<p>You get a lot of flexibility with a game system like <a href="http://paizo.com/paizoGames/library" rel="nofollow">Stonehenge</a> or <a href="http://www.looneylabs.com/whybuy/treehouse.html" rel="nofollow">Icehouse</a>. There are some games that are good for 2 all the way up to party games for 100. The downside is that you have to sift through a lot of weak games to find the good ones. There's an excellent article on <a href="http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/GameSystems1.shtml" rel="nofollow">Game Systems</a> in the Game Journal.</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-20T19:21:21.470Z
2010-10-20T19:21:21.470Z
Don Kirkby
<p>Once again I can't recommend <a href="http://www.riograndegames.com/games.html?id=278" rel="nofollow">Dominion</a> enough.</p>

<p>The base set supports 2-4 players and really plays the same for all of those, and if you also get <a href="http://www.riograndegames.com/games.html?id=306" rel="nofollow">Dominion: Intrigue</a> (or a second copy of Dominion, or just some extra copies of a few of the victory cards) you can play with anywhere from 2-6 players.  4 players is probably the "sweet spot" that the game was balanced around, though.</p>

<p>A few basic rules are adjusted based on the number of players - the amount of available victory points and the game end conditions scale with the number of players.</p>

<p>Game times will be affected most, naturally - in a 6-player game you'll be waiting longer between turns.  The other factor that changes is competition for cards - in a 2-player game you will mostly be able to get whatever cards you want, while a 6-player game will require more adjusting of your strategy on the fly to respond to cards going to other players.</p>

<p>All that said, the core gameplay works very well for any number of players from 2 to 6 without excessive special-case 2-player rules or dummy players.</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-21T19:56:38.023Z
Actually, Dominion does have special-case 2-player rules, but only in that you use 8 victory cards per pile instead of the usual 12.
Powerlord
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-21T19:58:06.947Z
Good point, I changed my phrasing.
lilserf
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-21T20:11:45.847Z
A minor difference, such as number of victory points or different starting setups, for different players is fine. Major differences, in which you have to have a "ghost" player or an entire trading aspect of the game is removed, are not. So I'd say that with the expansion, Dominion counts.
Brian Campbell
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-20T15:14:31.207Z
2010-10-21T19:57:46.993Z
2010-10-21T19:57:46.993Z
lilserf
<h2><a href="http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/68448/7-wonders">7 Wonders</a></h2>

<ul>
<li>Plays <strong>2-7</strong></li>
<li>Doesn't slow down with more players because turns are simultaneous</li>
<li>Bonus: Highly portable</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-18T19:32:29.607Z
I agree 7 wonders is a great game but I wouldn't suggest playing it with 2 people.  It uses a dummy player in a 2 player game which isn't the best way to play a 2 player game.
Styxsksu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-09-22T23:46:49.227Z
Yeah, big fan of 7 Wonders.  The mechanic of players only interacting with their left-hand and right-hand neighbours is pretty sweet, as you rightly note, for keeping things moving quickly.  (Though it does mean that you have no way of affecting a player on the opposite side of the table from you if they're doing well!)
thesunneversets
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-09-22T23:03:51.890Z
2011-09-22T23:03:51.890Z
BenOfTomorrow
<p>I've played <a href="http://www.wunderland.com/LooneyLabs/Fluxx/Default.html" rel="nofollow">Fluxx</a> in groups from 2 through 10; <a href="http://www.wunderland.com/LooneyLabs/Fluxx/Zombie/index.html" rel="nofollow">Zombie Fluxx</a> seems to work even better at the ends of that range.  With too many people, though, you need to have a good conversation going while people wait for the turn to come back around.</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-11-05T13:55:57.240Z
In my group if you pay too much attention to the game you're almost guaranteed to lose.  Or have your head explode.
Kristo
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-12-14T20:48:19.630Z
@kristo: In my group, having your head explode is considered a loss...
David Oneill
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-20T18:52:55.413Z
2010-10-20T18:52:55.413Z
eswald
<p>When I have a group of unknown size to bring a game for, I always bring <a href="http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/37904/formula-d" rel="nofollow">Formula D</a>. It plays up to 10, and while I haven't played that many, I have played 7 and it works just great. There's a little more downtime, but everyone remains interested throughout everyone else's turns because of the risk of collision, and just because you want to follow the race!</p>

<p>I know it seems impossible for a boardgame to create a tense and exciting race, but Formula D manages the trick! The rules are light enough to explain to even a new group in a short time and it has just the right mix of luck and significant choices to make sure that smart play makes the difference and sometimes a big gamble can pay off. </p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-20T16:10:53.107Z
2010-10-20T16:10:53.107Z
gomad
<p><a href="http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/11/bohnanza" rel="nofollow">Bohnanza</a> is a very fun multiplayer trading game. It's a bit more fun if you understand the German word plays on the cards but that's far from necessary. The core game is for 3-5 players and there are numerous expansions that add new twists or simply additional cards for more players.</p>

<p>The basic idea is that you grow beans. Every card is a bean of a particular sort. You and only grow two sorts of beans at a time and you have to plant your beans in the order you receive them. So in order to turn a profit you need to plan ahead and trade well. It's a very social game that involves a lot of haggling.</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-26T17:16:13.170Z
Love this game, and I think that even the base game works up to 6 or 7 players, so it qualifies for the list (just 3-5 wouldn't qualify, if you check the question). *edit to add* Ah, just checked BGG, and the version that I have is the one that includes the first expansion which works for up to 7.
Brian Campbell
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-11-29T07:37:55.773Z
Bohnanza is my favorite trading game, because of the human element of the player interactions. It's one of the few games where it's the guy who's most liked who is more likely to win, rather than the best strategist. And it's so easy to be nice, or be mean, in this single game.
Shalom Craimer
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-26T09:02:05.877Z
2010-10-26T09:02:05.877Z
Kempeth
<p>Can't believe nobody's mentioned Cosmic Encounter yet.  Works <em>very</em> well for 3-6, and the old 'kibitzer' variant from Mayfair adds a 7th moderately well.  (But don't play Cosmic for two.  In two-player Cosmic the objectives change for each player: they become 'go find another player first'.)</p>

