Skip to Content
 

'Pricing' mechanics in terms of set-up time

1 reply [Last post]
Thu, 06/07/2018 - 16:23
JamesDN
Offline
Joined: 05/03/2018

After playing Ticket-to-Ride Pennsylvania, I wrote a post about the amount of set-up time created by the way the game resolves players who are tied for most shares (the major feature of the expansion is competing to own shares in railway companies).

The concept is it gives you a relatively precise way to 'price' mechanics, at least as far as set-up goes. I.e. if a given mechanic provides X benefit and it costs Y in set-up time (e.g. +3 minutes) we can judge whether or not it's worth the additional set-up.

This relatively straightforward with set-up because it's generally regarded as a good that shorter is better (even if that's not always achievable) and time is highly measurable. But I was thinking - could this be applied more generally? Are there other aspects of games which are relatively objective we could measure to determine the cost (for players) of introducing mechanics in order to better compare them?

The initial thinking is here, if you're interested:

https://naylorgames.com/2018/06/07/when-is-a-mechanic-worth-the-set-up-t...

Top
Thu, 06/07/2018 - 17:26
#1
let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Restart Factor

I appreciate this kind of assessment of games. It's not simply a matter of efficiency. There's qualitative measure here as well: "Is this game experience worth all the trouble of setting it up in the first place?!?!"

One factor I don't think you accounted for, however, is how quickly one can restart a given game. For example, when I owned Thunderstone I would play solo games almost compulsively, one after another, changing out a handful of heroes or village cards in the tableau. The initial setup was a bit of a chore, but in the space of two hours I could fit in 4 or 5 full, satisfying games. These were solo, of course, but being snowed-in during the winter months it was suitable entertainment for an afternoon.

Meanwhile, I barely ever played Thunderstone with others, simply because the game seemed too short and/or player turns seemed to take too long for the game time to be worth it. In my case, solo was pretty much the only way I played it, and I LOVED it for that experience.

I imagine many gamers discount "small games" because they think they don't have much to offer in terms of a satisfying game experience. However, if even a short game has that dramatic punch or enough surprise leading to its resolution, it might encourage players to go for additional matches of the same game in a single sitting.

I imagine this "restart factor" adds utility to small games that don't have much setup time at all. How do you think ease of restarting might impact games and their cost-benefit ratio, based on the lens of setup time you discuss?

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut