TRN 11 R ANDOM TURN ORDER 59

TRN-11 Random Turn Order

Description

Representatives of play pieces or players are randomized and one is drawn at

a time. at player or play piece takes its turn, and then a new random draw
is made.

Discussion

Random Turn Order can introduce a lot of excitement and tension to a

game, as players anxiously await which token will be revealed next. However,
it also reduces the ability of the players to plan e ectively, which makes it
most e ective in lighter games. Games are more tactical, as players need to
react to the situation as it develops, because they can’t predict when their
turn will come.
ere are ways to increase the ability for strategic planning when using
a Random Turn Order. Pillars of the Earth is a Worker Placement game
(Chapter 9), where workers are pulled from a bag. As with most Worker
Placement games, going early is an advantage, as more and better options
are available. When a player’s piece is pulled, if that player wishes to place it,
they need to pay a cost. is cost starts high and gradually drops throughout
the turn. If a player does not want to (or cannot) pay the cost, the worker is
placed to the side and is used to select an action at the very end of the turn.
is presents players with an interesting strategic option of trying to judge
60 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

the value of going early. e higher price of going early counteracts the luck
of being drawn early.
In Warrior Knights, actions are represented by cards. Each player selects
two cards from their personal deck that they wish to use that turn. e selec-
tions from all the players are shu ed together and then they are drawn one
at a time and the player whose card is chosen performs the corresponding
action.
e inability to create a perfect plan has made this a popular mechanism
in war games. Rather than one player moving all pieces, and then the next
player moving all of theirs, a random draw for who gets to activate next helps
simulate battle eld uncertainty, while also reducing downtime for the play-
ers. Firepower implements this type of chit-pull system.
Random Turn Order also gives the war game designer exibility in mod-
eling superior and inferior units. For example, in the game A Victory Lost:
Crisis in Ukraine 1942–1943, Activation Chits for units are placed into a
cup. However, veteran units receive multiple chits, while new recruits may
receive only one, modeling in a natural way the increased e ectiveness of the
veterans. is is a kind of Deck Building system (CAR-05).
Another technique is to include a wild card or category tokens, which give
the player a choice of which unit to activate when they are pulled, as long as
they correspond to the matching category. is also increases tactical ex-
ibility and reduces the luck factor. Battle Masters is an example of a game that
uses this approach.

Sample Games

Battle Masters (Baker, 1992)

Firepower (Taylor, 1984)
Pillars of the Earth (Rieneck and Stadler, 2006)
A Victory Lost: Crisis in Ukraine 1942–1943 (Nakamura, 2006)
Warrior Knights (Carver, Clequin, Faidutti, and Konieczka, 2006)
 TRN 12 ACTION TIMER 61

TRN-12 Action Timer

Description

Players place owned timers on action spaces and pieces and take an action.
When the timer runs out, it may be moved to another location to take that
action. ere are no turns; players may move their own timers any time after
they have expired.

Discussion

is Action Timer mechanism is typically implemented with sand timers.

Timers allow for a real-time feel (TRN-07), while mitigating their frantic
nature. It allows the game to ow naturally, while giving players some struc-
ture and breathing room to plan their next actions. As such, they can be used
for longer periods of time than would be desirable in a traditional Real-Time
Game.
Sand timers can be placed onto xed spaces on the board to indicate
what actions the players are allowed to take or onto speci c pieces that move
around. In Time ‘n’ Space (a remake of the classic Space Dealer), sand timers
may be placed into a player’s base for research and other actions or directly
onto a spaceship to allow it to move. Similarly, in War Time, the sand timers
are placed directly on the units, which allows them to move or attack.
62 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

Typically, the action is taken when the timer is placed. is allows the
player to place the timer, then actually do the action (take cubes, gain a
research card, perform an attack, move a unit, etc.) while the sands are run-
ning. is reduces overall downtime for the players. If you wait for the timer
to end before doing the action, players will typically quickly move the timer
to a new action to get it going, then go back and execute the original action,
which can add some confusion.
In spite of this mechanism being real-time, it can have a fair amount of
downtime for the players and feels sluggish at points as players watch the
grains of sand, waiting to take their next action. To help mitigate this, players
usually have multiple sand timers to use, to allow for action combos, and to
move things along.
Some games also give players timers of varying durations. In Wartime: e
Battle of Valyance Vale, players have 30-, 60-, and 90-second timers, and each can
be used for any unit. Deciding which to use adds an additional tactical layer and
also helps give the player more to do while waiting for other timers to run out.
TAMSK is an abstract game that takes a unique approach to using sand
timers. e pieces are sand timers, and when they make a move the timers
are ipped. A key element is that if a timer runs out of sand, it is locked into
place. is gives players tactical options of how to use the timers and how
much time they have to think about decisions. A piece that is moved again
shortly after being moved will only have a little time remaining in the timer.
ere are a number of physical issues that need to be dealt with in these
games. First, when players interact with each other, there can be contention
about which timer nished rst and so which player might be able to take an
action space or launch an attack rst. is can be di cult to adjudicate in
the midst of the game, as timers will continue to run.
Also, while a Real-Time Game can be stopped by mutual agreement of the
players, this is harder with a sand timer game. e sand timers need to all be
tipped over, which can take some time and also change the way the sand is
distributed while they lie on their sides—to say nothing of their chances of
rolling o the table!
Finally, there are manufacturing variations with sand timers that can lead
to a timing di erence of many seconds. A 30-second timer may take as long
as 40 seconds to run. Indeed, the same sand timer may run faster or slower
depending on the irregularity of the grains in it and how they happen to fall.
Many timers have di erent run times depending on which side is up. ese
 TRN 12 ACTION TIMER 63

variations need to either simply be accepted or some type of manufacturing

screening process needs to be implemented, which will add cost to production.
In spite of these issues, sand timer games have a unique feel that deserves
further exploration by designers. Apps and other digital-analog hybrids hold
some promise here as well.

Sample Games

Space Dealer (Stapelfeldt, 2006)

TAMSK (Burm, 1998)
Time ‘n’ Space (Stapelfeldt, 2013)
Wartime: e Battle of Valyance Vale (Guild, Lackey, Parks, and Tempkin,
2017)
Wok Star (Fowers, 2010)
64 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

TRN-13 Time Track

Description

ere is a linear “Time Track” with many spaces. Each player has a marker
on the track, which indicates where they are “in time.” Markers farther on
the track are further forward in time.
e player with the marker lowest on the track (furthest “back in time”)
takes the next action. Each action has a cost in time, and the player’s marker
is advanced a number of spaces according to that cost. en, the next lowest
marker on the track takes an action. It is possible that the same player takes
multiple turns in a row.

Discussion

Time Tracks have a number of inherent advantages:

• Clarity: It is obvious who goes next, even though turn order jumps
around a lot.
• Player Control: Players have some choice over who goes next, allowing
for additional tactical play.
• Balance: e designer can include powerful actions but can give them
a long time duration to compensate.

