Anyone up for a little design contest?
Nick Bentley
monthly design contests (mostly for euroish games), I thought it might
be nice to have a little abstract game design competition, where
everyone tries to design a game featuring some mechanic or dynamic.
Perhaps we could get Nestor to agree to publish the result.
I thought it might help to productively channel the competitive juices
that seem to destroy conversation here.
let me know if you're interested. If there's enough interest, I'll be
happy to organize it.
Matteo Perlini
I'm interested in this project. Let us know more info. :-)
Jackspritz
I'm interested but I'd rather know what the mechanic or dynamic we
would be designing around is first.
Torben Ægidius Mogensen
I would be interested, at least if the proposed features spark my
interest.
How will you go about judging the entries?
Torben
Nick Bentley
one possibility, I suggest condorcet voting among the contestants.
As for the proposed feature or mechanic, it should also be something
we're all interested in. Here's one I'm curious about, because I have
trouble with it:
What you might call a cycling finite game. The idea is to have a
stones-and-grid affair in which stones can both be added to the board
and removed, through capture or some other mechanism, but where
nonetheless the game is guaranteed to end and give one winner. Ko
rule is not allowed, and the goal cannot be accomplished by limiting
the number of stones (ala Gipf).
So, one example of this kind of game is Steere's Cephalopod (sp?),
which uses dice instead of stones. The challenge I have in mind would
restrict the designer to stones.
But there are many other possibilities. One that Bill Taylor
suggested long ago, but which I find fascinating, is a pattern-
completion game with the Hex-like properties of one unique winner when
the board is full, but where the pattern is LOCAL instead of GLOBAL,
as in Hex. By local I mean the pattern is not defined by anything
other than the relative arrangement of stones in the pattern. 4-in-a-
row is an example of a local pattern. The Hex pattern, on the other
hand, is global because it's definition makes reference to the edges
of the board.
Here's another one (which may be impossible. I'm not even sure this
idea makes sense): a game with a single drawn state, which can only be
reached by two players who play perfectly.
Jackspritz
All great design problems Nick but I think the dynamic we design
around should be trivially achievable but hard to do well. The
recycling one works great, except I think some of us have a leg-up on
the competition :D
marks...@gmail.com
On 4-Nov-2010, Nick Bentley <nicko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's one I'm curious about, because I have trouble with it:
Welcome to the club :) I've been working on this for months with no sign
of progress.
> What you might call a cycling finite game. The idea is to have a
> stones-and-grid affair in which stones can both be added to the board
> and removed, through capture or some other mechanism, but where
> nonetheless the game is guaranteed to end and give one winner.
Not to restrict it to death but one might impose that the two players, Black
and White, only place stones of their own color, one stone per turn, and
occasionally remove groups of orthogonally adjacent, like-colored stones,
completing a turn begun with a stone placement.
Filling a small, odd size board (like the 5x5 in Cepahlopod - see below) and
tallying the score is a good objective. Filling a 19x19 board and tallying
the score could be cumbersome. A game of annihilation is so much better for
a large board. It's pretty clear who won. You don't have to suffer through
the anticlimax of "Well we're done playing, but now we have to sit here
counting stones like idiots."
Whew, that's a lot of restrictions. At the end of it, we're left with
Tanbo, Oust, and Go.
Tanbo:
http://www.marksteeregames.com/Tanbo_rules.pdf
Oust:
http://www.marksteeregames.com/Oust_rules.pdf
> Ko rule is not allowed,
Scratch Go.
> and the goal cannot be accomplished by limiting
> the number of stones (ala Gipf).
The stone limit rule is an aesthetic Hiroshima.
> So, one example of this kind of game is Steere's Cephalopod (sp?),
> which uses dice instead of stones.
Cephalopod played on a 25 square board can easily take upward of 140 moves.
140/25 = 5.6, a massive recycling factor, made possible with the added
dimension of dice.
> The challenge I have in mind would restrict the designer to stones.
Good idea.
> But there are many other possibilities. One that Bill Taylor
> suggested long ago, but which I find fascinating, is a pattern-
> completion game with the Hex-like properties of one unique winner when
> the board is full, but where the pattern is LOCAL instead of GLOBAL,
> as in Hex. By local I mean the pattern is not defined by anything
> other than the relative arrangement of stones in the pattern. 4-in-a-
> row is an example of a local pattern.
This is something that has interested me as well, and I'm not saying it's
impossible, but the obvious problem is that I have my local 4-in-a-row, you
have your local 4-in-a-row, so who wins? Symmetry tends to kill the
"Hex-like properties of one unique winner" in local win condition games
because I win in my locale and you win in your locale. As I said though,
I'm not strictly ruling out any possibilities.
Nick Bentley
> This is something that has interested me as well, and I'm not saying it's
> impossible, but the obvious problem is that I have my local 4-in-a-row, you
> have your local 4-in-a-row, so who wins? Symmetry tends to kill the
> "Hex-like properties of one unique winner" in local win condition games
> because I win in my locale and you win in your locale. As I said though,
> I'm not strictly ruling out any possibilities.
I can think of trivial (to say nothing of stupid) local patterns where
completing the pattern in one color prevents the pattern in the
opposite color, but I can't think of patterns which both have that
property AND where the pattern must exist in one color when the board
is full. For example: 9-in-a-row on a hexhex5 board.
Tristan
> With respect to voting, it should be a method everyone agrees on. As
> one possibility, I suggest condorcet voting among the contestants.
>
> As for the proposed feature or mechanic, it should also be something
> we're all interested in. Here's one I'm curious about, because I have
> trouble with it:
>
> What you might call a cycling finite game. The idea is to have a
> stones-and-grid affair in which stones can both be added to the board
> and removed, through capture or some other mechanism, but where
> nonetheless the game is guaranteed to end and give one winner. Ko
> rule is not allowed, and the goal cannot be accomplished by limiting
> the number of stones (ala Gipf).
I'm interested, but might I lobby for a strategic principle rather
than a mechanical principle? It's my own taste, but the tendency here
seems to be mechanical so I think it would be a refreshing change.
I've been playing around with the idea of having to predict your
opponent, putting a heavy burden on knowing how your opponent will
play, rather than how they could play. It's very hard to achieve this
without some kind of hidden information (simultaneous movement is
sufficient).
There are other areas I think would be fun to explore, that's just the
one I've been thinking most about. I'll happily participate however
you decide to do it.
Jackspritz
> Not to restrict it to death but one might impose that the two players, Black
> and White, only place stones of their own color, one stone per turn, and
> occasionally remove groups of orthogonally adjacent, like-colored stones,
> completing a turn begun with a stone placement.
"one" or you? I think everyone is reading this and saying "fuck off"
at this point.
>
> Filling a small, odd size board (like the 5x5 in Cepahlopod - see below) and
> tallying the score is a good objective. Filling a 19x19 board and tallying
> the score could be cumbersome. A game of annihilation is so much better for
> a large board. It's pretty clear who won. You don't have to suffer through
> the anticlimax of "Well we're done playing, but now we have to sit here
> counting stones like idiots."
Well I dunno about that, anyone who is too lazy to face the
"anticlimax" of tallying up their territory in a territory game is
probably too lazy to even care who Mark Steere is.
> Whew, that's a lot of restrictions. At the end of it, we're left with
> Tanbo, Oust, and Go.
Hooray!
> Tanbo:
> http://www.marksteeregames.com/Tanbo_rules.pdf
>
> Oust:
> http://www.marksteeregames.com/Oust_rules.pdf
>
> > Ko rule is not allowed,
>
> Scratch Go.
I see what you did there :P
> > and the goal cannot be accomplished by limiting
> > the number of stones (ala Gipf).
>
> The stone limit rule is an aesthetic Hiroshima.
You insensitive bastard! All I can think about are those poor Japanese
you've made the butt of your joke.
> Cephalopod played on a 25 square board can easily take upward of 140 moves.
> 140/25 = 5.6, a massive recycling factor, made possible with the added
> dimension of dice.
yes the added spatial dimension of depth generally does make things
bigger....
