I think my favorite part of these videos is as I’m listening, I’m thinking of my own designs and how I can make them better or new designs entirely. Thanks Jamey!
I summed up the content of this great video :D Hope this is helpful to others as well. Alternatives to action checklists: better way to build the game (and its user interface) around what players can do and how many times. 1. Card cascade. Play a card, and activate it together with an additional set of cards based on its position or its features (e.g. all cards below it in a pyramid). Games: In the Hall of the Mountain King. 1:52 2. Pyramid. There are (visual/physical) constraints on what actions can be chosen (e.g. you cannot select two actions on the same level of a pyramid). Games: Kemet. 3:08 3. Top/bottom pairing. You don't choose a single action, but you rather choose two at once. (e.g. the action on top is (mostly) free and provides something, while the bottom one must be paid for). Games: Schythe. 4:30 4. Rondel. The tiles with the actions you can take are committed to the rondel for a certain number of turns (e.g. you must wait for the rondel to complete its rotation to collect the resources you invested in the action). Games: Barrage, Praga Caput Regni. 7:15 5. Track advancements. Choose a track, advance on it, perform the action(s) shown on the space you just reached. (e.g. choose among qualitatively different (and progressively more powerful) tracks, pay the cost of the action you just reached to perform it). Games: Tapestry. 8:32 6. Tableau activation. The action checklist is a tableau that can evolve during the game (e.g. choose a row and activate the corresponding action and all the cards placed on that row so far). Games: Wingspan. Bonus: in Wingspan, one of your action cubes is committed to the scoring every round: The number of actions you can take decreases while your tableau gets more powerful. 10:10 7. Worker placement. The workers are the action, and they live in an interactive ecosystem (e.g. actions become stronger the longer player do not take them / when I place a worker, I also retrieve a worker / the longer the workers are on the board, the stronger the action you take when you retrieve them) Games: Caverna, Raiders of the North Sea 12:02 8. Crew management. You manage the actions you can take. (e.g. put tokens in a bag and perform the action when you pull them out / pick your actions among a roster of characters). Games: Orleans, Sleeping Gods, Obsession. 13:49 9. Hand management. Play a card, and perform the corresponding action. (e.g. play a card, activate the effect described on it, retrieve the cards you played so far when you play the special retrieve card). Games: Concordia, Aquatica, Expeditions. 16:00 10. Card Escalation. The power of the actions you can take depends on the state of the game. (e.g. when you take an action card, this becomes the least powerful you can take on the next turn while all the others cards escalate in the hierarchy; at the same time, actions can be upgraded by flipping cards). Games: Ark Nova 17:23 11. Mancala. The actions you can take depends on the configuration of your tokens on the board. (e.g. select a slot, collect all tokens from that slot, and drop them along the following slots: Take the action corresponding to the last spot you end on; Based on the type of the last token you dropped, a special synergy might occur). Games: Crusaders, Trajan 18:50 12. Simultaneous/Shared Selection. Select your action simultaneously with the other players. (e.g. you obtain the major benefits of the card you selected while everybody gets the minor one). Games: Ares Expedition, Earth. 19:36 13. Action Drafting. You select the action from the pool of available ones. (e.g. pick a card and pass the rest to the next player / select your action from a shared board, the slower actions being more powerful) Games: Citradels, The Whatnot Cabinet 20:56 14. Deckbuilding. Hand management + Crew management (e.g. you decide which actions to put in your deck, while you can't predict exactly what you are going to draw) Games: Dune Imperium 22:37 15. Dice Placement. The available actions and their power depend on the dice you roll. (e.g. roll dice Yatzhee style and take the actions based on the combination you obtained / group and sum up dice to take better actions) Games: Dice Throne, Kingsburg 23:48 I also noticed that many of these alternatives are built around the idea of shaping the agency of a player through an overload paradigm: Actions are not independent atoms. Rather, they have dependencies with respect to other players, the game user interface, and the way they are grouped.
Card Cascade: Whenever you build a building/card in _Deus_ you also trigger all the previous cards/buildings of the same type again The action card system in _Ark Nova_ was used first in _Civilization: A New Dawn_ which also had four levels of cards instead of two.
This was the first game I thought of with cascade. I especially like how you work "up" yourr board allowing you to move or gather before your newest card activates.
This concept whether the actions are, or are not, integrated into the interface of the game is very interesting. It actually gives me a useful tool to analyse my own designs in that regard.
I always thought Gentes was pretty clever in the way that it implemented an action-point system with worker placement using the time tiles; stronger actions use more time/AP, total time/AP available increases throughout the game, etc. Neat!
Excellent topic and video! I agree that games feel much more immersive when you’re not picking actions from a list. I really enjoy worker placement and I also really liked the track advancement mechanism in Tapestry.
Love this, usually action points are so inelegant. The one exception, in my mind, is when the list of actions is super small and/or really intuitive. I think specifically of something like Unmatched, where you have two action points every turn, but your choice is only between three actions (draw & move, play a card, attack). You pretty much internalize the list after 2 or 3 turns and never think about it again.
One of the harder parts of action selection is the "spend an action point and do four things." The player has to remember all the things they have done and then strategize about what they want to do. It puts a large burden on the player. Or the "you have 7 action points, but this action costs 2 and this one costs 3". Oath uses this system. You can move an action marker down to track but again, it's more to remember.
I like the Villainous system where you choose which location to move to and that determines your available actions. In Wildlands you can use as many cards as you like in your hand, each card allows any character to perform default actions but also might have specialist actions for different members of your team of be used to collect items you need to win the game and some cards allow you to interrupt another player's turn so you really have to manage your hand well. I also find the tableau building in Pax Pamir 2e interesting, where you take some actions by playing cards into your tableau but then those cards in the tableau allow you to select other actions.
I am a big fan of action points, most especially in the pathfinder 2e combat system; but I also do love when games have super cool action systems. Personal favorites are the ark nova and civilization: a new dawn card row, the Erie empire playstyle in root, and the terraforming mars:ares expedition simultaneous action phase selection.
Another great video topic - other game examples: Top/Bottom Pairing = Cascadia (fixed 4) Rondel = Heaven & Ale, Red Cathedral, Tiletum Worker Placement = A Feast for Odin Hand Management = Lost Cities Card Escalation = No Thanks Mancala = Five Tribes Mancala with Rondel = Finca Action Drafting = Floriferous Dice Placement = Rumble Nation (love it)
Dice can be used to create an interesting restriction on actions. A simple example would be modern Warhammer Quest games where the player rolls dice at the start of the round, and the number rolled dictates what actions they can take. A 1 might only allow movement. A 6 might allow for the characters best attack. TMNT Adventures has this with the dice symbols for melee attack, ranged attack, move and defense. After the dice are rolled, each player shares a die with a player to their left and shares a different die with the player to their right. This provides a decent amount of mitigation. Conan has an interesting AP system where stance recovers so much AP, and you can even save up AP between turns. This allows the players to have bursts of heroics where they run across the board and with one big attack they kill the leader and guards with one mighty blow.
In Twilight Imperium, it blends a number of these systems to get over the huge list of actions you can take. You get to choose where to place your command tokens on your player sheet, so these can either be used to take basic actions (invade/build etc.), expand your fleet or allocate them as strategy tokens which interact with the more powerful drafted action tiles. I suppose this could be considered a form of worker placement. You can also purchase technology cards and choose to pick up action cards to be able to take further component-based actions. Whilst there is still a basic action list, it still feels immersive as it is triggered by you selecting a system on the board to activate which will determine whether you are exploring, invading or building more ships at a space dock depending on what is in the system you have selected. The list is merely there to remind you of the order in which to take all the actions available to you when activating a system. It might be a little jarring at first as there is so much to remember but after a while you get used to it and then it is probably the most immersive experience one can have as a gamer.
I enjoy the insight and respect the opinion. Personally, I don’t tend think of it as ‘this mechanism is BETTER than that mechanism,’ but rather how well the game implemented said mechanism as to whether it was an enjoyable and immersive experience or not. For example, in Flash-Point: Fire Rescue, I feel the Action Points system works just fine. I don’t feel like I’m just playing ‘a game’ any more than say, when I select an action in Scythe then have to chose another one the next turn. To me, that’s just as ‘gamey’. In a sense Action Points are much like any other in-game resource. No one bats an eye if you can’t afford to build some structure because you don’t have the wood resource, but we lose our minds if we don’t have enough action points left to do the same. Whatever, we all have our tastes. I’m not saying Action Points is my ‘favorite mechanism’ or any such thing. But these folks that say that mechanism is passé, outdated, or is inferior--well, you’lol have to excuse me if I take that with a big grain of salt. For me, as with any mechanism, it depends on its implementation.
A couple of games that have really interesting action selection - Rurik: The Dawn of Kiev, which has an action bidding system, - Fall of the Mountain King, where players draft cards with action symbols into a personal tableau, and can then activate adjacent symbols for stronger actions
This was great. Our current game we're working on uses an action draft in conjunction with a player board that gives a couple unique choices for your specific faction when you choose a certain action. I love the interactivity of the draft and the bespoke actions that your own faction is good at. Thanks again, super helpful listening to these. I especially thought the cascade system was fascinating. I wonder if there's a mechanism like that but it requires then a choice per level you cascade down to instead of activating all. anyway, thanks!
Action points do a pretty good job of transparently representing constrained resources, especially time. IMO, they are significantly less gamey than most of the other mechanics you mention, since they're no particular reason that you should have to do one of each of a particular list of actions (see Wingspan, for instance) instead of doing two or three of the same thing. As such, they're very good for simulationist designs. Which, of course, is why movement points (a type of action point) are used in so many games.
For me, if I'm playing a game, I want "gamey". :) I want a puzzle, and I want the choices I make to be organically integrated into the game, not set aside on a checklist. But I see what you're saying about them being less constrained--I'm just not so sure that's a good thing for most games.
Thanks for making this video! You reminded me of a lot games & systems that I really like. And you've also inspired me to try some of these new-to-me systems, both by playing games and also in my game designs.
Hey Jamie, thank you for this consolidation of action selection alternatives to action points! There is a fun game coming out around the end of this year called Trolls & Princesses which I think uses action points in a creative way, they are more like action recipes and it is combined with worker movement (another twist on worker placement) where the workers that you place, usually trolls, give you a different number of action points (ingredients) depending on how many workers are in that area, including opponents' workers. Anyway, I completely understand your general dislike of action points because of their inherent complexity, but I think they can be designed in ways that are fun. Also, along the lines of Scythe and Gloomhaven, Ceylon, by the good folks at Cardboard Edison, is another game that uses top and bottom actions with consequences, each card you play each turn has an action at the top and an action at the bottom, you pick one and the other players get to do the other. This expression of Top/Bottom Pairing is great because even when it's not your turn you are jazzed because you're waiting to see what you will get to do on each other players' turn. In this way, you really care about what other players are doing so the game feels like there is very little if any downtime. Thank you again for this really meaty video👏👏👏
Oh, I'm all for action points being integrated into the theme and interface of the game--that's essentially everything on my list! :) Trolls & Princesses sounds like it has a really unique action system.
@@jameystegmaier ...and to your point, Trolls & Princesses also has this player card you need to refer to for "recipes" of action points on the shared board. I suspect that will feel like having to look up stuff in a rule book in the middle of the action 😐 Thank you again 👏👏👏
Great video, I must admit most of it went over my head as I'm just starting out on game designing. I was planning on a little what you can do on your turn card, but now I'm considering other options like including the options on the character board. So thank you for the great advice. I must admit I'm working on my first game idea currently, in my head it's ground breaking and revolutionary and will take the board gaming world by storm, but from watching your videos, imagination may disappear in reality 😂
Thanks for your comment! I should clarify that reference cards are super helpful in any game. But when possible, looking for creative ways to showcase actions in the user interface of the game is great in addition to reference cards. I hope you have fun with your design! :)
I like the Erie faction system for actions in Root. You must add at least one action each turn, but then you also must complete all your previously added actions, if you cannot, you start from scratch (or two base actions, technically). I guess it's a card cascade-i never knew the term before
16:30 a lesser known favorite of mine is an old Rio Grande game called A Castle for All Seasons. It is a combination of worker placement and hand management, but the nice thing about the card that picks up all the other cards - the master builder - is that it's not just a dead turn, but you also earn points if other people build on the same turn that you play that card. So it introduces a lot of strategy as to when it might be good to pick up the cards instead of just emptying your hand and then scooping everything back up. I like that game a lot, but it came out the same year as Le Havre and Stone Age so it was doomed from the beginning.
In Olympus, when you take an action you advance a certain amount of time on the time scale. The next player is the one the less advance on the time scale. So you can either choose to do a lot of small action ms in time and power of a few powerful action
Wow, I did just design my first game with action selection because I preferred other mechanisms, but wanted to try this out. Thanks for making me think about this mechanism this way! I will integrate the actions thematically fitting into the player board.
Hey Jamey, thanks for putting this list together and you're right that your viewers know you don't prefer this system and phases (although that one seems to have cooled a bit based on most recent games you like). You mention at the end for people who like action lists to talk about why they like them, but would have loved to have heard in your intro about what positives there are to them and then launching into your negatives and replacements. You did talk about their inherent flexibility right before the video ended, but I know you're mostly a positivity "talk about the good instead of focusing on the bad" kinda guy so would have loved seeing you challenge yourself to find the good in them (unless the flexibility was the only one you thought of). As always, love and appreciate the content--
I like that action points make the board easier to read. They provide focus. And often encourage simple actions where the fun and strategy come from how you combine those simple actions or respond to others. Examples include Zooloretto, Pandemic, Mind MGMT, and Unmatched. I find games with a ton of action spaces and tracks on the board to be overwhelming. I think they can also be a challenge for new players or those new to boardgames in general. But, I understand that people enjoy those puzzle aspects where figuring out how to take an action is more of a focus. And particularly if the whole group has played many different games, it won't be as overwhelming when taking an action is a puzzle all to itself. There are exceptions to this and for me the Pokemon TCG is one. My group has all agreed to learn a fairly complex ruleset and large set of unique cards.
I just realized from your video why i like endless winter so much. I've never really liked the restrictive nature of worker placement and how unthematic it can feel: Where do i want to place my token so i can do/get xyz and nobody else can now do this ha! Opposed to in which direction do i want to take my strategy my people or creation. Often i have prefered deck building and hand management since cards with nice artwork often give me a better connection. But that can become too simple after x iterations. And if every game does the same thing it can become dull. Endless Winter gives me all the deck building and hand management i like, adding depth with the top/bottom pairings in the eclipse phase, which now i realize was what made gloomhaven such an intrieging puzzle to me. Endless Winter then goes ahead and adds even more diversity to the action selection with very light and unrestrictive worker placement, with a touch of action drafting, which also then makes a lot of sense within the theme!
In Twisted Trumpets, the game I'm designing now, there are 4 actions that players can choose on their turn, and they take two actions per turn. I tried really hard to come up with a clever way to choose the actions other than just picking which actions you want to take, but everything I tried detracted from the core fun of the game, which is acquiring tiles and building your trumpet. I also wanted the game to be medium-light weight and the more involved action selection systems upped the complexity a bit too much. In the end the action list provided the smoothest gameplay and I'm okay with trading a more integrated action selection system for that. I think it helps that its only 4 actions to choose from instead of dozens! I think it's definitely worth considering and trying a more integrated action system FIRST before just falling back on simple action point or action lists.
"I think it's definitely worth considering and trying a more integrated action system FIRST before just falling back on simple action point or action lists." I agree with this 100%. :)
I like the way Thurn and Taxis does this. Each turn you "seek help" from 1 of 4 people. Admittedly, it's a pretty weak disguise for a simple menu of 4 actions, but it gives more thematic rules-explainers like me a way to explain the options thematically.
@@davidgreaves4525 That's a really great point. Even if it's just some flavor around what those actions "are" in the thematic world of the game, it can make a huge difference. I'm going to work on adding that to mine!
The game The Grand Carnival has an interesting action selection mechanism. You have the numbers 1 through 5, on your turn you pick a number which determines the power of the action for that turn and then you pick what action you want to take at that power but the number you selected is now no longer available for the rest of the round so you have to really plan ahead to not lock yourself out of something you may need.
Oh no! I just finished a prototype with an action list, haha. Curse you Jamey! Perhaps I can craft a headband that can just hold the cheat sheet card in front a player's face, haha. Jokes aside, I can see how it would take someone out of a game, to have to consistently remind themself of that extra list of things. I really enjoy how the games you presented insert actions in a more thematic way, and as a hobbyist, It's certainly helpful to see what other options are out there. Appreciate the video and the new thoughts it brought!
I can for sure see why action points take away from the immersion, but I would argue there are creative ways to do it right. I really like the way it's done in Raptor. In Raptor (a 2 player only game), each player chooses a card in secret, then you reveal at the same time and compare. The person who selected the lower value card gets to use the action printed on their card, and the person with the higher value card gets action points equal to the number printed on their card, less the number on their opponent's. Maybe this strays away from pure action points, but it does feel like you "out-thought" your opponent when you play your 9 while they play their 2 card. Thematically, I like to think of it like I'm taking advantage of my opponent taking a rest, using it as an opportunity to do a lot and strike!
It's interesting you say Kingsburg combines dice placement with worker placement; the first thing I thought of was that it combines with action drafting. It makes me wonder if there's much of a difference between action drafting and worker placement, other than the components used (action drafting is more commonly cards, or maybe integrated with an auction mechanism). I fell in love with Trajan, Scythe, Orleans, and Concordia right away due to their action selection mechanisms. Paladins of the West Kingdom, a game you didn't mention, has a lot of similarities to Orleans (activating a single action on your player board with different combinations of tokens) except that in Paladins you have slightly more choice than in Orleans (Orleans you draw blindly from a bag - albeit one whose contents you have shaped; Paladins you select from 3 Paladin cards and two or more Tavern cards to determine your assortment of worker types that round; also there are ways to gain more during the round unlike Orleans). Paladins also has a tiny amount of worker placement, as there are a few cards on the board where you can send workers to activate actions available to all players (the Kings Favor cards). In Istanbul and Yokohama all of the actions are laid out on a shared board and you have to move your token along paths to reach these actions. Yokohama adds a Location Escalation mechanism (to coin a term based on your Ark Nova category) where the power of the action you take at a location depends on whether you've placed "assistants" and/or buildings on that location previously. Notre Dame has a similar Location Escalation mechanism, but in Notre Dame is combined with a unique action drafting mechanism based on cards.
Oh, let me add this about falling in love with Scythe: not just the action selection mechanism, but specifically the way it was implemented - those dual-layered boards and the Terra Mystica-inspired bonus reveal of the upgrades, structures, mechs, and recruits. The user interface can not only improve immersion and make playing the game more intuitive, it can also be just plain cool to look at and manipulate.
Thanks for sharing this, Steven! I appreciate you highlighting these games, especially Paladins and worker-movement systems like Istanbul and Yokohama.
This video got me thinking about something specific, and I'm curious about what Jamey and others think. There is not much mechanical difference between "On your turn, do one of seven actions" and "Seven actions are printed on your player board. On your turn, move your cube to a new action space and do that action". Removing the ability to perform the same action on subsequent turns is a small restriction. However, to me the two *feel* different in a meaningful way. I think they create different player experiences, and I'm trying to figure out why that is. Is that it adds additional structure to a player's turn ("At the start of my turn, the first thing I do is...")? Is it that adding a physical action (moving the cube) increases player engagement? Does it give the decision an added feeling of weight? It feels like understanding that difference would go a long way to creating a better experience for a game where action points would provide the right functionality ("On their turn, the player performs a composite action, but the component options have very different strengths")
There are definitely worker-placement games like this where there's really no interaction between players (i.e., no blocking)--it's just that the display of the board adds to the feeling that you're actually doing something (or having a worker do your bidding), which enhances the immersion and experience.
That's interesting to speak about the different mechanisms of the games. Another point is today there are so many new games a week (15 each week in average in my country those days) and the players are more and more split into such numerous preferences that we feels we are all moving away from each other like the galaxies in the universe (lol)! More and more players ask for solo rules (not me thank God). More and more youtubers don't find crossovers in their top 100 games with their friends or teammates. There are more and more ads looking for players, not to go to the other's homes and play their games but desperately looking for players to come in their own home (or club) and play their own games! And we see more and more videos of people explaining why they love this or that ... But the question comes immediately in many minds: "Why don't I explain myself why I prefer this or that?" In the chops the merchants don't even know the rules of 75% of their games, come on: 15 new ones each weak! They just don't have the time to learn them ! So the main question stays: "Is this permanent avalanche of new games good for our hobby?" OK half the players (the "Openers") will answer "yes!" (I have friends this way with many new games in their home they even never played), and the other half (the "Deepeners"" - lol - to which I belong) will say "no!" We keep on selecting some very few great games to play a lot and discover all the subtleties with our buddies. We just don't want to spend half our lives reading new rules lol! But still respect for the "Openers" (and good luck!
These are some interesting observations! As for your question about the avalanche of games, I don't think it's bad, but I it it means that any publisher or creator has an increased responsibility to only put their best work forward.
@JameyStegmaier I was wondering what your thoughts on Eldritch Horrors Action Point system. Is there a better choice? None of the options given in the video seem like it would be better and I am working on a similar adventure style game and was planning on using Action Points. Thanks for all the design content you produce, it has been enlightening.
@@jameystegmaier Of course, in Eldritch Horror you can do 2 actions on your turn. You can buy, move, rest, cast a spell, get a resource and focus. Every action is very valuable since its half your turn.
@@ericsmit8336 Thanks! So, I'd ask a few questions: What makes sense thematically? For example, if I use an action to move, does it make sense that I can move again on the same turn (and if so, am I slower or faster at moving a second time). Do any actions make the next action stronger/weaker/inaccessible? Which actions are used more often than others? Does each action feel the same, or should some be more or less involved? Based on those answers, you can create a mechanical system that matches the theme. For example, if casting a spell saps you of energy, choosing a move action might cost more or have a weaker benefit. Or if you choose to rest, your next action may be stronger than normal.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I was thinking about making the action weaker if used twice in a row. I just have to make a way for it to seem natural and not interrupt the flow of the game.
Would you say that dominion uses deck building + action points? You’re limited to playing the cards in your hand and also 1 action and 1 buy. But you can get more actions and buys with cards you play. How do you feel about the dominion system? One of the games I’m working on now has deck building and limits you to using up to 2 of the 4 available actions each turn. I could change this so instead of picking any 2, I arrange the actions in a circle, you put your cube between 2 of them, you are limited to those actions this turn and need to move it elsewhere next turn. Not sure if this improves the game though. You really want to choose the actions to make the most of your cards each turn. It seems more satisfying to be able to choose whichever two options you want and it keeps the game simple. I tried limiting it to 1 action per turn but the game is MUCH more interesting when you can do 2 things per turn.
I must admit that I much prefer more modern deckbuilding games, either those (like Clank) where you play your entire hand and do as much as you can with the resources generated by those cards or those (like Dune Imperium) in which you're playing a specific number of cards, with each card having a big impact.
4:04 That's not how Kemet works. You CAN select multiple actions from the same row, but at the end (after placing your last action stone) you must have an action stone on each level of that pyramid.
I don't have auto white balance enabled--that isn't an option on my camera. I do have lighting issues that I just haven't been able to consistently resolve.
In Chora you have action cards with numbers (0 to 6 I think) and cube workers. You must assign a cube to an action card and it's only possible if the cube number is equal to or higher than the number on the card. But you can also spend a resource (population) to make a cube work on a higher number action.
I began learning how to play Tapestry. Overall it's a fun game. I find the capital city grid (for example Wetland) has no relation with the explored lands (tiles). Or any of the advancements tracks related with each other. Sure you can just explore all you want by adding tiles and get VPs then what? For example build buildings or advancing in technology shouldn't we first have to explore & discover then begin placing buildings and advancing in technology? I guess the game allows you to build the civilization the way you want.
@@jameystegmaier You have two double-sided "tablets" that have icons for the various actions on them. You must lay one tablet on top of the other so it covers up some of the actions. Then whatever remains showing are the actions you take for that turn.
Fall of the Mountain King (in the same universe but with completely different mechanisms as Hall of the Mountain King) has a similar idea: you have a set of semi-overlapping action cards, each with a grid of 4-6 action icons. Throughout the game, you add more cards to this set, giving you more/stronger actions. But it's two steps forward and one step back because you must cover up at least one grid space whenever you add a new card, which often means covering up an action icon. The added wrinkle is that when you activate actions, the strength can be boosted by using cubes to cover adjacent matching action icons. And when you cover, what is visible is now considered adjacent. So icons that aren't physically adjacent can become considered adjacent over the course of the round, giving you a fun spatial/timing puzzle. At the end of the round, all cubes are removed. The second wrinkle is you only have so many actions each round. So it's a balancing game between having more actions and having stronger actions. You don't want to have uncovered icons but no more actions to spend, not do you want to have actions to spend but no visible icons to use them on.
I like Pandemic, I like action points. If there available actions are a lot though, I don’t like it as much, but Pandemic only has 4. I always wonder if maybe because I’m newer to the hobby so I’m not jaded. 😂
I appreciate you asking, though I'm not looking to redesign a game that already exists, particularly not one that has brought people as much joy as Pandemic has! :)
@@jameystegmaier just as an intellectual exercise of course, though I can understand you not wanting to touch that one for a bunch of reasons! I'll extend that invitation to the audience 😉
Pandemic is a little tricky in that you don't want to artificially restrict player choices, or leave them to chance since every action counts, and if you can't do the thing you need to do out of dumb luck that would lead to feel-bad moments. So dice and deck building are out. The most direct translation would perhaps be printed spaces on the board that represent the available actions, perhaps themed like a CDC logistics centre, and using worker placement to execute the actions. You could separate out actions that can only be done once per player turn by marking the 4 player spots on each action space, and actions that can be done any number of times having no printed spaces. But are there more creative options? Probably. Let's hear them!
I think I may be missing out the point you want to make, or the title of the video is really misleading. Some feedback: 1. Every example you make of games cannot substitute action points, as in every one of those games you do 1 action every turn (or a series of chained actions), not multiple action in whatever order you want, also no game you do not have action that "cost" more...I feel action points translate to you can do multiple things in your turn, in whichever order you want. 2. For checklists, multiple games you mention have checklists...so it seems your biggest dislike of them is that they are relegated to player aids, instead of being represented on the board. 3. Basically every mechanic highlighted in those games comes from a "restriction" on a checklist; ex. you can do only a different action or connected actions (Scythe, Kemet); you must share action with others (dice\worker placement, Ares expedition), you can only choose some of the actions base on you available cards\markers esources (Track,Rondel,Crew etc). So overall I get the message of the video to be that you prefer some restriction to your action selection system, or if it is open to be laid out on the board instead of a player aid (to make it more immersive). Just for some examples of games, can you comment on why you do not like checklists on Terra Mystica? Are action points games with things explained on player boards like Via Nebula ok? And in the end, if you can change the action selection mechanism on those games, what is the one you would have chosen while mantaining the freedom of choice? I really like every system you explained, but in some games you need to do multiple actions with the freedom of choosing order and the same action multiple times (recently played Revive), and it seems more a decision of what system fit the game...more than use 'better' systems.
Just for some examples of games, can you comment on why you do not like checklists on Terra Mystica? --Terra Mystica has an action checklist, but not action points (any game where you just take one action per turn doesn't apply to this video). Are action points games with things explained on player boards like Via Nebula ok? --It's been a while since I've played that; I can't remember if it gives you multiple action points to spend each turn or not. And in the end, if you can change the action selection mechanism on those games, what is the one you would have chosen while maintaining the freedom of choice? --Oh, I'm not here to redesign other people's games. :) I'm just presenting my opinion about systems I prefer over action point systems.
@@jameystegmaier Thank you for the response, I think now I have a better understanding of what the point you were trying to make. I was confused by the examples being all games where you do only 1 thing per turn (kemet is also only 1 per turn, the pyramid is about ending the turn with having a single one token on each row). The examples where you do more than 1 thing per turn, are always about choosing a group of actions and doing them in order, sometime with setup required (Scythe,Wingspan,Hall of mountain king). So I suspect your dislike is more about games like Terraforming Mars or Pandemic, that makes you do 2+ things unrelated things on your turn Then I think action points systems do not bring me out of the immersion of a game if done well, much like having Ark Nova be 2 action cards selection a turn instead of one will devalue the experience. Also the "action checklist" can be really thematic like in magic (cards\abilities are your action, mana your action points) and it is really prominent in most of wargames, adventure games (Mansion of Madness, Imperial Assault) and Rpgs. The two thing that bothers me about action points are: 1. Having to remember\check action how many action remains, basically having to check if the player has finished it's turn or not, that may be mitigated by having simple actions. 2. The waiting between turns with many actionpoints, that the industry seems to already be going away with the trend about "microactions\fast turns" to prevent players having to wait a long time for their turn to come back. A good example from recent games where the action point system bothers me for the previous things is Tiletum (with even "nested" action points). ps. Yes via nebula gives you 2 action points to build, explore, transport goods with exploring petrified lands costing both actions.
I disagree with this entire video but it's a great video. I have not played Scythe yet, but I personally do not like huge complicated Euro-style economy games with tons of actions and fiddly bits that take up the whole table, and I think that "immersion" is a grossly overrated concept in games in general. But the video is still great.
There are just 8 actions in Scythe, and really just 4 core actions (the other 4 are more like goals you're building up to). That's right on par with the quantity of actions in most action-selection checklist games (and fewer than one of the most popular, Pandemic). :)
I think my favorite part of these videos is as I’m listening, I’m thinking of my own designs and how I can make them better or new designs entirely. Thanks Jamey!
I summed up the content of this great video :D Hope this is helpful to others as well.
Alternatives to action checklists: better way to build the game (and its user interface) around what players can do and how many times.
1. Card cascade. Play a card, and activate it together with an additional set of cards based on its position or its features (e.g. all cards below it in a pyramid). Games: In the Hall of the Mountain King. 1:52
2. Pyramid. There are (visual/physical) constraints on what actions can be chosen (e.g. you cannot select two actions on the same level of a pyramid). Games: Kemet. 3:08
3. Top/bottom pairing. You don't choose a single action, but you rather choose two at once. (e.g. the action on top is (mostly) free and provides something, while the bottom one must be paid for). Games: Schythe. 4:30
4. Rondel. The tiles with the actions you can take are committed to the rondel for a certain number of turns (e.g. you must wait for the rondel to complete its rotation to collect the resources you invested in the action). Games: Barrage, Praga Caput Regni. 7:15
5. Track advancements. Choose a track, advance on it, perform the action(s) shown on the space you just reached. (e.g. choose among qualitatively different (and progressively more powerful) tracks, pay the cost of the action you just reached to perform it). Games: Tapestry. 8:32
6. Tableau activation. The action checklist is a tableau that can evolve during the game (e.g. choose a row and activate the corresponding action and all the cards placed on that row so far). Games: Wingspan. Bonus: in Wingspan, one of your action cubes is committed to the scoring every round: The number of actions you can take decreases while your tableau gets more powerful. 10:10
7. Worker placement. The workers are the action, and they live in an interactive ecosystem (e.g. actions become stronger the longer player do not take them / when I place a worker, I also retrieve a worker / the longer the workers are on the board, the stronger the action you take when you retrieve them) Games: Caverna, Raiders of the North Sea 12:02
8. Crew management. You manage the actions you can take. (e.g. put tokens in a bag and perform the action when you pull them out / pick your actions among a roster of characters). Games: Orleans, Sleeping Gods, Obsession. 13:49
9. Hand management. Play a card, and perform the corresponding action. (e.g. play a card, activate the effect described on it, retrieve the cards you played so far when you play the special retrieve card). Games: Concordia, Aquatica, Expeditions. 16:00
10. Card Escalation. The power of the actions you can take depends on the state of the game. (e.g. when you take an action card, this becomes the least powerful you can take on the next turn while all the others cards escalate in the hierarchy; at the same time, actions can be upgraded by flipping cards). Games: Ark Nova 17:23
11. Mancala. The actions you can take depends on the configuration of your tokens on the board. (e.g. select a slot, collect all tokens from that slot, and drop them along the following slots: Take the action corresponding to the last spot you end on; Based on the type of the last token you dropped, a special synergy might occur). Games: Crusaders, Trajan 18:50
12. Simultaneous/Shared Selection. Select your action simultaneously with the other players. (e.g. you obtain the major benefits of the card you selected while everybody gets the minor one). Games: Ares Expedition, Earth. 19:36
13. Action Drafting. You select the action from the pool of available ones. (e.g. pick a card and pass the rest to the next player / select your action from a shared board, the slower actions being more powerful) Games: Citradels, The Whatnot Cabinet 20:56
14. Deckbuilding. Hand management + Crew management (e.g. you decide which actions to put in your deck, while you can't predict exactly what you are going to draw) Games: Dune Imperium 22:37
15. Dice Placement. The available actions and their power depend on the dice you roll. (e.g. roll dice Yatzhee style and take the actions based on the combination you obtained / group and sum up dice to take better actions) Games: Dice Throne, Kingsburg 23:48
I also noticed that many of these alternatives are built around the idea of shaping the agency of a player through an overload paradigm: Actions are not independent atoms. Rather, they have dependencies with respect to other players, the game user interface, and the way they are grouped.
I appreciate the boards images to illustrate and show what your talking about, specially for the games I don't know yet.
Thanks! My coworker Joe adds those images, and I appreciate him doing that. :)
@@jameystegmaier well, thanks Joe! They do are helpful!
Card Cascade: Whenever you build a building/card in _Deus_ you also trigger all the previous cards/buildings of the same type again
The action card system in _Ark Nova_ was used first in _Civilization: A New Dawn_ which also had four levels of cards instead of two.
Deus is so good. Was going to mention it as well.
This was the first game I thought of with cascade. I especially like how you work "up" yourr board allowing you to move or gather before your newest card activates.
This concept whether the actions are, or are not, integrated into the interface of the game is very interesting. It actually gives me a useful tool to analyse my own designs in that regard.
I always thought Gentes was pretty clever in the way that it implemented an action-point system with worker placement using the time tiles; stronger actions use more time/AP, total time/AP available increases throughout the game, etc. Neat!
I will have to check this out because I'm interested in seeing games deal with time as a resource.
Excellent topic and video! I agree that games feel much more immersive when you’re not picking actions from a list. I really enjoy worker placement and I also really liked the track advancement mechanism in Tapestry.
Love this, usually action points are so inelegant. The one exception, in my mind, is when the list of actions is super small and/or really intuitive. I think specifically of something like Unmatched, where you have two action points every turn, but your choice is only between three actions (draw & move, play a card, attack). You pretty much internalize the list after 2 or 3 turns and never think about it again.
Similar action point system in adrenaline as well
That's totally fair--with 2-3 actions, it's often the most elegant approach.
One of the harder parts of action selection is the "spend an action point and do four things." The player has to remember all the things they have done and then strategize about what they want to do. It puts a large burden on the player. Or the "you have 7 action points, but this action costs 2 and this one costs 3". Oath uses this system. You can move an action marker down to track but again, it's more to remember.
Great video Jamey, provides a lot of inspiration for this fledgling card game designer. Really appreciate your commitment to something you love.
My pleasure!
I like the Villainous system where you choose which location to move to and that determines your available actions.
In Wildlands you can use as many cards as you like in your hand, each card allows any character to perform default actions but also might have specialist actions for different members of your team of be used to collect items you need to win the game and some cards allow you to interrupt another player's turn so you really have to manage your hand well.
I also find the tableau building in Pax Pamir 2e interesting, where you take some actions by playing cards into your tableau but then those cards in the tableau allow you to select other actions.
I like the Villainous system too! It's very similar to Scythe.
I've played Pax Pamir but not Wildlands--thanks for sharing that example.
I am a big fan of action points, most especially in the pathfinder 2e combat system; but I also do love when games have super cool action systems. Personal favorites are the ark nova and civilization: a new dawn card row, the Erie empire playstyle in root, and the terraforming mars:ares expedition simultaneous action phase selection.
Another great video topic - other game examples:
Top/Bottom Pairing = Cascadia (fixed 4)
Rondel = Heaven & Ale, Red Cathedral, Tiletum
Worker Placement = A Feast for Odin
Hand Management = Lost Cities
Card Escalation = No Thanks
Mancala = Five Tribes
Mancala with Rondel = Finca
Action Drafting = Floriferous
Dice Placement = Rumble Nation (love it)
I like those picks!
Thank you for this list.
As an aspiring board game designer, I will save this video and refer back to it again.
Glad it was helpful!
Dice can be used to create an interesting restriction on actions. A simple example would be modern Warhammer Quest games where the player rolls dice at the start of the round, and the number rolled dictates what actions they can take. A 1 might only allow movement. A 6 might allow for the characters best attack.
TMNT Adventures has this with the dice symbols for melee attack, ranged attack, move and defense. After the dice are rolled, each player shares a die with a player to their left and shares a different die with the player to their right. This provides a decent amount of mitigation.
Conan has an interesting AP system where stance recovers so much AP, and you can even save up AP between turns. This allows the players to have bursts of heroics where they run across the board and with one big attack they kill the leader and guards with one mighty blow.
I like those examples!
In Twilight Imperium, it blends a number of these systems to get over the huge list of actions you can take. You get to choose where to place your command tokens on your player sheet, so these can either be used to take basic actions (invade/build etc.), expand your fleet or allocate them as strategy tokens which interact with the more powerful drafted action tiles. I suppose this could be considered a form of worker placement. You can also purchase technology cards and choose to pick up action cards to be able to take further component-based actions. Whilst there is still a basic action list, it still feels immersive as it is triggered by you selecting a system on the board to activate which will determine whether you are exploring, invading or building more ships at a space dock depending on what is in the system you have selected. The list is merely there to remind you of the order in which to take all the actions available to you when activating a system. It might be a little jarring at first as there is so much to remember but after a while you get used to it and then it is probably the most immersive experience one can have as a gamer.
18:52 Crusaders is one of my favorite games of recent years, and in my overall top ten, and largely for the action mechanisms you described here.
It's really neat. Area control (kind of) without direct player conflict.
I enjoy the insight and respect the opinion.
Personally, I don’t tend think of it as ‘this mechanism is BETTER than that mechanism,’ but rather how well the game implemented said mechanism as to whether it was an enjoyable and immersive experience or not.
For example, in Flash-Point: Fire Rescue, I feel the Action Points system works just fine. I don’t feel like I’m just playing ‘a game’ any more than say, when I select an action in Scythe then have to chose another one the next turn. To me, that’s just as ‘gamey’. In a sense Action Points are much like any other in-game resource. No one bats an eye if you can’t afford to build some structure because you don’t have the wood resource, but we lose our minds if we don’t have enough action points left to do the same. Whatever, we all have our tastes.
I’m not saying Action Points is my ‘favorite mechanism’ or any such thing. But these folks that say that mechanism is passé, outdated, or is inferior--well, you’lol have to excuse me if I take that with a big grain of salt. For me, as with any mechanism, it depends on its implementation.
I definitely agree that every action system is game-dependent!
A couple of games that have really interesting action selection
- Rurik: The Dawn of Kiev, which has an action bidding system,
- Fall of the Mountain King, where players draft cards with action symbols into a personal tableau, and can then activate adjacent symbols for stronger actions
I need to try both of those!