However, there are, of course, downsides to this technique. It can lead to

players being out of the action for some time if they have taken long-duration
options. Admittedly, they have chosen to do this, but an option available to
players should not result in them having a less enjoyable experience.
 TRN 13 TIME TR ACK 65

To prevent this situation, designers typically do not include very long-

duration activities. However, this compression of durations into a narrower
range works against the bene ts and promise of this system, as players usu-
ally are quite close together on the Time Track. e Dragon & Flagon, for
example, has actions that range from one to four Time. Most of the actions
in ebes are in a similar range, although players can opt to dig for artifacts
for up to 12 Time, which will give their opponents the opportunity to per-
form many actions before their turn comes around again.
Because of this tight-duration grouping, players frequently will share a
space on the Time Track. ese ties are usually resolved by having the player
on top of the stack (the last piece to arrive there) move rst. However, this
“Last-in-First-out,” or LIFO, system will give players guaranteed double
moves in some situations. Depending on the game, this may not be an issue
and may even be desirable. But for some, it may be too powerful and some
mediation needs to happen. In e Dragon and Flagon, for example, Turn
Order is randomly determined when multiple players share the same space.
Another alternative is to only allow one piece per space on the Time
Track, forcing players who would otherwise occupy a space to move one or
more spaces further forward until they nd an empty space. is can add an
extra layer of decision-making, as the actual cost of certain actions may vary
based on the positioning of the opponent. When a game o ers only a limited
amount of time or creates triggers based on speci c spaces on the track, the
particulars of how ties are handled and whether players skip spaces become
especially important.
Glen More and Kraftwagen use a Time Track combined with an Action
Selection mechanism. Each space on the Time Track has an associated
action. When players move to the space, they execute the action. e player
furthest back on the track moves rst, and two players may not occupy the
same space. Players have the choice of moving far forward to guarantee a
needed action but potentially giving their opponents multiple turns.

Sample Games

AuZtralia (Wallace, 2018)

e Dragon & Flagon (Engelstein, Engelstein, and Engelstein, 2016)
Glen More (Cramer, 2010)
High Rise (Hova, 2019)
ebes (Prinz, 2007)
Tokaido (Bauza, 2012)
66 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

TRN-14 Passed Action Token

Description

Players possess one or more Action Tokens. ose who have an Action Token
may take a turn, and then they pass the token clockwise, allowing the next
player to perform an action. Actions are performed in real-time; there is no
pausing and structure within the turn.
Typically, to prevent stalling and to keep the game moving, in games with
multiple Action Tokens, if both tokens are held by the same player, they suf-
fer a penalty.

Discussion

is mechanism is a cross between a real-time-based and a turn-based game.

Similar to the Action Timer mechanism (TRN-12), it allows players to play at
their own pace, and asynchronously, but still o ers some structure. However,
with the Action Timer mechanism, players are basically independent of one
other and can operate simultaneously. Here, players are linked more closely,
in that one player’s turn can only start when the previous player nishes
their turn. is helps solve the dilemma of players breaking rules (either
 TRN 14 PASSED ACTION TOKEN 67

inadvertently or deliberately) that are present in other real-time mechanisms.

e inactive players can watch what the active players are doing and interrupt
if necessary. is allows for more complex mechanisms within the game itself
than is possible in traditional real-time games.
Generally, this mechanism requires that multiple Action Tokens are
passed around the circle at the same time. e exception is if the round
itself is timed in some fashion and having possession of the Action Token
causes a player to lose. Hot Potato and Catch Phrase! are examples of this,
where the player holding the item when time runs out loses (see Hot Potato,
RES-23).
When using multiple Action Tokens, a key design consideration is what
happens if multiple tokens end up with the same player. In Camelot, if
another token would be passed to a player who already has one, it instead
skips that player and goes to the person to his or her left. is is equivalent to
losing a turn, as other players will get to act a second time before the a ected
player does. While we recommend against players losing a turn and classify
it as an anti-pattern (TRN-16), in this case, the opportunity to avoid losing
a turn lies with the player and is not luck-based or the result of targeting by
other players. erefore, it is an understandable and satisfying solution to use
in this case. It forces players to move at a reasonable pace, at least comparable
in speed to the other players.
While this solution encourages faster play, it does not mean that the faster
players will always win. If a reasonably thought-out single move will beat
a hasty double move, then playing as fast as possible will not be the domi-
nant strategy. Players will need to balance optimal plays with “good enough”
plays.
An alternative system to penalizing players for collecting a second Action
Token is seen in Diner. In Diner, all players start with an Action Token and
may continue to act simultaneously with others so long as they have at least
one action token. After each action, players pass one action token to the left.
Several Action Token can pile up in front of the same player, and they simply
sit there until the player completes a move and passes a token to the next
player. ere is no “lapping” as there is in Camelot.
is can lead to slower and more conservative play, but in Diner, players
are incentivized to play quickly in order to draft the best cards in a central
tableau. Because players play simultaneously, playing slowly to accumulate
several tokens will allow other players to grab more desirable cards.
It is also possible to use Passed Action Tokens as an overlay or subset of
another structure. Space Cadets uses a real-time turn structure, but in certain
68 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

situations, an Action Token (a small deck of cards in this case) is passed

around to allow players to perform a special action beyond what they can
normally do.
Eclipse, in a variant mode that can accommodate as many as nine players,
uses two Action Tokens. e only distinction between the tokens is that one
provides priority over the other for acquiring new technologies. e system is
surprisingly e ective at speeding along what would otherwise be an unplay-
able behemoth of a game.

Sample Games

Camelot (Jolly, 2005)

Catch Phrase! (Uncredited, 1994)
Diner (O’Malley, 2014)
Eclipse (rule variant) (Tahkokallio, 2011)
Hot Potato (Unknown, 1800’s)
Space Cadets (Engelstein, Engelstein, and Engelstein, 2012)
 TRN 15 INTERLEAVED VS. SEQUENTIAL PHASES 69

TRN-15 Interleaved vs. Sequential Phases

Description

is describes two di erent meta-turn structures. In an Interleaved Phase

structure (a), all players perform the rst phase, then all perform the second
phase, etc. In a Sequential Phase structure (b), each player performs all phases
before moving on to the next player, who then performs all phases, etc.

Discussion

Interleaved structures in general are preferred in modern design, as they

reduce downtime between player actions. War games in the 1970s and 1980s
were notorious for their “I Go, You Go” structures, where one player would
take a turn that could last for a very long time, with the other player wan-
dering o to do some other activity. In the 1980s and 1990s, this started to
shift, with designers moving to Interleaved turn structures to keep players
70 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

more engaged throughout. However, there are plenty of games that stick to a
Sequential turn structure for a variety of reasons.
e Russian Campaign, a simulation of the German invasion of Russia
during World War II, uses a strictly Sequential turn structure. Each player
performs all of these steps before the turn passes to the next player:

• Receive Reinforcements and Replacements

• Move All Units
• Combat
• Breakthrough Movement
• Breakthrough Combat

e Sequential structure of e Russian Campaign is integral to the strategy

and experience of the game. Allowing one player to move and attack twice
before the opponent gets to respond gives the game epic swings and dev-
astating breakthroughs and does a particularly good job of capturing the
early and late phases of the war, which featured large-scale encirclements and
desperate breakouts.
In contrast, Power Grid uses an Interleaved turn structure. ere are three
main Phases in each Round:

• Buy Power Plants

• Buy Raw Materials
• Build Power Lines

In turn, all players perform Buy Power Plants, then in turn all players per-
form Buy Raw Materials, etc. ere is little time between a player taking
their next action.
Any turn structure can be used inside the meta-structures of Sequential
and Interleaved. For example, Power Grid uses a Stat Order structure
(TRN-02).
ese structures are not mutually exclusive: some parts of a game may
be interleaved and some may be sequential, and di erent Turn Order struc-
tures may be used for each. For example, Simultaneous Turn structure is
frequently appropriate during upkeep or planning phases but the movement
is usually sequential. As always, these di erent mechanisms are tools, and
each has its place and circumstance.
 TRN 15 INTERLEAVED VS. SEQUENTIAL PHASES 71

Sample Games

Sequential

e Russian Campaign (Edwards, 1974)

rough the Ages: A Story of Civilization (Chvátil, 2006)

Interleaved

Orleans (Stockhausen, 2014)

Power Grid (Friese, 2004)
72 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

TRN-16 Lose a Turn

Description

is is a meta-mechanism that can be applied to a variety of turn structures.