<p>Robo-rally works well from 3-8.</p>

<p>Most of the Talisman-esque games work for a wide range too, but they're not exactly small to pack.</p>

<p>Icehouse pieces are small, portable, and support several good multi-player or wide-ranging games:  Volcano/Mega-volcano, IceTowers, IceHouse, Zendo come to mind as good examples.</p>

<p>If you can still find it, Duel of Ages is a team game, is one of the few 3-6 player games which works just as well for 2, and it doesn't matter if the teams aren't balanced.  (In theory you could play it with any number on each team, but in practice more than about 3 players per team is slower without being more fun.)</p>

<p>Played right, Twilight Imperium <em>works</em> for 3-8, but it's definitely <em>strongest</em> with 5-6.  And it's an FF big box game, so it's <em>not</em> small to pack.</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-11-29T07:35:45.620Z
I can't believe you mentioned Talisman in the same answer as Cosmic Encounter. It makes my heart cry a little :-(
Shalom Craimer
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-12-02T20:46:15.190Z
@scraimer: Well, yes.  I admit I winced while I typed it.  But it *is* an answer to the question.  And I couldn't think of a good term for that whole Runebound/Prophecy category of games.  (I could have just said "Prophecy", but while I think it's a better game, it's not as good an answer to the question.)
Tynam
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-09-23T00:11:30.350Z
I've never played Cosmic with 6 people, but the complexity starts to get pretty crazy. You have to keep track of everyone's situation to really be successful, and that starts getting really hard when you hit 6. If you're group is fine with that, it's game on though. :D
Gordon Gustafson
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-28T19:20:52.603Z
2010-10-28T19:20:52.603Z
Tynam
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citadels_%28card_game%29" rel="nofollow">Citadels</a> (the later editions, or first edition plus expansions) supports 2-8. Once people get the hang of it, it goes pretty quickly. An 8-player game typically takes around an hour. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-10-11T05:16:20.470Z
The 2-players game is totally different. I (also) recommand it to people who are used to the game. I personally love it, but it has nothing in common with the 3-8 players game.
SteeveDroz
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-23T22:01:40.340Z
2010-10-24T14:37:01.417Z
2010-10-24T14:37:01.417Z
Todd
<p>There's always <a href="http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/13/the-settlers-of-catan" rel="nofollow"><strong>Settlers of Catan</strong></a>, with a <a href="http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/2807/the-settlers-of-catan-5-6-player-extension" rel="nofollow"><strong>5-6 player expansion pack</strong></a> on hand. That covers 3 up to 6 fairly well.</p>

<p><a href="http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/822/carcassonne" rel="nofollow"><strong>Carcassonne</strong></a> is good with 2-5, and the <a href="http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/2993/carcassonne-inns-cathedrals" rel="nofollow"><strong>Inns and Cathedrals expansion</strong></a> takes it up to 6.</p>

<p>I'm also a big fan of <a href="http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/438/scotland-yard" rel="nofollow"><strong>Scotland Yard</strong></a> which can adapt reasonably well to 2-6 players (although ideally with 3-6):</p>

<ul>
<li>2 players: one player is Mr X, the
other takes 4 detectives 3 players:</li>
<li>one player is Mr X, two players take
2 detectives each 4,5 and 6 players:</li>
<li>one player is Mr X, the rest take 1
detective each</li>
</ul>

<p>Scotland Yard is quite a bit of fun too.</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-29T08:12:09.660Z
2010-10-29T08:12:09.660Z
Karl Bunyan
<p><a href="http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/40692/small-world" rel="nofollow" title="Small World">Small World</a> is for 2-5 players and is very entertaining for each size. There are four different boards that come with the game (2 physical boards printed front and back) with the larger player groups having more spaces and fewer turns on the turn counter.</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-11-29T07:34:52.767Z
Small World is expandable to 6 and even 7 players, in theory. The "Necromancer Island" official expansion gives one of the players the role of the antagonist on the island in the middle of the board. There's also a fan-made revision of the game that allows constructing 6-player boards, using hex-tiles. I've never tried to combine the two for a 7-player game, but I understand there are rules for it somewhere.
Shalom Craimer
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-20T19:38:00.713Z
2010-10-20T19:38:00.713Z
pian0
<p><a href="http://www.warfroggames.com/struggle.html" rel="nofollow">Struggle of Empires</a> is a good game that supports 2-7, though I think you need at least 4.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-01-26T10:05:51.670Z
at least 4, best with 6, and kinda silly with odd numbers
Chris DaMour
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-23T21:57:44.130Z
2010-10-23T21:57:44.130Z
Todd
<p>I'm not sure if this would qualify as a party game, but <a href="http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/140/pit" rel="nofollow">Pit</a> starts to work well at 3-4 players and works up to at least 10 players.</p>

<p>You might need to use different cards than the original, though, which does not always have support for very many players (depending on the edition). What I have done with great success is take three decks of regular playing cards and use as many <em>numbers</em> as there are players, with nine cards of each number (necessarily selecting across all three decks).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-10-11T07:18:27.373Z
I've found Pit rather dull with less than 5 players. Do you do anything different to keep it interesting?
Gregor Thomas
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-10-11T15:46:51.853Z
Not really. I may have a high tolerance for dullness.
Erik P.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-10-11T16:13:21.767Z
I mostly just remember games where after a few trades everyone was done at the same time. What I like about the full version is the chaos, confusion, and noise, which seemed to be lacking with fewer people. That said, I think it's a great game for this question. As it's not turn-based it works wonderfully with lots of people.
Gregor Thomas
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-22T16:40:24.467Z
2010-10-22T16:40:24.467Z
Erik P.
<p><a href="http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite.asp?eidm=18&amp;enmi=Battlestar%20Galactica" rel="nofollow">Battlestar Galactica</a> with the Pegasus expansion supports 3-7 players, and works well anywhere in that range. This is one of my all-time favorite games. It's a cooperative game using a traitor mechanic.</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-12-02T20:51:53.487Z
It's an excellent game, but I'm not sure it's the right answer, because 3-player games are so prone to random mid-game shifts depending on who the Cylon is.  While Galactica *allows* 3-7, it's *much* stronger with 4-6.
Tynam
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-12-03T02:04:28.330Z
Actually, I think 3 plays pretty well. I think 4 is the worst number in the base game because it's 3 against 1 and pretty tough for the Cylon. However with the expansion, 4-player is OK if someone plays a Cylon Leader. I've played a few 7-player games and I feel that's pretty balanced.
Todd
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-23T21:48:07.770Z
2010-10-23T22:04:57.473Z
2010-10-23T22:04:57.473Z
Todd
<p>If your looking for a game that plays well with a lot of people, I would suggest <a href="http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/74/apples-to-apples" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Apples to Apples</a>.  It's word association game, and it lets you play up to 10 people.  I've played it with more then ten people myself, although I do have the expansions to the game which adds a lot more cards.  It's not very strategic though, and a party game at heart.</p>

<p>Also, check out the related question <a href="https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/276/recommendations-for-6-player-board-game">Recommendations for 6-player board game</a>.  On that post I recommended <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCMQFjAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fboardgamegeek.com%2Fboardgame%2F478%2Fcitadels&amp;rct=j&amp;q=citadels&amp;ei=kwq_TIz2BYWksQOP-OmODQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNFlTedMNp-kx9OGRXqwOBVf3yYAow&amp;cad=rja" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Citadels</a>, a really good game that plays well with larger crowds, but only up to 8 people.</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-20T15:50:04.627Z
I'm not looking for games that work with a lot of people, I'm looking for games which are flexible in the number of people. So, say, Diplomacy plays with 7, but you need exactly that many. Apples to Apples is certainly flexible enough, as is Citadels.
Brian Campbell
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-20T15:29:31.073Z
2010-10-20T15:29:31.073Z
2017-04-13T12:38:50.353Z
ICodeForCoffee
<p>Civilization (base or <a href="http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/177/advanced-civilization" rel="nofollow">Advanced</a>) plays well with 5-7 players, not a very broad range but better than nothing. Yes, 6-7 is ideal, but playing in 5 people is still good enough to be <em>almost</em> the complete game.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sjgames.com/hacker/" rel="nofollow">Hacker</a> plays well with 4-6 people. You may like it or not, since there are a few design flaws - I find it mostly fun anyway.</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-11-05T05:32:37.177Z
I think Civ with 4 on the Western expansion is a decent game.  Plays fast too (for Civ :))
Pat Ludwig
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-11-02T23:20:53.953Z
2010-11-02T23:20:53.953Z
o0'.
<p>It depends on your requirements. Uno may be a terrible or a brilliant choice, depending on what you want. There's little strategy: it's something to do with your hands while you chat with a bunch of friends. That means the gameplay tends to be fast, so turns come around fairly quickly. And, playing in a large bunch, there's always the chance that the +4 cards go around the table, and someone ends up picking up 16 cards, which is always sweet (when it's not you). When the +2s go around, the pick ups can go into the twenties.</p>

<p>If you're looking for clever strategy games, you don't want Uno.</p>

<p>Uno works well with 5-9ish people, and perhaps more, and also works well with 2 people (though that's an entirely different game, really). I find it awkward with three or four people.</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-11-02T23:17:25.220Z
Uno basically auto-plays, there's no strategy, almost no tactics... where's the fun? None.
o0'.
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-11-02T23:20:10.660Z
As I said, it depends on what you're looking for. I like the phrase "auto-plays", though.
TRiG
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-27T22:37:58.937Z
2010-10-27T22:37:58.937Z
TRiG
<p>The <a href="http://www.looneylabs.com/whybuy/treehouse.html" rel="nofollow">Icehouse Game System</a> can handle variable amounts of players.  There is a list of <a href="http://icehousegames.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category%3aN-player" rel="nofollow">N-player games</a> at the Icehouse Game Wiki.  It may not be the most strategic game, but I've played a lot of <a href="http://www.wunderland.com/icehouse/MartianCoasters/Index.html" rel="nofollow">Martian Coasters</a> (2-5 Players).  It scales well up to 5 players.  There are tons of other games that support many different amounts of players so there is much to choose from in this game system.</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-21T15:13:13.780Z
2010-10-21T15:13:13.780Z
David Lambert
<p>For word games, I like playing <a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B001RN88DK" rel="nofollow">Taboo</a> in large or small groups. It's fairly flexible because you can pair off, or have varied sized teams.</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-20T15:49:33.740Z
2010-10-20T15:49:33.740Z
kchau
<h2><a href="http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/15987/arkham-horror" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Arkham Horror</a></h2>
<p>The game supports 1-8.  I've played 1-6 and all work well.  With 3 or less you may want each player to control 2 characters, but that isn't necessary.</p>
<p>I suspect that with 7-8 there will be a fair amount of downtime between turns.  However, if the group enjoys the game and gets into it I don't think the problem is insurmountable.  I find that reading the event cards aloud really brings everyone into the game.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2010-11-05T05:36:52.227Z
2011-09-23T06:32:01.847Z
2020-06-17T09:01:24.697Z
Pat Ludwig
<h2>Racing Demon / Pounce / Nertz / Nerts</h2>

