I got the chance to talk to reader Shruti in person yesterday about her comments on Play to Win. Some points I thought of:

It is not necessary to play to win in a multiplayer game if the goal you set for yourself is not disruptive to the rest of the game. For example, in Settlers of Catan, “acquire as much sheep-producing capacity as possible” is a goal which is very compatible with others playing to win, because acquiring these sheep means building roads, settlements, and so on, probably playing with something resembling an ordinary sheep-port strategy. (Evidently the sheep are fed to stuffed lions.) In the best case, it would be good to announce this intention to the other players beforehand, but let’s face it: even hardcore  gamers have done way sillier things at the spur of the moment, whether intentionally or due to momentary lapses of reason.

Secondary goals can even be downright beneficial in multiplayer games if there is an element of kingmaking. For instance, I (and, I imagine, many others) play with the unstated secondary goal of “all other things being equal, assist the player who has harmed me the least.” This can happen in a game like Power Grid. Players A and B are vying for the win, and one will win this turn; Player C won’t be able to power enough cities to win, but can block a critical build point for either A or B, making the other player win. If, earlier in the game, A had happened to buy resources for no other reason than to drive C’s price up, or had inflated the price of an important auction, C is certainly justified in handing the win to B, even if A would have won had C acted passively. In the end, this causes less hostility over the outcome, because C’s actions look justified.

Playing with house rules is something like playing a different game. Therefore, house rules have a very different role in board games than in video games. Board games are often played with friends, in a small social circle; so introducing a set of rules tuned to the preferences of your group makes sense. On the other hand, video games are more likely to be played with a wider group of people, people who you don’t necessarily know, and why would they want to play your game? They want to play the game you both know, the one without the house rules.

More to follow.

Back in college, I got bored in class a lot. But I had to go, because listening to the professor drone on about his favorite inane thing was the only way to discern what parts of the irrelevant material would be covered on the test.

In most classes I wasn’t hostile enough to pull out a novel or NetHack on my laptop, so I quickly learned that anything you do with a pen and notebook looks like paying attention. As far as I know, the little diversion I present to you now, known only as “the number game” is my own invention.

Goal: Take the digits 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Combine them in a mathematical expression to make as many numbers as possible, starting at 1 and working upwards.

Rules: All five digits must be used. The following operations are allowed: addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and exponentiation. You may parenthesize however you like to fix order of operations. Also, you may run digits together, but this operation must occur first. So, you can add 54 + 3 = 57, but you can’t combine (4 + 3)5 to get 75.

Starting at 1, the game is pretty easy until you get up to at least the 70s, but there are some tricky moments that will teach useful strategies. Here are some examples:

1 = 1²³⁴⁵

2 = 1³⁴⁵ * 2

7 = (3+4) * 1²⁵

76 = 25 * 3 + 1⁴

77 = 32 + 45 * 1

Note the incredibly useful technique of wasting your excess digits by taking 1 to some exponent. This works great unless you need to use 1 as part of another number! Once you can’t go any further—I suspect, but am not sure, that this will be in the 160 or 170 range—try adding the digit 6 as well. I recall getting up to 270-something before getting stumped there.

OK, so “rest” is my excuse for “laziness.”

A couple of overdue links:

David Sirlin keeps a really neat blog about video game design. The articles, in particular, are well worth reading.

The folks at the Ziggurat of Doom have many fascinating things to say, and sometimes even games. They were kind enough to link here, so the least I can do is return the favor.

While procrastinating going into work the other day, I was reading the World of Warcraft forums (shame on me) and one of them linked to this article. Highly recommended, as is the rest of the site, although I can only verify that the linked-to page is safe for work.

The gist of the article is that players of games of all kinds put mental blocks up as to how the game should be played. Often these players will describe tactics that fall out of their purview as “cheap” or, in the seedier online games, “gay.” Clearly these mental blocks are an impediment to doing well in serious play.

First, let me stress the contrast between competitive multiplayer video games and board games. Most players of the first kind prefer to play games to get good at them, to understand them, to win and demonstrate their skill. Internet games (Warcraft III, Counterstrike) have an essentially infinite pool of opponents, and arcade games have very many. On the other hand, board games are usually played with friends and family—people who might get discouraged if they lose 20 games out of 20 and certainly won’t stand for being called scrubs.

Board games also have the advantage that if the difference in skill levels is vast, a “teaching game” is possible and often appropriate. It’s difficult to pause a Street Fighter game and tell your opponent how to counter the combo you’re about to execute; it’s easy to point out the strengths and weaknesses of a move in Go and Chess.

Back to the issue of scrubs: I’m sometimes guilty of these kinds of mental blocks myself. In Boggle, I don’t tend to put down the esoteric words that I can’t define, even if I remember from past games that they’re words. I don’t even bother to play Diplomacy because I can’t bring myself to backstab hard enough and at the right time.

Reader John Rhoadhouse plays Magic in mostly-casual settings. He reports deliberately not building certain powerful types of decks because his opponents consider them “not fun” to play against; consequently, when he brings his decks to tournaments, he ends up losing. Magic is a particularly striking example of this attitude, because the potential pool of cards is so vast. Different players own different numbers of cards, but which ones are appropriate for a particular setting is very debatable. Bringing in old out-of-print cards that are vastly more powerful than any your opponents own is certainly inappropriate, but what about good cards from recent sets? The “Type II” environment is restricted to only the most recent editions of the game, but many casual players feel it makes too many of their cards obsolete. I’m sure volumes could be written about this subject—if you find something, please link it in the comments.

And please, play to the fullest extent of your ability whenever you can. To do otherwise cheats your opponents out of victory when they finally earn it.