different number of players

Playing games like Agricola and Le Havre made me think of how the same game can differ with different numbers of players. These two games are examples where the game components actually change with different numbers of players. In Agricola, some Occupation cards only come into play when you have 3+ or 4+ players. In Le Havre, the standard buildings that will appear will change. The number of ships (which is the same as the number of rounds) and the types of ships also change. Games of this type make me feel bad, especially if I like the game. Nowadays I usually only get to play 2-player games against my wife. Only occasionally I get to play 3P or 4P games, and very rarely 5P. So I feel bad for missing out on the chance the play these games with more players. Le Havre is not as "bad" as Agricola. Having played a 3P game, I realised there are only a few more buildings. And for 4P and 5P, there are only 2 more buildings than the 3P game. So I feel I have almost experienced the full range of possibilities. Agricola is the painful one. There are so many 3+ and 4+ (players) Occupation cards that I have not tried. I've tried playing a 2P game with the 3+ cards, and found that they don't really work in a 2P setting. I guess I need to find more friends.

Some games make minor adjustments to accomodate the different number of players, in order to make the game work. In Power Grid, with different numbers of players, the number of regions on the map to use changes, the number of coal, oil, garbage and uranium that you replenish into the energy market changes, the number of cities to trigger Phase 2 changes, the number of cities to end the game changes. The spatial change also occurs in Through the Desert, Metropolys, Wasabi, Attika, China. Other examples include Citadels (number of role cards to discard / display / pass around for choosing) and Through the Ages (number of cards change slightly to balance the number of players, number of cards that get removed every turn changes - this is for pacing the game, Pacts can come into play with more than 2P), Caylus (stable not used, turn order strictly alternates), Ghost Stories, Coloretto, Mamma Mia. In these games, there need to be some adjustments to keep the game interesting, or to simply make sure the game still works. This is not to say that a design is weak or less elegant because such adjustments are needed. If the game is fun, it's a good game.

Some games are designed with a specific number of players in mind, and they usually work best only with that intended number of players, although there are tweaks that can be made to accomodate a different number. Star Wars Original Trilogy Edition (3P), The End of the Triumvirate (3P, obviously), and I'd say A Game of Thrones (5P) too.

Multiplayer conflict games probably need more players to make things interesting - Risk, A Game of Thrones, Struggle of Empires, Samurai Swords, I guess Twilight Imperium too. These games thrive on alliances and betrayals and the tricky balance of power among multiple parties.

Some games have no rule change at all, but feel very different depending on the number of players. In 2P St Petersburg be prepared to be very cash rich. 5P Princes of Florence is much more tense than 3P. Ditto Amun-Re. These latter two are at their best when played with the full complement. 2P Carcassonne is much more strategic than 5P. 5P Ticket to Ride has much more tension and blocking (intentional or otherwise) than 2P. I guess you can also consider Attika to have no rule change at all. Only the "board" size is different to allow sufficient space for the appropriate number of players. The game has a different feel with different numbers of players. Pandemic also feels quite different with different number of players. Lord of the Rings (a cooperative game) has a clever and subtle way of balancing the number of players. At the end of each scenario, players need to collect 3 types of life tokens, but there are only 3 of the sun and heart tokens (and 5 of the ring token). So that means if you have 4 or 5 players, someone is bound to not have enough tokens. So more players means more cards and more resources that can be pooled together to beat the game, but it also means your hobbits will tend to be short on life tokens and will get corrupted quicker. Another aspect is the Gandalf cards. You can only summon Gandalf (sorry, I don't mean to make him sound like some lowly expendable minion) when a single hobbit has 5 shields. When you have more players in the game, it becomes harder for a single hobbit to accumulate 5 shields.

How important is "scalable" in determining whether a game is good. Now that I think about it a little, I think it's not important at all. As long as the game is good with the intended number of players, I'd say it's a good game. Take Mahjong. It's 4P, and if you love it, it doesn't matter that it's a 4P-only game (I am temporarily ignoring the 3P variant in Malaysia). "Scalable" is just a conveniece factor to consider when you buy a game, or bring a game to an outing.

Now I need to go back to wait for my children to grow up so that I can play a 4P game of Agricola.