<p>An excellent (if very hectic) game that I used to play often in large family groups is "Racing Demon" or "Pounce", although Wikipedia suggests that it's more commonly known in North America as "Nertz".  As long as you have one pack of cards per player, and those decks have distinct backs, it certainly works well with 3 to 7 people, although as you add more players the number of limbs rushing to place cards down in the centre of the table increases - how you feel about that additional chaos probably dictates the maximum number of players. :)  The <a href="http://www.pagat.com/patience/nerts.html" rel="nofollow">rules of the game are at pagat.com</a>.  Essentially, you have to run through the cards in your deck solitaire-style while trying to keep an eye out for opportunities to move your cards onto the piles in the common area.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-10-10T18:15:09.783Z
2011-10-10T18:15:09.783Z
Mark Longair
<p>There's a great book called <a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0806959150" rel="nofollow">Super Party Games</a> that describes a bunch of games that can be played by groups of 10 or more. I generated a set of puzzles for one of the games described in the book. Each player is given a sheet of paper that they tie to their forehead where they can't see it. On each sheet of paper are three letters, and you have to arrange yourselves to spell out a secret quote without telling anybody what letters are on their heads. You can <a href="http://code.google.com/p/donkirkby/wiki/FortunePuzzles" rel="nofollow">download the puzzles</a> and print out one of the puzzles for your group size. There are currently puzzles from 4 to 95 people, although I've never tried it with a group larger than 13.</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-20T19:29:54.277Z
2010-10-20T19:29:54.277Z
Don Kirkby
<h2>Spot-It</h2>

<p><a href="http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/63268/spot-it" rel="nofollow">Spot-It</a> supports 2 through 8 on paper, but I've played it with many more players than that. The best part about Spot-It is that there are so many different modes of play, and you can even come up with new ones. We came up with a mode called two-fisted bomb mode which is similar to the mode in the instructions only each player has two cards they have to get rid of until one person is left holding everything.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-19T12:24:32.183Z
I've recently create an online application [match it](https://funcards.github.io/match-it) to generate spot it like cards deck
Amit Kumar Gupta
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-10-11T11:52:43.703Z
2011-10-11T11:52:43.703Z
Apreche
<p>A little bit amazed that no one has mentioned <strong><a href="http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/31260/agricola" rel="nofollow">Agricola</a></strong> yet.  This (my favourite game, not coincidentally) plays supremely well with any number from 1 to 5, by dint of <em>having a different, carefully thought-out board setup</em> for each of those different numbers.  In addition, the Occupation cards subdivide into ones appropriate only for solo or 2-person play, for 3+ players, and for 4-5 players; thus, effects that would be silly for two players (auctioning things off, to pluck an example out of the air) can be limited only to numbers of players that accommodate them well.</p>

<p>A lot of games are accidentally good for both small and large numbers of players.  Agricola's designers have spent a lot of time making sure it's good for different-sized groups - and the pretty decent solo option has got to be the icing on the cake.  It really is an amazing feat of game design, regularly coming near the top of all-time-best-boardgame lists: if you haven't tried it yet, what are you waiting for?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-09-22T09:04:39.877Z
2011-09-22T09:04:39.877Z
thesunneversets
<p>The card game <a href="http://www.pagat.com/patience/spit.html" rel="nofollow" title="'Split' or 'Speed'">"Split" or "Speed"</a> scales very well with slight modifications. Be creative about the arrangement of the shared cards and add more decks of cards and players to your hearts content. The only limiting factor is arranging the shared cards such that everyone can reach them. </p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-23T10:46:46.923Z
2010-10-26T09:02:43.557Z
2010-10-26T09:02:43.557Z
Willbill
<p>I have played <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Havre_%28board_game%29" rel="nofollow">Le Havre</a> with 3, 4 and 5 players, and although the dynamics of the game change, the game is designed to deal with the differing number of players effectively in the way that the end of round 'feeding' phase determines how much food is required. The more the players, the less food required, ensuring that that the game is well balanced regardless of the player numbers.</p>

<p>Excellent consideration has gone into this game to deal with the problem of some games being best for a certain number of users.</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-10-21T16:59:21.717Z
2010-10-21T16:59:21.717Z
Codemwnci
<p><strong><a href="http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/78954/mousquetaires-du-roy" rel="nofollow">Les Mousquetaires du Roy</a></strong> ("The Musketeers of the King" in old French, "Roy" being now spelled "Roi"), that just came out last year is good for that. The story is based on Alexandre Dumas' novel <strong><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Musketeers" rel="nofollow">The Three Musketeers</a></strong>.</p>

<p>In the game, a players takes the part of Milady de Winter, the ennemy  of the heroes. All the other players are a team and incarnate the musketeers: Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D'Artagnan.</p>

<p>When played with:</p>

<ul>
<li>5 players, each one has a character.</li>
<li>4 players, somenone takes Milady and the three others each take a musketeer. The musketeeres have a slightly longer turn.</li>
<li>3 players, someone takes Milady and the two others each take two musketeers.</li>
<li>2 players, one plays Milady and the other one plays all the musketeers.</li>
</ul>

<p>Note that the game can be played differently, for Milady is a character that can be simulated by random actions. The game loses a bit of fun though. Theoretically, you can play the game alone.</p>

<p>Note also that there is a fifth musketeer in the box, Tréville, which is the captain, that can be played by an extra player. The pieces needed are included in the box, but the rules for the character can be found online.</p>