Okay another stupid ass post by Mark, deconstructed and roundly
criticized. We'll have to do it again sometime.
christian
> One that Bill Taylor
> suggested long ago, but which I find fascinating, is a pattern-
> completion game with the Hex-like properties of one unique winner when
> the board is full, but where the pattern is LOCAL instead of GLOBAL,
> as in Hex. By local I mean the pattern is not defined by anything
> other than the relative arrangement of stones in the pattern. 4-in-a-
> row is an example of a local pattern. The Hex pattern, on the other
> hand, is global because it's definition makes reference to the edges
> of the board.
This touches a chord, somewhere deep in the reluctant brain,
signalling something it can't resist. I'll see where it leads, if
anywhere at all, so if this becomes the challenge, I'm in. If not I
fear i'll have to see where it leads anyway. Only see some vague
contours at the moment, but I can smell prey :) Being an old fox, I'll
wait for it to come to me, instead of vice versa.
christian
>Being an old fox, I'll wait for it to come to me, instead of vice versa.
I'm here for the fun of it, so how about this game called
"Whingi" (because that's what it says in the Validation box right
now).
I'm picturing a hexhexboard, say base-10. White moves first and the
game features a swap (corners and edges are the required bad cells
here).
A 'group' is a single stone or two or more like colored connected
stones.
On his move a player has two options, and can use both, either or
neither (the latter without losing the right to move next turn).
The options are (if used both, in that order):
1. Put a stone on a vacant cell, not adjacent to a like colored group,
thereby creating a new group.
2. Grow any or all of the groups that are already on the board by one
stone.
A stone connecting two or more different groups is considered to have
grown all off them. A player may only grow at groups as they exist at
the beginning of his turn, and no such group may grow more than one
stone in that particular turn.
That's the growing procedure of Symple. It means that if you have two
white stones AA and two white stones BB and two vacant cells XX, that
you may grow both AA and BB in this configuration:
AAXXBB
But not in this one:
AAXBBX
In the latter case either X may be grown by white, but not both.
There are three configurations of six stones:
1. Straight line
2. Compact triangle
3. Small hexagon
Any stone on the board may only be counted in ONE configuration
(otherwise you get bulk strategy with great lack of clarity).
The object is to create more configurations than the opponent. If both
have the same number, the player using the least number of stones
wins. If that too is equal, the game is a draw.
marks...@gmail.com
On 4-Nov-2010, Jackshitz <sack-...@live.com> wrote:
> I think everyone is reading this and saying "fuck off"
Is that what everyone is saying? lol I think you're losing it. Careful
you don't end up like Bill Taylor lol
marks...@gmail.com
On 4-Nov-2010, Jackspritz <schac...@live.com> wrote:
> I think some of us have a leg-up on the competition :D
rofl
christian
the Pit of course, because some playtesting can't harm.
I'm sure Ed will have an applet ready in no time. But for anyone who
might wonder "did he dream that up in one and a half hour, this
morning?", yes I did :) .
Will it be an interesting game? Could be.
Consider it my entry (if that is allowed before a decision is made
about the theme).
http://mindsports.nl/index.php/the-pit/whingi-560
christian
marks...@gmail.com
On 5-Nov-2010, christian <chri...@mindsports.nl> wrote:
> I've put the rules of Whingi up at mindsports,
> http://mindsports.nl/index.php/the-pit/whingi-560
I thought I was looking at Symple again :)
marks...@gmail.com
On 5-Nov-2010, christian <chri...@mindsports.nl> wrote:
> Or isn't this a little design contest?
It was nice gesture from Nick (thanks Nick) to try to make the tempest blow
over. There's really no need though. It always blows over on it's own.
You can never really get too comfortable though. We haven't seen the last
of Bull Taylor.
marks...@gmail.com
they insist is obvious. Case in point, nitwit Korneliussen, endlessly
declaring the death of rec.games.abstract. It just seems like the ultimate
in futility to continually lecture a non-existent readership about the fact
that they don't exist.
christian
> It's funny what you said, Christian, about people endlessly repeating shit they insist is obvious.
marks...@gmail.com
On 5-Nov-2010, christian <chri...@mindsports.nl> wrote:
lol, had to think about that for a minute
Ok, in my case I'm endlessly repeating the obvious fact that Korneliussen is
a nitwit. I suppose it is obvious :D
christian
> suggested long ago, but which I find fascinating, is a pattern-
> completion game with the Hex-like properties of one unique winner when
> the board is full, but where the pattern is LOCAL instead of GLOBAL,
> as in Hex. By local I mean the pattern is not defined by anything
> other than the relative arrangement of stones in the pattern. 4-in-a-
> row is an example of a local pattern. The Hex pattern, on the other
> hand, is global because it's definition makes reference to the edges
> of the board.
