Take the 2-minute tour ×
Board & Card Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who like playing board games, designing board games or modifying the rules of existing board games. It's 100% free, no registration required.

People quickly grow out of games like Candy Land and Tic-Tac-Toe. They don't have any meaningful decisions to make. Then there are games like Monopoly, that have a few meaningful decisions to make, but those decisions are spread out over a game that will take a long time to end. Even popular gateway games like Settlers of Catan can have very long game lengths (2-3 hours), with most of the important decisions made at the start of the game, and only a few later (who to steal from, or what/who to trade with). On the other hand, Dominion has very short game times, with very compact meaningful decisions.

If you examine the top ranked games, would you find that the majority of them have a high meaningful decisions per hour density?

Does too great a density decrease the fun of a game because of analysis paralysis?

share|improve this question
2  
Perhaps there's something quantifiable here - I'd certainly be interested to know it - but surely there's also a ton of subjectivity. Different people like different amounts of thinking and decisions, and also appreciate many, many other aspects of games. –  Jefromi Feb 2 '12 at 5:46
1  
It's an excellent question, even if the answer is "Usually Not" because of the subjectivity involved. –  aramis Feb 2 '12 at 17:09
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 6 down vote accepted

Meaningful decisions per hour is one of several contributory factors, not the only one.

Other important components of "fun", at least for me, include:

  • high ratio of meaningful decisions to total decisions
  • Interesting choices to make in those decisions
  • Interesting setting/backstory
  • visual appeal
  • link of setting/backstory/theme to mechanics.

It's important that meaningful decisions also be interesting - I find poker rather boring unless played for money (rather than just points), as the decisions are meaningful but boring.

Note also, burying meaningful decisions amidst many minimally meaningful decisions renders the senses numb to the meaningful ones.

Likewise, I'd rather play a good game with pretty pieces than a great game with ugly ones. I could easily make a Tsuro set, for example, but it wouldn't look nor feel as nice as the "real thing," and hence would get played less.

The setting and theme, if presented well and with mechanics that tie to it, makes a game more enjoyable.

share|improve this answer
    
Good answer! A game's set-dressing and look-and-feel directly aids meaningful decision-making. Intuitive metaphors for game actions and easy-to-read board states do a lot to keep the minutiae of handling from overwhelming the "meaningful" part of a decision. –  Alex P Feb 2 '12 at 16:06
    
+1. One item I would add is variability; this can be both in terms of situations that the game throws at you, and in choices you and/or your fellow players make. Although that might be part of your point of "interesting choices". –  Erik P. Feb 3 '12 at 5:14
    
@ErikP. Making the same decisions every time is not interesting, so yes, variability is somewhat subsumed. –  aramis Feb 3 '12 at 7:08
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.