What maketh the mega game?

So my friend – lets call him ‘the Brazen Duke’ went along to the same mega-game I did and he had a much better time of it; in fact enjoyed it enough that he went for another one.  In all fairness he did invite me to the second one and I would have gone if I’d not been in Whitby with lots of Goths - I'd show you a photo but I've never quite managed to find one that sums it up.....

Anyway prompted by a post on the mega-games web page he’s written an article about just how many people you need for a game to be ‘a mega-game’.  You can find it here (look at me linking to other bloggers I know – like I’m not just making this stuff up).

Just in case you’ve not read it – spoilers sweetie - his conclusion is 24.  Which as somebody who’s trying to organise something mega-game-alike with about 20 people max is at least a little awkward…..

He's added two things I don't think you have to have - I mean they might well be nice but I don't think they are actually required.  These are 1) a group of 'rouge agents' who don't quite work the way the majority of the players do and 2) a group to spread information around.

I think if you had neither of those things and still had 200 people playing the sub departments of an insane Brazil like bureaucracy - you'd still have a mega game.  Note to self - file that idea away as something else to explore another day....

The question switches about half way down - from what number do you need for a mega-game over to 'a mega-game experience that doesn't feel like something is missing' which is a subtly different question.  Because that is - if you peel away the layers - what do you need to make a good mega game....

Interestingly enough I don't think 'Of Gods and Men' quite fulfils his criteria either - there were no 'Intelligence operatives' in gods and men.   The closest were the gods - but I think they were much closer to a second set of rouge agents then people moving information round (with or without an agenda).

Now obviously I want to make 'a good' mega-game - who'd want to make a bad one?  But I don't have 24 players - I've got 20 at most - which I make out to be 16 players and 4 controls.  Maybe it would be better with 24 players but I have to design to what I've got. So it's about making the bes choices I can.....

Lets look at playable hero's - based on comments some people think they should be included so why are they not.  There missing because I rate the Brazen dukes first statement as more important then he does....
   
“Each standard team needs a leader and two other people with potentially conflicting priorities. In this way, the team is always discussing/debating/arguing and the leader is always making difficult choices. If this isn't happening, I really don't think we're megagaming.”

Which gives you inter team rivally - which is important.  I just disagree and think that in this case you need at least 4 people in a team - one on top and 3 below.  This gives more room to jockey for position then just 'top or bottom'.

Interestingly enough in my 3 person team at Of Gods and Men there was no jockeying for position - partially because there was only 3 of us in total - but I mainly think because had nothing to fight for - the only thing we could see was 'position of the city state'  there was nothing for me personally to try and obtain.....  Which is why there needs to be a clear resource that the minions care about - in this case 'favour of the overlord'.  Everything they do in the rest of the game is actually about trying to get hold of that......

You also need more then 1 team because you want inter team rivallry - and here I agree with the duke at least 4 teams is the minimum.

At which point - that's my 16 players used up.....

I mean there are other structures - in which you do get hero's... ....

Structure A – in which we have 10 players each playing an overlord in completion with each other – while 6 players run around being hero’s opposing them all.

Structure B – in which we have 1 player playing an overlord while 9 players are there minions all vying for favour while 6 players run around being hero’s opposing them.

Structure A is all about team rivalry (ok a team of 1 but the point stands) while structure B is all about inter team rivalry.

They are both valid structures and they could both work – but I think they are worse game design choices then 4 teams of 4 because they only have one of the two types of rivalry.  In doing this I do appear to be following what the mega game people seem to think is a key defining characteristic of a mega game –  to quote there about page….

“A Megagame is a multi-player game, in which, usually the participants are organised into teams, and those teams into an hierarchy of teams".

So with 20 players - something had to give - and for me that's hero's and bards.....

As a side note – while writing this out I did come up with a  possible very different structure for ‘upon a throne of bone’ – One evil overlord – with 3 chief minions – and 9 minions……  Opposed by 3 hero’s trying to desperately save the kingdom (or maybe 3 kings trying to save there kingdom while still staying in charge - sure you can get a hero to save you but do you really want to give away your kingdom)…….

The evil overlord wants to rule – the chief minions wants to become the evil overlord – while the minions want to become chief minions….  It would be a very different game but I think it might work…….  The three 'teams' is ok because you've got an overlord trying to keep things working - to much unsubtle picking on one team is bad for him so he would step in.  In that case you can have just 3 teams.....