Is there an Ideal Game Duration?
General forum
Posted on Dec. 23, 2021, 5:02 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
Occasionally, when I play, a game will seem to end too quickly, leaving everyone asking “is it over, already?”, but, there are also games that seem to take far too long, leaving players to ask “is it over, yet?” Therefore, I wish to ask what the ideal duration for a game is, or, at least, I was planning to ask that, until I realized something.
In games that end too quickly, my frustration is derived from a single player executing a ridiculously powerful combo more than the actual duration of the game, because no other player had a chance to actually do something in that game. Similarly, in games that take too long, my frustration is caused by the fact that a specific player is slowing down the game by dominating it and preventing anyone else from actually contributing to it, rather than the actual (or perceived) slowness.
Therefore, my conclusion is that there is no ideal duration for a game of MtG; what is more important is that each player can actually contribute to the game and do something to affect its outcome, and that is what shall promote a fun atmosphere.
What does everyone else say about this? Is there an ideal duration for a game of MtG?
psionictemplar says... #3
I feel as though the answer to this is very dependant on whether it's casual magic or tournament level magic. When it comes to casual games, the social aspect can be a large factor on whether or not a long game is too long or not. Speaking from personal experience playing in larger commander groups the games can last well over an hour, sometimes even two. There usually isn't a lot of gameplay happening, but rather enjoying each others company and talking life in general. The games may be long, but we all would have some impact regardless of the final result and it wouldn't matter.
In the tournament like setting I'd guess that 10-15 minutes is a good amount of time for a game. It gives ample time for shuffling and basic interaction for the first few turns. After that, gameplay will be the biggest factor and time length isn't necessarily a big concern for those playing. There is likely an understanding that trying to be dominant and winning faster is the goal of both players and if that should happen it's acceptable. Same for if the game happens to go longer. While I do imagine that most players in the tourney scene probably enjoy quicker games, longer ones are acceptable if the gameplay is competitive.
But that's just my perspective.
December 23, 2021 5:35 p.m.
wallisface says... #4
There's a lot of factors you haven't accounted for in your question. Namely, format, and number of players.
In modern, 1v1 games, I wouldn't expect a single game to take longer than 20 minutes - there are some outliers to this, but generally if a game is taking longer than this, someone is slowplaying, or someone is already "locked" out of the game but being stubborn to concede.
I don't play commander, but do dabble in casual multiplayer "kitchen table" (playing in groups of 5-7). The ideal game length I've seen from playing that is 60ish minutes, though ending earlier than this is fine. Sometimes someone will make life super-restricted for everyone else at the table, and drag a game out to 2-hours... that can be pretty misurable.
As to your points of frustration, I would offer the following thoughts:
-
Your frustrations from games ending early are probably down to your group not having enough interaction. Especially in multiplayer formats, a combo deck has an uphill battle, as there a multiple opponents who can disrupt them. If someone is able to actually get off a game-winning combo, they deserve to be congratulated - and their opponents should rethink their deck builds, and how to better-interact with the table in the future.
-
As far as games taking too long, assuming this is a multiplayer game, its time to talk with the table about what is acceptable. I actively don't play Ensnaring Bridge in my "multiplayer kitchen table" games, because our table seldom has answers for it, and it just makes everyone's life miserable (it's fine in 1v1 because the opponent can concede at any point if they're locked out of the game). In any multiplayer game, the group needs to figure out what "meta" they want to be discouraging, and make sure people aren't bringing along decks that actively ruin the fun for everyone else.
December 23, 2021 7:09 p.m.
That's kind of part of a rule 0 conversation. Sometimes you don't have time for a long game and sometimes you got all afternoon and don't want to spend it shuffling up between games. And then other times you want everyone to hulk out and see stupid stuff happen stupid quick. I've also been both the guy who combos out turn 2 and the guy who can't find a land to save himself. When I combo off I offer to spectate the others while they play rather the starting over, on the other hand when I can't find a land to save myself I'm begging someone to win so we can restart. There is no right answer here
December 23, 2021 7:12 p.m.
