> all players are roughly on the same skill level, and can independently agree on who the current winner is It is even more fun when they don't. You can spend

> all players are roughly on the same skill level, and can independently agree on who the current winner is It is even more fun when they don't. You can spend a lot of time arguing about who's ahead or on the way to be ahead and explaining why. I think the interaction between players is the most important in those games. Bluffing, teasing, making and breaking promises etc. If you want to play with no interaction just start a solo game on your PC. But I agree with > players are willing to recognize that it's still just a game, and not take losing personally. and not only losing. I kinda like to be rough when explaining how someone missed some obvious better move than what they did (and this fucked-up what I had in store). But the colorful language is just for the game duration, out of it all is good. > they're really hard to prevent from devolving into "who got screwed over more" arguments We ended making stats of attacks during some games to settle those arguments. Result: everyone was attacking everyone almost equally in fact. It was a fun experiment and explained why everyone felt as the only target during the game.