I have posted multiple messages regarding different aspects of
abstracts recently. Anyhow, this discussion has resulted in what
appeared to be a need to spell out in more detail criterion for what
is or is not an abstract strategy game. This was done so that IAGO
has a chance to function, by at least defining the scope of what games
IAGO will cover, and provide a criterion for accepting games under the
association without being too exclusive, or growing so large and
unstable that the association morphs into a general table games
association (causing abstracts to get lost). While it is good to have
flexibility, if things remain too nebulous, all you do is end up in a
very minor niche that isn't sustainable. Anyhow, this being said, I
have given more thought to the subject matter, and have this as a
possible solution. It breaks abstracts into standard and non-
standard. It seeks to put solid boundaries down, while allowing
sufficient breathing room. Please comment on it. And here we go...
http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/game-acceptance
[Criterion by IAGO of accepted abstract strategy games]
This do***ent is covers the criterion by which a game is accepted by
IAGO and considered an abstract strategy game. This do***ent is
currently a work in process. It is based upon the work by a J.
Thompson and the basis of his definitions of abstract article.
The predominant games of IAGO are combinatorial in nature (perfect
information, no chance, and playable by two players), along with some
other factors.
In addition, all games of IAGO involve pieces, that rest on a board or
as connected tiles, and have configurations of pieces, whose
positioning has a strategic impact. This means that card games, by
their nature, are excluded from games under IAGO.
To sum up, standard abstract strategy games for IAGO are based around
combinatory game theory, and other related factors that are described
below:
1. Perfect information all the time. Game does not require
memorization, or induction or deductive reasoning to figure out any
aspect of the play environment.
2. No chance element introduced (no use of dice, cards or dominos
drawn).
2a. Definition of chance has to do with any element not controlled by
players in the game. Chance elements here besides the normal and
expected include randomized layout of player pieces or even randomly
generated asymmetric layout of board spaces. The only exception to
chance would be determining play order, provided both sides are
balanced and have near equal chance of winning. In cases where this is
not the case, the randomly determing play order is not accepted as a
random element in the game.
3. Move are alternatively, rather than simultaneously. This means no
hidden simultaneous turns selection by all players at same time, or
real-time where players act at same time.
4. Only two players. Not more than two players, not even as teams.
5. Skill at a game depends only upon a person's cognitive skills.
Elements such as the ability to read people, physical dexterity, being
political, size of vocabulary, or verbally articulate are irrelevant
to success or failure at standard abstract strategy games. Cognitive
skills involves such things as creativity, recall prior games with
similar positions, mental endurance, developing strategy, and deciding
which tactics are best. If a game requires any other elements besides
basic cognitive skills for mastery, then it isn't considered a
standard abstract strategy game.
6. Simplicty of rules. 2 pages maximum size for rules, 3 with
diagrams.
6a. All rules involve the play mechanics and none of the rules in the
game are to account for chrome or theming. The extent of chrome or
theming may involve the game objectives, or the name of the pieces. In
other words, every rule for the game is for game play purposes, and
none for theming purposes.
7. All standard abstract strategy games involve pieces on spaces or in
a tiling manner (game such as Hive), and their relation****p
positionally to one another is a basis for the play area. In other
words, all pieces are able to occupy discrete spaces that remain
consistent throughout an entire game (even if the space isn't visible
or on a board.
Note, at this present time, a game can be accepted into IAGO, as a non-
standard abstract if it deviates from, at most, one of the above
factors. If a game deviates by more than one, it is not an IAGO
recognized abstract strategy game (standard or non-standard). In non-
standard games with more than two players, political skills may be
difficult to be prevented to be used, which would lend a possible
exception to the only one deviation from the factors listed above.
In addition these are considered the measure of high quality abstract
strategy games:
1. Have Depth: Game is capable of being played at many different
levels of expertise. The best moves should not be completely solvable.
2. Clarity: Players can form a judgment about what is the best move in
a given situation, without the game requiring a career devotion to the
game.
3. Drama: It should be possible for a player to recover from a weaker
position and still win.
4. Decisiveness: A player can achieve an advantage from which the
other player can recover.
Please comment, and thank you for your time...
- Rich
|
