Another playtesting report
Jim Henry
Esperanto group. Because one of the players doesn't
speak Esperanto, we used the advanced English deck.
Besides me only one of the other players had studied
linguistics, but all were polyglots; I think we speak
about eight or nine languages among the five of
us.
I haven't made any significant changes to this deck
since it was used last (in March, when Mark and Alex
and I played at CNN Center), and I didn't try out
any new rule variations (in particular we didn't use
the conculture rules, because I hadn't added Culture
Change cards to this deck); but I did keep more careful
records of timing this game. I didn't note the exact
time we sat down and I started explaining the deck
and rules, but it was at least half an hour and definitely
less than an hour. The game itself started at 15:57
and ended at 18:02, two hours and five minutes;
it lasted 29 turns, or 5 and 4/5 rounds. Each time my
turn came I noted the time. The rounds (5 turns each
except the last) lasted 18, 13, 12, 24, 27, and 32 minutes.
I think the last couple of turns were interrupted a bit by
players going to the kitchen or restroom. The
first round went slower than the next couple
as players were still figuring out the rules, then
the next couple of rounds were faster as players
made their card-plays and coined words with
relatively little delay, and then later rounds slowed
down as players started making sentences.
We decided to keep going after the common challenge
and the first of the players' challenge sentences
had been translated, until some of the players had
to leave to catch their bus.
Either this deck isn't quite as well-balanced
as I thought it was when Mark, Alex and I
played with it, or I didn't shuffle it thoroughly
enough; I think phoneme cards came up
a little too often, and Sound/Meaning/Grammar
change cards too rarely. Syntax and Syllable
cards were about right.
Players' comments:
The rules should explicitly say something about
allowed allophony in the vicinity of the phones
in play, as long as no other phones too close
together are in play. E.g., we decided that
as long as /1/ was in play and /i/ and /I/
were not, the former would have the latter
as allophones; similarly with /O/ until an
/o/ card was played.
There should be a special rule for handling
duplicate cards, besides the general rule allowing
you to discard any one card instead of playing,
or discard your whole hand and draw as many
cards again. E.g., if you have a card in your
hand that is already in play, you should be
able to discard it and draw another at the
beginning of your turn.
We should give the language an autonym
at the end of the game. We talked about doing
so, but forgot.
If convenient, it would be nice to use stickies
of some kind of affix the cards in play to a wall
or board so all players can see them right-side-up.
One player said the game was much easier and
more playable than it sounded from reading the
rules.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Alex Fink
>
> Yesterday I played Glossotechnia with the Atlanta
> Esperanto group. Because one of the players doesn't
> speak Esperanto, we used the advanced English deck.
> Either this deck isn't quite as well-balanced
> as I thought it was when Mark, Alex and I
> played with it, or I didn't shuffle it thoroughly
> enough; I think phoneme cards came up
> a little too often, and Sound/Meaning/Grammar
> change cards too rarely. Syntax and Syllable
> cards were about right.
Hm, odd. I don't remember those imbalances in our game. And if I
remember right you'd added phonemes and sound changes since then,
probably more of the latter proportionally.
> Players' comments:
>
> The rules should explicitly say something about
> allowed allophony in the vicinity of the phones
> in play, as long as no other phones too close
> together are in play. E.g., we decided that
> as long as /1/ was in play and /i/ and /I/
> were not, the former would have the latter
> as allophones; similarly with /O/ until an
> /o/ card was played.
Sensible.
Did they envision that the allophones should be from a constant
selection in each case? /1/ alternates with /i/ and /I/ in every
instance, when neither of those have been played? Better I'd think to
let the players decide that on a case by case basis. For advanced
games maybe the player of a phoneme has free rein to specify any
allophony.
> There should be a special rule for handling
> duplicate cards, besides the general rule allowing
> you to discard any one card instead of playing,
After drawing an extra one, so that your hand size isn't harmed, I thought?
> or discard your whole hand and draw as many
> cards again. E.g., if you have a card in your
> hand that is already in play, you should be
> able to discard it and draw another at the
> beginning of your turn.
Yes, that's reasonable. (This is better than my suggestion for blank
substitution, which was meant to address the same frustration.)
> We should give the language an autonym
> at the end of the game. We talked about doing
> so, but forgot.
Unless it comes up in the middle. That makes an eminently natural
concultural goal, for that matter: bestow a name on the speakers and
say something about whence it comes. (Points for using the gamelang
for it.)
> If convenient, it would be nice to use stickies
> of some kind of affix the cards in play to a wall
> or board so all players can see them right-side-up.
Ah, good idea. Fridge magnets or something.
> One player said the game was much easier and
> more playable than it sounded from reading the
> rules.
Perhaps the written rules need some work, then. Also a worked example
game, or at least several turns of one, might help neutralise this.
Alex
Jim Henry
>
> 2008/9/14 Jim Henry <jimhen...@gmail.com>:
>> There should be a special rule for handling
>> duplicate cards, besides the general rule allowing
>> you to discard any one card instead of playing,
>
> After drawing an extra one, so that your hand size isn't harmed, I thought?
Yes, after you draw one you can either play one or,
if you have nothing you want to play, discard one.
>> or discard your whole hand and draw as many
>> cards again. E.g., if you have a card in your
>> hand that is already in play, you should be
>> able to discard it and draw another at the
>> beginning of your turn.
>
> Yes, that's reasonable. (This is better than my suggestion for blank
> substitution, which was meant to address the same frustration.)
>
>> We should give the language an autonym
>> at the end of the game. We talked about doing
>> so, but forgot.
>
> Unless it comes up in the middle. That makes an eminently natural
> concultural goal, for that matter: bestow a name on the speakers and
> say something about whence it comes. (Points for using the gamelang
> for it.)
Good; that might should be one of the basic core constraints in any
constraint-based game.
>> One player said the game was much easier and
>> more playable than it sounded from reading the
>> rules.
>
> Perhaps the written rules need some work, then. Also a worked example
> game, or at least several turns of one, might help neutralise this.
Probably. I've asked for feedback on their clarity but haven't
gotten much, yet.
Alex Fink
2009/4/12 Dhokarena56 <dhoka...@gmail.com>:
> On Sep 18 2008, 1:22 am, "Alex Fink" <000...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Did they envision that the allophones should be from a constant
>> selection in each case? /1/ alternates with /i/ and /I/ in every
>> instance, when neither of those have been played? Better I'd think to
>> let the players decide that on a case by case basis. For advanced
>> games maybe the player of a phoneme has free rein to specify any
>> allophony.
>>
> But there should be some restrictions...if beginners who don't know
> much linguistics play, they might pair [i] and [A] into /@/...so
> unless people really know what they're doing play, there should be
> restrictions.
I suppose.
> Oh, and, by the way, what if certain phonemes/cases/aspects/tenses/
> moods were lumped together? Say, you might have a card that says:
> "Switch to ergative alignment; add absolutive case and ergative case."
> Or,
> "Change mood/tense system: discard any previous moods and tenses and
> add a realis and an irrealis mood."
Wouldn't this lead to a proliferation of cards, if done the way we
suggest? We'd need a card for nominative alignment, one for ergative,
one for active-stative, one for tripartite, one for ... when right now
we don't even have a morphosyntactic alignment card per se, only more
general things.
I think we've played with the "Add inflectional category" card before
so as to allow a player to say e.g. "there's an ergative-aligned case
system" (not just "nouns have case").
> Then you might draw a phoneme to create affixes...
This part I don't understand.
Alex
Dhokarena56
I think about it is better, and say, "Okay, let's make nouns have an
instrumental case." Then I would need an ending, or a prefix, or
something like that-and I would draw some number of phoneme cards to
create the endings.
Jim Henry
> Well, let's say I drew an "inflectional category" card, which now that
> I think about it is better, and say, "Okay, let's make nouns have an
> instrumental case."
There is an "add inflectional category" card or two in my
advanced deck, but I'm not sure it will survive the pruning
that reduces the deck to an economically printable size
of 110 cards.
> Then I would need an ending, or a prefix, or
> something like that-and I would draw some number of phoneme cards to
> create the endings.
Why would you draw new phoneme cards at that point, instead
of using the phonemes already in play to create the affixes?
And do you envision having phoneme cards in a separate deck
from other kinds of cards (if so, why?) or drawing from the
main deck until you come up with N phonemes, and discard
everything you drew that wasn't a phoneme card?
Dhokarena56
clearer.
Perhaps all the (in play) phonemes would be put in a seperate deck by
themselves for this purpose.
On Apr 13, 11:41 am, Jim Henry <jimhenry1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim Henry
>
> Right, I meant using existing phonemes. Sorry, I should have made that
> clearer.
> Perhaps all the (in play) phonemes would be put in a seperate deck by
> themselves for this purpose.
Why in a separate deck, instead of laid out
face-up as they are now?
Dhokarena56
wouldn't know what you'd get.
(You'd be allowed to draw again if what you got wouldn't work with
your phonological rules.)
On Apr 13, 11:56 am, Jim Henry <jimhenry1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim Henry
>
> Because then if you were choosing an affix, it would be random. You
> wouldn't know what you'd get.
> (You'd be allowed to draw again if what you got wouldn't work with
> your phonological rules.)
So do you intend for all morpheme-coinages,
whether root words or affixes, to be random
in your version of the game? Or just affixes?
And either way, why? It seems to me that
the game works pretty well with players
creatively devising their new words or affixes
within the constraints of the phoneme and
syllable cards in play, but freely choosing
which phonemes and syllable forms to use.
Dhokarena56
Dhokarena56
to "house rules", there, and I think we should encourage that.