Discord excerpts – a conversation on the power level of extra turns (filtered)

21:52]Hegemon (#chimborazo):

Assume that all RPGs are turn-based (if you’re into card games, imagine one of those, should be the same thing). Turns govern the availability of the game’s fundamental resources – whether that’s amount of mana available, access to your character’s actions, etc. This is not a question, this is a statement, and one that I wish to not discuss further outside of the following question: If I conjecture that taking an extra turn is fundamentally the most powerful thing you can do in a turn-based game, can you think of an example of something “better”? Expanding on that, can you think of a broader and more fundamental way to describe these games than “turn-based” (“role-playing” doesn’t count, it’s about a totally different aspect of the game)?(In games where resources are gained as the turn cycles progress, the “fast mana” effects are better than taking a turn in the early stages of that cycle. In RPG terms – if you gain access to increasingly more abilities each round, an ability that says “you can use two extra abilities this turn” will be better than taking an extra turn early on).

[21:53]UK_IN_US (Spinward Crossing):

Preventing opponents from taking theirs might arguably be stronger

[21:53]UK_IN_US (Spinward Crossing):

but only arguably(edited)21:54

]Hegemon (#chimborazo):

I think I will treat taking an extra turn and preventing the opponent from taking a turn as equally powerful things for the time being, not prepared to explore the subtle differences between the two at the moment.(edited)

[21:55]DayDreamer:

Uh, it really depends on circumstance. Extra turns are powerful because they do a lot: they increase your rate of resource generation and expenditure, they allow for combos that aren’t otherwise possible and deprive your opponent of ability to interrupt said combos, etc. But they aren’t facially the most powerful thing. Mechanics that literally win the game for you are clearly stronger, followed by mechanics that destroy your opponent’s ability to win

[21:55]DayDreamer:

Extra turns are powerful because of their versatility: no deck (in a CCG) or character (in a TTRPG) doesn’t want the ability to take extra turns

[21:56]DayDreamer:

but specialist mechanics are often as much if not moreso useful in a deck/character designed to take advantage of them

[21:56]DayDreamer:

e.g. land generation in MTG in a deck whose win condition is “get X land” is really powerful

[21:57]DayDreamer:

or tripping in 3.5/PF is generally kind of good, but extraordinarily good when placed in the hands of a character who has all of the trip feats

[21:57]Anonymous1

[21:58]Anonymous1:

Other than broken shit that lets you straight up win at the press of a button

[21:59]brownorama (#lonesome-world):

This also depends on whether “game’s fundamental resources” are limited or unlimited. If I can spend more resources on my turn without having to take another one, that might be considered more powerful. Alternatively, going FIRST might be considered more powerful when resources are limited because then you have access to more of them.

[21:59]Occo [Artifact]:

Which is often why card games prevent the first player from drawing a card.

[22:00]Occo [Artifact]:

It makes a big difference to be on the play, and if your aim is to beat your opponent before they can beat you, going first is smart.[

22:05]Teslobo:

@UK_IN_US (Spinward Crossing) taking an extra turn is basically denying everyone else 1 turn

[22:05]Teslobo:

so I wouldn’t call it stronger than that

22:13]Hegemon (#chimborazo):

Well, we have at least one answer right on the money here, about “win the game” effects. The reason I omitted it from the original proposal was to see if people come up with it without me saying so, and more importantly if they come up with something else, being aware of this (or not) on their own.[

22:17]Luthier_Marke:

is changing the order of turns equal to negating turns?

[22:17]Teslobo:

I guess if “win the game” in an RPG just refers to one combat encounter it could follow that a more powerful effect is “win all games”

[22:21]Adanton:

Only just catching up on the original preposition. That question looks so contextless it’s difficult to answer. Any number of things could be more powerful than gaining an extra turn. Stealing resources, forcing an opponent to do a specific action on their turn, adding consequences onto specific actions, there’s a lot of possibilities.

[22:22]Hegemon (#chimborazo):

I suppose in an RPG sense the “win the game” thing would be something along the lines of “end whatever’s going on in your favour”? Many more moving parts there, especially if you veer outside of combat.

[22:23]Teslobo:

mhm

[22:24]Teslobo:

Even moreso if you waive your turn-based stipulation

[22:24]Anonymous1:

Also caveat: extra turns are indeed very powerful but hinge on your being able to do something useful on it so I think there are more factors at play. Or something I unno.

[22:25]Teslobo:

they do but generally speaking you can just multiply whatever you did last turn

[22:25]Hegemon (#chimborazo):

This is a very useful caveat.

[22:26]Teslobo:

and if the thing you did is in limited supply or otherwise stops you doing it twice, that’s just balancing the raw power of having an extra turn

[22:26]Hegemon (#chimborazo):

What Adanton is saying is definitely true, but on a raw power level scale taking an extra turn is more powerful either way.

[22:28]Adanton:

Only depends on context. you gain X resources a turn, the opponent needs X resources to do the action they want, and the opponent has 2X resources, then stealing X+1 is arguably more powerful.

[22:29]Hegemon (#chimborazo):

These effects don’t operate on the same axis. If you can do that, taking an extra turn is still better because it’s an effect – something you can still do in either of the two turns, potentially even twice.(edited)

[22:29]Teslobo:

Why can’t I use my extra turn to do that

[22:29]Adanton:

I’m assuming we’re comparing them in a mutually exclusive manner

[22:30]Adanton:

Otherwise the best option is always “opponent never has a turn”

[22:30]Teslobo:

we’re talking about pure mechanics with no contextual stipulation

[22:31]Teslobo:

And I think “win this game and every game hence” is the best you’ll get

[22:31]Hegemon (#chimborazo):

Hey… “every game hence”. I really like that stipulation.

[22:31]Luthier_Marke:

is changing the order of turns equal to negating turns?

[22:32]Teslobo:

I’d say changing turn order is less than just stopping a turn from happening

[22:32]Teslobo:

delaying agency versus removing it

[22:32]Hegemon (#chimborazo):

I’m not sure. I think it might be, if you change orders so that after your turn, yours comes again before the opponent’s.

[22:32]tS_pX:

You could describe turn based games as using “discrete decision phases” but I think that’s just the same thing

[22:32]Teslobo:

Isn’t that just a fancy way of saying extra turn tho heg

[22:32]Adanton:

Again, context. Is it 1 v 1? If so it wouldn’t change much

[22:33]Luthier_Marke:

because, it could mean maximizng chances for both sides

[22:33]Adanton:

Its like playing a reverse card in two player uno

[22:33]Hegemon (#chimborazo):

Well yes, but in the context of changing turn orders that’s a special case of changing them one of many possible ways.

[22:35]Adanton:

Without a ruleset being worked with this is hard to answer. If I play an action to change turn order there needs to be rules to say I can’t change it to “me, me, me again, me…”

[22:36]Hegemon (#chimborazo):

That’s the point though.

[22:37]InkSpecter:

Being able to alter or stop an opponents turn, or being able to control an opponent’s turn. Just think, blue in MTG XD control and stall are valid play styles that don’t get a lot of love!