Skip to Content
 

Simultaneous action

10 replies [Last post]
Fri, 10/22/2004 - 10:36
Chad_Ellis
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969

Hi All,

By simultaneous action I mean a situation in which all of the players make a set of decisions at the same time (presumably in secret) and then resolve them in a way that ignores which player reveals his or her decisions first. An obvious example is Diplomacy; my first published game Succession: Intrigue in the Royal Court uses this to resolve Intrigues.

I love what simultaneous action does for game dynamics and realism, but it can be cumbersome as well. Not everyone wants to write things down every turn. Succession isn't too bad because all you write down is "Pass" or "Fail" and a number, but when you've got more complex options it can be time-consuming and annoying.

For the gladiator game I mentioned in another thread, I think I've come up with a good way to handle card-based simultaneous play. Each player will have a hand of cards that can affect a match, and they will put them face down at the same time. However, each player also has a "do nothing" card that is always in his or her hand. If you put the "do nothing" card in your face down pile, you can just reveal it and keep the rest of your cards secret. If you don't play it, then you reveal all your cards (as do all the other players) and their combined effects are resolved.

The idea is to keep the play itself simple and unencumbering but not create a situation in which you can tell whether another player is "making a move" by how many cards they put down and thus avoid having people try to put their cards down last so they can see who else might be doing things.

Three questions:

1. How does this sound to you as a player?
2. Are there any other games that have this or a similar mechanic?
3. What other good ideas are out there for allowing simultaneous moves?

Hugs,
Chad

Top
Fri, 10/22/2004 - 12:18
#1
OrlandoPat
Offline
Joined: 10/16/2008
I love Simultaneous Play

I love simultaneous play. I used it in Ice Lake (where players write rules and then follow them). It's also in RoboRally and a bunch of historical miniatures games.

For one of my favorite examples of simultaneous play, though, check out Nuke War. You put just a couple cards down in order, and reveal them one at a time. It fits the theme (loading nuclear warheads on missiles), and really adds to the game.

Having a "scrub" or "abort" card does add to the bluffing element nicely.

Top
Fri, 10/22/2004 - 13:28
#2
SVan
Offline
Joined: 10/02/2008
Simultaneous action

Although it can be used to reduce downtime, simultaneous play can also bring downtime as well, at least for quick thinking people. With a game like Roborally, I'm usually done before everyone else, so I'm waiting usually a minute or 2 for everyone else. But it could b worse with players taking seperate turns.

I like to use simultaneous play when everyone can do something without having to completely watch everyone else. Selecting actions on a spinner, selecting which card(s) to play, taking money or resources from the bank when required, or even scoring can be done this way. In fact my newest game will have simultaneous scoring, although it could be done in order if players prefer that.

Now seeing your original questions, I'll answer those now:

1. I love it when I'm playing games, except in the complicated ones (as in Diplomacy, a part of the reason I only played it barely once.)

2. 6 Nimmt! (or Category 5 now) and Cosmic Encounter both have it in playing cards. An old game, Executive Decision, (A Sid Sackson game that I would like to play, but don't know who would play with me) which is full of simultaneous decisions, which is a reason that game is as long as it is.
I can't think of any others that I own or have played, well, maybe Traders of Genoa (a big stretch) since everyone is trying to get the best bid to the player who's turn it is. (Ok, maybe not...) Oh, Settlers has the resource part where everyone grabs their stuff when the dice are rolled (as does Anno 1503.)

3. I listed a few above, but I believe anything that can be done through simultaneous play and is not hard or too long for the players to do should be used this way. There's a few games that I wish had it for some or all of the game. I talked about Monopoly Party before on the Gamecube, which allows everyone to move at the same time. This could actually be implemented in real life too, by giving everyone dice. On that game, if more than one player lands on a property, it's auctioned off to the players who landed on the property. On the Gamecube an average game lasts 30 minutes, sometimes less. So this would reduce the game's time by a considerable amount (usually it's 3 hrs.) Imagine other games that could take turns at the same time. It could make an average or less average game somewhat better and more enjoyable to play.

Of course some games could not be simultaneous. Puerto Rico, Goa, and other heavy strategy games fit into this group. Although in Goa, players could take their actions at the same time if they wanted to. This happens in our games. The only fight would be who would draw expedition cards first, and that's not a big deal.

-Steve

Note: Whew! Sorry about being long winded, I guess I need to post more often to get these things out of my head.

