I get a tidy email notification every time somebody posts a comment here, which is nice because I get reminded about cool discussions after they clear my RSS reader. But, assuming there’s someone else who would find this service convenient, it’s not fair that I’m the only one who gets it!

I’ve changed the administrative address for this notebook to dispatch@xorph.com, which currently just bounces everything to me. If you’d like to get comment notifications, post your email address (formatted however you like) in the comments on this post. I’ll add you to the bounce list in a couple of days (so you don’t all get spammed with each other’s requests to join).

So I don’t know much about game theory, as a scientific or mathematical entity. That’s why I’m prepared for this entry to be shot full of holes by the people who read this and are much better at logic and math than me. Regardless:

When players come to a board or card game, they typically expect to compete against other players and, implicitly, the randomized elements of the rules. If the players are unable to effectively respond to those randomized elements, the game is perceived as an empty exercise by most people above the age of six. Candy Land and War are two good examples. Chance is king, unless you cheat.

I think it’s fascinating that people who would brush off Candy Land and War would still play slots, despite the fact that it’s exactly the same exercise, and the average reward for playing slots is negative. But that’s a different topic. Or is it?

Some board games, like chess, involve no elements of chance at all–they’re entirely driven by player choice. Chess is obviously a thrivingly popular game, so why introduce elements of chance to any board game?

I’m honestly curious about this. I’ve been trying to come up with good reasons, but they seem to fail under test. “It’s interesting to see something unexpected” fails, because you can certainly see unexpected things from the other player in a chess game. “I believe that the odds might favor me and help me win against a more experienced player” fails, because I’m smart enough to know that in the average case, they’re going to favor that other player just as much, and I’m going to lose just as often. But I like games that incorporate both skill and luck more than skill-based games.

Do you? Why?

Why hasn’t anybody done a hexagonal-tessellation version of Exquisite Corpse yet? Start with two completed tiles and spiral out, making it a rule that you’re not allowed to draw any blank tile bordered by fewer than two other completed tiles. (I get plenty of results by googling for “exquisite corpse” hexagonal, but none of them seem to be implemented.)

It occurs to me that I haven’t really outlined any structure for this thing, and I should!

Here’s one neat way I think the Dispatch could work: Somebody posts a starter (eg the soupbone) via the submit story link over on the right. Those who like it comment with interesting directions it could go. If you agree that somebody else’s direction is interesting, you use the submission link to write up a treatment (eg the carrots): fill out the idea, give it some consideration, tell us why you think it’s cool and what’s still missing. Comment and post, iterate, iterate, iterate. If we feel like we’ve got something solid, we’ll wiki it! (Wiki coming soon.)

Of course, the comments are also useful for praise, criticism, table-talk and gossip, and the story-submission mechanic exists for links to material about collaboration, gaming or anything good and topical. I will be manually approving the stories submitted, but I don’t anticipate not doing so unless you’re talking about “this game wear ur all vampÿres & also manchester suxxs.” (Yes, go ahead and post this in the comments.) Finally, I’m aware that neither “soupbone” nor “carrot” is particularly graceful terminology; I see no reason why it couldn’t be different every time.

Is this an interesting model? In what directions could we take it?

Probably some of you already saw this linked at Interconnected, but I think it’s excellent: a quick transcript of Raph Koster’s keynote address at the Game Developers Conference earlier this month. One of the premises: games are worthwhile and even didactic, not in their content (Grand Theft Auto) or intent (Reader Rabbit), but by their very nature.

“We tend to think of fun as being frivolous. The stuff that doesn’t matter. And this is the serious games cheer line: I’m here to tell you that fun is not only not frivolous but fundamental to human nature and required for survival. Therefore what we do is saving the human race from extinction. [laughs]”