Design Principles
This is both a test of how to use a wiki by doing, and an attempt to propose some basic ideas about game design. For now, I'm just going to list a couple things:
Playability:
The first consideration is playability - not how playable "I" think it is, but how playable others find it. Playability is not the only consideration, nor necessarily the most important, but my belief is that it should be the first consideration.
Simplicity:
By this I mean making each part or aspect of any game as simple and easy to understand as possible: simple words, simple sentences, simple examples, and simple steps from one point to another. Game play that is very complex can be presented in a simple, easy to understand manner, the simpler the better.
This is enough for starters.
The following was added by DavidHowe:
Here's a summary of what Mark Thompson feels makes a good game:
Depth:
In essence, how many different levels of expertise could the game support.
Clarity:
How easy is it to form a judgement on how good a particular move is.
Drama:
How possible is it for a player in a weaker position to recover and win the game.
Decisiveness:
How possible is it for a player to achieve a position from which it is impossible for the opponent to win.
I guess these would go under the "playability" consideration. In any case, for the full text of Mark's essay, see the page on his site: Defining the Abstract.
There is a range that starts at Deterministic and ends at Random.
A deterministic game has no random elements and requires only the choices of the player to resolve the conflicts in the game. Chess (aside from colour choice) and rock, paper, scissors are deterministic games.
A random game is a game where the winner is determined exclusively by chance and have no player choices. Cutting a deck for high card and High Roll is an example of such a game (players roll dice and the highest wins)
Most games lay in the middle.
There is a maxim of game design that states that bad players will play longer if the game is closer to Random and good players will play longer if a game is deterministic. The reverse is that good players will tend to stop playing games that are too random and bad players will stop playing games that are too deterministic. There is a sweet spot, somewhere in the middle, that allows bad players to occasionally win through luck (which the good player can accept) and the good player can normally win through skill.
Chess vs Rock, Paper, Scissors
John, you raise an interesting question of what randomness is, and if hidden information imparts some randomness to a game. The common versions of chess have no hidden information. Players alternate turns and can see the state of the board and pieces before, during, and after each piece is moved. Paper, scissors, rock has hidden information: each turn, you do not know what your opponent is doing on that turn, as both play simultaneously. The best ["mixed"] strategy is to play each about 1/3 of the time [from what I just recently read, anyhow]. This is a statistical strategy, different than the strategy used in chess, and indicative of possible randomness in the system. Or would you argue that there is hidden information in chess: the opponent's reply to your move, and it also introduces some seeming randomness into the game, considering that chess openings are statistically based. This would come somewhat close to saying that sequential and simultaneous movement games are the same, I suspect.
Joe
"The best ["mixed"] strategy is to play each about 1/3 of the time [from what I just recently read, anyhow]."
Only if you don't know how to play. I can guarantee you that if you tried that in a tournament, you'd lose pretty easily.
If you use a random strategy in a KO Rock/Paper/Scissors tournament, you will not progress far statistically. You may, however, block a player with a winning strategy from progressing. RPS is a game or non-random prediction of opponents moves.
What is "random" is a good topic, and one that deserves an entire thread of it's own. I can certainly understand those who think that hidden games are random because they are used to assuming that seeing the entire board is the only way a game could be non-random. This is a myth, however. Some of the best "dark chess" players know almost exactly what the opponent has moved when they initially engage them by using signs from what they can see. For example, a rook on the end column means the King likely castled on the other side, or a Rook in the center means that the King has almost certainly Castled that side. This type of information is invaluable in attacking in dark games and is obviously not random. Players with a weak understanding of the game wouldn't understand this and might think the game is just about bumping into each other in the dark board.
As you noted a surprising move in standard chess would obviously be equivalent to a dark board on a vary minor level. You never predicted this move so it's as if the game was in a random states. Chess requires that you keep a longer view of the board than the one in front of you and if that is disrupted because your opponent has surprised you, is that random?
I agree. A random element obviously can only be generated from a random mechanism. Although to be fair, even cards are not entirely random if you use card-counting, but I assume few chess players know how to card-count…
Hello, Francois, John:
Mathematically, I concede you need a random element generator for true randomness. However, randomness on the field of battle has the basic effect of preventing the commanders from predicting what the results of an action will be. I would like to offer the idea of effective randomness. If you cannot predict the state of the board with any degree of accuracy two turns into the future, you would consider the game to be rather random. Even if it is totally deterministic, ie: a chess variant, it can be effectively random if the players cannot forecast the opponent's reply to any given friendly turn. This situation obtains when there is a very large number of equally effective moves in any given turn. Multimove variants are a good example.
The effectively random element I'd use for P/S/R is a clock showing the seconds. I could glance at the clock and say paper if seconds end in 1, 2, or 3, say scissors for 4, 5, and 6, ans rock for 7, 8, and 9. For 0, say what the opponent's last call was if the minutes end in an odd number, and what beats that previous opponent's call if the minutes are even. I say that strategy wins me half my games. ;-) What's wrong with this argument? In a P/S/R tournament, I'd be a kind of metaphorical suicide bomber. How are the initial pairings made? Randomly? My initial opponent has a 50% chance of losing. My opponent after that has, if I understand this correctly, a 25% chance of losing to me, as there is a 50% chance of my advancing to play a 50-50 game with that second opponent: 50% x 50% = 25%. A bit of practice and careful timing - getting the signal as late as possible - should certainly minimize any tells, and also would have to eliminate any unconscious biases that might offer a pattern.
The lateness on my hour and carpal tunnel are driving me offline. Enjoy.
In a KO RPS tournament, your returns die off if there are more than three rounds. Not great for you.
I don't agree about the "If you cannot predict the state of the board with any degree of accuracy two turns into the future, you would consider the game to be rather random."… I can play Candy Land with my son and that's totally random but I'm also 99% sure I can tell you what the board will look like in three turns. Or more accurately a game where I'm rolling dice and adding, with the first player to 19 winning, I can tell you with some degree of accuracy after three turns who will win even though it's completely random.
To Chess players, "random" games mean they don't have full knowledge of all the variables. This is a misnomer to the rest of the game designing world. It's only in Chess where people think this way (maybe in Go too.) Chess is certainly deterministic.
But we are human and even in deterministic games we can make human errors that appear to be random. This simply isn't the same as playing without some information.
"If you cannot predict the state of the board with any degree of accuracy two turns into the future, you would consider the game to be rather random."
I have to agree with neoliminal on this quote. I think you are confusing "deterministic" with "predictability." Even the staunchest of ontological determinists (a group which I guess I would probably be a part of) does not contend that we can predict the universe to the most minute details. The same thing applies to games, I would think. The fact that something is deterministic does not logically entail that we have the capacity to predict it accurately at any level.
In short, my failure to analyze a game of chess tells more about me than it does about chess. All it indicates about chess is that an idiot can't analyze it properly. That's hardly evidence on which to base an evaluation.
John, your last sentence is: "This simply isn't the same as playing without some information." This is what I want to riff on a little bit.
Chess, between 2 high-level players, is not only concerned with the move being made in the present, but with the chains of moves in the future that are opened or closed. Let's say one player can see about 5 moves into the future, and the other 6, on average. In line with Francois' ideas, you can consider this an "event horizon" for the player. The closer to the limit a player gets, the harder it is for that player to see everything that could happen. Chessplayers are used to playing with that kind of information. We have a series of actions and reactions that we establish for each contingency, which reach some distance into the future. The games I'm considering would have a [reasonably successful] prediction rate of maybe 50% for the next turn. In other words, you have trouble predicting your opponent's "instantaneous" reply - the one made this turn in response to your opening move. You've brought the event horizon right up to now, effectively. This is what I mean by "effectively random" for a chessplayer. No confidence in projection abilities. I do not claim this is an any way actually [mathematically] random.
neoliminal, Francois:
My terminology is often sloppy, for which I often get into trouble of one kind or another. Let me try the idea of chaos in place of randomness. Consider a standard FIDE game, with a series of exchanges. Good players can project several player-turns into the future, and "know" the exact state of the board after each move. That's the point of chess, no? However, consider a situation where, even if captures are made, the player who initiates the captures cannot predict the exact state of the board for his next move, and maybe the prediction won't even be adequate enough to reply to the initial recaptures successfully. This is the idea I was trying to get across when I said "random".
