I once saw a joke card for Settlers of Catan called "THE LONGEST TURN". The text was something like: " *-2 Victory Points* . Place this card in front of the first player to take well more time than necessary for their turn. If another player takes an even more unreasonably long turn, place this card in front of that player." We didn't actually play with it counting as -2 points, we just moved it any time we wanted to point out that time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin' into the future.
Worst situation for me is someone who stops paying attention after their turn (talking, watching tv, on phone, etc), then needs extra time on next turn to catch up to the game.
If you have AP because you are always trying the perfect move, you owe it to the table to move quicker. Keeps the interest in the game going. If you have AP because you are overwhelmed and don't understand it yet, the table owes it to you to talk you through your turns.
I like that delineation. Though I think that not understanding the rules is its own thing. It's may be related to your turns taking long, but comprehension is separate from overanalyzation. So that leaves AP because you're overwhelmed as a new player, which results in a situation where it's great if everyone else helps you out, but it's still up to you to actually make a choice, even if that choice isn't fully informed by all of the stuff you'll eventually know after multiple plays. That's my opinion, at least. :)
I dont feel like i owe the table that if i just ask them for some time. I play with a friend that plays fast and always is on my neck to play fast. I get in to AP sometimes and i just ask the table for some time to make my choice. I also give the other player the same time and i try to help them as much as i can. I dont ask people for help but i am open to any help that players may give me. Usualy i get AP because it overwelms me, but i get little to no help but that is ok by me. I sometimes play with people that want to win so they dont help me as much. If that is the case then i dont feel like taking some tie for my turn is a such a big deal. specialy when i am aware of it and adress it to the table.
@@HALOX30So in your situation, I would AGREE because it seems like you're playing with a group that not only plays FAST, but does NOT WANT to help you. I would say it is perfectly fair for you to ask them nicely for more time! But... if you're with a different group that would LOVE to help you, please let them know you need help so that they can help you. I've personally been coached by my therapist not to just offer help without someone's consent (my unwelcomed help has annoyed people in the past), so I would need to know you want to be helped first before I help you if we were in the gaming group together. I usually want everyone in my group to have a fair chance at winning, so I would welcome questions that would help speed up your thinking process. I can suffer from AP, too, and usually when I have it, it's because my brain doesn't know how to sort the information (so more time sometimes doesn't even help).
I'm only 5 minutes in or so, but I want to applaud your approach here. As someone who does have AP at times, because my core gaming instincts were honed in chess as a kid, this approach of thinking how I'm impacting the other players is so important and useful for me. Thank you.
Mentat1231 Chess is designed to be played with a clock so AP hurts you because if you run out of time you lose. The problem is that most people don’t use a clock and think unlimited time is normal for a turn.
I love how the Oracle of Delphi discourages AP by rolling the dice at the end of your turn. That way you can plan your next turn during your opponents turns.
Maybe a bit outside the scope but - I do like to give each player an equal amount of time to make near optimum moves - if this calls for giving everyone a longer "shot clock" late in the game, so be it - I don't like anyone feeling overly hurried either - a delicate balance for sure. I take it that the spirit of this video is to find solutions to lessen/end abuse by that one outlier/offending player.
About 4:30 in. I agree with the philosophy. However, there are games (I'm thinking of Five Tribes as an example) where I find myself taking longer turns on simply from looking for a legal move. For games where it's a simple matter of place a piece, take a thing, though, I agree you should recognize that you may become a better player slowly over many plays from learning to recognize board states and remembering hasty moves. This can mitigate freezing up during any particular game. One thing I have heard about the game Go is that if you want to become good, lose 100 games as quickly as possible. I played on apps a lot, lost a ton, and can now understand what's going on to a much better degree, so it doesn't take me as long to make a move anymore.
Good point! I use Five Tribes as an example later in the video of a game that is very tough to plan your turn for, easily enabling analysis paralysis for any player.
First of all, times goes slower when it's not your turn. In my experience, AP could happen when there's a disparity between players in experience with that game or with board games in general. A person just takes more time to conclude something that a more experienced player has automated. Also, player boards could be more organized and intuitive, and if makes the player board too big, maybe the player board is too big and has too many different pieces. If the actions a player takes could be logical and similar to real world decisions that could also shorten the time to decision. Actions can also be hierarchical or limited in some way, as you said. I love how in Scythe, you can generally gauge how is everyone doing by the popularity track and completed objectives, which is more realistic than points at the end of the game. And it happens on the map, so it is easier to see.
This is one reason why I think games that have huge chunks of downtime between turns are generally just badly designed for that specific player count. I much prefer games that have quick turns that sometimes takes longer becuase of combat or whatever over you performing 10 different actions in one turn where you have so solve a ton of stuff for each one. Also games that have phases with simultaneous actions is nice. Or co-op games where your actions involves all the other people as well (combat, exploration or whatever).
I tend to go with either the best move I can think of quickly, or the most interesting/out there move if I don’t know what to do. It leads to funny looks, and the occasional big upset, which is really enjoyable. I have to say I don’t win the major of the time. But I also tend to not min/max everything I do, which makes it more fun for me. On the other hand, I have a friend I play with who analyzes everything, and always min/maxes every move. It results in him winning the majority of the time, and some could deduce that he’s the better player (which might be true), but I prefer to keep it light, fluid and unpredictable.
Do what makes you happy! I am impressed that you're not annoyed by the AP player, though. Usually people who like to keep things light and fluid during a game will usually find the AP-person's behavior strange and unacceptable. Yes, your AP-prone friend might be winning more often than you but please remember that he's putting in 100% and you're not, so he has no right to feel any kind of superiority over you for the win-rate. Because both of your play philosophies are different, the results of the game won't be an accurate comparison of skill.
One thing that can help is to have players take two decisions in a turn, rather than just one (Everdell, Terraforming Mars, Brass...). That way, players think about their strategy only once for two actions. You don't have to restart thinking between each of the actions. It doesn't solve over-analysis, but it helps in general to have a smoother game flow, especially with slower players.
Interesting topic for sure. I think it depends on the severity of the AP and your perspective. If the AP is severe and often as in, it takes someone 2 mins every other turn to make their move while every other player needs 30 sec, then it's something that needs to improve. However with medium AP, i think it's down to what you consider important. Personally, I don't like the solution that you should make a "whatever" choice and force yourself to be happy with it just because the group is not patient once in a while. Understanding should come from both sides. If I'm forced to make the whatever decisions then I am personally might not even bother to play, as for me it's not fun having to play a game as we are in a race. Decision making is part of the fun. Some people don't care about optimal play and make very quick turns at the expense of their chance to win. If that is fun for the player, then that's fine. Some people take more time to consider options and as a result some turns might take more time. As long as every turn does not take forever to play, I think it's fine to allow longer turns.
Real AP is people realizing their options but being afraid or unsure of which one is better. Them spending another minute thinking generally won't do anything in my experience, they'll just sit there scratching their head going back and forth. That's what we mean just take a "whatever" decisions. You know the options, just pick one.
One thing which wasn't discussed in a lot of depth was the motivation of the gamers in the group. Some people game for social reasons, others enjoy picking apart the dynamic puzzle in front of them, are they playing expressly with the goal of winning etc. I think as long as you're actively doing things to not slow the pace of play down then taking time on your turn is not an issue. It's when you're negligent to the opportunity to do so that it becomes a problem. Some people just lack the self awareness or just don't care though and that's where Jamey's design tips come in.
I know several gamers that love sitting there doing their own thing, optimizing and such (generally hating any kind of luck in a game). I usually wonder why they aren't just playing games solo at that point, they'd get the exact same experience.
@@nihlifyOh, if they hate any kind of luck in a board game, then they really should just be playing chess (or Hive or Go). I think those gamers you're talking about might lack self-or-situational-awareness because most board games in general have more luck than chess. It seems to me they're not participating in the right events. I wonder if the chess scene was too cutthroat for them, so they've ported over their chess play style over to casual board games in order to maximize their win rate. You may also be dealing with people who derive some degree of self-worth over their win ratios and that's why they play like everything's on the line.
I'm not sure Viticulture is a good example of a game that limits AP. My experience of late is in particular with Viticulture World. It's an EXTREMELY tight game, and to win (especially in 6 years without the "help" of a 7th year) you need to constantly optimize to the random elements. These are the vine and order cards, the event cards (especially if you randomize), and the innovation tiles that come up. It's great fun as each game presents a new optimization puzzle, but it IS a complex puzzle. My wife and I jointly engage in AP as we try to optimize our actions both across the seasons, as well as coordinated between us w/respect to how we share the action spaces (and arrange for grande workers to show up at the right places and times to share resources!).
This is a great counterexample. I think Jamey was referring to the regular Viticulture, but you are absolutely correct in the Viticulture WORLD is very AP-inducing. I think there is always a concern that a coop game might be too easy because the responsibility falls on the game (as opposed to the other players) to be the primary source of conflict and challenge. I've known of long-time coop couples who have their communication down to a T and can blast through most coop games easily. The game designer may feel like they need to hedge against two brains instead of just one (I'm speaking generally about coop games now).
I think it is important to distinguish between analysis paralysis and just thinking. AP is when you're 'frozen' and can't decide because you are afraid of making a suboptimal decision, you get overwhelmed by the options, etc. That is different from productive thinking. When playing chess for instance, you have 2-3 hours per player on your clock, and it's important to use more time on certain important moves to calculate the variants. It's normal to think 15 minutes about some moves without this being 'AP' at all. Otherwise all grandmasters would be suffering from chronic AP. In most board games, you have less time per player than in chess, sure, but I wouldn't say that taking more than 20-30 seconds to take your turn is always a case of AP. In some games, where you have several actions on a turn, each turn is a puzzle where you have to look through a few combinations to make the most out of them. In a game like Through the Ages, the whole point of having multiple action points per turn is having to see which combination will allow you to produce just what you need, without getting corruption or falling behind on military, while getting a crucial card if it's available as well. So it's normal to try and consider a combination of actions, see it won't work and go for another one. It takes longer, but it's not AP. That's also the fun challenge of the game. To me it is more satisfying than a game where you just have a choice between 3 single actions on a turn and they are all useful and the only consideration is which is more efficient/faster in getting you towards an endgame condition or points.
@@nihlifyOP is correct, but so are you. One thing I'd like to point out: a gathering of friends over a board game is very different from a gathering of strangers for a chess competition. If the event was competitive Wingspan, then the culture would be more similar to a chess competition. A social gathering over a board game is very nearly a completely different category, in my opinion, from a tournament. (Tournament focus is THE GAME, so you're wasting everyone's time if you're not playing your best and socializing will be distracting. Casual Gathering Focus is BOTH the game AND socializing, so consideration for other players is almost just as important, if not more so, than dogged hyper-analysis of the board state.)
I like how you and many in the comments have pointed to seeing what lies behind the AP. There can be other - and more personal - causes than even have been listed here such as learning differences, brain injuries, or just naturally slower thinking patterns that could make people play slower turns or take more time to arrive at decisions. I do like also when the design of the game helps narrow the focus of the decision space in these cases. On the flip side, I do think there is a thing as too fast of turns. Certain games I like to enjoy what I'm doing and dislike when I'm pressured to make a quick turn. As with most things, there's a balance to be struck, for sure.
Jeff: I totally agree, there are a variety of reasons why a person might experience analysis paralysis. But I still think the vast majority of people still have a choice to simply make a choice and let the game move forward. I've heard Mira say that to me--sometimes she knows she's caught up in a long turn, and when she realizes it, she goes ahead and makes a choice, even if it's not 100% informed or optimal. I admire that approach. I see the flip side too. I've been in a few games where it felt like everyone was rushing things along--too fast can really detract from the experience too.
Agreed that it’s a good approach and I’m glad when people can realize they’re caught in a long turn. I can remember a time when that wasn’t the case...the brain and its sense of time / awareness of self isn’t always functioning...the neuroscience behind some of it is interesting (if a bit frustrating in the moment)
I think The Bloody Inn deals with AP quite well in that you spend cards from your hand to get other cards into your hand. There's no deck so these cards are constantly rotating and they cost you points at the end of each round. So doing actions may limit your future actions and you usually know what you want to do on your turn because you've planning for it for 2 turns. But turns are very quick! It's one of the most streamlined games I own.
I think when you do realize that you are having AP, that a quick "Sorry!" to everyone and then quickly make your action really helps. I find when someone acknowledges that they are taking too long, it makes it easier to wait for them to finish their action.
The only game that ever caused me major AP was chess. Fortunately I had a buddy I played with and we were both perfectly content at 5 hour games. That 20-second internal clock is right on. I'd add to that that I give myself maybe 2 internal Viticulture EE solo "bonus" tokens that I let myself "spend" at key moments to go over the 20-seconds. I figure each player in a 2 hour game should have two unapologetic moments for a big think. That's part of the fun of these games is to let your mind really work. But I really do think this should only happen every 45 minutes or so, and when it's clear to everyone that a big decision is being made.
You're lucky that chess was the only game that gave you AP. It means your general heuristics or problem-solving skills are very strong and you're able to easily solve the optimization puzzle in board games. Almost no board game is as hard as chess, so you're skill floor must be very high.
@@pnpgutterfoldWell, it's probably something else. I think it's more that while I enjoy very much optimization puzzles, I don't really need to "solve them". I like exploring them and seeing what happens, but I don't feel a lot of need to make the correct decision or to win the game. For whatever reason, chess is different. Any time I lose in chess, I get quite irritated with myself. How could I blunder a piece? How could I miss my opponent's trick? Why did I play so impulsively? I'm not sure what it is about chess that for me is so different from other games. I've never been involved in competitive chess, so it isn't that, and I'm fairly average at it, so my expectations are out of proportion with my skill.
@@StevenStJohn-kj9eb I like that you said: "For whatever reason, chess is different. Any time I lose in chess, I get quite irritated with myself. How could I blunder a piece? How could I miss my opponent's trick? Why did I play so impulsively? I'm not sure what it is about chess that for me is so different from other games." And I must say, I agree with you, except in my case, that philosophy translated over to other board games. I initially didn't even realize it because I grew up playing games like Clue and Monopoly which don't have much solving necessary, but when I rediscovered boardgaming during the pandemic, I went all in. For me, chess exists alongside other board games, so I look at them all in the same way. I see this as a bug, not a feature of my skillset.
Played my first game of Xenon Profiteer and it took like 45 minutes to an hour because a player was taking a long time. The person that taught us the game had to go after 30 minutes. We didn't expect to have a player have to leave a short game, due to it being drug out.
I think giving yourself 30 seconds max to take a turn is a bit extreme, but one should be mindful. I also think if there are some occasions where there is a pivotal decision to make (or very hard decision to make) taking a little longer than normal to take that turn is not a big deal. If this is coming up over and over again it is more of a problem. The one thing that gets to me is the player that has far more experience than me getting super annoyed if I take a little longer on a turn just because he has much better understanding of the game. Also, sometimes there are turns that take longer because you cannot make decisions between turns. A major example of this is a deckbuilder game that you may have a few draw a card or two on your turn, so I may have 2 to 5 extra cards to consider on my turn. A player got on to me for taking extra time on those turns so it forced me to start "cheating" by peeking at my cards ahead of time because I did not want to keep getting berated for having to consider how the new cards were going to affect my decisions. I kinda felt bad about peeking, but it was a better option than getting berated for the extra time I was taking to consider my new cards.
There are definitely games where the struggle against AP is more real for me. Century Spice Road caught me on a few turns last week. There are also games that seem to encourage AP in everyone I play with. Dominant Species comes to mind. For me, AP is usually a result of taking the game too seriously. When I am able to take a step back and treat the game as more of an experiment, it is more fun and it is faster. It becomes more of a "I wonder what these sorts of decisions will result in" than a "I'm really worried that my decision isn't optimal". It feels like the same sort of mentality shift that happens when someone goes from being afraid to try new foods because they might taste bad to being excited about them because eating something you don't like is no big deal and worth the adventure.
You might be on to something. Going all in on a game as if your life depends on it is an unnecessarily rigid box with which to restrict yourself. I wonder if some AP-prone people have a sort of starvation/static mentality where they somehow feel like they can't 'afford' to lose (self-esteem-wise) or that they're somehow not doing themselves 'justice' to not pick the absolute perfect move. Your lab perspective on board games seem much more open and expansive.... like a sandbox full of toys where you can just play around, observe, and where the stakes are simply "what sort of enjoyment can I bring back with me from this mechanism or from the engagement with my peers?" This I see more as a kind of abundance/growth mindset. Most board games will have win/loss conditions as a part of the game, but I bet the goal the game designer had in mind is for players to enjoy the experience. Hyperfixating on just winning or losing is likely not what the game designer wants you to take from their game. Tournaments are different, but most board game gatherings are not tournaments.
The AP player in my group is my husband and doesn’t care about using time because the point of playing is maximizing every point and doing the math. 😢 then because I have an internal clock I don’t care about my move to make the game move faster. He is 100% aware. He 100% actively decides to not care. We even told him so-and-so had second dinner and did #2 and my husband hadn’t finished his turn.
Wow, that's really inconsiderate. I wonder if he sees the game as being a puzzle or a Sherlock Holmes mystery where the whole point is to solve it and find "The Solution." It's actually a very rigid way of looking at games (of which I am guilty of myself sometimes). He may really relish in the thought process or simply feels he is wasting his own time if he doesn't get an optimal move out of it. There's also the Sunken Cost Fallacy where maybe he's already been thinking for 5 minutes so if he doesn't come up with the BEST answer, then he would have wasted the whole 5 minutes so he decides to keep thinking a little bit longer to get a better "return" on his "investment." Just a few more seconds of thought and maybe......
I actually like that mentality you mention at the start and I agree with it when I think about it. Some of the AP comes from playing a totally new game (any first game is almost always slower than the intended game length, obviously) but other major reason is not paying attention what other people are doing and/or not thinking your next turn when you end the previous one. I have few players in my regular gamegroups that sometimes get mildly AP from time to time but they are veteran gamers so usually their AP events don't last that long. There's one player in one of my groups who doesn't like playing with AP players and I know to never mix the AP prone players with that gamer :P Me personally, I don't mind slight AP especially when it's just 1-2 instances in a game. What I dislike more is total disregard for the game, ie. doing your turns too fast like you don't care which can occasionally break a game. I dislike it when someone stops playing properly if they think they are losing, ie. throwing away the game. All in all, AP is a player problem through and through, not a design problem in my point of view.
I once took an almost 10 minute turn on Lords of Waterdeep once. I played approx. 8-9 intrique cards back-to-back. It wasn't AP, it was just a ridiculously long turn of Waterdeep. Went to the harbour and played an intrique card that let me draw x number of intrique cards and play them as soon as I drew them and got more of those from the deck, some of which resulted in other players having to draft quest cards and whatnot. After my main action I completed a quest that let me do almost the same thing and again I had to play another set of intrique cards. It was a great moment I'll never forget.
A very novel approach to fighting AP would be to build up actions in number and detail as the game progresses (like a tree growing branches). Currently, I'm developing a game that starts off with just 1 rule, allowing players to jump right in and experience the theme instead of having to listen to 10-15 minutes of rules first. Along the way, theme-generated events open up new options/rules, some of which are mandatory, with others being optional. This creates a user-driven asymmetric playing experience, where players can choose more (refined) rules so they can expand their strategy options or stick with their existing (generic) rules so they can focus on the story elements. The fun part of this method is that both players get what they want from the game. The more strategic players tend to play to win and love refining their gameplay through the subtle tinkering of personal mechanics (rules). The more theme-driven players are not forced to handle a lot of rules and don't even mind 'technically losing' as long as their playing experience was imaginative and socially engaging. Win-win. If you want to know more: the working name, for now, is 'Shards'.
I'm impressed by your ambition--a 1-rule game! :) I very much hope it works. That's something I tried with Charterstone, and I was surprised by how much players genuinely wanted some rules up front, as they felt like they were stumbling around in the dark when I gave them too little information. I think that might be partially because it's a competitive game--I think it's much more likely this could work in a cooperative game where players experience that uncertainty together.
Ap is the worst when between a player's 2 consecutive turns, the boardstate changes so drastically that it would require that player to completely reassess his options upon the beginning of his turn.
Our issue is we have a player that has to verbalize all of his options so it takes longer. But if he just stated them once that would be ok but as he mentally waffles he mutters the sections and the implications of each decision. Then he most likely will just ask us and do what we suggest.
I stopped at 11:12. and I am commenting based on your explanation of Viticulture before continuing the video. Breaking down Viticulture into two seasons with the way it is done is one of the main reasons I don't like the game, because you still have the same amount of meeples you have to use for both seasons. So it really isn't limiting choice, it is constricting when you can make those choices. You still have to plan for both seasons equally, so I would have to say this is kind of worse, since it delays you actually being able to prioritize all of your choices. Imagine if you had access to playing meeples in both seasons, but then once all meeples are placed, the seasons happen in order? The first player would still get to place first, but not get first priority in both seasons. I actually much prefer the way Dinosaur Island handled 2 different worker placement segments. You have your scientists for segment 1, and any scientists you don't want to use, you can push them into segment 2. Your choices in segment 1 are rather limited and straightforward, and segment 2 occurs on your own personal board, so all players handle that simultaneously so any AP doesn't tend to be that bad.
Let's hope the AP players don't take too much time analyzing how they impact other people at the table :-) Perfecting a puzzle by making the right decisions is so much more fun than just taking a turn. I call them my little AP moments. In Power Grid I need to have at least one long AP turn to calculate my end game tactic about when and how to trigger the end of the game. During almost every Stefan Feld I have my AP moments. I don't think these games would be fun to me if I just took a turn to speed up the game. Then again, I'd suppose these games are meant to be played slower.
I like that idea of some games having singular turns that are really important to a player, not just for their success, but also for them to have had a satisfying experience. I think that's perfectly fine, especially if everyone at the table has one or two such turns. I think it's when it extends beyond those one or two really important turns that it can start to detract from everyone's experience.
Hey! Thanks for the very interesting video. I’m not a professional by any means, I’m just interested in game design (both board games and computer games). My two cents: AP is not bad per se. If a player tries to figure out the best decision, that only means that he is taking the game seriously, i.e. he is actively trying to win. I understand, however, that this approach to a game can counteract the other purpose that gaming (especially tabletop/ board-gaming) serves: social interaction. Some people just want to have a good time. If other players get the impression that "mechanically winning the game" is more important to you than the "social fun of the group as a whole" then they might accuse you of AP. It’s a matter of what gamer type you and your game group are. Are you more into “deep”, tacit, mechanically oriented games, or more into “light” social party games. To some extent, AP is nothing more than the result of strategical depth - as it has been pointed out in the video, most means to discourage AP reduce player control (randomness/unpredictability, incomplete information). "Excessive AP" (unless there is a time limit on turns, this is always a social judgement made by the respective game group) either stems from an overflow of information or an overflow of options (& evaluating their outcomes). From my experience, letting players know about their opponents’ assets greatly encourages AP. Obviously, the best showcase for this is chess. Once you start trying to predict what your opponent(s) will do, you enter the vicious spiral of AP. Thus, shrouding a player’s assets from the other players’ knowledge is a good method to prevent AP. However, in board games (unlike in computer games), it can be very tricky because the observation by other players is the prime means in boardgames to prevent cheating. In computer games, the impartial computer itself prevents cheating - you can’t do actions that are not allowed. One more thing worth mentioning are games that are deep yet quick to play. Some games allow you to prepare your moves in advance. A bit like the planning that the “stable game state” allows, but on a larger scale. For example, take a card-fighting game like Yomi or the upcoming Combo Fighter. Here, you can take a look at your character’s deck and your opponent’s deck before the game and create an overall tactic/plan based on this information. You’re ple-planning your reactions so that you don’t really need to do all the thinking ad hoc during the game, but instead just need to activate your premade reactions when a particular situation occurs. So you can do a lot of the strategical thinking before you sit down with your opponent to play. Of course this also depends on a "stable game state" in that the decks (probabilities of drawing a particular cards, the power of the individual cards themselves) are pre-determined and not subject to change. Hardcore (operational-level) military simulations are the pinnacle of this kind of “game”. When playing “Command Ops II” or “Command: Modern Air and Naval Operations”, you can spend 5+ hours on planning a scenario/operation (going through all the what-ifs) with no input by your opponent at all. The game itself then plays out in less than an hour. If you lack a plan for a particular situation that comes up, you've usually lost (--> command friction, break down of coordination and control and supply networks). In military simulations, AP equals defeat. (Because of the speed of the action - that is: a mechanical component - , not because of the social judgement by your opponent) It's a good mix for people who have plenty of time to think about a game, but can't spend that much time actually playing it (physically or digitally meeting with other players). Personally, I'm not a fan of putting stress (punishments, hour-glass time limits, etc.) on players that play the game in a way the designer did not intend them to play. If a game designer doesn't want AP/strategical depth in his game, then he should design it that way, not punish players for delving into it. Also, punishing players for taking time to think gives an edge to more experienced players. If thinking gives you an advantage in a game, it will do so nevermind if you're doing it DURING a game (AP) or BEFORE a game (experience, planning). The prime example would be chess again. I don't think that implementing a time limit on turns would benefit the less experienced player.