Still going from the possibility that a contest is organized, and the
above theme is included, and my little brainwave complies with it, I'd
like to notify those who care that I've changed the name from Whingi
to "Lhexus":
http://mindsports.nl/index.php/the-pit/lhexus-560
marks...@gmail.com
submitted a game to the contest you started three days ago, and I think
we're about due for some feedback from you, the contest organizer. Does
Whingi meet the guidelines? Does Christian win by default if everyone else
is too afraid to submit a game?
Whingi seems to have something in common with Mind Ninja, with the shapes.
marks...@gmail.com
marks...@gmail.com
On 4-Nov-2010, Jackspritz <schac...@live.com> wrote:
> All great design problems Nick but I think the dynamic we design
> around should be trivially achievable but hard to do well.
Well, shall we declare Christian the winner? I can't think of any new games
to enter. Corey Clark has Radiolarians but he's two nuts short. The
contest organizer seems to have run off...
Matteo Perlini
> I'm interested, but might I lobby for a strategic principle rather
> than a mechanical principle?
Hi Tristan, I would like to listen you more about this.
marks...@gmail.com
Yes, that sounds interesting.
Hey Corey Clark. I thought you said Perlini moved on. Looks to me like
he's still here. Is your "we" starting to dwindle?
Won't you respect Perlini's right to have a discussion here, or do you have
to derail him?
Bill Taylor
> > than a mechanical principle?
>
> Hi Tristan, I would like to listen you more about this.
=================================================
Members of the Public, in particular, ABSTRACT GAMERS
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
This group is now defunct, and useless as a games forum.
You are requested not to make serious games posts here,
but to direct them instead to Recre.Games.Combinatorial ,
where the only requirement for posts is that writers maintain
a civil, non-insulting attitude to o9ther users.
=================================================
marks...@gmail.com
bellowing seems to have subsided. Here I am, participating in your contest,
suggesting guidelines, like an idiot, only to find out that you've suddenly
and without notice effectively ejected me from the contest. What the fuck
is that????
Christian, you seem pretty gung ho about this contest that's open to all
designers except Mark Steere. Really got my back there.
Jackspritz
Mark you're not ejected from the contest, you can read the regulations
for the contest at RGC here
http://groups.google.com/group/recregamescombinatorial/browse_thread/thread/7e7a797725397f56.
Make a game based on the few constraints we established and send your
entry to Nick Bentley when it is finished.
Jackspritz
> On Nov 12, 11:42 pm, markste...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Nick, I've got bone to pick with you, now that Bill Taylor's oafish
> > bellowing seems to have subsided. Here I am, participating in your contest,
> > suggesting guidelines, like an idiot, only to find out that you've suddenly
> > and without notice effectively ejected me from the contest. What the fuck
> > is that????
>
> > Christian, you seem pretty gung ho about this contest that's open to all
> > designers except Mark Steere. Really got my back there.
>
> Mark you're not ejected from the contest, you can read the regulations
> Make a game based on the few constraints we established and send your
> entry to Nick Bentley when it is finished.
unless of course you can't swallow your pride and do that, in that
case you've effectively ejected yourself from the contest.
marks...@gmail.com
On 12-Nov-2010, Jackspritz <schac...@live.com> wrote:
> Make a game based on the few constraints we established and send your
> entry to Nick Bentley when it is finished.
Your proposal is unacceptable.
Jackspritz
> On 12-Nov-2010, Jackspritz <schackow...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > Make a game based on the few constraints we established and send your
> > entry to Nick Bentley when it is finished.
>
> Your proposal is unacceptable.
I already know that. :D
marks...@gmail.com
Ok, so you're pretty happy, since you know you won't have to compete against
a Mark Steere game now.