TBM: Ep 19 script

In an attempt to transition out of hiatus, I will be posting the scripts of my Thinking Beyond Mechanisms segment. I don't plan to edit them, so there may be some differences between the audio and written versions. Take the audio as the correct version.

AP

Welcome to Thinking Beyond Mechanisms, an in depth look at the other aspects of game design, the segment that looks at some of the theory of board game design that goes beyond what typically gets covered when we learn how to design games. My name is Sarah Shipp and today I want to talk about analysis paralysis.

Analysis paralysis or AP is a term used to describe lengthy player turns during which the player spends the majority of the time agonizing over which choices to make. Analysis paralysis is a player behavior but like all player behaviors it can be mitigated with intentional design choices. 

First, let’s look at a turn so that we know what levers we can adjust. At the start of a turn players must first parse the game state. This includes taking in the graphic information as well as which rules apply to the actions available to the player. Once the player has determined the available actions, they will then proceed to analyze how those actions will impact their chances of winning. This often involves a certain amount of mental math to ensure maximum return on investment. Once the best choice is found, the player then takes the turn. 

Analysis paralysis is often associated with heavy economic strategy games. However, I find that many lighter games, such as pick and pass drafting games also tend to see AP in players. The key to AP showing up seems to be tied primarily the number of options a player has to parse when making a choice. 

There are two primary levers for designers to pull to speed up player decisions. One is information parsing and the other is computation. I have long held the belief that most games can have their perceived difficulty reduced by better graphic design and player aids. Making the available options to players clear and easily parsed leads to quicker rules instruction, smoother gameplay, and ideally shorter turns. This is one area where mass market games are probably better on average than hobby games. Rules confusion is simply not tolerated in mass market games. For hobby games, the goal should be to always present vital or easily forgotten information in the most accessible way possible. 

In addition to clear graphic design and player aids, there are other ways to help improve how long it takes players to parse a turn. Breaking up actions into different phases allows players to consider more limited options within a framework that dictates what sorts of choices they can make at any given point. If certain options regularly trip players up, these can be separated out from other actions in a turn to spotlight the tricky choices. For example, many games have separate build phases or combat phases. The implementation of phases is like asking a child a series of yes or no questions rather than asking them one open ended question. You still get the same results but you get there faster. 

Another approach is to reduce the overall number of action options in a turn. This will probably result in reducing the number of actions, but in order to speed up turns the reduction needs to be with the number of options. Roll and write games that include dice drafting are a good example of of both limiting options and incorporating phases. You have a limited number of options displayed on the dice from which to choose. Once you have finished drafting, all players can spend time agonizing how to use their actions simultaneously, thus displacing the analysis paralysis to a more efficient phase of gameplay. If analysis paralysis is unavoidable, simultaneous gameplay is a great option. 

For the other major lever, we have to look at turn computation. The more transparent end game scoring is, the more players will be prone to math-ing out their turns. I’m not particularly a fan of hidden scoring conditions, although that is one viable option to consider. I am more inclined toward hiding numeric value and having win conditions that are not point based. Race style win conditions have an easier time hiding a game’s inherent math than victory point games. Even a mixture of the two can often obfuscate the math enough to reduce AP. For instance, racing to unlock various goal posts can act as a subsystem in a point salad game. 

This is not to say that you are better off avoiding math-forward designs. While I think that you should be circumspect about the amount of math the game requires players to perform, I also think that controlling when players make choices is a more universal approach. 

Lastly, designers work in the arena of player tendencies. We cannot control player behavior. We can only mitigate the frequency of certain behaviors. When playtesting, focus on players that fit your game’s target audience because different audiences will display different tendencies. More casual gamers might struggle more with an analysis paralysis based on decision fatigue whereas heavy gamers will exhibit a more computational paralysis. 

Analysis paralysis is perhaps better thought of as a symptom that could have a number of causes, only one of which is potentially poor social skills on the player’s part. For the rest, designers have a varied toolbox to promote better pacing of gameplay. 

For more ways of thinking beyond mechanisms, you can visit my blog at shipp board games dot blog spot dot com or catch future episodes of thinking beyond mechanisms on ludology.