Author |
Topic: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games (Read 522338 times) |
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender: 
Posts: 804
|
 |
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #660 on: Aug 26th, 2011, 10:40am » |
|
on Aug 26th, 2011, 9:42am, NickBentley wrote:| It's weird because it's more or less my Game-of-the-Century, and yet it doesn't get any more attention than a billion other games. Me no understand. |
|
You very recently mentioned the same somewhere and I had a quick glance at iGGC. It says:
* A player may (but is not required to) choose to move one of his stones already on the board to an orthogonally or diagonally adjacent empty intersection.
* A player must place a new stone of his color on any empty intersection of the board.
After the turn is complete, all of a player's stones that are diagonally adjacent must also be connected orthogonally (otherwise the player's last move is illegal).
I read "must also be connected" as an action, not as a position, so I thought ... how? shift them all to points where they are orthogonally connected?
And forgot about it.
Now I see how I misinterpreted it  .
And now it makes sense. I can see how these two simple rules give birth some very interesting tactics and that strategy in consequence is far from immediatly accessible. Indeed a sorry circumstance that I didn't understand the game earlier.
As to being quintessential, it is indeed the simplest implementation of a chosen theme and a chosen mechanism, so yes I agree. But then there may indeed be a couple of others in the list, like Twixt, Crossway, Gonnect or indeed Query. Being quintessential may not be all that uncommon and in any case it's neither necessary nor sufficient to make a game great. It's good you point out we may have missed a great one. I'll put it on the list for mindsports, but we're rather behind on schedule  .
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
NickBentley
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #6704
Gender:
Posts: 44
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #661 on: Aug 26th, 2011, 10:52am » |
|
Corey is not the best rules-worder. You should have seen his first draft.
The move rule allows connections to break and reform in mysterious, scintillating ways. The other square connection games all feel to me more or less hex-ish, but with an extra rule added on to resolve the crosscut problem.
But Slither feels like a whole new thing. It's just...stunning. After I began playing it, I could design games for a while, because it was just like "How will I ever approach THAT?" It's the only game which has ever had that affect on me.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
NickBentley
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #6704
Gender:
Posts: 44
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #662 on: Aug 26th, 2011, 10:55am » |
|
*couldn't* design games for a while
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #663 on: Aug 26th, 2011, 11:34am » |
|
on Aug 26th, 2011, 10:52am, NickBentley wrote:The move rule allows connections to break and reform in mysterious, scintillating ways. The other square connection games all feel to me more or less hex-ish, but with an extra rule added on to resolve the crosscut problem.
But Slither feels like a whole new thing. It's just...stunning. After I began playing it, I couldn't design games for a while, because it was just like "How will I ever approach THAT?" It's the only game which has ever had that affect on me. |
|
That's very fortunate, I'd hate to see a good inventor fall prey to catatonic worship  .
Slither is the result of merging a clever condition and, for a connection game, a clever move protocol. Combining simple things the right way can on occasion make you strike lucky. And there's an endless supply of new simple things and an endless number of ways they can be combined. So don't worry.
By the way, you can modify posts, beats rga  .
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 26th, 2011, 11:36am by christianF » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #664 on: Aug 27th, 2011, 9:49am » |
|
on Aug 26th, 2011, 9:42am, NickBentley wrote:| It's weird because [Slither] is more or less my Game-of-the-Century, and yet it doesn't get any more attention than a billion other games. Me no understand. |
|
I missed it despite knowing Corey for some time. I misread the rules, and worse, I didn't ask myself why they didn't seem to make sense. Why?
I think it's a combination of lazyness and the sheer volume of square connection games.
That being remedied, it's not hard for me to see I missed an outstanding game. Actual movement is not a common tool in this type of game and Corey's merging of the modest but flexible king's move with placement brings a combinatorial element to the game that leaves just the right amount of clarity.
The true 'find' of the game - simply forbid 'bare' diagonal connections - resembles Luis' solution to the parity problem (just keep it odd) and my moment of insight in the group penalty theme (simply penalize groups, period).
Simplification is a strong tool. I feel Flume is simpler than Dots & Boxes, but if someone had asked me whether I thought D&B could be simplified, I'd probably have said no.
I tried to bring "checkmate" to its essence and came up with Chad. A year later I stumbled upon Shakti without the intention of finding a chessgame. Life is weird and game inventing isn't an exception
As to "me no get it", if I miss a game that's right under my nose, players with a less immediate feel for games might just as easily do so. You said it: there's a billion, and it's not grandest theme either.
