How do we feel about allowing players to vary the game length

QuestCCG's comment about round/turn is mostly true: the convention these days seems to be as he describes, but it hasn't always been the case. I can't think of titles right now, but I am pretty sure that I have at least a couple of games in my collection that use the terms "round" and "turn" differently to how most of us use them at the moment.

It's probably worth adopting the terminology as QuestCCG suggests it to avoid confusion. :)

To the actual question, were you talking about having players choosing at game start how long the game will be (maybe from a couple of options), or more that there will be uncertainty about precisely when a game will finish and players can in some way influence the length of the game?

Either of these approaches can work well, and it really depends on the context of the rest of the game. You might also want to consider whether a fixed number of turns is the best way to end this particular game.

I personally rather like games where you aren't entirely sure when a game will end. It doesn't work for every game (of course!) but there can be some serious tension introduced when everyone is having to think about whether they will have two more turns or three, and what is their best option under each. And if players can take actions that would tend to lengthen or shorten the game to suit their strategy it can be a lot of fun.

Good luck with your game.

Because it isn't entirely clear how round and turn are used, you have to define it clearly within the rules for your game.

I am astonished at your question. Just how are you going to prevent players from adjusting things as they like? I realize players are much more passive than in the past, much less likely to make their own changes, but a designer can never prevent them from doing so.

The best he/she can do is explain what some of the common changes, in length or whatever, are likely to do to how the game plays.

I know so little of your game, but some general principles may apply. Ask yourself these questions:
1. Is there a definite change of the game state - as in, "the world and landscape of the game" - by the time you want to end it?

2. Does your game reach a point of critical mass where players' options become so limited that they have no worthwhile/interesting choices at all?

3. Do you have a target audience in mind?

Question one is to find out if your game is too short. Question 2 is to find out if your game is too long. Question 3 is to guide your design concept into something that your target audience would prefer...even if it's just you and your friends.

The Catan example above is a great example of the reason a game is a certain length, and it feeds into question 2.

Note that there's no question asking about, "has everyone had a turn?" and there are a couple reasons for this. First off, there seems to be a question of definitions raised and I wanted to avoid splitting hairs. Second, you may develop an asymmetrical game, and depending on how it's designed you may have a different player action structure - rounds, turns, phases, whatever you want to call it - that is different depending on the role the players have.

Finally, bear in mind that there are several games that break or bend these guidelines to varying degree (if you've ever seen an 18XX game, then you'll know they consistently have "no" to answer question 2), but if you're a designer just starting out, then it's to your benefit to have definitive "yes" answers to all of the above.

Yeah I agree with Dr. Lew... Best way to describe what the impact is of changing the number of Rounds or the number of Turns/Round.

Really you should adopt the STANDARD interpretation of what a Round and Turn both are. Read my earlier thread it explains all the elements of a game, from Round to Step.

But including in the rules what happens if you play an extra Turn/Round or add on an extra Round, that's a matter of documenting to variations on the game play -- all you need to do is document their impact.

Best.

Hi @Poly... No I'm just saying to adopt a more generalized way of using the terminology. Because other people may also be confused too...

By me, inverting his terminology, I THINK, what he was asking originally makes more sense. But he has not responded to the request to clarify the terminology.

So I can only assume that even with the "more standard" terminology, that I MIGHT be correct in understanding his question -- but I could be in error, because maybe that's not what HE meant.

I'm not ramming down his throat saying "use this terminology". I'm just pointing out that many people may be confused if the English language (on principle) is not being used correctly.

Bottom line: it leads to more confusion when you deviate from the accepted norms. Hey I'll be the first one to say "I WAS WRONG." "TradeWorlds" is a much better game having a 4 player Big Box rather than 1 Player Box Sets.

My thinking "out-of-the-box" was incorrect. People sometimes welcome the familiar more STANDARD way of selling and packaging a game.

It's really not about WRONG or RIGHT. More about SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE.

Cheers.

Dr. Lew says not to "force" the players to a strict number of turns. Instead "document" the various types of lengths in your rulebook in a "Variants" section. And tell players how the length impacts the results of the game.

There is nothing wrong with this... It's probably the best advice anyone can give. If you just "document" how long you want the game to be played, you can pretty much let the players decide how THEY want to play.

Something along those lines.