Nostr Web Client

nostr:npub1pt6l3a97fvywrxdlr7j0q8j2klwntng35c40cuhj2xmsxmz696uqfr6mf6 I have a bit of a problem with board games, and I think you're the only person who would have a decent answer.

I would like to play a board game with the following properties:

1) If both players are playing optimally, the win rate of the game must not necessarily be possible for both players to know before the game has begun. (This excludes Chess and Go - which are solvable - and it excludes Rock-Paper-Scissors and Poker because optimal strategies with fixed win rates exist.)

2) The game must be meaningfully playable with a variable number of players.

3) The game's fundamental skill must not be diplomacy. (A sufficiently good player should be able to fight off every other player if they all suck).

For two players, such games exist. For many trading card games, you do not know what your opponent's deck looks like before playing - so it is not possible to calculate your win rate before playing. Large amounts of hidden information solves 1) readily.

For 3+ players, I haven't found such a game. I'm aware that MtG has such a format, but my understanding is that it essentially boils down to diplomacy. Many strategy video games are like this too - Dominions 5 is an exercise in diplomacy at high level play.

I'm a little stuck, because I'm bored with the board games I play - I get proficient at them, and then I can see that highly skilled players simply have a tree memorized and then I get bored. I was wondering if you had any ideas for games which get around this issue.

⚗️alchemist⚗️ 2y ago

nostr:npub1ecj3mfr9lzvx7wh6fmh59vz6eet324mdtdlp9qxzqvwuvpglwnxqv6fchy Not a big board game guy myself, but here are some thoughts:

First, I assure you I understand the severity of the requirements. They basically exclude any game with a well-defined Nash equilibrium. If Poker is out, then so are the Chess variants with randomized starting positions.

---

One way to make a game potentially non-solvable is to have an infinite move space.

Tests of speed come to mind: Set (very mathematical), 24 (combining cards using arithmetic to make 24 first), ERS (egyptian rat screw, where you slap if you see a sandwich), and even computer RTS's come to mind (as nostr:npub1y6vdaj364w37g40r42f8apzjjxfzulnepyf4llpthmguqffg302svdqwnv already pointed out). I was once amazed to see people playing 124 (same rules as 24) at lightning fast speed with 16 cards laid out in front of them.

You could also make the move space infinite by allowing arbitrary strings as moves: I've played someone's homebrewed hearts-style card game called "Primes" where the main mechanic was that, at each step, you can reveal one *arbitrary* sentence of information about your cards, such as "I have at least 3 prime-numbered cards", and the goal was to cooperate with a randomly-assigned partner. I've also played a homebrewed card game called "Mao" where a player could earn the right to make a new rule of the game, or change an existing one.

You could instead let the move space consist of pictures: I really enjoy charades-like games, such as skribbl.io and Drawful 2, especially the self-references that emerge when you play with the same group of friends a lot. It's nice for parties but I can't imagine that there's any kind of competitive scene.

Games like mafia and resistance come to mind, although you could argue that they are "diplomacy". In my experience, they are more like "anti-diplomacy" because any 'coalition' would be suspect to accusations of being mafia.

Finally, the game could also be non-solvable by having the rules not be public information. I was intrigued by Betrayal at the House on the Hill because the endgame mechanic is chosen from one of dozens of possibilities written in a big game manual, which you are FORBIDDEN FROM READING in general. Usually the endgames split the players into two groups, and each group knows their own goals and abilities but NOT the ones of the other group, and you discover the new abilities as things play out. This also has the effect of breaking up diplomacy, because your 'coalition' is gonna be fucked when one of the members gets possessed and turns into a banshee who moves in strange ways and wants to eat you.

---

If you like trading card games, I'd also check out deck-building games (distinguished by the fact that you build your deck *as* you're playing the game, not beforehand) like Dominion by Rio Grande Games. (Technical remark: I think trading card games are non-solvable in some precise sense, because the act of building your deck is not a randomly-assigned 'state of nature' but is part of your own moveset, so where does the game really end? In contrast, deck-building games like Dominion are solvable, but I find them more fun because players start on an equal footing.)

Scrabble was mentioned, but I think scrabble is solvable in the same sense as Poker is. Still, the hidden information of tiles offers some feeling of non-solvability. I personally like the game Ingenious by Reiner Knizia which is like a more mathematical Scrabble played on a hex grid. You earn points based on how your tiles add to existing lines of same-colored tiles. The "diplomacy" aspect of the game is interesting: since the payoff of each tile in a line increases linearly, you are incentivized to "begin" lines and encourage others to extend them, because then everyone wins, and you can win big when your turn comes around. It feels kinda like investing, where you are trying to seed a boom and then get out before the bust.

Reiner Knizia has a math Ph.D. so it may be interesting to look at his (many) other games. I haven't seen them but lmk if you find anything good!!

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

CEO of Monoeye Dating 2y ago

nostr:npub1pt6l3a97fvywrxdlr7j0q8j2klwntng35c40cuhj2xmsxmz696uqfr6mf6 nostr:npub1y6vdaj364w37g40r42f8apzjjxfzulnepyf4llpthmguqffg302svdqwnv >One way to make a game potentially non-solvable is to have an infinite move space.

This is the big one that I was thinking of. Speed and precision tests do this well, but those elements make one wonder if the board game is really a "board game."

>Finally, the game could also be non-solvable by having the rules not be public information. I was intrigued by Betrayal at the House on the Hill because the endgame mechanic is chosen from one of dozens of possibilities written in a big game manual, which you are FORBIDDEN FROM READING in general.

I actually very much liked that - it is unfortunate that the game has very finite replayability, but I think the general mechanic that "the rules are not exactly known" is intriguing.