Serious question, why does everyone assume high player count games are better?

Ngl, I keep seeing people in this group hype up games that support 8 or 10 players like that automatically makes them more fun. I ran a game night last month with 7 people and brought out a 6 player max game instead of the big party one, and everyone had a better time because we actually got turns and strategy. I think folks confuse "more players included" with "better for groups" when really it just means longer downtime between turns. Has anyone else noticed the sweet spot is usually 3 or 4 people for most games?

2 comments

2 Comments

leeknight29d ago

You think the sweet spot is 3 to 4 players? I've run enough game nights to know the real sweet spot is zero players and a good movie. But seriously, I had a 10 player game of that space trading thing everyone loves, and I spent more time checking my phone than actually playing. By turn 3, two people had already started a side conversation about their cats, and the rest of us were just waiting to get stuck on a rock and lose our turn. I'll take a tight 4 player game over a 10 player circus any day.

green.jessica29d ago

My buddy @leeknight is right on the money. It's like how every holiday potluck I go to has a Crock-Pot full of meatballs that nobody asked for, and you end up standing in a corner eating a sad celery stick. Big groups sound fun in theory, but you always end up with too many people who don't really care about the game and just want to talk about their cat's new diet. I'd rather play a three-player game of something where we're all actually paying attention than being stuck in a ten-player mess where half the table is on their phones. It's the same pattern everywhere, from board games to group dinners to planning vacations.