Exploring the impact of game state changes on the ability of players to have a strategy and plan their turns in advance. The difference between strategic vs. tactical player experiences.
This exactly mirrors my experience playing Castle Combo by Catch Up Games. Each player is completing a tableau of nine cards from castle and village cards, and the initial expectation is that you look at the cards coming up and plan how you want to build your tableau. But playing with four people was an exercise in strategic frustration, as the cards you wanted kept being taken or buried! In the end I had to literally not look at the exposed decks until it was my turn, playing super-tactically!
Looks like BGG agrees with you. For community player count, it says best at 2. For four players it's mixed but still recommended. At 5 players 52%+ say it is not recommended.
Also, trying to plan a strategy only to have it dashed every round is (for me) incredibly frustrating. At that point I'd rather just play a purely tactical game, which as I noted, can be a really fun time too. Not everything needs to be strategic.
Interestingly, I tend to prefer more tactical gameplay in boardgames than strategic, because with very strategic, turnbased games it feels like you end up waiting forever for your turn to come, since everyone's thinking 5-layers deep ahead of each decision. And the higher the player count, the worse it gets, since you quickly find yourself waiting ~10 minutes every round - which, bringing up the parallelism with TTRPGs, feels like the average combat in a game like D&D.
That's a real issue! Deep strategy and wide decision space is fertile ground for severe analysis paralysis. If there isn't enough planning/action to keep non-active players interested, that can be brutal downtime.
And although there are many ways to mitigate or solve it, in the worst cases D&D combat is just sitting around until the next time you cast Eldritch Blast. 😂
I'd say my favourite mix is probably 60:40 Tactical:Strategic. Enough strategy that you can plan out your turns 'in principle' but not exactly.
For me Brass: Birmingham is a great example of this ratio - you can decide what industries you'll prioritise early on, but the exact means to carry out your plan requires the flexibility and adaptability that comes with the tactical, state change of the board turn by turn.
Innovation on the other hand is 90:10 Tactical:Strategic and is my favourite board game (but only at 2 players)! The game state changes so quickly and rapidly. At 2 players that's fine, but at higher player counts it becomes too chaotic.
I need to play Brass! I've been told by so many people that it would be my ideal board game. But I don't own it and have yet to get it played somehow.
Also, agree on the mix. I love having what I'd call a "general direction" to my actions, but also want the other players actions to impact me in meaningful ways. Not so much impact though that it completely invalidates my direction/strategy. It's a hard mix to achieve, but great when it happens!
We love The Hand of the King, a Game of Thrones card game. Played probably hundreds of time with my partner. Played once or twice with more than tow players but it quickly became clear that the strategic aspects that we enjoy just go out the window. Two player all the way for that one 🙂
I hope readers don't think that I dislike In Too Deep. I love the theme and the game itself is really interesting. It's a fun one, but just not at the highest player count... and that's OK! The Hand of the King sounds similar in that regard.
As a cyberpunk fan, I'd love to play a TTRPG based on the setting.
It's hard to make cyberpunk unique and interesting, and I think the "hook and control" part is something I haven't seen before. (I'm sure some readers will now correct me that it's been done before. 😂)
The rulebook includes this in the overview: "Remember, it’s not you committing crimes. These are determined Syndicate operatives that would be engaging in these acts anyway, and your presence in their minds only nudges them towards one behaviour or another. Even so, it’s going to be a moral struggle to be involved in their trangressions; it’s up to you how you conduct your mission, and how close you’re willing to go to the edge of right and wrong in the pursuit of your goal. If you’re not careful, you may even find yourself rooting for the Syndicate to succeed."
i voted for highly strategic, as i have always enjoyed that kind of long-term planning in games, especially in board games, card games, and video games! That said, and drawing more from my TTRPG experience, i can certainly enjoy tactical games a whole lot, too – but i completely agree that turns have to be quick in that case ^^ probably part of why i've found myself enjoying d&d less and less ^^" though, thinking about it, there are probably things that i can do to help that. i do enjoy hearing all the planning from the other players, but most often that has been silent in my group – i'll try to encourage talking out loud about the decisions, that should honestly help me enjoy the games a lot more :) thank you for this article – thinking these things through really helped me clarify some things for myself there!
D&D can certainly go that way in some cases. I've read many ways to mitigate or solve the downtime and strategy-breaking parts of combat, and I think those methods would work. Your suggestion to "think out loud" is one of the simplest and effective ones that I've heard. That keeps everyone engaged during the potential downtime.
At a high level you nailed it: In a tactical game, turns need to be fast because there isn't much to do when it's not your turn.
