Definition of "Board" game
Oren C. Webster
there's a lot of thoughtful intelligence visible. Thanks!
>
> OTOH, literalist that I am, I just wouldn't feel comfortable using the term
> "board game" to describe a game with no board.:)
{ deletia}
>
> Perhaps, but what about Chess and Checkers? They're pretty abstract, but
> definitely board games.
The whole discussion makes me wonder. Blindfold chess requires neither
board nor cards, so maybe it isn't a game at all? 8-) Yep, the
use of a board doesn't really make it a board game; the physical
board is just a tool and is no requirement. (Yes, abstract.)
Some of the world's great bridge and chess players - with their great
visualization and memory - might not need the board to play one of
your simulation wargames. They'd need "dice" so they'd be playing a
dice game? 8-)
Then there's tournament checkers; it's variation tree is so sparse a
card deck is used to determine the contestants' opening sequences;
I don't know how deep. Would blindfold tournament chess then be a
card game? (Yes, that's silly. Sorry. What's the symbolic expression
for saying that?)
.
>
> Complete agreement. I'm baffled as to why they chose "deckmaster" over
> "trading-card".
>
It kept me from taking a look there, until seeing your discussion.
IMHO the only difference between games - beyond what feels superficial
to me, miniatures, pretty boards and cards, costumes - is not the elements
of the rules (which can always(?) be implemented as pure abstractions)
but whether or not devices outside the player are truly required, and
only randomization truly requires such devices. All games can be played
in the head only except for those random factors. Hidden moves don't
actually require physical devices, just a good memory - where did I
move the phantom (in a chess variant of mine) - and honesty.
Wait, there is another factor, the opposite of randomization; my
favorite chess variant requires a moderator of some kind to keep
track of the position; each player usually only knows her own
position.
> Trevor Barrie
> ************************************************************************
> Trevor Barrie tbarrie@ "If the gods could build me a ladder
> 87 Kennedy Drive bud.peinet.pe.ca to the heavens, I'd climb up the
> West Royalty, PEI ladder and drop a big elbow on the
> C1E 1X7 CANADA (902)628-6845 world." - Cactus Jack
> ************************************************************************
Oren C. Webster
there's a lot of thoughtful intelligence visible. Thanks!
>
> OTOH, literalist that I am, I just wouldn't feel comfortable using the term
> "board game" to describe a game with no board.:)
{ deletia}
>
> Perhaps, but what about Chess and Checkers? They're pretty abstract, but
> definitely board games.
The whole discussion makes me wonder. Blindfold chess requires neither
board nor cards, so maybe it isn't a game at all? 8-) Yep, the
use of a board doesn't really make it a board game; the physical
board is just a tool and is no requirement. (Yes, abstract.)
Some of the world's great bridge and chess players - with their great
visualization and memory - might not need the board to play one of
your simulation wargames. They'd need "dice" so they'd be playing a
dice game? 8-)
Then there's tournament checkers; it's variation tree is so sparse a
card deck is used to determine the contestants' opening sequences;
I don't know how deep. Would blindfold tournament checkers then be a
card game? (Yes, that's silly. Sorry. What's the symbolic expression
for saying that?)
.
>
> Complete agreement. I'm baffled as to why they chose "deckmaster" over
> "trading-card".
>
It kept me from taking a look there, until seeing your discussion.
IMHO the only difference between games - beyond what feels superficial
to me, miniatures, pretty boards and cards, costumes - is not the elements
of the rules (which can always(?) be implemented as pure abstractions)
but whether or not devices outside the player are truly required, and
only randomization truly requires such devices. All games can be played
in the only except for those random factors. Hidden moves don't
Neal Sofge
>These are mostly card games, but I guess
>that there are other no-board `boardgames'.
Such as Nova Games' classic Ace of Aces and all derivatives thereof.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neal Sofge (Neal_...@rand.org) | Life is an RPG, run by an idiot,
These are my opinions, not RAND's. | Full of badly designed mechanics,
Home/FMG: ne...@aol.com (slow) | Signifying nothing.
Val Kartchner
to be precise in usage. Please be kind and equally precise if you want
to nit pick.
