It's blog time again; today's subject is the use of game mechanics in Fluxx; a game that has no real story. There is no sequence of actions causing a character to rise up ladders or go down chutes, nor does it chronicle rival property lords hoping to develop a real estate monopoly. Fluxx does not benefit from a theme such as a parody of D&D game play and mechanics, nor the impression of being an executioner during the French revolution. Fluxx is a game designed entirely around its rules and mechanics.
A game based around rules, sounds "fun" doesn't it? It's actually not too bad, the game is turn based with turns that proceed clockwise around the table. Each turn consists of drawing cards, playing cards, and if need be, discarding cards. The cards you play fall into 5 categories: Keeper, Creeper, Rule, Action or Goal. Keeper cards get played in front of you, they do not affect the game in anyway unless the current goal card requires them to win. Creepers are also played in front of you, they have no effect on game play except they prevent you from winning the game unless the goal card say otherwise. Rule cards dictate how many cards are drawn each round, how many cards are played each round, how many cards you may have in your hand at once and miscellaneous other rules. Actions allow you to get rid of rules, steal other people's cards, pick a card from the discard pile, and other generic actions. Finally goal cards determine the conditions for winning,, which from my experience all seem to revolve around if you have 2 random keepers in front of you or not.
So how does this game play out? For me it was an exercise in randomness and tedium. It is a grand leap from Candy Land in the number of choices you can make at any given time, but at the same time the decisions that you make have a relatively low chance of actually affecting the end of the game. It is almost remarkable when you think about it; there are 2 randomly generated sets, rules, and keepers, and the goal of the game is that the goals line up with a certain players keepers first. Simplified the game would play out by every player randomly being assigned a number 1-6, then a die being cast. If the die number equals a player number, that player wins, if not roll again. If you want to replicate the tedium and length of the game, try the same game with a D20.
In closing, my particular experience was not the best, but I am by no means the authority of which board games shall triumph, and which shall fail. There is the chance of a fun game emerging from the mess of keepers, creepers, actions, rules and goals, but like everything else in Fluxx, it is just a small chance of good amongst an ocean on pointlessness.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Virtually Cheating
Today we are discussing the topics of cheating and unsportsmanlike behavior, and how they apply various game platforms.
Let us look first at what it means to cheat or display unsportsmanlike behavior. Cheating consists of game play in direct opposition to the rules of the game. Unsportsmanlike behavior is game play not directly forbidden by the game rules, but still devalues the playing of the game.
For instance the rules of tic tac toe explicitly say the board is a 3x3 matrix, and players alternate turns placing their respective mark. Two marks may not occupy the same square and the first player to place 3 marks aligned vertically, horizontally or diagonally wins.
An example of cheating in tic tac toe would be to go twice in a row or to make an additional box outside of the matrix and put your mark there. Whereas an example of unsportsmanlike behavior would be to simply refuse to take your turn when there is no way to prevent defeat.
Some games, Such as Munchkin by Steve Jackson, openly condone cheating in the rules, but this creates a fallacy. If cheating is allowed by the rules then it is no longer opposed to the rules and thus no longer cheating. So then what to call "cheating" in Munchkin? Well let’s take a look at a typical situation. You are allowed no more than 5 cards in your hand at the end of your turn, however you are also allowed to cheat if no one calls you on it. Compare this to a similar mechanic, if you are fighting a monster in the game, you win if your power level is higher; otherwise you roll a dice to see if you can escape. When you have more than 5 cards in your hand, you are in a disadvantageous situation by the rules, but much like escaping from a monster, the game has offered a solution with a lower than average chance of success to prevent this situation from being so dire. Thus in the game where cheating is permitted, cheating is simply another game mechanic with implicit rules.
The rules of a computer game's rules are programmed. In other words, a video game is nothing but a collection of rules that are executed enforced computer perfection. There are occasionally exploits or glitches that arise from errors in the programming of these rules, but the rules themselves remain infallibly enforced. Thus any attempt for a video game, regardless of the number of players, to allow cheating, would have to implicitly write the situations, range, and extent to which cheating is allowed; and at that point, it is simply another game mechanic. Unsportsmanlike behavior however, is a different story. Players will still often mock, jeer, lie to, argue with, and insult other players within a game. It is simply accepted that any game wherein there is a means for the player to express him or herself, there will be unsportsmanlike behavior.
Let us look first at what it means to cheat or display unsportsmanlike behavior. Cheating consists of game play in direct opposition to the rules of the game. Unsportsmanlike behavior is game play not directly forbidden by the game rules, but still devalues the playing of the game.
For instance the rules of tic tac toe explicitly say the board is a 3x3 matrix, and players alternate turns placing their respective mark. Two marks may not occupy the same square and the first player to place 3 marks aligned vertically, horizontally or diagonally wins.
An example of cheating in tic tac toe would be to go twice in a row or to make an additional box outside of the matrix and put your mark there. Whereas an example of unsportsmanlike behavior would be to simply refuse to take your turn when there is no way to prevent defeat.
Some games, Such as Munchkin by Steve Jackson, openly condone cheating in the rules, but this creates a fallacy. If cheating is allowed by the rules then it is no longer opposed to the rules and thus no longer cheating. So then what to call "cheating" in Munchkin? Well let’s take a look at a typical situation. You are allowed no more than 5 cards in your hand at the end of your turn, however you are also allowed to cheat if no one calls you on it. Compare this to a similar mechanic, if you are fighting a monster in the game, you win if your power level is higher; otherwise you roll a dice to see if you can escape. When you have more than 5 cards in your hand, you are in a disadvantageous situation by the rules, but much like escaping from a monster, the game has offered a solution with a lower than average chance of success to prevent this situation from being so dire. Thus in the game where cheating is permitted, cheating is simply another game mechanic with implicit rules.
The rules of a computer game's rules are programmed. In other words, a video game is nothing but a collection of rules that are executed enforced computer perfection. There are occasionally exploits or glitches that arise from errors in the programming of these rules, but the rules themselves remain infallibly enforced. Thus any attempt for a video game, regardless of the number of players, to allow cheating, would have to implicitly write the situations, range, and extent to which cheating is allowed; and at that point, it is simply another game mechanic. Unsportsmanlike behavior however, is a different story. Players will still often mock, jeer, lie to, argue with, and insult other players within a game. It is simply accepted that any game wherein there is a means for the player to express him or herself, there will be unsportsmanlike behavior.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Game of Life
My assignment this week is to think of ways to improve the board game life, and as other players of the game over 8 years old would tell you, this is not a difficult task. This is however a formal assignment so I have chosen to exercise some restraint. I've read reviews about the various iterations of the game, and it seems Milton Bradley has also realized the short comings of the game, as evidenced by the numerous re-releases with rule changes. the version I have been assigned to change, the 1970s/1980s version, is nearly completely devoid of choice. The outcome of the game is entirely randomized and there is no semblance to meaningful game play. Future versions of the game have made the decisions of the players more meaningful in the form of squares that impact players differently based on their careers and the ability to purchase and upgrade homes.
The assignment here however is not to, by some alchemical means, transform Life into another game of the same title that is fun like so many revisions of the game have done, but instead to improve upon the actual game. The main points of this game are in question is as follows:
1. The game events are randomly generated
2. Player input as marginal impact on the outcome of the game
3. Some passing resemblance to a narrative of life
4. An unnecessary amount of thought put into the calculation of resources
thus I believe the best course of action would be to integrate computers to calculate the money management so players don't get bored or frustrated with all the menial tasks. Then give life an actually interesting setting wherein the event squares have some sort of impact on the players instead of money up or money down. Then instead of gambling directly, let some degree of skill influence the outcome of the "mini games" in Life.
The solutions respectively are, make it a computer game, the westward expansion of America, diseases, and hunting. In short, the game of LIFE, at it's core, is an underdeveloped version of Oregon Trail.
The assignment here however is not to, by some alchemical means, transform Life into another game of the same title that is fun like so many revisions of the game have done, but instead to improve upon the actual game. The main points of this game are in question is as follows:
1. The game events are randomly generated
2. Player input as marginal impact on the outcome of the game
3. Some passing resemblance to a narrative of life
4. An unnecessary amount of thought put into the calculation of resources
thus I believe the best course of action would be to integrate computers to calculate the money management so players don't get bored or frustrated with all the menial tasks. Then give life an actually interesting setting wherein the event squares have some sort of impact on the players instead of money up or money down. Then instead of gambling directly, let some degree of skill influence the outcome of the "mini games" in Life.
The solutions respectively are, make it a computer game, the westward expansion of America, diseases, and hunting. In short, the game of LIFE, at it's core, is an underdeveloped version of Oregon Trail.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)