This exactly mirrors my experience playing Castle Combo by Catch Up Games. Each player is completing a tableau of nine cards from castle and village cards, and the initial expectation is that you look at the cards coming up and plan how you want to build your tableau. But playing with four people was an exercise in strategic frustration, as the cards you wanted kept being taken or buried! In the end I had to literally not look at the exposed decks until it was my turn, playing super-tactically!
Looks like BGG agrees with you. For community player count, it says best at 2. For four players it's mixed but still recommended. At 5 players 52%+ say it is not recommended.
Also, trying to plan a strategy only to have it dashed every round is (for me) incredibly frustrating. At that point I'd rather just play a purely tactical game, which as I noted, can be a really fun time too. Not everything needs to be strategic.
Interestingly, I tend to prefer more tactical gameplay in boardgames than strategic, because with very strategic, turnbased games it feels like you end up waiting forever for your turn to come, since everyone's thinking 5-layers deep ahead of each decision. And the higher the player count, the worse it gets, since you quickly find yourself waiting ~10 minutes every round - which, bringing up the parallelism with TTRPGs, feels like the average combat in a game like D&D.
That's a real issue! Deep strategy and wide decision space is fertile ground for severe analysis paralysis. If there isn't enough planning/action to keep non-active players interested, that can be brutal downtime.
And although there are many ways to mitigate or solve it, in the worst cases D&D combat is just sitting around until the next time you cast Eldritch Blast. 😂
I'd say my favourite mix is probably 60:40 Tactical:Strategic. Enough strategy that you can plan out your turns 'in principle' but not exactly.
For me Brass: Birmingham is a great example of this ratio - you can decide what industries you'll prioritise early on, but the exact means to carry out your plan requires the flexibility and adaptability that comes with the tactical, state change of the board turn by turn.
Innovation on the other hand is 90:10 Tactical:Strategic and is my favourite board game (but only at 2 players)! The game state changes so quickly and rapidly. At 2 players that's fine, but at higher player counts it becomes too chaotic.
I need to play Brass! I've been told by so many people that it would be my ideal board game. But I don't own it and have yet to get it played somehow.
Also, agree on the mix. I love having what I'd call a "general direction" to my actions, but also want the other players actions to impact me in meaningful ways. Not so much impact though that it completely invalidates my direction/strategy. It's a hard mix to achieve, but great when it happens!
We love The Hand of the King, a Game of Thrones card game. Played probably hundreds of time with my partner. Played once or twice with more than tow players but it quickly became clear that the strategic aspects that we enjoy just go out the window. Two player all the way for that one 🙂
Sounds like a similar effect!
I hope readers don't think that I dislike In Too Deep. I love the theme and the game itself is really interesting. It's a fun one, but just not at the highest player count... and that's OK! The Hand of the King sounds similar in that regard.
Definitely sounds like an original theme! Crime is fun (as we know know 😉) and throw in mind-hijacking and you've definitely got a winning idea!
As a cyberpunk fan, I'd love to play a TTRPG based on the setting.
It's hard to make cyberpunk unique and interesting, and I think the "hook and control" part is something I haven't seen before. (I'm sure some readers will now correct me that it's been done before. 😂)
Stealing going on at two levels, for sure ^^
The rulebook includes this in the overview: "Remember, it’s not you committing crimes. These are determined Syndicate operatives that would be engaging in these acts anyway, and your presence in their minds only nudges them towards one behaviour or another. Even so, it’s going to be a moral struggle to be involved in their trangressions; it’s up to you how you conduct your mission, and how close you’re willing to go to the edge of right and wrong in the pursuit of your goal. If you’re not careful, you may even find yourself rooting for the Syndicate to succeed."
i voted for highly strategic, as i have always enjoyed that kind of long-term planning in games, especially in board games, card games, and video games! That said, and drawing more from my TTRPG experience, i can certainly enjoy tactical games a whole lot, too – but i completely agree that turns have to be quick in that case ^^ probably part of why i've found myself enjoying d&d less and less ^^" though, thinking about it, there are probably things that i can do to help that. i do enjoy hearing all the planning from the other players, but most often that has been silent in my group – i'll try to encourage talking out loud about the decisions, that should honestly help me enjoy the games a lot more :) thank you for this article – thinking these things through really helped me clarify some things for myself there!
D&D can certainly go that way in some cases. I've read many ways to mitigate or solve the downtime and strategy-breaking parts of combat, and I think those methods would work. Your suggestion to "think out loud" is one of the simplest and effective ones that I've heard. That keeps everyone engaged during the potential downtime.
At a high level you nailed it: In a tactical game, turns need to be fast because there isn't much to do when it's not your turn.
Thank you for your comment! :)