<p>Conclusion: this game is supposed to be for 2-5 players, but you can practically play it with <strong>1-6 players</strong>.</p>

<p>I tested it with different number of people including alone, it's not the same game, but all of them are equally interresting.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-10-11T05:14:48.913Z
2011-10-11T05:14:48.913Z
SteeveDroz
<p><a href="http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/24068/shadow-hunters" rel="nofollow">Shadow Hunters</a> plays 4-8 well.</p>

<p>However, I would also suggest that a deck of regular paying cards can service a wide variety of needs.  Rummy variants for 2, Specially designed 3 player games like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-nine_%28trick-taking_card_game%29" rel="nofollow">Ninety-Nine</a> for 3-players, Hearts/Spades/Bridge for 4, Specially designed 5 player games like <a href="http://www.georgejas.com/rook/index.html" rel="nofollow">Rook</a>, etc.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pagat.com/" rel="nofollow">Pagat</a> has a list of games by # of Players, which can be useful.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-10-11T07:15:41.887Z
Don't forget Sheepshead for specially designed 5-player games!
Gregor Thomas
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-09-25T07:35:54.023Z
2011-09-25T07:35:54.023Z
Neal Tibrewala
<p>Many times, I have limited space to pack games, and don't know how many players there are going to be. I frequently end up in a situation in which we have 5 players, but games that only work with 3 or 4 players, or something of the sort. In these situations, games which are flexible in the number of players they support are useful; one or two such games can cover most situations you end up in.</p>

<p>One problem is that while many games nominally work with a given number of players, they are really best played with a narrower range of players. For instance, there are many multi-player games that have a two-player variant, but the two-player variant is quite different than the multi-player game, and couldn't really be called the same game.</p>

<p>So, what games support a wide range of number of players well? Since there are many games which support 2-4 or 3-5 players, let's limit it to games that support at least 4 different player numbers well, such as 2-5 or 3-6 or any odd number from 7 to 15.</p>

<p><strong>edit to add</strong>: Let's limit this to non-party games; party games as a genre tend to be fairly flexible in the number of players, so it's not all that interesting to list each one.</p>

<recommendations>
Games that play well with a wide range of different numbers of players
Brian Campbell
# Games that play well with a wide range of different numbers of players

(Asked by: username_0 on 2010-10-20)

Many times, I have limited space to pack games, and don't know how many players there are going to be. I frequently end up in a situation in which we have 5 players, but games that only work with 3 or 4 players, or something of the sort. In these situations, games which are flexible in the number of players they support are useful; one or two such games can cover most situations you end up in.

One problem is that while many games nominally work with a given number of players, they are really best played with a narrower range of players. For instance, there are many multi-player games that have a two-player variant, but the two-player variant is quite different than the multi-player game, and couldn't really be called the same game.

So, what games support a wide range of number of players well? Since there are many games which support 2-4 or 3-5 players, let's limit it to games that support at least 4 different player numbers well, such as 2-5 or 3-6 or any odd number from 7 to 15.

**edit to add**: Let's limit this to non-party games; party games as a genre tend to be fairly flexible in the number of players, so it's not all that interesting to list each one.

**Tags:** recommendations


---

## 27 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2010-10-20. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

You get a lot of flexibility with a game system like [Stonehenge](http://paizo.com/paizoGames/library) or [Icehouse](http://www.looneylabs.com/whybuy/treehouse.html). There are some games that are good for 2 all the way up to party games for 100. The downside is that you have to sift through a lot of weak games to find the good ones. There's an excellent article on [Game Systems](http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/GameSystems1.shtml) in the Game Journal.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2010-10-20. Score: 13

Once again I can't recommend [Dominion](http://www.riograndegames.com/games.html?id=278) enough.

The base set supports 2-4 players and really plays the same for all of those, and if you also get [Dominion: Intrigue](http://www.riograndegames.com/games.html?id=306) (or a second copy of Dominion, or just some extra copies of a few of the victory cards) you can play with anywhere from 2-6 players. 4 players is probably the "sweet spot" that the game was balanced around, though.

A few basic rules are adjusted based on the number of players - the amount of available victory points and the game end conditions scale with the number of players.

Game times will be affected most, naturally - in a 6-player game you'll be waiting longer between turns. The other factor that changes is competition for cards - in a 2-player game you will mostly be able to get whatever cards you want, while a 6-player game will require more adjusting of your strategy on the fly to respond to cards going to other players.

All that said, the core gameplay works very well for any number of players from 2 to 6 without excessive special-case 2-player rules or dummy players.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Actually, Dominion does have special-case 2-player rules, but only in that you use 8 victory cards per pile instead of the usual 12.  
> **username_2**: Good point, I changed my phrasing.  
> **username_0**: A minor difference, such as number of victory points or different starting setups, for different players is fine. Major differences, in which you have to have a "ghost" player or an entire trading aspect of the game is removed, are not. So I'd say that with the expansion, Dominion counts.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2011-09-22. Score: 7

## [7 Wonders](http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/68448/7-wonders)

* Plays **2-7**
* Doesn't slow down with more players because turns are simultaneous
* Bonus: Highly portable

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: Yeah, big fan of 7 Wonders.  The mechanic of players only interacting with their left-hand and right-hand neighbours is pretty sweet, as you rightly note, for keeping things moving quickly.  (Though it does mean that you have no way of affecting a player on the opposite side of the table from you if they're doing well!)  
> **username_5**: I agree 7 wonders is a great game but I wouldn't suggest playing it with 2 people.  It uses a dummy player in a 2 player game which isn't the best way to play a 2 player game.  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2010-10-20. Score: 6

I've played [Fluxx](http://www.wunderland.com/LooneyLabs/Fluxx/Default.html) in groups from 2 through 10; [Zombie Fluxx](http://www.wunderland.com/LooneyLabs/Fluxx/Zombie/index.html) seems to work even better at the ends of that range. With too many people, though, you need to have a good conversation going while people wait for the turn to come back around.

