Rethinking turn-based games

There are lots of games that follow this model – probably most notably Role selection games like Race for the Galaxy and Puerto Rico – where players are selecting which phases will be performed in a given round, and X-Wing, which has some phases where players alternate actions and some phases that are simultaneous.

Sometimes phasing makes a game easier to play, but depending on how it's implemented, it can make it harder. There is a reason that some publishers, like Stonemaier Games, ONLY accept game submissions that don't have complicated phases – while phasing a round nearly always decreases player downtime, it increases the cognitive load and # of things to keep track of over duration of play.

Not necessarily – I think you just have to be very careful about how many phases you implement and how clear it is what is done in each phase. So really just something to watch for in playtesting

My most recent design, Causality, uses phased rounds (2 phases with actions + scoring and cleanup) and is light-medium weight, ~60mins with 4p.

Something i've seen is some games is the 'copy' effect. In tiny epic galaxys you can copy another players action by spending a resource (culture i think it was). This is a nice and simple bit of iteration which break the igougo rule (tho it can be a pain with asking after every action 'anyone copying this.?').

MTG has the whole instant/sorcery thing which is easily the best aspect about the game, instants typically cost more for the effect than sorcery's. Prehaps one way to ease the load would be to have a simple phase order but allow the player to break it and make plays out of order by spending a resource, that way it can only be done a certain amount or whenever they have enough of said resource... also allows you to control how much that happens in a given game.

I think the complexity load can be game or phase dependent. It shifts the mindset a bit from grand strategic to reactive. I think you also have to consider what happens when "that guy" is playing...i.e. the overly cautious, slow mover. In groups I've been in, in a turn base game you do other things while they plod. If it is a snappier, phase based, game then it can be torturous because the rythm goes all funky.

Sometimes it just emerges in turn based rules where everyone builds at the same time; in my all time favorite game, Advanced Civilization, that convention amongst experienced players can cut hours off the game.

Playtest is key here.
If things are too complicated for other players. You need to cut away things. Or you need to apply more structure.

It is clear to my players what comes first, second, third erc.

And there is only one phase that is absolute chaos if players want to. But it is simply shouting their actions. Then the order is already decided and they work down that list.

At first glance it should not have worked. But with playtesting it showed that it did. And it is actually fun too to play like that.

If you are afraid that the structure of your phases is to complicated. Can you play "tutorial" games with just 1 or a few phases?
It also helps explaining them like that. I had some single and co-op missions designed that explain my phases and actions. (still need to rewrite them though). But that way is a good way in introducing new players.

Can your game work with less phases? I mean, leave some phases out.

I can leave out all phases except for the action phase. And I can leave out all possible actions except for the move and attack action. Better yet, I could strip the game down to a tower war. Which is done in mere minutes. Just to explain how combat works at the basics.

In short.
See if you can strip down the phases or to 1 phase. And see if things of the game are explained. See if there is a game that way. Then apply structure in building from there. Does this leave you with a tutorial?

If so, you have notching to worry about complexity. The game just takes a bit longer to learn.
If it is too long for your target audience, only then you need to reduce the "complexity". It doesn't have to be the number of phases. Maybe some of the individual phases can be cut up into more phases. Or being reduced to a simpler phase.

"Quantum mechanic the game"

You talked about points allocated. Can you do something with the amount?
Other then that, the number of players too can be adjusted for a fast play test.

If an minimum of points (desirable) and players (2) shows too much complexity, you simply know that with more players and/or points, the complexity might go up.

Try the minimum in a play test. Then see what happens if you double the points. And what happens when you double the players.

Twilight Imperium 3 & 4 use that system and yes it is annoying.

The objective was to reduce downtime and keep players engaged in the game.

But for me it has the annoying effect of making your forget what you wanted to do. Or sometimes you are lost in the turn flow and don't know who's turn it is.

I am more a "do and forget" style of person, this is why this technique does not work well for me.

Still, now that you mention it, it could be less painfull in a 2 player game. Else, having specific available counter actions during your opponent's turn could be a solution to react to his choices.

Right now, I am working on a "simultaneously" mechanic.
And maybe it might give you a new idea.
The idea behind it is that there is no tracking of who is going to do what. It will come when it is the players turn to do action.

A player may move or attack.
If the player attacks, another player may defend.

Whether it is move, attack or defend. The selected units are exhausted after that. Kinda like vanilla combat in MtG.

The players will continue until all units are exhausted. OR all players have refused to play something after each other.

I think time and complexity complaints kill off creativity. Like writing a book, you should unbind your creative ideas and get them out raw. Then comes editing.

P.S. Simultaneous movement are discussed in 1962 Wargame books. Write out your orders. It pretty easy. Wargaming is odd with the philosophers, critics, etc. I read many threads over the last decade, where written order is poo poo'ed as to time consuming etc. Then hilariously, a system came out where you WRITE OP ORDERS. And tons of people LOVED IT. The absolutely identical thing to the 1962 book. How does that happen? I think because 1962 book was not illustrated ad came off stuffy, maybe?

Combat: All combat effects are applied at end of phase. Yes this requires allot of markers. Perfection is strived for, never achieved. It works fine.