2691: Endgame
Go ahead and consider this a riddlemethis, 'cause I don't feel like copying/coding more matchsticks just yet. [Also, I have three active? participants, which feels deflating, even if I recognize the value in sharing if just for a portion of my readership. Still, I have to remind myself the point was to chronicle riddles, not necessarily get feedback.]
Chess is a fair game, or, if you don't believe it is, let's assume it is. By fair, I mean that each player--given equal playing ability--would stand to win about half the time, regardless of which colour s/he plays. Now, given an understanding of how chess is played, why is there an endgame condition where, if after fifty turns neither player has moved any pieces other than their knights, the game ends in a draw? Why is so much leeway allowed if a reasonable game would never progress so far in that fashion?
Consider: There is a game where one player stands a, say, 95% chance of winning, unless the second player has a win condition that would allow him/her to win almost immediately, so long as the first player does not think of blocking that play OR the first player is significantly lower-level/isn't actually trying. In either case [except the low-level/not trying], the game is over within four turns, say, though the game is designed to allow for more turns.
Is this a fair game?
I feel such a game deserves its unpopularity, especially if it could be balanced but players insist it is played the unfair way. Maybe it's just me, but I haven't been able to work out the logistics of how the unbalanced version could be remotely fun. Mind, it's a distinctive game in that the players are not on equal footing--in almost every game, all players have the same options and same goals, with only seat order/pieces dealt/cards in hand/etc. setting their moves apart.
This is something that has puzzled me since the game in The Dastard... Ugh! A simple Google search for the name and specs turned into three HOURS of reading T_T because the specific topics that I knew mentioned what I was looking for VANISHED WITHOUT A TRACE... XO It's going to be faster, ironically, to go to Borders and just look it up, and that's only if the book is still in stock, which I'm not sure if it will be anymore, and I don't even want to check the inventory online, 'cause that's what blew three hours in the first place |:'
Here's the gist of it, though, and it's as accurate as I can figure:There is a village of houses. The houses are joined by muddy roads, like so:
[left: small playing field, right: large playing field]
H - H - H - H
| \ | | \ |
H - H - H - H
| | \ | |
H - H - H - H
| \ | | \ |
H - H - H - H
H - H - H - H - H
| \ | | \ | |
H - H - H - H - H
| | \ | | \ |
H - H - H - H - H
| \ | | \ | |
H - H - H - H - H
| | \ | | \ |
H - H - H - H - HHowever, the rain season is particularly bad this year, and floods threaten to wash away the roads. Player one is the Paver, who paves the muddy roads to protect them against the floods. Player two is the Washer, who washes away the roads and tries to separate the houses. Starting with the Paver, each player takes turns either paving or washing away a road. If the Paver can connect all of the houses with paved roads, s/he wins. If even one house is isolated from the others, the Washer wins.
Unfortunately, it seems like Tic-Tac-Toe, and there's a predetermined winner based on plays, unless the Paver makes some bad mistakes. Except with the large play field--it says there are forty-seven? roads, and I can't figure out where they are, which unfortunately affects the already precarious balance if they're in the wrong places.
In principle, this is an interesting game. In practice, it goes to the math expert =p Anyway, if you have a copy of The Dastard, it's named in there, but the Google preview of the book DELIBERATELY RESTRICTS the pages that mention it! So, since I don't have the book anymore, I'm stuck until I go shopping again [I'd prefer not to leave the apartment if I don't have to go].
I suppose my game's not much better, though [the one I mentioned creating but haven't gotten around to making the boards and cards yet], but at least all players are more or less on a level field with the same goal. It's also based on a concept in Xanth, though--unlike Paving and Washing or whatever it's called--it actually relates to the world of Xanth rather than was an unrelated fan submission that Piers worked in just to be the nice guy he is. Ideally, I would build the game and playtest it with a group instead, but since that doesn't look like it will happen soon, I'll just describe it:Word's Worth
[Irrelevant backstory goes here.] Each player is represented by a word--preferably a real one, hence the name of the game--with each letter being a variable a la algebra. In fact, each player's word is actually a formula representing that player's worth [again a la algebra]. The formula is [first letter] x [second letter] - [third letter] = [player's worth].
For instance: CAT, when inserted into the global formula, equals C x A - T, where C, A, and T are determined by the global values for each variable.
Naturally, each player has a different word,* and some players might not even share letters in their words [I haven't balanced this part], but the letter A in each player's word would be the same value for each player.
*although, in the above example, CAT and ACT would have the same value.
Global values are changed by each player playing a card from their hand on one of the global variables. For instance, a CAT player might put a "10" card on C or a "-10" card on T, but someone playing THE might try to change value of T to something higher. The game ends when all players are out of cards, and the player with the highest worth is the winner. [Tie breaks? Uhm... dunno.]
My main problem is making the game last longer [though, should it?], figuring out how to balance it, and/or working out a four-letter version. Should value assignments be cumulative, like for the Demons in Xanth? (Demons X[A/N]TH and E[A/R]TH talk about working together to increasing their A, but D[E/A]TH knew that would devalue his worth and proposed instead to increase E, which leaves out X[A/N]TH.) Again, a game that goes to the math expert =p but it's what I've got.
I might also note another interesting game I saw in Target when I was picking up Rumis: Wits & Wagers. It's a trivia game [unfortunately, as that creates a more limited application], but having the wrong answer isn't necessarily going to doom you. Instead, each question is numerical ["How many siblings does Michael Jackson have?"], and each player writes down a guess. The guesses are put in ascending order, and everyone places bets on which answer is right, even if it's someone else's, or "All guesses too low" or "All guesses too high."
As I said, though, trivia seems limited by design--once you've been through all the questions, it's just repetitious. I mean, chess is repetitious, but there's only so many times you can wager how many siblings Michael Jackson has.