P.S. I've put it in the Pit, part of a growing number of games waiting for an applet.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MarkSteere
Forum Guru
Finite games rule
Gender:
Posts: 289
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #665 on: Aug 27th, 2011, 4:54pm » |
|
on Aug 27th, 2011, 9:49am, christianF wrote:
Simplification is a strong tool. I feel Flume is simpler than Dots & Boxes, |
|
Flume is certainly simpler than Dots and Boxes, though that wasn't the design goal (see below). Flume is lumped in with other "Dots and Boxes games" and rightfully so. I do that too. But... the Flume acorn fell a little farther from the D&B tree. For example, there are no dots in Flume. Or boxes. Flume has simpler rules, a much bigger game tree, and is a distinct game. As well, the long chain parity principle of D&B doesn't translate.
on Aug 27th, 2011, 9:49am, christianF wrote:
but if someone had asked me whether I thought D&B could be simplified, I'd probably have said no.
|
|
I'd have said no too. I've always thought of D&B as a model of simplicity.
Flume started out as a hex hex game, just because I happened to be messing around with the hex hex board at the time. The idea was to limit the number of connections you could form with onboard stones (when adding a stone of your own color), irrespective of stone color. This caused walls and tunnels to form, and I said "Hmmmm. This looks like Dots and Boxes." Boom, done. Well, almost.
There needed to be a perimeter of green stones to make it work. Experience and (yes) intuition enabled me to clear a hurdle that undoubtedly stopped others before me on a similar path.
One final, cynical touch. When I finished the hex hex Flume rule sheet, I wondered how coattail riders (such as Bill Taylor) could run off with my design. "Aha!" I said. "They'll make it square." So I beat them to it. My cynicism paid off because the square version is better.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #666 on: Aug 28th, 2011, 3:20am » |
|
on Aug 27th, 2011, 4:54pm, MarkSteere wrote:For example, there are no dots in Flume. Or boxes.
...
The idea was to limit the number of connections you could form with onboard stones (when adding a stone of your own color), irrespective of stone color.
...
"Aha!" I said. "They'll make it square." So I beat them to it. My cynicism paid off because the square version is better. |
|
In fact it should be "Dotts & Walls". And it allows an example of the kind of question that one should ask in a quest for simplification: "What if the dots doubled as walls?"
And that's more or less what you did, although you didn't arrive at it via D&B.
On a less than cynical note: one shouldn't need an archenemy to translate any find to different grids .
In fact I immediately advised Luis to have a close look at the square version of Yodd (while assuming that he had already thought of that) because I had a vague notion that it might be an even better game.
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 28th, 2011, 3:53am by christianF » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #667 on: Aug 31st, 2011, 3:51pm » |
|
Here's a simple stacking game that came up tonight. I've called it "Pyle".
Board 8x8 (10x10), 8 (10) white checkers, 8 (10) black checkers. Two players.
Player One places all pieces on the board in such a way that every row and every column contains exactly one white man and one black man.
Player Two next decides whether he wants to move first, in which case Player One chooses color, or play with a particular color, in which case Player One moves first.
Players in turn move one piece.
In the game black stacks and white stacks arise, but no mixed stacks. Men and stacks are called pieces.
Pieces may never move over other pieces, regardless of color. Pieces may not land on opposing pieces.
Pieces may land on pieces of like color, forming stacks.
Single men move diagonally.
Doubles move orthogonally.
Triples move both orthogonally and diagonally.
Pieces higher than three may not move.
Object: Be the first to make a stack of 8.
If both players end up with two stacks of 4 the game is a draw .
Three others of my games employ this opening protocol, that allows a player to carefully study both sides of an initial position before presenting his opponent with it:
Swish & Squeeze
InSight
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 31st, 2011, 4:34pm by christianF » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #668 on: Sep 1st, 2011, 6:40am » |
|
I've renamed it Pyryx and it's in the Pit now. I've added a few lines on strategy.
How did I invent it? I was thinking about games, because of the 1000-year challenge. As Clapton once said: "just to keep my hand in shape" .
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 1st, 2011, 8:18am by christianF » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #669 on: Sep 1st, 2011, 9:37am » |
|
I'm open to criticism and Phil Carmody had some at rga.
Quote:| Looks full of possibilities for stalemate (trap a singleton in a corner) or endless futile moves (consider a pile of 7 and a pile of 1 on the wrong color) |
|
To which my answer was two-fold:
Quote:First of all I would have second thoughts about an initial position with men in the corners, but if so I'd probably choose to move first.