I complain less about game where one person just goes off and wins in 15 mins then the ones that take two hours
December 23, 2021 7:55 p.m.
Ha, this is a fun question : ) Ideally, as long as everyone has time for a few games, things are pretty cool. If I get knocked out right away but I'm with friends and we are going to shuffle up and play again, there aren't a lot of feel bads. But I usually play kitchen table and multiplayer, so that smooths out a lot of wrinkles. If one player has a stronger deck, they get ganged up on in game 2, and if someone's deck is not as tuned, they will usually get left a lone a bit. As long as we get to play more than one game, it all evens out, and that's part of what I love about 60 card multiplayer. You get in more games, and as long as everyone is not hyper aggressive, the damage on board gets directed as the night goes on, and that's the ideal equalizer : )
I think things get harder when you go online and play though. Because on MTGO or Arena, it's you playing a game and not a group piecing together a game. I'd imagine that games that stretch on or go too fast are more frustrating in an online environment.
December 23, 2021 8:22 p.m.
RNR_Gaming says... #9
30-45 minutes. Though that's only because I like tournments and going to time in a round makes it too hard to determine placing.
December 23, 2021 8:53 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #10
TypicalTimmy, I was speaking of any format, not merely EDH.
December 23, 2021 10:39 p.m.
FormOverFunction says... #11
The best case scenario, I think, is that everyone’s deck gets to trigger or activate to show everyone what you were looking to do whether you won or not. Then, once the grinder decks (that will undoubtedly win if given a few more turns) are spooled up, the deck with a surprise “I got these two spells to resolve so now I’m undoubtedly going to win” can have a chance. Either that closes it out immediately or one of the grinder decks stalls the combo out (or kills them with a hilarious Rakdos Charm that does infinite damage to the player with infinite hastey goblins) and wins in a few more turns. Everyone gets to shoot off their fireworks, everyone feels seen, and there’s more than enough time for another game or three. Thinking that might be turn six or so. That’s for commander, of course... no idea what would be good for standard or vintage. Probably not that. Is there an opposite of that..?
December 24, 2021 12:13 a.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #12
I've only played Modern, Archenemy and EDH. Also Draft but those were timed rounds so I can't count them.
Modern, I prefer to have fun. Non-competitive. Maybe a half hour a game over beers and burgers.
Archenemy, sign me up for a 3-hour grind man!
EDH... Hour - hour and a half? That's enough time to see everyone's deck go off and plenty of healthy interactions.
December 24, 2021 1 a.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #13
Protip: Play Archenemy like this:
- Normal Archenemy rules in terms of teams, Archenemy goes first and draws, schemes, etc
- Play with EDH decks
- Archenemy is IMMUNE from Commander Damage - Survivors are not
- The first time the Archenemy lands combat damage, if Monarch wasn't already established, Monarch is enabled
- For added fun, during the Archenemy's upkeep have them roll some dice. They gain that much life. Set the value beforehand: 1d10, 2d4+2, 3d6-lowest, etc. Really drives in the tension.
It's brutal, and I love it.
December 24, 2021 2:30 a.m.
When playing commander, I prefer games that's around 2 hours. In modern, I prefer to end the game on turn 2.
December 26, 2021 3:28 p.m.
DragonWolf420 says... #15
if you're playin a format where turn 2 wins are legal, ya just gotta deal with it. so i suck it up for the games that are "too fast".
as for the games that are too slow, those are the games where someone is either indecisive or they're playing too few win conditions in their con"troll" deck. no game outside of casual commander should last a double digit number of turns imo.
lespaul977 says... #2
I agree that the game should be long enough for everyone to contribute something. I enjoy playing faster decks sometimes, but it’s less fun when I’m dealing damage on turn 3 and my opponent(s) don’t have anything on the battlefield yet. Winning is great, but, as a kitchen table player, I play for the sake of spending time with my friends. If the game takes a little longer, it gives us more time to laugh and see who can tell the worst dad jokes.
December 23, 2021 5:28 p.m.