Wiz War comments?
Shooter
Robert Chang
> Would anyone who has played Wiz War care to comment on it - thanks.
Its a good "beer and pretzels" type game. Light, fun, and easy to pick up.
The games play out fairly quickly (although can drag on forever, on
occasion) and the spell interactions are fun to watch. I think the
original game, sans expansion sets is the most fun. The expansions just
clutter up the board and make things more complicated. There's nothing
more satisfying (or frustrating, depending on which side you are on) than
sealing someone up in a 1 X 1 room and watching them have to punch the wall
down to get out. Casting reverse on a slow death is always a good one,
too.... ;)
-bob
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= b...@soda.berkeley.edu = It is now pitch black. You are likely to =
= go...@uclink.berkeley.edu = be eaten by a grue. --Zork =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Weird
very simple to learn and easy to play. It's best with four people but you
can play up to six if you have the expansion. The game components are very
cheap, the boards are heavy cardboard (black and white) and the cards are
very light cardboard stock. The cards work very well as napkins, so you must
watch out for spills. Better than Bounty!
The game is simple, the object is to get two treasures back to your base
first. The catch, don't let your two treasures get to other bases. As soon
as your second treasure hits a base you are out. You can pick up one of your
treasures and take it back. You can only carry one treasure at a time.
The cards are spells, objects and modifiers.
This is a great beer and pretzels game. God for a filler, games are very
quick normally.
Weird
Shooter wrote in message <36e3d...@news.primary.net>...
Robert Chang
> The game is simple, the object is to get two treasures back to your base
> first. The catch, don't let your two treasures get to other bases. As soon
> as your second treasure hits a base you are out. You can pick up one of your
> treasures and take it back. You can only carry one treasure at a time.
Hmmm... It was a rare occasion when that was the way that someone won the
game this way in my gaming group. Kill all the other players! That was
the only real way to win. The only reason you'd pick up a treasure was if
you wanted to throw it at someone... ;)
thatm...@my-dejanews.com
I would. I'd also heard much a buzz about it being a great "Beer and
Pretzels" game - after buying it, I'd agree about the connection with beer;
one would need to be completely tanked to see any value in this 'game'. The
rules are ambiguous at best (it seemed every turn, a question came up that
was unanswered by either card text or rulebook), and the component quality
makes me long for the comparatively fine production at CheapAss Games. It's
one of few games that quickly went into the "I own it, but I'll likely never
want to play it again" closet.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Robert Chang
> In article <36e3d...@news.primary.net>,
> "Shooter" <tre...@primary.net> wrote:
> > Would anyone who has played Wiz War care to comment on it - thanks.
>
> I would. I'd also heard much a buzz about it being a great "Beer and
> Pretzels" game - after buying it, I'd agree about the connection with beer;
> one would need to be completely tanked to see any value in this 'game'. The
> rules are ambiguous at best (it seemed every turn, a question came up that
> was unanswered by either card text or rulebook), and the component quality
> makes me long for the comparatively fine production at CheapAss Games. It's
> one of few games that quickly went into the "I own it, but I'll likely never
> want to play it again" closet.
Now, you're free to dislike whatever game you choose, but these complaints
make no sense. The components are well above the quality level of Cheapass
Games. The cards are printed on card stock, just like Cheapass' are, and
the board and punch out chits are printed on heavy cardboard stock. I have
also never had a problem with the rules. I can't think of a situation that
would be so dificult to resolve. Its really not that complicated.
Geenius at Wrok
> In article <7c0vsm$bc1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, thatm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > I would. I'd also heard much a buzz about it being a great "Beer and
> > Pretzels" game - after buying it, I'd agree about the connection with beer;
> > one would need to be completely tanked to see any value in this 'game'. The
> > rules are ambiguous at best (it seemed every turn, a question came up that
> > was unanswered by either card text or rulebook), and the component quality
> > makes me long for the comparatively fine production at CheapAss Games. It's
> > one of few games that quickly went into the "I own it, but I'll likely never
> > want to play it again" closet.
>
> Now, you're free to dislike whatever game you choose, but these complaints
> make no sense. The components are well above the quality level of Cheapass
> Games. The cards are printed on card stock, just like Cheapass' are, and
> the board and punch out chits are printed on heavy cardboard stock.
I think the reference to production may have been targeted not at
sturdiness of materials but at attractiveness of graphic design. I've
only seen the game once, and I didn't play it, but if my memory serves*,
this is a legitimate criticism -- and the very reason why I didn't play it
when I had the chance. I've seen some other games (Time Agent sticks out
in my mind) whose lackluster looks turned me off so completely that
nothing, not even the acme of playability, would have gotten me to try it.
Cheapass' games may be low-budget, but they still manage not to look like
flash cards.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Graphic design makes more of
a difference in a game's appeal than anyone who doesn't see past the
mechanics can imagine. Imagine if your first introduction to chess had
been over square punch-out counters with ragged edges and the names of the
pieces printed on them in Helvetica, black ink on white stock. Yeucch.
--
* If my memory DOESN'T serve, consider this just a general rant.
--
"I wish EVERY day could be a shearing festival!" -- The 10 Commandments
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Keith Ammann is gee...@albany.net "I notice you have a cloud of doom.
Live with honor, endure with grace I must admit it makes you seem
www.albany.net/~geenius * Lun Yu 2:24 dangerous and sexy."
Robert Chang
Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote:
> I think the reference to production may have been targeted not at
> sturdiness of materials but at attractiveness of graphic design. I've
> only seen the game once, and I didn't play it, but if my memory serves*,
> this is a legitimate criticism -- and the very reason why I didn't play it
> when I had the chance. I've seen some other games (Time Agent sticks out
> in my mind) whose lackluster looks turned me off so completely that
> nothing, not even the acme of playability, would have gotten me to try it.
> Cheapass' games may be low-budget, but they still manage not to look like
> flash cards.
Ah. Agreed, the art quality of Wizwar is fairly low. We generally didn't
notice, though, because we were having too much fun.
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Graphic design makes more of
> a difference in a game's appeal than anyone who doesn't see past the
> mechanics can imagine. Imagine if your first introduction to chess had
> been over square punch-out counters with ragged edges and the names of the
> pieces printed on them in Helvetica, black ink on white stock. Yeucch.
Hmmm... Well, I can see how graphic design/component quality could
initially draw you into a game, but if there's nothing behind it, it
doesn't really matter. Personally, I worry more about the physically
quality of the components, because if they are too cheap, that can cut
short the longevity of an otherwise good game. Graphic design is
important, but its a distant second to the gameplay itself.
Zen Bitz
>
> Would anyone who has played Wiz War care to comment on it - thanks.
Fun and goofy. A nice time-waster for 2 players, really
fun for 3-6. I like the expansions, and allows 5-6 players.
It's VERY BOP (Balance of Power) oriented, nearly as much
as Cosmic Encounter. Usually, some one wins by some
complicated feat of trickery.
My biggest beef with the Chessex version is that they
renamed all the "sticks" wands.
So, instead of
"Sticky Stick"
and
"Shift Stick"
you have "Shift Wand". Talk about ruining a good pun.
I suggest the follwoing house varient:
Split the deck into spell cards and number cards.
Allow each player at start to decide their distribution
of number/spell. Usually 3:4 or 2:5.
When drawing replacment cards, you can draw from either
deck, although you have to "pre-declare", you can't
draw a spell, look at it, then decide to draw a number
for your second draw.
This prevents people getting stuck with no numbers, and generally
makes a faster and nastier game (spells do more damage, people move
faster).
It also helps if REALLY NEED a particular spell (i.e. "destroy wall")
or "dispell" (because you have slow death on you).
--
**********************************************
* PLEASE BEFORE READING THIS PAGE, *
* DOUBLE CLICK ON HIGHLIGHTED SUBJECT AREA *
* TO VIEW LETTER IN FULL SCREEN *
**********************************************
Remove BRAIN to email Remove BRAIN to email Remove BRAIN to
Ben Hitz -- Do not reply Directly -- Dept. of Biochemistry
*** http://tincan.bioc.columbia.edu/Home/ben.home/ ***
Geenius at Wrok
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.990308123250.19791C-100000@merlin>, Geenius at
> Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote:
>
> > I think the reference to production may have been targeted not at
> > sturdiness of materials but at attractiveness of graphic design. I've
> > only seen the game once, and I didn't play it, but if my memory serves*,
> > this is a legitimate criticism -- and the very reason why I didn't play it
> > when I had the chance. I've seen some other games (Time Agent sticks out
> > in my mind) whose lackluster looks turned me off so completely that
> > nothing, not even the acme of playability, would have gotten me to try it.
> > Cheapass' games may be low-budget, but they still manage not to look like
> > flash cards.
>
> Hmmm... Well, I can see how graphic design/component quality could
> initially draw you into a game, but if there's nothing behind it, it
> doesn't really matter. Personally, I worry more about the physically
> quality of the components, because if they are too cheap, that can cut
> short the longevity of an otherwise good game. Graphic design is
> important, but its a distant second to the gameplay itself.
I guess this just illustrates that different people have different
priorities. :-) Mind you, I'm not saying that I'd continue playing a game
that looked lovely and played miserably. On the other hand ... well,
let's go back to Time Agent. I loved the concept, and the mechanics
looked interesting, and I WANTED to play -- until I saw the board. When I
see something that looks that austere, I start to think ... well, this is
going to sound strange, but I start to think "math." Maybe it's because
of the flash card look, I don't know. And I'm not bad at math. But I
also don't find math a whole lot of fun in and of itself, and I tend to be
leery of games that look like they were designed by mathematicians,
because all the mathematicians I've ever known have reveled in the
needlessly complex.
Austere design does not say to me, as it might say to some people, "The
guys who designed this put so much thought and energy and tender loving
care into the mechanics and playability that they didn't have a drop of
juice left over for the visuals." I'm more inclined to think, "If they
cut corners on the graphics, what else did they cut corners on?"
In short, I'll play a good-looking, well-designed game lots of times; and
I'll play a good-looking, badly designed game once. But an ugly game,
even if it's well-designed, I may never play at all.
Bruno Wolff III
>
> one would need to be completely tanked to see any value in this 'game'. The
> rules are ambiguous at best (it seemed every turn, a question came up that
> was unanswered by either card text or rulebook), and the component quality
> makes me long for the comparatively fine production at CheapAss Games.
I have a postscript file with answers to rules questions. I don't remember
where I got it, but presumably it is on a web page somewhere.
thatm...@my-dejanews.com
> Now, you're free to dislike whatever game you choose
I appreciate the permission.
> but these complaints
> make no sense. The components are well above the quality level of Cheapass
> Games. The cards are printed on card stock, just like Cheapass' are, and
> the board and punch out chits are printed on heavy cardboard stock.
Geenius beat me to the main punch - the cards are unattractive. Everything
about them screams "Blah" - at least most of the CheapAss card sets are either
amusing or attractively laid-out.
And my WizWar boards were warped at purchase and have warped more with time.
The only other copy of WizWar I've seen had the same warping. I'd take the
thin and flat boards from "Spree" or "Kill Doctor Lucky" over these thick
things that don't lay flat, anyday. I've the same beef with Rio Grande's
"Lowenherz" - an otherwise beautiful game, but something's got to be done
about a piece-it-together board that doesn't lay flat after a month or two of
normal (room-temperature closet horizontal-stacking) storage.
Mel Nicholson
>Genius at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote:
>
>> I think the reference to production may have been targeted not at
>> sturdiness of materials but at attractiveness of graphic design. I've
>
>notice, though, because we were having too much fun.
>
applied to the 6th edition production. 5th edition Wiz War had fine
graphics, and the 6th edition was a major downgrade.
This is odd, because they got Phil Foglio(sp?) of Dragon Magazine fame
to do the art. I suppose as art in and of itself, it wasn't bad, but
as a functional work it was horrible. The color splashes on the treasure
are so small that telling blue from green is difficult at best, for one
example, and I'll stop with examples there to avoid going into rant mode.
Tom Jolly's original game design is solid, and for a game with so many
corner cases, the shortcomings of the rules are amazingly small. To the
poster who complained on this front I would have to ask just how carefully
he read the rules regarding these 'unanswered questions on every other turn'
I *do* remember some truly unanswered questions like 'when DRAG is cast in
conjunction with AROUND THE CORNER, should the dragged item follow the path
of the spell, or just try to follow a straight line?' but for these we have
made a (rather short) list of house rules, and generally tried to pick the
cool answer over any appeals to realism or whatnot.
Mel
Robert Chang
> > Now, you're free to dislike whatever game you choose
>
> I appreciate the permission.
>
> > but these complaints
> > make no sense. The components are well above the quality level of Cheapass
> > Games. The cards are printed on card stock, just like Cheapass' are, and
> > the board and punch out chits are printed on heavy cardboard stock.
>
> Geenius beat me to the main punch - the cards are unattractive. Everything
> about them screams "Blah" - at least most of the CheapAss card sets are either
> amusing or attractively laid-out.
>
> And my WizWar boards were warped at purchase and have warped more with time.
> The only other copy of WizWar I've seen had the same warping. I'd take the
> thin and flat boards from "Spree" or "Kill Doctor Lucky" over these thick
> things that don't lay flat, anyday. I've the same beef with Rio Grande's
> "Lowenherz" - an otherwise beautiful game, but something's got to be done
> about a piece-it-together board that doesn't lay flat after a month or two of
> normal (room-temperature closet horizontal-stacking) storage.
Well, I can only comment on my own experience. I've owned a copy of Wiz
War for about 6 or 7 years now and the boards show no significant warping.
The game was stored on a shelf in my living room. *shrug* Maybe you live
in an unusually humid climate (I'm in the SF Bay Area where we have been
accused of not having seasons at all).
As far as the art goes... that's just personal preference. As I've stated
before, the art is more than adequate for the game. In a contest between
flash and substance, I'll take substance every time. I think that its sad
that some people can't get past appearances to see the game underneath.
Once you start playing you don't even notice the lack of flash. But what
do I know. I think Nethack and interactive-fiction rock too.
Geenius at Wrok
> As far as the art goes... that's just personal preference. As I've stated
> before, the art is more than adequate for the game. In a contest between
> flash and substance, I'll take substance every time. I think that its sad
> that some people can't get past appearances to see the game underneath.
> Once you start playing you don't even notice the lack of flash. But what
> do I know. I think Nethack and interactive-fiction rock too.
If by Nethack you're referring to games like Rogue, then I'm also a fan.
(Gal-Trader! Gal-Trader! Gal-Trader! WOOHOO!!) Ditto for interactive
fiction. But one thing to keep in mind about those games is that they
made the best of their limitations. How much fun would Zork, Infidel,
Amnesia et al. have been if the descriptions were plodding, prosaic and
functional, with no more detail than necessary? For them, the
descriptions WERE the graphics. And if they had been dull or amateurish,
it would have killed the game. Gal-Trader worked because of its
superficial resemblance to real-life tactical radar screens. It probably
would have been easier simply to tell the player which planets were
available instead of splashing them across a mock star map. But it would
have been boring.
Robert Chang
Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Robert Chang wrote:
>
> > As far as the art goes... that's just personal preference. As I've stated
> > before, the art is more than adequate for the game. In a contest between
> > flash and substance, I'll take substance every time. I think that its sad
> > that some people can't get past appearances to see the game underneath.
> > Once you start playing you don't even notice the lack of flash. But what
> > do I know. I think Nethack and interactive-fiction rock too.
>
> If by Nethack you're referring to games like Rogue, then I'm also a fan.
> (Gal-Trader! Gal-Trader! Gal-Trader! WOOHOO!!) Ditto for interactive
> fiction. But one thing to keep in mind about those games is that they
> made the best of their limitations.
But, those limitations are artificial now. Computer games are all about
flashy 3d graphics and lighting effects. However, despite that, I still
like i-f and roguelike games because of their elegance and core gameplay.
Give me the original Zork games over the new graphics based ones any day.
> How much fun would Zork, Infidel,
> Amnesia et al. have been if the descriptions were plodding, prosaic and
> functional, with no more detail than necessary? For them, the
> descriptions WERE the graphics. And if they had been dull or amateurish,
> it would have killed the game.
Let's be honest. The old infocom/scott adams games were great, but they
weren't all masterworks of prose. "You are standing in an open field west
of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox
here." Zork's descriptions are pretty bare bones, but that doesn't reduce
it in any way. To me it is the essentials of the games that made them so
great. The puzzles, the text parser, and the attention to detail.
> Gal-Trader worked because of its
> superficial resemblance to real-life tactical radar screens. It probably
> would have been easier simply to tell the player which planets were
> available instead of splashing them across a mock star map. But it would
> have been boring.
Can't comment since I haven't played Gal-Trader. But look at Nethack and
other roguelikes. Graphically, they are terribly boring; a bunch of ascii
symbols running around the screen. Yet I still play it more than most
graphically flashy, more visually appealing games. Why? Because the game
underneath the graphics is truly superior.
WCamp92147
>leery of games that look like they were designed by mathematicians,
>because all the mathematicians I've ever known have reveled in the
>needlessly complex.
Reiner Knizia is a mathematician. 'Nuff said.
Bill Campbell
Geenius at Wrok
Yes, but I don't know him. :-)
Seriously, though, as brilliant as the mechanics he builds into his games
are, the other half of the story is the beautiful production values that
they're wrapped up in. Without pink plastic camels, Durch die Wüste would
not be Durch die Wüste. How do I know? Because my wife, not just a
non-gamer but an anti-gamer, said, "We've GOT to get that game with the
little camels!"
Edge
> > Would anyone who has played Wiz War care to comment on it - thanks.
>
> Fun and goofy. A nice time-waster for 2 players, really
> fun for 3-6. I like the expansions, and allows 5-6 players.
Absolutely. Can't play it without laughing. The graphics have been
going down hill fast in the later versions, but the game is so great,
it's definitely worth getting past that if you can.
>
>
> It's VERY BOP (Balance of Power) oriented, nearly as much
> as Cosmic Encounter. Usually, some one wins by some
> complicated feat of trickery.
Well..., this is mostly true. But the game doesn't drag (the way Cosmic
Encounter always did for us). The "other" players run low on cards with
which to stop the next apparent winner pretty quickly (usually). Or,
more than one player gets within a turn of a win.
And you can arrange to be harder to stop if you're careful. Still,
timing your big push is important. Nothing worse than having an opposing
wizard on your home sector (I should say, close to your home base) the
*entire* game. Makes it very tough to win. But with all the terrain
modifications available, it takes pretty bad luck not to be able to "fix"
that.
>
>
> My biggest beef with the Chessex version is that they
> renamed all the "sticks" wands.
> So, instead of
> "Sticky Stick"
> and
> "Shift Stick"
> you have "Shift Wand". Talk about ruining a good pun.
>
>
--
To reply, remove DeletethiS and DeletethisToO.
Kevin O'Hare
:>> "Shooter" <tre...@primary.net> wrote:
:>> > Would anyone who has played Wiz War care to comment on it - thanks.
:>In article <7c0vsm$bc1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
:>thatm...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
:>> one would need to be completely tanked to see any value in this 'game'. The
:>> rules are ambiguous at best (it seemed every turn, a question came up that
:>> was unanswered by either card text or rulebook), and the component quality
:>> makes me long for the comparatively fine production at CheapAss Games.
Robert Chang (b...@csua.berkeley.edu) wrote:
:>The components are well above the quality level of Cheapass
:>Games. The cards are printed on card stock, just like Cheapass' are, and
:>the board and punch out chits are printed on heavy cardboard stock. I have
:>also never had a problem with the rules. I can't think of a situation that
:>would be so dificult to resolve. Its really not that complicated.
I have to side with Bob, sure, the cards are not of the finest quality,
however, they are better quality than the Cheapass games cards. (and I
like most of the Cheapass games I've played). About the only question
of rules that comes up, is L.O.S., Line of Sight. And it's usually
agreed upon after a short check. This is a fun and often hilarious
game to play. Too bad WotC won't own up to the fact that M:tG was
cloned from Wiz War...
Back to the original question, this is a fun and often hilarious game
to play. It's never dull, as even as someone seems on the verge of
winning, someone plays _the_ card that stops them, and suddenly, someone
else will be on the verge of winning, and so on. That sort of "on the
edge of your seat" play keeps the interest high, and the game moving
along at a fast pace.
The game also has blank cards for you to make your own spells for the
game. There are a number of places on the net where you can download
some of these spells written by fellow gamers.
--
|Kevin O'Hare use: kevino at cup dot hp dot com |
|Oenophile|Pinball|Boardgames|GURPS|B-5|X-Files|Kites|CCGs|Highlander |
|Commercial and/or unsolicited email and/or spam will be processed for|
|a $500 handling fee. Unsolicited sending constitutes acceptance. |
Colin Bell
> I guess this just illustrates that different people have different
> priorities. :-) Mind you, I'm not saying that I'd continue playing a game
> that looked lovely and played miserably. On the other hand ... well,
> let's go back to Time Agent. I loved the concept, and the mechanics
> looked interesting, and I WANTED to play -- until I saw the board. When I
> see something that looks that austere, I start to think ... well, this is
> going to sound strange, but I start to think "math." Maybe it's because
> of the flash card look, I don't know. And I'm not bad at math. But I
> leery of games that look like they were designed by mathematicians,
> because all the mathematicians I've ever known have reveled in the
> needlessly complex.
<stereotype>
Looks like you know a lot of applied mathematicians. Pure mathematicians
revel in the simple and elegant - in game terms this equates to a few
rules which are simple in and of themselves but which combine to lead to
deep strategy.
</stereotype>
Colin
bagh...@my-dejanews.com
Colin Bell <c...@art.co.uk> wrote:
> <stereotype>
>
> Looks like you know a lot of applied mathematicians. Pure mathematicians
> revel in the simple and elegant - in game terms this equates to a few
> rules which are simple in and of themselves but which combine to lead to
> deep strategy.
>
> </stereotype>
>
> Colin
Sorry, I've known too many mathematicians.
2+2=4....prove it.
on the set [0,1,2]........catch my drift?
mathematicians find the hardest path from A-B then prove a shorter path
exists.
Bagherra <jae...@frenzy.com>
http://www.frenzy.com/~jaebear
"What use is it to have a leader who walks on water
if you don't follow in their footsteps?"
Kevin J. Maroney
>Seriously, though, as brilliant as the mechanics he builds into his games
>are, the other half of the story is the beautiful production values that
>they're wrapped up in. Without pink plastic camels, Durch die Wüste would
>not be Durch die Wüste. How do I know? Because my wife, not just a
>non-gamer but an anti-gamer, said, "We've GOT to get that game with the
>little camels!"
Indeed, a lot of people who care very little about games will judge
them harshly or favorably by their production value. Anyone for
_Wadjet_?
I've said before that one of the many reasons I admire the mancala
family of games, especially _Wari_, is that there's something deeply
satisfying about a game which can be played with a handful of pebbles
and some holes punched into the dirt.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
ForlornH
>>are, the other half of the story is the beautiful production values that
>>they're wrapped up in. Without pink plastic camels, Durch die Wüste would
>>not be Durch die Wüste. How do I know? Because my wife, not just a
>>non-gamer but an anti-gamer, said, "We've GOT to get that game with the
>>little camels!"
Same thing with my wife and "Power Trip." The game is horrible but she loved
the "little pastel philosophers"
Rich Goranson (Lord Stephan Calvert deGrey)
Buffalo, NY (Barony of the Rhydderich Hael, Æthelmearc)
Diplomacy addict, F&E guru, Expos fan and medieval re-creationist
"I could have conquered Europe, all of it, but I had women in my life." - Henry
II
Kevin J. Maroney
>5th edition Wiz War had fine
>graphics, and the 6th edition was a major downgrade.
>
>This is odd, because they got Phil Foglio(sp?) of Dragon Magazine fame
>to do the art.
I am somewhere between 95% and 99% certain that Phil Foglio did not do
the art for 6th Edition _Wiz War_. There are a great many fan artists
who ape Foglio's style, some well, some poorly; this artist, who does
not seem to be credited, is neither particularly good nor particularly
close to Foglio.
Also, Foglio is probably best-known for his three consecutive Best Fan
Artist Hugo Awards or his 20+ years of work in the comics industry,
not for his 4 years of work for _Dragon_. A current gamer is more
likely to know him for his work on _Magic: The Gathering_ or for
various Cheapass titles than for "What's New", which ended 15 years
ago.
David desJardins
> Sorry, I've known too many mathematicians.
I really doubt you (or the "Geenius") have known any. Probably the
closest contact most people on this group have with anyone who can be
called a mathematician is playing games designed by Reiner Knizia or
Richard Garfield.
> 2+2=4....prove it.
> on the set [0,1,2]........catch my drift?
No, I don't catch your drift. I have no idea what this is supposed to
mean.
Obviously nobody with any intelligence makes things more complicated for
no reason. Pretending that they do is just a sham. To understand what
the reason for complexity in a particular context is, one would have to
know the context.
David desJardins
brian tivol
> The only other copy of WizWar I've seen had the same warping. I'd
> take the thin and flat boards from "Spree" or "Kill Doctor Lucky"
> over these thick things that don't lay flat, anyday.
The only warped WizWar board of mine the one that someone spilled beer
on (grr). When a different friend spilled beer onto a Kill Doctor
Lucky board (grr!!), it fared much worse.
(In fairness to my friends, they don't spill beer all the time; the
only other food accident I've incurred was an Elfenland troll-cart
token badly tossed into a bowl of salsa (grr!).)
--brian
Geenius at Wrok
> Obviously nobody with any intelligence makes things more complicated for
> no reason.
I didn't say "no reason," I said "needlessly." And if you doubt it, read
rec.games.go. Particularly the threads in which a handful of obsessives
try to "solve" the game on a 2-by-2 board.
David desJardins
> rec.games.go. Particularly the threads in which a handful of obsessives
> try to "solve" the game on a 2-by-2 board.
These are the "mathematicians" that you have "known" on which you base
your rhetorical conclusions about how mathematicians behave?? Do you
actually know any of them at all?
I personally know hundreds (thousands?) of real mathematicians. I think
that puts me in a reasonable position to have some idea about how they
generally think. Someone who doesn't know any, and reads some Usenet
newsgroups having nothing to do with mathematics to get his ideas about
how mathematicians think and reason, from a few posters whose
mathematical backgrounds, professions, and training are unknown to him,
seems to me to be in an extremely poor position to generalize about how
mathematicans generally think.
David desJardins
Geenius at Wrok
> Geenius at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> writes:
>
> > I didn't say "no reason," I said "needlessly." And if you doubt it, read
> > rec.games.go. Particularly the threads in which a handful of obsessives
> > try to "solve" the game on a 2-by-2 board.
>
> These are the "mathematicians" that you have "known" on which you base
> your rhetorical conclusions about how mathematicians behave??
No. But they do back up my point nicely.
Here's a tasty example that showed up shortly after I wrote the above:
Dear Robert,
>How much can a komonster get at most?
The whole value of the third largest play.
In a normal environment, the komonster (of a simple ko) can do this:
A -- B
/ \
k 0
Say that Black is komonster at A, and can win the ko fight until the end of the
game, played by AGA rules. When he finally wins the ko, White has to give up a
final point, so the ko is worth k+1. That is a gain of k/3 + 1 over the mean
value of the ko if Black is merely komaster at temperature k/3.
OK, board game fans, does this bear any resemblance to the go YOU know?
> I personally know hundreds (thousands?) of real mathematicians. I think
> that puts me in a reasonable position to have some idea about how they
> generally think.
Well, it certainly makes you popular.
Weird
slobs but we do eat and drink a lot when playing games.
Weird
brian tivol wrote in message ...
bagh...@my-dejanews.com
David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
> Geenius at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> writes:
> > I didn't say "no reason," I said "needlessly." And if you doubt it, read
> > rec.games.go. Particularly the threads in which a handful of obsessives
> > try to "solve" the game on a 2-by-2 board.
>
> These are the "mathematicians" that you have "known" on which you base
> actually know any of them at all?
>
> that puts me in a reasonable position to have some idea about how they
> newsgroups having nothing to do with mathematics to get his ideas about
> how mathematicians think and reason, from a few posters whose
> mathematical backgrounds, professions, and training are unknown to him,
> seems to me to be in an extremely poor position to generalize about how
> mathematicans generally think.
>
> David desJardins
>
well, Mr Muckety Muck, I can't speak for genius, but I KNOW mathematicians.
Being a computer scientist, I have had the misfortune to have to study side
by side and under mathematicians. They are quite cryptic, and unless you give
them completely meaningless and complex orations of descriptions, they look
at you as if you are nothing more than a slug on the planet needing a good
salting.
Mathematicians are good for making weapons and airplanes and stuff for us,
but they ruin everyday life with their equation making and complexity
pushing. Why if it weren't for mathematicians and their silly Big O notation,
computer science would be a wonderful place to hang out and be comfy, but NO
some mathematician said it had to be hard to they put in stupid calculations
with little to no meaning (the only time I have EVER used big O was in school,
and to compare STL components with objects I had written...otherwise utterly
useless, since no one really uses it).
I may not know HUNDREDS of mathematicians, but the dozen or so that I do know
are very pompous and complicated people. (and they all seem to enjoy jogging
for some weird reason?) Mind you, I enjoy playing games with mathematicians,
especially to get their point of view on strategy, but after half an hour
disertation on how Risk is too statistically simplistic to bother with...I
just have to say no.
Back to the main topic of games and graphic quality.
Mathematicians tend to make complex abstract games with little "Eye Candy".
Gamers tend to make simple "Eye Candy" games with little mechanics (or the
extreme of war gamers making games which are nothing but maps, counters and
mechanics and no plot ;)
I am like some others here in that I look at the graphics to a game before I
buy. Sometimes, I am fortunate enough to come across a game in progress and
I am invited in to play (as was the case with Wiz War). On inspection, I
would not personally purchase Wiz War because it is not graphically pleasing,
nor does it have any "hook" that makes it apparently attractive (even the
description on the box sucks). But I got to play the game once, and I
genuienly (sp?) enjoyed it. So I purchased a copy (during the time Wiz War
was REALLY hot and sold nearly 30 copies at the convention I was at...and I
like to think I helped it out). Fifth Edition is alot nicer (the boards
don't warp as easily as 6th ed) than later editions. Also 5th edition has
nicer smaller (more portable) boards and pieces. I wish they would reprint
5th edition with it's expansions. I always that the cardstock used for the
cards was nice, but others are right in that it could have used some nice
illustrations on the cards. The illustrations on the chits weren't bad. And
the box art was ok, again, I wouldn't have bought the game based on the
outside artwork.
But...there is the divergency...Cathedral. I own all four variants of
cathedral, and time and again, it is always the most bland one that people
wish to play. Go figure. I guess there is appeal in wood pieces? perhaps
wiz war would do better with wood pieces?
One final note...on another thread about Illuminati deluxe ed 99, they
mention that they were upset that they reprinted the cardboard money counters
instead of plastic. Well, I have the older set w/ cardboard money, and when
the plastic money came out, I remarked how stupid that was because it made
"cheating" that much harder (see stacking).
Bruno Wolff III
>
> OK, board game fans, does this bear any resemblance to the go YOU know?
You might want to read "Mathematical Go: Chilling gets the last point" to
get a better idea of what they are talking about. Some applications of
combinatorial game theory to Go is also discussed in "Games of No Chance".
If you want to learn about combinatorial game theory, the best place to
start is "Winning Ways". Volume 1 is out of print (in English), but you
might find it in a library. Volume 1 has more theory. Volume 2 is more
practical. It has a very good discussion on how to play Dots and Boxes.
David desJardins
> Mathematicians tend to make complex abstract games with little "Eye Candy".
I'd still like to hear your evidence for this sort of sweeping
generalization. When I think of games from mathematicians, I have a
mental list which starts with Magic: the Gathering, Robo Rally, Modern
Art, and Durch Die Wueste. Magic is complex, but it isn't abstract, and
has lots of "eye candy". Robo Rally is neither complex nor abstract,
and shipped with colorful graphics and fancy miniatures. Modern Art is
neither complex nor particularly abstract, and also has lots of colorful
graphics. And Durch Die Wueste is somewhat abstract, but not
particularly complex, and is often remarked on for its interesting and
attractive components.
That is, of course, just my own list, based on the games that I know
were designed by mathematicians (or people with mathematical training
and backgrounds). Either you have a very different perception of those
games, or you have a very different list, or both. My guess is that you
have a preconceived notion of what "games designed by mathematicians"
should look like, and when you see a game that fits that notion you
mentally assign it to the "mathematician" class, whether or not the
author ever took a single advanced math class. But that actually, of
the games that you play, the ones designed by mathematicians or people
with mathematical backgrounds are less likely to be that way than are
the ones that are not. I think that's true primarily because
mathematics is about making things as simple as possible (but no
simpler).
David desJardins
the Dave
<thatm...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Geenius beat me to the main punch - the cards are unattractive. Everything
>about them screams "Blah" - at least most of the CheapAss card sets are either
>amusing or attractively laid-out.
Everyone with whom I've played WizWar thinks that the ways in which
you can use the cards are quite amusing. For most people with
reasonably good imaginations, this more than makes up for the graphics
deficiencies.
IMHO WizWar is one of the very best beer-and-pretzel games ever.
user
Agreed that the cards and boards are plain. I always bust out my box of
miniatures/toys and let players select their figure. Who can complain
about graphics when a rogue hand-painted wizard is chased around by a
plastic bear and both are ultimately defeated by a king-cake baby glued to
a penny? No graphic deficiencies there.
-N
Mel Nicholson
Hi Kevin. Your name is very familiar to me. Were you a SPARFer?
>m...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (Mel Nicholson) wrote:
>
>>5th edition Wiz War had fine
>>graphics, and the 6th edition was a major downgrade.
>>
>>This is odd, because they got Phil Foglio(sp?) of Dragon Magazine fame
>>to do the art.
>
>I am somewhere between 95% and 99% certain that Phil Foglio did not do
>the art for 6th Edition _Wiz War_.
Tom Jolly was active on this board when 6th ed came out, and had
mentioned in advance of the release that they(Chessex: it was
already out of Jolly Games's hands) were aiming for Foglio. I
never head anything to the effect of them not getting him.
Given the weak quality of the artwork, I could easily believe this
was a second-choice artist imitating his style.
>Also, Foglio is probably best-known for his three consecutive Best Fan
>Artist Hugo Awards or his 20+ years of work in the comics industry,
>not for his 4 years of work for _Dragon_. A current gamer is more
>likely to know him for his work on _Magic: The Gathering_ or for
>various Cheapass titles than for "What's New", which ended 15 years
>ago.
At the time 6th ed came out, 'Finneous Fingers' was in print and a big
deal. I neither made nor make any claim about how best to remember the
artist.
Mel
Chris Camfield
[snip]
>Mathematicians are good for making weapons and airplanes and stuff for us,
>but they ruin everyday life with their equation making and complexity
>pushing. Why if it weren't for mathematicians and their silly Big O notation,
>computer science would be a wonderful place to hang out and be comfy,
The mind boggles. Mathematicians making weapons and airplanes? Or
are you talking about engineers?
How can you do CS as a profession without theory?
Anyhow, please, put your generalizations aside...
CC
srsch...@my-dejanews.com
"Shooter" <tre...@primary.net> wrote:
> Would anyone who has played Wiz War care to comment on it - thanks.
>
>
I was interested in this game for a while. I even bought a copy of the latest
version. Then I read some posts about cards missing from the game, so I
checked my cards against the parts list in the manual. Sure enough, I was
missing some cards and had duplicates of others. I returned the game.
Has anyone else experienced this?
Steve
david carlton
> Geenius at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> writes:
>> all the mathematicians I've ever known have reveled in the
>> needlessly complex.
> Looks like you know a lot of applied mathematicians. Pure
> mathematicians revel in the simple and elegant
I think that these are both true, and that one could also say that
mathematicians (by which I mean "pure mathematicians"; I don't know
much about applied mathematicians) revel in the needfully complex.
Yes, elegance is a very desirable quality for mathematicians, and
simplicity is as well, but it's a sort of elegance and simplicity that
takes a lot of experience to learn how to see and understand. I don't
know how much time I've spent struggling with concepts that were
allegedly wonderfully elegant, just not getting them, and finally
understanding them a year later and realizing that, yes, they really
are wonderfully elegant (and useful, too!), but it's been a lot of
time. These elegant concepts only seem elegant if you have the
background to understand how they are being stated and, more
importantly, have the background to appreciate the motivation for
their development - otherwise, they just look like gibberish, like
obfuscation for its own sake.
david carlton | <http://math.stanford.edu/~carlton/>
car...@math.stanford.edu | Go books: <http://math.stanford.edu/~carlton/go/>
.. Should I get locked in the PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE today -- or
have a VASECTOMY??
Richard Heli
bothering to define the term? Who knows, maybe everyone is defining
it differently? I doubt there is anyone who has mathematician as a job
title, though I suppose there are professors and students of mathematics
out there and people who use math in their jobs or hobbies to one degree
or another. I suppose some people in small stores lacking cash registers
still add up accounts by hand. Perhaps they are mathematicians as well. ;)
Patrick Dolan
Kevin J. Maroney wrote in message
<36f25842...@client.ne.news.psi.net>...
>m...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (Mel Nicholson) wrote:
>
>>5th edition Wiz War had fine
>>graphics, and the 6th edition was a major downgrade.
>>
>>This is odd, because they got Phil Foglio(sp?) of Dragon Magazine fame
>>to do the art.
>
>I am somewhere between 95% and 99% certain that Phil Foglio did not do
>who ape Foglio's style, some well, some poorly; this artist, who does
>not seem to be credited, is neither particularly good nor particularly
>close to Foglio.
>
>Artist Hugo Awards or his 20+ years of work in the comics industry,
>not for his 4 years of work for _Dragon_. A current gamer is more
>likely to know him for his work on _Magic: The Gathering_ or for
>various Cheapass titles than for "What's New", which ended 15 years
>ago.
>
If it's the edition I'm thinking of, and I think it is (this would be the
most recent edition, yes?), it is not Phil Foglio, it's an artist who's
work I've seen elsewhere. I'm afraid I can't think of his name offhand.
David Damerell
>Isn't this an awful lot of discussion of mathematicians without even
>bothering to define the term? Who knows, maybe everyone is defining
>it differently? I doubt there is anyone who has mathematician as a job
>title,
Some people in Cambridge (UK) are officially mathematicians by job title;
and I'm sure the two mathematics departments would describe their staff
as mathematicians.
>though I suppose there are professors and students of mathematics
>out there
Certainly.
>and people who use math in their jobs or hobbies to one degree
>or another. I suppose some people in small stores lacking cash registers
>still add up accounts by hand. Perhaps they are mathematicians as well. ;)
I think you are confusing 'mathematics' with 'arithmetic'.
I also think this is absurdly off-topic, so I'll let it die.
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ w.sp.lic.#pi<largestprime>.2106
|___| Consenting Mercrediphile. Bev White's answer to |___|
| | | Next attempt to break the world in progress Andrew S. Damick | | |
David Allsopp
<patd...@cris.com> writes
>
>Kevin J. Maroney wrote in message
><36f25842...@client.ne.news.psi.net>...
>>m...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (Mel Nicholson) wrote:
>>
>>>5th edition Wiz War had fine
>>>graphics, and the 6th edition was a major downgrade.
>>>
>>>This is odd, because they got Phil Foglio(sp?) of Dragon Magazine fame
>>>to do the art.
>>
>>I am somewhere between 95% and 99% certain that Phil Foglio did not do
>>the art for 6th Edition _Wiz War_. There are a great many fan artists
>>who ape Foglio's style, some well, some poorly; this artist, who does
>>not seem to be credited, is neither particularly good nor particularly
>>close to Foglio.
>
>most recent edition, yes?), it is not Phil Foglio, it's an artist who's
>work I've seen elsewhere. I'm afraid I can't think of his name offhand.
Tom Jolly, Wiz-War designer, is in England at the moment (although not
for much longer -- another opponent gone west :-(). I'm forwarding this
for him:
------------------------------------------------------
Phil Morrisey did the artwork, I think, so they got the Phil part right.
As far as other components, I actually like the old boards more, because
1. they have the LOS dots, and 2. They aren't a bland grey, but a
spritely, lively brown. It's easier to make out the walls, and 3. The
whole game is more portable and 4. It's harder to crush the old box. I
DO like the art better on the new version.
That's about it. Oh yeah...I prefer the old card design (text sideways)
to the new one. Titles are easier to read when the hand is spread
normally.
TJ
------------------------------------------------------
--
David Allsopp Houston, this is Tranquillity Base.
Remove SPAM to email me The Eagle has landed.
bagh...@my-dejanews.com
David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
> "Bagherra" <bagh...@my-dejanews.com> writes:
> > Mathematicians tend to make complex abstract games with little "Eye Candy".
>
> I'd still like to hear your evidence for this sort of sweeping
> generalization. When I think of games from mathematicians, I have a
> mental list which starts with Magic: the Gathering, Robo Rally,
EXCUSE ME???
Richard Garfield is a PSYCHOLOGIST!!!
> That is, of course, just my own list, based on the games that I know
> were designed by mathematicians (or people with mathematical training
> and backgrounds).
I have a volumous Mathematical background, but I will be the first to
say that I am NOT repeat NOT a mathematician.
For reference: Cal I-III (basic cal, trig cal, vector cal), Differential
Equations, Special Topics: LaPlace Transforms, Special Topics: Partial
Differentiation, Finite Math, Discrete Math, Combinatorics intro and
advanced, Modern Algebra, Linear Algebra, Computational algorithms, and
finally, last but not least, Complex Calculus (calculus for imaginary
numbers).
I'm only 8 hours short of a BA in Math...so back off man. (and no, I have no
plans on taking the last two classes.)
Bagherra <jae...@frenzy.com>
http://www.frenzy.com/~jaebear
"What use is it to have a leader who walks on water
if you don't follow in their footsteps?"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
bagh...@my-dejanews.com
ab...@freenet.carleton.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 1999 21:19:25 GMT, bagh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> [snip]
> are you talking about engineers?
no, mathematicians. Where I went to University, many of my professors
(in math dept) worked at the local military bases doing trajectories and
proofing and whatnot. They're cheaper to hire than engineers you see ;)
> How can you do CS as a profession without theory?
theory doesn't make the car go...
Application does.
David desJardins
Richard Garfield (the designer of Magic: the Gathering and Robo Rally,
among other games) has a Ph.D. in Mathematics from the University of
Pennsylvania, and taught mathematics at the college level. If that
makes one a "PSYCHOLOGIST!!!" in your view, then that further reinforces
my belief that you have no clue what a "mathematician" is.
> I have a volumous Mathematical background, but I will be the first to
> say that I am NOT repeat NOT a mathematician.
I'll be the second. Let me assure you, if you took 8 more credits of
math classes, you still wouldn't be a mathematician.
David desJardins
bagh...@my-dejanews.com
David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
> bagh...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> > EXCUSE ME???
> > Richard Garfield is a PSYCHOLOGIST!!!
>
> Richard Garfield (the designer of Magic: the Gathering and Robo Rally,
> among other games) has a Ph.D. in Mathematics from the University of
> Pennsylvania, and taught mathematics at the college level. If that
> makes one a "PSYCHOLOGIST!!!" in your view, then that further reinforces
> my belief that you have no clue what a "mathematician" is.
funny, that's not what the original magic rule books say, or the interview in
scrye...
> > I have a volumous Mathematical background, but I will be the first to
> > say that I am NOT repeat NOT a mathematician.
>
> I'll be the second. Let me assure you, if you took 8 more credits of
> math classes, you still wouldn't be a mathematician.
>
> David desJardins
you included heavy math training in your definition, dolt
David desJardins
>> Richard Garfield (the designer of Magic: the Gathering and Robo Rally,
>> among other games) has a Ph.D. in Mathematics from the University of
>> Pennsylvania, and taught mathematics at the college level.
>
> interview in scrye...
You really are clueless, aren't you? Most people would look up some
facts, before spouting off their erroneous facts with lots of SHOUTING
and EXCLAMATION MARKS!!! If it's too much trouble to get out those
rulebooks and look at them, it took me all of about 15 seconds to find:
http://www.wizards.com/Corporate_Info/Richard_Bio.html
> you included heavy math training in your definition, dolt
1. I didn't post any definition of a mathematican.
2. Your math training is not "heavy".
3. Sitting through a bunch of classes doesn't mean you learned anything.
David desJardins
Kevin J. Maroney
>"Bagherra" <bagh...@my-dejanews.com> writes:
>> Mathematicians tend to make complex abstract games with little "Eye Candy".
>
>I'd still like to hear your evidence for this sort of sweeping
>generalization. When I think of games from mathematicians, I have a
>mental list which starts with Magic: the Gathering, Robo Rally, Modern
>Art, and Durch Die Wueste.
To expand, you have the entire list of games by Reiner Knizia, ranging
from _E&T_ at the absolute top end of complexity and chrome, down to
_Quandry/Flinke Pinke_ or _Katzenjammer Blues_, neither of which
could, under *any* reasonable definition, be called "complex".
While some of Garfield's games are complex (and to my taste overly
so--_Complex Hearts_, anyone?), it's worth noting that he's also the
designer of the amazingly simple _The Great Dalmuti_.
Other actual mathemetician game-designers of note are:
Eric Solomon, best known for _Black Box_, _Conspiracy_, and
_Billabong_, all of which are somewhat abstract, but none of which are
particularly complex.
John Conway, most of whose games are illustrative rather than actually
designed for play, but didn't he invent _Sprouts_? Hard to get much
simpler than that.
I don't know of any others, but I'm sure there are many. Sid Sackson
is a mechanical engineer, which means he has a strong mathematical
background, and I'm sure there are a lot of other game designers with
a strong math background.
Geenius at Wrok
> While some of Garfield's games are complex (and to my taste overly
> so--_Complex Hearts_, anyone?), it's worth noting that he's also the
> designer of the amazingly simple _The Great Dalmuti_.
Er, no. The Great Dalmuti is a repackaging of a college drinking game
called El Presidente.
Robert Rossney
>On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Kevin J. Maroney wrote:
>
>> While some of Garfield's games are complex (and to my taste overly
>> so--_Complex Hearts_, anyone?), it's worth noting that he's also the
>> designer of the amazingly simple _The Great Dalmuti_.
>
>Er, no. The Great Dalmuti is a repackaging of a college drinking game
>called El Presidente.
Or Asshole, depending on your class of friends. Which is itself a version
of the Chinese game Zheng Shang Yu, according to the rules booklet in
Hexagames's Karriere Poker, which too is a version of this game.
Garfield added the card-passing and Dalmuti card rules to the traditional
game. I don't know if this counts as designing a game.
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
Derk Solko
> On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Kevin J. Maroney wrote:
>
> > While some of Garfield's games are complex (and to my taste overly
> > so--_Complex Hearts_, anyone?), it's worth noting that he's also the
> > designer of the amazingly simple _The Great Dalmuti_.
Geenius at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote:
> Er, no. The Great Dalmuti is a repackaging of a college drinking game
> called El Presidente.
I remember it being called 'Asshole' when I was in college, and I think it's
also known as Career Poker. Not to mention Dilbert's Corporate Shuffle....
derk.
Geenius at Wrok
> Geenius at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote:
>
> > Er, no. The Great Dalmuti is a repackaging of a college drinking game
> > called El Presidente.
>
> I remember it being called 'Asshole' when I was in college, and I think it's
> also known as Career Poker. Not to mention Dilbert's Corporate Shuffle....
Asshole and El Presidente are in fact the same game, being named after the
bottom and top positions on the ladder respectively.
Anthony C Kam
Robert Rossney <r...@well.com> wrote:
>Or Asshole, depending on your class of friends. Which is itself a version
>of the Chinese game Zheng Shang Yu, according to the rules booklet in
>Hexagames's Karriere Poker, which too is a version of this game.
>
>Garfield added the card-passing and Dalmuti card rules to the traditional
>game. I don't know if this counts as designing a game.
>
>Bob Rossney
>r...@well.com
garfield did not add the card-passing. when i played the Hong Kong
version of this game (presumably based on the Chinese version) some 20+
years ago, i already played with card-passing -- winner of last hand can
extract the best card (or 2 cards) from the loser of last hand and can
return same number of any cards.
garfield did "invent" the pyramidal deck for this game, i think.
antkam
Mel Nicholson
Geenius at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Derk Solko wrote:
>
>> Geenius at Wrok <gee...@albany.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Er, no. The Great Dalmuti is a repackaging of a college drinking game
>> > called El Presidente.
>>
>> I remember it being called 'Asshole' when I was in college, and I think it's
>> also known as Career Poker. Not to mention Dilbert's Corporate Shuffle....
>
>Asshole and El Presidente are in fact the same game, being named after the
>bottom and top positions on the ladder respectively.
>
>
ages. The many companies putting a thin veneer of chrome over it and
selling it as original are no different that the wave of Lair's Dice
repackagings a few years back.
Mel
Kevin J. Maroney
>...and both are the same game as Feudalism, the game has been around for
>ages. The many companies putting a thin veneer of chrome over it and
>selling it as original are no different that the wave of Lair's Dice
>repackagings a few years back.
The Richard Borg game published by Milton Bradley as _Liar's Dice_
does not have a "thin veneer of chrome"; it is an astoundingly simple
game which takes a folk-game idea and turns it into a polished,
professional game. If you think that development of folk ideas into
superior games is a worthless pursuit, you are welcome to continue to
play Tarrock, As Nas, and Tablut to your heart's content.
Mark S. Bassett
>
> If you think that development of folk ideas into
> superior games is a worthless pursuit, you are welcome to continue to
> play Tarrock, As Nas, and Tablut to your heart's content.
>
I am seriously interested in knowing which modern games are
superior refinements to Tarrock and Tablut. I agree that
As Nas doesn't have much going for it, but I thought
Tarrock and Tablut were good!
Regards,
Mark Bassett
--
This .sig not available at your clearance level.
David Damerell
>"Kevin J. Maroney" wrote:
>>John Conway, most of whose games are illustrative rather than actually
>>designed for play, but didn't he invent _Sprouts_? Hard to get much
>>simpler than that.
>Carroll).
Are you sure? My mother - then a PhD student in DPMMS [1], Cambridge -
remembers Conway producing it (the mathematicians' craze before Life,
apparently), and certainly there was no suggestion it was not new.
[1] Department of Pure Maths and Mathematical Statistics.
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ w.sp.lic.#pi<largestprime>.2106
|___| "Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc." Confessed Mercrediphile. |___|
| | | Or, in Klingon: "nucharghqangbogh chaH DISopchu' 'e' wItIv." | | |
Kevin J. Maroney
>No. But it was another mathematician - Charles Dodgson (Lewis
>Carroll).
Do you have a source for that? Someone mailed me with this:
"_Winning Ways_ says Sprouts was "introduced by [Michael]
Paterson and [John] Conway".
Since Conway was one of the co-authors of _Winning Ways_, I'd be
inclined to think he would have mentioned Carroll if he'd known of
Carroll.
Oh, I thought of another mathematician/game-inventor: John Nash, who
invented _Hex_ (independently of Piet Hein, who invented it earlier).
I believe that Nash invented some other game in his studies of game
theory; he might even have been the inventor of _So Long, Sucker_. I
again defy anyone to tell me that _Hex_ is "overly complex"; it might
actually be the simplest(*) game I've ever played.
(Simplest in terms of the complexity of the rules set, that is.)
Geenius at Wrok
> Richard Vickery <Richard...@unsw.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >"Kevin J. Maroney" wrote:
> >
> >>John Conway, most of whose games are illustrative rather than actually
> >>designed for play, but didn't he invent _Sprouts_? Hard to get much
> >>simpler than that.
> >
> >No. But it was another mathematician - Charles Dodgson (Lewis
> >Carroll).
>
> Are you sure? My mother - then a PhD student in DPMMS [1], Cambridge -
> remembers Conway producing it (the mathematicians' craze before Life,
> apparently), and certainly there was no suggestion it was not new.
Merilyn Simonds Mohr, in "The New Games Treasury," credits the game to
Conway.
Richard Vickery
> John Conway, most of whose games are illustrative rather than actually
> designed for play, but didn't he invent _Sprouts_? Hard to get much
> simpler than that.
No. But it was another mathematician - Charles Dodgson (Lewis
Carroll).
Cheers
Richard Vickery
Richard Vickery
>>Carroll).
>
>
>"_Winning Ways_ says Sprouts was "introduced by [Michael]
>Paterson and [John] Conway".
>
>Since Conway was one of the co-authors of _Winning Ways_, I'd be
>inclined to think he would have mentioned Carroll if he'd known of
>Carroll.
Yep - I was wrong. 1960 - Conway and Paterson, from New Rules for Classic
Games (Schmittberger). I was mis-remembering from the Hamlyn Family Games
Book (Brandreth) which reads:
"Sprouts. In Oxford in the 1860s Lewis Carroll, mathematician and writer,
invented all sorts of games. In Cambridge in the 1960s two mathematicians,
spiritual descendants of Carroll's, invented one particular game. It is
called Sprouts and the old master would have loved it."
Sorry for the confusion.
Richard Vickery Our quest is for Meaning, \ /
Physiology & Pharmacology but the meaning is The Quest. (oVo)
UNSW, Australia ) (
ph. 61 2 9385 1676 Life's a Hoot! ^ ^
http://www.med.unsw.edu.au/Physiology/school/staff/vickery/welcome.html
Kevin J. Maroney
>I am seriously interested in knowing which modern games are
>superior refinements to Tarrock and Tablut.
It's not a direct refinement, but don't most of the modern suit-based
games with trump (e.g., _Whist_ and its descendents) derive fairly
clearly from the Tarot games?
I actually can't think of any modern games based on _Tablut_, though
I'd be surprised if Christaan Freeling hadn't done one.
Nick Wedd
<kmar...@crossover.com> writes
>The Richard Borg game published by Milton Bradley as _Liar's Dice_
>does not have a "thin veneer of chrome"; it is an astoundingly simple
>game which takes a folk-game idea and turns it into a polished,
>professional game.
The trouble is that the process of taking a traditional game and having
it "polished and perfected" by marketing people generally makes it a
poorer game.
This should not be surprising. Traditional games have had their rules
perfected by the players, in the interests of the players. Alterations
by marketing people are made in the interest of sales, and are hardly
likely to be improvements, from the point of view of the players.
>If you think that development of folk ideas into
>superior games is a worthless pursuit,
I am sure it is not worthless to the people who profit from it.
>you are welcome to continue to
>play Tarrock, As Nas, and Tablut to your heart's content.
I would much rather play a modern "folk" Tarock game, say Illustrated
Hungarian Tarock, than one of the "packaged" Tarock derivatives that can
be bought. And the traditional backgammon is far better than the
commercialised ludo.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Kevin J. Maroney
>The trouble is that the process of taking a traditional game and having
>it "polished and perfected" by marketing people generally makes it a
>poorer game.
>
>This should not be surprising. Traditional games have had their rules
>perfected by the players, in the interests of the players. Alterations
>by marketing people are made in the interest of sales, and are hardly
>likely to be improvements, from the point of view of the players.
I can think of many traditional games which were improved by
commerical redevelopment; I can think of none which were harmed,
though I'm sure there are some. Usually, you simply end up with a
different game.
Most folk games (in my experience) are marked by significant fiddly
and pointless rules (e.g., the dozens upon dozens of folk card games
which rank the cards oddly--A J 10 K Q 9 8 7 in *all suits*, for
instance) or rules poorly fitted onto their components. I'm not sure
how these rules emerge or survive, but I'm willing to say that I find
games without these fiddly little rules to be superior to their folk
originals.
Dave Boyd
>I can think of many traditional games which were improved by
>commerical redevelopment; I can think of none which were harmed,
>though I'm sure there are some. Usually, you simply end up with a
>different game.
>
>Most folk games (in my experience) are marked by significant fiddly
>and pointless rules (e.g., the dozens upon dozens of folk card games
>which rank the cards oddly--A J 10 K Q 9 8 7 in *all suits*, for
>instance) or rules poorly fitted onto their components. I'm not sure
>how these rules emerge or survive, but I'm willing to say that I find
>games without these fiddly little rules to be superior to their folk
>originals.
I'd like to de-lurk on this thread and ask for some examples of "folk games"
improved by professional, commercial development. Part of my reason is that
I'm just trying to learn, so I'll throw out a couple of (possibly)
counter-examples and let you tell me how they were improved: Battleship and
Mastermind (Bull-Cow). They (in their folk versions) were generally
paper-and-pencil games, so the components are nicer in commercial versions,
but the gameplay? And in Liar's Dice, what improvements do you see from
Perudo?
What other games can you mention?
--
Dave Boyd | Parents travel far | From a place that lacks
Systems | They view a new dimension | Bilateral symmetry
Analyst | Getting me only | This lousy F-shirt
Kevin J. Maroney
>I'd like to de-lurk on this thread and ask for some examples of "folk games"
>improved by professional, commercial development. Part of my reason is that
>I'm just trying to learn, so I'll throw out a couple of (possibly)
>counter-examples and let you tell me how they were improved: Battleship and
>Mastermind (Bull-Cow). They (in their folk versions) were generally
>paper-and-pencil games, so the components are nicer in commercial versions,
>but the gameplay?
I agree that both the PB edition of _Battleship_ and the Invictus
edition of _Pigs and Bulls/Bulls and Cows_ aka _Mastermind_ are
significant steps down from the folk originals, and I'll add a third
prominent title, _Othello_, which is a disimprovement from _Reversi_.
For improvements, I'm inclined to suggest that _The Great Dalmuti_'s
triangular deck is a significant improvement over the traditional-deck
folk versions (_Struggling Upstream_, _Class Warfare_, _A-hole_, etc).
_Wizard_, with its "wild high" and "wild low" cards, seems to be an
improvement over _Oh Hell_, but I'm not certain. Dave Parlett's _99_
is also a modified _Oh Hell_, but it's a more radical revision, so I'm
not sure it should count.
I am sure that I find Alan Moon's _Black Spy/Gespester_ a *huge*
improvement over _Hearts/Black Mariah_, because the custom deck and
the changed scoring structure make it much more skillful. For that
matter, I am pretty sure I would prefer Richard Garfield's _Turbo
Hearts_ over _Hearts_ just because of the greater opportunity for
skillful play.
I prefer _Uno_ to any folk version of _Super Crazy Eights_ simply
because I think the components are so much easier to use. I know that
Michael Keller doesn't like _Uno_ as much because of the high chaos
factor of the "Wild--Draw 4" cards, but I'm content with them.
_500_ is very similar to _Euchre_, but I think it plays better,
especially since it plays well for 3.
Alex Randolph's _Raj/Hol's de Geier_ is a great refinement of both
_GOPS_ and the folk Indian game upon which it is based--the "ties
cancel" rule, which is uniquely Randolph's, is a great addition, as
are the negative scoring tiles.
>And in Liar's Dice, what improvements do you see from
>Perudo?
Assuming that the game published as _Perudo_ really is a direct
translation of the folk game (and I've seen that questioned), Borg's
_Liar's Dice_ is an improvement in several ways: The "exact ties" rule
in _LD_ is more interesting than in _Perudo_, and _LD_ streamlines out
the rules for players who have been reduced to one die.
So that's a few.
Phillip Fayers
>For improvements, I'm inclined to suggest that _The Great Dalmuti_'s
>triangular deck is a significant improvement over the traditional-deck
>folk versions (_Struggling Upstream_, _Class Warfare_, _A-hole_, etc).
Depends what you mean by improvement. Struggling Upstream is an
excellent card game - when played by 5 players, the 4 and 6 versions
just don't work. The Great Dalmuti seems to remove some of the skill
from Struggling and replace it with added rules to coax you into
having fun.
--
Phillip Fayers, SunAdmin/Support/Programming/Postmaster/Webmaster(TM)
Dept of Physics & Astronomy, University of Wales, College of Cardiff.
P.Fa...@astro.cf.ac.uk Attribute these comments to me, not UWCC.
Dave Boyd
<snip good info>
Thanks! Now I've got some research to do. You have indeed supported your
point.