"Longer Games Are More Satisfying" Topic

True or false?

Only if they aren't longer because of players playing slowly… :)

My attention span is about two hours. I need to go from set-up to clean-up in that time.

The exact opposite I think. I'm with Coyotepunc!

Not sure about the length of a battle. But a campaign battle is more satisfying.

It takes 30+ minutes to get to the game, so at least 3 hours of game time is needed to make it worth the trip.

Two to three hour sessions.

The group I game with can go from 2-6 hours depending on the scenario.

I used to like all scensrios. Getting more into 1/2 day games. So both…

Having a table you can leave set up is a nice luxury. Many of our games run over 2 or 3 evenings.

Generally true. As always there are exceptions.

I have very fond memories of some two-day games from long ago, but these days I tend to see long games as a sign of something gone wrong. Two hours solo or at a convention is what I shoot for. Up to four hours with friends. The easy way to produce a 6-8 hour game is to take a four hour game and use the wrong rules.

False

True. If the game doesn't last several hours, depending on scenario and context, then it isn't worth setting/planning. I will always make time for my hobbies.

1 Corinthians 13:11

I used to believe in proving my manhood by commanding 1200 figures in TSATF games that dragged on for hours.
Now I realize that such games remove all tactical finesse. What can you do besides pushing masses forward?

Now I have rediscovered the charms of small games. Like I had before I bought those thousands of figures.

Our game night runs from 6 to 10. Giving the first 1/2 hr. to greeting and talking until everyone arrives. So the game is about 3 hrs. long. However, I have played games that last a few days because I can leave everything set up. These are usually with only a couple of people who really can invest the time and are focused enough and enjoy the detailing of each move. These are usually much larger games with many more figures and the ability to bring in re-enforcements.Both are fun.

Only if there are sufficient decision points to fill the time.

If I can only make a meaningful decision once every hour or so, then definitely no.

Any length of time for a game can be enthralling. Or appallingly boring. Depends on a well designed scenario, workable rules, verisimilitude, and camaraderie. Have all of that firing in sync and a long game is great. Time permitting – and the honey-do list status.

That's what she said.

Yes, I like everything to do slowly and long time. ;-)

Not necessarily. I played in an all day Battle group Kursk game recently, it was like pulling teeth. Having lots of decisions to make is what makes for a fun game, length doesn't matter really.

Generally speaking, not true for me.

A game can easily be long because, the system is not adapted to the size of the scenario.
A short, lively, skirmish that GOT to the END, is good.

On the other hand besides dumping most features of the period and edging towards a DBA type of rules, a proper napoleonic battle with 50-200000 men involved cannot be done in a few hours.

>1/2 h less checking uselessly " smart" phones a day and doing something needed instead and you have 3-4+ more for your hobby on week ends.

Games need to reach a coclusion, need not be rushed, need be good loking ( takes time to set up and back) not to be frustrated with.
Well all tastes…

False. We play a lot of scenarios with One Hour Wargames, and it's much more fun to play 2 games of a scenario, changing sides, than one game taking twice as long.

Good rules must kick things along fast – time is a luxury not always available, and slow, over-fiddly rules are a real pain.

3 hours is about my limit, satisfying or not.

In general, I would say false.

As most have pointed out a tactically complex several hour game is fantastic – something like the 2 days of Aspern or Quatre Bras – Ligny would be great for that. The use of your reserves, gradual arrivals and grand tactical decisions would be a real treat (this is why my club still loves campaigns).

Long for the sake of long no – long to try something very big that has lots of decisions yes. Having said that we usually game 3 hours on an evening and 4 during they day due to family and other pressures.

It was true thirty years ago. Not so much any more. Too much going on to spend a couple of days or 12 hours on a game. I do have some fond memories, however.

We try to do games that can be completed in about 2 1/2 hours, but I can leave my table set up if it needs to go longer.

It amazes me that so much ink has been spilled about the "greying of the hobby" and yet a lot of older gamers like massive, complex, lengthy games.

I am a millennial. I can play longer games, but find 1 hour or less to be ideal. If I want to play for three hours, I'll just play multiple games. My attention span is fine, I just hate wasting time with overly complex or needless rules. Abstraction is our friend.

Like legs, a game should be long enough to reach the ground, i.e. suitable for what the game is. A short intense Ganesha Games family of rules battle is satisfying, so is seven hours of Waterloo using another rules set. So I like oysters and snails.

OTOH, seven hours for a skirmish of ten figures against ten figures doesn't work for me, nor is Waterloo getting a decision in an hour.

My weekly group plays a game in 2 to 3 hours ( 6 to 9 PM). Rarely do we play to a real conclusion. We do know who won.

Convention games usually go about 4 hours. Many times it is hard to keep everyone into the game for longer than that.

It all depends on the rules used and the scenario.

As long as things are moving at a reasonable pace and the time is available, long or short are both satisfying.

Depends on the game. But in general, yes they are. Prefer 5 to 6 hours. But it depends on the game.

Considering all the work I put into my games, it had better last five or six hours. Otherwise it is a waste of time.

Sometimes I want a 5 course meal, and other times a light snack. Gaming is the same.

False. Fun games are more satisfying.

I've had 8-hour "first stage" games of a campaign whizz by with enjoyment and I've spent an eternity and a half slogging through 90 minute games.

A two hour game spent sitting idle waiting for your turn, or because you can't get your command to activate, is far more tedious than a four hour game in which you're fully involved for its entire duration.

A vote for longer games. Travel time is a problem however where I live so shorter games are growing in popularity.

We will be looking for a new house this fall and I am defiantly going to look for a space that I can leave a game set up for as a long as I want.

I like both, but if pushed the most memorable take several eveings to play. The long games we play are in general not bigger individual games, some are smaller, some are bigger but they have CONTEXT, you are fighting for a reason bigger than the current engagement. This forces a different complection on your approach to a game, you have a much more convincing set of of goals. Victory points are nothing compared to your own set goals where all of the engagements are part of "hopefully" of your master plan. It generates "Senarios" you could not make convinceing if played in isolation.

Small games are more of a social interation, pleasant but not the great games.

However big games need experts in tactics of the period and preferably experts in the rules, which need to be effectively invisible so that copeing with the more coplex nature of a big game is possible. Long games with inexpert players and complex rules has to be the worst sort of game.

"Longer Games Are More Satisfying"
That's what _she_ said….