When I design a game, I usually assume 4 players. Most 4 player games will work with 3 or 5 easily enough, and many will work with 2 players without too much work. So for the sake of the next sentence, let’s just assume that the average player count of a multiplayer game design is 4.

Most games only have 1 winner, so that means on the average, for every winner of your game, there will be 3 losers!

I wrote an article recently about the designer’s responsibility to provide a good play experience, even if the players try really hard to avoid it. Specifically, my point in that article was that the designer should strive to ensure that a player cannot make a choice or series of choices that will lead them to a state where they’re not really playing anymore. Where their turns consist of “Pass… again.” and they are forced to simply wait while their friends are having fun taking turns, making progress, and actually playing the game.

What I did NOT intend in that article was to imply that a player be protected against making plays which will cause them to lose the game. Bad play should absolutely lead to a bad finish. The point I was trying to make in that post was that even when losing, a player should enjoy your game — or they won’t want to play again!

As I mentioned above, for every winner of your game, there’ll be 3 losers. I aspire to create games that people will enjoy, and if the only way to enjoy my game is by winning it, then I am only going to succeed about 25% of the time. That’s a failing grade! I would much rather ensure that ALL players enjoy my games, every time they play them, as much as I possibly can. So how can I accomplish this? Here are a few ways…


As I mentioned in my previous post, I think it’s important to disallow a choice that will leave a player unable to continue playing. This is worse than player elimination, as they are still in the game, expected to take turns, while completely unable to make progress toward any sort of goal. Often times this position will only be encountered due to particularly bad play by a player, but my assertion is that that’s not good enough. I prefer disallowing or avoiding that position altogether because when it’s possible, even if rare, some player will put themselves into that position… and when they do, it’ll be a miserable experience.


When a player can solve a puzzle or learn more about the game and improve at it, they can still feel good about themselves and can enjoy the game even if they don’t win.


If players cannot tell for sure whether they are winning or losing, it’s easier to feel like they’re still in contention — even if the reality is that they’re behind. By obfuscating the scores, resources, or relative positions of the players, we can remove the feeling of helplessness a losing player may feel.


Including a high-risk, high-reward option (or as James Ernest calls it, a “crazy train“) gives players a chance to make a comeback, even if it’s a long shot. This potential swing of fate can keep players engaged when they’re behind.


Catch-up mechanisms can be a double edged sword. They do help keep players from falling too far behind, but at the same time they can soften a game, removing some of the consequence of bad play. Often times, a player who consistently plays poorly will not win on the strength of the catch-up mechanism alone, but the thought of bad plays leading to a similar outcome as good plays can be off-putting to many gamers.


If all else fails, most players will not mind losing as much if they can drown their sorrows in a bottle of suds. There’s nothing quite as good as a free beer!