Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
"When in doubt... play Chess!" (Tevis)
Vanilla 1.1.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
A good abstract game is not taken over by its theme if it has one. In fact most abstract games could have the theme stripped off. Still the theme often serves a purpose helping the player understand the rules. For example in my game festival climbers where the object is to get you playing pieces to the highest positions in a pyramid by stacking them on each other. In this game the theme could be removed and the goal explained as I just did without further embellishment.
Instead we have a story behind the rules that helps along by saying your pieces are people competing as part of an ancient festival tradition. Why bother if the game will play just the same. There are two reasons; 1. Rules are easy to remember if they seem logical and we can relate them to human experience. (If some one is standing on my shoulders I can’t move unless someone else can support them for me.) 2. People are people and are drawn to things they can relate with, even ugly things like war. Sure a game of GO is beautiful to those who understand it but for those who don’t it’s just a bunch of stones. Some battle games on the other hand have nice little soldier figures we can relate to even if we have no knowledge of the rules. This familiarity draws us in and encourages less ardent players to try a new game.
In other words if theme is used properly so not to overpower the game and make it a simulation or emulation of some sort it can remain abstract while making it more likely to be played by the general population which is good for the genre.
Theme on designers, theme on.
The game mentioned above can be found at festival_climbers.pdf
Themes allow for a hook that grabs players who normally aren't into a certain play mechanic. This is part of the reason why modern abstract strategy games have had problems in the market. Theme games create a narrative people can relate to.
My take on IAGO is that, what it is trying to do, is be able to give abstract strategy games a hook without the theme, to captivate players. The best hook I see is a battle of mental competition, in the purest form, that is the best measure of a player's ability to develop strategy and tactics, with a ruleset that is the easiest to pick up and learn.
What happens when you start throwing theme-dependence in the rules, is that you cause rules bloat. This works against people work against people learning them. Done right, an abstract then enables a person to put their own narrative on top of the game.
Themes allow for a hook that grabs players who normally aren't into a certain play mechanic. This is part of the reason why modern abstract strategy games have had problems in the market. Theme games create a narrative people can relate to.
This is what i was speaking of. One game made up of stones on a grid looks like another without a little window-dressing.
I am all for elegant rules, but of the nearly 500 words that make up the Festival climber rules less then 90 are used for theme and that section can be skipped entirely without loss of understanding. There is no dependence of one for the other yet it is there to catch the eye. Besides all games have the hook of players competing against each other.
I like butter or jam on my toast. Then again I understand that there are some who want to enjoy the bread by itself.
Well, the idea of IAGO was to try to have games where theme didn't matter. But, because measuring the lack of theme was next to impossible, simplicity ended up replacing it. And that is measured by rule length. Abstracts are not supposed to be themed or have theme relevant. If you do want to add some sort of back story theme, go ahead. I still believe we need to stick with it not being relevant to the gameplay itself.
IAGO is all about the bread actually. Things with jam get sorted by what flavor jam. If it has Euro jam, it is a Euro. If it has grognard Jam, it is a wargame. If it has word jam, it is a word game.
That is my take. We want to avoid definition creep here.
By the way, your game looks acceptable as an IAGO abstract strategy game.
It scores a 2 by the IAR rating system being 2-4 players but it does supply interesting play with only 2 players. Actually I would like some feedback on two player matches, first or last player balance has not been determined yet.
Dralius, it should be ok then. If anyone objects, please review the acceptance process, and related docs, and find a flaw.
Anyhow, I don't have problem with the game. I do get concerned, if IAGO isn't careful, things could degenerate.
Chieftain Chess is a large chess variant with a few odd wrinkles; following is the url for the IAGO version of the rules:
http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/chieftain-chess
I am curious to know how IAGO would rate it; I think it's a good abstract strategy game, but I designed it, and I don't have enough math background to judge these things [lol! as some were so kind as to point out ;-) ], so I'd like to ask others to judge its suitability for an abstract strategy games tournament.
The rules take exactly 2 pages [according to Word], including diagrams of each piece with its description and the entire board set up to begin play. There's a few comments after the rules that might take up an additional page, but these comments are not necessary to play the game.
I have a question about rules-following comments. As long as the basic rules fit the IAGO requirements, does it matter how long the comments are, or what they say?
Let's see, no luck, perfect information right? Low complexity rules? It should be acceptable. Not sure what the IAR would be. It just requires combinatorial game skills, right? It is also a chess variant.
No luck, perfect info, low complexity rules, a chess variant with with only 5 different kinds of pieces, not FIDE's 6 [KQRBNP] - right, Chieftain does 'em all. The pieces and rules all work as stated. But if I were to attempt to sell this, I'd chrome it up big time!
I'd put it out as a tabletop battle game, with little [cheap plastic] 3D fantasy combat figures for the pieces. I'd call it the "Eight Chiefs' War", and tout it as "team play - any number from 2 to 8 can play". And I would not only allow but encourage talking between partners over the board, and forbid whispering.
I'd paint a pretty background map with woods and hills on the board, and throw in "Optional Advanced Rules" for movement and "combat" [again, all deterministic] using the terrain. And play it up as a prehistoric conflict, using "real" male and female characters with little backstories as the piece icons in the rules... you get the idea.
The rules will go 5-10 pages, and the abstract strategy game will be obscured behind a handful of pages of pre-Western-civilization heroic fantasy war chrome, and add-on rules that change the nature of the game in one way or another.
But I'd be willing to bet that a rather high percentage of the time, the game would be played between 2 people, probably using the easiest rules set, thebasic chess variant rules as written on the CVwiki.
So, could my hypothetical gamebox [the one with all the anti-abstract strategy game advertising] have the IAGO logo on it? The rules would carry a complete explanation of exactly what the logo is for, and give website info.
Does this fall inside or outside IAGO?
If you include the basic rules you laid out, then it can. You should label the basic rules as IAGO approved, or registered or whatever. It does sound a bit like you are going for Duel of Ages a bit in what you are doing. You could maybe have, "Complete with IAGO approved game, Chieftan Chess". Chieftan Chess could actually be the intro game. Your question regarding this could lay the groundwork for the proper procedures.
Again the trick is to hit the right balance between getting exposure, and maintaining identity.
We seriously need to get an IAGO oversight committee going here. We can look to get this done after the first.
My question was meant to provoke some sort of "official response". We do need a way to answer all these questions.
The "hypothetical gamebox" is just that - hypothetical. I have never felt a chess variant would sell. Chieftain, however, tricked out appropriately, might sell a few copies. And, if it did have a box, the cover would probably look as I've described.
Being able to slap the IAGO logo on it should mean something for both IAGO and the game inside. Promotion for IAGO [and the game], and a guarantee that there is a quality game inside. Or just an abstract strategy game inside, quality unknown? Plus a glossy package to get you to buy it? IAGO can't be a shill for shoddy products.
The oversight committee will have to play the games looking for an IAGO label to verify they are playable, at least. Some games aren't - I've tried playing some, and it becomes obvious they aren't playable after a while...
And some games, while playable, aren't very good. What do we do about poor abstract strategy board games? Or great games that are so deep, thought-provoking and hard to play that only serious game geeks and math majors will want to?
I'll be happy to be one of a playtest group for IAGO, but several people who will actually play the games together are needed before such a group becomes effective. Surely I can't be the only one to playtest my own designs - I wouldn't submit them unless I thought they were at least decent, and why believe the designer, anyway?
So who else is in the first official IAGO playtest group? Lol! Or are you all planning on seeing a whole lot of my games approved quickly? :-D And I only play wargames and chess variants! Enjoy. Happy New Year!
Well, IAGO on the box is supposed to say one thing, "It is an appropriate abstract strategy game" (as in it meets the criterion of being an abstract strategy game). In order to have "It is a great abstract strategy game", you would end up needing a "Game of the Year" award. That signifies quality. If all appropriate abstract strategy games end up with the IAGO logo on them, it works to the advantage of IAGO. The games also benefit. Something like "IAGO Approved" means that that is what the game is. Only speaks that it is an abstract strategy game.
Now you want to stamp "IAGO World Tour" on it? That could mean the game is higher quality. Same with "IAGO Game of the Year".
From an IAGO perspective the NATURE of the game and its rules, is more important than the quality of the components. That means it is more appropriate to have a Cheapass Games game with an IAGO Approved logo, than some glorious, gold plated wargame, with fantastic components, or a dice game that is high quality (like a silver and gold Liar's Dice game).
If the issue of quality is critically important, than you create an "IAGO Gold Line" of games. These are games that meet IAGO standards, and have high quality components. As of now, IAGO needs to get the word of mouth out there, and its name on a game that meets IAGO standards as far as rules go, counts.
Well, let me add one thing here. This has to do with a game like checkers. Because IAGO wants to support associations that promote abstract strategy games, IAGO will push that they get the color scheme right. This means, a checker set with the IAGO seal on it, will end up using the right color for the checker board, that being green and pale (or green and white). IAGO seal doesn't end up on a checker set with a red and black board. IAGO can also, as it gets credibility, work with guys doing games that they get their games to be sufficiently decent in color scheme and so on.
As I see it, the approval committee needs to review the rules and component to see if it fits into IAGO. QUALITY of play goes under the IQR and game of the year considerations.
There are far more abstract strategy games [probably by orders of magnitude] than good [or even playable] abstract strategy games. For very valid marketing reasons, we don't want IAGO to put its logo on games that bite. The only way to judge how a game plays is to play it a few times. Just reading the rules is inadequate to determine how or if a game plays; stuff can always look good on paper. This means we need a somewhat diverse playtest group to make this determination. Otherwise, if IAGO becomes successful, it will get these requests from many whose interest is more in cashing in than in presenting a good game. And more requests from those who cannot design. We need to emphasize the "game" part of IAGO here. [Heh, we also want it associated with winners, not losers.] I'd think we'd want good games, not just any games. There are games of the "whoever moves, loses" sort out there. IAGO should have some standards...
[Did I say that with a straight face?] which means a few people have to play the games, no? Any volunteers?
joe, I am less worried about people wanting to capitalize on IAGO once it gets going. Each logo on a box in a store is more marketing for IAGO. What I believe is a problem is if the games getting the logo cause abstract strategy games to get harmed, and IAGO lose its identity. This is greater concern. But let's say Outwit is looking to make a comeback, and Hasbro or whomever wants an IAGO approved (or IAGO registered) product logo on it? Outwit is a flawed abstract strategy game. Do I say no? Why should I? It is an abstract strategy game.
What you do have is a Game of the Year thing, and so on, that market quality.
It is important that "abstract strategy game" be maintained, not just it is a "great game". Each game that gets the logo defines with IAGO is. Also, if it is a newbie, may I suggest that they end up having IAGO playtest their design BEFORE they get it published?
1 to 15 of 15