Analysis Paralysis

Post by: Grant Rodiek

A few pals were fretting over game group peers with analysis paralysis this morning. I wanted to write about the behavior as well as how you as a designer can work to limit it in your designs.

I don’t tolerate much analysis paralysis in my game groups. Honestly, it just doesn’t match my personality at all. I’m not impatient, but I do consider myself very decisive in my play and life. I pick a direction and I go. As soon as I find out I’m wrong, I redirect. Furthermore, I want to win when I play games, but not so much that I’m going to send my friends racing for their phones. I also like to see what happens, because sometimes that’s more fun than winning.

What is analysis paralysis? I define analysis paralysis, or AP, as when a player spends an unnecessary amount of time to make a decision in a game to the hindrance of the enjoyment of others playing the game.

I once took Blockade (which is now Sol Rising) to a prototype event. At this point the game was painfully simple and a player’s turn mostly entailed:

  • Choose which squadron to move (which was limited, so it was only 1-3 choices)
  • Choose where to move them (also limited by engines)
  • Choose a target to fire at (usually quite obvious or simple)
  • Roll dice

Essentially, reasonable players often took their turn in a minute or less. One gentlemen at this prototype event spent 45 minutes taking his turn. 45 minutes was typically the length of the entire game. The result of him doing this was that the other 3 players were entirely disengaged, bored, on their phones. I finally just thanked everyone for their help, told them I had the data I needed, and swept the game into a box.

A second example may be useful. Once, in a casual work league of Magic: The Gathering, a co-worker spent 15 minutes deciding which land to play on his first turn. I don’t know if you’ve ever played Magic, but a first turn is often a matter of seconds. It is often:

  • Play Mountain
  • Maybe tap Mountain to play first creature
  • “Your turn.”

In this case, my opponent spent 15 minutes, played his mountain, though a moment longer, DIDN’T PLAY anything, then said “your turn.” I never played him again.

Why is analysis paralysis bad? Games are meant to be a fun, multi-person shared experience. Games should be social and full of moments of interesting decisions, surprise, and tension.

One of the biggest threats to a board game and the experience are disengaged players. Smart phones, side conversations that don’t involve others, or distracted, disinterested play. If someone is spending an inordinate amount of time making a decision that doesn’t involve anyone else, this leads to distracted play. This will kill the experience. It can be perceived as a pretty selfish and rude way to interact. In a way, it’s like dominating a social conversation and not letting anyone else talk.

The only time I think AP is acceptable is in the context of a tournament. If there are stakes on the line, it’s totally fine to take a moment to make your decision. However, I think the best players are able to play decisively and without a million cycles of thought. Put in a chess clock to limit permanent spinning. The Plaid Hat guys did this after they had a few tournaments end in draws due to time.

What causes analysis paralysis? I consider myself to be a pretty decent observer of human nature and behavior. I think this is a strength of mine that directly benefits my designs when testing and developing. In my experience, analysis paralysis is often a result of a few key symptoms:

  • A strong desire to win: One could argue this strong desire is also unhealthy. Some people want to win very badly and really only gain fun from the experience if they win. A person who is no longer a part of my game group once admitted he was “desperate to win,” which is why he took so long. This is difficult to fix. If someone is hyper-competitive, regardless of the reason, you need to bring it up and discuss it. A simple, “hey dude, this is a friendly game” might do the trick. It might not.
  • Fear of making a mistake: This is a bit of a symptom of the previous notion, but some people are petrified of playing poorly. They can’t stand the thought of making the sub-optimal choice. Or, simple, they are afraid of being seen as foolish and stupid. The key thing you can do here is gently nudge them to make a decision and don’t criticize or belittle their decisions. It’s key to be welcoming, supporting, and encouraging. Still, people should play!
  • Confusion: If someone is confused, they may not make a decision. This could be another instances of fear of making a mistake. Sometimes this is the fault of the game — it could be very difficult or overly cumbersome. Sometimes the player is at fault. If someone isn’t paying attention, won’t get off their cell phone, sure, they’ll be confused. The key here is that as a host you need to know the game and teach it well. You need to work with various players to teach the game in a way that makes sense for them. I have a friend who cannot learn with a rules explanation. We have to essentially play for him to learn, which means I’m constantly introducing new mechanics as they enter the experience. Sure, it takes time, but it’s worth it to ensure everyone has fun.
  • Indecisiveness: Some people just cannot decide. They have too many options, or are afraid, or are a little confused, and they just can’t pull the trigger. There are studies that show people spending hours in the cereal aisle. Indecision can also be a sign of a lack of engagement. If someone doesn’t really care, and the “right” choice isn’t immediately apparent, they may just spin. In that case, it may be simply a case of “Bob, hurry and decide!” to make it clear he’s hindering the group. If someone doesn’t care enough to decide? Then it won’t really matter what they choose.