This was great. Our current game we're working on uses an action draft in conjunction with a player board that gives a couple unique choices for your specific faction when you choose a certain action. I love the interactivity of the draft and the bespoke actions that your own faction is good at. Thanks again, super helpful listening to these. I especially thought the cascade system was fascinating. I wonder if there's a mechanism like that but it requires then a choice per level you cascade down to instead of activating all. anyway, thanks!
I've heard that the recent Imperial Miners game uses a cascade system, but you cascade upwards (resulting in choices as you ascend).
Action points do a pretty good job of transparently representing constrained resources, especially time. IMO, they are significantly less gamey than most of the other mechanics you mention, since they're no particular reason that you should have to do one of each of a particular list of actions (see Wingspan, for instance) instead of doing two or three of the same thing. As such, they're very good for simulationist designs.
Which, of course, is why movement points (a type of action point) are used in so many games.
For me, if I'm playing a game, I want "gamey". :) I want a puzzle, and I want the choices I make to be organically integrated into the game, not set aside on a checklist. But I see what you're saying about them being less constrained--I'm just not so sure that's a good thing for most games.
Thanks for making this video! You reminded me of a lot games & systems that I really like. And you've also inspired me to try some of these new-to-me systems, both by playing games and also in my game designs.
Thanks Dave!
Race for the Galaxy has a great simultaneous selection mechanic that really forces you to consider what the other player(s) might do.
I really enjoy the hand management of Concordia (and its slightly different version in Faiyum) as well as the card escalation in Ark Nova👍
Hey Jamie, thank you for this consolidation of action selection alternatives to action points!
There is a fun game coming out around the end of this year called Trolls & Princesses which I think uses action points in a creative way, they are more like action recipes and it is combined with worker movement (another twist on worker placement) where the workers that you place, usually trolls, give you a different number of action points (ingredients) depending on how many workers are in that area, including opponents' workers.
Anyway, I completely understand your general dislike of action points because of their inherent complexity, but I think they can be designed in ways that are fun.
Also, along the lines of Scythe and Gloomhaven, Ceylon, by the good folks at Cardboard Edison, is another game that uses top and bottom actions with consequences, each card you play each turn has an action at the top and an action at the bottom, you pick one and the other players get to do the other. This expression of Top/Bottom Pairing is great because even when it's not your turn you are jazzed because you're waiting to see what you will get to do on each other players' turn. In this way, you really care about what other players are doing so the game feels like there is very little if any downtime.
Thank you again for this really meaty video👏👏👏
Oh, I'm all for action points being integrated into the theme and interface of the game--that's essentially everything on my list! :) Trolls & Princesses sounds like it has a really unique action system.
@@jameystegmaier ...and to your point, Trolls & Princesses also has this player card you need to refer to for "recipes" of action points on the shared board. I suspect that will feel like having to look up stuff in a rule book in the middle of the action 😐
Thank you again 👏👏👏
Great video, I must admit most of it went over my head as I'm just starting out on game designing. I was planning on a little what you can do on your turn card, but now I'm considering other options like including the options on the character board. So thank you for the great advice. I must admit I'm working on my first game idea currently, in my head it's ground breaking and revolutionary and will take the board gaming world by storm, but from watching your videos, imagination may disappear in reality 😂
Thanks for your comment! I should clarify that reference cards are super helpful in any game. But when possible, looking for creative ways to showcase actions in the user interface of the game is great in addition to reference cards. I hope you have fun with your design! :)
I like the Erie faction system for actions in Root. You must add at least one action each turn, but then you also must complete all your previously added actions, if you cannot, you start from scratch (or two base actions, technically). I guess it's a card cascade-i never knew the term before
I think that's my favorite Root faction, and you described exactly why I love it!
16:30 a lesser known favorite of mine is an old Rio Grande game called A Castle for All Seasons. It is a combination of worker placement and hand management, but the nice thing about the card that picks up all the other cards - the master builder - is that it's not just a dead turn, but you also earn points if other people build on the same turn that you play that card. So it introduces a lot of strategy as to when it might be good to pick up the cards instead of just emptying your hand and then scooping everything back up.
I like that game a lot, but it came out the same year as Le Havre and Stone Age so it was doomed from the beginning.
I like that example!
In Olympus, when you take an action you advance a certain amount of time on the time scale. The next player is the one the less advance on the time scale. So you can either choose to do a lot of small action ms in time and power of a few powerful action
I love games that use time as a mechanism. Here are some others: ua-cam.com/video/BFJie6q2Y4M/v-deo.html
Wow, I did just design my first game with action selection because I preferred other mechanisms, but wanted to try this out. Thanks for making me think about this mechanism this way! I will integrate the actions thematically fitting into the player board.
Awesome! I hope some fun ideas emerge as a result.
Hey Jamey, thanks for putting this list together and you're right that your viewers know you don't prefer this system and phases (although that one seems to have cooled a bit based on most recent games you like). You mention at the end for people who like action lists to talk about why they like them, but would have loved to have heard in your intro about what positives there are to them and then launching into your negatives and replacements. You did talk about their inherent flexibility right before the video ended, but I know you're mostly a positivity "talk about the good instead of focusing on the bad" kinda guy so would have loved seeing you challenge yourself to find the good in them (unless the flexibility was the only one you thought of). As always, love and appreciate the content--
Flexibility is the only positive (for me) for action point systems. :)
I like that action points make the board easier to read. They provide focus. And often encourage simple actions where the fun and strategy come from how you combine those simple actions or respond to others.
Examples include Zooloretto, Pandemic, Mind MGMT, and Unmatched.
I find games with a ton of action spaces and tracks on the board to be overwhelming. I think they can also be a challenge for new players or those new to boardgames in general.
But, I understand that people enjoy those puzzle aspects where figuring out how to take an action is more of a focus. And particularly if the whole group has played many different games, it won't be as overwhelming when taking an action is a puzzle all to itself.
There are exceptions to this and for me the Pokemon TCG is one. My group has all agreed to learn a fairly complex ruleset and large set of unique cards.
I just realized from your video why i like endless winter so much.
I've never really liked the restrictive nature of worker placement and how unthematic it can feel: Where do i want to place my token so i can do/get xyz and nobody else can now do this ha! Opposed to in which direction do i want to take my strategy my people or creation.
Often i have prefered deck building and hand management since cards with nice artwork often give me a better connection. But that can become too simple after x iterations. And if every game does the same thing it can become dull.
Endless Winter gives me all the deck building and hand management i like, adding depth with the top/bottom pairings in the eclipse phase, which now i realize was what made gloomhaven such an intrieging puzzle to me. Endless Winter then goes ahead and adds even more diversity to the action selection with very light and unrestrictive worker placement, with a touch of action drafting, which also then makes a lot of sense within the theme!
I really need to play that! Thanks for sharing.
In Twisted Trumpets, the game I'm designing now, there are 4 actions that players can choose on their turn, and they take two actions per turn.
I tried really hard to come up with a clever way to choose the actions other than just picking which actions you want to take, but everything I tried detracted from the core fun of the game, which is acquiring tiles and building your trumpet. I also wanted the game to be medium-light weight and the more involved action selection systems upped the complexity a bit too much. In the end the action list provided the smoothest gameplay and I'm okay with trading a more integrated action selection system for that. I think it helps that its only 4 actions to choose from instead of dozens!
I think it's definitely worth considering and trying a more integrated action system FIRST before just falling back on simple action point or action lists.
"I think it's definitely worth considering and trying a more integrated action system FIRST before just falling back on simple action point or action lists."
I agree with this 100%. :)
I like the way Thurn and Taxis does this. Each turn you "seek help" from 1 of 4 people. Admittedly, it's a pretty weak disguise for a simple menu of 4 actions, but it gives more thematic rules-explainers like me a way to explain the options thematically.
@@davidgreaves4525 That's a really great point. Even if it's just some flavor around what those actions "are" in the thematic world of the game, it can make a huge difference. I'm going to work on adding that to mine!
The game The Grand Carnival has an interesting action selection mechanism. You have the numbers 1 through 5, on your turn you pick a number which determines the power of the action for that turn and then you pick what action you want to take at that power but the number you selected is now no longer available for the rest of the round so you have to really plan ahead to not lock yourself out of something you may need.
