Skip to Content

Games with a growing turn length

11 replies [Last post]
Rick L
Rick L's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/22/2016

I'm curious about what games have turns that become longer as the game progresses. For example, at the beginning, you may not have much you can do with each turn, but as you gather resources, build, expand, or somehow increase your options of what you can do on a turn, then it takes longer to take your actions, etc.

Now as you have more to do on your turn, it's going to take longer. That also means more down time for the other players as they await their turn.

So what games have turn length that grows as the game progresses? How do they keep players from getting bored waiting? What kind of interaction exists - trading? Interference?

Are there other ways to keep players involved or engrossed when it's not their turn, such as in Scythe, where players can start a turn while the previous player finishes theirs?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
MtG. That one is for sure.

MtG. That one is for sure. Especially the old school version.
turn 1, 1 land to tap.
turn 2, 2 lands to tap.
turn 3, 3 lands to tap. Etc.

Actually, if you think about it. Every game that allows players to build up forces has this effect.

***

Down time because one player is in turn. Has Always been the issue. IMHO It is best to look at the game at hand and try to think of ways to keep the other players occupied.

Rick L
Rick L's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/22/2016
My game in particular has

My game in particular has growing turn length, but there is a good amount of player interaction available, so I don't feel it's too much of an issue. However, it does limit the # of players. Originally I wanted 5 or 6 players, but that would make a pretty long game, with a lot of time between turns in the late game. So I dropped it to 2-4 players.

I'm just curious if there are games that have good ways of dealing with turn length - either helping players to make decisions more quickly, or things they can prepare for their next turn, etc.

I think I have enough player interaction, so I'm just exploring what other things might help.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Access Reduction

Rick L wrote:
I think I have enough player interaction, so I'm just exploring what other things might help.
Some actions could be disabled the longer the game runs. I'm thinking of co-op games such as Pandemic or the Forbidden Island/Forbidden Desert games, that have restrictions on movement and access integrated into the theme of the game.

Is there a way to restrict options in the late(r) game stage(s)?

Rick L
Rick L's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/22/2016
let-off studios wrote:Some

let-off studios wrote:
Some actions could be disabled the longer the game runs. I'm thinking of co-op games such as Pandemic or the Forbidden Island/Forbidden Desert games, that have restrictions on movement and access integrated into the theme of the game.

Is there a way to restrict options in the late(r) game stage(s)?

In Pandemic, are you referring to having to use cards to cure diseases instead of for movement? (Only played it once so far on my phone app!)

How are actions restricted in Forbidden Island/Desert? I've watched some demo videos but haven't played.

I do have restrictions on actions - everything requires Steam power, so you have a Max amount you can generate/store. Once it's spent, you're done.

The main thing for my game is one of the later actions is the Alchemy, and the experiments take a couple minutes. Players can sometimes interfere, and it is interesting to watch, but the tension is mostly focused on the current player.

I do have a possible way to make all experiments a bit more tense for everyone, so that might be a good addition.

I don't know if it's really necessary, just exploring options!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I am sure you know that I

I am sure you know that I have this re-action mechanic. Where players can act, even if they aren't in turn. But they may only take certain actions responding to the main player that turn.

Some can do bad things to that player. And allies can help at that moment.

The fun part in that all is that help, sometimes is unwanted or executed poorly. And only the main player knows that when we are not allowed to communicate.

I hope that this has given you some idea's.

Rick L
Rick L's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/22/2016
X3M wrote:I am sure you know

X3M wrote:
I am sure you know that I have this re-action mechanic. Where players can act, even if they aren't in turn. But they may only take certain actions responding to the main player that turn.

Some can do bad things to that player. And allies can help at that moment.

The fun part in that all is that help, sometimes is unwanted or executed poorly. And only the main player knows that when we are not allowed to communicate.

I hope that this has given you some idea's.

Yes, I recall the basics of your reaction mechanic - i can definitely see how that keeps players involved in between turns.

I have a bit of that in my combat, but it doesn't fit as easily in Alchemy. I do have Sabotage that players can do to mess with your experiments, and that definitely helps.

But I'm also considering adding a possible negative consequence to the Alchemy that affects everyone, if it triggers. I'm already using it for the Final Experiment that can win the game, and I'm trying to be careful not to "overuse" it, but it could be a good way to keep everyone more tensely involved in the results of Alchemy during other player's turns.

FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
Reminds me of another Experiment To Win The Game

Rick L wrote:
X3M wrote:
I am sure you know that I have this re-action mechanic. Where players can act, even if they aren't in turn. But they may only take certain actions responding to the main player that turn.

Some can do bad things to that player. And allies can help at that moment.

The fun part in that all is that help, sometimes is unwanted or executed poorly. And only the main player knows that when we are not allowed to communicate.

I hope that this has given you some idea's.

Yes, I recall the basics of your reaction mechanic - i can definitely see how that keeps players involved in between turns.