I also felt that if one person is at the table taking a lot longer than everyone else they are in a sense cheating (or at a minimum at an advantage) as they get a longer amount of time to think about and make a more strategic move. I'd probably score higher overall if I thought about every move for a long time at the expense of everyone's time. Reminds me of a time my wife and I were playing Trickerion, and I was about to take my turn, but she had to pause and take a phone call for a bit. After sitting there for some time looking at the options I ultimately figured out a much better move for myself, and may have won the game because of it. Of course not every AP player is good, and can still make terrible moves even after long thought. In my experience though AP players aren't dummies, and produce well thought out turns that maximize efficiency.
Mohammed Al-Ateeqi I don’t consider a true AP experience if it’s only happens on the last round. My experience with APers is the whole game they take 2x or more the time on average than everyone else. (Unless the whole group are APers, then a1 hour game turns into 3 or more hours). It’s not fun when in a 3-4 player game I get to take a turn once an hour. Might as well play two games at once!!
What do you guys think about late game turns when people get to think long, think with them and also do some analysis and help with the numbers. For example about majorities count it for them or with them (you may want to know it in your turn anyway...) ? I remember quite a lot of times in descent 1.0 doing the players turn in my head or indicating stupidities in their plan, first of all it saves time and if they make better moves it makes the game more challenging and fun also. For me personally a person thinking longer ruins the game less than someone playing stupid in regard to winning for themselves and probably resulting in king making
That's an interesting way of putting it. I view The Mind as a game about turn order, but you're right that it's about making a decision at the right time. Either way, I really enjoy The Mind.
I hate to be "that guy" but: I'm careful to accuse anyone of making the choice to experience AP. Or as you politely frame it, being able to decide when to not have AP. In most cases, I think what you have explained is true... But I can think of a few examples where the paralysis is not caused by trying to make the perfect move.
That's true, there are certainly other circumstances too, like if you're learning the game and are simply overwhelmed. Though I think in almost every circumstance, you still have the opportunity to simply make a choice. I think it's exceedingly rare that a player doesn't have an opportunity to do *something* without significantly hurting their chances of having a satisfying game.
It is crazy to me that Chess World Championship is still played 10 games that last 3+ hours games (most of them draws). I wonder if the culture of Chess spills over our overall gaming culture, where we think we HAVE to find the best move because we HAVE to win. I love Chess, don't get me wrong, but I have to admit that it took me a while to realize that winning DOES NOT MATTER in board games (unless you are in a tournament of course) but is all about sharing a fun experience with other people. You should try to win to have fun, but you can still have fun when losing. I love the way you phrase AP as a choice not a personality trait!
The AP people might not be able to have fun when losing or they genuinely think that everyone is also trying their best to solve the "puzzle." I suspect that winning is of utmost importance for AP-prone players. (I struggle to see any other reason why they'd play so seriously.) I think a good litmus test may be to offer help. If the person suffering from AP is freezing because they're overwhelmed and don't know what to do, then they'd welcome the assistance, but if they just want to WIN, they'll dismiss your attempts to help in order to "prove themselves."
Rising Sun at 5-6 players is a real brain burner if you are playing seriously to win. You can't just plan out a sequence of "best moves", you need to factor in everyone's psychology into each of the provinces during the war phases...
Ha, you brought up 5 Tribes! My guy won’t play that with me, and it is really bad for his AP, ha! I like it, but have to wait for others to play it with.
I dont like the term analysis paralysis. When did someone call analysis paralisys in a chess game? When I play games I play to win and I also expect the people I play against to play to win. I do find it fun to play if the people I play with either dont have any idea of what they are doing or if they dont care what moves they make. But I do expect people to be engaged and try to plan their turns in other players turns and not be on their phones and stuff like this. It is not okay to not pay attention and then take super long turns. Scythe is a good example of a game with fast turns, and usual it takes seconds and you have planned your next 6 turns. But some turns you just have to take some minutes to decide the next moves.
Where have you been the last few years? People talk all the time about how chess is not fun to watch other than the more modern formats that's a lot faster with time limits, even discussing changing the format of the Championship that's usually just classical games other than tie breakers.
Wouldn't be interesting, as game designer, put a limited number of options in the actions? During my studies in this area I've read about a good number of actions using the Rule of 7 plus or minus 2. What is your opinion about this?
Sure, that's one of the methods I discuss in this video for helping players avoid AP. I don't think it's so much about limiting the number of actions, but rather limiting the number of *viable* or *possible* actions at different times in the game. I use Viticulture as an example of that.
I have really been enjoying the simultaneous action or continuous action that has been encouraged in some recent games. Dice Forge keeps you engaged by giving you resources every turn, allowing you to adapt your strategy as you wait for others to complete their actions, for example. Spirit Island has literal simultaneous turns that will become unbearable if everyone isn't engaged the whole time. It's also good to know your audience, as it were... If you know that your group tends to prefer simple and quick action, then presenting them with a brain burner is just begging for AP.
I particularly like when games give you something simple to do every turn. If it's too complex, teaching can be an issue (it can end up slowing down the game instead of accelerating it).
The people going "I'm just planning out my best action to win" don't seem to realize most games that facilitates this literally gives you countless options (some obviously worse than others but still). If you sit there thinking through all the options and their impact on future turns you really need to take some of the advice in this video.
I agree with your view for sure! When a player recognizes that they have come down with A.P., they have the choice to keep it up or not. Also, I think other players should playfully nudge the slow-poke. Bust out the sand timer, LOL! As a long time X-Wing player and tournament goer... I've seen this so much. It's a game where each phase can require planning 3 steps ahead with 2 or more ships/units. I love the game, but I like to make it move fast. I waste time talking about Star Wars so try not to waste more time over-thinking my turn. Slow play is a strategy to run out the clock- I don't like it. I have Anxiety so when I feel any A.P. creeping up on me... I also like to make a somewhat random decision quickly. (especially playing Scythe) -D.D.
I do agree about five tribes. I think the suggestion of a personal timer for some is great if the right people come across this suggestion. I do have an issue with people who take forever with their turn. I understand if something drastically changes what you were going to do, but more times than not, this is not the case and someone really just needs to make a decision and move on. I'm not sure joking about it is all that great, though, as I wouldn't know how to do so and make it sound ok. And Terra Mystica? And by extension, Gaia Project? That seems like such a bad example of a game limiting choice, especially with how all the things are tied together. I actually played Gaia Project for the first time last Saturday and it doesn't really limit choice THAT much. Certainly not in any significant way, with the spending power to get such and such effect options. I could see this example being good for another game. Or say, the scoring rounds focusing a game round, like they do in Isle of Skye, since that is what focuses the tiles players will go for... just not for Gaia Project or Terra Mystica since there is so much fiddliness to those game. I'm not one that generally suffers from AP. I plan my turns and usually know what I'm doing before my next turn occurs. Even I was like, wtf am I even doing on some of the turns of Gaia Project (I played Terra Mystica a long time ago, and I didn't have a very favorable response to it. I'd at least try Gaia Project again at some point). I think a really good example for limiting choice is Rex. There are multiple phases with a limited choice for each player during those phases, with the most significant choices had during the deployment and movement phase. One phase, you have to decide if you want to pay to recruit troops. If there are no troops there, that makes the choice super easy (since troops go there when they die). Another phase, you are taking turns bidding on cards, so the choice is whether to bid or not. Limiting choice can be a great thing for a game... if it's appropriate. Civilization: New Dawn does this pretty well. But sometimes, it isn't appropriate, it all depends on the design.
Just one more thing. I play boardgames for fun. I don’t need to win. I have a friend who absolutely needs to win every time and his AP is insaneeee. Even on the first turn it’s a couple of minutes before he takes a turn.
I had friends tease me about my "half hour turns" in Catan. It became an ongoing joke that's been pretty funny, but it opened my eyes to the fact that I really was taking too long for some of my turns. I'm more aware of my AP tendencies now and when I find that I've been lost in thought on my turn I give a quick apology and speed things up as best I can.
When I confront a person who is taking an extremely long period of time I often get one of two answers. 1) I’m not as smart as the rest of the players, so it’s not fair to make me take less time. 2) I win most of the time don’t I? (Which when I reflect upon it that person often does) My perspective is that if you are taking much more than your fair share of the game, then I’m not having any fun watching you or the paint dry. I had one guy that quite literally took 75% of a game in a 4 player game. So since those people seem not to care that they are affecting my game enjoyment, I tend not to play with them again if I can help it. But I like your suggestions for other game designers to consider to help alleviate the issue. Unfortunately not much I can do for great games that are already out there. Keep chess timers around and have an appropriate penalty for each game for the person who took the longest, but only if their time was 20% more than the next slowest player?? Idk. Hopefully future games will do something to alleviate the issue. And some game mechanics, just never play a person is AP prone. :(
The number 2 is kinda "no shit Sherlock," I'd also win more if I took 10 minutes thinking through every turn. ;) And I do play those types of games, I just play them solo instead.
hehe same, we were 4 players and player 1-3 played their combined turns faster than the 4th. It's the difference between knowing approximately where you should attack and sitting there calculating the odds of all your options. And there will still be people defending the latter.
I feel similarly about the 'Alpha gamer problem'. Just put the enjoyment of the gaming group over your need to win everytime and you'll enjoy a lot more coop games. As a designer you can add mechanisms to discourage it for sure, but it seems like a shared responsibility to me. You can't expect alpha gamer behaviour to be normal unless you're forced to behave more considerately.
I can play to win but my most important thing when it comes to gaming is that EVERYONE has fun, including me. I’ll lose on purpose just to go out in a blaze of glory during as long as it’s coooool and I have fun doing it. That way people can be like, “Aw, that was cool when you.....”.
That's a good question. Sometimes I ask my lead playtesters, and they help identify it. I always ask for how long it took to play, and sometimes I inquire about outlier times. And whenever I'm playtesting, I try to keep an eye on times where players have no guidance. Often an open range of choices can be less satisfying than a limited number of interesting choices.
I have a friend that I'm now sure suffers from AP, he can straight up take 5 minutes or more thinking about a simple play. Now, he is actually one of the smartest I know, but he just stubbornly tries to make the perfect move every time. And I've noticed that the table can get boring just waiting. I really need advice on how to handle this situation, like, most of the time I just tell him "dude, it's just a game, don't take it too seriously" but that hasn't worked at all. I'm on the fence on buying new games (for example Rising Sun) because I know it would take 3 hours to finish a game.
