Quality Over Quantity - Short Games

Your critique of its theme is definitely accurate but I actually appreciate the contrast of the overtly criminal with the wacky. It definitely works for me but I understand why it may not have universal appeal.

You're right in that card knowledge is required to play well but the game plays so quickly that you can get the needed experience pretty quickly. My colleagues and I memorised the card pool sufficiently that we stumbled into a speed variant in which we'd throw cards down like we were playing a game of Spit.

@oliverkinne: I want to take this moment to thank you for these discussion topics and articles that you've been putting out. The conversation is usually lively and they feel like a more civilised version of the Trashdomes of yore.

I think a HILARIOUS you-tube series would have fairly experienced players being forced to play a moderate to heavy game under severe time constraints, kinda like speed chess or something. No time to strategize, no time to optimize, no time to even finish a complete turn, you just gotta get as much done as possible and roll with it.

4 player Twilight Imperium in 30 minutes!!!!

I don't know how much entertainment there would be in speed Twilight Imperium. I meant to mention components in my previous post, but I forgot. A short game cannot have a lot of components, like TI, simply because of the time it takes to set up and to move them around. That means that generally there are fewer things to manipulate in a shorter game, which leads to fewer options.

The only way something like TI could be done in 30 minutes is with a slick digital version that made it simple to perform the actions. Even if the players make quick decisions, the physical actions required to carry them out take time. This is something that Rachel Simmons mentioned in her AMA thread on BGG. She said that one of her design goals was to reduce, as much as possible, the time needed to physically carry out a decision. That is one reason that her Stavka design has now been shelved - there was too much fiddling around with components for her taste.

Also, thanks Shellhead and Mezike. I appreciate your comments. I am afraid that I usually don't have much to add to the conversations here. I keep my post count low to try to keep the quality higher.

I think there would be a LOT of entertainment in watching some grognard TI players struggle to hammer out their turn on a minute with no time to plot, consider, or optimize. Just move as many units as fast as possible, sling dice at each other, and scream in frustration when your turn ends and you forgot to move the damned WAR SUN!

Probably need a decent understanding of the game yourself to appreciate folks speed playing it but I still think it could be a fun series. Are longer games fun because of the time you spend in getting invested in the game "you" that shorter games usually can't accomplish? Is that immersive experience lost when you have to blitz through your moves?

Not to veer too far off topic but I was super bummed out to find out that Rachel Simmons had recently decided to retire from the board game industry and took her site (including interesting design diaries) offline. Fortunately archive.org has most of the site backed up. If you've got a copy of Bonaparte at Marengo, Napoleon's Triumph or The Guns of Gettsyburg I'd hold on to them as it's unlikely they'll be reprinted.

I'm a big fan of small box games that do something very well. This tend to be on the short side playtime wise as well. Some of the best for my money at the moment:

Riftforce
Carta Impera Victoria (criminally overlooked)
Patchwork
Letterpress

I have very few games in my collection that take more than 2-3 hours to play as I just won't get them to the table, but I do have a very small collection that I try and make sure is active (I can play most of the games in it in a given year).

Some short games I like:

Hanabi
Mottainai
Hanamijoki
The Crew

Most of my favourite games are longer, but for me it just doesn't matter. If the game is cool, I'll play it.