Game Duration - what do you like?

Baby, I can go all night.

At least, that's the case with Talisman, the game you win when everyone else needs to go home. As I see it, play time depends on emotional investment. If I have a group of five, and we feel invested in the outcome then time doesn't matter. Risk is a good example. People play that game until they $#@%ing win, but the problem keeping eliminated players entertained. If spending more time on the game doesn't increase the magnitude of victory then I'd rather win in half-an-hour than have to put off victory for two hours. As a rule of thumb, if a game takes a couple minutes to set up and put away then 30 minutes of play is great. If I end up with a handful of cards that defines my character or signifies my success, and it's going to take half-an-hour just to sort everything and put it away, then I'll play for 2-3 hours.

Commercial value's are below 2 hours, I think.

But personally, I don't mind playing a board game every day for 2-4 hours for several weeks.

But that is what you get for playing one of the massive war games.

Still, I don't hold the towns record.

I used to be able to go hours on games...sometimes I still do, but lately since I've got a wife and kid, I've had to limit my gaming and sneak in game time whenever I can. I can really only stomach 2 hours at the most unless I'm really into it...which only comes when I know my wife and kid are ok without me for so long...which is rare.

I think if you're going to set a time, make it the best X time you can do. I mean, there's a whole miniatures industry and Games Workshop seems to be doing fairly well...those games can go for days.

The key is engagement. There are great games that are long like Food Chain Magnate or short, light games like Spyfall. Both games engage the players, so your real challenge is to make players feel like time is flying playing the game.

For me something like 1-2 hours seems alright but it depends on the kind of game. A bit longer is fine too if the game is still interesting at that point and not dragging out.

Elimination games should be decided quickly once the first player is out, I typically don't like these kind of games at all and prefer all players to have a chance at winning untill the end even if its only a small chance.

Some games have a build up stage, and I do feel those games also need a stage where you can really put what you have build up to use. It's no fun if you don't really get the chance to use what you build up, then it gets disappointing.

Lenght also depends on the type of game.. but I think that with many games players will know what they are getting into. And there are markets for most lenghts. Though anything thats estimated to take longer than 3 hours would likely narrow your audience down quite a bit.

The lenght needs to feel right for the type of game you are making. A big conquest game with miniatures, a large board and all that would feel disappointing if it was over in half an hour. The set up time might almost be longer then.

And card games usually are not expected to take very long, so there limiting the lenght seems a more important factor.

But either way I do think that writing the rules down clearly as well as having helpfull components that make it obvious enough what they are for can all help decrease the lenght of a game.

Its always a terrible thing if half the game time is spend looking up the rules and argueing over them.

May I pitch in an additional question please? (Not this one, but the next one)

Is the difference in time between a first try and an experienced play, somewhat relatable to the value of your game design? Thus, small difference is a good design. Big difference a bad design?

I like plenty of games that last over two hours. But there are also many games over two hours I don't enjoy. So I'm going to jump on the bandwagon and say duration isn't as important as player engagement.

I grew up playing D&D, an dour sessions could easily last 6+ hours. Yeah, it's not a board game, which has other limitations such as physical components. But the point is if the players are engaged, the game can go on forever.

Design the game you want. Duration will come later.

I'd refrain from insinuating that you're local designers are close-minded. If your game in question wasn't a prototype, but was a finished product that was kickstarted, achieved some stretch goals, and even had a decent BGG score, then I think the reaction would be quite different. The difference is that one thing seems to be proven while the other isn't. For a first-time designer to whip out a 2+ hour game and expect zero hesitation from other designers is a bit naive.

The other day I was asked to play a dev's almost-finished game via Tabletop Simulator. It was 10pm, so naturally the first thing I asked was how long it would take. "Two hours." Eeek I thought, but I played anyway for some goodwill points. Fast forward three hours and the game was only half over. I bailed.

Respecting players' time is important. Playtimes, especially in prototype form, tend to last longer. I think a better approach next time would be:

"My game is 2+ hours long. After an hour of gameplay, we can stop playing unless everyone wants to keep playing."

Chances are they'll all choose to stop, but that knowledge and agency of being able to end it if it's dragging will prevent testers from feeling trapped.

I'm with Ted, at least realistically. I'm old and I'm busy.

I'm more likely to play a game the shorter the playtime. The ones that actually come to my table regularly are 20 to 45 minutes.

Once every couple months, I can find a couple hours for a full length game... but it's a rarity. That said, this is a good length and I'd see no issue recommending it.

As for any longer than 2 hours, there are alot of barriers:
- You need to find a crew willing to put in 3+ hours.
- These games tend to be complex, meaning you need to find
a crew willing to learn it.
- You need to find a block of time where all the members
are free for a long period of time.

I've brought epic scale games to my table before, but don't think I've ever finished one. Half ways through someone always gets bored and then we go off topic and move on.

I think 2-3 hours is about ideal when you have people over for a game night.

Longer than that might get troublesome if say, the game starts at eight.. well at eleven some people might like to go home, especially during the week.

A game of just an hour probably would be too short for such a game night, unless multible games are played or you are also going to watch a movie or something.

@Calvin: Well after you play the "Tradewars" Scenario - with someone who knows the game... You change your philosophy. See the thing is, winning by points is not a guarantee. You could have a player with a "weaker" deck, compete against a player who has a stronger deck - and still be able to beat him!

So to me this is a form of balancing.

When a player realizes that he will be losing because the opponent is making a "rush" to win by points, it fuels the aggressiveness even more, and that player will be launching the maximum starships, like 3 vs. 1, and try to do more damage to the Homeworld... The question that remains unanswered is did he do sufficient damage during the game or is it just too late - his opponent will squeak out a Points victory?!

In my book this is fair - you're not cheating. But it is sly: knowing that the scenario was "designed" to be won by Victory points, alters the way you should approach the game.

At least you should be keeping up to the opponent in terms of Victory points - so that maybe with a couple GOOD hands you can score more that 10 points and sway the victory towards you. This is very plausible not only possible.

The focus here is to ensure you keep track what your opponent is doing.

If he starts to make a run for a Victory point win, you should keep pace with him - and try to overrun him. If he ignores the primary objective and continues to build ships and buy more cards, well then you can maybe win by dominating the player using your Firepower.

But yeah - I keep getting "almost" beaten at my own game - because seems like everyone else gets great decks and I'm squirming with maybe 20-25 cards in my deck. So I usually go for the Victory point win, because I know that I could not survive a Firepower duel... Plus I like to shorten the length of games: Homeworld battles seem to take more time - because you need to over power your opponent and get in maybe one good attack and do some damage.

Any damage you can do is GOOD damage. It all counts. 2 damage points early may be the difference between a loss and a victory later in the game.

I don't see it as a *problem* - more of a "challenge" or an error in a player's strategy.

Cheers!

I prefer games that last about 2 hours or more, especially immersive ones that make you want to see it through the end, whether you win or lose. Mind you this is coming from someone who used to burn up an entire weekends to play battletech campaigns with friends back in the day.

As a tabletop gamer I have the attention span for games that last longer than the casual or the standard length board game you typically find at your local venue so 2+ hours suits me fine.

@ mcobb83

What's your game's primary mechanic/hook?