How can you limit analysis paralysis in your designs? There are a few really great ways to limit opportunities for analysis paralysis in your game design.

  • Uncertain Outcomes: If a player knows that playing X card will always render Y result, and they have 7 of these cards, you’re giving them the opportunity to slowly consider every option. However, if the card says play X card and draw 3 Chits, that is no longer a guarantee. If you say play X card and roll this die, you’re reducing the ability to math it out. I think the best uncertain outcomes have math that is easily understood. Generally speaking, your players should know if they are very likely, somewhat likely, or unlikely to accomplish their goal. When you play Rise of Augustus, you know the general chance of drawing the token you need for an “Ave Caesar!” After one or two rolls in King of Tokyo, you have a pretty darn good look at what’s likely to occur.
  • Imperfect Information: If your game has perfect, fully public information, you’re giving players an opportunity to run mental cycles on everything in the game. However, if someone has a hand of cards, or their perfect actions are muddied with uncertain outcomes, you’re reducing the value of pulling out Excel to run formulas.
  • Real Time: This isn’t appropriate for most games, but if everyone has to play the game at the same time with no breaks, you simply can’t be indecisive. This may be why some people hate real time games.
  • Limited Interaction: If a game is full of interaction, which is something I like, you’re making it very difficult for a player to understand what their opponent can do. This gives players the opportunity to consider not only their move, but the moves their opponents might make in response. I think games like Libertalia and 7 Wonders do a very good job of limiting the interaction. In 7 Wonders, you can only trade or go to war with your neighbors. Therefore, you only have two people to watch, and to do so in very simple terms. In Libertalia, you can only use the sword against your neighbors. Furthermore, cards like the mutineer only affect the top card. By limiting interaction, your reducing the number of possibilities in the matrix.
  • Provide Avenues to Catch Up: If you consider my suggested causes for analysis paralysis, you can also identify potential solutions. If someone is terrified of making a mistake, a clear solution is to provide ways for players to recover from poor play. This leads to a greater discussion of Catch Up Mechanics, but ultimately, I believe that in most cases, a single sub-optimal decision shouldn’t pitch someone out of contention for the win. If players know they are reasonably free to experiment and take risks, they’ll do so, and they’ll do so more quickly.
  • Hide Points, or obfuscate the victory: SAT word! If someone knows precisely how close they are to victory, or precisely how close they are in comparison to their opponents, you’re giving them the opportunity to min/max a great deal of things. Games like Small World make victory tokens private information. In Modern Art, my currency sits behind a screen. Or, put a slightly different way, in Twilight Struggle, only one player can have a scoring card at a time. This gives them the advantage the other must ascertain.

This post has gone on a bit longer than I’d like. Much like a player with analysis paralysis taking their turn! Ho ho, the jokes.

What are some other solutions to curbing analysis paralysis in your designs? Do you think I identified the causes well? Share your thoughts below in the comments!

20 thoughts on “Analysis Paralysis

  1. My name is Carl, and I have AP. I bowed out of one of the prototypes I was testing at Protospiel Milwaukee last weekend because I knew I was going to drag down the game. I think you’ve hit the causes pretty well. In my own case, I don’t usually care that much about winning, but I hate making sub-optimal decisions. (Trying to pick toilet paper at the grocery store is likewise a nightmare.) If the information is available, I have to process it. I do better in games with limited options (play one of these few cards), and where the outcome of an action is fairly predictable but not guaranteed. I also do better in games where my actions are less mathematical and more based on whatever looks like the most fun (or, possibly, on what my character would do).