That is interesting!
Oh no! I just finished a prototype with an action list, haha. Curse you Jamey! Perhaps I can craft a headband that can just hold the cheat sheet card in front a player's face, haha. Jokes aside, I can see how it would take someone out of a game, to have to consistently remind themself of that extra list of things. I really enjoy how the games you presented insert actions in a more thematic way, and as a hobbyist, It's certainly helpful to see what other options are out there. Appreciate the video and the new thoughts it brought!
Thanks for thinking about this concept, Ed!
I can for sure see why action points take away from the immersion, but I would argue there are creative ways to do it right. I really like the way it's done in Raptor.
In Raptor (a 2 player only game), each player chooses a card in secret, then you reveal at the same time and compare. The person who selected the lower value card gets to use the action printed on their card, and the person with the higher value card gets action points equal to the number printed on their card, less the number on their opponent's. Maybe this strays away from pure action points, but it does feel like you "out-thought" your opponent when you play your 9 while they play their 2 card. Thematically, I like to think of it like I'm taking advantage of my opponent taking a rest, using it as an opportunity to do a lot and strike!
Raptor is an excellent example of (in my opinion) an action-point system done well. Thank you for highlighting it!
It's interesting you say Kingsburg combines dice placement with worker placement; the first thing I thought of was that it combines with action drafting. It makes me wonder if there's much of a difference between action drafting and worker placement, other than the components used (action drafting is more commonly cards, or maybe integrated with an auction mechanism).
I fell in love with Trajan, Scythe, Orleans, and Concordia right away due to their action selection mechanisms. Paladins of the West Kingdom, a game you didn't mention, has a lot of similarities to Orleans (activating a single action on your player board with different combinations of tokens) except that in Paladins you have slightly more choice than in Orleans (Orleans you draw blindly from a bag - albeit one whose contents you have shaped; Paladins you select from 3 Paladin cards and two or more Tavern cards to determine your assortment of worker types that round; also there are ways to gain more during the round unlike Orleans). Paladins also has a tiny amount of worker placement, as there are a few cards on the board where you can send workers to activate actions available to all players (the Kings Favor cards).
In Istanbul and Yokohama all of the actions are laid out on a shared board and you have to move your token along paths to reach these actions. Yokohama adds a Location Escalation mechanism (to coin a term based on your Ark Nova category) where the power of the action you take at a location depends on whether you've placed "assistants" and/or buildings on that location previously. Notre Dame has a similar Location Escalation mechanism, but in Notre Dame is combined with a unique action drafting mechanism based on cards.
Oh, let me add this about falling in love with Scythe: not just the action selection mechanism, but specifically the way it was implemented - those dual-layered boards and the Terra Mystica-inspired bonus reveal of the upgrades, structures, mechs, and recruits. The user interface can not only improve immersion and make playing the game more intuitive, it can also be just plain cool to look at and manipulate.
Thanks for sharing this, Steven! I appreciate you highlighting these games, especially Paladins and worker-movement systems like Istanbul and Yokohama.
Thank you for another great video
Gotta love Jaws and Tapestry!
Excellent video
This video got me thinking about something specific, and I'm curious about what Jamey and others think.
There is not much mechanical difference between "On your turn, do one of seven actions" and "Seven actions are printed on your player board. On your turn, move your cube to a new action space and do that action". Removing the ability to perform the same action on subsequent turns is a small restriction. However, to me the two *feel* different in a meaningful way. I think they create different player experiences, and I'm trying to figure out why that is.
Is that it adds additional structure to a player's turn ("At the start of my turn, the first thing I do is...")? Is it that adding a physical action (moving the cube) increases player engagement? Does it give the decision an added feeling of weight?
It feels like understanding that difference would go a long way to creating a better experience for a game where action points would provide the right functionality ("On their turn, the player performs a composite action, but the component options have very different strengths")
There are definitely worker-placement games like this where there's really no interaction between players (i.e., no blocking)--it's just that the display of the board adds to the feeling that you're actually doing something (or having a worker do your bidding), which enhances the immersion and experience.
That's interesting to speak about the different mechanisms of the games.
Another point is today there are so many new games a week (15 each week in average in my country those days) and the players are more and more split into such numerous preferences that we feels we are all moving away from each other like the galaxies in the universe (lol)! More and more players ask for solo rules (not me thank God). More and more youtubers don't find crossovers in their top 100 games with their friends or teammates. There are more and more ads looking for players, not to go to the other's homes and play their games but desperately looking for players to come in their own home (or club) and play their own games! And we see more and more videos of people explaining why they love this or that ... But the question comes immediately in many minds: "Why don't I explain myself why I prefer this or that?" In the chops the merchants don't even know the rules of 75% of their games, come on: 15 new ones each weak! They just don't have the time to learn them ! So the main question stays: "Is this permanent avalanche of new games good for our hobby?" OK half the players (the "Openers") will answer "yes!" (I have friends this way with many new games in their home they even never played), and the other half (the "Deepeners"" - lol - to which I belong) will say "no!" We keep on selecting some very few great games to play a lot and discover all the subtleties with our buddies. We just don't want to spend half our lives reading new rules lol! But still respect for the "Openers" (and good luck!
These are some interesting observations! As for your question about the avalanche of games, I don't think it's bad, but I it it means that any publisher or creator has an increased responsibility to only put their best work forward.
Rondel WITH action points - Tiletum
Great topic again
Deus also uses card cascades like that
It does! I appreciate the reminder--it's been a while since I last played Deus, but I recall enjoying that aspect of it.
Feeling good about my new deckbuilding game ...got a full page of word doc notes!
U must be trying to make an uber innovative deck builder
That's great! And yes, I tried to do something innovative with deckbuilding and it didn't work out, so I used a system similar to Concordia instead.
@Stonemaier Games Oh Yeah. Hopefully it gets released, & you can make the mechanic work elsewhere...either way, can't go wrong with Concordia.
@JameyStegmaier I was wondering what your thoughts on Eldritch Horrors Action Point system. Is there a better choice? None of the options given in the video seem like it would be better and I am working on a similar adventure style game and was planning on using Action Points. Thanks for all the design content you produce, it has been enlightening.
Thanks Eric! It's been a few years since I've played Eldritch Horror--can you remind me how the action point system works in it?
@@jameystegmaier Of course, in Eldritch Horror you can do 2 actions on your turn. You can buy, move, rest, cast a spell, get a resource and focus. Every action is very valuable since its half your turn.
@@ericsmit8336 Thanks! So, I'd ask a few questions: What makes sense thematically? For example, if I use an action to move, does it make sense that I can move again on the same turn (and if so, am I slower or faster at moving a second time). Do any actions make the next action stronger/weaker/inaccessible? Which actions are used more often than others? Does each action feel the same, or should some be more or less involved? Based on those answers, you can create a mechanical system that matches the theme. For example, if casting a spell saps you of energy, choosing a move action might cost more or have a weaker benefit. Or if you choose to rest, your next action may be stronger than normal.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I was thinking about making the action weaker if used twice in a row. I just have to make a way for it to seem natural and not interrupt the flow of the game.
Great content!
Would you say that dominion uses deck building + action points? You’re limited to playing the cards in your hand and also 1 action and 1 buy. But you can get more actions and buys with cards you play. How do you feel about the dominion system?
One of the games I’m working on now has deck building and limits you to using up to 2 of the 4 available actions each turn. I could change this so instead of picking any 2, I arrange the actions in a circle, you put your cube between 2 of them, you are limited to those actions this turn and need to move it elsewhere next turn. Not sure if this improves the game though. You really want to choose the actions to make the most of your cards each turn. It seems more satisfying to be able to choose whichever two options you want and it keeps the game simple.
I tried limiting it to 1 action per turn but the game is MUCH more interesting when you can do 2 things per turn.
I must admit that I much prefer more modern deckbuilding games, either those (like Clank) where you play your entire hand and do as much as you can with the resources generated by those cards or those (like Dune Imperium) in which you're playing a specific number of cards, with each card having a big impact.