> **Comments:**
> **username_8**: In my group if you pay too much attention to the game you're almost guaranteed to lose.  Or have your head explode.  
> **username_9**: @kristo: In my group, having your head explode is considered a loss...  

---

### Answer by username_10 on 2010-10-20. Score: 6

When I have a group of unknown size to bring a game for, I always bring [Formula D](http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/37904/formula-d). It plays up to 10, and while I haven't played that many, I have played 7 and it works just great. There's a little more downtime, but everyone remains interested throughout everyone else's turns because of the risk of collision, and just because you want to follow the race!

I know it seems impossible for a boardgame to create a tense and exciting race, but Formula D manages the trick! The rules are light enough to explain to even a new group in a short time and it has just the right mix of luck and significant choices to make sure that smart play makes the difference and sometimes a big gamble can pay off.


---

### Answer by username_15 on 2010-10-23. Score: 6

[Citadels](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citadels_%28card_game%29) (the later editions, or first edition plus expansions) supports 2-8. Once people get the hang of it, it goes pretty quickly. An 8-player game typically takes around an hour.

> **Comments:**
> **username_16**: The 2-players game is totally different. I (also) recommand it to people who are used to the game. I personally love it, but it has nothing in common with the 3-8 players game.  

---

### Answer by username_11 on 2010-10-26. Score: 5

[Bohnanza](http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/11/bohnanza) is a very fun multiplayer trading game. It's a bit more fun if you understand the German word plays on the cards but that's far from necessary. The core game is for 3-5 players and there are numerous expansions that add new twists or simply additional cards for more players.

The basic idea is that you grow beans. Every card is a bean of a particular sort. You and only grow two sorts of beans at a time and you have to plant your beans in the order you receive them. So in order to turn a profit you need to plan ahead and trade well. It's a very social game that involves a lot of haggling.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Love this game, and I think that even the base game works up to 6 or 7 players, so it qualifies for the list (just 3-5 wouldn't qualify, if you check the question). *edit to add* Ah, just checked BGG, and the version that I have is the one that includes the first expansion which works for up to 7.  
> **username_12**: Bohnanza is my favorite trading game, because of the human element of the player interactions. It's one of the few games where it's the guy who's most liked who is more likely to win, rather than the best strategist. And it's so easy to be nice, or be mean, in this single game.  

---

### Answer by username_13 on 2010-10-28. Score: 5

Can't believe nobody's mentioned Cosmic Encounter yet. Works *very* well for 3-6, and the old 'kibitzer' variant from Mayfair adds a 7th moderately well. (But don't play Cosmic for two. In two-player Cosmic the objectives change for each player: they become 'go find another player first'.)

Robo-rally works well from 3-8.

Most of the Talisman-esque games work for a wide range too, but they're not exactly small to pack.

Icehouse pieces are small, portable, and support several good multi-player or wide-ranging games: Volcano/Mega-volcano, IceTowers, IceHouse, Zendo come to mind as good examples.

If you can still find it, Duel of Ages is a team game, is one of the few 3-6 player games which works just as well for 2, and it doesn't matter if the teams aren't balanced. (In theory you could play it with any number on each team, but in practice more than about 3 players per team is slower without being more fun.)

Played right, Twilight Imperium *works* for 3-8, but it's definitely *strongest* with 5-6. And it's an FF big box game, so it's *not* small to pack.

> **Comments:**
> **username_12**: I can't believe you mentioned Talisman in the same answer as Cosmic Encounter. It makes my heart cry a little :-(  
> **username_13**: @scraimer: Well, yes.  I admit I winced while I typed it.  But it *is* an answer to the question.  And I couldn't think of a good term for that whole Runebound/Prophecy category of games.  (I could have just said "Prophecy", but while I think it's a better game, it's not as good an answer to the question.)  
> **username_14**: I've never played Cosmic with 6 people, but the complexity starts to get pretty crazy. You have to keep track of everyone's situation to really be successful, and that starts getting really hard when you hit 6. If you're group is fine with that, it's game on though. :D  

---

### Answer by username_17 on 2010-10-29. Score: 4

There's always [**Settlers of Catan**](http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/13/the-settlers-of-catan), with a [**5-6 player expansion pack**](http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/2807/the-settlers-of-catan-5-6-player-extension) on hand. That covers 3 up to 6 fairly well.

[**Carcassonne**](http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/822/carcassonne) is good with 2-5, and the [**Inns and Cathedrals expansion**](http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/2993/carcassonne-inns-cathedrals) takes it up to 6.

I'm also a big fan of [**Scotland Yard**](http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/438/scotland-yard) which can adapt reasonably well to 2-6 players (although ideally with 3-6):

* 2 players: one player is Mr X, the
  other takes 4 detectives 3 players:
* one player is Mr X, two players take
  2 detectives each 4,5 and 6 players:
* one player is Mr X, the rest take 1
  detective each

Scotland Yard is quite a bit of fun too.


---

### Answer by username_18 on 2010-10-20. Score: 3

[Small World](http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/40692/small-world "Small World") is for 2-5 players and is very entertaining for each size. There are four different boards that come with the game (2 physical boards printed front and back) with the larger player groups having more spaces and fewer turns on the turn counter.

> **Comments:**
> **username_12**: Small World is expandable to 6 and even 7 players, in theory. The "Necromancer Island" official expansion gives one of the players the role of the antagonist on the island in the middle of the board. There's also a fan-made revision of the game that allows constructing 6-player boards, using hex-tiles. I've never tried to combine the two for a 7-player game, but I understand there are rules for it somewhere.  