We can distinguish 2 levels of chaos in a game. One level is total chaos. Consider a 4 dimensional chess game with a limited number of very powerful pieces. Within a few turns, the pieces could be in almost any configuration imaginable, because there are so many ways to go to and from any one location on the board. I'm experimenting with Ben Reiniger on that, with TessChess and Hyperchess. You can see the playtests in Game Courier at chessvariants.org.
The other is limited chaos. Consider a multimove game where the pieces are all short range, there are lots and lots per side, the board is huge, and you move several pieces/turn. In a game like this, there will be a large number of moves with the same value, and there is no real way to project from what you've done in any turn just what your opponent will do in return. The large variant Overlord, found elsewhere in this wiki, is a good example of this second type of game.
Seems to me like the concept you are talking about is pretty similar to the concept of event horizon- not in black holes but the fact that physical change can only travel at light speed. This creates a horizon beyond which events are simply not observable (observations of it cannot exist). In the same way, pieces in games can only propagate so fast and in so many ways, and any scenario which demands more than what is possible of the pieces simply cannot exist.
Got a proposal I'll let you think about, Francois*. I'm willing to swap help. I'll assist you in working on coop games if you assist me with where I'm going with the chaos concept. I have to give examples. What I'm doing seems pretty new and on the very edge of chess, so few understand it. Here are 2 games that show the "local chaotic" effect:
[http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MStwolargemulti-]
Are there any chess variants that are cooperative? I've only come up with one idea, a coop game of retrograde analysis. The chesspieces are set up in some random position, maybe even a mate. The players have to play the game backwards, with the goal being the pieces winding up in the standard setup position. Heck, you could take pictures from chess books of game analysis to use as the start positions. You know those are doable…
Well, that's my deal. This is Chieftain: [http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/chieftain-chess], and this is what I'm aiming at in this area:
[http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game%3DWarGame+2%26settings%3DWargame2]
*This is an offer I'll make to just about anybody. Designer swap meets where what's being swapped is game help.
Funny you mention the retrograde chess variant, I was just thinking about that too as an obvious cooperative game. It would need some tweaking, but it's one obvious way of doing it. I've also had an idea involving the gravity and anti-gravity piece ideas, but it hasn't really worked out so far.
As for your proposal, I'm sorry to say that I'll have to pass. I've looked at the WarGame 2 page and I don't really follow as regards to what you may or may not be aiming at. I admire what you've done with these Chieftain and Chieftain-variants games, but I'm afraid I'm too much of an amateur designer to really help you. Thanks for the offer though.
Ah, I seem to have blown my first 2 links - these wikis use different methods for linking, and I seem to have gotten caught. So you got dumped to WarGame, which is rather imposing on first view. Well, the Chieftain rules are all in this wiki, so findable easily. I suspect the massive wargame-type rules are rather off-putting. What they really are is just chrome on Chieftain. Edit - fixed 1 link, but this wiki does not like the other link - it does not take the final character of the URL.
As far as amateur designers, we are all amateurs here. I've met a few people who are professional designers or something similar, and believe me, they do NOT do chess variants. They do things that sell. ;-) Anyhow, it seems to me that we are both trying to make chess into something it isn't, and never really has been. In your case, you are changing the nature of the game from one of fierce, total competition to one of cooperation. In my case, I am taking the quintessentially deterministic, win by outthinking your opponent down strings of moves, kind of game and turning it chaotic.
Working on the fringes like this, we don't get many chances to attract interested people to our work. I try to grab any opportunity I can manage. Are you a member of chessvariants.org? That is the best place I know of for this sort of thing, with boardgamegeek being a distance second. Hm, you might try posting a question in the general and games areas at the xkcd forums. They are scientifically-inclined more than most, so this sort of intellectual question might well appeal to them.
