Loading…
15
I used to think longer sessions were better, but a 2 AM finish in Portland changed my mind.
We played 'Betrayal at House on the Hill' for almost five hours last week, and by the end, everyone was just tired and cranky, not having fun. The moment I knew it was wrong was when my friend Mark just put his head on the table and said, 'Can we please stop?' I'm switching to a strict three-hour limit from now on. What's a good way to keep a game night moving so it doesn't drag?
3 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In3 Comments
jana_henderson525mo ago
Look, a five hour Betrayal game sounds like a special kind of hell, but is a strict time limit really the answer? Sometimes a game just bombs and everyone feels it, that's normal. Making a hard rule feels like you're overcorrecting for one bad night. Just agree to check in with the group after a couple hours next time, see if people are still into it. A clock watching host can kill the vibe faster than a long game.
1
mason_knight5mo ago
Oh man, you're totally right, @jana_henderson52. I'm the guy who would absolutely be the clock-watching host, because I have the attention span of a goldfish. My fear of another five-hour mess would make me a total buzzkill. A planned check-in is way smarter, it's more like a group pulse check than a rule. That way if it's a good game, nobody feels rushed, but if it's a drag, you have a natural out. My overcorrecting would just ruin a good time before it even started.
5
jake_hall884mo ago
actually I'd argue the strict time limit is exactly what saves game night from dying completely... there's nothing worse than watching a game limp past its natural ending point just because nobody wants to be the one to call it. setting a hard time makes it easier for everyone to commit to playing without secretly hoping the game ends early. three hours seems totally reasonable for most games.
1