Top
Fri, 10/22/2004 - 16:26
#3
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: Simultaneous action

Chad_Ellis wrote:
Three questions:

1. How does this sound to you as a player?
2. Are there any other games that have this or a similar mechanic?
3. What other good ideas are out there for allowing simultaneous moves?
I have seen examples of simultaneous play where a card is played by each player face down, then revealed once everyone has chosen their card. I think this could be considered the "standard" method of simultaneous play, as it also applies to blind bidding and things like Diplomacy- anything where everyone makes their decision and when everyone's done the decisions are revealed.

I too have used this simultaneous card play mechanic, in All For One duels. Each player chooses a card from their hand and places it face down, and there's even a 'do nothing' type card which you can play if you don't want to affect the outcome (or spend a card doing it). At one time my other game 8/7 Central had a similar mechanic for setting up your initial lineup of programs, but it ended up getting scrapped for various reasons.

So to answer your first question, it sounds fine. If you want simultaneous action, have players play cards face down. It sounds like your model has more than 1 card being played face down, which is fine. You could order your hand and then roll the cards one at a time (like Roborally) and if you aren't doing anything then you put your 'do nothing' card on top.

To answer your second question, as many have said- yes there are games that do this kind of thing. The most prominant in my mind is Roborally, where everyone gets a hand of cards, puts 5 of them into a specific order, then when everyone's done they are revealed one at a time and resolved. The cards have numbers on them, and in a conflict the higher numbered card is resolved first.

I used to play a poker game called Drop Droughts in which everyone got a 3 card hand, decided if they wanted to keep it or fold, and then together held out their hand and on the count of three they would either drop their hand or not. Dropping means you fold, whoever's left in reveals their hand and the losers pay the winner and the pot (1 loser pays the winner, all other losers pay the pot, in case you're curious, so the pot can get pretty big pretty quick). The problem with this timing method is that there can easily be arguements that so-and-so dropped late (presumably after seeing other people stay in and deciding to not bluff anymore for example).

That last paragraph is getting into your third question. Anything that reveals decisions at the same time would work, some better than others depending on the reveal method. In Drop Droughts you make your choice ahead of time based on inform,ation such as your hand, the pot size, how much money you have, how much money your opponents have, etc.- but not based on opponents' actions. On the count of three everyone reveals their decision. in Roborally you make your decisions based on the cards you get dealt, the board position, your personal goal at the moment, etc... but not on opponents' actions. Again they are all revealed at the same time.

There are some really stupid magic cards (especially in Unglued) which require players to choose a number and simultaneously reveal it, and the result affects the resolution of the card. There was at least 1 such card that was actually considered good... I forget the card or the set, but it was a red creature (some kind of Ogre maybe?) that you bid life on, if you outbid your opponent then it's fat and maybe has Haste. If they outbid you then at least they paid some life.

I wouldn't say that 'simultaneous action' is anything new... I'd like to hear more about your specific implementation of it. I played a game made by a hobbyist in Phoenix about people in the old west with 6 shooters, which was sort of a quick, simple version of Frag in some ways. The shooting mechanic there was that you had a hand of 6 cards (bullets) which you put in order, and your opponent had a hand of 6 cards which they put in order, then you reveal them one at a time and compare the first to the first, etc. Depending on what weapon you have equiped (shotgun, revolver, etc) you either hit, miss, or get hit based on the comparison of the cards (you guys are shooting back and forth you see, unloading your gun at each other). I thought that mechanic was almost really interesting, but it had some problems. It sounds like your mechanic may be similar, so I'd like to see how you handled it.

Nice topic,
Seth

Top
Fri, 10/22/2004 - 16:59
#4
Oracle
Offline
Joined: 06/22/2010
Simultaneous action

In Carcassonne, players are supposed to draw a tile at the beginning of their turn and then decide where to play it while everyone waits. I like to modify this to draw a tile at the end of your turn, so you can think about where to place it while you wait for your next turn. It speeds the game up a lot.

Jason

Top
Fri, 10/22/2004 - 17:13
#5
Chad_Ellis
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Simultaneous action

sedjtroll wrote:
Chad_Ellis wrote:
Three questions:

1. How does this sound to you as a player?
2. Are there any other games that have this or a similar mechanic?
3. What other good ideas are out there for allowing simultaneous moves?
I have seen examples of simultaneous play where a card is played by each player face down, then revealed once everyone has chosen their card. I think this could be considered the "standard" method of simultaneous play, as it also applies to blind bidding and things like Diplomacy- anything where everyone makes their decision and when everyone's done the decisions are revealed.

I too have used this simultaneous card play mechanic, in All For One duels. Each player chooses a card from their hand and places it face down, and there's even a 'do nothing' type card which you can play if you don't want to affect the outcome (or spend a card doing it). At one time my other game 8/7 Central had a similar mechanic for setting up your initial lineup of programs, but it ended up getting scrapped for various reasons.

So to answer your first question, it sounds fine. If you want simultaneous action, have players play cards face down. It sounds like your model has more than 1 card being played face down, which is fine.

Yeah, that's actually a major part of the mechanic. Having simultaneous action is easy if everyone always plays the same number of cards -- whether it's one or all. The idea here is that on some matches you don't want to commit any cards, while on others you might want to commit several -- and I don't want other players to be able to tell by how many cards you play down. Hence the "do nothing" card so that the only way people know what you're doing is if you put no cards down or your entire hand...ironically, both of those would have to be "do nothing" options!

Quote:
To answer your second question, as many have said- yes there are games that do this kind of thing. The most prominant in my mind is Roborally, where everyone gets a hand of cards, puts 5 of them into a specific order, then when everyone's done they are revealed one at a time and resolved. The cards have numbers on them, and in a conflict the higher numbered card is resolved first.

I know a lot of games have simultaneous card play or decisions -- I was thinking about this specific idea of being able to play as few or many cards as you want and using a "do nothing" card to remove any potential advantage of waiting to see how many cards other players put down.

Quote:
There are some really stupid magic cards (especially in Unglued) which require players to choose a number and simultaneously reveal it, and the result affects the resolution of the card. There was at least 1 such card that was actually considered good... I forget the card or the set, but it was a red creature (some kind of Ogre maybe?) that you bid life on, if you outbid your opponent then it's fat and maybe has Haste. If they outbid you then at least they paid some life.

I think it's Menacing Ogre. Each player writes down a number and then reveals them. Both players lose life equal to what they wrote down -- if the player casting Menacing Ogre wins (I think he wins on a tie, too), Menacing Ogre gets two +1/+1 counters and haste. Smashy smashy.

Quote:
I wouldn't say that 'simultaneous action' is anything new... I'd like to hear more about your specific implementation of it.

The idea is basically this. Gladiators will have matches throughout the game, either with each other or with NPGs. All players can bet on the match. Players will have cards that can affect the match in various ways, from giving a bonus to one of the gladiators to bribing an NPG gladiator to take a dive, to changing the betting odds. (I'll start another thread on the concept for betting odds.)

One of the big challenges to the game is trying to figure out what the other players are going to do -- for example, if I challenge an NPG I could be trying to win (picking up the purse, a bit of money for betting on myself, possibly gaining skill or popularity) so you might bet on me too. But it could be that I'm hoping the other players will be that I'm going to win and my real plan is to take a dive and bet against myself. Or even if you think I'm going for the win, you might want to spend some cards making me more likely to lose so I don't get the purse or whatever other benefits I was going for.

The upshot is that you might want to play no cards or two cards or a lot of cards...and if I know that you're playing a lot of cards I know that you're making a move on this particular match. So basically there's a problem of players wanting to see what other players are doing before they act. I thought about solving this with simple clockwise order but then thought it might be much better to have a "do nothing" card so you can't (theoretically) gain any information.

Regards,
Chad

Top
Fri, 10/22/2004 - 17:41
#6
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: Simultaneous action

Chad_Ellis wrote:
Yeah, that's actually a major part of the mechanic. Having simultaneous action is easy if everyone always plays the same number of cards -- whether it's one or all. The idea here is that on some matches you don't want to commit any cards, while on others you might want to commit several -- and I don't want other players to be able to tell by how many cards you play down. Hence the "do nothing" card so that the only way people know what you're doing is if you put no cards down or your entire hand...ironically, both of those would have to be "do nothing" options!
...
I was thinking about this specific idea of being able to play as few or many cards as you want and using a "do nothing" card to remove any potential advantage of waiting to see how many cards other players put down.

I think this is just semantics then. The "Do Nothing" or "Stop" card is a good solution for when people contribute a different number of cards each- everyone orders their cards and when revealing you stop when you get to the 'do nothing' card. You could also simply have a screen, or leave it up to the players to disguise the number of cards they're playing. It's very difficult to tell how many cards I'm holding if they're not fanned. And even then, how often do you ask your opponent on the Pro Tour how many cards they're holding?

After reading your description it appears you don't have a specific order in which the cards need to be revealed. If you want to structure it so people can't possibly gain an advantage then it could be done with this Stop card or whatever- you put the cards you want to play behind the Stop card, behind the cards you don't want to play. Put the whole hand face down, and when everyone's done you reveal the top cards up until the Stop card.

