Game design / history question - why four players?

[radiantfracture]

A mistaken text¹ started a conversation about game theory and game design. None of us knew enough about game theory to get very far with that, but my game-loving yet math-phobic friend did ask: is there a reason why (many? most?) tabletop games are designed to include about four players? Specifically, is that a sweet spot for games? for cognition? for social interactions? Is it to do with the size of kitchen tables? Is it magic?

Is there math in there, I guess is what we want to know.

There are lots of one-person games, and maybe two-person games are actually the most common (?), and heaps of games scale in various ways, but it feels like four is the mode social game size.

Is the four-player game model based on the nuclear family? On two couples playing together? Does it come from historical card games like whist?

Cursory web searching did not reveal an answer. Do you have any knowledge or wild speculation to share?


{rf}

^I accidentally texted the bus stop number to our group chat. If you text the bus stop number to 11111, it will tell you the bus schedule. If you text the bus stop number to human beings by mistake (as I have done more than once) it provokes a variety of amused responses.

Comments

[thewayne]

I think one reason might be your 'two couples' theory. Most card games were played around card tables, which typically have four sides, so easily accommodated four players.

When I buy board games or card games, I look for games that support 2+ players, because typically it's just my wife and I. When I design games, I mostly design card games which take a variable number of players. And if a card game is well-balanced, the number of players doesn't matter except for purposes of deck exhaustion: you want to factor the deck size for the number of players so that you're not shuffling the discards constantly. And there's nothing saying the deck size must be a multiple of 52 (or 54/56, actually), though that may be a factor when it comes to mass production price.

[radiantfracture]

Does the 52-ish-ness go back a ways? Has it to do with the weeks in the year or something else calendrical?

[thewayne]

I don't think so.  I think the 52 cards in a deck of playing cards was gradually arrived at, because many games that use what is recognized as the standard suites use different counts.  The 52 card deck doesn't have 52 cards as it arrives in its box when you add in the jokers and the two 'publisher' cards, as it 'rounds out' the rectangle for single-sheet printing and cutting.  So when it comes to publishing your own game, it's usually advantageous to make your card count as close to and under 52 as possible as that's the way the large presses and cutters work. If you want to look in to it, backgammon has some interesting numerology/symbolism behind its board counts and design.

[isis]

I agree that the two-couple model works for many games and particularly card games, but in practice (that is, at the monthly Adult Board Games night at the library, which I go to most months) the board games I've played are designed for a maximum of five players. I have no idea why.

Possibly related: at a SF convention back in the 80s, I heard Theodore Sturgeon explain that seven people is the optimum number for a dinner party or a group marriage, because with an even number you fall into couples, with three or five you have couples and a lonely extra, but seven encourages small group dynamics. I am not actually sure that seven is any better than five or nine, but as we have only seven dinner dishes in our set, having broken one of the original eight, this works for me.

[radiantfracture]

Yeah, I see what you mean about five -- do you think that's a deliberate move to accommodate larger groups than heretofore, because we (the people) tend to meet more en masse?

Seven seems like a lot of hearts to keep track of, but I'm game, if I meet the right sextet.

It does seem like just the right size for dinner, though.

[eller]

I can only guess here, but: Games are usually played while sitting at a table, and a table usually has four sides.

Then again, the most popular traditional card game around here (Skat) is played with three players...

So, no idea.

[radiantfracture]

Oo, I don't know Skat -- how is it played? What's the rationale behind the three-player structure?

Games are usually played while sitting at a table, and a table usually has four sides.

Right, but I wonder which came first -- the social structure, the table, or the game?

[eller]

I always wondered about those tables. From a practical (non-wobbling) standpoint, three legs would make much more sense than four. A question for a historian.

[anne]

IANA woodworker, but my dad was, so here's my guess: cutting on the bias is wicked hard! (See also: cutting fabric and meat in triangles.)

[eller]

That makes sense, thanks! I've also no woodworking experience but some with sewing, and yes, I know what you're talking about there. :3

[radiantfracture]

Thank you! I love the idea of the material constraints behind social arrangements.

[eller]

As to Skat: it's a German game with ridiculously complicated rules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skat_(card_game)
(I can't play it because my dyscalculia interfered with the bidding phase of the game.)
It's pretty unique in the sense that it's a two-versus-one game that, due to immensely detailed rules, is actually quite balanced. (The side with two players is not necessarily at an advantage!)

[lb_lee]

I figure yeah, table size, plus convenience in arranging parties. Getting four people together isn't too hard; getting more than that, you start having the problem of "where do you want to eat tonight?" and "how do we fit all our crap on this stupid table?"

(Says us who only ever played D&D with one to two other players. But hey, I've seen my friend try and play the "fit my D&D party of 5ish around the table" game, and it was no small feat; he had to take EVERY SINGLE CHAIR in the entire apartment and rig them around a mound of small tablelike objects, none of which were had the same height, and then try to make it so everyone could get OUT once they were settled in. It was NOT easy. Four people, though, you can generally fit around your average table, or in an easy square configuration on the floor.)

--Mori

[danieldwilliam]

I think that it is related to the tradition of card games being 4-handers.

My guess is that one of the reasons that card games are 4-handers is that 4 players is the smallest number that allows you to have both co-operative and competitive play (partners vs partners) without having to balance the game for odd numbers of players. I suspect there is also something about being able to easily able to find 3 other players and fit 4 people in a nook, around a table etc in a way that doesn't work for 6 or 8 players.

Moving away from traditional card games 4ish players (in a 1 vs many form) gives you

enough people that keeping track on each of their positions and strategies is possible but not easy

the right amount of deadtime between plays

avoids a 3 hander which I think is almost certainly going to end up in a 2 vs 1 situation depending on the game mechanics


Lots of the successful games for more than 5 players that I play are either social deduction games or simultaneous play, pass and play type game, which have less downtime between plays. For the pass and play games it is an acknowledged feature of the game that you struggle to keep track of what other people are doing.