Warning: Most of my posts are riddles disguised as something else. For those who have enjoyed my contribution and are expecting more, DO NOT try to guess that the answer is a tugboat, geese, or the Winter Bonanza sale. This is NOT a riddle. You have been warned.
This is a question that has frustrated me to no end for the longest time. In a 1 on 1 on 1 game of skill and strategy, there are only two outcomes assuming roughly equal skill. Either (A) two players conflict and the victor (now weakened) is destroyed by the third player or (B) two players both focus their efforts on the same opponent to easily destroy them. The victor who contributed most (and was weakened because of it) is destroyed afterwards.
The argument can be made that all three fighting both opponents at the same time is possible, but it can't derive an outcome. Such game play can only result in an even stalemate until one player changes tactics, resulting in A or B.
It's simple and boring, with the outcome more dependent upon chance (or how disliked you are by the other players) than anything. Making the game itself complex can give allow players to turn the tables, but
What's the simplest possible 1 on 1 on 1 game that can be designed such that it discourages these outcomes and encourages something more interesting?