Friday Night Shots – Game Length

(This was supposed to go out last night, but instead it’s going out tonight. Pretend it’s still Friday, ok?)

It’s another Friday, and it’s vacation time!

Yes, I am off of work for an entire month, not returning until July 31.

But since it is Friday, let’s belly up to the bar and talk about another game-related topic that doesn’t require a whole lot of brain power (or coherency).

That subject would be game length.

What kind of game length are you good for?

I struggle with this one quite a bit.

But first, let’s take a break.

And we’re back!

(I will continue to use that joke until the world ends…or somebody gives me a lot of money)

Game length can be a divisive topic, surprisingly so considering it’s not really a big thing overall.

As gamers, we talk about “fillers,” and then regular games that take a substantial amount of time, either an hour or maybe twelve hours.

There’s a lot of stuff in between!

Of course, some of my regular readers are wargamers, so their median game time might be 4-6 hours.

That sounds insane to me, but I haven’t played many wargames at this point, so I’m sure my thought process can be changed.

One of the things I’m famous for (when I say “famous,” I mean people who read this blog, so probably “a few people know me” is more apt) is talking about “lunch time games.”

That’s because a big part of my gaming is done at lunch at the office. Not a majority by any means, but a substantial amount.

These games (whether they are fillers or just standard 45-60 minute games) fill a great niche not only because they are great games, but they can fit into a smaller period of time.

Like one of my favourites, Space Base!

Though with the current expansions, that game is pushing the limits of 60 minutes.

For the most part, though, it fits the lunchtime period really well.

There are also plenty of card games that fit that too, with shorter play times that let you actually get through multiple games at the same time.

Like No Thanks. This is a classic of the genre, and one that I still enjoy, though we don’t play it as much as we used to.

We should rectify that.

A lot of people really like these short games, sometimes because they are also easy to play and thus easy to teach your hesitant victims co-workers to try them out.

And they’re perfect for the “we’ve ordered our brunch, let’s play a game while we’re waiting for it to come” moments during game days. Or winding down after a huge brain-burning game.

For me, though, the sweet spot if there are no other factors involved is the 1-2 hour game. Many of my favourite Garphill Games entries are like that.

Like Architects of the West Kingdom, though adding both expansions is increasing the play time for that game as well, maybe to two and a half hours.

I love a good, crunchy, 90-minute game. It exercises my brain but isn’t overwhelming.

If I have time, though, I’m not averse to a 3 hour game, though 4 hours is kind of pushing it except in rare circumstances.

As long as the game is engaging, I’m there for it!

For me, the thing about game length is the never-ending internal battle in my head and my heart between getting a good, meaty game played and having multiple play experiences in the same sitting.

You can kind of see that in my monthly gaming reports, where I talk about how many plays I have. Like June’s gaming, where I played 15 games 20 times.

I really like these experiences. I like new to me games (obviously) and I want to maximize both new experiences as well as revisiting older experiences. That’s why I keep track of my plays and why I pay attention to how many games I play in a year.

But am I robbing myself of great experiences that just take longer? What about a good 6-8 hour game like Twilight Imperium?

I see conventions as a great way to get a large number of game experiences in. In years where I’ve played 110-120 games, sometimes the 2-4 conventions I go to make up 20-25 of those games.

I’ve always thought “a convention would be a great place to get that 8-hour game of Here I Stand in” (or maybe one other game I’ve been eyeing that doesn’t have as much negotiation in it).

But then I get to the convention (or am looking at the schedule beforehand) and I back away from it.

I can get 3-4 games in during the time that game would take!

One of these days I’m going to take the plunge.

Maybe at Bottoscon, since that is a wargame convention where my friends and I play mainly regular games.

I mentioned above that wargamers are a different breed when it comes to game length.

I’ve heard Grant & Alexander of the Players’ Aid (or even the back of some GMT Games boxes) mention that a game is “quick-playing” and then when I look at it, it’s a 4-5 hour game.

“Regular” gamers and wargamers have differently-skewed definitions of “quick,” I believe.

I think, for me, I need to get my feet wet with some tactical wargames, like I’ve been doing with Combat Commander and Commands & Colors. Games that could take up to 3 hours, but that’s usually the maximum, and often less time.

I am dipping my toe in, acclimatizing myself to the length.

Last year’s Bottoscon, I did play one of the (shorter) scenarios of Almoravid, clocking in at 3.5 hours and it was a lot of fun.

I think I just have to jump in at some point, tell myself that the long experience will be worth it.

I can do this. I can play a 5-6 hour game. And enjoy it.

I know I can.

But my preferred game length is still going to be 1-3 hours.

I know I can guess for some of you, but what’s your preferred game length?

And what length are you willing to play?

Do you hate short games because they don’t engage you?

Are you afraid of long games? Or just find them tedious?

Let me know in the comments.

And thanks for your one day’s patience.

This post brought to you by Captain Morgan’s Spiced Rum, the letter ŋ, and the number 12345, the perfect PIN