A player who “Loses a Turn” must skip their next opportunity for a turn.

Discussion

Losing a Turn was common in Roll and Move games of the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries (MOV-02). In the current game-design philosophy, it is
considered an anti-pattern to be avoided. It was frequently used as a possible
outcome of landing on a particular space or drawing a card—actions which
were, themselves, random and not the result of a player’s choice. Losing a
Turn keeps the player from enjoying and participating in the game and can be
very frustrating if one player is disproportionately a ected. Mostly though, it
frustrates the intent of the player as a person seeking to engage in an activity.
Players want to play a game, and losing your turn means not playing a game.
Like the ads on the radio that interrupt the music, if it happens too often,
players will “change stations” and play something else (Illustration 2.3).
ere are other mechanisms where players are allowed to take a turn but
may end up not doing anything, which can be equally an issue, that is func-
tionally (and psychologically) and generally equivalent to Lose a Turn. An
example may be having to win a Roll and Move game by “exact count,”
such as Trouble or Snakes & Ladders. In these games, players may only win
by advancing to the nal space by getting exactly what they need and can
result in many turns of fruitlessly rolling a die or spinning a spinner. While
 TRN 16 LOSE A TURN 73

Illustration 2.3 The Jail space in Monopoly may cause

players to lose up to three turns. Initially, this can be harmful
to a player’s position, but in the late stages of the game, it
can be a respite from possibly landing on others’ properties.
the players still get a turn, and there is some excitement in seeing if the player
will win, it still can become frustrating if it lasts many turns.
Similarly, games like Sorry! require certain values to leave “Home” and, in
essence, start the game. Again, this can result in many consecutive turns of
inactivity, which leads to frustration and boredom. In Monopoly, players can be
sent to Jail, where they will need to roll doubles to escape. Monopoly has some
remediation to this “Lose a Turn” e ect, as players may choose to pay to get out
of Jail and will be let out after a maximum of three lost turns elapse. In later
stages of the game, players may prefer (and hope) to remain in Jail to avoid the
possibility of paying high rents for landing on properties with hotels.
ere are other e ects that are similar to losing a turn. In a Worker
Placement game (Chapter 9), losing a worker for a round is equivalent to
losing a turn. In an Action Retrieval system (ACT-03), the turn that the
Actions are retrieved can feel like a lost turn to players. In a shedding card
game where cards are shed one per turn (like UNO), having to draw cards is
similar to “Losing a Turn” in terms of tempo, although it does not impinge
on the player’s participation in the game. Similarly, when some players gain
extra turns, this is equivalent to the others losing a turn. However, due to
psychological framing e ects, these more modern takes do not feel as bad.
us, giving extra turns to other players or removing resources can be a bet-
ter solution for including “Lose a Turn” e ects.
If the reason that a turn is lost is in control of the player, then this anti-
pattern is remediated. If players choose to take a risky course or over-spend
74 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

a resource that leaves them unable to take a turn, that can be an e ective
design, as turn loss results from player action and is not perceived as unfair
by players. As an example, in the Passed Action Token game, Camelot (TRN-
14), players who play too slowly may miss a turn if the other Action Token
catches up to them. Instead of making a game slow and frustrating, this adds
excitement, as players can see the Action Token getting closer and can speed
up their play to avoid losing a turn.

Sample Games

Camelot (Jolly, 2005)

Monopoly (Darrow and Magie, 1933)
Snakes & Ladders (Unknown, ∼200 )
Sorry! (Haskell, Jr. and Storey, 1929)
Trouble (Kohner, Kohner, and Kroll, 1965)
UNO (Robbins, 1971)
 TRN 17 INTERRUPTS 75

TRN-17 Interrupts

Description

is is a meta-mechanism for Turn Order. Players may take an action that

interrupts the normal turn ow.

Discussion

is mechanism can be used with almost any of the turn structures dis-
cussed. e ability to interrupt an opponent during their turn can be an
important part of the design. e interruption can be a standard ability that
players have and can be based on cards in their hands or other special tokens.
Squad Leader is an example of the “standard ability” style. During the
Movement Phase, one player moves their pieces or stacks one-by-one, one space
at a time. e other player (the “defender” for that turn) may, at any time,
interrupt movement to take a Defensive Fire opportunity at the moving units.
is is an option that is always available to units; no special ability is required.
Magic: e Gathering, by contrast, features cards that are labeled as Instants.
ese cards, but no others, can be played on the opponent’s turn in response to
an opponent’s action. Other games frequently will call these cards Reactions. If
you don’t have a Reaction card, you will not be able to take a Reaction.
Incorporating Interrupts into the design has several positive features. First,
it keeps players engaged. If players can interrupt their opponents and nd the
perfect opportunity to strike, they are incentivized to pay attention to the
action at all times. is reduces downtime, or perceived downtime. Before
Squad Leader, war games mostly had a strict “I Go, You Go” structure, which
made it appealing for players to mentally check out when it was not their turn.
In Squad Leader, even if defenders never take a Defensive Fire shot, they
were still engaged throughout their opponent’s turn because they were always
evaluating the option to re. Similarly, in games where players can play reac-
tion cards, players need to monitor the action continuously.
76 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

Interrupts add uncertainty and chaos to the game and undermine the
ability of players to create a perfect plan. Players cannot be certain that their
squad will make it across the street or that the monster will successfully
attack. is can be positive or negative depending on the goal of the design.
Interrupts give a leg up to players who are more familiar with the game than
new players. Understanding the range of possible opponent responses gives
experienced players an advantage when formulating their plans. Even if they
can’t be perfect, they can plan contingencies for possible opponent responses.
Because of their asynchronous nature, Interrupts require rules and conven-
tions around their play to give players the opportunity to react and also to
adjudicate if multiple players want to react at the same time. In Squad Leader,
for example, there is a speci c rule that a player moving a stack of units must
pause brie y after entering each space, to give an opponent the opportunity to
announce Defensive Fire. is requires the cooperation of the players to keep
these pauses long enough for players to decide but short enough not to unduly
lengthen the game. Conventions may be developed, such as a player being
allowed to request a few extra seconds to make a decision. Similarly, when play-
ing reaction cards, there needs to be an opportunity for players to play them.
Some designs allow Interrupts to themselves be interrupted. Obviously,
the system needs to prevent in nite Interrupts, such as requiring the play or
discard of a card and/or resource(s) to execute an Interrupt.
ere also needs to be a system to handle the order of resolving multiple
Interrupts. Magic: e Gathering uses a LIFO system and an Instant stack. If
a player wants to play an Instant in response to another Instant, they play the
card on top of the earlier card. When all Instants have been played into this
stack, they are resolved from the top down. e rst card to be played will
be the last to be resolved.
Some games will allow the Interrupt to change the turn order. For exam-
ple, in Mille Bornes, a player may respond to a Hazard card being played on
them by playing the matching Safety. If they do, the interrupting player—
the one who played the Safety—immediately becomes the active player and
takes a normal turn. e players between the old active player and the inter-
rupting player are skipped, losing their turn (TRN-16).