Have you tried talking to him privately about how his behavior is impacting you and the rest of the group? I think that might help him hear it more than trying to convince him that games aren't to be taken seriously. :)
I'd strongly suggest finding games that compensate for that, it's very hard to change AP people into non-AP people. ;) Real-time games is one type where you have a set time to make your actions (Project Elite and such). Others can be where you take actions at the same time (generally co-op games). Or games where you can't plan ahead too much and is more about doing the best in the moment (dungeon crawlers and whatnot).
Very brave video. It's great and you are 100% right. They choose to have AP. How about AP in game design, making a game. It can help and it can hinder. By AP in game design I mean you are compelled to keep trying every great idea or remove something and playtest it. AP or attempted perfectionism. It can make the game even better but does it ever become a problem for you, knowing when to stop?
Well, just to clarify, I'm not necessarily saying that people choose to have AP. I'm suggesting that people who experience AP--which probably includes all gamers--always have the choice to simply make a decision and let the game move forward. As for game-design AP, I think I sometimes get too caught up in the brainstorming stage. I want everything to make sense before I actually play the game for the first time, which isn't a great approach. While I don't want to rush a game to the table, at a certain point I just need to play it. :)
Yes, I understand. I take turns fast but 1 or 2 times per game I have to think a bit extra, but one of my friends chooses to tell stories while waiting and then spend 5 minutes on his turn, 100% every time. In designing I experience that too, and I also feel compelled to explore every avenue even when others think the game is great as is. I suppose that's were expansions are born. Vlaada Chvátil did this with Codenames.
My problem is I have AP but my gaming partner also has AP so neither of us is really bothered by it but the games always end up taking way longer than planned
I consider that I have rather severe analysis paralysis "in real life". Sometimes the most mundane choice or situation will saturate my brain with insane details and scenarios and I almost panic and freeze. I have been known to flip a coin and go with it just to stop the cogwheels and the exploding anxiety. It is a real issue, but it is a personal issue. I use gaming to learn to deal with it. Gaming provides a safe space to make decisions in a non threatening environment with no real stake. As a gamer, I think I am actually pretty quick as it feels good to make a decision that, in the end, doesn't really matter, because it's a game. The only stake could be "looking stupid" if you keep losing or make odd choices in the game. But I'm not competitive enough for this to affect me. I can't be, I'm not a very fast thinker and I know ;)
I agree with your controversial opinion: if you are aware you are slowing the game down, just make a decision. Codenames has a great anti-AP measure: an optional hourglass. Millenium Blades as well.
Awesome topic, but the video could (should :-) be a few hours longer to address the problem. I think it's a little bit egoistical to take all the time in the world to make your move, for me it denotes and intense (outside of normalcy) desire to win and lack of consideration for the other players, if it's something sporadic then it's OK , but if it happens every single turn then something is wrong. Even for the competitive player taking too much time should be faced as a deficiency, as any chess player could tell, time is one of the most important aspects, if not the most, of the game between players of the same level. If I feel I'm taking too long I make a suboptimal move and forget about it, after all we play for fun and it's definitely not fun seeing a person thinking for 5 minutes. Well, wrote more than I should , sorry for the rant and the mistakes. Jamie, great video as always, all the best.
My top games are always games that discourage behaviour that negatively impact the mood (AP, players grabbing their phone/downtime, etc.) People like to blame other people for this, but I like to put the blame on something without feelings :P (the game itself). I resent action point systems and appreciate that Stonemaier games never use this. Some of my favorite mechanisms are simultaneous turns and timers, as these force you to make decisions on the spot and no time to grab a phone, but I get that's not something for everyone as it can be quite stressful.
I'm just starting a second campaign of Charterstone with two people that haven't played this game before. I know I had some AP during my first campaign, how would you suggest I help both them and myself as we move through the campaign?
Thanks for your question, Jackie. With so many actions on the board later in the campaign, Charterstone can create some AP. I would suggest using your persona and any other people cards to help guide you, and when in doubt, think about the engine you're building in your charter and use it.
frankly, in this day of modern, innovative board game, I have no room for any four player game that hasn’t addressed the AP issue. Especially in standard euros, there are so many fairly generic ones, that I’m getting tired of the genre. I’m much more attracted to games that deal with it through simple decision/action mechanisms, mechs that keep them involved when it’s not their turn, and of course excellent innovations like simultaneous action selection or simultaneous play. Other strategies like there is indirect interaction, but no so much where your choices are stolen by another player or the whole configuration is messed up when it’s not your turn. I prefer indirect where some choices may be grabbed, but basically you have your own sep. game board, cards, tableau, etc where most of your choices won’t get messed up/delayed in decision making. Feast for Odin, don’t get me started, I would never play that game, it’s bloated and indulgent. And as much as I enjoyed Tikal, I think it was because of playing it on the app, otherwise the Action Point Allowance would be too much for larger number of human players.
I find it odd that our community is so enamored with pace of play that we created this term, especially when tabletop games have origins rooted in Chess which is the KING of of AP....when you want to play optimally it takes time.
There is a reason why competitive Chess uses turn clocks. The Chess community has determined that there is a limit to how much time is necessary. If more time is needed, it is a sign that the players are too inexperienced and are unlikely to win.
Yes but when you are taking on average twice or more the time to take your than I do, I’m not having fun. So sure, if playing optimally is what you want to do, then play that way with others who do the same. Not sure what your limit is, but if a typically 1 hour game turns into a 3 hour game, I didn’t have fun! I suppose if you win, then you may feel it justified the means.
I’ve noticed that Analysis Paralysis is kinda 50/50 of people who don’t know the game or didn’t bother learning and therefore take a long time or the player that WANTS to win no matter what and doesn’t care that they’re stalling the game cause they’re busy calculating to win.
I like games where players can take their turns simultaneously (like the variant in Evolution). That makes it pretty easy to identify when you are taking too long. It also brings up a gentleperson's agreement where you don't spend time looking at other player's tableau. Also, roleplaying helps speed things up; every game can be a roleplaying game. When someone asks, "what should I do?" I just respond with, "what would your character do?" This is extra beneficial in co-op games because it avoids alpha-gamers.
Great Discussion and comments..... I concur with some here... I think this is mostly a non-issue and has been made one by Impatient Play (IP)... And the issue is as much (if not more) with the gamer claiming another has "AP"..... I realize we are '"playing a game" but I presume everyone WANTS to win.... (I really dont want to play a game with a player that doesnt). AND since we are not all the same as individuals, sometimes a person wants/needs more time to figure the permutations... and maybe see some that others are missing (assuming they are not new to the game... which should give them an auto pass anyway)... Is the game being timed? If not, then STOP JUDGING BC YOU ARE IMPATIENT!)... (....I think there are some exceptions of course... a Player should not try to "calculate" everyone else's score, or EVERY game move possibility down to the VP.) I actually think that a person NOT experiencing any "AP" (which has a negative moniker and connotation... and I think should be called "ET" for Extended Thinking) is actually also impatient with themselves and sometimes just wants to make a move so the game moves forward.... even if it may not be the best move (altho they may THINK it is bc it is a "gut reaction decision"... which is not a good bases for decisions (I am a scientist.... and science knows this) We are in an impatient world more and more and I think it rears it ugly head here as well. And yes... I have some ET... BUT I have almost infinite PATIENCE for others doing the same. I think we should have a study.... During a game, time every gamer's "Decision Space"... See who wins (and keep track of "places" if poss)... My hypothesis is, with enough data, it will show ET'ers place higher overall than IP'ers..... (STOP THE AP POLICE!!)
Thanks for sharing your experience! Mine has certainly been different, and it is in no way a "non-issue" for other people too, but you're welcome to share your experience here.
Jamey Stegmaier ... Thank you… And you do great stuff by the way… Maybe “non-issue” is not the proper term… It’s an issue if someone makes it an issue.... However a part of my point is this might be unfair to do so… The same as someone could make an Issue out of another player making quicker moves to “keep the game moving”… which affects me negatively because I think they may be making subpar decisions, making my time spent... and my win... two hours later feel more hollow... ....looking at this from a diff Perspective...
I'm not sure I agree with the idea that something is only an issue if someone makes it an issue. Like, if someone knocks over a table at game night because they're frustrated, it's objectively an issue, even if no one else makes a big deal about it. My overarching idea here is that when you play games with other people, you have a responsibility to be aware of how your behavior is impacting them. If you're on your phone, if you're making lewd comments, if you're taking a really long time every turn, if you don't pay attention during the rules explanation, if you rush other players on their turns...these are all things that I hope players are aware of and take personal responsibility for, regardless of whether or not someone else makes it an issue.
That about the impact on other people is a rather good point and fits in both direction. For example a person taking longer to find better play may impact waiting time for others, but if he plays non optimal it may result in moves giving one of the other players a servere advantage, i.e. kingmaking, in my pov if someone wins cause player X plays this and this way it ruins the whole game for me. Better he take more time and make better moves. Of course it is even worse if he takes long and plays bad. it ruins a game) just as an example worker placement games with a "get starting player" place, someone does not take the time to think it through, and says lets take starting player despite already being second in turn order now, with the idea whatever I can do as first move is better (which it usually isnt as starting player extras are minor). This way he alters the game and the player being first before is now last and may be forced to get start player, and the player after him is happy as he got up in turn order for free.... (this case for example i love some Feld type games where starting player ups only yourself in turn order not all players (of course drawback of non clockwise order))
@@stowcreek1999 So you think winning in speed-chess is "hollow" then? Because the best players still tends to win. You don't need to sit there with unlimited time to feel you have accomplished something. Or maybe you're not as good as you think and uses the "IP" to justify why you lost.
hmmm, one could argue, the more AP a game has, the higher rating it has on Boardgamegeek. AP shouldn't always be shunned. After all, if all players AP for the same amount of time, there is no issue. So the real issue is the people playing the game, not the design of the game. Faster players can learn to be more patient and the AP players can try and be more aware of how long its taking and just pick one of the choices sooner. Usually they are paralyzed because all the choices are good. But if they are all good, then it shouldn't matter so much which one you pick. Learn to just let go, go with the flow, and have fun, for that's what games are for :) (unless you're in a tournament, then you can AP as long as the tournament timer will let you)
Did someone say AP should be shunned? I don't see that anywhere. Players do have an impact on AP, but so do designers: Give players the tools to plan ahead for their turns, and sometimes they will!
I once saw a joke card for Settlers of Catan called "THE LONGEST TURN". The text was something like:
" *-2 Victory Points* . Place this card in front of the first player to take well more time than necessary for their turn. If another player takes an even more unreasonably long turn, place this card in front of that player."
We didn't actually play with it counting as -2 points, we just moved it any time we wanted to point out that time keeps on slippin', slippin', slippin' into the future.
Worst situation for me is someone who stops paying attention after their turn (talking, watching tv, on phone, etc), then needs extra time on next turn to catch up to the game.
Oh yes, I agree--that's not very considerate to the other players.
That's all my poker nights... Someone calls, sees the flop and then sit there as action goes around the table and THEN they start thinking...
If you have AP because you are always trying the perfect move, you owe it to the table to move quicker. Keeps the interest in the game going.
If you have AP because you are overwhelmed and don't understand it yet, the table owes it to you to talk you through your turns.
I like that delineation. Though I think that not understanding the rules is its own thing. It's may be related to your turns taking long, but comprehension is separate from overanalyzation. So that leaves AP because you're overwhelmed as a new player, which results in a situation where it's great if everyone else helps you out, but it's still up to you to actually make a choice, even if that choice isn't fully informed by all of the stuff you'll eventually know after multiple plays. That's my opinion, at least. :)
I dont feel like i owe the table that if i just ask them for some time. I play with a friend that plays fast and always is on my neck to play fast. I get in to AP sometimes and i just ask the table for some time to make my choice. I also give the other player the same time and i try to help them as much as i can. I dont ask people for help but i am open to any help that players may give me. Usualy i get AP because it overwelms me, but i get little to no help but that is ok by me. I sometimes play with people that want to win so they dont help me as much. If that is the case then i dont feel like taking some tie for my turn is a such a big deal. specialy when i am aware of it and adress it to the table.
@@HALOX30So in your situation, I would AGREE because it seems like you're playing with a group that not only plays FAST, but does NOT WANT to help you. I would say it is perfectly fair for you to ask them nicely for more time! But... if you're with a different group that would LOVE to help you, please let them know you need help so that they can help you. I've personally been coached by my therapist not to just offer help without someone's consent (my unwelcomed help has annoyed people in the past), so I would need to know you want to be helped first before I help you if we were in the gaming group together. I usually want everyone in my group to have a fair chance at winning, so I would welcome questions that would help speed up your thinking process. I can suffer from AP, too, and usually when I have it, it's because my brain doesn't know how to sort the information (so more time sometimes doesn't even help).
I'm only 5 minutes in or so, but I want to applaud your approach here. As someone who does have AP at times, because my core gaming instincts were honed in chess as a kid, this approach of thinking how I'm impacting the other players is so important and useful for me. Thank you.
I appreciate you being aware of how you're impacting the other players! I try to do that too.
Mentat1231 Chess is designed to be played with a clock so AP hurts you because if you run out of time you lose. The problem is that most people don’t use a clock and think unlimited time is normal for a turn.
Great discussion Jamie! Your awareness in the board game industry never ceases to amaze me.
i try to stay spotaneous when playing. my goal is to have fun so i like to keep it moving regardless of my outcome
I love how the Oracle of Delphi discourages AP by rolling the dice at the end of your turn. That way you can plan your next turn during your opponents turns.
I really like mechanisms like that. It's another area where deckbuilding is superb, as you draw your new hand at the end of turn, not the beginning.
Maybe a bit outside the scope but - I do like to give each player an equal amount of time to make near optimum moves - if this calls for giving everyone a longer "shot clock" late in the game, so be it - I don't like anyone feeling overly hurried either - a delicate balance for sure. I take it that the spirit of this video is to find solutions to lessen/end abuse by that one outlier/offending player.
Buy a DGT Cube and set a time limit. I think this is a good solution when people are not learning the game. It has a bunch of different modes too.
About 4:30 in. I agree with the philosophy. However, there are games (I'm thinking of Five Tribes as an example) where I find myself taking longer turns on simply from looking for a legal move. For games where it's a simple matter of place a piece, take a thing, though, I agree you should recognize that you may become a better player slowly over many plays from learning to recognize board states and remembering hasty moves. This can mitigate freezing up during any particular game.
One thing I have heard about the game Go is that if you want to become good, lose 100 games as quickly as possible. I played on apps a lot, lost a ton, and can now understand what's going on to a much better degree, so it doesn't take me as long to make a move anymore.
Good point! I use Five Tribes as an example later in the video of a game that is very tough to plan your turn for, easily enabling analysis paralysis for any player.
First of all, times goes slower when it's not your turn.
In my experience, AP could happen when there's a disparity between players in experience with that game or with board games in general. A person just takes more time to conclude something that a more experienced player has automated. Also, player boards could be more organized and intuitive, and if makes the player board too big, maybe the player board is too big and has too many different pieces.
If the actions a player takes could be logical and similar to real world decisions that could also shorten the time to decision. Actions can also be hierarchical or limited in some way, as you said.
I love how in Scythe, you can generally gauge how is everyone doing by the popularity track and completed objectives, which is more realistic than points at the end of the game. And it happens on the map, so it is easier to see.
This is one reason why I think games that have huge chunks of downtime between turns are generally just badly designed for that specific player count. I much prefer games that have quick turns that sometimes takes longer becuase of combat or whatever over you performing 10 different actions in one turn where you have so solve a ton of stuff for each one. Also games that have phases with simultaneous actions is nice. Or co-op games where your actions involves all the other people as well (combat, exploration or whatever).
I tend to go with either the best move I can think of quickly, or the most interesting/out there move if I don’t know what to do. It leads to funny looks, and the occasional big upset, which is really enjoyable. I have to say I don’t win the major of the time. But I also tend to not min/max everything I do, which makes it more fun for me.
On the other hand, I have a friend I play with who analyzes everything, and always min/maxes every move. It results in him winning the majority of the time, and some could deduce that he’s the better player (which might be true), but I prefer to keep it light, fluid and unpredictable.
Do what makes you happy! I am impressed that you're not annoyed by the AP player, though. Usually people who like to keep things light and fluid during a game will usually find the AP-person's behavior strange and unacceptable. Yes, your AP-prone friend might be winning more often than you but please remember that he's putting in 100% and you're not, so he has no right to feel any kind of superiority over you for the win-rate. Because both of your play philosophies are different, the results of the game won't be an accurate comparison of skill.
One thing that can help is to have players take two decisions in a turn, rather than just one (Everdell, Terraforming Mars, Brass...). That way, players think about their strategy only once for two actions. You don't have to restart thinking between each of the actions. It doesn't solve over-analysis, but it helps in general to have a smoother game flow, especially with slower players.
Very Insightful. Such a huge help while designing my game, Thanks Jamey!
Interesting topic for sure.
I think it depends on the severity of the AP and your perspective. If the AP is severe and often as in, it takes someone 2 mins every other turn to make their move while every other player needs 30 sec, then it's something that needs to improve.
However with medium AP, i think it's down to what you consider important. Personally, I don't like the solution that you should make a "whatever" choice and force yourself to be happy with it just because the group is not patient once in a while. Understanding should come from both sides. If I'm forced to make the whatever decisions then I am personally might not even bother to play, as for me it's not fun having to play a game as we are in a race. Decision making is part of the fun.
Some people don't care about optimal play and make very quick turns at the expense of their chance to win. If that is fun for the player, then that's fine.
Some people take more time to consider options and as a result some turns might take more time. As long as every turn does not take forever to play, I think it's fine to allow longer turns.
Real AP is people realizing their options but being afraid or unsure of which one is better. Them spending another minute thinking generally won't do anything in my experience, they'll just sit there scratching their head going back and forth. That's what we mean just take a "whatever" decisions. You know the options, just pick one.
One thing which wasn't discussed in a lot of depth was the motivation of the gamers in the group. Some people game for social reasons, others enjoy picking apart the dynamic puzzle in front of them, are they playing expressly with the goal of winning etc.
I think as long as you're actively doing things to not slow the pace of play down then taking time on your turn is not an issue. It's when you're negligent to the opportunity to do so that it becomes a problem. Some people just lack the self awareness or just don't care though and that's where Jamey's design tips come in.
I know several gamers that love sitting there doing their own thing, optimizing and such (generally hating any kind of luck in a game). I usually wonder why they aren't just playing games solo at that point, they'd get the exact same experience.
@@nihlifyOh, if they hate any kind of luck in a board game, then they really should just be playing chess (or Hive or Go). I think those gamers you're talking about might lack self-or-situational-awareness because most board games in general have more luck than chess. It seems to me they're not participating in the right events. I wonder if the chess scene was too cutthroat for them, so they've ported over their chess play style over to casual board games in order to maximize their win rate. You may also be dealing with people who derive some degree of self-worth over their win ratios and that's why they play like everything's on the line.
I'm not sure Viticulture is a good example of a game that limits AP. My experience of late is in particular with Viticulture World. It's an EXTREMELY tight game, and to win (especially in 6 years without the "help" of a 7th year) you need to constantly optimize to the random elements. These are the vine and order cards, the event cards (especially if you randomize), and the innovation tiles that come up. It's great fun as each game presents a new optimization puzzle, but it IS a complex puzzle. My wife and I jointly engage in AP as we try to optimize our actions both across the seasons, as well as coordinated between us w/respect to how we share the action spaces (and arrange for grande workers to show up at the right places and times to share resources!).
This is a great counterexample. I think Jamey was referring to the regular Viticulture, but you are absolutely correct in the Viticulture WORLD is very AP-inducing. I think there is always a concern that a coop game might be too easy because the responsibility falls on the game (as opposed to the other players) to be the primary source of conflict and challenge. I've known of long-time coop couples who have their communication down to a T and can blast through most coop games easily. The game designer may feel like they need to hedge against two brains instead of just one (I'm speaking generally about coop games now).
I think it is important to distinguish between analysis paralysis and just thinking. AP is when you're 'frozen' and can't decide because you are afraid of making a suboptimal decision, you get overwhelmed by the options, etc. That is different from productive thinking. When playing chess for instance, you have 2-3 hours per player on your clock, and it's important to use more time on certain important moves to calculate the variants. It's normal to think 15 minutes about some moves without this being 'AP' at all. Otherwise all grandmasters would be suffering from chronic AP.
In most board games, you have less time per player than in chess, sure, but I wouldn't say that taking more than 20-30 seconds to take your turn is always a case of AP.
In some games, where you have several actions on a turn, each turn is a puzzle where you have to look through a few combinations to make the most out of them. In a game like Through the Ages, the whole point of having multiple action points per turn is having to see which combination will allow you to produce just what you need, without getting corruption or falling behind on military, while getting a crucial card if it's available as well. So it's normal to try and consider a combination of actions, see it won't work and go for another one. It takes longer, but it's not AP. That's also the fun challenge of the game.
To me it is more satisfying than a game where you just have a choice between 3 single actions on a turn and they are all useful and the only consideration is which is more efficient/faster in getting you towards an endgame condition or points.
I mean, if you spend 10 minutes "just thinking" the difference from AP is negligible, it's still the same outcome, you're ruining the game.
@@nihlify it depends completely on your perspective. In chess it's completely normal.
@@nihlifyOP is correct, but so are you. One thing I'd like to point out: a gathering of friends over a board game is very different from a gathering of strangers for a chess competition. If the event was competitive Wingspan, then the culture would be more similar to a chess competition. A social gathering over a board game is very nearly a completely different category, in my opinion, from a tournament. (Tournament focus is THE GAME, so you're wasting everyone's time if you're not playing your best and socializing will be distracting. Casual Gathering Focus is BOTH the game AND socializing, so consideration for other players is almost just as important, if not more so, than dogged hyper-analysis of the board state.)
You're book shelf says hi. That's awesome.
I like how you and many in the comments have pointed to seeing what lies behind the AP. There can be other - and more personal - causes than even have been listed here such as learning differences, brain injuries, or just naturally slower thinking patterns that could make people play slower turns or take more time to arrive at decisions. I do like also when the design of the game helps narrow the focus of the decision space in these cases. On the flip side, I do think there is a thing as too fast of turns. Certain games I like to enjoy what I'm doing and dislike when I'm pressured to make a quick turn. As with most things, there's a balance to be struck, for sure.
Jeff: I totally agree, there are a variety of reasons why a person might experience analysis paralysis. But I still think the vast majority of people still have a choice to simply make a choice and let the game move forward. I've heard Mira say that to me--sometimes she knows she's caught up in a long turn, and when she realizes it, she goes ahead and makes a choice, even if it's not 100% informed or optimal. I admire that approach.
I see the flip side too. I've been in a few games where it felt like everyone was rushing things along--too fast can really detract from the experience too.
Agreed that it’s a good approach and I’m glad when people can realize they’re caught in a long turn. I can remember a time when that wasn’t the case...the brain and its sense of time / awareness of self isn’t always functioning...the neuroscience behind some of it is interesting (if a bit frustrating in the moment)
I think The Bloody Inn deals with AP quite well in that you spend cards from your hand to get other cards into your hand. There's no deck so these cards are constantly rotating and they cost you points at the end of each round. So doing actions may limit your future actions and you usually know what you want to do on your turn because you've planning for it for 2 turns. But turns are very quick! It's one of the most streamlined games I own.
I think when you do realize that you are having AP, that a quick "Sorry!" to everyone and then quickly make your action really helps. I find when someone acknowledges that they are taking too long, it makes it easier to wait for them to finish their action.
The only game that ever caused me major AP was chess. Fortunately I had a buddy I played with and we were both perfectly content at 5 hour games.
That 20-second internal clock is right on. I'd add to that that I give myself maybe 2 internal Viticulture EE solo "bonus" tokens that I let myself "spend" at key moments to go over the 20-seconds. I figure each player in a 2 hour game should have two unapologetic moments for a big think. That's part of the fun of these games is to let your mind really work. But I really do think this should only happen every 45 minutes or so, and when it's clear to everyone that a big decision is being made.
You're lucky that chess was the only game that gave you AP. It means your general heuristics or problem-solving skills are very strong and you're able to easily solve the optimization puzzle in board games. Almost no board game is as hard as chess, so you're skill floor must be very high.
@@pnpgutterfoldWell, it's probably something else. I think it's more that while I enjoy very much optimization puzzles, I don't really need to "solve them". I like exploring them and seeing what happens, but I don't feel a lot of need to make the correct decision or to win the game.
For whatever reason, chess is different. Any time I lose in chess, I get quite irritated with myself. How could I blunder a piece? How could I miss my opponent's trick? Why did I play so impulsively? I'm not sure what it is about chess that for me is so different from other games. I've never been involved in competitive chess, so it isn't that, and I'm fairly average at it, so my expectations are out of proportion with my skill.
@@StevenStJohn-kj9eb I like that you said: "For whatever reason, chess is different. Any time I lose in chess, I get quite irritated with myself. How could I blunder a piece? How could I miss my opponent's trick? Why did I play so impulsively? I'm not sure what it is about chess that for me is so different from other games."
And I must say, I agree with you, except in my case, that philosophy translated over to other board games. I initially didn't even realize it because I grew up playing games like Clue and Monopoly which don't have much solving necessary, but when I rediscovered boardgaming during the pandemic, I went all in. For me, chess exists alongside other board games, so I look at them all in the same way. I see this as a bug, not a feature of my skillset.
Played my first game of Xenon Profiteer and it took like 45 minutes to an hour because a player was taking a long time. The person that taught us the game had to go after 30 minutes. We didn't expect to have a player have to leave a short game, due to it being drug out.
I think giving yourself 30 seconds max to take a turn is a bit extreme, but one should be mindful. I also think if there are some occasions where there is a pivotal decision to make (or very hard decision to make) taking a little longer than normal to take that turn is not a big deal. If this is coming up over and over again it is more of a problem.
The one thing that gets to me is the player that has far more experience than me getting super annoyed if I take a little longer on a turn just because he has much better understanding of the game.
Also, sometimes there are turns that take longer because you cannot make decisions between turns. A major example of this is a deckbuilder game that you may have a few draw a card or two on your turn, so I may have 2 to 5 extra cards to consider on my turn. A player got on to me for taking extra time on those turns so it forced me to start "cheating" by peeking at my cards ahead of time because I did not want to keep getting berated for having to consider how the new cards were going to affect my decisions. I kinda felt bad about peeking, but it was a better option than getting berated for the extra time I was taking to consider my new cards.
I love the sensitivity you strive to show your gaming partners. Would love to be in your game group, but California is a long commute to St. Louis!
There are definitely games where the struggle against AP is more real for me. Century Spice Road caught me on a few turns last week. There are also games that seem to encourage AP in everyone I play with. Dominant Species comes to mind. For me, AP is usually a result of taking the game too seriously. When I am able to take a step back and treat the game as more of an experiment, it is more fun and it is faster. It becomes more of a "I wonder what these sorts of decisions will result in" than a "I'm really worried that my decision isn't optimal". It feels like the same sort of mentality shift that happens when someone goes from being afraid to try new foods because they might taste bad to being excited about them because eating something you don't like is no big deal and worth the adventure.
You might be on to something. Going all in on a game as if your life depends on it is an unnecessarily rigid box with which to restrict yourself. I wonder if some AP-prone people have a sort of starvation/static mentality where they somehow feel like they can't 'afford' to lose (self-esteem-wise) or that they're somehow not doing themselves 'justice' to not pick the absolute perfect move.
Your lab perspective on board games seem much more open and expansive.... like a sandbox full of toys where you can just play around, observe, and where the stakes are simply "what sort of enjoyment can I bring back with me from this mechanism or from the engagement with my peers?" This I see more as a kind of abundance/growth mindset. Most board games will have win/loss conditions as a part of the game, but I bet the goal the game designer had in mind is for players to enjoy the experience. Hyperfixating on just winning or losing is likely not what the game designer wants you to take from their game. Tournaments are different, but most board game gatherings are not tournaments.
The AP player in my group is my husband and doesn’t care about using time because the point of playing is maximizing every point and doing the math. 😢 then because I have an internal clock I don’t care about my move to make the game move faster.
He is 100% aware. He 100% actively decides to not care. We even told him so-and-so had second dinner and did #2 and my husband hadn’t finished his turn.
Wow, that's really inconsiderate. I wonder if he sees the game as being a puzzle or a Sherlock Holmes mystery where the whole point is to solve it and find "The Solution." It's actually a very rigid way of looking at games (of which I am guilty of myself sometimes). He may really relish in the thought process or simply feels he is wasting his own time if he doesn't get an optimal move out of it. There's also the Sunken Cost Fallacy where maybe he's already been thinking for 5 minutes so if he doesn't come up with the BEST answer, then he would have wasted the whole 5 minutes so he decides to keep thinking a little bit longer to get a better "return" on his "investment." Just a few more seconds of thought and maybe......
I actually like that mentality you mention at the start and I agree with it when I think about it. Some of the AP comes from playing a totally new game (any first game is almost always slower than the intended game length, obviously) but other major reason is not paying attention what other people are doing and/or not thinking your next turn when you end the previous one. I have few players in my regular gamegroups that sometimes get mildly AP from time to time but they are veteran gamers so usually their AP events don't last that long. There's one player in one of my groups who doesn't like playing with AP players and I know to never mix the AP prone players with that gamer :P
Me personally, I don't mind slight AP especially when it's just 1-2 instances in a game. What I dislike more is total disregard for the game, ie. doing your turns too fast like you don't care which can occasionally break a game. I dislike it when someone stops playing properly if they think they are losing, ie. throwing away the game.
All in all, AP is a player problem through and through, not a design problem in my point of view.
I support the idea of giving each player 1 or 2 AP turns each game. Giele mentions that concept below too.
I once took an almost 10 minute turn on Lords of Waterdeep once. I played approx. 8-9 intrique cards back-to-back. It wasn't AP, it was just a ridiculously long turn of Waterdeep. Went to the harbour and played an intrique card that let me draw x number of intrique cards and play them as soon as I drew them and got more of those from the deck, some of which resulted in other players having to draft quest cards and whatnot. After my main action I completed a quest that let me do almost the same thing and again I had to play another set of intrique cards. It was a great moment I'll never forget.
A very novel approach to fighting AP would be to build up actions in number and detail as the game progresses (like a tree growing branches). Currently, I'm developing a game that starts off with just 1 rule, allowing players to jump right in and experience the theme instead of having to listen to 10-15 minutes of rules first. Along the way, theme-generated events open up new options/rules, some of which are mandatory, with others being optional. This creates a user-driven asymmetric playing experience, where players can choose more (refined) rules so they can expand their strategy options or stick with their existing (generic) rules so they can focus on the story elements. The fun part of this method is that both players get what they want from the game. The more strategic players tend to play to win and love refining their gameplay through the subtle tinkering of personal mechanics (rules). The more theme-driven players are not forced to handle a lot of rules and don't even mind 'technically losing' as long as their playing experience was imaginative and socially engaging. Win-win. If you want to know more: the working name, for now, is 'Shards'.
I'm impressed by your ambition--a 1-rule game! :) I very much hope it works. That's something I tried with Charterstone, and I was surprised by how much players genuinely wanted some rules up front, as they felt like they were stumbling around in the dark when I gave them too little information. I think that might be partially because it's a competitive game--I think it's much more likely this could work in a cooperative game where players experience that uncertainty together.
@@jameystegmaier This War of Mine kinda attempted this with varying success.
Ap is the worst when between a player's 2 consecutive turns, the boardstate changes so drastically that it would require that player to completely reassess his options upon the beginning of his turn.
Our issue is we have a player that has to verbalize all of his options so it takes longer. But if he just stated them once that would be ok but as he mentally waffles he mutters the sections and the implications of each decision. Then he most likely will just ask us and do what we suggest.
I stopped at 11:12. and I am commenting based on your explanation of Viticulture before continuing the video. Breaking down Viticulture into two seasons with the way it is done is one of the main reasons I don't like the game, because you still have the same amount of meeples you have to use for both seasons. So it really isn't limiting choice, it is constricting when you can make those choices. You still have to plan for both seasons equally, so I would have to say this is kind of worse, since it delays you actually being able to prioritize all of your choices.
Imagine if you had access to playing meeples in both seasons, but then once all meeples are placed, the seasons happen in order? The first player would still get to place first, but not get first priority in both seasons.
I actually much prefer the way Dinosaur Island handled 2 different worker placement segments. You have your scientists for segment 1, and any scientists you don't want to use, you can push them into segment 2. Your choices in segment 1 are rather limited and straightforward, and segment 2 occurs on your own personal board, so all players handle that simultaneously so any AP doesn't tend to be that bad.
Let's hope the AP players don't take too much time analyzing how they impact other people at the table :-)
Perfecting a puzzle by making the right decisions is so much more fun than just taking a turn. I call them my little AP moments. In Power Grid I need to have at least one long AP turn to calculate my end game tactic about when and how to trigger the end of the game. During almost every Stefan Feld I have my AP moments. I don't think these games would be fun to me if I just took a turn to speed up the game. Then again, I'd suppose these games are meant to be played slower.
I like that idea of some games having singular turns that are really important to a player, not just for their success, but also for them to have had a satisfying experience. I think that's perfectly fine, especially if everyone at the table has one or two such turns. I think it's when it extends beyond those one or two really important turns that it can start to detract from everyone's experience.
Hey! Thanks for the very interesting video. I’m not a professional by any means, I’m just interested in game design (both board games and computer games). My two cents:
AP is not bad per se. If a player tries to figure out the best decision, that only means that he is taking the game seriously, i.e. he is actively trying to win. I understand, however, that this approach to a game can counteract the other purpose that gaming (especially tabletop/ board-gaming) serves: social interaction. Some people just want to have a good time. If other players get the impression that "mechanically winning the game" is more important to you than the "social fun of the group as a whole" then they might accuse you of AP. It’s a matter of what gamer type you and your game group are. Are you more into “deep”, tacit, mechanically oriented games, or more into “light” social party games. To some extent, AP is nothing more than the result of strategical depth - as it has been pointed out in the video, most means to discourage AP reduce player control (randomness/unpredictability, incomplete information).
"Excessive AP" (unless there is a time limit on turns, this is always a social judgement made by the respective game group) either stems from an overflow of information or an overflow of options (& evaluating their outcomes). From my experience, letting players know about their opponents’ assets greatly encourages AP. Obviously, the best showcase for this is chess. Once you start trying to predict what your opponent(s) will do, you enter the vicious spiral of AP. Thus, shrouding a player’s assets from the other players’ knowledge is a good method to prevent AP. However, in board games (unlike in computer games), it can be very tricky because the observation by other players is the prime means in boardgames to prevent cheating. In computer games, the impartial computer itself prevents cheating - you can’t do actions that are not allowed.
