"Top 5 Causes for Slow Games" Topic

You were asked – TMP link

Trying to think through what – other than players, of course – actually slows down a wargame. Understand, I'm not looking to run down particular rules sets, but I'd like some opinions about mechanisms which tend to drag out games.

14% of the votes: "overly complicated mechanisms"
9%: "long march before units come into contact"
8%: "poorly laid-out charts/QRS"
7%: "too many modifiers"
6%: "poorly designed sequence of play"

I would say all of the above

Rules lawyers.

I'd add "too many toys on the table".

I would say all of the above

"All of the above" was one of the poll options, and only 2% chose it. But "all of the above" was a lot of things, much more than listed in this OP.

Yes, too many toys on the table is both a curse and a blessing.

Time in games can be exhausted in many ways:

'9%: "long march before units come into contact"

This is a particular bugbear of mine, too many games exhaust an hour of game-time with players moving their figs to the line of contact where they were always going to meet.

I suspect it's one of those things that punters expect in a game is and left-over DNA from Featherstone or earlier – a games start with figs on your edge of the board and slowly advance from there.

The antidote is available in may rules – multi-moving, setting up near the table centre-line and integrated rules for reserves and surprises and so on.

Badly laid out or incomplete rules play slowly as you scramble to find the bits you need to advance the game.

In a sense this is self-regulating, because if the organisation is so bad people will simply not play the rules.

Player time to make decisions also eats much game time, which is a double-edged sword as a lot of interesting decision points makes for an immersive and fun game.

(So the game designer needs to avoid setting up analysis paralysis traps.)

Playing to a chess-clock would improve many games but not all game sequences lend themselves to it. And many players are surprisingly resistant to it.

Regards

David F Brown

"Playing to a chess-clock…"
I can sort of sympathize with those that are resistant. They like to think about their next move. They fail to consider people like me that want to roll some dice, NOW!!!

When only one player can do something. Everyone sits around waiting for them to finish their movement and, usually complicated combat rules, to combat. I was once in a game where I moved one turn to get into the city and then another turn to get my guys out of a van. That is all I did over a 2 and 1/2 hour period.

Too many modifiers is a big one as far as I'm concerned, but it seems like the biggest drag on our games is players with their noses in their phones

Unfamiliarity with the rules is a big one with us.

'9%: "long march before units come into contact"

This is a particular bugbear of mine, too many games exhaust an hour of game-time with players moving their figs to the line of contact where they were always going to meet.

The comment implies a very steriale game. If the march is always going to the same place it implies no free will on the part of the commanders, they have not been given any freedom of decision. More like moving into a die rolling excercise.

I will agree toy numbers need to depend on available time and player expertise, both in the rules and the scenario. With less than an ideal player set, smaller is better, also even if a bit unrealistic, limiting number of diffrent troop types available to ease the less able into the game.

We on occation have limited the scope of the rules, restricting flexability of responce again to prevent overload of the more inexpert players. However this can be an issue if the players begin to think they have mastered it all not just some of it.

"down and welded" comes to mind. Trainee pilots learning to fly still have to repeat the check list for underarriage "down and welded" so the issue is in there head from day one. Again its a dilema for the designer of the game.

Analysis paral;asis again implies poor player standards, so the scenario inevitable needs to be dumbed down for poor or inexpert players.

Analysis paralysis is something some people just suffer from. They are incapable of playing fast. It isn't because they are poor players or don't know the rules. It is often because they like to consider all options before deciding anything.

Usually for our group it's bizarre and unusual situations that players get themselves into! For example, what do the rules say when I have a column of disorganized infantry in a town block that gets flanked by another column who just went disorganized when coming out of a forest, or something weird like that. Everyone has to open the rules, cross check the rules for fighting in towns with who knows what else, and you end up wasting 20 minutes for a unit that will probably get routed off the board anyway! Gamers being gamers, they will try all kinds of things that actual formations/units would never think of doing, which in turn creates a lot of situations that the rules writer thought would never happen!

I've run big table games & D&D for decades & often there's 1 or 2 players who would rather talk than play & the guy that doesn't know the rules & wants me or another player to tell him what to do, or the guy that's on his phone or talking to his friend at the next table when it's not his turn to make his move, or a guy who brings his lunch to the table & intends to eat it during the game. Then there's the guy that considers himself an expert on the battle or the period & wants to give a lecture rather than play.

Mad Anthony Jones – How many rulesets do you have to learn? 1 or 2 every 15 years does not seem to me to be a big number for me. Oryou one of those that changes regularly for no apparent reason but dislikes readoing them before you play. If everybody reads them before you play, which is just sensible, than it should not be too bigger drag.