Is Fantasy Scout a game?
milivella
that it matters to less than the 12 people playing it. But I haven't a
better place to write about it. So, please don't be annoyed by such
posts: eventually skip everything with "Fantasy Scout" in the subject
(great insight, isn't it?). And, just in case you don't know what I'm
talking about and want to know: http://fantasyscout.altervista.org/ ]
Alberto (one of the fantasy scouts, and a brother of mine) told me
many times that "Fantasy Scout is *not* a game". Maybe I finally get
what he meant. (In the following sentences, I heavily rely on the
definition of games given by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman in their
great book "Rules of play"; but I hope that what I say is
understandable even if you haven't read it.)
Prima facie, Fantasy Scout *is* a game. After all, it has all the
basic elements of a game: it has rules; it has competition between
players; it has a quantifiable outcome, even if indefinitely delayed
in time (when the Armageddon will come, the scout whose players will
have the highest average score will be declared winner!). And it's a
system, like any game: if Daniele picks a player, nobody else can pick
that player, so the actions of a scout influence the actions of all
the other scouts.
What does Fantasy Scout lack, then? My answer today is: it lacks an
immediate link between actions and effects. See, here "action" means
the only thing that a scout can do: picking a young footballer. The
effect of such an action is to score more or less points, depending on
that footballer's skill. But these points are scored in years: you
pick a 18 year old today, he has his first cap in 2012, and he scores
points for you until 2026. You know, "mediate" and "immediate" are
relative terms in this context, but having to wait 17 years to know
the exact outcome of your action is definitely not an immediate link
action-effect!
The lack of such an immediate link is maybe more important for our
experience of the game than for the formal structure of the game (a
non-human mind could find no issue in waiting 17 years). But our
experience of the game is very important! Let's take e.g. Use-the-Net.
In that game, the most important action is probably your first one: to
pick a given team instead of all the others. In fact, if you pick a
bad team you won't be able to recover and to win. In comparison, the
actions that you are given the chance week-by-week (changing the
captain, picking a new player) don't have a great weight on the final
outcome. Still, Use-the-Net would be very different if you weren't
given the chance to take those little, only marginally useful,
actions. Imagine such a scenario: you pick the team, and then... you
do nothing, just see your players scoring, and your team winning/
drawing/losing. You would hardly enjoy such a game. Probably, it
wouldn't even be a game - just like Fantasy Scout -.
What is Fantasy Scout, then? Well, I don't know, and I'd like to hear
your opinion. All I can say is that it's a long-shot bet... Maybe
telling your experience in the Sophisticated Prediction Contests would
help: they too are "games" that lack an immediate link action->effect.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> What is Fantasy Scout, then? Well, I don't know, and I'd like to hear
> your opinion. All I can say is that it's a long-shot bet... Maybe
> telling your experience in the Sophisticated Prediction Contests would
> help: they too are "games" that lack an immediate link action->effect.
The parallel Fantasy Scout - Sophisticated Prediction Contests of
course has its limits. On one hand, it's true: in both cases you have
a mid/long-term prediction. But, on the other hand, FS is simpler when
it comes to hope and cheer: for me, Gago earning cap is always good,
Pato is always bad. Stop. While in SPCs, even assuming that you know
what the other players predicted, things are more like: "I have
Chelsea going out at .45 vs. Juventus at .55, but everybody has
Chelsea <0.30, so I hope that Juve will go ahead. No wait, that guy
has Chelsea 0.7 but his other predictions are wrong, so..." etc.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
realized 3 things:
> What does Fantasy Scout lack, then? My answer today is: it lacks an
> immediate link between actions and effects. See, here "action" means
> the only thing that a scout can do: picking a young footballer. The
> effect of such an action is to score more or less points, depending on
> that footballer's skill. But these points are scored in years: you
> pick a 18 year old today, he has his first cap in 2012, and he scores
> points for you until 2026. You know, "mediate" and "immediate" are
> relative terms in this context, but having to wait 17 years to know
> the exact outcome of your action is definitely not an immediate link
> action-effect!
1. Indeed the pleasure that Fantasy Scout could eventually give is
different: it's the pleasure that Jesus will feel in 2018 telling us:
"See, *I* picked Pato back then. Have *you* ever picked a player who
won 3 WCs always grabbing WC Golden Ball and Shoe in the mean
time?" ;) It's the pleasure of guys who, having played together for
years - even if "playing" requires 60 seconds a year - can kid one
another about their past predictions about young prospects. (Hence the
importance of a rule forcing continuity in picking, as desired by
Daniele.) A community (even if a very loose one) more than a game.
