Thoughts on player turn order advantage

I'm interested in discussing this issue in general, but also for how it applies to my game specifically.

So as an example, I've been using an "end of turn" roll to generate a bonus resource for everyone. Basically, Player 1 ends their turn by rolling a D6, and each player gets a resource that corresponds to the number rolled. Since Player 1's turn is over, he can't use that resource until his next turn, but the following players CAN.

The only thing I don't like about that is that everyone needs to have a table to show what # on the die corresponds to what resource, so that each player gets a different resource than the others. Originally, I had those numbers printed on the board next to each facility, but it tends to confuse people, making them think that is the # of resources they get from placing a worker there.

Alternatively, I could use a custom die with an image of each resource icon, so everyone would get the same resource from the roll.

The end-turn roll works, and it generates bonus resources throughout the game. But what I'm wondering is if this is necessary to compensate for player turn order advantage?

Could I just have each player start with a different amount of resources for the first turn, as I suggested in the previous post? Player 1 starts with zero, but each consecutive player starts with +1 more than the previous player? Is that a simpler rule that's just as effective?

The role idea sounds like a great idea Questccg, I like the concept. It wouldn't work in my current project, since it's designed around "open" turn actions, but might want to use it in the next one!

Some great thoughts & examples from everyone so far - as I've been thinking over all this, it occurred to me that my mechanic that I've been using (end-turn resource roll) might not be doing anything to "balance" player turn advantages after all!

Some games you can prove that turn order makes a difference, like in tic-tac-toe. Some games you can prove that it DOESN'T make a difference, like in Catan, where Player 1 might roll a number that does him no good, but gives everyone else a resource. Of course, you can also argue that it's the turn order of placing settlements at the beginning of Catan that makes all the difference - I don't know if that's been "proven" or if it's still just a theory...

But then there are games that, as polyobsessive points out, you can't really say for sure, and might come down to just how players feel about it.

My early thoughts were that in a game where resources are fairly consistent, player 1 will be the first person each round of turns to be able to reap the benefits of the previous turn.

So as a mental exercise, if Player 1 and Player 4 both play a game really well, and progress pretty evenly, let's say by round 10 of their turns, they will each be ready to win the game, based on the progress made during round 9.

Since Player 1 starts round 10, he's going to win. Should the game have a mechanic that gives player 4 a slightly better chance of winning the game in round 9? Or should the game provide enough interference mechanics to allow player 4 to "create" their own opportunity to win one round of turns earlier than Player 1 (and players 2 & 3 for that matter)?

I know every game is going to be different, and have different interference mechanics, different amounts of luck, luck mitigation, or anything else. But, as a design theory, what seems best to you?

I chose to start this thread under "Design Theory" because I'm not sure if one way of balancing is better than another, or if balancing mechanics always works​ the way intended. Sometimes it can be really hard to say how much this factors in.

Anyway, I realized that by doing an end of turn roll, to allow player 4 to start turn 1 with a little boost doesn't really change anything - player 1 will start turn 1 empty handed, but they will accumulate resources from the other player rolls, so by the beginning of turn 2, they have a boost of their own, PLUS they reap the benefits of whatever progress they began in their previous turn!

Does that make sense? I think all that mechanic has been doing is just speeding up the game a tiny bit lol!

I think I've been "theorizing" too much about this - I mainly wanted to figure out if I could either simplify or eliminate a rule, and I think the game might be balanced enough with interference mechanics and character abilities that no one will feel disadvantaged by turn order.

Well, gotta go play it & see!

Those are some good mechanics to smooth out any initial advantages Frank - even though every game is different, it's important to find a simple, elegant way to make everyone feel that they have a fair start in a competitive game. Even in a track race, runners start at different positions in the different lanes to compensate for the different circumferences of the lanes.

I don't know if my game even has an issue with any advantage for the first player. After a few turns, everyone has completely forgotten who "player 1" is, and no one has complained or even brought up the possibility of an​y advantage over the course of approximately 24 play tests. It usually takes 20 turns or so before players can win, and by then, a lot of things have happened in the game.

I'm just looking at this in "theory", because as was mentioned in one of Gabe's podcasts, your game will get a whole lot more "play-testing" when hundreds or thousands of people buy your game! Do I want them finding a bunch of flaws that I missed?

In theory, in a 4 player game, if player 4 wins, everyone had an equal number of turns. But if Player 1 wins, he had 1 turn more than everyone else.

But does that matter? If other players think player 1 is getting ahead as the game progresses, they will focus their interference on him, to slow him down, right?

Still, there have been a few games where Player 1 was ready to do their "final experiment" and win the game in the same round of turns that player 2 would've been ready. But player 1 was successful and won! No hard feelings there from anyone, just the inevitable comment that "aw, I was so close! If you had failed your experiment I was ready to try!"

It's a fun race to the finish, but there's always that "what if I had my turn first" thought in the back of my mind.

I may craft a simple alternate rule where, if a player is ready to make their final attempt, they place a token to indicate it, and the remaining players get to finish out their turns, each able to place their token if they are also ready to make their final attempt. Then if there are others ready, there would be a brief "showdown" to see who wins the chance to go first. That way, everyone has the same # of turns to try to get ready, and the turn order for the final experiment, in this case, would be determined by using what you have accumulated to win the first try.

That's an idea for the test table for sure, but I still see it as most likely an optional rule.