always love playing Tikal.  By the way, our game lasted a bit under two hours, even though we both took our time.  Despite the naysayers, I remain convinced that Tikal can almost always be played in two hours or less as long as you make a reasonable effort to keep the game moving along.

Hacienda – Another four-player game with three newbies using the standard rules, another game dominated by large land masses and little defense.  It’s still enjoyable, but too many games like this will keep it from appearing very often.  However, I’m still hopeful that the first variant will help balance the game better and playing with more experienced players should increase the amount of blocking and defense played.  What I’m still not sure about is if I’ll enjoy the game as much with four or five as I do with two or three.  Time will tell.  Hacienda, by the way, is an excellent example of a game that works with two players for me.  Plenty of decisions, but a little luck and a nice light touch.  Plus, the board’s big enough that it really isn’t practical to respond to your opponents every move (at least, not until later in the game).

Kaivai – After my first positive experience with this, I was hoping to get it to the table again.  This game, however, didn’t go as well.  We started out with four, but one player was so completely lost that he begged off (with our blessings) about midway through the game (it didn’t really hurt anything).  Even with this limited exposure, it made me think that the game might not play as well with four as with three.  The board seems much more crowded, making it harder to get around, and actions are more expensive.  Then, there was the playing time:  three hours.  A two-hour duration for this rather heavy game, as we had in my first game, is fine; three hours, however, is too much.  Adding insult to injury is that I was as slow getting my head around the design as I was in my first game.  I guess in a game with as steep a learning curve as Kaivai, you really need to play the game more often than once every two months!  On the other hand, one of the new players got his economic engine going very early and threatened to run away with the game, so it certainly isn’t impossible to figure this one out.  My other opponent made a nice run at him, but he still finished with a fairly convincing victory.

One thing I’m wondering about Kaivai is if it’s really necessary to play the game for the full ten turns.  It’s true that it takes that long to really fill up the board, but in both games I’ve played, it didn’t feel as if the final outcome would have been at all different if we had stopped after eight turns.  It doesn’t seem as if the extra two turns allow you to get some strategy to pay off or allow you to catch an early leader.  I noticed that Ted Cheatham, in his blog, mentioned that they only played eight turns in his first game of Kaivai (due to time pressures) and he didn’t seem to think it was a big problem.  This isn’t a change that I’d make lightly, but if the game does turn out to be too long for what it is, this might be a relatively painless way of keeping it in play.  What with one player leaving early and me making some obvious mistakes, I don’t think it would be fair to base too much on this latest game, so I still want to play this one some more.  But I have to admit, I’m not quite as enthusiastic as I was following my first game.

© 2006 Larry Levy

---

Comments:

You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free, but if you appreciate the news, previews, reviews and other material posted on Boardgame News, please consider becoming a member to keep the info flowing to your screen!

Larry I played a few 3 player games of Kaivai and thought very highly of it, however my last game, a 4 player affair, really dragged. I haven’t played it since that four player game, but I sort of agree that Kaivai my be best with three. I believe you are correct when you state the fourth player makes the cost of actions expensive. (6 actions divided by 3 vs 4 players) I suspect you could also give players an extra 4 or 5 influence chips at the start to compensate for this inflation? (something to try, anyways) Or Kaivai may be one of those games that is a great 3 player game and a poor 4 player one? Marc Posted by Marc Magnera on Feb 18, 2006 at 12:13 PM | #

Three words: Cribbage, cribbage, cribbage. Now there’s a two player game and ya’ know what? It’s even kind of Euro-ish. Different mechanics and everything. Posted by Brian Waters on Feb 22, 2006 at 02:34 AM | #

Cribbage is a fine and unique game, which is a remarkable statement for something that’s at least 400 years old.  I wasn’t raised on the game, as so many other gamers were, but I’ve always enjoyed it whenever I’ve played.  It’s also a great game for teaching counting to kids. Posted by Larry Levy on Feb 22, 2006 at 09:56 AM | #

< Back Home