I can help you out a bit at CV.org, by posting the question you asked once again, mentioning we both thought of coop retrograde, and that you had some ideas on heavy gravity chess that you haven't gotten to work out. You might comment on Gary Gifford's heavy gravity chess game, also, and ask about or discuss the possibilities of coop there. Maybe get some answers, a little traction for what you want to do. Let me know if you want to pursue this avenue.
Enjoy.
Not sure. I already did comment on a couple games, but I haven't gotten any response. I guess I'll just have to be patient.
I actually have an idea for a cooperative variant based on a variant I've submitted before called Chains of Fools. I think I'll work on that and send it to CV. In it, I will try to encourage others to submit cooperative variants. How's that?
Sounds good. Let me know when you send it in.
Lol, just checked to see if you're in CV.org. This is what I found:
Game
* This item is a game information page, It belongs to categories: Two dimensional, Small board It is a 2 player game. It was last modified on: 2001-02-28 By Francois Tremblay. Action Man's Chess. A small (5x6) board and simple pieces ensures lots of easy-to-understand action. (5x6, Cells: 30) By Francois Tremblay.
* This item is a game information page, It belongs to categories: Two dimensional, In a category all its own, Orthodox chess set but with different winning conditions, Orthodox chess set but with different capturing rules, Orthodox chess set but with special rules It is a 2 player game. It was last modified on: 2002-04-04 By Francois Tremblay. Chain of Fools. Game with a Chess set where the goal is form chains of defended pieces. (8x8, Cells: 64) By Francois Tremblay.
* This item is a game information page, It belongs to categories: Two dimensional, Small board, Orthodox chess set but with special rules about the board It is a 2 player game. It was last modified on: 2000-11-06 By Francois Tremblay. Chess in the Fast Lane. The 64-squares of a regular Chess board are grouped into 41 "regions" producing a small board that looks full size. (8x8, Cells: 41) By Francois Tremblay.
* This item is a game information page, It belongs to categories: Two dimensional, Three or more players, Each player has a different army It is a 3 player game. It was last modified on: 2001-09-29 By Francois Tremblay. Foreign Policy Chess. Chess variant on 8 by 8 board with armies of unequal strength. (8x8, Cells: 64) By Francois Tremblay.
* This item is a game information page, It belongs to categories: Two dimensional, Chess combined with some other game or sport It is a 2 player game. It was last modified on: 2004-11-25 By Francois Tremblay. Ice Hockey Chess. Chess variant based upon rules of (Ice) Hockey. (8x10, Cells: 68) By Francois Tremblay.
* This item is a game information page, It belongs to categories: Two dimensional, Small board, Unorthodox shaped board It is a 2 player game. It was last modified on: 2000-11-03 By Francois Tremblay. Subway Chess. In a turn, player moves first middle subway part of board and then a piece. (7x7, Cells: 41) By Francois Tremblay.
Java
* This item is a Java program, It belongs to categories: Two dimensional, Three or more players, Each player has a different army It is a 3 player game. It was last modified on: 2001-12-31 Author: Ed Friedlander. Inventor: Francois Tremblay. Foreign Policy Chess. Peacekeepers are a third army. (8x8, Cells: 64) Author: Ed Friedlander. Inventor: Francois Tremblay.
Zillions
* This item is a Zillions-of-Games file, It belongs to categories: Two dimensional, Small board, Orthodox chess set but with special rules about the board It is a 2 player game. It was last modified on: 2001-01-04 Author: Peter Aronson. Inventor: Francois Tremblay. Chess in the Fast Lane ZIP file. The 64-squares of a regular Chess board are grouped into 41 "regions" producing a small board that looks full size. (8x8, Cells: 41) Author: Peter Aronson. Inventor: Francois Tremblay.
* This item is a Zillions-of-Games file, It belongs to categories: Two dimensional, Small board, Unorthodox shaped board It is a 2 player game. It was last modified on: 2001-03-19 Author: Peter Aronson. Inventor: Francois Tremblay. Subway Chess ZIP file. In a turn, player moves first middle subway part of board and then a piece. (7x7, Cells: 41) Author: Peter Aronson. Inventor: Francois Tremblay.
Amateur, my @$$! Lol, you've been around twice as long as I have. Sneaky - I like that in a chess player. ;-) Best with your design. If you think I might be able to help with something, let me know.
Well, I have been making some variants in the past, but nothing very serious. For one thing, I don't really have anyone to help me test anything (the only variant that I've really tested was Ice Hockey Chess, because I played it solo as my car-ride pastime for years when I was a kid). This is why I consider myself an amateur. One can't be a very good gamemaker without testing one's own games, I would think.
You don't happen to know how ffen2diag works do you? I've never used it before, and emailed Hans Bodlaender to get more information, but he hasn't replied yet.
Do you mean something like the diagram I put up with the original Chief rules at CV.org? It looks like this:
1hcs1chsshc1sch1
1nm2mn2nm2mn1
16
m2mm2mm2mm2m
1m4m2m4m1
16x2
1M4M2M4M1
M2MM2MM2MM2M
16
1NM2MN2NM2MN1
1HCS1CHSSHC1SCH1
It specifies the pieces and their placement for setup. If this is what you mean, I know this much about it, anyhow. What do you need?
The idea that I playtested my variants before posting is complimentary, but not entirely accurate. Aside from Hyperchess, which had some playtesting, none of my early variants, including all the shatranj variants, were playtested before posting. I felt it was obvious they would all work well as games. In most people's books, that would make me a stupid amateur.
As far as playtesting, your best bet is to find someone who would be willing to swap playtesting of each other's games.
"Do you mean something like the diagram I put up with the original Chief rules at CV.org?"
Yes, that's exactly it.
"It specifies the pieces and their placement for setup. If this is what you mean, I know this much about it, anyhow. What do you need?"
What I want to know is, is there a way to see these graphs locally, from one's hard drive, before sending the page in for publication? You know, when I work on anything, I like to do drafts and correct them, I'm a messy writer. I need to see everything that I'm doing.
"As far as playtesting, your best bet is to find someone who would be willing to swap playtesting of each other's games."
That just pushes the problem further though, doesn't it? Or maybe I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean finding someone with whom I could playtest both my games and his? I don't really see how that would work over the Internet…
I made that diagram myself. You have never made a "preset" for Game Courier, have you? I suspect that's where the confusion might lie. The ffen2 "diagram" is effectively game code for Fergus Duniho's software, but it's what you put into the software yourself. All it is, is an analog representation of the initial set-up. I assigned names to the 5 pieces in chief: Chieftain, Hero, Shaman, Man, and kNight. Then I just laid out the initial setup, with numbers representing empty squares, and the letter of each piece in its appropriate position. A standard ffen diagram for FIDE Chess' opening would be :
rnbqkbnr/
pppppppp/
8/
8/
8/
8/
PPPPPPPP/
RNBQKBNR
The capital letters stand for white, the small, for black. It's just an analog representation of the board.
And yes, I was suggesting that you find someone willing to play your game if you play his/hers. Now, play and playtesting are 2 different things. I'd suspect that with a willing partner, you could playtest things online that you couldn't actually play online. You may be sending emails back and forth between moves, but so what? As long as your partner understands what is going on, that's what you need for a playtest.
Yea, I understand how the program works, but is there any way to actually see it on the page before it's published?
I see what you mean about playtesting now. Yes, I suppose that makes sense. Are there any forums or chat rooms where you guys go?
Now I am not sure what you mean by "see it on the page before it's published?" You, or someone working with you, would create any pages posted, no?
As for forums and chatrooms, you're in 'em. I'm working on it, but it is quite difficult to put together an online game designers playtest group.
"Now I am not sure what you mean by "see it on the page before it's published?" You, or someone working with you, would create any pages posted, no?"
Yes, but from what I can see so far, I can only see the graph when the page is published, not before. I want to be able to see it on my own computer while I am working on it.
Lol, I am totally not understanding you. But I can say self-posting a game is reasonably easy [maybe with a little help], and uses standard html code. So you can write anything you want to post out with your own html editor on your computer, then cut and paste. And when you're posting your own game, it remains hidden until an editor - :-D - checks it out and makes it visible. So you can look at it while it's hidden, you can even edit it while it's hidden, as long as you have the URL. And if you didn't get it before you sent it in, I can give it to you. Does this help?
Self-posting? I never heard of that. How would one do such a thing?
Aha! This explains a lot. 4-5 years ago, members became able to post their own games. Go to this link [and this time I'll check it more carefully to be sure it works]: [http://www.chessvariants.org/Gindex.html]
Note just under the word "Index" at the top of the page, there is a link that says "Post your own game". Click on that and it takes you to a clunky 2-page form that you fill out and submit for an editor to review. Look it over a bit, and get back to me with your questions. ;-)
Enjoy!
This is very strange indeed. No one told me about this, probably because I haven't posted a game in a long time. I do not appear to have an account on this tool; when I look at the User IDs, I am not on there. How can I obtain one?
Francois, you seem to be in the middle of registration. Go to this page http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displayperson.php and click on the "Finalize Registration" button. DO whatever it says. If you have questions or problems, ask me. Luck! Joe
Crud! Bad link. Go to your person ID page here: [http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displayperson.php?personid=FrancoisTremblay] and complete registration. Shame we can't edit our comments.
But… that's not my email address any more, and there seems to be no way of changing it.
Send me an email, through this wiki, if you wish, with your current email address. I should be able to edit your info, and fix the e-add.
What? I don't know how to do that. My address is francoistremblay28 - at - gmail.com
Okay, I just changed your e-add at CV.org. Do you know your password?
Nope, no idea. I assume it would be on my email archive for my old address, but obviously I don't have that. Any way you could get it for me?
As a comment to the page itself, as I suppose I should, how would these criteria be applied to cooperative games? Drama and decisiveness, in particular, seem specific to competitive games. I can see how drama could be translated, but decisiveness seems more dicey.
Hi, Francois:
Two quick things -
I see how decisiveness translates, but not drama, at a first glance. So how do you figure drama plays into the cooperative games, rather than decisiveness? And this may be as much a matter of semantics as difference of opinion. What do you mean by each?
I see Jorg Knappen gave you an excellent for Catalonia. Congrats. How is the preset coming?
"What do you mean by each?"
I was referring to the definitions from the top of the page. Or were you asking something else? I'm not sure.
"I see Jorg Knappen gave you an excellent for Catalonia. Congrats."
Yes, I did see it. Thank you! However, it doesn't sound like he played it. I don't know.
"How is the preset coming?"
I'm gonna be honest with you, I still don't really understand what a preset is, let alone how to make one. Is there some kind of page for beginners explaining what it's all about?
gotta run, so here's preset info. follow it step by step, and ask me if you have any questions or problems at all. i wrote, so critique it. a few people have used it, obviously, as you will realize when you see everything is "Uri's example". ciao
[http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/preset-primer]
Oh yea, I've seen that page before. But it doesn't explain what a preset is, or why one would want to do one, or what it does. I don't really "get" it.
Okay, have you changed your username at CV.org? No matter, I'll look it up. I will send you an invitation to play a game on the game courier with a preset. Accept the game and choose either side. Click on a piece to move it, and click on the square you want to move it to. This way, you will get to see what a preset is and what it does. We do not have to play more than a couple moves in the game. Then you can ask questions with some understanding.
Okay, I followed your instructions on the presets and here is what I have so far:
http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game=Catalonia&settings=JPG-Alfaerie
Now, how do I add the Checkers?
Go here and compare our two presets:
[http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game%3DCatalonia+x1%26settings%3DCataloniax1]
Click on the "MOVE" option to the right of the board, and the checkers will disappear.
How good is your internet connection?The Alfaerie: Many piece set is large and may take a little bit of time to download.
Okay, I see that you added the Checkers to the pieces available (I don't know how you did it), but how does one then drop a Checkers? I see that it is possible to manually tell it to do so, but it says it only drops pieces "on hand."