Sample Games

Magic: e Gathering (Gar eld, 1993)

Mille Bornes (Dujardin, 1954)
Squad Leader (Hill, 1977)
 3

Actions

When watching a movie or seeing a play, the story progresses independent

of the viewer. Games, however, require action by the player to move things
forward. ese actions may be based purely on luck, rely solely on the player’s
skill, or lie somewhere in between. But a fundamental di erentiator of games
from many other activities is that the players must act. While later chapters
will discuss what those speci c actions might be, this one describes di erent
ways that the players are permitted by the designer to take actions and the
way that those ow. us, the mechanisms discussed here should be viewed
in conjunction with the Turn Structures of Chapter 2.
An Action is an atomic step or series of steps that a player chooses to
perform. For example, moving a piece, picking up a cube, selling a share
of stock, or initiating combat may all be Actions. An Action may also be
compound, allowing a player to both pick up a cube and sell a share of stock,
depending on the structure and metaphor of the game.
e selection and integration of Actions into the game can give play a spe-
ci c feel. ese Action systems control the complexity of the game, in terms
of the number of Actions a player may perform consecutively and how they
interrelate, the interaction between players, and other features. Manipulation
of the Action system, as in a Rondel (ACT-10, Rondel Games) or Action
Queue (ACT-06), can become the focus of the game itself and a key mecha-
nism. Or it can simply provide a framework that fades into the background.
If a game is not interactive enough, or if it overwhelms players with too
many choices, the root of the problem is frequently in how Actions are made
available to the players. Looking closer at that part of the design may pay
dividends.

DOI: 10.1201/9781003179184-3 77
78 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

ACT-01 Action Points

Description

A player receives a number of Action Points on their turn. ey may spend

them on a variety of Actions.

Discussion

is is a broad mechanism that is isomorphic to a variety of game structures.

However, some generalities can be discussed.
A common implementation is that a player receives a xed number of
Action Points on their turn and can spend them on any combination of
Actions, each of which spends one of those points. Pandemic, for example,
gives a player four Action Points each turn, which can be spent on several
Actions, such as moving to another city or removing a disease cube.
Tikal takes a similar approach, but Actions may cost more than one Action
Point. Each player gets ten Action Points for the turn, and the cost of Actions
ranges from one to four. is can dramatically increase the decision space for
players, so the designer needs to be cognizant of the additional weight this
will add to the game (Illustration 3.1).
 ACT 01 ACTION POINTS 79

Illustration 3.1 The Action reference from Tikal. The cost of

each action is indicated by the small red circles to the right.
Players have ten Action Points to spend each turn.

A game may have multiple currencies of Action Points. rough the Ages: A
Story of Civilization has two types of Action Points: Civil and Military. Each
may only be spent on speci c types of Actions.
Variations of this mechanism may also limit players to only performing
an Action one time per turn. Some allow players to leave some Action Points
unused to be carried over to the next turn, and others require that all be spent
or lost.
Many games use this mechanism without explicitly awarding Action
Points to the players. For example, the game may simply tell players that they
may take two out of three possible Actions, or even one. In Feudum, each
player simultaneously selects four out of eleven Action cards available in a
personal pool to use each turn. is makes it obvious whether an Action can
be performed multiple times, or just once, depending on how many copies of
the same Action card are in the deck.
A variant Action Point system is found in Starship Samurai. Here, players
select the Action they wish to perform from a limited menu. ey must also use
one of their order counters, which are numbered from one to four. e number
determines the number of times the Action may be executed. For example, if
players choose the Move Action and use their “3” token, they get to move 3 units.
80 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

Action Point systems give the players a lot of exibility in how they
approach their turn. e pace of the game can be controlled by the designer
by changing the number of Action Points available each turn. Small values
will lead to quicker turns. Larger values will lengthen turns but also open up
more space for combos.

Sample Games

Android Netrunner (Gar eld and Litzsinger, 2012)

Feudum (Swanson, 2018)
Forbidden Island (Leacock, 2010)
Kemet (Bariot and Montiage, 2012)
Pandemic (Leacock, 2008)
Starship Samurai (Vega, 2018)
rough the Ages: A Story of Civilization (Chvátil, 2006)
Tikal (Kiesling and Kramer, 1999)
 ACT 02 ACTION DR AFTING 81

ACT-02 Action Drafting

Description

Players select from an assortment of Actions in a shared pool. e available

Actions are limited in quantity, and once a player has chosen an Action it
may not be chosen again.

Discussion

is mechanism creates player interaction within the Action selection itself.

While many games have Actions, typically if an Action is chosen by one
player, that does not deny it to another. Action Drafting creates a market-
place for Actions, with players competing to select them.
Action Drafting is a very common mechanism that goes by a variety of
names, such as Role Selection or Worker Placement. In a Worker Placement
mechanism, players place pawns (“workers”) onto Action spaces on a board,
perform the Actions, and deny the use of those Action spaces to their oppo-
nents. Because of the variety and importance of Worker Placement, we have
dedicated Chapter 9 to exploring its considerations and variations. e issues
discussed there, such as the strength of the rst player advantage, apply to
most of the mechanisms discussed here as well.
Citadels is an example of a Role Selection implementation of Action Drafting.
In Citadels, the start player takes all the role cards (which show their associated
actions), selects an Action card, and then passes the remaining cards to the
82 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

player to the left. Because the card chosen is secret, this system generates infor-
mation asymmetry (UNC-05). Puerto Rico and Race for the Galaxy are similar
examples of Role Selection, as in each round, every player selects (drafts) a role
and gets to perform associated actions. Puerto Rico allows all players to perform
a less powerful version of the action the drafting player selected, only the player
may select a given role each round (see “Follow, ACT-08” in this chapter). In
Race for the Galaxy, players also can Follow with a weaker version of the action
another player selected, but multiple players can select the same role and get the
stronger version of the action.
Frequently this mechanism is implemented with a Dice Pool. At the start
of the Action Selection phase, dice are rolled, with results corresponding to
a speci c action. In La Granja, for example, all the 4s rolled are placed into
the “Take 4 Coins” action space. Once all dice are placed in their boxes, the
players take turns selecting a die and performing the associated action. In a
separate twist, there is an extra die left over after all players have selected two
action dice, and every player gets to perform that nal action.
An Action Drafting system based on a dice pool works against per-
fect plans, as players need to adapt to whatever actions are available. In
addition, it forces players to consider not just their own plans but also
what their opponents may need. Players may consider taking a sub-optimal
selection in order to deprive their opponents of the option (so-called “hate
drafting”).
Another variant on this mechanic is found in Dungeon Lords. In this
game, players secretly select three out of six possible Action cards, placing
them face down in front of them in order. Each player then reveals their rst
card and places tokens on the corresponding spaces (with ties in order being
broken by a Start Player token). e players who claim Action space earlier
can perform more powerful versions of the Actions.
In War of the Ring, each player has their own pool of action dice and
players take turns selecting one of their dice. ese systems are not really
drafting, in that players are not denying their opponent an Action. However,
it does restrict the range of possible Actions, gives players exibility, and an
understanding of the possible Actions available to their opponent.