4:04 That's not how Kemet works. You CAN select multiple actions from the same row, but at the end (after placing your last action stone) you must have an action stone on each level of that pyramid.
Thanks for the clarification!
hi Jamey
in this list, do you consider mana/resource costs AP, or do you think they're worse, or not applicable (card game specific)?
I would say they're resources, not action points (so not applicable here).
Love this, lots of great ideas running through my head now. But please Jamey, do you have auto white balance enabled on your camera? Turn it off! :D
I don't have auto white balance enabled--that isn't an option on my camera. I do have lighting issues that I just haven't been able to consistently resolve.
In Chora you have action cards with numbers (0 to 6 I think) and cube workers. You must assign a cube to an action card and it's only possible if the cube number is equal to or higher than the number on the card. But you can also spend a resource (population) to make a cube work on a higher number action.
I began learning how to play Tapestry. Overall it's a fun game. I find the capital city grid (for example Wetland) has no relation with the explored lands (tiles). Or any of the advancements tracks related with each other. Sure you can just explore all you want by adding tiles and get VPs then what?
For example build buildings or advancing in technology shouldn't we first have to explore & discover then begin placing buildings and advancing in technology? I guess the game allows you to build the civilization the way you want.
"I guess the game allows you to build the civilization the way you want."
Exactly. :)
@@jameystegmaier will guys come up with a tapestry trilogy? Lol
@@jerryf196 Yes, Tapestry has a trilogy of expansions.
I love the action system in Smartphone Inc. Simple but unique.
It is a cool system, isn't it? If you like that one, you may enjoy the similar systems in Cafe or Fall of the Mountain King.
I'm not familiar with that action system, but I'm curious! How does it work?
@@jameystegmaier You have two double-sided "tablets" that have icons for the various actions on them. You must lay one tablet on top of the other so it covers up some of the actions. Then whatever remains showing are the actions you take for that turn.
Fall of the Mountain King (in the same universe but with completely different mechanisms as Hall of the Mountain King) has a similar idea: you have a set of semi-overlapping action cards, each with a grid of 4-6 action icons. Throughout the game, you add more cards to this set, giving you more/stronger actions. But it's two steps forward and one step back because you must cover up at least one grid space whenever you add a new card, which often means covering up an action icon. The added wrinkle is that when you activate actions, the strength can be boosted by using cubes to cover adjacent matching action icons. And when you cover, what is visible is now considered adjacent. So icons that aren't physically adjacent can become considered adjacent over the course of the round, giving you a fun spatial/timing puzzle. At the end of the round, all cubes are removed. The second wrinkle is you only have so many actions each round. So it's a balancing game between having more actions and having stronger actions. You don't want to have uncovered icons but no more actions to spend, not do you want to have actions to spend but no visible icons to use them on.
@@MW-jt3ds Nice, thank you! That is simple but clever.
I like Pandemic, I like action points. If there available actions are a lot though, I don’t like it as much, but Pandemic only has 4. I always wonder if maybe because I’m newer to the hobby so I’m not jaded. 😂
Isn't it 8 actions? One front-and-back reference card?
@@jameystegmaier move, treat, trade, turn in for cure? Move I guess has more options. But yes there is a back side!
The best known Action Point game I can think of is Pandemic. Which alternative system would you choose for a new Pandemic game?
I appreciate you asking, though I'm not looking to redesign a game that already exists, particularly not one that has brought people as much joy as Pandemic has! :)
@@jameystegmaier just as an intellectual exercise of course, though I can understand you not wanting to touch that one for a bunch of reasons! I'll extend that invitation to the audience 😉
Pandemic is a little tricky in that you don't want to artificially restrict player choices, or leave them to chance since every action counts, and if you can't do the thing you need to do out of dumb luck that would lead to feel-bad moments. So dice and deck building are out.
The most direct translation would perhaps be printed spaces on the board that represent the available actions, perhaps themed like a CDC logistics centre, and using worker placement to execute the actions. You could separate out actions that can only be done once per player turn by marking the 4 player spots on each action space, and actions that can be done any number of times having no printed spaces.
But are there more creative options? Probably. Let's hear them!
I think I may be missing out the point you want to make, or the title of the video is really misleading. Some feedback:
1. Every example you make of games cannot substitute action points, as in every one of those games you do 1 action every turn (or a series of chained actions), not multiple action in whatever order you want, also no game you do not have action that "cost" more...I feel action points translate to you can do multiple things in your turn, in whichever order you want.
2. For checklists, multiple games you mention have checklists...so it seems your biggest dislike of them is that they are relegated to player aids, instead of being represented on the board.
3. Basically every mechanic highlighted in those games comes from a "restriction" on a checklist; ex. you can do only a different action or connected actions (Scythe, Kemet); you must share action with others (dice\worker placement, Ares expedition), you can only choose some of the actions base on you available cards\markers
esources (Track,Rondel,Crew etc).
So overall I get the message of the video to be that you prefer some restriction to your action selection system, or if it is open to be laid out on the board instead of a player aid (to make it more immersive).
Just for some examples of games, can you comment on why you do not like checklists on Terra Mystica? Are action points games with things explained on player boards like Via Nebula ok? And in the end, if you can change the action selection mechanism on those games, what is the one you would have chosen while mantaining the freedom of choice?
I really like every system you explained, but in some games you need to do multiple actions with the freedom of choosing order and the same action multiple times (recently played Revive), and it seems more a decision of what system fit the game...more than use 'better' systems.
Just for some examples of games, can you comment on why you do not like checklists on Terra Mystica?
--Terra Mystica has an action checklist, but not action points (any game where you just take one action per turn doesn't apply to this video).
Are action points games with things explained on player boards like Via Nebula ok?
--It's been a while since I've played that; I can't remember if it gives you multiple action points to spend each turn or not.
And in the end, if you can change the action selection mechanism on those games, what is the one you would have chosen while maintaining the freedom of choice?
--Oh, I'm not here to redesign other people's games. :) I'm just presenting my opinion about systems I prefer over action point systems.
@@jameystegmaier Thank you for the response, I think now I have a better understanding of what the point you were trying to make. I was confused by the examples being all games where you do only 1 thing per turn (kemet is also only 1 per turn, the pyramid is about ending the turn with having a single one token on each row). The examples where you do more than 1 thing per turn, are always about choosing a group of actions and doing them in order, sometime with setup required (Scythe,Wingspan,Hall of mountain king).
So I suspect your dislike is more about games like Terraforming Mars or Pandemic, that makes you do 2+ things unrelated things on your turn
Then I think action points systems do not bring me out of the immersion of a game if done well, much like having Ark Nova be 2 action cards selection a turn instead of one will devalue the experience. Also the "action checklist" can be really thematic like in magic (cards\abilities are your action, mana your action points) and it is really prominent in most of wargames, adventure games (Mansion of Madness, Imperial Assault) and Rpgs.
The two thing that bothers me about action points are:
1. Having to remember\check action how many action remains, basically having to check if the player has finished it's turn or not, that may be mitigated by having simple actions.
2. The waiting between turns with many actionpoints, that the industry seems to already be going away with the trend about "microactions\fast turns" to prevent players having to wait a long time for their turn to come back.
A good example from recent games where the action point system bothers me for the previous things is Tiletum (with even "nested" action points).
ps. Yes via nebula gives you 2 action points to build, explore, transport goods with exploring petrified lands costing both actions.
I disagree with this entire video but it's a great video.
I have not played Scythe yet, but I personally do not like huge complicated Euro-style economy games with tons of actions and fiddly bits that take up the whole table, and I think that "immersion" is a grossly overrated concept in games in general.
But the video is still great.
There are just 8 actions in Scythe, and really just 4 core actions (the other 4 are more like goals you're building up to). That's right on par with the quantity of actions in most action-selection checklist games (and fewer than one of the most popular, Pandemic). :)
Semultenius like Marrakesh
Card cascade - "In the Hall of the Mountain King, and maybe one other game..."
Umm, Wingspan?
Wingspan has card rows, but not card cascades (at least not in the way that Hall does it).