One more thing worth mentioning are games that are deep yet quick to play. Some games allow you to prepare your moves in advance. A bit like the planning that the “stable game state” allows, but on a larger scale. For example, take a card-fighting game like Yomi or the upcoming Combo Fighter. Here, you can take a look at your character’s deck and your opponent’s deck before the game and create an overall tactic/plan based on this information. You’re ple-planning your reactions so that you don’t really need to do all the thinking ad hoc during the game, but instead just need to activate your premade reactions when a particular situation occurs. So you can do a lot of the strategical thinking before you sit down with your opponent to play. Of course this also depends on a "stable game state" in that the decks (probabilities of drawing a particular cards, the power of the individual cards themselves) are pre-determined and not subject to change. Hardcore (operational-level) military simulations are the pinnacle of this kind of “game”. When playing “Command Ops II” or “Command: Modern Air and Naval Operations”, you can spend 5+ hours on planning a scenario/operation (going through all the what-ifs) with no input by your opponent at all. The game itself then plays out in less than an hour. If you lack a plan for a particular situation that comes up, you've usually lost (--> command friction, break down of coordination and control and supply networks). In military simulations, AP equals defeat. (Because of the speed of the action - that is: a mechanical component - , not because of the social judgement by your opponent) It's a good mix for people who have plenty of time to think about a game, but can't spend that much time actually playing it (physically or digitally meeting with other players).
Personally, I'm not a fan of putting stress (punishments, hour-glass time limits, etc.) on players that play the game in a way the designer did not intend them to play. If a game designer doesn't want AP/strategical depth in his game, then he should design it that way, not punish players for delving into it. Also, punishing players for taking time to think gives an edge to more experienced players. If thinking gives you an advantage in a game, it will do so nevermind if you're doing it DURING a game (AP) or BEFORE a game (experience, planning). The prime example would be chess again. I don't think that implementing a time limit on turns would benefit the less experienced player.
@Virtuous Gamer having a bad day?
@Virtuous Gamer lol You are hilarious dude.
I also felt that if one person is at the table taking a lot longer than everyone else they are in a sense cheating (or at a minimum at an advantage) as they get a longer amount of time to think about and make a more strategic move. I'd probably score higher overall if I thought about every move for a long time at the expense of everyone's time.
Reminds me of a time my wife and I were playing Trickerion, and I was about to take my turn, but she had to pause and take a phone call for a bit. After sitting there for some time looking at the options I ultimately figured out a much better move for myself, and may have won the game because of it.
Of course not every AP player is good, and can still make terrible moves even after long thought. In my experience though AP players aren't dummies, and produce well thought out turns that maximize efficiency.
Wow, we just finished playing tzolking! Definitely some AP towards the end of the game but still a great game.
Mohammed Al-Ateeqi I don’t consider a true AP experience if it’s only happens on the last round. My experience with APers is the whole game they take 2x or more the time on average than everyone else. (Unless the whole group are APers, then a1 hour game turns into 3 or more hours). It’s not fun when in a 3-4 player game I get to take a turn once an hour. Might as well play two games at once!!
What do you guys think about late game turns when people get to think long, think with them and also do some analysis and help with the numbers. For example about majorities count it for them or with them (you may want to know it in your turn anyway...) ? I remember quite a lot of times in descent 1.0 doing the players turn in my head or indicating stupidities in their plan, first of all it saves time and if they make better moves it makes the game more challenging and fun also. For me personally a person thinking longer ruins the game less than someone playing stupid in regard to winning for themselves and probably resulting in king making
I agree, there are circumstances where a long term is crucial to the experience. It's consistently AP turns that concern me.
How do you feel about a game like The Mind, where overcoming AP is sort of the core aspect of the game?
That's an interesting way of putting it. I view The Mind as a game about turn order, but you're right that it's about making a decision at the right time. Either way, I really enjoy The Mind.
I hate to be "that guy" but: I'm careful to accuse anyone of making the choice to experience AP. Or as you politely frame it, being able to decide when to not have AP. In most cases, I think what you have explained is true... But I can think of a few examples where the paralysis is not caused by trying to make the perfect move.
That's true, there are certainly other circumstances too, like if you're learning the game and are simply overwhelmed. Though I think in almost every circumstance, you still have the opportunity to simply make a choice. I think it's exceedingly rare that a player doesn't have an opportunity to do *something* without significantly hurting their chances of having a satisfying game.
It is crazy to me that Chess World Championship is still played 10 games that last 3+ hours games (most of them draws). I wonder if the culture of Chess spills over our overall gaming culture, where we think we HAVE to find the best move because we HAVE to win. I love Chess, don't get me wrong, but I have to admit that it took me a while to realize that winning DOES NOT MATTER in board games (unless you are in a tournament of course) but is all about sharing a fun experience with other people. You should try to win to have fun, but you can still have fun when losing. I love the way you phrase AP as a choice not a personality trait!
The AP people might not be able to have fun when losing or they genuinely think that everyone is also trying their best to solve the "puzzle." I suspect that winning is of utmost importance for AP-prone players. (I struggle to see any other reason why they'd play so seriously.) I think a good litmus test may be to offer help. If the person suffering from AP is freezing because they're overwhelmed and don't know what to do, then they'd welcome the assistance, but if they just want to WIN, they'll dismiss your attempts to help in order to "prove themselves."
Rising Sun at 5-6 players is a real brain burner if you are playing seriously to win.
You can't just plan out a sequence of "best moves", you need to factor in everyone's psychology into each of the provinces during the war phases...
Ha, you brought up 5 Tribes! My guy won’t play that with me, and it is really bad for his AP, ha! I like it, but have to wait for others to play it with.
I dont like the term analysis paralysis. When did someone call analysis paralisys in a chess game?
When I play games I play to win and I also expect the people I play against to play to win.
I do find it fun to play if the people I play with either dont have any idea of what they are doing or if they dont care what moves they make.
But I do expect people to be engaged and try to plan their turns in other players turns and not be on their phones and stuff like this.
It is not okay to not pay attention and then take super long turns.
Scythe is a good example of a game with fast turns, and usual it takes seconds and you have planned your next 6 turns. But some turns you just have to take some minutes to decide the next moves.
chuckm1961 both are tactical games, where do you see the difference?
Where have you been the last few years? People talk all the time about how chess is not fun to watch other than the more modern formats that's a lot faster with time limits, even discussing changing the format of the Championship that's usually just classical games other than tie breakers.
Wouldn't be interesting, as game designer, put a limited number of options in the actions? During my studies in this area I've read about a good number of actions using the Rule of 7 plus or minus 2. What is your opinion about this?
Sure, that's one of the methods I discuss in this video for helping players avoid AP. I don't think it's so much about limiting the number of actions, but rather limiting the number of *viable* or *possible* actions at different times in the game. I use Viticulture as an example of that.
I have really been enjoying the simultaneous action or continuous action that has been encouraged in some recent games. Dice Forge keeps you engaged by giving you resources every turn, allowing you to adapt your strategy as you wait for others to complete their actions, for example. Spirit Island has literal simultaneous turns that will become unbearable if everyone isn't engaged the whole time.
It's also good to know your audience, as it were... If you know that your group tends to prefer simple and quick action, then presenting them with a brain burner is just begging for AP.
I particularly like when games give you something simple to do every turn. If it's too complex, teaching can be an issue (it can end up slowing down the game instead of accelerating it).
The people going "I'm just planning out my best action to win" don't seem to realize most games that facilitates this literally gives you countless options (some obviously worse than others but still). If you sit there thinking through all the options and their impact on future turns you really need to take some of the advice in this video.
I agree with your view for sure! When a player recognizes that they have come down with A.P., they have the choice to keep it up or not. Also, I think other players should playfully nudge the slow-poke. Bust out the sand timer, LOL!
As a long time X-Wing player and tournament goer... I've seen this so much. It's a game where each phase can require planning 3 steps ahead with 2 or more ships/units. I love the game, but I like to make it move fast. I waste time talking about Star Wars so try not to waste more time over-thinking my turn. Slow play is a strategy to run out the clock- I don't like it.
I have Anxiety so when I feel any A.P. creeping up on me... I also like to make a somewhat random decision quickly. (especially playing Scythe)
-D.D.
That's rough when playing slowly actually becomes a viable strategy--I wouldn't want to encourage that.
I do agree about five tribes. I think the suggestion of a personal timer for some is great if the right people come across this suggestion. I do have an issue with people who take forever with their turn. I understand if something drastically changes what you were going to do, but more times than not, this is not the case and someone really just needs to make a decision and move on. I'm not sure joking about it is all that great, though, as I wouldn't know how to do so and make it sound ok.
And Terra Mystica? And by extension, Gaia Project? That seems like such a bad example of a game limiting choice, especially with how all the things are tied together. I actually played Gaia Project for the first time last Saturday and it doesn't really limit choice THAT much. Certainly not in any significant way, with the spending power to get such and such effect options. I could see this example being good for another game. Or say, the scoring rounds focusing a game round, like they do in Isle of Skye, since that is what focuses the tiles players will go for... just not for Gaia Project or Terra Mystica since there is so much fiddliness to those game.
I'm not one that generally suffers from AP. I plan my turns and usually know what I'm doing before my next turn occurs. Even I was like, wtf am I even doing on some of the turns of Gaia Project (I played Terra Mystica a long time ago, and I didn't have a very favorable response to it. I'd at least try Gaia Project again at some point).
I think a really good example for limiting choice is Rex. There are multiple phases with a limited choice for each player during those phases, with the most significant choices had during the deployment and movement phase. One phase, you have to decide if you want to pay to recruit troops. If there are no troops there, that makes the choice super easy (since troops go there when they die). Another phase, you are taking turns bidding on cards, so the choice is whether to bid or not.
Limiting choice can be a great thing for a game... if it's appropriate. Civilization: New Dawn does this pretty well. But sometimes, it isn't appropriate, it all depends on the design.
Just one more thing. I play boardgames for fun. I don’t need to win. I have a friend who absolutely needs to win every time and his AP is insaneeee. Even on the first turn it’s a couple of minutes before he takes a turn.
I had friends tease me about my "half hour turns" in Catan. It became an ongoing joke that's been pretty funny, but it opened my eyes to the fact that I really was taking too long for some of my turns. I'm more aware of my AP tendencies now and when I find that I've been lost in thought on my turn I give a quick apology and speed things up as best I can.
That's awesome, Jeremy! I think it's great that you were open to evolving your style of play out of consideration for your friends.
When I confront a person who is taking an extremely long period of time I often get one of two answers.
1) I’m not as smart as the rest of the players, so it’s not fair to make me take less time.
2) I win most of the time don’t I? (Which when I reflect upon it that person often does)
My perspective is that if you are taking much more than your fair share of the game, then I’m not having any fun watching you or the paint dry. I had one guy that quite literally took 75% of a game in a 4 player game.
So since those people seem not to care that they are affecting my game enjoyment, I tend not to play with them again if I can help it. But I like your suggestions for other game designers to consider to help alleviate the issue. Unfortunately not much I can do for great games that are already out there. Keep chess timers around and have an appropriate penalty for each game for the person who took the longest, but only if their time was 20% more than the next slowest player?? Idk.
Hopefully future games will do something to alleviate the issue. And some game mechanics, just never play a person is AP prone. :(
The number 2 is kinda "no shit Sherlock," I'd also win more if I took 10 minutes thinking through every turn. ;) And I do play those types of games, I just play them solo instead.
Played Risk 2210 with a guy who literally took 10+ minutes on every turn. I just game him the game and never played again.
hehe same, we were 4 players and player 1-3 played their combined turns faster than the 4th. It's the difference between knowing approximately where you should attack and sitting there calculating the odds of all your options. And there will still be people defending the latter.
Awesome topic!
I feel similarly about the 'Alpha gamer problem'. Just put the enjoyment of the gaming group over your need to win everytime and you'll enjoy a lot more coop games. As a designer you can add mechanisms to discourage it for sure, but it seems like a shared responsibility to me. You can't expect alpha gamer behaviour to be normal unless you're forced to behave more considerately.
I can play to win but my most important thing when it comes to gaming is that EVERYONE has fun, including me. I’ll lose on purpose just to go out in a blaze of glory during as long as it’s coooool and I have fun doing it. That way people can be like, “Aw, that was cool when you.....”.
How do you track and define AP for the purpose of playtesting? Or how do you track this through playtesting?