I have a bit of that in my combat, but it doesn't fit as easily in Alchemy. I do have Sabotage that players can do to mess with your experiments, and that definitely helps.

But I'm also considering adding a possible negative consequence to the Alchemy that affects everyone, if it triggers. I'm already using it for the Final Experiment that can win the game, and I'm trying to be careful not to "overuse" it, but it could be a good way to keep everyone more tensely involved in the results of Alchemy during other player's turns.

When the US detonated the first nuclear weapon on a test range, they basically had their fingers crossed that it wouldn't set the entire atmosphere on fire. The dice were kind to humanity that day.

Rick L
Rick L's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/22/2016
FrankM wrote: When the US

FrankM wrote:

When the US detonated the first nuclear weapon on a test range, they basically had their fingers crossed that it wouldn't set the entire atmosphere on fire. The dice were kind to humanity that day.

And that's pretty close! The tension at that moment is worth capturing in a game, I think.

In mine, players are up against the looming threat of Chaos breaking free and consuming the world. The Final Experiment is your attempt to end the threat and banish the Chaos. But if you are not properly prepared, you might end up advancing the Chaos Track until It breaks free!

This is not a cooperative game - it is very competitive. Each player "character" blames the others for causing this threat, and each believes that only they can succeed in the Final Experiment - the others will only make things worse... and in this game, they certainly can.

So far, the regular Alchemy experiments don't advance the Chaos Track - there are other quick events that do, and ways for the players to buy a little extra time. I'm worried that allowing all Alchemy experiments to have the possibility to advance the Track will move it along too quickly, or will make the game longer by requiring more time to set back the Track.

But it would add more interesting tension for everyone! And that would keep players interested while awaiting their turns.

FrankM
Offline
Joined: 01/27/2017
When to let player action advance Chaos

Just a quick thought, but maybe allow Chaos to advance when an experiment is both (1) sabotaged and (2) resulted in a roll that would have failed badly even without the sabotage... for example if there is some kind of fumble or automatic failure roll that's always possible, a sabotaged fumble advances Chaos.

Then the alchemists really will be blaming each other for the Chaos.

Rick L
Rick L's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/22/2016
FrankM wrote:Just a quick

FrankM wrote:
Just a quick thought, but maybe allow Chaos to advance when an experiment is both (1) sabotaged and (2) resulted in a roll that would have failed badly even without the sabotage... for example if there is some kind of fumble or automatic failure roll that's always possible, a sabotaged fumble advances Chaos.

Then the alchemists really will be blaming each other for the Chaos.

Interesting thought there about the Sabotage - currently it's mostly about swiping 1-3 ingredients in play, or possibly destroying an apparatus card (lab equipment that helps your experiments). I do have a way I could have sabotage advance the track too though.

But the second thing you mentioned is where I was focusing. Your Alchemy dice have various symbols, including the Flames of Chaos. When those come up in your roll, and you CAN'T complete a part of the experiment with the remaining symbols, or if you CAN'T neutralize the Flames with your Apparatus cards, then each Flame destroys 1 ingredient in play.

If you have more ingredients, you can replace those lost and continue, otherwise, you need to gather more ingredients on your next turn.

While the experiments are interesting and fun, there isn't a "moment of tension" like in the moment of pressing the "detonate" in the first A-bomb experiment you mentioned above! You have to take time to consider whether you have any way to continue your experiment, and the time it takes to think over your options spreads out the tension too much.

That's not an issue for the Alchemy - it's just the point where you have to decide when you've gone as far as you can on an experiment. It doesn't need to be extremely tense.

But the Chaos Track does need to be a tense moment - so I'm using a special die as a "Chaos Check" - during the Final Experiment, every time the Flames of Chaos destroy an ingredient, you have to roll the die to see if the Track is advanced. That makes for a tense die roll, because the result is immediate - there's no thinking over what you can do about it, it's just "boom!" the track advances! Or "phew!" no Chaos!

I can add that in to the regular Alchemy too, only not have it so frequent. Instead of doing a Chaos check for each ingredient destroyed, it could just be checked once for each instance that you lose ingredients, whether it's 1, 2, 3, or more ingredients.

That way, the pressure is on YOU to be prepared to do well in the Alchemy experiments, because if you cause the Chaos track to advance, you're making it riskier for everyone!

Also, there are times outside of Alchemy where you will use that special die (it can provide some benefits instead of just Chaos).

Rick L
Rick L's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/22/2016
Thus the extra time in a turn!

Anyway, hopefully it gives an idea of how turns can start taking longer, as you are able to do an Alchemy experiment in addition to your resource gathering, building, and possibly a quick battle.

I kind of want the resourcing & building to continue to be significant in the later game, and not limit it, so mainly I'm thinking it will be best to maximize the player interactions that are available during a turn, in order to make the longer turns enjoyable for everyone.

Battles do that, Sabotage does that, but by having the possibility of a common threat growing, that might really keep everyone's attention focused on each other's turns.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut