We've all had games that were over before they began, or dragged on interminably.  A lot depends on the specific game, but on average what do you enjoy the most.  Turns/Rounds/Days however you want to measure it.

On average what length gives you the most pleasure?  Or is it true that length doesn't matter? 

20-25 turns

Ozyman wrote:

On average what length gives you the most pleasure?  Or is it true that length doesn't matter? 

 

I see what you did there.

is there a difference between turns/rounds?

weathertop wrote:

is there a difference between turns/rounds?

If there are 4 people playing, then there are 4 turns in a round.

At least, that's what I expect he meant. Hard to speak for someone else's semantics.

Ozyman wrote:

On average what length gives you the most pleasure?  Or is it true that length doesn't matter? 



It really depends on the depth of the map and how many people are jammed into it.

Cramchakle wrote:

weathertop wrote:

is there a difference between turns/rounds?

If there are 4 people playing, then there are 4 turns in a round.

At least, that's what I expect he meant. Hard to speak for someone else's semantics.

That is what I meant, although the wargear history thinks a turn is any roll of the dice or placing units, etc.  I could see a 100 round game being fine for 3 players (i.3. 300 turns), but might seem a drag with 16 players (1600 turns).

Amidon37 wrote:

20-25 turns

When you finish a game you get a message saying something like "Game X has finished.  It took Y days/hours/minutes and you took Z turns."  I prefer that Z in the low 20's.

Yes, there is a lot of variability on this depending on the map and the number of players, but games that go short tend to either be not interesting strategically or depend on a great deal of luck (so I'll play a couple of times, but lose interest), and those that go long are usually a drag.

I just finished a game where I took 77 turns.  Blah.  It'll be a long time before I play that board again.  

I pay attention to how long games last while I'm designing and play-testing my boards.  I aim for well under  20, knowing that the occasional game will go into the deep 20s and beyond.

I definitely don't like it when games go 30+ rounds.   With more than 3 players and a 2-day clock, that's easily a quarter of a year.

Hence the popularity of German style board games with fixed ending times. War of the Roses nicely adopts this aesthetic.

M57 wrote:

With more than 3 players and a 2-day clock, that's easily a quarter of a year.

I just like it when players play their turns quickly irregardless of how many days they're given.  I see the days allowed as an "insurance" policy for when things come up in life, but I think under normal circumstances most players should be able to take their turns within 12-24 hours.

If people are playing their turns relatively quickly and the game is engaging then I don't mind if the rounds are few or many.  What I don't like, however, is when one player is holding up a game yet when going to their profile page and current games list you can see that they're around and playing their other games... Especially if there is not a whole lot for them to think about in the game in question and they're just delaying the inevitable.  If it's a tense competitive game they're holding up though I'll give them a pass because they could be thinking about their strategy.

Korrun wrote:

Hence the popularity of German style board games with fixed ending times. War of the Roses nicely adopts this aesthetic.

There are not that many pure designs around that all but guarantee finite game length, but there are a number of designer features that promote it - scaling cards and a good assortment of choke-points are examples. One of the newest features which promises to make an impact in this area is Victory Conditions.

One would think that the more epic boards would necessarily play longer, but a quick look at the charts for Colossal Crusade or Civil War doesn't bear that theory out.

M57 wrote:

One would think that the more epic boards would necessarily play longer, but a quick look at the charts for Colossal Crusade or Civil War doesn't bear that theory out.

Fog can make a drastic difference in the number of rounds of a game (although it shouldn't be a silver bullet for Board Designers IMO).

berickf wrote:

M57 wrote:

With more than 3 players and a 2-day clock, that's easily a quarter of a year.

I just like it when players play their turns quickly irregardless of how many days they're given.  I see the days allowed as an "insurance" policy for when things come up in life, but I think under normal circumstances most players should be able to take their turns within 12-24 hours.

If people are playing their turns relatively quickly and the game is engaging then I don't mind if the rounds are few or many.  What I don't like, however, is when one player is holding up a game yet when going to their profile page and current games list you can see that they're around and playing their other games... Especially if there is not a whole lot for them to think about in the game in question and they're just delaying the inevitable.  If it's a tense competitive game they're holding up though I'll give them a pass because they could be thinking about their strategy.

+1

Yertle wrote:

M57 wrote:

One would think that the more epic boards would necessarily play longer, but a quick look at the charts for Colossal Crusade or Civil War doesn't bear that theory out.

Fog can make a drastic difference in the number of rounds of a game (although it shouldn't be a silver bullet for Board Designers IMO).

Agreed, I stopped playing non-fog because the stalemates got boring.

I, for one, am very quick to push for termination if it's clear a stalemate has been reached. For the most part, people seem to be amenable to the idea.