Analysis Paralysis is this week's theme in TIGD, as we move from looking at themes to looking at specific common problems. On a broader point, definitions will probably be a lot less contentious, as we're not grouping games by content as much as side-effect. Therefore, I suspect we'll find some very varied games within each weeks parameters.
At its most basic, Analysis Paralysis (AP) is downtime caused by other players having to think about their move.
As to what causes it, it must be the case that it is somewhat individual: some people will find spatial problems paralysingly complex whilst others will only have such a problem with arithmetical functions. Tthere is the plain fact that some people are always very slow in taking a move in a game naturally, but this isn't something game design will account for unless there is a real-life time limit-- a mechanic/device I suspect we'll return to.
Good examples of AP abound, and I'll not worry too much about quoting them as the phenomenon itself is something we're probably all used to. Tikal and Tigris & Euphrates are two games I hear quoted very often for AP problems. Chess is a good example of a game with AP where it is traditionally regarded as a feature rather than a true flaw: it's a game where thinking ahead complex series of moves is an integral part of the game.
Interestingly, AP is usually an example of a surfeit of strategy (or an overdose of options, to continue this awfully annoying alliteration), when providing players with decisions is traditionally seen as the quintessence of good game design. In AP situations, the player cannot process the options and information he has regarding them. It is worth noting that for anybody, some games can be 'pure skill' on paper, but give so many functions that two humans will find it a game of luck, as noone can properly grasp what a semi-optimal option would be.
I suspect AP is mitigated most often in games where other players can at least consider their own future moves. If the game will have decisively changed (as is often the case after one move in chess, and most frequently in multi-player games), then this will rarely be fruitful.
There is a GeekList by Chuck Blahous on types of Analysis Paralysis that discusses the different sorts of games he's found to suffer from AP, although I'd suggest steering away from doctrinal disputes over which category of AP particular games are in! ;-)
As to how this affects game design, I'd suggest that "too many decisions/calculations" is a problem to be concerned about. Also, use of timers is one, rather drastic, way to address it. In one of my games, a partnership game, I had a rule banning a player or his partner from speaking during his turn. This meant that negotiations would be possible between opponents the longer you thought, and would prevent a "partner 1 tells partner 2 how to play" problem to a great extent (which is a slightly different issue, of course). Anyway, I suspect that for many people timers or silence rules will be seen as too harsh, meaning mechanical solutions are probably in order.
Cheers,
Richard.
An interesting example; I suppose this does run the risk of hurrying players unnecessarily and bringing in questions of reaction time that most people choose to keep out of their games.
Richard.