When is math too much math?

The best and worst answer to this questions is that it is almost entirely based on how much math your target audience is willing to do. Running playtests with your target should quickly let you know if they think it is too much or just right.

There is math in everything and all board games are theoretically mathematically solvable but this math is obfuscated by components, assigning value to player actions, resource management/manipulation, positive/negative values to board or area control, and so much more!

The main thing that is hard to account for within this math game is the unpredictability of player choices. However, finding and exploiting the dominant strategies in all board games is just a matter of doing this type of "closed" math (Math that is not directly evident to the players in the form of numbers). The type of math we are talking about here is what I will call "open" math, where the numbers and type of math problems are found within the rules and gameplay.

Board games (especially games that are new to the player) take up a lot of room in our short term memory. This means that mathematical operations can only be as heavy as is age appropriate for your target audience if they don't need to remember the numbers after they do the math. One of the dangers in having too much "open" math hinges on usability of the information. If a player can do some math and use that information right away without needed to remember it.

I find that the vast majority of casual board gamers don't like very much "open" math unless there is a visual way to track the totals. This can be things like score tracks and most normal ways of tracking resources. Doing math for end game scoring does not seem to bother anyone because it is normally a one-time event and most players are interested in the totals (unless they per-calculated and know that they will lose). This makes it important to find ways of visually representing the math with components if at all posible.

Tracking resources with cubes is a great example of this "open/closed" math/memory issue and shows a way to make it easy for gamers. You could have the players just remember the number of resources they have and do addition and subtraction each time they gain or spend a resource... but that sort of math/memory exercise is not "fun" and is beyond the capabilities of most people while playing a game.

In your case having a visual way to track the fluctuations in the market might lessen the math workload or at least the memory load. It might also be good to try and move as much math to when it is not the player's turn (in what would otherwise be downtime in the game). That could make it more manageable as they have more time to focus on just the math. I am not sure either will work as I don't fully understand how your game plays or how the information about the market fluctuations is used by the players or whether or not it is hidden information to just that one player or something that all players can know.

One good way to judge or compare the level of math in your game is to look at games that people refer to as "gateway" games. These games will have an "acceptable" level of math for such general audiences. (if you are aiming for a wider general/casual gamer target audience)

If you are targeting Euro gamers or the more hard core gamers in the board game community I don't think the level of math matters all that much as many of those players are already doing quite a bit of "closed" math.

Sorry for the rambling wall of text. I hope that something in this rant is helpful to you in some way.

@BHFuturist

I've found that math becomes less onerous to someone if there's a link between doing the math, and achieving their objectives. Activities like counting pips on dice or counting and collecting paper money become part of the fun of the game due to a thematic and/or success connection. There's also the nebulous concept of "elegance" that's worth mentioning here.

I also prefer small bits of math at a time, as opposed to a massive lump all at once. Adding to a score after completing a successful action, or at specific markers like "end of a round" are more easily digestible. If it takes significant calculations to even begin a round, then you're likely in a training exercise instead of a game (unless you're playing The Campaign for North Africa). To me, that doesn't seem fun, although it can be useful or some kind of teachable moment.

Games that add to player scores a little bit throughout the game help promote player engagement as well as a measure of success for oneself and their opponents. The noted exception of adding everything up at the end of the game is a "work-around" for a big-ass pile of math that no one wants to do, so I tend to avoid that kind of mechanic. I'd prefer to "trickle" it in there, so it's not overwhelming and/or substituting for a climax or dramatic moment that would otherwise be thematically engaging.

I discussed managing frustration in games in a very long (6,000+ words) blog post in 2013

http://pulsiphergamedesign.blogspot.com/2013/01/much-of-game-design-is-m...

Part of that discussion is about arithmetic in games.