Overall XP declines?

[Jellby]

By the way, many games have solo version/rules too. Does it mean that if your opponent quits in a 2-player game you should continue playing in solo mode, and only get the victory if you beat that?

[nik592]

Care to give examples? Obviously I know this is true. Especially on a site with 1400 games. I just want actual examples so I can understand what games people feel fall under this category.

The one I always think of is 7 Wonders, which has different cards in play at all different player counts, but there's also

Board/Board Size:
Small World
Oracle of Delphi

Available Spaces:
Agricola
Caverna
Viticulture
Architects of the West Kingdom

Then there's the subset where the game is quite different for 2p:
Race for the Galaxy (also the victory point pool depends on number of players I think)
Puerto Rico used to have this, though not sure if that's changed

And like Jellby, I'm certain there are more, but it's hard to recall, especially as I mostly play on BGA these days, which means I often avoid 2p where 3p/4p is available (due to a LOT of time spend playing 2p only IRL with my partner - which was fine, I just wanted a different experience initially on BGA, and am still kind of sticking to that). So the variable setup is done for me, and I don't often notice.

I'm sure there's also games where the number of workers/action points/etc. change depending on your player count. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'm certain they exist.

There are also games where the minimum player count is 3p, which would have to be voided by a player leaving a 3p game.

I don't disagree on the general idea, and would happily see it rolled out across games where it makes sense, but it won't apply everywhere and people need to understand why that is (because people will complain that it should be so in games where it isn't appropriate).

[RazorOz]

Definitely not, but possibly imbalanced and not much fun.

Whether it's better to continue in such "broken" state or to call it quits and proceed with some random/arbitrary choice, is probably a matter of personal taste, and something that mostly affects only tournaments. The current state is that in general games cannot continue when a player is removed, but as proved by Heat, a game developer can implement the option to do so. It seems to me then that if you think a particular game could continue after a player leaves, you should file a suggestion for that particular game.

Sure, but we're talking about something that will rarely happen, not something that will happen every game.

It being a matter of taste is why it would then be up to the tournament creator to decide.

The point I think is often misunderstood is that how a game handles a player leaving the game is already written for every game. The only difference Heat has is it coded so this doesn't void the result of the game, how the game is coded to handle the gameplay for it happening I believe is already coded for every game.

[ChiefPointThief]

I already said it would be a problem in team games but I would argue if my is fine for bang. Bang is an elimination game in which ppl will die one by one anyway. Them dying from being shot or from timing out of the game is the same result.

Ticket to ride is actually easier in 4p. Being blocked isn’t a thing unless you are playing very poorly. The 4p rules about double routes would still apply and just play on.

You’ve seen games in which 2vs2 in 4p (team game) disqualified from discussion. Solo in other counts. Ok. Trio fits this example. In a 3p game of trio player three can opt to look at the same two cards all game. They don’t have to play normally/well. So you can place them in last and the o other two players continue. Once again not ideal. But still better than giving the victory to someone who has more time on the clock but found zero sets all game.

An example of different cards being removed for different player counts applies to point salad. I own this irl and have accidentally put the wrong number of cards in. Game was still played. Everyone had fun. There was a legit winner. In other words it can stil be played.

[ChiefPointThief]

@nik
Any game in which players can pass their turns without doing anything can most certainly play on. So referring to viticulture. Players can pass whole seasons without placing meeples. So that’s what the Timed out player will do. Just pass. Play carries on. This sort of game is the same as the already discussed list ruins of arnak.

It’s been awhile. Don’t remember if Agricola has ability to pass. And caverna is just Agricola 2.0. But even if not now there are just more available spaces and the player who plays best under these conditions wins. Rather than who just plays the fastest.

But also note that y’all play tons of games and can only think of a handful. Meaning that for the majority my proposed system does work. So why not entertain it for those. And yes I agree that can be an option made available by the creator of the game/tournament.