Analysis Paralysis in Movement

What if timer is added to the game: And the amount of action points that can be used depends on how long one takes to sort things out. In the real world we all have deadlines. Why can't we have them in the game world?

So, for example, if you take up to three minutes to move, you get 5 action points. For 3-5 minutes you get 3 APs. And after 5 minutes you can only have 2 APs...or some system of the like.

I think that this would help push along more of a "gut feeling" play, if that is what you are after. Nothing says pressure like an impending deadline!

John

Another option is to design the system so small mistakes dont matter. In chess, you have so few peices, and some are quite unique in their powers; so making a poor choice is devestating. In a lot of wargames and such, missing a chance to attack or not moving exactly where you need to is also devestating. I'm not sure what it would look like, but imagine a game where those decisions in and of themselves where not as crucial, but the long term playstyle meant more.

Perhaps decoupling movement and attack/action from each other in the pool of points. So you can move and attack in the same turn. This removes some of the analysis in that you don't have to worry about moving the exact number of places and still have enough points to attack, but if I moved less I could make a different type of attack.. and so forth.

An alternate way of dealing with this is to not time every move, but only certain moves. So, let's say there are some cards that each player holds in there hand: 2minute, 3 minute, 4 minute, etc. Each player gets a certain amount of cards at the beginning and before they make there play, they can play a card. This gives a bit of control over their decision making process.

To counter these cards, other players can play cards against. Their cards would read say, -1 minute or -2 minutes. This would then be played atop the players cards to subtract off some time for their play. I'm sure there is an elegant mechanic that can rationalize all this, but the seed of it is that each player sets a deadline, and that deadline can be reduced by another player.

This is could be considered a part of the overall combat process. It distracts and disorientates the player, forcing them into a situation where they are more likely to make a mistake.

John

I think that this thread describes more of a problem associated with people playing the game, not the game itself.

I frown when people min/max their turn, especially for a beer and pretzels game, but you must understand that for those people, that is what makes the game fun - Figuring out the optimum effect with a limited amount of resources. Not many of those people will play your game if their playstyle is punished.

Furthermore, if you don't like someone's style of play, don't play games with them. It's not the game's job to police your friends.

I can understand the apprehension to use timers. I will not play a game of chess with a timer. It ruins the game for me. I love, in chess, to think, and strain, and compute all the moves my little brain can handle. But that is my expectation when I play chess. And usually that of my opponent as well so it works out good.

I think that one must correctly judge the perception and the expectation of the turn time in a game so the game can feel smooth.

I've been accused of being a mini-maxer in my gaming group, normally when I end up winning, or when I loose sometimes I get the old 'hah, all that mini maxing didn't help this time, did it?', kind of comments. However, it's always done with tongue in cheek, since our group recognises that everyone has their own style, and I try to make sure all my computations are done in my own own down-time, not someone elses! I think julius has a very good point here - I have grown up playing strategy games like chess and Go, and I like working stuff out.

However if the tree of possibilities is too large to analyse like this, then I tend to relax more and just see what happens. However there will always be some players my try to evaluate as many options as possible even in these circumstances.

As far as wargames are concerned where you are controlling troops, I always like to see systems which represent the fact that the grunts are not robots, and can think for themselves. It adds alot to the game in terms of flavour and laying plans, and does prevent min-maxing to a good degree. Instead of adding randomness for it's own sake (to prevent AP), could you add a way in which players pieces may move as desired, or may not depending on their situation and their stats and some random factor (e.g. bravery, morale, impulsiveness etc)?

On A's turn, B immediately draws a new card. He passes one of his cards to C, who passes one to D, who discards one. If A is still not finished, C draws a card, passes one to D, who passes one to B, who discards. Again, if A still isn't finished then D draws, passes one to B, who passes to C, who discards. Continue until A finishes his turn, at which point the current passing is finished out (whoever was to discard will after he gets the extra card).

very clever! I likey.

I'm guessing you've not played Pit. :)

No question, some players can use insufficient care, but that's always true in any game, especially real-time ones. And certainly players can argue about order, especially in real-time games. Yet Pit has managed to survive and continue to be published for some 70+ years, and other real-time games continue to be published.

That's the mechanic he patented (or was going to), right?

-- Matthew

I do remember hearing somewhere that Tom and Aldo were getting a patent (or some other such protection) on the implementation of turn tokens, but after checking their sites I can't find anything.

That Magic Event sounds like it must have been a blast! How'd you do?