Boardgame's 3 act structure

I love wargames.
But I also love RTS games.

And I sort of copied RTS games in several aspects.

A RTS game has 3x3 phases if you will:
Beginning
- Building up your resource management.
- Building your base. to your preferences.
- Training an army.
Middle
- Attacking and/or defending against the enemy.
- Taking the middle of the field if possible and/or tactical.
- Adept forces to your opponents.
End
- Destroying the last defences.
- Destroying the enemies resource management.
- Destroying the enemies base.

Phases in these games can overlap greatly. It is wise to make sure that the most important phases (the game) are indeed a bit longer. But not too long either.

I could go into depth with each phase. But lets say that I follow a hill concept here.

The beginning phase is like 1,2,3 rounds for the sub phases.
The middle is more or less like 4,4,4.
The end phase can actually revert the whole flow of the game for attacker and defender. The roles can reverse. However, this is only possible, because the defender kinda follows 3,2,1.

The beginning is relatively fast. Otherwise it would be boring and induce a snowball effect.
The middle depends on the beginning. But can also be changing a lot.
The end can be relatively fast, have a pause or reverse the flow. It is a mirror of the beginning.

Take the game UNO. The game doesn't change once the player knocks on the table saying He/She has only one card left, right? Players will still play cards and try to get the opponent to draw cards because they don't have the correct number or color. And it's beginning and middle are also identical.

I think in this type of SHORT 30 minute game, it's more about the tightness of the mechanics and clever gameplay which make the game FUN to play. Alright UNO is not the most FUN game around... Nevertheless my point is made.

How about Doug's Window Pains. Each turn you need to match one Rosette with another pane of the same color to score points. Nothing changes between start, middle or end. Sure during the game players will be trying to optimize their turns and TRY to bank more "End-of-game" Victory Points ... But it's like that throughout the game.

This is another SHORT 30 minute game, where it's about color matching and secretly not revealing your "special objective" color suit. But the game looks like a TON of FUN and at each turn, you have decisions to make.

Now compare this with Jamey Stegmaier Scythe. Although I have not played it personally, I did discuss the game at a Game Night with someone who had played it several times and told me that the Mech battles normally occur at the end of the game when there are territorial disputes but for the majority of the game, the game is NOT about Mech combat. What is the start and middle of the game is "optimal moves" trying to maximize your economy as much as possible.

This is a LONGER 90 minute game, where some people may be SURPRISED if they see the Box Cover and say: "Wow this looks like a Mech Battle game." Well it's not really... Like I said there are battles but that's not the primary function or goal of the game.

Another game is my TradeWorlds (TW). TW has clearly different strategies from Beginning to End. And they are all very different. There are weaknesses that can occur at various times and sometimes (most times) it's a question of capitalizing on those weaknesses. It's not always about focusing one the player you choose... It's a question of who is most vulnerable (Early) and then in the Middle (some kind of cooperation could be established) and then in the End (targeting the player in the lead, for example).

This too is a LONGER 90 minute game. And what's you'll notice is that at the start while you build your Deck, it's about getting more cards. Then later on it's getting your starships out there and at the end (or middle-end) you can focus on optimizing your Deck to be more performing (as an aggressive player may do). Again it depends on players and how aggressive they are. The bottom line is that gameplay psychology and thinking change as the game evolves.

So it's VERY important to see these as TWO (2) DISTINCT "beasts", each one with different restrictions and timing of a game is a huge factor about how much one can have UNADULTERATED FUN smacking your opponent around versus building a strong Deck for more optimal play.

And both those types of games appeal to very different audiences even if there might be some overlap.

See your 3 act model that you developed for your game ... Is something so inherent in my "Monster Keep" (MK). See in MK you draw 1 card from your Deck and then you roll a custom 1d6 to determine how many ADDITIONAL cards you will draw for that ROUND.

And then where you have that Beginning, Middle and Ending 3 Act Narrative through-out the game... Well it happens in EVERY one of my ROUNDS.

How? Why? It's because if you have 2 cards (rolled a +1) well the first TURN of the ROUND is "choosing your Monster". That's the FIRST step and is your "Beginning". Once both players play a card face down... Simultaneously BOTH players REVEAL their "Monster".

That's when the 2nd TURN starts. And by Jove, you could be in a real BAD position (on the negative side of BOTH RPS-3). You may be facing a real strong opponent. But that all happened BEFORE. NOW what you need to do is figure out "What's the BEST Move" to try to DEFEAT the opponent's Monster or how to best PROTECT my own Monster. Same deal, secretly choose one (1) Enhancement and play it face down. Simultaneously reveal again.

And when the LAST card is played (based on turns)... That's when the tally shows who is the victor or is it a tie, etc.

So this 3 Act Narrative happens each round in MK. And you better believe that it's a THRILLING process for Johnnies!

BTW @Tim you should post an update about your Muay Thai Boxing Game ... I'd like to hear where you are at, the new developments (by the sounds of it you've had to re-think some aspects of the game)... Anyways it would be cool if you could share some of your game...

Cheers.

I got it for Christmas. The author criticized Euros for only being one long 2nd act, and I disagree. Even if the turns are all taken the same, the first act is just trying to get an edge, and understand the game play, The second is where someone pulls ahead and is the leader, and the third is when you can see the end of the game in sight.

Some games are very obvious. In Betrayal in the house on the hill the first to second act is a big event called the Haunt. In 7 Wonders, it is literally a 3 act game.

Dominion does a good job of making the lines blurred, but at some point you decide to only buy victory points, and that seems pretty 3rd act-ish.

The turn structure and mechanics are good to stay the same, but you can generate excitement by changing the situation you take the turns in.

How does your game end? Could you obscure it? Perhaps multiple paths trigger the end, so no one is exactly sure if it will be their last round.

Also, is it possible to obscure who is winning in the middle? either with hidden points, or some difficult-to-calculate end scoring, that may make it more up in the air?

I'm curious to know more about your game, otherwise I'm just shooting in the dark, or talking to my past-self who made a lot of simulations, and few games.

Expanding on what tikey said above: A well-designed engine-builder type Eurogame definitely has three acts. This is the kind of game I am usually trying to design. Railways of the World offers an excellent example: the first act is getting some railroad track on the board, to make a few early deliveries and start some income coming in; this is the "startup phase" of your railroad. The second act is "expansion": expanding your tiny initial railroad until it covers a fair portion of the board. In the third act, your railroad is mostly complete, and instead of continuing to expand you are milking what you have already built for maximum victory points.

For those who may be thinking that there needs to be something in the rules to define the three acts: no, you don't need that. In RotW, it's a natural progression.

It's a good design because you really shouldn't want a two-hour-plus game to be just "doing the same thing" the whole time: that of course is the whole point of the "three-act" structure. The important realization is that it's not the rules that make the difference: the same small set of actions is fine for the entire game, provided that they can be used for different sub-goals, and provided that the problems players must solve change throughout the game. So in RotW, the first act is about getting established; you may not be interacting much with other players. In the second act, the "expansion" phase, you are acutely aware of your competition, who will be getting in your way as you try to build into new areas of the board. In the third act, the competition for the remaining high-VP deliveries is the focus.

"Do you expect me to talk?"

"No, Mr. Bond, I expect to gain 3VP from your death."