That's a good question. Sometimes I ask my lead playtesters, and they help identify it. I always ask for how long it took to play, and sometimes I inquire about outlier times. And whenever I'm playtesting, I try to keep an eye on times where players have no guidance. Often an open range of choices can be less satisfying than a limited number of interesting choices.
I have a friend that I'm now sure suffers from AP, he can straight up take 5 minutes or more thinking about a simple play. Now, he is actually one of the smartest I know, but he just stubbornly tries to make the perfect move every time. And I've noticed that the table can get boring just waiting. I really need advice on how to handle this situation, like, most of the time I just tell him "dude, it's just a game, don't take it too seriously" but that hasn't worked at all.
I'm on the fence on buying new games (for example Rising Sun) because I know it would take 3 hours to finish a game.
Have you tried talking to him privately about how his behavior is impacting you and the rest of the group? I think that might help him hear it more than trying to convince him that games aren't to be taken seriously. :)
I'd strongly suggest finding games that compensate for that, it's very hard to change AP people into non-AP people. ;) Real-time games is one type where you have a set time to make your actions (Project Elite and such). Others can be where you take actions at the same time (generally co-op games). Or games where you can't plan ahead too much and is more about doing the best in the moment (dungeon crawlers and whatnot).
Very brave video. It's great and you are 100% right. They choose to have AP. How about AP in game design, making a game. It can help and it can hinder. By AP in game design I mean you are compelled to keep trying every great idea or remove something and playtest it. AP or attempted perfectionism. It can make the game even better but does it ever become a problem for you, knowing when to stop?
Well, just to clarify, I'm not necessarily saying that people choose to have AP. I'm suggesting that people who experience AP--which probably includes all gamers--always have the choice to simply make a decision and let the game move forward.
As for game-design AP, I think I sometimes get too caught up in the brainstorming stage. I want everything to make sense before I actually play the game for the first time, which isn't a great approach. While I don't want to rush a game to the table, at a certain point I just need to play it. :)
Yes, I understand. I take turns fast but 1 or 2 times per game I have to think a bit extra, but one of my friends chooses to tell stories while waiting and then spend 5 minutes on his turn, 100% every time. In designing I experience that too, and I also feel compelled to explore every avenue even when others think the game is great as is. I suppose that's were expansions are born. Vlaada Chvátil did this with Codenames.
My problem is I have AP but my gaming partner also has AP so neither of us is really bothered by it but the games always end up taking way longer than planned
I consider that I have rather severe analysis paralysis "in real life". Sometimes the most mundane choice or situation will saturate my brain with insane details and scenarios and I almost panic and freeze. I have been known to flip a coin and go with it just to stop the cogwheels and the exploding anxiety. It is a real issue, but it is a personal issue. I use gaming to learn to deal with it. Gaming provides a safe space to make decisions in a non threatening environment with no real stake. As a gamer, I think I am actually pretty quick as it feels good to make a decision that, in the end, doesn't really matter, because it's a game. The only stake could be "looking stupid" if you keep losing or make odd choices in the game. But I'm not competitive enough for this to affect me. I can't be, I'm not a very fast thinker and I know ;)
I agree with your controversial opinion: if you are aware you are slowing the game down, just make a decision.
Codenames has a great anti-AP measure: an optional hourglass. Millenium Blades as well.
Awesome topic, but the video could (should :-) be a few hours longer to address the problem.
I think it's a little bit egoistical to take all the time in the world to make your move, for me it denotes and intense (outside of normalcy) desire to win and lack of consideration for the other players, if it's something sporadic then it's OK , but if it happens every single turn then something is wrong.
Even for the competitive player taking too much time should be faced as a deficiency, as any chess player could tell, time is one of the most important aspects, if not the most, of the game between players of the same level.
If I feel I'm taking too long I make a suboptimal move and forget about it, after all we play for fun and it's definitely not fun seeing a person thinking for 5 minutes.
Well, wrote more than I should , sorry for the rant and the mistakes.
Jamie, great video as always, all the best.
Analysis Paralysis sounds like a death metal band
My top games are always games that discourage behaviour that negatively impact the mood (AP, players grabbing their phone/downtime, etc.) People like to blame other people for this, but I like to put the blame on something without feelings :P (the game itself).
I resent action point systems and appreciate that Stonemaier games never use this. Some of my favorite mechanisms are simultaneous turns and timers, as these force you to make decisions on the spot and no time to grab a phone, but I get that's not something for everyone as it can be quite stressful.
I certainly agree that the games themselves (and their designers) should be responsible to a certain extent in regards to discouraging AP. :)
I'm just starting a second campaign of Charterstone with two people that haven't played this game before. I know I had some AP during my first campaign, how would you suggest I help both them and myself as we move through the campaign?
Thanks for your question, Jackie. With so many actions on the board later in the campaign, Charterstone can create some AP. I would suggest using your persona and any other people cards to help guide you, and when in doubt, think about the engine you're building in your charter and use it.
I enjoy our one sided conversations ;)
Bravo!
frankly, in this day of modern, innovative board game, I have no room for any four player game that hasn’t addressed the AP issue. Especially in standard euros, there are so many fairly generic ones, that I’m getting tired of the genre. I’m much more attracted to games that deal with it through simple decision/action mechanisms, mechs that keep them involved when it’s not their turn, and of course excellent innovations like simultaneous action selection or simultaneous play. Other strategies like there is indirect interaction, but no so much where your choices are stolen by another player or the whole configuration is messed up when it’s not your turn. I prefer indirect where some choices may be grabbed, but basically you have your own sep. game board, cards, tableau, etc where most of your choices won’t get messed up/delayed in decision making.
Feast for Odin, don’t get me started, I would never play that game, it’s bloated and indulgent. And as much as I enjoyed Tikal, I think it was because of playing it on the app, otherwise the Action Point Allowance would be too much for larger number of human players.
Not to finish one Betreyal Legacy Szenario in 4 Hours in a Club enviroment is a problem wher you have to leave because of one Player is a bad joke.
I find it odd that our community is so enamored with pace of play that we created this term, especially when tabletop games have origins rooted in Chess which is the KING of of AP....when you want to play optimally it takes time.
There is a reason why competitive Chess uses turn clocks. The Chess community has determined that there is a limit to how much time is necessary. If more time is needed, it is a sign that the players are too inexperienced and are unlikely to win.
Velops false. Speed chess uses time clocks. Competitive chess at its peak has no time limit.
Yes but when you are taking on average twice or more the time to take your than I do, I’m not having fun. So sure, if playing optimally is what you want to do, then play that way with others who do the same. Not sure what your limit is, but if a typically 1 hour game turns into a 3 hour game, I didn’t have fun! I suppose if you win, then you may feel it justified the means.
@@MjrLeegInfidel Not true any more.
I’ve noticed that Analysis Paralysis is kinda 50/50 of people who don’t know the game or didn’t bother learning and therefore take a long time or the player that WANTS to win no matter what and doesn’t care that they’re stalling the game cause they’re busy calculating to win.
I'd be lenient on the first, less so on the latter.
I like games where players can take their turns simultaneously (like the variant in Evolution). That makes it pretty easy to identify when you are taking too long. It also brings up a gentleperson's agreement where you don't spend time looking at other player's tableau.
Also, roleplaying helps speed things up; every game can be a roleplaying game. When someone asks, "what should I do?" I just respond with, "what would your character do?" This is extra beneficial in co-op games because it avoids alpha-gamers.
As a solo gamer, i need to crack down on it.
I have tons of AP when I play Paladins. It’s a good thing I only play against the AI. It doesn’t help, I still only win one out of three games.
Go and Chess .... the only two games where analysis paralysis is acceptable.
How can I find you on Instagram?
I'm @jameystegmaier on Instagram
Great Discussion and comments.....
I concur with some here... I think this is mostly a non-issue and has been made one by Impatient Play (IP)... And the issue is as much (if not more) with the gamer claiming another has "AP"..... I realize we are '"playing a game" but I presume everyone WANTS to win.... (I really dont want to play a game with a player that doesnt). AND since we are not all the same as individuals, sometimes a person wants/needs more time to figure the permutations... and maybe see some that others are missing (assuming they are not new to the game... which should give them an auto pass anyway)... Is the game being timed? If not, then STOP JUDGING BC YOU ARE IMPATIENT!)...
(....I think there are some exceptions of course... a Player should not try to "calculate" everyone else's score, or EVERY game move possibility down to the VP.)
I actually think that a person NOT experiencing any "AP" (which has a negative moniker and connotation... and I think should be called "ET" for Extended Thinking) is actually also impatient with themselves and sometimes just wants to make a move so the game moves forward.... even if it may not be the best move (altho they may THINK it is bc it is a "gut reaction decision"... which is not a good bases for decisions (I am a scientist.... and science knows this)
We are in an impatient world more and more and I think it rears it ugly head here as well.
And yes... I have some ET... BUT I have almost infinite PATIENCE for others doing the same.
I think we should have a study.... During a game, time every gamer's "Decision Space"... See who wins (and keep track of "places" if poss)... My hypothesis is, with enough data, it will show ET'ers place higher overall than IP'ers.....
(STOP THE AP POLICE!!)
Thanks for sharing your experience! Mine has certainly been different, and it is in no way a "non-issue" for other people too, but you're welcome to share your experience here.
Jamey Stegmaier ... Thank you… And you do great stuff by the way…
Maybe “non-issue” is not the proper term… It’s an issue if someone makes it an issue.... However a part of my point is this might be unfair to do so… The same as someone could make an Issue out of another player making quicker moves to “keep the game moving”… which affects me negatively because I think they may be making subpar decisions, making my time spent... and my win... two hours later feel more hollow...
....looking at this from a diff Perspective...
I'm not sure I agree with the idea that something is only an issue if someone makes it an issue. Like, if someone knocks over a table at game night because they're frustrated, it's objectively an issue, even if no one else makes a big deal about it.
My overarching idea here is that when you play games with other people, you have a responsibility to be aware of how your behavior is impacting them. If you're on your phone, if you're making lewd comments, if you're taking a really long time every turn, if you don't pay attention during the rules explanation, if you rush other players on their turns...these are all things that I hope players are aware of and take personal responsibility for, regardless of whether or not someone else makes it an issue.
That about the impact on other people is a rather good point and fits in both direction. For example a person taking longer to find better play may impact waiting time for others, but if he plays non optimal it may result in moves giving one of the other players a servere advantage, i.e. kingmaking, in my pov if someone wins cause player X plays this and this way it ruins the whole game for me. Better he take more time and make better moves. Of course it is even worse if he takes long and plays bad. it ruins a game)
just as an example worker placement games with a "get starting player" place, someone does not take the time to think it through, and says lets take starting player despite already being second in turn order now, with the idea whatever I can do as first move is better (which it usually isnt as starting player extras are minor). This way he alters the game and the player being first before is now last and may be forced to get start player, and the player after him is happy as he got up in turn order for free....
(this case for example i love some Feld type games where starting player ups only yourself in turn order not all players (of course drawback of non clockwise order))
@@stowcreek1999 So you think winning in speed-chess is "hollow" then? Because the best players still tends to win. You don't need to sit there with unlimited time to feel you have accomplished something. Or maybe you're not as good as you think and uses the "IP" to justify why you lost.
...
hmmm, one could argue, the more AP a game has, the higher rating it has on Boardgamegeek. AP shouldn't always be shunned. After all, if all players AP for the same amount of time, there is no issue. So the real issue is the people playing the game, not the design of the game. Faster players can learn to be more patient and the AP players can try and be more aware of how long its taking and just pick one of the choices sooner. Usually they are paralyzed because all the choices are good. But if they are all good, then it shouldn't matter so much which one you pick. Learn to just let go, go with the flow, and have fun, for that's what games are for :) (unless you're in a tournament, then you can AP as long as the tournament timer will let you)
Did someone say AP should be shunned? I don't see that anywhere. Players do have an impact on AP, but so do designers: Give players the tools to plan ahead for their turns, and sometimes they will!