In article <324hk9$5...@starcore.cris.com>,
Oren C. Webster <oweb...@cris.com@cris.com> wrote:
> Someone unknown wrote:
>> OTOH, literalist that I am, I just wouldn't feel comfortable using the term
>> "board game" to describe a game with no board.:)
Yes, this is a good point. There are games which require (for the
purposeses of accounting) physical components (or representations
thereof) for playing the game, but do not require a board (an accounting
device representing position). These are mostly card games, but I guess
that there are other no-board `boardgames'.
Should we start a new group for these types of games? There is a
logical separation, though some games would be difficult to call.
Since the `deckmaster' games have been split off, I don't think that
the traffic will justify the physical split.
Perhaps the definition of `boardgame' could be added to the FAQ.
Oren C. Webster
there's a lot of thoughtful intelligence visible. Thanks!
>
> "board game" to describe a game with no board.:)
Deis
: Should we start a new group for these types of games? There is a
: logical separation, though some games would be difficult to call.
No. Must people always be seperating groups!? Sure, MtG warranted it,
but that's only because there was three times as much traffic about MtG as
there was for all other games combined.. Not true with other games at this
point.
--
.________________________________________________________________________.
| Robert Deis | To my knowledge, The Colorado School of |
| rd...@mines.colorado.edu | Mines has no opinions about anything |
| | not underground... |
Frederick Scott
>Since we're discussing the definition of a `boardgame', I'm attempting
>to be precise in usage. Please be kind and equally precise if you want
>to nit pick.
>
>In article <324hk9$5...@starcore.cris.com>,
>Oren C. Webster <oweb...@cris.com@cris.com> wrote:
>> Someone unknown wrote:
>>> OTOH, literalist that I am, I just wouldn't feel comfortable using the term
>>> "board game" to describe a game with no board.:)
>
>Should we start a new group for these types of games? There is a
>logical separation, though some games would be difficult to call.
To what end? The only problem with discussing such "no-board" games here
is that occasionally someone who wants to reduce the traffic in games he
doesn't happen to be interested in glombs on to this non-issue as an excuse
to suggest such games should be "cast out and bother us no more...begone
wit ye". Then we have to go 'round about the whole issue again as they're
informed - and must pause to consider - that their simplistic criteria for
what a board game is actually raises more difficult questions than it solves.
Other than these little discussions we have about the issue from time to
time, I hardly see that such games actually cause a problem as a class, if
they can even be called a "class". Everybody was touchy about MtG so it's
understandable that a number of guys wound up playing this old broken record
again last fall and with a little more volume than usual. Normally, I only
exect to hear it about once every three to six months and it hasn't
disappointed me.
Fred
Val Kartchner
Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote:
:v...@cs.weber.edu (Val Kartchner) writes:
:>In article <324hk9$5...@starcore.cris.com>,
:>Oren C. Webster <oweb...@cris.com@cris.com> wrote:
:>> Someone unknown wrote:
:>>> OTOH, literalist that I am, I just wouldn't feel comfortable using the
:>>> term "board game" to describe a game with no board.:)
:>
:>Should we start a new group for these types of games? There is a
:>logical separation, though some games would be difficult to call.
:
:To what end? The only problem with discussing such "no-board" games here
:is that occasionally someone who wants to reduce the traffic in games he
:doesn't happen to be interested in glombs on to this non-issue as an excuse
:to suggest such games should be "cast out and bother us no more...begone
The point that I was trying to make with my posting which suggested a
discussion about the splitting of this group is that while there is a
logical distinction between games with boards and those without, there
is no need to split this group at this point. Both people who have
so far followed up to that posting got the first part about the logical
distinction but missed the part about "no need to split the group."
What I may not have been so clear about is that this group should
(logically) be renamed so that `boardgames' without boards don't
seem out of place in this group. I'm not saying that it *must* be
done now, but if a significantly better name comes up, we should
change the name of this group.
Until then, I suggest that the charter for this group and/or a
definition of `boardgame' as used in this context be included in the
FAQ for this group.
--
|================= #include <stddisclaimer.h> ================/// KB7VBF/P11 =|
| "AMIGA: The computer for the creative mind" (tm) Commodore /// Weber State |
| "Macintosh: The computer for the rest of us"(tm) Apple \\\/// University |
|=== "I think, therefore I AMiga" -- v...@cs.weber.edu ====\///= Ogden UT USA =|