But a single in the corner isn't wholly trapped: move a double on top and leave as a triple. In fact trapping singles on the edge is a good way to saddle the opponent up with time consuming liberation moves.
Of course there may be players who fix a final destination (by making a stack of 4 or higher) while leaving a single on the wrong diagonal subgrid. Those are not bright players. |
|
But also:
Quote:Apart from the above, you may have a point: if two singles were trapped and you face an opponent bend on drawing, you'd need two doubles for liberation, transforming them to triples in the process. But you may not have the doubles.
So you've tipped the scale for a rule change I had considered, but rejected: you may split your own stacks, and for instance move only the top double of a triple. I rejected it because the first stack upwards from three doesn't have to be the final destination anymore, but at least breaking it down must be an act of necessity, because it runs counter to the object. |
|
This should counteract Phil's sense of stalemate without affecting the game's basic simplicity.
It may not solve every conceivable stalemate, in particular the intentional blocking of a piece 'all around'. You'd need three pieces to block one in a corner, but then of course you have to get one in a corner first, and who would go there voluntary? Or choose an initial position with a 'blockable' piece in the corner?
So you'd need more, say 5 pieces to block a piece on the edge. That would not seem all that easy either. Moreover it can only be tried as an intentional draw strategy. So I'd say the jury is open on the drawishness of the mechanism.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 1st, 2011, 9:59am by christianF » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MarkSteere
Forum Guru
Finite games rule
Gender:
Posts: 289
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #670 on: Sep 1st, 2011, 9:56am » |
|
on Sep 1st, 2011, 9:37am, christianF wrote:
Who are you, and what have you done with the real Christian Freeling?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #671 on: Sep 1st, 2011, 10:02am » |
|
on Sep 1st, 2011, 9:56am, MarkSteere wrote:
Who are you, and what have you done with the real Christian Freeling? |
|
The real one was fed up with criticism, I'm not that good an impersonator
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sconibulus
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4633
Gender:
Posts: 116
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #672 on: Sep 1st, 2011, 10:04am » |
|
Having the ability to split stacks would almost guarantee cycles, it seems to me. Have you considered upping the number of pieces on the board per side to about twelve, so that a solitary trapped piece doesn't necessarily mean that you can't win? I think this would probably end up making the game quicker, more frenetic, and more tactical, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Nick: Have you considered an empty board, and allowing, instead of a placing move, a singleton of your colour to move to an adjacent square, potentially combining with another singleton of any colour. If there exists a double containing both colours, that piece behaves as a neutral.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 1st, 2011, 10:05am by Sconibulus » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4019
Gender:
Posts: 804
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #673 on: Sep 1st, 2011, 10:26am » |
|
on Sep 1st, 2011, 10:04am, Sconibulus wrote:| Having the ability to split stacks would almost guarantee cycles, it seems to me. |
|
It doesn't to me. The object is to assemble all pieces in one stack, and pieces cooperate fairly flexible. The only way to stop a player from assembling on is to block a piece. Since you need an disproportional number to do so (5 on the edge, disregarding corners for the reasons mentioned), your strategy must de bend on a draw to begin with. Moreover, it's not all that easy to block a piece bend on escaping with 5 pieces. Keeping it trapped would certainly not allow you to play constructively yourself.
By the way, please look again at About Symple. The balancing rule simply offers both players a tade-off between the move advantage and a limited amount of growth. It was poorly worded and that may have led to your interpretation (not to mention Mark's vehement attempts at ridicule). In actual play it works - attention Mark - perfectly.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 1st, 2011, 10:47am by christianF » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sconibulus
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4633
Gender:
Posts: 116
|
|
Re: Essay by Christian Freeling on inventing games
« Reply #674 on: Sep 1st, 2011, 10:45am » |
|
It seems like it'd only take four pieces to block a piece on the edge, if splitting is allowed, which frees the other four to get in a position to win.
If you have two doubles sitting on, let's say c2 and e2 with a singleton trapped on d1 whenever a rescue is threatened by a double the piece can split to b1, d3, or f1. A treble could go to rescue, thinking to penetrate the pyramid then split, I think that a portion of it could always remain trapped. This would also leave open a fairly straightforward combination if they could bring other doubles to the area, say for example d2 and d3. This seems like a strategy that's fairly likely to work pretty well, but might also lead to cycles s the opponent tries to rescue the piece and your blocking maneuver is practically forced.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print