I think this is a lot of structure to impose on a system that could probably be worked out individually by the players.

- Seth

Top
Fri, 10/22/2004 - 17:50
#7
Chad_Ellis
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Simultaneous action

sedjtroll wrote:
I think this is just semantics then. The "Do Nothing" or "Stop" card is a good solution for when people contribute a different number of cards each- everyone orders their cards and when revealing you stop when you get to the 'do nothing' card. You could also simply have a screen, or leave it up to the players to disguise the number of cards they're playing. It's very difficult to tell how many cards I'm holding if they're not fanned. And even then, how often do you ask your opponent on the Pro Tour how many cards they're holding?

Often enough! But it's one thing to have a hand of cards and another when you're playing them on the table. It's pretty easy to see that you're playing no cards, for example, or a stack of them.

Quote:
After reading your description it appears you don't have a specific order in which the cards need to be revealed. If you want to structure it so people can't possibly gain an advantage then it could be done with this Stop card or whatever- you put the cards you want to play behind the Stop card, behind the cards you don't want to play. Put the whole hand face down, and when everyone's done you reveal the top cards up until the Stop card.

That's an elegant solution -- and you're right, in my system the order doesn't matter, so it would work. The drawback is that I know I would get nervous about whether I'd done the cards in the right order or not, and I guarantee that some people would do it wrong in practice. Still, I'll probably try both methods in playtesting and see which people prefer.

Quote:
I think this is a lot of structure to impose on a system that could probably be worked out individually by the players.

Maybe, but I'm hopeful that it will actually be very simple and user-friendly in practice. Using screens means adding a component (this game should be very cheap to produce) and other manual solutions (like putting the cards under the table or something) can be clunky. It's also worth noting that after everyone has decided what cards to play they still have to decide how they're going to bet -- and that will probably be done with chips in hand.

Hugs,
Chad

Top
Fri, 10/22/2004 - 19:12
#8
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: Simultaneous action

Chad_Ellis wrote:
But it's one thing to have a hand of cards and another when you're playing them on the table. It's pretty easy to see that you're playing no cards, for example, or a stack of them.

I agree with you. This is exactly why I added a "do nothing" type of card in All For One- in that game when 1 player fights, everyone participates. But not everyone necessarily wants to change the status of their hand to do so. With the inclusion of a "do nothing" card as you say allows everyone to participate even if they're not really participating. This really sounds like almost the same application in fact.

Quote:
The drawback is that I know I would get nervous about whether I'd done the cards in the right order or not, and I guarantee that some people would do it wrong in practice.
that happens in Roborally once in a while but it's not that common. And it's usually very easy to tell as soon as you see the first card, so if your friends aren't jerks they'll let you switch it up so it's what you intended.

My advice is to use the 'do nothing' card, but give it another use in the game. In the case of All For One, that card (called the One For All card) has a couple of powerful uses, but you have to earn it back. And once you've spent it you can't use it as a 'do nothing' card in combat either (until you earn it back of course).

- Seth

Top
Sat, 10/23/2004 - 09:35
#9
zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Simultaneous action

In Amun-Re the cards are small enough to hide them under your hand, so in the blind bidding phase people take one or more cards, hide them under their hand, then all players reveal teh cards at the same time. Amun-Re also has a card that functions as a "do nothing" card (more or less) to obscure whether you are actually bidding something or not.

Capitol is an example of a game that has a blind bidding mechanic using the "Stop" card mentioned earlier in this thread. Players put all their cards in a pile, the cards above the "Stop" card are part of their bid, the other cards are not part of the and are never revelead. It works fine.

Good luck with the game!

- René Wiersma

Top
Sat, 10/23/2004 - 11:46
#10
Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Simultaneous action

I took this one stage further in a game of mine.
There are four things up for auction, and a blind-bidding system is used to bid on them, but players are only allowed to bid on two of the four.
So players get four "bid cards" that are the same size as their money cards. So to bid on item 1, you put your bid cash followed by the bid card. Repeat for items 2 to 4. Put the rest of your money on the bottom of the stack. So everyone always put their whole stack of cards down each turn, even if they didn't bid on anything.
Then, everyone reveals cards from the top of their stack until they reach their "item 1 bid card". So if you bid nothing, then this will be your top card. Otherwise you will show money cards. Repeat for all the items up for auction.
Originally I too used screens, and this was fine but resulted in players needing several screens in front of them, which worked but was terribly inconvenient.
This system is more complicated to grasp, but works much better from a purely practical point of view.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut