tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post264849308285982625..comments2024-02-27T10:53:04.581+01:00Comments on paperpools: new game new game new gameHelen DeWitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07619602559096610012noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-15962668563076543822009-10-26T06:25:52.108+00:002009-10-26T06:25:52.108+00:00your blog is very informative and very helpful. Th...your blog is very informative and very helpful. Thanks for this. <br /><a href="http://www.itsolusenz.com/web-development/web2-0.aspx" rel="nofollow">Web development </a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-29775452415705534172008-12-26T12:25:00.000+00:002008-12-26T12:25:00.000+00:00nice postnice postAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-26314030513552128052008-12-14T15:07:00.000+00:002008-12-14T15:07:00.000+00:00So I was talking about how difficult it is to enco...So I was talking about how difficult it is to encode the rules of a game in writing. I'd say that's partly because game rules aren't typically the sort of information that the verbal side of the brain is well-equipped to handle; they're often more a sort of mesh of interlocking themes and principles that might cohere into something relatively simple from an abstract bird's-eye view, but are not readily picked apart and turned into a list of rules to be read one by one.<BR/><BR/>But that's only the start. Another difficulty is that if you've invented a game, it's very hard to think yourself into the mind of someone who has never played it before, and to realise how much detail that person needs in the explanation (without overwhelming them by being too verbose, of course). What's more, once you've drafted the rules to a game, it's very hard to get feedback on it. Most people don't like to figure out how to play based on the written instructions; they tend to want verbal explanations, so it's hard to persuade anyone to read the draft and tell you if anything's not clear.<BR/><BR/>One of the games I've invented is called "<I>Peaks and Pits</I>". You need a set of dominoes, some small objects such as poker chips, and three to five players. The current incarnation of the rules can be found <A HREF="http://web.netyp.com/member/dragon/create/dominoes.pdf" REL="nofollow">here</A>. Now, I've re-written those rules on several occasions, because every now and then I read them and decide that I could have explained the game a lot better. I <I>think</I> I haven't done too badly with what's there now, but I haven't heard from anyone who's tried the game based on those instructions, so I can't be confident that I've done as well as I might.<BR/><BR/>I know that I did reasonably well at explaining the rules of the solitaire card game I invented, which is called "<I>Elemental</I>", <A HREF="http://home.netyp.com/dragon/elemental/deal.php" REL="nofollow">and you can go play it on its own website</A>. Several people have played this game successfully within an hour of reading the rules, so I <I>must</I> have got something right. But there's a difference: because <I>Elemental</I> is implemented online, people don't have to rely on the written rules alone. They can test whether they understand the game by trying it out and seeing if it works the way they expect.<BR/><BR/>For more thoughts about some psychological issues involved in explaining games to people, you can read <A HREF="http://outerhoard.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/the-psychology-of-new-games/" REL="nofollow">something I wrote</A> a while back on my blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-40936300314229474172008-12-13T06:53:00.000+00:002008-12-13T06:53:00.000+00:00JH,I came across a comment on Gourmont which seeme...JH,<BR/><BR/>I came across a comment on Gourmont which seemed to assume that originality presupposed breaking rules. I suggested another way one might understand originality, one which seemed to me to be closer to what Gourmont was talking about. So that's what I was talking about. It's not clear to me that this is what you were talking about, so it may not make sense to talk about what 'we' are talking about in this context.<BR/><BR/>outerhoard, please do add a comment with shamelessly self-promotional links!Helen DeWitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619602559096610012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-78522640839372166142008-12-10T00:48:00.000+00:002008-12-10T00:48:00.000+00:00Having invented a few games of my own, I know how ...Having invented a few games of my own, I know how challenging it is to translate a game into a language! That is, to write down the rules so that they are comprehensible to people who have never played before.<BR/><BR/>(And this is the bit where I ramble on about the games I've invented and provide the shameless promotional links. Only it's a bit off-topic, isn't it? So should I?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-90308522691433312152008-12-09T19:52:00.000+00:002008-12-09T19:52:00.000+00:00Sorry for the eyesore on your Comment page; Blogge...Sorry for the eyesore on your Comment page; Blogger doesn't give us a lot of graphics options. Glad you made sense of it.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, the word "may" was crucial to my comment.<BR/><BR/>First, all games have 'playing' in common. Concepts differ, rules differ, strategies differ, tactics differ, counters (or pieces or tokens, etc. used) differ, but everybody plays. We know going in there is to be a winning—and, consequently, a losing. Competition is the form—as opposed to, say, cooperation. Playing, the context.<BR/><BR/>Second, as to originality. It's safe to say that, at some level, each new piece of art, let's take fiction, is original. In fact, Borges seems to have made something quite like this point in his <I>Pierre Menard</I>. Conversely, there's the 'there's nothing new under the sun' view. Things accumulate. There is extension, growth, development, perhaps progress, but nothing really original since, say, the <I>Gilgamesh</I>.<BR/><BR/>As to originality in games, or gamesmanship: would we have a consensus if I asserted Bobby Fisher's chess-playing was original? What about Big Blue?<BR/><BR/>So, what are we talking here?<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/>Jim H.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-91148150854339692292008-12-09T17:08:00.000+00:002008-12-09T17:08:00.000+00:00Andrew, this book sounds great, I have ordered it ...Andrew, this book sounds great, I have ordered it off Amazon.<BR/><BR/>Jim H, some people think originality a necessary condition of excellence in art. If there are any who also think it a sufficient condition they will be worried by counter-examples in which original works of art prove to be sheer drivel. There is, of course, nothing in the post to suggest that I hold either position. <BR/><BR/>parkrrr, yes, of course as one plays a wider variety of games one does see similarities between certain kinds of game. And one can find oneself understanding / explaining a game in terms of another game with which it shares common ground. This still seems quite different from the way ordinary languages work - I can certainly see similarities between Romance languages, between Semitic languages and so on, but such similarities don't have to exist between two languages for translation to be possible.Helen DeWitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619602559096610012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-12491924279893003002008-12-09T16:06:00.000+00:002008-12-09T16:06:00.000+00:00> ParkrrrrYep. There are definite familial rela...> <I>Parkrrrr</I><BR/><BR/>Yep. There are definite familial relationships too, such as trick-taking games in cards: Ruff and Honours -> Whist -> Solo Whist / Long Whist -> Bridge.<BR/><BR/>Also there are games that share certain principles mathematically - such as the applicability of <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_game_theory" REL="nofollow">combinatorial game theory</A> - and even games that have a radically different appearance but are "isomorphic" (the same game under the skin). This <I>AMS</I> article (see <A HREF="http://www.ams.org/featurecolumn/archive/games5.html" REL="nofollow">page 5</A>) describes a very simple game involving moves on a board that's isomorphic to <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim" REL="nofollow">Nim</A>, a rather different game involving taking counters from heaps.<BR/><BR/>Interesting stuff.<BR/><BR/>(Visiting via Language Log discussion)Ray Girvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05556764642402680159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-34521014819881720092008-12-09T14:44:00.000+00:002008-12-09T14:44:00.000+00:00On the other hand, the more games you play the mor...On the other hand, the more games you play the more you realize that they all draw from a larger pool of common play mechanics. While Chess is not at all like Bridge, it is a bit like Stratego or Checkers. Often, when explaining a new game to the group of people I play board games with, I find myself saying "this part of the game is just like [some specified part of some other game]." In the example above, for example, you might say that a piece in Stratego moves essentially like a king in Chess.<BR/><BR/>There's even something of a continuum of games. For example, you can easily see similarities between Go and Go-Moku, between Go-Moku and Sequence, between Sequence and Rummy, and between Rummy and Draw Poker. Go and Poker are about as unrelated as can be, but you can still manage a limited translation at each step along the way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-66266170192701098292008-12-09T04:05:00.000+00:002008-12-09T04:05:00.000+00:00O O M IR R A VI I Y EG T B LI S E BN O S EA W H SL...O O M I<BR/>R R A V<BR/>I I Y E<BR/>G T B L<BR/>I S E B<BR/>N O S E<BR/>A W H S<BR/>L N E T<BR/>I S E J<BR/>T A R I<BR/>Y K D M<BR/>F E R HAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-50947396413234168772008-12-09T02:30:00.000+00:002008-12-09T02:30:00.000+00:00I liked your insight--it reminded me of my impress...I liked your insight--it reminded me of my impression that chess--actually, sports in general--are a universal language that allows a limited form of communication.<BR/><BR/>I posted a link to your post on my blog, where several people commented but didn't quite get the point.<BR/><BR/>I'm also reminded of the character in The Citadel of the Autarch who comes from a totalitarian society in which people can only communicate using certain stock phrases. The character still manages to express himself elliptically using combinations of cliches. A wonderful metaphor for how all of us communicate to each other most of the time.Andrew Gelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02715992780769751789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-10202411363446823532008-12-08T21:30:00.000+00:002008-12-08T21:30:00.000+00:00Thanks for editorial eye, terrible the way mistake...Thanks for editorial eye, terrible the way mistakes creep in through slapdash revision.Helen DeWitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07619602559096610012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375681131276548542.post-56208977536027483202008-12-08T14:02:00.000+00:002008-12-08T14:02:00.000+00:00A very interesting approach -- I've added a link t...A very interesting approach -- I've added a link to my post. (You might want to delete the excrescent "don't" in the penultimate sentence; I took the liberty of doing so preemptively in my quote.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com