Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.

From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)

Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1993 03:35:06 +0000

Rich Skrenta <skrenta@usl.com> writes:
>Carl> The rewards for players who play skillfully for a long time are
>Carl> both superior positions and superior knowledge of the game.

> I believe that Carl is talking about epic, open ended PBM games, where a
> strong position built up over a long time _is_ valued by the player.

Obviously "_is_" is too strong.  I think that "may be" valued is more
accurate.  Personally, I find such games a lot more fun in the early
growth phase, before I build up all of that baggage to deal with.  I
know lots of players who feel the same way.  (I won't try to speculate
on who constitutes the "majority," because it doesn't really matter, and
it's maybe not even well-defined.)

This isn't surprising, because most players can't be world rulers most
of the time, so most games are designed with an emphasis on keeping
things interesting for the "average" player.  A lot of systems---Olympia
among them, from what I hear---tend to break down when people get too
powerful.

But thing that annoys me most is not the suggestion that players should
covet power.  If some do, then that's up to them.  The thing that annoys
me is something that you didn't touch on: why a player who plays
_skillfully_ merits such a reward, if it is one, and the player who does
not play skillfully does not.  If it really is a lot of fun to have a
big empire and know lots of secrets, why not let everyone do it?  Or
pick those who do randomly?

> Perhaps, if he doesn't value the other factors, or doesn't think any
> open-ended games have been done well enough to be worth his time to
> play, he should simply say so.  Then we can be done with all of this
> comparing Chess and Tennis and ASL and Legends with one another.

Probably a good time to be done with that anyway.  I've said what I
value often enough; I think I'll pass on the opportunity to repeat
myself again.  I don't value *power*, that's clear enough.

>    MUDs:	You can build stuff, but the lack of strategic backing gives
>		it little meaning.  Other folks will read your descriptions,
>		but you're not going to have *power* over them.

In fact, I think it sounds a little sick to play games to have *power*
over others.

> One final question:  Are the "question mark" and "community chest"
> decks in Monopoly examples of hidden rules?

Obviously not, because you can pick them up and leaf through them.  Not
to mention count the ways to Illinois Avenue.

> Are they an example of
> discovery that is no longer fresh after you've seen all the cards?

I don't know about that.  I don't think they are much of an example of
discovery either way.  Not mysterious enough.  You get some money, you
lose some money, you go to Illinois Avenue.  It's hard to be shocked or
even very surprised by any of that.

David desJardins

References

Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 18:56:43 +0000
Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
skrenta@usl.com (Rich Skrenta)
Fri, 09 Jul 1993 02:41:01 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 18:56:43 +0000
Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
skrenta@usl.com (Rich Skrenta)
Fri, 09 Jul 1993 02:41:01 +0000