Terrific. My removable hard drive is failing again X( It's a good thing I keep extra-redundant copies of everything 9_9
Chess is a fair game, or, if you don't believe it is, let's assume it is. By fair, I mean that each player--given equal playing ability--would stand to win about half the time, regardless of which colour s/he plays. Now, given an understanding of how chess is played, why is there an endgame condition where, if after fifty turns neither player has moved any pieces other than their knights, the game ends in a draw? Why is so much leeway allowed if a reasonable game would never progress so far in that fashion?
Consider: There is a game where one player stands a, say, 95% chance of winning, unless the second player has a win condition that would allow him/her to win almost immediately, so long as the first player does not think of blocking that play OR the first player is significantly lower-level/isn't actually trying. In either case [except the low-level/not trying], the game is over within four turns, say, though the game is designed to allow for more turns.
Is this a fair game?
I feel such a game deserves its unpopularity, especially if it could be balanced but players insist it is played the unfair way. Maybe it's just me, but I haven't been able to work out the logistics of how the unbalanced version could be remotely fun. Mind, it's a distinctive game in that the players are not on equal footing--in almost every game, all players have the same options and same goals, with only seat order/pieces dealt/cards in hand/etc. setting their moves apart.
This is something that has puzzled me since the game in The Dastard... Ugh! A simple Google search for the name and specs turned into three HOURS of reading T_T because the specific topics that I knew mentioned what I was looking for VANISHED WITHOUT A TRACE... XO It's going to be faster, ironically, to go to Borders and just look it up, and that's only if the book is still in stock, which I'm not sure if it will be anymore, and I don't even want to check the inventory online, 'cause that's what blew three hours in the first place |:'
Here's the gist of it, though, and it's as accurate as I can figure:There is a village of houses. The houses are joined by muddy roads, like so:
[left: small playing field, right: large playing field]
H - H - H - H
| \ | | \ |
H - H - H - H
| | \ | |
H - H - H - H
| \ | | \ |
H - H - H - H
H - H - H - H - H
| \ | | \ | |
H - H - H - H - H
| | \ | | \ |
H - H - H - H - H
| \ | | \ | |
H - H - H - H - H
| | \ | | \ |
H - H - H - H - HHowever, the rain season is particularly bad this year, and floods threaten to wash away the roads. Player one is the Paver, who paves the muddy roads to protect them against the floods. Player two is the Washer, who washes away the roads and tries to separate the houses. Starting with the Paver, each player takes turns either paving or washing away a road. If the Paver can connect all of the houses with paved roads, s/he wins. If even one house is isolated from the others, the Washer wins.
Unfortunately, it seems like Tic-Tac-Toe, and there's a predetermined winner based on plays, unless the Paver makes some bad mistakes. Except with the large play field--it says there are forty-seven? roads, and I can't figure out where they are, which unfortunately affects the already precarious balance if they're in the wrong places.
In principle, this is an interesting game. In practice, it goes to the math expert =p Anyway, if you have a copy of The Dastard, it's named in there, but the Google preview of the book DELIBERATELY RESTRICTS the pages that mention it! So, since I don't have the book anymore, I'm stuck until I go shopping again [I'd prefer not to leave the apartment if I don't have to go].
I suppose my game's not much better, though [the one I mentioned creating but haven't gotten around to making the boards and cards yet], but at least all players are more or less on a level field with the same goal. It's also based on a concept in Xanth, though--unlike Paving and Washing or whatever it's called--it actually relates to the world of Xanth rather than was an unrelated fan submission that Piers worked in just to be the nice guy he is. Ideally, I would build the game and playtest it with a group instead, but since that doesn't look like it will happen soon, I'll just describe it:Word's Worth
[Irrelevant backstory goes here.] Each player is represented by a word--preferably a real one, hence the name of the game--with each letter being a variable a la algebra. In fact, each player's word is actually a formula representing that player's worth [again a la algebra]. The formula is [first letter] x [second letter] - [third letter] = [player's worth].
For instance: CAT, when inserted into the global formula, equals C x A - T, where C, A, and T are determined by the global values for each variable.
Naturally, each player has a different word,* and some players might not even share letters in their words [I haven't balanced this part], but the letter A in each player's word would be the same value for each player.
*although, in the above example, CAT and ACT would have the same value.
Global values are changed by each player playing a card from their hand on one of the global variables. For instance, a CAT player might put a "10" card on C or a "-10" card on T, but someone playing THE might try to change value of T to something higher. The game ends when all players are out of cards, and the player with the highest worth is the winner. [Tie breaks? Uhm... dunno.]
My main problem is making the game last longer [though, should it?], figuring out how to balance it, and/or working out a four-letter version. Should value assignments be cumulative, like for the Demons in Xanth? (Demons X[A/N]TH and E[A/R]TH talk about working together to increasing their A, but D[E/A]TH knew that would devalue his worth and proposed instead to increase E, which leaves out X[A/N]TH.) Again, a game that goes to the math expert =p but it's what I've got.
I might also note another interesting game I saw in Target when I was picking up Rumis: Wits & Wagers. It's a trivia game [unfortunately, as that creates a more limited application], but having the wrong answer isn't necessarily going to doom you. Instead, each question is numerical ["How many siblings does Michael Jackson have?"], and each player writes down a guess. The guesses are put in ascending order, and everyone places bets on which answer is right, even if it's someone else's, or "All guesses too low" or "All guesses too high."
As I said, though, trivia seems limited by design--once you've been through all the questions, it's just repetitious. I mean, chess is repetitious, but there's only so many times you can wager how many siblings Michael Jackson has.
Terrific. My removable hard drive is failing again X( It's a good thing I keep extra-redundant copies of everything 9_9