> The lack of such an immediate link is maybe more important for our
> experience of the game than for the formal structure of the game (a
> non-human mind could find no issue in waiting 17 years). But our
> experience of the game is very important! Let's take e.g. Use-the-Net.
> In that game, the most important action is probably your first one: to
> pick a given team instead of all the others. In fact, if you pick a
> bad team you won't be able to recover and to win. In comparison, the
> actions that you are given the chance week-by-week (changing the
> captain, picking a new player) don't have a great weight on the final
> outcome. Still, Use-the-Net would be very different if you weren't
> given the chance to take those little, only marginally useful,
> actions. Imagine such a scenario: you pick the team, and then... you
> do nothing, just see your players scoring, and your team winning/
> drawing/losing. You would hardly enjoy such a game. Probably, it
> wouldn't even be a game - just like Fantasy Scout -.
2. Maybe it would be like choosing a club to support.
3. Anyway: what's the lesson for Fantasy Scout? To add some rule about
marginally useful action that have an immediate effect? ...Not easy,
but maybe not impossible. Any idea would be *very* welcome. (I already
hear Benny saying "let's have the chance to drop players!" ;) ...I
could be interested, but dropping players wouldn't have an immediate
effect...)
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> The lack of such an immediate link is maybe more important for our
> experience of the game than for the formal structure of the game (a
> non-human mind could find no issue in waiting 17 years). But our
> experience of the game is very important! Let's take e.g. Use-the-Net.
> In that game, the most important action is probably your first one: to
> pick a given team instead of all the others. In fact, if you pick a
> bad team you won't be able to recover and to win. In comparison, the
> actions that you are given the chance week-by-week (changing the
> captain, picking a new player) don't have a great weight on the final
> outcome. Still, Use-the-Net would be very different if you weren't
> given the chance to take those little, only marginally useful,
> actions. Imagine such a scenario: you pick the team, and then... you
> do nothing, just see your players scoring, and your team winning/
> drawing/losing. You would hardly enjoy such a game. Probably, it
> wouldn't even be a game - just like Fantasy Scout -.
OTOH, that first action that you do in Use-the-Net (picking the team)
not only strongly influences your overall result, but also has a
psychological reason behind it (even if this action has not an
immediate effect), because the fact that each manager has _his_ team,
_his_ players produces continuity and identity. To make this point
clearer, let me cite the unsophisticated contests (sorry if I'm citing
almost exclusively games run by me, but they are the ones whose
deficiencies I see clearly): there you have, each week, an action-with-
immediate-effect, but still the experience of the game lacks
something. It lacks, IMHO, the sense of continuity: today I cheer for
Bolton (because I've predicted them winning), next week against them
(because I've picked their opponents). (BTW, fixing this issue was the
ratio behind my proposal of an Unsophisticated Brazileirao: see
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.soccer/browse_thread/thread/a8cc46a9f11e1b93/
)
So it seems that the "perfect formula" (from this point of view! there
are a lot of aspects in a game...) is a mix: some actions with
immediate effects (because they bring excitement) + some actions with
long-range effects (because they bring continuity). But I ignore not
only whether my analysis is somehow correct, but also whether my
experience of these games ("Fantasy Scout is cold", "unsophisticated
contests don't produce a sense of identity", etc.) is shared, so...
please have your say! :)
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella
> 3. Anyway: what's the lesson for Fantasy Scout? To add some rule about
> marginally useful action that have an immediate effect? ...Not easy,
> but maybe not impossible. Any idea would be *very* welcome. (I already
> hear Benny saying "let's have the chance to drop players!" ;) ...I
> could be interested, but dropping players wouldn't have an immediate
> effect...)
In the meantime, I've discovered that Fantasy Scout is grandfather
(!), because it has a son, i.e. a game that was presumably inspired by
it (it has been proposed by a Fantasy Scout player)...
http://generazioneditalenti.forumfree.net/?t=34178115
...and that in turn gave birth to another game about young players:
http://generazioneditalenti.forumfree.net/?t=35931833
(generazioneditalenti is an Italian forum about prospects)
Both games try to address the no-immediate-effect issue of Fantasy
Scout, being closer to traditional fantasy football.
--
Cheers
milivella