G S Wilde
@gwilde.bsky.social
Board game enthusiast, and other stuff too.
“A group of stones of one colour with no neighbouring empty spaces is removed from the board.”
I’ve played Go/Weiqi very little, but that rule seems both thoroughly natural and some sort of sorcery.
I’ve played Go/Weiqi very little, but that rule seems both thoroughly natural and some sort of sorcery.
November 8, 2024 at 4:30 AM
“A group of stones of one colour with no neighbouring empty spaces is removed from the board.”
I’ve played Go/Weiqi very little, but that rule seems both thoroughly natural and some sort of sorcery.
I’ve played Go/Weiqi very little, but that rule seems both thoroughly natural and some sort of sorcery.
Are the different types of win and loss intended to be equivalent?
There are definitely people who will decide solo win > joint win > joint loss > solo loss regardless of what the rules say. That doesn’t mean you have to take that mindset into account in the design, of course.
There are definitely people who will decide solo win > joint win > joint loss > solo loss regardless of what the rules say. That doesn’t mean you have to take that mindset into account in the design, of course.
November 4, 2024 at 12:42 AM
Are the different types of win and loss intended to be equivalent?
There are definitely people who will decide solo win > joint win > joint loss > solo loss regardless of what the rules say. That doesn’t mean you have to take that mindset into account in the design, of course.
There are definitely people who will decide solo win > joint win > joint loss > solo loss regardless of what the rules say. That doesn’t mean you have to take that mindset into account in the design, of course.
I’m curious what causes a game to *need* a tiebreaker.
I like tiebreakers that cannot be tied, so turn order is a fair option. Usually one player overcame a worse playing position so deserves to win. Also, because the winner of ties is clear before the end it feels less like the flip of a coin.
I like tiebreakers that cannot be tied, so turn order is a fair option. Usually one player overcame a worse playing position so deserves to win. Also, because the winner of ties is clear before the end it feels less like the flip of a coin.
November 1, 2024 at 7:26 PM
I’m curious what causes a game to *need* a tiebreaker.
I like tiebreakers that cannot be tied, so turn order is a fair option. Usually one player overcame a worse playing position so deserves to win. Also, because the winner of ties is clear before the end it feels less like the flip of a coin.
I like tiebreakers that cannot be tied, so turn order is a fair option. Usually one player overcame a worse playing position so deserves to win. Also, because the winner of ties is clear before the end it feels less like the flip of a coin.
That’s shocking news. I hope Walker recovers well. All the best!
July 9, 2024 at 4:32 PM
That’s shocking news. I hope Walker recovers well. All the best!
Thanks for talking this over with me. I think now I at least believe there might be a way to do what I was imagining. I'm not at all sure it would work once it encounters other people, but at least it is a place to start.
June 11, 2024 at 2:15 AM
Thanks for talking this over with me. I think now I at least believe there might be a way to do what I was imagining. I'm not at all sure it would work once it encounters other people, but at least it is a place to start.
I just reread your review of Harrow County (expressive as always). It sounded as though you wanted to explore it’s messiness some more at the time. Have you played it much since, and have your feelings about it changed at all?
June 11, 2024 at 1:19 AM
I just reread your review of Harrow County (expressive as always). It sounded as though you wanted to explore it’s messiness some more at the time. Have you played it much since, and have your feelings about it changed at all?
What I was thinking of was a randomized starting conditions, where the players clearly will have very different point-scoring capacities. It certainly would be disliked by some types of players, but I'd hope being clear about how and why it is 'unfair' would communicate it was not really for them.
June 10, 2024 at 4:10 AM
What I was thinking of was a randomized starting conditions, where the players clearly will have very different point-scoring capacities. It certainly would be disliked by some types of players, but I'd hope being clear about how and why it is 'unfair' would communicate it was not really for them.
This discussion prompted the idea that if scores are useful to characterize the various objectives of a player agent, the comparability between players could nevertheless be broken by making the starting positions overtly random and unbalanced. Do you think players would just compare anyway?
June 9, 2024 at 4:19 AM
This discussion prompted the idea that if scores are useful to characterize the various objectives of a player agent, the comparability between players could nevertheless be broken by making the starting positions overtly random and unbalanced. Do you think players would just compare anyway?
Role-playing games provide an example where a defined victory condition is not necessary, but the players usually have the responsibility of constructing the agents which will be taken up, rather than the designer. Even then, some sense of playing to win (or increase metrics) is often apparent.
June 8, 2024 at 5:18 AM
Role-playing games provide an example where a defined victory condition is not necessary, but the players usually have the responsibility of constructing the agents which will be taken up, rather than the designer. Even then, some sense of playing to win (or increase metrics) is often apparent.
Is that something that you see in Persuasion? I can imagine a player who thinks they have an independent win secured looking at other players with benevolent or malevolent intent, but usually pushing to end the game when the cards are favourable would be a dominant aim.
June 8, 2024 at 4:56 AM
Is that something that you see in Persuasion? I can imagine a player who thinks they have an independent win secured looking at other players with benevolent or malevolent intent, but usually pushing to end the game when the cards are favourable would be a dominant aim.
I think choosing a winner (or winners) is so entrenched that designers have to do a lot of work to overcome it's pull. Even in games with the possibility that either everyone wins or one player wins, some players will read the latter as a superior win regardless of what the rules state.
June 8, 2024 at 3:32 AM
I think choosing a winner (or winners) is so entrenched that designers have to do a lot of work to overcome it's pull. Even in games with the possibility that either everyone wins or one player wins, some players will read the latter as a superior win regardless of what the rules state.
Yes, the comparability of scores is seems to be where the problem lies in my example. I was originally thinking of a sandboxy game, so the comparability of players success is an unfortunate side effect of comparability of a player's possible aims. I'll have to look for other ways to get there.
June 8, 2024 at 3:22 AM
Yes, the comparability of scores is seems to be where the problem lies in my example. I was originally thinking of a sandboxy game, so the comparability of players success is an unfortunate side effect of comparability of a player's possible aims. I'll have to look for other ways to get there.
Parenthetically, ambiguity in how players should relate to each other is something which games can intentionally explore, of course, but I feel that is a special class of game which is distinct from games which seek to crystalize agency per C. Thi Nguyen.
June 8, 2024 at 1:34 AM
Parenthetically, ambiguity in how players should relate to each other is something which games can intentionally explore, of course, but I feel that is a special class of game which is distinct from games which seek to crystalize agency per C. Thi Nguyen.
Do you think that is a weakness of measuring success with scores? My impression is that Persuasion would not suffer from this ambiguity (though I haven't player yet). If you agree, do you think that is because there is no scoring, or the end is sudden, or there's deception, or something else?
June 8, 2024 at 1:24 AM
Do you think that is a weakness of measuring success with scores? My impression is that Persuasion would not suffer from this ambiguity (though I haven't player yet). If you agree, do you think that is because there is no scoring, or the end is sudden, or there's deception, or something else?
If the goal is 'score as much as you can', the game loses some of the clarity on how players should treat each other. Maybe one player tries to 'win' on scores anyway even at the expense of their own score. Maybe another feels uncomfortable increasing their own score slightly at greater cost to you.
June 8, 2024 at 1:16 AM
If the goal is 'score as much as you can', the game loses some of the clarity on how players should treat each other. Maybe one player tries to 'win' on scores anyway even at the expense of their own score. Maybe another feels uncomfortable increasing their own score slightly at greater cost to you.
Thanks! My starting point was thinking about situations where a realistic agent would have no interest in how well or poorly another agent is doing. The standard game version of this would still crown a winner, meaning a player would have an incentive to worsen someone else's position.
June 8, 2024 at 1:02 AM
Thanks! My starting point was thinking about situations where a realistic agent would have no interest in how well or poorly another agent is doing. The standard game version of this would still crown a winner, meaning a player would have an incentive to worsen someone else's position.
Thanks for the video! I'm interested in alternatives to standard victory types from the viewpoint of design, so would really appreciate discussing the topic with you if you are up for that - you've clearly given it a lot of thought. If you'd like to talk, just let me know which medium you'd prefer.
June 6, 2024 at 9:22 PM
Thanks for the video! I'm interested in alternatives to standard victory types from the viewpoint of design, so would really appreciate discussing the topic with you if you are up for that - you've clearly given it a lot of thought. If you'd like to talk, just let me know which medium you'd prefer.
Yeah, self awareness would definitely be an issue with a survey, even with carefully crafted questions. Incidentally, thanks for highlighting Xoe’s talk - I’ll definitely check it out when I get time.
June 5, 2024 at 5:40 PM
Yeah, self awareness would definitely be an issue with a survey, even with carefully crafted questions. Incidentally, thanks for highlighting Xoe’s talk - I’ll definitely check it out when I get time.
Actually, no tens would still put a blaze between a straight and a flush with the advantage that no blaze would qualify as either a straight or a flush.
June 5, 2024 at 5:29 PM
Actually, no tens would still put a blaze between a straight and a flush with the advantage that no blaze would qualify as either a straight or a flush.
I’d love to be able to survey the attitude to winning of people who play board games. It would be even better to contrast that with people who don’t play board games.
June 5, 2024 at 4:48 PM
I’d love to be able to survey the attitude to winning of people who play board games. It would be even better to contrast that with people who don’t play board games.
Is it any five of the court cards and aces? Maybe tens are allowed as well because my vague recollection is that it ranks between a straight and a flush.
June 5, 2024 at 4:34 PM
Is it any five of the court cards and aces? Maybe tens are allowed as well because my vague recollection is that it ranks between a straight and a flush.
Relying on very limited data, I think it is typical for children to have an achievement focus, then depending on the circumstances surrounding their games and other play this may or may not evolve into a striving attitude. The context of the games probably matters more than the games themselves.
June 4, 2024 at 11:23 PM
Relying on very limited data, I think it is typical for children to have an achievement focus, then depending on the circumstances surrounding their games and other play this may or may not evolve into a striving attitude. The context of the games probably matters more than the games themselves.
Both types of player engage in both types of game. An achievement player in a cooperative game is focused on winning, not cooperating, so is more likely to become a dominating player. A striving player in a competitive game enjoys tackling the challenges their opponents create, successfully or not.
June 4, 2024 at 5:51 PM
Both types of player engage in both types of game. An achievement player in a cooperative game is focused on winning, not cooperating, so is more likely to become a dominating player. A striving player in a competitive game enjoys tackling the challenges their opponents create, successfully or not.
In my defence I said ‘many players’ not ‘most’. I really don’t know what the proportions are but in the highly biased sample of my experience it is ‘most’. If you mainly encounter achievement players and don’t like that you have my sympathy.
June 4, 2024 at 5:33 PM
In my defence I said ‘many players’ not ‘most’. I really don’t know what the proportions are but in the highly biased sample of my experience it is ‘most’. If you mainly encounter achievement players and don’t like that you have my sympathy.
Thanks! I really appreciate all that analysis.
June 4, 2024 at 5:21 PM
Thanks! I really appreciate all that analysis.