Sample Games

7 Wonders (Bauza, 2010)

Agricola (Rosenberg, 2007)
Citadels (Faidutti, 2000)
 ACT 02 ACTION DR AFTING 83

Coimbra (Brasini and Gigli, 2018)

Dungeon Lords (Chvátil, 2008)
La Granja (Keller and Odendahl, 2014)
Puerto Rico (Seyfarth, 2002)
Race for the Galaxy (Lehmann, 2007)
War of the Ring (Di Meglio, Maggi, and Nepitello, 2004)
Yspahan (Pauchon, 2006)
84 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

ACT-03 Action Retrieval

Description

Each player has a set of Actions available to them, represented by cards,

tokens, or some other component. Once the Action is performed, the com-
ponent is spent and the Action may not be performed again until the compo-
nent is retrieved. Action Retrieval may be an Action taken as part of a turn
or it may consume an entire turn.

Discussion

Action Retrieval rewards e ciency. Because retrieving the used cards takes
an Action, players that retrieve more frequently will be at a disadvantage, as
they will conduct fewer Actions that advance their cause.
e Actions available to players usually span a gamut of discrete options that
a ect di erent aspects of the game. For example, Assault of the Giants has the
actions Move, Attack, Recruit, Make Alliance, and Leader. Once players use
Move, they cannot play it again until they take a Retrieve turn, which restores
all action cards used since the last Retrieve. is stops players from repeatedly
selecting a speci c Action over and over again, forcing them to adopt balanced
 ACT 03 ACTION RETRIEVAL 85

strategies, and to plan several turns ahead. erefore, a game that incorporates
this mechanism will have a much more strategic feel. Action Retrieval also
allows for additional tactical play, as your opponents will know, for example,
that you do not have a Move action available and will not be able to respond to
opponents moving to di erent areas (Illustration 3.2).
Many games introduce additional wrinkles to reward planning and
sequencing. Assault of the Giants, for example, makes Actions more powerful
as more Actions are played. For example, if the Move card is played as the
rst card after a Retrieve, only one unit can move. But if Recruit and Attack
have been played before Move, then three units may move.
In Champions of Hara, cards have a “play” e ect and a “retrieval” e ect.
An action is required to play them from the hand, which triggers the play
e ect. In a future turn, an action must be used to retrieve the card back into
the player’s hand, at which time, the card’s retrieval e ect is triggered.
Another variation on this mechanism is a mix of one-time and recoverable
cards. Gloomhaven has some action cards that can only be used one time dur-
ing a scenario. Others may be recovered by having a character Rest.

Illustration 3.2 When the Tribune card is played in

Concordia, the player retrieves their action cards and gains
a bonus. The more cards played prior to retrieval, the larger
the bonus.
86 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

Sample Games

Assault of the Giants (Parks, 2017)

Century: Spice Road (Matsuuchi, 2017)
Champions of Hara (Barber, VanNest, and Zimmerman, 2018)
Concordia (Gerdts, 2013)
Gloomhaven (Childres, 2017)
Spirit Island (Reuss, 2017)
 ACT 04 ACTION/EVENT 87

ACT-04 Action/Event

Description

On their turn, the player plays a card that shows Action Points and an Event.
ey must choose to either use the Action Points or perform the Event. If
they choose to use the Action Points, typically the Event may be performed
by another player.

Discussion

is mechanism builds on a basic Action Point system and allows designers

to integrate a lot of avors and special actions into a system to emphasize
the theme. It was pioneered in historical simulations as a way of introduc-
ing historical events without unduly adding rules overhead. For example,
Twilight Struggle, a simulation of the Cold War, has a card that can be
used either for two Action Points or the Fidel event. If the Action Points
are chosen, there is a standard list of Actions on which they can be spent
(ACT-01) (Illustration 3.3).
Many games incorporate an Event Deck (ACT-17), which is another way
to include special e ects and deeper theming. However, the Action/Event
system gives players another layer of choice, rather than simply imposing
global e ects.
Often, games using this system add another layer of player decision-
making by having some or all events only eligible for speci c players. For
example, in We the People, a simulation of the American Revolution, certain
events may only be performed by the Colonists and others by Great Britain.
88 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

Illustration 3.3 The “Fidel” card in Twilight Struggle can

either be used for two Action Points (the number in the
upper left) or for the Fidel event. The Red Star icon shows
that the event favors the Soviet player and will trigger even
if the US player uses the card for its Action Points.

If a player is not eligible to use the event on a card, they must use the Action
Points. Similarly, some events are dependent on speci c locations, control of
particular areas, the presence of certain characters, etc. In Empires of the Void
II, for example, events can be tied to speci c planets, and if those planets
are not in play or the planet’s condition does not match the event’s prereq-
uisites, the player may only use the card for its point value, rather than the
event. In World War II: Barbarossa to Berlin, there are prerequisite events that
must be triggered before other following events may be used. is helps pre-
vent anachronisms in games that model historical events. It can also ensure
proper cause-and-e ect in the narrative ow of a game.
Twilight Struggle takes this enforcement of sequencing even further by
automatically triggering your opponent’s Event when you play a card featur-
ing such an event for its Action Points. For example, the Warsaw Pact event
is a USSR event. If the US player plays the card, he or she must use the three
Action Points, but the USSR will still get to perform the Event. On the
 ACT 04 ACTION/EVENT 89

other hand, if the USSR player plays the card, they must choose between the
Event and the Action Points. Generally, used cards are recycled into the deck
several times over the course of the game, but some cards are permanently
discarded after their event is triggered. Once again, this helps with chronol-
ogy—Anwar Sadat takes control of Egypt only once—but it also adds com-
plexity to the choice of Action or Event and the sequence of play. It may be
better to forgo playing your own Event, and using the Action Points instead,
in hopes that the card will reappear in your opponent’s hands and they will
be forced to trigger it.
Twilight Struggle and We the People are two-player games. is system is
extended to multiplayer in e Expanse Board Game, which supports up to
four players, each of whom represents a faction. Between two and four fac-
tions are eligible for each event, and if a player uses the Action Points, the
other players are given the option to perform it, in a priority order. In 1960:
e Making of the President, players may trigger their events when their oppo-
nent plays a card for its action points by spending a Momentum Marker.
However, players may also pre-empt an event from being triggered by their
opponent by paying two Momentum Markers when they play the card.

Sample Games

1960: e Making of the President (Leonhard and Matthews, 2007)

Empires of the Void II (Laukat, 2018)
e Expanse Board Game (Engelstein, 2017)
Hannibal: Rome vs Carthage (Simonitch, 1996)
Twilight Struggle (Gupta and Matthews, 2005)
We the People (Herman, 1993)
World War II: Barbarossa to Berlin (Raicer, 2002)
90 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

ACT-05 Command Cards

Description

Players have a hand of cards that allows them to activate and perform actions
with a subset of their units.

Discussion

Players have a hand of cards that represent di erent geographic regions or

unit types and must play one each turn. When a geographic region card is
played, units in the region(s) indicated may take Actions. If a Unit Type card
is played, only units of that type may take Actions.
In Memoir ’44 the cards represent the center, left ank, or right ank; or a
set of units, for example, all Tank units. Players can plan their future actions
based on the cards in their hands. Hand-size limits help de ne the informa-
tion horizon and amount of look-ahead players can engage in. Players may
try to build a bank of cards in a particular sector to orchestrate a multi-
pronged attack, or they may riskily move a unit out of cover to take a better
shot, despite not having another card in hand to move the unit to safety the
next turn. Like in real battles, players may not be able to execute the tactics
 ACT 05 COMMAND CARDS 91

Illustration 3.4 Command Cards from Memoir ’44. While

all are Recon cards, each may only activate units in the
highlighted region.

they believe are best. e system is quite elegant as an abstraction of break-

downs in communication and command-and-control that occur in warfare
(Illustration 3.4).
In a traditional war game, players can take actions with all of their units
each turn. Command Card systems limit this to a subset of units, which
reduces the length of turns and simpli es decision-making, giving the game
a lighter feel.
Some games, such as Risk: Star Wars Edition, give players a range of one to
three possible activation choices, building in greater exibility and planning.
In the extreme limit, with one unit at a time being activated, this mecha-
nism reduces to a Chit Draw system (TRN-11).

Sample Games

Battle Cry (Borg, 2000)

BattleLore (Borg, 2006)
C&C Ancients, Napoleonics, etc. (Borg, 2006–2018)
Combat Commander: Europe (Jensen, 2006)
Memoir ’44 (Borg, 2004)
Risk: Star Wars Edition (D’Aloisio, Rucker, and Van Ness, 2015)
92 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

ACT-06 Action Queue

Description

Players create Action Queues and perform them in sequence.

Discussion

While this mechanism has many di erent implementations, at its core, the
idea is that players must plan their actions and commit to a speci c sequence
of execution. For example, players may have to plot the movement of a robot
by placing three Action cards in sequence that may, for example, cause the
robot to move forward two spaces, then turn left, and then move one more
space. e types of actions, the way they are revealed and resolved, and other
speci cs have several variations (Illustration 3.5).
Action Queues emphasize planning but can also introduce chaos as play-
ers commit to a course of action several steps or turns in advance, keep them
hidden from the other players, and have limited opportunity to change the
plan. is introduces Yomi (UNC-01), as players try to guess what other
players will do and what the board state may look like in the future.
Actions are typically represented by cards, as they can contain a lot of
information about the preconditions and resolutions. Tiles can also be used
but need to be simpler. Queues can either be Rolling, where the Action at the
head of the queue is revealed and performed as a new Action is added to the
end, or Batch, where a set number of cards are added to the queue at one time
and then all are resolved in order.
 ACT 06 ACTION QUEUE 93

Illustration 3.5 A sample queue Space Alert. Coordinating

the time step with other players is important, so players are
allowed to leave blank steps—steps 2 and 5 in this
example.

One of the earliest uses of a Rolling Queue is the 1965 game Nuclear War.
In this game, each player has a queue of two cards in front of them. On their
turn, they add a card to the end of the queue, and then turn up and execute
the card at the queue head. In Nuclear War, the players start at peace and
may perform certain peace actions, but when someone launches a missile,
only war actions may be taken. e delayed Action Queue gives the game
tremendous tension, as players need to decide if they can continue to perform
peace actions or want to be the rst to declare war.
RoboRally uses a Batch Queue. e players fully plan an entire series of
actions and then resolve them using an Interleaved turn structure, with each
player revealing and performing the action in the rst slot, then each player
doing the second action, etc. Swashbuckler, instead of using cards, has players
record their actions on a record sheet, in blocks of six time steps. Players then
resolve each time step.
RoboRally only allows players to queue Movement actions, with other
actions (such as shooting) being done on the y as the opportunity permits.
In contrast, Swashbuckler allows players the full suite of movement, combat,
and other actions.
Twin Tin Bots uses a Batch Queue approach, but the entire queue does not
get replaced at once. Players may only replace one Action in the queue each turn.
e others remain and are performed. is obviously adds more complexity to
the programming step as players need to play further ahead about how they
may change their queues. Mechs vs. Minions is a similar example of this system.
When queues get longer, and particularly when movement and rota-
tion actions are included in the available actions, players need to visualize
where they will be as they progress through the queue. Visualizing spatial
94 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

relationships is cognitively taxing and tends to lead to a chaotic board state.

is combination may not be well received by some players, because of the
contrast between the cognitive e ort expended and the seemingly unpredict-
able outcomes of the game. Some games, however, such as RoboRally and
Space Alert, are built on this precise dynamic and experience.
Other games, such as Colt Express, address this challenge by limiting the size
of the play area. In Colt Express, players can move to the head or rear of a short
train of cars, or between the inside and the top of those cars. Each player can
move to one of three spaces per turn, and the whole board is about ten spaces in
a 2-by-5 array (depending on player count), increasing the likelihood of player
collisions and interactions, while decreasing the cognitive load on players.
Root has a unique take on the Action Queue. One of the player-controlled
factions must add a new Action to its queue each turn (in any position) and
perform all the Actions in sequence. If an Action cannot be executed, the
player loses victory points and all Action cards in the queue are discarded.
Another variation is in Valparaiso. Players simultaneously plan their actions
in a queue and then execute them in order. However, as the turn unfolds,
they may pay gold to perform an action in their queue sooner than planned.

Sample Games

Rolling Queue

e Dragon & Flagon (Engelstein, Engelstein, and Engelstein, 2016)

Killer Bunnies and the Quest for the Magic Carrot (Bellinger, 2002)
Nuclear War (Malewicki, 1965)

Batch Queue

Colt Express (Raimbault, 2014)

Gunslinger (Hamblen, 1982)
Mechs vs. Minions (Cantrell, Ernst, Librande, Saraswat, and Tiras, 2016)
RoboRally (Gar eld, 1994)
Root (Wehrle, 2018)
Space Alert (Chvátil, 2008)
Swashbuckler (O’Neill and Taylor, 1980)
Twin Tin Bots (Keyaerts, 2013)
Valparaiso (Malz and Malz, 2018)
 ACT 07 SHARED ACTION QUEUE 95

ACT-07 Shared Action Queue

Description

All players add Actions to a central Action Queue. Actions in the Queue are
performed by all players.

Discussion

is is a variation on the standard Action Queue mechanism. Here, on their

turn, a player adds one or more Actions to the end of a queue shared by all
players and then executes the full queue from start to nish. is system
increases interactivity, as players plan actions not just for themselves but also
for their opponents. It gives a di erent avor of strategic options, as players
attempt to plan actions that will bene t them more than their opponents.
Sequencing may also play a role, as players may be out of position to execute
an earlier action, a de ciency that cascades throughout the queue, as the
e ectiveness of later actions depends on having executed the earlier actions.
e two-player game Major General: Duel of Time takes this a step further
by including two actions on each card played, one for each player. It is also
unique in that actions may be placed anywhere in the queue, not just at the
end. After playing an action, the player executes actions from the end of the
queue closest to them. On their opponent’s turn, they will resolve the actions
in the opposite order and using the other actions on the cards.
96 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

Each turn in Mottainai, a player plays a card in front of them that allows
the taking of a particular action. However, before performing it, the player rst
performs the actions in front of each opponent, going clockwise and ending
with themselves. is is similar to Follow (ACT-08), except that the opponent’s
chosen actions are executed on your turn, not on the opponent’s turn.
A variation on a Shared Action Queue is used in Kraftwagen, which has a
queue of action tokens, trailed by a queue of player markers. e player at the
end of the queue may move to any position and execute the Action of the token
in that position. However, the farther ahead the person moves, the longer it will
be until they are once again at the end, and in position to take a new action.
Kraftwagen blends a Shared Action Queue with a Time Track (TRN-13).

Sample Games

Impulse (Chudyk, 2013)

Kraftwagen (Cramer, 2015)
Major General: Duel of Time (Liu, Moorman, Yeong, and Zhao, 2017)
Mottainai (Chudyk, 2015)
 ACT 08 FOLLOW 97

ACT-08 Follow

Description

One player selects an Action. Other players may then perform that Action or a
modi ed version of it. is is closely related to Action Drafting (ACT-02) and
Role Selection (TRN-10) and is often implemented alongside those systems.

Discussion

Follow mechanisms are a form of Action Selection that has a high degree of
player involvement. Puerto Rico is a good example. On their turn, a player selects
one of the available roles and executes the action associated with it. en, in
turn, each player gets to execute the role. e player who selected the role also
gets a bonus for their action. For example, the player who selects Builder gets
a discount on the cost of construction and performs the action rst. e other
players then each perform the Builder action, paying the normal cost.
is mechanism forces players to consider not just what they want to do
but what will be good for their opponents. Does someone really need to
build? Perhaps picking Builder is not the best choice. Can someone only
build if they get the discount? en selecting Builder, even if it helps other
players too, may be the best option. Players need to look holistically at every-
one’s position, not just their own.
98 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

A variation on this mechanism can be found in Glory to Rome and SPQF.

In these games, Actions are taken by playing a card from the hand, which are
in certain suits. Other players may echo the action if they play one or more
cards matching the suit. In this way, the players that are echoing may end up
performing more powerful versions of the actions by discarding several cards.
It also means that if players cannot match the action card’s suit, they may not
echo it. Since players’ hands are hidden in these games, this makes determining
the best option somewhat of a guessing game. But careful attention will show
what may be useful to other players and what cards they may have collected.
Follow systems of this sort introduce a cost to the follow action. In
Eminent Domain, players may Follow by discarding cards of the same suit,
which further powers the action. Because the game is a deck-builder, the
cards spent from hand are only an opportunity cost, as they will eventually
be shu ed back into the player’s deck. In Tiny Epic Galaxies, players must
spend a Culture resource to follow, which is a more concrete cost.
In Mottainai, players, on their turn, may perform the actions that the
other players played on their prior turn. Unlike other Follow mechanism
implementations, this one calls for a batch execution of the sequence of
actions, rather than an Interleaved system.
Generally, Follow systems are excellent at keeping players engaged on
every turn, since players act, or have the potential to act, on every turn.
However, they may also slow down play, since players have to decide on every
single turn whether they wish to Follow and how. Designers are encouraged
to include some physical tokens to keep track of who the active player is, too,
since the interleaving of player actions inside each active player’s turn can
lead to turn-order confusion.

Sample Games

Ceylon (Zinsli and Zinsli, 2018)

Eminent Domain (Ja ee, 2011)
Glory to Rome (Chudyk, 2005)
Mottainai (Chudyk, 2015)
Puerto Rico (Seyfarth, 2002)
SPQF (Rodiek, 2018)
Tiny Epic Galaxies (Almes, 2015)
 ACT 09 ORDER COUNTERS 99

ACT-09 Order Counters

Description

Players place Order Tokens into regions, indicating what they want to do in
that particular region of the board. After all the tokens are placed, they are
executed in sequence.

Discussion

is mechanism combines an Interleaved Turn Structure (TRN-15) with

an Action Queue. Players are in essence creating multiple Interleaved Action
Queues during a planning step and then resolving them. e tokens are typi-
cally placed face down, so opponents know where you are planning to act but
not which actions you will take. If more than one order may be placed in a
location, tokens are stacked to indicate their sequence.
Because players alternate placing orders into di erent areas, they must bal-
ance a variety of factors. Which actions do they wish to perform early? Will
committing to a region alert an opponent to your intentions to operate there?
What actions are the opponents planning?
e resolution of the Order Token stacks can be performed in sev-
eral ways. First, they may either be resolved from the top down, so that
tokens that were placed last are resolved rst (LIFO, Last-In-First-Out),
100 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

or the token stack may be ipped over, so that the earliest tokens are
resolved rst (FIFO, First-In-First-Out). Some games (such as A Game
of rones: e Board Game) don’t consider the placement order of the
tokens and simply turn them all over and resolve them in turn order,
over the course of three phases. Only tokens of particular types may be
resolved in each phase, so in the Raid phase, only Raid tokens may be
executed, and players who have not played any Raids are skipped in the
turn order (Illustration 3.6).
Resolution order has a great impact on the strategy and feel for placement.
LIFO gives the game a “chicken” feel, as players want to be the last into a
region with key actions so that they are executed rst, but it also increases
cognitive load, as players need to remember the reverse order of tokens in the
stack and modify their plans as they go. With a FIFO structure, players can
gradually just build up their plans in their minds as they proceed, which is
less cognitively taxing.

Illustration 3.6 In Victorian Masterminds, players place

order tokens face down in different areas, stacking them on
top of other tokens already there. When there are three
tokens in an area (image 2), the stack is ipped over, and
they are resolved in a rst-in- rst-out order.
 ACT 09 ORDER COUNTERS 101

Either way, this is a moderately complex mechanism, which is best reserved

for heavier strategy games.

Sample Games

Forbidden Stars (Bailey, Kni en, and Konieczka, 2015)

Francis Drake (Hawes, 2013)
A Game of rones (Petersen and Wilson, 2003)
Starcraft: e Board Game (Konieczka and Petersen, 2007)
Victorian Masterminds (Bauza and Lang, 2019)
102 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

ACT-10 Rondel

Description

e available Actions are represented as pie wedges in a circle. Each player

has one or more tokens on Rondel’s wedges. On their turn, they may move
their token around the Rondel and perform the Action indicated by the
wedge where they stop. It is typically more costly to move further around
the Rondel.

Discussion

is mechanism is related to a basic Action Point system (ACT-01), as the

Rondel represents a menu of available actions. However, the cost of the
actions varies for each turn, for example, to move more than one space typi-
cally incurs some cost (money or some other currency). If a player wishes to
move one space at a time, they incur a little cost but may not be most e -
ciently performing the actions (Illustration 3.7).
Rondel systems emphasize trade-o s, planning, and e ciency as players
need to balance taking the action that they want to do now, and paying a
cost, with waiting and paying no or a reduced cost.
ere are several variations on this mechanic. In Finca, players have sev-
eral tokens on the Rondel and may choose one of them to move. e distance
that it may move is based on the number of tokens in the starting wedge, and
the power of the action is determined by the number of tokens in the ending
wedge. is makes for a highly interactive, yet, relatively simple system and
also begins to blur with a Mancala mechanism (MOV-12).
 ACT 10 RONDEL 103

Illustration 3.7 The Rondel in Imperial. Players may select

an action that is up to three spaces away from where their
marker currently is at no cost. If they wish to move further,
they must pay to do so.

Sample Games

Antike (Gerdts, 2005)

Concordia (Gerdts, 2013)
Finca (Sentker and zur Linde, 2009)
Imperial (Gerdts, 2006)
Navegador (Gerdts, 2010)
104 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

ACT-11 Action Selection Restrictions

Description

Players are restricted in which actions they may choose.

