• IAGO Wiki Main page
• IAGO Home
• IAGO Forums
• Links

This document is based upon Aaron Dalton's Rubics document. This document is meant to come up with a more scientific way of determining the “abstractness” of a game. Games are evaluated and rated by the criteria below, and the total of all the categories is added together to create an “Abstractness rating”. Here is how this works:

• A game's “abstractness” is divided into broad categories.
• Each of those categories is further broken up into (preferably) 3 or more states representing a reasonable, as-objective-as-possible continuum.
• Each of these states receives a point value. (You can do this any way you choose. For me I like the first item to be “pure” and worth 0 points. As each state diverges more and more from “pure,” its point value increases.)
• It is also not unusual for categories to be weighted in some way.
• This system does not place judgment on whether or not a game would be qualified as an abstract game or not. A mixture of a threshold score, other rules, and an evaluation board will be used to determine whether or not a game qualifies as an abstract strategy game. Because arbitrariness is impossible to completely eliminate, these other criteria will need to be added.
• To ensure that an abstract strategy game meets IAGO's deterministic standards, which means that the outcome of the game will be determined primarily by superior skill and logic [as opposed to elements of chance], it is preferable that there be no random factor outside of “who moves first.” However, if a game does employ a random factor, then the random element can be (a) before a player's move, or (b) after a player's move, but not both (because of excess randomness). The IAR attempts to reflect this in the below sections involving randomness and luck.

This system accomplishes a number of things:

1. It moves the arbitrary decision-making higher up in the process. Scoring games should be objective and mechanical.
2. It keeps discussion and debate focused on principles and not on individual games.
3. Depending on the threshold, games that slightly deviate from the so-called “pure” can still be accepted if they adhere closely in other categories.

• 0, No hidden information whatsoever.
• 1, There is at most one hidden element (e.g., hand of cards), but some method of deducing the likelihood of an opponent's holdings is available. Standard here would be the case of either a player's location is unknown or nature of hidden piece is unknown, but not both, and can be deduced by players. If cards, then players would have a set hand from beginning of game.
• 2, There is at most one hidden element (e.g., hand of cards), but a method of deduction is not available. Cards in this case would be dealt to a player throughout the game.
• 3, There are two or more hidden elements. For example, location and nature of hidden pieces in the game would count here, or a case of hidden units and cards involved.

Note that randomization of setup is accounted for in the next section. This section only applies to random elements that occur when players are taking their turns.

• 0, There are no random elements whatsoever.
• 1, There is at most one element of randomness (e.g., some sort of hand, dice) that occurs during player turns.
• 2, There is more than one element of randomness. The elements can happen occur during game or after the start of player turns.

• 0, Luck plays no role in the game play whatsoever. The player is solely responsible for his/her decisions.
• .5, Method of side and turn order is determined randomly, and without a balancing mechanism to insure fairness in sides, for fix positions or where players games. Examples of balancing mechanisms include having players play all sides, a bidding system, or use of a pie-rule.
• .5, Initial board and piece configuration is randomly generated, but there is a balancing mechanism to insure fairness in sides, for initial configuration. See last example for balancing mechanisms
• 1, Beyond the initial creation/configuration of the playing field, and turn order luck plays no role. The player is from that point on solely responsible for his/her choices. An example of this is the 3-move deck system currently in use by the America Checkers Federation, if the sides are also randomly determined and there is no use of a balancing mechanism.
• 2, The element of luck extends past the initial setup of the field and directly influences a player's options/decisions during game play itself. The results, however, are deterministic, meaning that the same action will have the same result every single time.
• 2.5, The element of luck extends past the initial setup of the field and directly influences a player's options/decisions during game play itself. The results, however, are NON-deterministic, meaning that the same action could have different results based on some external factor. (Some wargames fall under this category.)

• 0, 2 players.
• .5, 2 teams.
• 1, 3 players or teams.
• 2, 4 players or teams.
• 2.5, 5 players or teams.
• 3, 6 or more players or teams. [Anything beyond six players or teams should be excluded, or needs a 2/3 acceptance vote by the ratings board to get into IAGO. This is the max number for Chinese checkers.]

• 0, Only mental skills are required for superior play at a game and are restricted solely to the understanding and execution of the rules using strategic and tactical thinking.
• 1, Superior play at a game requires other mental skills besides strategic and tactical thinking, such as memorization, vocabulary, trivia, etc. …
• 2, Something other than mental skill is required for superior play at a game, e.g., physical dexterity, singing, etc. …

Abstract strategy games are noted for their simplicity (as is noted by the statement, “A minute to learn, a lifetime to master”). Typically rules get longer due to theming. To account for this rules length is measured in the form of the number of pages the rules take. A page of rules is considered to be in Times News Roman text font, size 8, and on 8.5” by 11” paper. Strategy tips and game variants are excluded from the rules length.

• 0, 1 page with text and diagrams.
• 1, 2 pages of text and diagrams.
• 2, 3 pages of text and diagrams.
• 3, 4 pages or more of text and diagrams.

Rules stability here refer doesn't refer to a game having different phases, or pieces changing their functions during game given the context. These would be accounted for in the normal rules. Rules stability refers to rules being “hacked” or changed during the game so that new rules that aren't part of the set of rules at the start is what is referred to here. Games like Nomic and Lemma are noted for this, as are collectable card games like Magic: The Gathering. If players have different rules governing their pieces during a game, this doesn't count.

• 0, All rules are known before game begins and don't change during the game.
• 1, All possible sets of rules are known before game begins but can change under player control.
• 2, Not all possible sets of rules are known by players but can be added by players as they control, provided the rule corresponds with every other aspect of the IAR.
• 3, Unbound: Same as 2. and 3., except the rule in question that is added causes score equal to what that deviation would be according to IAR.

• 0, Sequential. Players alternate taking turns.
• 1, Simultaneous. Players record their desired move, and all moves are resolved at the same time.
• 2, Real-time. Players move at will.

For what it's worth, here are some sample scores with no weighting:

Note: Nomic is included as an example, and is not an IAGO abstract strategy game. Also, Oware is a games in the Mancala family of games.

• Perfect Information in this rubric pertains strictly to game states. In even the purest of abstract strategy games, such things as an opponent's strategy or outside factors make for a degree of uncertainty in knowing what will happen next. Therefore, these factors are excluded from perfect information determination.
• Theme is irrelevant. Justification for rules is irrelevant. If a game fits every other category, then none of these things matter. I have yet to see an example of a game whose theme/chrome significantly alters its ASG-ness. This seems to be simply a matter of taste.

Regarding luck: Same comments on first-player selection as above. I also think state 3 is superfluous. It is the exact same as 2. — 2007/11/14 08:14

3 is not superfluous, and not the same as 2. It is the difference between backgammon and a wargame. If you have a game where the results of action are determined AFTER player does them, in a random way, it has greater uncertainty than before, thus has a higher degree of luck. If you like, you can give it the same rating as current 2, but it is a different animal completely. Let me know if you want it to have the same rating. If it is the same, 2. can be rewritten to do both. However, I will add that opens the door for simple wargames coming in, if you allow for there not to be a difference, and they have the same rating. Also included are games where cards are drawn and so on. This is the lowest level of uncertainty and highest luck level. Diceland would end up fitting here.

Randomness of side selection has been consolidated. — Rich Hutnik 2007/11/14 I reduced the values for numbers of sides, giving 5 players 2.5 rating – Rich Hutnik 2007/11/18

I raised the values for luck after an action is performed to 2.5. I consider this a greater deviation from determinism than a game where luck happens before you perform your action. Because of this, it needed to be raised – Rich Hutnik 2007/11/18

The criteria used for Simplicity (number of pages) is objective but not very useful. A better measure, even if harder to get the exact number, is the atomic ideas, or meta rules it uses and combines (like has movement, uses captures, pieces can drop, how many ways to win a match…) – João Pedro Neto 2007/12/09

::Number of pages is bad. Please consider number of letters and specify the language. The elderly can't read font size 8. Diagrams shouldn't be counted at all - make them really small and use a microscope. Just a joke, but did you get the point? Inch is pretty American. Civilized nations use centimetres. –Omweso Freak 2007/12/11

:::Number of pages isn't a good measure, but it is a quick method, and about the best way to do it now. For those outside of the United States, please translate measurement into centimeters. In this context, simplicity has replaced “abstractness” which no objective measure for it. Because simplicity is used to replace “abstractness” as a measure, the rules don't apply to play mechanics, but elements relating to theming. If pages are to be replaced, they should be replaced with a measure for measure how much the rules tie to theme. – Rich Hutnik 2007/12/24

I must disagree with point 1 of the Stability criteria if that means ruling out games with different and dynamic game phases (that is included at my interpretation of “rule changes at player's control”). Abstract games where any player can control the change of game phase by making some specific action is as pure as any other abgame (even if not very used by abgame designers) – João Pedro Neto 2007/12/09

::I agree with João Pedro Neto. Examples: Nine Men's Morris (the Flying Pieces Rule), Bao Lakiswahili. –Omweso Freak 2007/12/11

Rules stability is for games like Nomic, Lemma, or Collectable Card Game style games, where rules get “hacked” during play. It is not for where players control phases that are defined during game, but the game rules get hacked during the game. Rules stability is a criterion that will almost always be zero, but can occationally pop up, so it is accounted for. Also rules hack games are allowed in IAGO, just care needs to make sure that the rules hacks don't cause a game to stop being an IAGO abstract strategy game. – Rich Hutnik 2007/12/10

::I see, but could you make it clearer in your document, too. –Omweso Freak 2007/12/11

Note the rules have been updated. The stability of rules is meant as a “closure” mechanism to prevent the IAR from becoming warped for a game. – Rich Hutnik 2007/12/15