    Reply
    • Carl! Thank you so much for your contribution here. I hope I wasn’t offensive in my remarks. I think your insights are valuable here. I’m curious if you ever talk about this with your game group to make it easier for everyone. If so, how do things go?

      Reply
  2. Unknowable outcomes work well against AP, but uncertain outcomes can sometimes backfire and add more. If I might roll a die, the AP-correct play is to figure out the consequences of all the different results, and then weigh the likelihood of each against their value. Similarly, you can count cards in poker and do the math to figure out what the best play is, despite the uncertainty.

    Most of the time, this extra work will dissuade players, but for the most-dedicated AP players, it often compounds it.

    Reply
  3. Really interesting post. It’s a double problem when you’ve only two players – both because there are more options to consider (hurting your opponent = helping you, so you have to play their hand too) and because there’s no randomness introduced by further players. In theory, co-ops also fall into the same trap, though there you get player interaction so the paralysis is consensual rather than enforced.

    Reply
  4. Pingback: News Bits: 3/31/2014 | iSlaytheDragon

  5. I think the phrase “unnecessary amount of time” is entirely subjective (as well as a bit negative). My wife suffers AP, and the game group she plays in has learned to be gracious about it. She obviously feels it “necessary” for her to enjoy the game experience by making a good decision based on current info. Which means (depending on the game) that she doesn’t BEGIN the decision-making process until the previous player’s turn is complete. Drives me batty because I can play through several “what-if” scenarios in my head while others are taking their turns — but she can’t seem to do that. So, for her, the amount of time taken is totally necessary. The games we are playing are generally pretty light, so the distraction isn’t such a big problem, but I’ve learned to simply run more “what-ifs” in my head while we wait patiently for her turn, and try NOT to drum my fingers on the table. Play on!

    Reply
    • Hi David — Yes, that phrase (and everything on this entire blog) is entirely subjective. It is fair to refer to my blog as a gigantic OpEd.

      Yes, that phrase is also a bit negative. While I don’t mean it to be a personal affront on your, your wife, or others, I think it’s only fair I stand behind my statement, which is that AP hurts games for everyone else at the table. I have never had a pleasant experience with AP. My hope with the article was to generate discussion and understanding. When I play games with people, especially ones I don’t know, I try to make it clear: this is a friendly game. Feel free to ask questions. Focus on fun. I do not harass people to take their turns and I don’t insult them after they have done so.

      But, if they take a very long time to play, and a 40 minute game becomes a 2 hour game, I won’t play with them again. I just won’t, and I realize that’s negative. In the same way that we should all respect them, we also have to respect each other’s limited play time.

      Thanks for the comment.

      Reply
      • This is a great post — I play with one person who (IMO) has ADHD. Most people think that means the individual can’t focus but it also means that they can get deep into thought about a situation without even thinking about it. Usually saying something to them is enough to jolt them back to the present and they take their turn.

        As you correctly point out, the key is knowing who you are playing with. It is easy to get impatient with someone who is analyzing every possible case, but setting expectations up front is a great idea — in your case, if you’re play-testing, I think it’s reasonable to let people know you’re more interested in seeing what they are doing and how they react to game situations. And, if someone is taking a long time I would not be afraid to ask why they are stuck making a decision. You might be able to get them to move along.

        Reply
  6. Pingback: Today in Board Games Issue #153 - DJ Grandpa's Crib - Today in Board Games

  7. Hey Grant – wonderful read as always. I’m working on writing about a similar topic this month in regards to how players approach new games.

    Do you think there should be any distinction between the common AP problem (players who demonstrate this behavior in many games) and a new game that may provide minimal direction to players (and thus a plethora of options can bog down the first few turns for every new player as they get their feet wet)?

    I’m convinced that the two options (1. AP-susceptible player 2. The new game problem) are two very different issues, but I don’t know if the latter problem should use different terminology. It is basically the same outcome resulting from a different cause.

    Reply
    • Alex — Thanks for the kind words. I am looking forward to your post.

