I think the introductory example as more to do with the exponential complexity that emerges with additional options than any specific number. If you added a fourth pool, you would have even more opportunities to strategize. Although, the more possibilities, the more you incentivize analysis paralysis. In that regard, 3 might be the most concise viable design.
It is heartening to be reminded that even great designers spend time circling around "the answer", trying all sorts of options in their path to get there. Makes me hope for the light at the end of my own tunnels! :)
Yep, exactly why I prefer 3+ player games. The zero-sum nature results in a more interesting and dynamic game overall where often the "weakest" player can win by analyzing the scenario and overall situation and playing around their opponents.
I think the introductory example as more to do with the exponential complexity that emerges with additional options than any specific number. If you added a fourth pool, you would have even more opportunities to strategize. Although, the more possibilities, the more you incentivize analysis paralysis. In that regard, 3 might be the most concise viable design.
It is heartening to be reminded that even great designers spend time circling around "the answer", trying all sorts of options in their path to get there. Makes me hope for the light at the end of my own tunnels! :)
The answer is always obvious once you have it. You'll get there!
Great? Kind of sad it took him this long to realize this.
Yep, exactly why I prefer 3+ player games. The zero-sum nature results in a more interesting and dynamic game overall where often the "weakest" player can win by analyzing the scenario and overall situation and playing around their opponents.