Discussion

ere are a wide variety of mechanisms that have been used to force players
to choose less than optimal actions or even ones that are detrimental. Some
of the more popular mechanisms have been included in their own section:
Action Drafting, Action Retrieval, Rondels, and Command Cards are all
examples. However, there are many approaches to this that have been used
in only one game. Several of these are collected in this section.
In Kemet, the possible actions are laid out in a pyramid. Players must
select at least one option from each pyramid level. In Goa, action tiles are
laid out on a grid. e start player places a marker on the grid, taking that
tile. Each player in turn then places their marker adjacent to the previous
one played, onto another tile, either orthogonally or diagonally. Players
need to consider how they may be helping their opponent by placing next
to a tile they need.
In Noria, players place action tokens on concentric wheels. Only tokens
in certain portions of the wheels may be used, and the wheels rotate at dif-
ferent speeds. Tzolk’ in: e Mayan Calendar also uses rotating gears, and the
longer workers remain on the gears the more powerful the actions they can
perform. In Calimala, players place disks between two actions on a grid and
can perform both connected actions.
Manitoba has a tower of disks of di erent colors, and the active player
selects part of the stack which controls what map regions and tracks may be
used for actions.
 ACT 11 ACTION SELECTION RESTRICTIONS 105

In Keyforge: Call of the Archons, in each turn, a player picks what “house”
they will use, and only cards (actions) that belong to that house may be used.
Looking for novel ways to limit the actions that players can take is a constant
source of innovation in game design.
Warpgate gives players a hand of Action cards, each of which has two pos-
sible Actions that can be performed. When playing a card, the player may
select which half to use. It has the additional twist that cards become more
powerful the later they are played in the round.
Bon re and Honey Buzz combine action selection with tile placement.
Both games have players selecting tiles with multiple actions on them and
placing them on a player board. In Bon re, the actions are triggered on place-
ment, and action placed adjacent to the same action tile gain a bonus. In
Honey Buzz, if the hexagonal tiles completely surround a single empty space,
the action on all six surrounding spaces is triggered.

Sample Games

Bon re (Feld, 2020)

Calimala (Lopiano, 2017)
Forum Trajanum (Feld, 2018)
Goa (Dorn, 2004)
Honey Buzz (Salomon, 2020)
Kemet (Bariot and Montiage, 2012)
Keyforge: Call of the Archons (Gar eld, 2018)
Manitoba (Conzadori and Pranzo, 2018)
Noria (Wagner, 2017)
Tzolk’ in: e Mayan Calendar (Luciani and Tascini, 2012)
Warpgate (Nichipurov, 2018)
106 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

ACT-12 Variable Player Powers

Description

Each player has special Actions that only he or she can perform or that mod-
ify standard actions.

Discussion

is is a meta-mechanic that can modify Action and other systems, such as

Resolution. We are placing it here, as it can give players additional actions
that they can perform or it modi es standard actions or procedures.
Typically, each player has a unique player power that sets them apart from
the other players. is is an excellent way to include asymmetry, as well as
emphasize the theme, as in Dune, where the factions are highly di erenti-
ated through di erent actions and abilities and are quite evocative of the
source material. For example, the Fremen faction, who resides on the planet,
can build units anywhere and is better able to deal with the hazards on the
planet. e Guild faction, which controls all space travel, gains money each
time a non-Fremen player moves forces from orbit to the planet surface.
Variable Player Powers also increase replayability, as players will want to
return to the game to try out di erent factions and see how they play, and,
in some cases, this will feel like they are playing a completely di erent game.
ese unique powers also increase complexity and cognitive load on the play-
ers, however. In addition to the standard rules, the special exceptions for each
 ACT 12 VARIABLE PLAYER POWERS 107

player need to be taught. e most successful of games where Player Powers

are at the forefront are based on very simple frameworks. Cosmic Encounter is
all about the player powers, which can radically change the way players play
the game. e simple structure of Cosmic Encounter is well-suited to support
this complexity. Combat is resolved by each player playing a number card and
adding the number of tokens they have in the battle. e highest number wins.
at simple framework allows the designers to take the special powers in a diz-
zying array of di erent directions. e designer has reserved most of the design
space in this mechanism for the interactions of the unique player powers.
Another feature of player powers is that they may make a particular strat-
egy optimal for that player. For example, a faction may be very good at ght-
ing, which will encourage a military strategy. is can be positive, as it gives
players identity and immediate strategic direction for new players. But it also
limits players’ strategic choices, and they can feel as if there is one “correct”
way to play for a faction.
ere are several options for conveying the details of a Variable Player
Power to the players. One is to state the rules explicitly through a player mat
or shield, as in Cosmic Encounter or Spirit Island, where they are all clearly
presented to the player at the start of the game through a player mat or a
limited number of cards. Alternately, they can be spread out among a large
number of components, typically a deck of cards, such as in Sentinels of the
Multiverse. e advantage of the latter is that it makes it simpler to teach the
game, as the base rules are the same for all, and the di erences only need to
be taught when they arise. It also gives the players a sense of discovery, as
they see cards and abilities they did not know existed. On the negative side,
this can make it di cult for new players to take full advantage of a speci c
character and so may lead to an unsatisfactory initial play with a speci c fac-
tion or character.

Sample Games

Cosmic Encounter (Eberle, Kittredge, Norton, and Olatka, 1977)

Dune (Eberle, Kittredge, and Olatka, 1979)
Pandemic (Leacock, 2008)
Root (Wehrle, 2018)
Sentinels of the Multiverse (Badell, Bender, and Rebottaro, 2011)
Sidereal Con uence: Trading and Negotiation in the Elysian Quadrant
(Deichmann, 2017)
Spirit Island (Reuss, 2017)
108 BUILDING BLOCKS OF TABLETOP GAME DESIGN

ACT-13 Once-Per-Game Abilities

Description

Players have a special ability that they can use one time per game.

Discussion

While there are exceptions, Once-Per-Game Abilities are usually di erent

for each player or character. Because they can only be performed once, the
designer has great latitude to make them very powerful.
ese two characteristics combine to make this mechanism potentially
be player- or character-de ning. e threat of using the ability, the decision
of when to actually use it, and identifying the correct moment can domi-
nate the play of the game as players maneuver for advantage and can elevate
the available strategies and tactics. It also adds another dimension of con-
sideration for players—timing—that is not present with always-on special
abilities. In Warmachine/Hordes, each side has one Warcaster who has an
extremely powerful single-use ability called a Feat. When and how to use
the Feat is a critical part of the game. As such, when characters have wildly
varying special abilities as in Warmachine/Hordes, it is important that players
understand exactly what their opponents are capable of doing. is rewards
 ACT 13 ONCE PER GAME ABILITIES 109

veteran players and puts a burden on new players to understand the full
extent of the special Action.
Some games give players a set of special Action tokens at the start of the
game, which are usable one time during the game. ese may be the same
for each player, such as Finca. Often, if tokens are not used, they give bonus
Victory Points to the player at the end of the game.

Sample Games

Battles of Westeros (Kouba, 2010)

Battlestar Galactica: e Board Game (Konieczka, 2008)
Drakon (Jolly, 2001)
Finca (Sentker and zur Linde, 2009)
Warmachine/Hordes (McVey, Snoddy, and Wilson, 2003)