---

### Answer by username_15 on 2010-10-23. Score: 2

[Struggle of Empires](http://www.warfroggames.com/struggle.html) is a good game that supports 2-7, though I think you need at least 4.

> **Comments:**
> **username_19**: at least 4, best with 6, and kinda silly with odd numbers  

---

### Answer by username_20 on 2010-10-22. Score: 2

I'm not sure if this would qualify as a party game, but [Pit](http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/140/pit) starts to work well at 3-4 players and works up to at least 10 players.

You might need to use different cards than the original, though, which does not always have support for very many players (depending on the edition). What I have done with great success is take three decks of regular playing cards and use as many *numbers* as there are players, with nine cards of each number (necessarily selecting across all three decks).

> **Comments:**
> **username_21**: I've found Pit rather dull with less than 5 players. Do you do anything different to keep it interesting?  
> **username_20**: Not really. I may have a high tolerance for dullness.  
> **username_21**: I mostly just remember games where after a few trades everyone was done at the same time. What I like about the full version is the chaos, confusion, and noise, which seemed to be lacking with fewer people. That said, I think it's a great game for this question. As it's not turn-based it works wonderfully with lots of people.  

---

### Answer by username_15 on 2010-10-23. Score: 1

[Battlestar Galactica](http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite.asp?eidm=18&enmi=Battlestar%20Galactica) with the Pegasus expansion supports 3-7 players, and works well anywhere in that range. This is one of my all-time favorite games. It's a cooperative game using a traitor mechanic.

> **Comments:**
> **username_13**: It's an excellent game, but I'm not sure it's the right answer, because 3-player games are so prone to random mid-game shifts depending on who the Cylon is.  While Galactica *allows* 3-7, it's *much* stronger with 4-6.  
> **username_15**: Actually, I think 3 plays pretty well. I think 4 is the worst number in the base game because it's 3 against 1 and pretty tough for the Cylon. However with the expansion, 4-player is OK if someone plays a Cylon Leader. I've played a few 7-player games and I feel that's pretty balanced.  

---

### Answer by username_22 on 2010-10-20. Score: 1

If your looking for a game that plays well with a lot of people, I would suggest [Apples to Apples](http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/74/apples-to-apples). It's word association game, and it lets you play up to 10 people. I've played it with more then ten people myself, although I do have the expansions to the game which adds a lot more cards. It's not very strategic though, and a party game at heart.

Also, check out the related question [Recommendations for 6-player board game](https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/276/recommendations-for-6-player-board-game). On that post I recommended [Citadels](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fboardgamegeek.com%2Fboardgame%2F478%2Fcitadels&rct=j&q=citadels&ei=kwq_TIz2BYWksQOP-OmODQ&usg=AFQjCNFlTedMNp-kx9OGRXqwOBVf3yYAow&cad=rja), a really good game that plays well with larger crowds, but only up to 8 people.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I'm not looking for games that work with a lot of people, I'm looking for games which are flexible in the number of people. So, say, Diplomacy plays with 7, but you need exactly that many. Apples to Apples is certainly flexible enough, as is Citadels.  

---

### Answer by username_23 on 2010-11-02. Score: 1

Civilization (base or [Advanced](http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/177/advanced-civilization)) plays well with 5-7 players, not a very broad range but better than nothing. Yes, 6-7 is ideal, but playing in 5 people is still good enough to be *almost* the complete game.

[Hacker](http://www.sjgames.com/hacker/) plays well with 4-6 people. You may like it or not, since there are a few design flaws - I find it mostly fun anyway.

> **Comments:**
> **username_24**: I think Civ with 4 on the Western expansion is a decent game.  Plays fast too (for Civ :))  

---

### Answer by username_25 on 2010-10-27. Score: 1

It depends on your requirements. Uno may be a terrible or a brilliant choice, depending on what you want. There's little strategy: it's something to do with your hands while you chat with a bunch of friends. That means the gameplay tends to be fast, so turns come around fairly quickly. And, playing in a large bunch, there's always the chance that the +4 cards go around the table, and someone ends up picking up 16 cards, which is always sweet (when it's not you). When the +2s go around, the pick ups can go into the twenties.

If you're looking for clever strategy games, you don't want Uno.

Uno works well with 5-9ish people, and perhaps more, and also works well with 2 people (though that's an entirely different game, really). I find it awkward with three or four people.

> **Comments:**
> **username_23**: Uno basically auto-plays, there's no strategy, almost no tactics... where's the fun? None.  
> **username_25**: As I said, it depends on what you're looking for. I like the phrase "auto-plays", though.  

---

### Answer by username_26 on 2010-10-21. Score: 1

The [Icehouse Game System](http://www.looneylabs.com/whybuy/treehouse.html) can handle variable amounts of players. There is a list of [N-player games](http://icehousegames.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category%3aN-player) at the Icehouse Game Wiki. It may not be the most strategic game, but I've played a lot of [Martian Coasters](http://www.wunderland.com/icehouse/MartianCoasters/Index.html) (2-5 Players). It scales well up to 5 players. There are tons of other games that support many different amounts of players so there is much to choose from in this game system.


---

### Answer by username_27 on 2010-10-20. Score: 1

For word games, I like playing [Taboo](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B001RN88DK) in large or small groups. It's fairly flexible because you can pair off, or have varied sized teams.


---

### Answer by username_24 on 2010-11-05. Score: 1

## [Arkham Horror](http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/15987/arkham-horror)

The game supports 1-8. I've played 1-6 and all work well. With 3 or less you may want each player to control 2 characters, but that isn't necessary.

I suspect that with 7-8 there will be a fair amount of downtime between turns. However, if the group enjoys the game and gets into it I don't think the problem is insurmountable. I find that reading the event cards aloud really brings everyone into the game.


---

### Answer by username_28 on 2011-10-10. Score: 0

## Racing Demon / Pounce / Nertz / Nerts

An excellent (if very hectic) game that I used to play often in large family groups is "Racing Demon" or "Pounce", although Wikipedia suggests that it's more commonly known in North America as "Nertz". As long as you have one pack of cards per player, and those decks have distinct backs, it certainly works well with 3 to 7 people, although as you add more players the number of limbs rushing to place cards down in the centre of the table increases - how you feel about that additional chaos probably dictates the maximum number of players. :) The [rules of the game are at pagat.com](http://www.pagat.com/patience/nerts.html). Essentially, you have to run through the cards in your deck solitaire-style while trying to keep an eye out for opportunities to move your cards onto the piles in the common area.


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2010-10-20. Score: 0

There's a great book called [Super Party Games](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0806959150) that describes a bunch of games that can be played by groups of 10 or more. I generated a set of puzzles for one of the games described in the book. Each player is given a sheet of paper that they tie to their forehead where they can't see it. On each sheet of paper are three letters, and you have to arrange yourselves to spell out a secret quote without telling anybody what letters are on their heads. You can [download the puzzles](http://code.google.com/p/donkirkby/wiki/FortunePuzzles) and print out one of the puzzles for your group size. There are currently puzzles from 4 to 95 people, although I've never tried it with a group larger than 13.


---

### Answer by username_29 on 2011-10-11. Score: 0

## Spot-It

[Spot-It](http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/63268/spot-it) supports 2 through 8 on paper, but I've played it with many more players than that. The best part about Spot-It is that there are so many different modes of play, and you can even come up with new ones. We came up with a mode called two-fisted bomb mode which is similar to the mode in the instructions only each player has two cards they have to get rid of until one person is left holding everything.

> **Comments:**
> **username_30**: I've recently create an online application [match it](https://funcards.github.io/match-it) to generate spot it like cards deck  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2011-09-22. Score: 0

A little bit amazed that no one has mentioned **[Agricola](http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/31260/agricola)** yet. This (my favourite game, not coincidentally) plays supremely well with any number from 1 to 5, by dint of *having a different, carefully thought-out board setup* for each of those different numbers. In addition, the Occupation cards subdivide into ones appropriate only for solo or 2-person play, for 3+ players, and for 4-5 players; thus, effects that would be silly for two players (auctioning things off, to pluck an example out of the air) can be limited only to numbers of players that accommodate them well.

A lot of games are accidentally good for both small and large numbers of players. Agricola's designers have spent a lot of time making sure it's good for different-sized groups - and the pretty decent solo option has got to be the icing on the cake. It really is an amazing feat of game design, regularly coming near the top of all-time-best-boardgame lists: if you haven't tried it yet, what are you waiting for?


---

### Answer by username_31 on 2010-10-23. Score: 0

The card game ["Split" or "Speed"](http://www.pagat.com/patience/spit.html "'Split' or 'Speed'") scales very well with slight modifications. Be creative about the arrangement of the shared cards and add more decks of cards and players to your hearts content. The only limiting factor is arranging the shared cards such that everyone can reach them.


---

### Answer by username_32 on 2010-10-21. Score: 0

I have played [Le Havre](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Havre_%28board_game%29) with 3, 4 and 5 players, and although the dynamics of the game change, the game is designed to deal with the differing number of players effectively in the way that the end of round 'feeding' phase determines how much food is required. The more the players, the less food required, ensuring that that the game is well balanced regardless of the player numbers.

Excellent consideration has gone into this game to deal with the problem of some games being best for a certain number of users.


---

### Answer by username_16 on 2011-10-11. Score: 0

**[Les Mousquetaires du Roy](http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/78954/mousquetaires-du-roy)** ("The Musketeers of the King" in old French, "Roy" being now spelled "Roi"), that just came out last year is good for that. The story is based on Alexandre Dumas' novel **[The Three Musketeers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Musketeers)**.

In the game, a players takes the part of Milady de Winter, the ennemy of the heroes. All the other players are a team and incarnate the musketeers: Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D'Artagnan.

When played with:

* 5 players, each one has a character.
* 4 players, somenone takes Milady and the three others each take a musketeer. The musketeeres have a slightly longer turn.
* 3 players, someone takes Milady and the two others each take two musketeers.
* 2 players, one plays Milady and the other one plays all the musketeers.

Note that the game can be played differently, for Milady is a character that can be simulated by random actions. The game loses a bit of fun though. Theoretically, you can play the game alone.

Note also that there is a fifth musketeer in the box, Tréville, which is the captain, that can be played by an extra player. The pieces needed are included in the box, but the rules for the character can be found online.

Conclusion: this game is supposed to be for 2-5 players, but you can practically play it with **1-6 players**.

I tested it with different number of people including alone, it's not the same game, but all of them are equally interresting.


---

### Answer by username_33 on 2011-09-25. Score: 0

[Shadow Hunters](http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/24068/shadow-hunters) plays 4-8 well.

However, I would also suggest that a deck of regular paying cards can service a wide variety of needs. Rummy variants for 2, Specially designed 3 player games like [Ninety-Nine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-nine_%28trick-taking_card_game%29) for 3-players, Hearts/Spades/Bridge for 4, Specially designed 5 player games like [Rook](http://www.georgejas.com/rook/index.html), etc.

[Pagat](http://www.pagat.com/) has a list of games by # of Players, which can be useful.

> **Comments:**
> **username_21**: Don't forget Sheepshead for specially designed 5-player games!  

---

