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

The purpose of this document is to provide an alternative method for determining a game's “abstractness.” It attempts to break down the abstract and subjective nature of this definition into discrete, as-objective-as-possible chunks. The underlying assumption is that games lie on a continuum. Certainly there are “pure” abstracts, but, as has been noted, there are other games that are obviously not “pure,” yet are considered by many as abstracts. To reduce arbitrariness as much as possible, a system of rubrics is proposed. 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. Each state diverges more and more from “pure” and its point value increases.)
  • It is also not unusual for categories to be weighted in some way.
• You then need to determine a threshold score, over which a game does not qualify. Now this is the hardest part. Arbitrariness is impossible to completely eliminate. The correct number will take time to determine and is usually reached by scoring a large number of games and seeing where things fall.

This system accomplishes a number of things:

1. It moves the arbitrary decision-making higher up the process. Scoring games should be objective and mechanical.
2. It keeps discussion and debate focused on principles and not 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.
4. Consequently, the idea of “standard” and “non-standard” categories is done away with. Either it's in or it's out.

Feedback and refinement are warmly welcomed! This is still a work in progress. Let's get to it!

• 0. No hidden information whatsoever.
• 1. There is at most one hidden element (eg. hand of cards) but some method of deducing the likelihood of an opponent's holdings is available.
• 2. There is at most one hidden element (eg. hand of cards) but a method of deduction is not available.
• 3. There are two or more hidden elements.

• 0. There are no random elements whatsoever.
• 1. There is at most one element of randomness (eg. modular board, some sort of hand, dice).
• 2. There is more than one element of randomness.

• 0. Luck plays no role in the game play whatsoever. The player is solely responsible for his/her decisions.
• 1. Beyond the initial creation/configuration of the playing field, luck plays no role. The player is from that point on solely responsible for his/her choices. (This encompasses the 3-move deck system currently in use by the Checkers association, for example.)
• 2. The element of luck extends past the initial setup of the field and directly influences a player's decisions during game play itself.

I'm having a hard time coming up with clearer language for the first point.

• 0. Only mental skills are required and are restricted solely to the understanding and execution of the rules.
• 1. Only mental skills are required but knowledge outside of the rules themselves is required, eg. memorization, vocabulary, trivia, etc….
• 2. Something other than mental skills are required, eg. physical dexterity, singing, etc….

• 0. Sequential. Each player alternates taking turns.
• 1. Simultaneous. Each player records their desired move and all moves are resolved at the same time.
• 2. Real-time. Players move at will.

• 0. 2 players or teams.
• 1. 3 players or teams.
• 2. 4 players or teams.
• (You get the picture.)

While I appreciate the role of such a category, certain standards will have to be adopted (page size, fonts, margins, etc…). This will be a challenge.

• 0. 1 page of text and diagrams.
• 1. 2 pages of text and diagrams.
• And so forth.

• 0. The game can be easily played with generic or improvised equipment.
• 1. The game requires specific equipment, but this equipment is considered ubiquitous (ie. Chess and Go boards, playing cards, etc…).
• 2. The game requires specific equipment that while generic in its own sense, is not considered ubiquitous (ie. Picepack and Icehouse sets).
• 3. This game requires highly specific equipment that is rarely reusable.

• Perfect Information in this rubric pertains strictly to game state.
• I differ from Basic Navigation in the following ways:
  • Game balance is irrelevant when defining the game. Game balance is indubitably important when deciding what to place in tournaments but it is also difficult to determine without a large-enough sample size. Issues of game balance and what to do with unbalanced games belongs in another discussion.
  • Board state and the relationship of pieces to board is irrelevant.
  • Theme is irrelevant. Justification for rules is irrelevant. If a game fits every other category, I fail to see why any 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.

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