      I was trying to make the distinction you mentioned, but I labeled it poorly. I was trying to say: some people have difficulty making decisions for a variety of reasons. Then: some games can also lend themselves to AP. Here are ways to lessen that.

      Some games are more difficult to learn, or don’t have a clear path. Games should provide light breadcrumb goals and good feedback to reinforce: this is what you should do to win. I don’t know if they are VERY different issues, but your notion of: same problem, two causes, is probably the best summation. Better than I made, at least.

      Thanks for the addition!

      Reply
  8. How would you characterize players who typically don’t play boardgames or card games, so they take much more time to analyze the effects of each card? Other experienced players may be able to process the informaton a lot quicker, almost instinctively (prioritize economy-buffing early, “draw” cards are at least neutral or positive for deck efficiency). These infrequent players don’t have that wide/deep experience to draw from, and are unable to eliminate some of the more “obvious” options (i.e. the obvious inefficient/pointless options) before weighing the remainder.

    Reply
    • As an addendum, what about players that are simply slow at number-crunching or tactic-weighing? Slightly similar to the previous “inexperienced” case, but they are simply slower at calculating the overall advantage (or even unable to compare multiple options in their head), or are unable to compare 5-6 options at a time?

      Reply
      • I don’t consider this to be AP necessarily. Some games put too many numbers in front of the players. Or, too many possible outcomes. Some people like that. I tend to not. When games like that come up, I know I’m not going to do my due diligence to maximize my play.

        I would twist your comment differently: sometimes, it’s not important that you compare 6 options. Sometimes, you should compare 2-3 options and weigh them. I think the point where AP comes in is when somebody doesn’t know (or can’t evaluate) what is actually important. Games like Seasons or Legacy: The Testament of Duke de Crecy have a lot of info and options, but really, at any given time only a few of them are relevant for consideration. I am very good at these games — I’ve seen the breadth of options be crippling for others.

        Reply
    • I don’t classify new players in this at all. There is definitely a “board game playing” skill that comes with experience. The other day my friend was teaching us a very complex new game, but I immediately grabbed it because I play games all the time. It was like breathing. So, if a brand new player like my mother, for example, struggles with a game, I don’t call that AP. And often, I don’t fault the game for that either. Some games are aimed at completely casual people who don’t play games. Those games need to work for those players. But, many games assume a level of basic competence and I think that’s fair. If someone new comes along? Well, hopefully their friends guide them to bring them up to speed. I don’t consider them AP at all.

      Reply
      • Yes, I totally agree. I think the AP Grant is talking about is a paralysis analyzing all your choices (thus assuming you understand all your choices). With new players who don’t understand the game quiet yet, there is not so much a paralysis from the choice because they don’t fully understand what those choices yet are. I wouldn’t fault a game for this either.

        Reply
  9. I’ve been reading a lot about AP in the last couple days. I’m wondering if it’s becoming an epidemic, or I’m just finding these articles now (I like yours BTW).

    Re: the Magic player: is it possible he was looking to goad you? I played a draft once, and before the game the guy I was playing f’ed off for a few minutes, specifically the exact amount of minutes before he would be disqualified, minus 1. At the time I thought he was just scatter-brained, but after a bit of thought I realized he did that just to screw with me.

    What would you say about the idea of people who aren’t AP, they’re just getting under your skin? For me it’s one sentence; Don’t let them do it, or simply don’t play with them.

    Reply
    • I would say it is a topical coincidence. Yes, I can see where some people would try to goad you to get you off edge. I don’t think they are reasonable, but I also don’t play in competitive settings.

      In my cases, these people were just slow. It wasn’t a competitive leage. He just couldn’t decide.

      And yes, I don’t play with AP folk.

      Reply
  10. I like your solution “Provide Avenues for Catch Up.” I think a major factor that causes analysis paralysis in our game groups is when the game options are “linear” and once you move down a strategic path you must stay on that path in order to succeed.

    When this happens, players get the idea that there is one and only one best move that can only be found by analyzing every option. I think there is usually a “best move” most times, but a game that allows branching paths to success allows players to make up for no-so-good decisions and can diffuse a lot of the AP.

    Great post, I am impressed you spent so much time, analyzing this topic!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: