Games that Unfavorably Increase the Odds

Before I talk about Rummy, I want to say I am not completely opposed to games favoring one player over the others. Mainly, because some games are designed to be that way. As the game progresses, the stakes are raised, making it much more challenging to win. Chess is a game in which the odds typically favor the player with the most remaining pieces, but the opposing player hinders themselves by losing pieces and not the rules of the game altering to favor the lead player. Although games like chess are head-to-head, usually, the kinds of games where the odds increase are more collaborative, instead of everyone for themselves.

I had played Space Hulk in college. If you are unfamiliar with this game, it is essentially like the tabletop version of the Alien movie franchise. Players work as a team to achieve a specified objective, but they run out of ammo, or their guns jam, and eventually, they are way outnumbered by deadly, hard-to-kill aliens. That game is tipped a little too much towards the aliens.

In recent years, I have discovered a couple games which are similar, but feel more achievable. Forgotten Island is a game in which players try to acquire four artifacts before the island sinks. As the game progresses, the island sinks faster. Forbidden Desert is the sequel, where the treasures sink under increasingly difficult to remove mounds of sand. Betrayal at House on the Hill is another collaborative game in which, at a specified point in the game, one player becomes the traitor. There are multiple scenarios in which the traitor betrays the others, and usually the end game favors the traitor over the remaining team. This game has incredible replay value based on how the different scenarios play out and the map is constructed.

Those kinds of games, I appreciate the unbalanced favoriting of one side over the other. Rummy, on the other hand…

Rummy

Typically, I dislike most Rummy games. Our friends have a variant of the game I particularly dislike. The reason I do not like Rummy is because it relies heavily on luck of the deal and luck of the draw. There is little, controllable strategy to the game. Based on the initial deal, you can guesstimate which cards to try for, but once you realize others playing are after the same card, your “strategy” is in jeopardy with little room for course correction.

The reason I really dislike our friends’ variant of the rules is because the game heavily favors the leading player(s). While players covertly collect cards they need to start laying cards down in sets and runs, the game is fairly matched, but, like I said, at this point relies mostly on luck of the deal and the draw. There are a couple of minor strategies players can use, but if it does not help enough, it can backfire at the end of the round. This strategy is called “buying”. One form of buying is a player attempting to call dibs on a discarded card. If allowed, the player buys the discard and with the price of drawing an additional random card from the deck.

Buying can be squashed by the player who is taking their turn and they claim the card for themselves. When a buy is squashed, it exposes what card a player seeks to the rest of the table. Whether they need it for a set or run may not be known, but it weakens the player in need who is now denied what they seek.

The other form of buying is during a player’s turn, in which they can “blind buy”, which is drawing the top two cards from the deck. Both of these strategies could help the player get cards they need, but if the cards are not helpful enough, all cards will count against them at the end of the round. Again, a good portion of this strategy is based on luck of the draw.

Once a player has what cards they need to lay down their sets and runs, the game drastically shifts to favor players with cards on the table. If they can lay down all their cards, all other players accumulate points for the cards still in their hands.

Most often, players cannot put all their cards down on the table, but on their next turn, they may add any remaining cards to other player’s cards on the table. The more variety of cards on the table, the more beneficial it is for players trying to get rid of their last few cards. Players who have not played any sets or runs will find it increasingly difficult to even discard a card at the end of their turn.

On each turn, players draw a card (or more with a blind buy) and end their turn by discarding a card. This is yet another way to favor the lead(s) and restrain the lag(s). When a player discards a card playable on another player’s sets or runs on the table, any player with cards on the table may claim that discard to place in the appropriate collection of cards, plus discard an additional card from their hand. Once again, as more and more people are able to lay cards on the table, this makes it much easier for the lead players to continue getting rid of cards, while it makes it much harder for the lagging player to discard something that does not benefit any of the leading players.

If you are a lagging player who sees someone else lay down similar cards to what you are collecting, your strategy is out the window and too late to do anything about it other than dump as many points from your hand as you can while trying not to help a lead player go out sooner.

This is why I find this variant of Rummy incredibly frustrating.

How I would balance out Rummy?

Five Crowns is one rummy game I enjoy playing very much. The game has a couple mechanics to help reduce the unbalanced frustrations. Both games use a double deck of cards, with the exception Five Crowns drops the aces and twos and adds a fifth suit (stars).

First, there are the number of wild cards. Both decks include jokers, which act as wild cards. Rummy includes four jokers in the entire 108 card deck. Five Crowns includes six jokers in the entire deck of 116 cards. However, each round of Five Crowns, one of the ranks is also considered wild, which means each round includes sixteen wild cards, which greatly benefits all players.

Second, when one player “goes out”, meaning they lay down their entire hand of cards on the table in sets and runs, all other players have one more turn with the opportunity to lay down as much as they can by playing any valid runs or sets. This can greatly reduce the number of cards counting against them.

To improve our friends’ rummy variant, I would borrow elements from Five Crowns to improve the balance. Since it uses standard decks, maybe declare aces and twos as always wild, which would bring the wild card ratio to twelve out of 108 cards. Allow players to set down portions of their hand instead of making them wait until all requirements are fulfilled. Maybe a lagging player has a set, but not a run, or vice versa. They could lay down what they have, reducing the number of cards in their hand. However, because the requirements are incomplete, maybe the player cannot player on other player’s cards until both are satisfied, but other players with both can play on theirs. Plus, they are not able to go out, bringing an end to the round, until both are satisfied.

To me, games are meant to be fun. Challenging at times, but enjoyable to play, especially with a group of friends. Why gather together only to be frustrated?

What games do you dislike? Do you dislike them because they are unbalanced? Or, is it for other reasons?

The post Unbalanced Games – Part Two – Rummy appeared first on PegamooseG's Blog.

What makes a game unbalanced?

While looking up games other people consider unbalanced, some people define an unbalanced game by how often a player wins. When a player wins too often or not often enough, they consider the game unbalanced. I don’t entirely agree with that. One person might win a game often, because they are very skilled at the game, while another player who doesn’t win much may still be a novice. This does not necessarily mean the game itself is unbalanced, only the players.

For me, unbalanced games either lack skill, or have rules that favor a player. To help explain these two unbalanced game mechanics, I will explain why I really dislike two particular games, and ways I suggest the game might be improved. Discussing both games, the blog got a little long, so I have divided the blog into two parts.

Games, like Chess, eventually reach a stage in the game where one player can have a greater advantage over the other. Even when one player has fewer pieces, players can still rely on skill over luck allowing a fighting chance.

Clue

I appreciate the concept of Clue, where players use logic to solve the mystery. It’s clever. It is why I enjoy games like Hits and Blows or Worlde.

Much of my dislike of Clue can be traced back to a design fraught with human error. The game has three types of cards: suspects, weapons, and rooms. Pick one of each and place them in the envelope. Sounds simple enough. Except, when the game set is missing cards. Or, the wrong kinds of cards are placed in the envelope. One game I played had two weapons, a room, and no suspects! Sometimes, it is a lack of understanding the rules of who sees what cards when. Let’s say the set up is accurate and they understand the rules, but a player doesn’t take very good notes, and incorrectly guesses. There is no room for bad guesses in the game. As I said…Human errors. That’s not the game being unbalanced. Again, that’s the players.

I find this game unbalanced because of the dice roll and how far apart the rooms are. Some players roll well, and begin collecting clues quicker than others all based on high or low dice rolls. There’s no skill in limping or sprinting to the rooms to look for clues. The dice roll should not be s limiting factor in a game of deduction. Once a player enters certain rooms, they can use a shortcut to jump to another room. The game is unbalanced in that it now favors the player who was lucky enough to roll high enough numbers. Luck is not a skill.

On a side note, one of my gripes is the game comes with little murder weapon figurines in which players have no idea what to do with. That’s not necessarily an unbalancing, but it is confusing.

How would I balance out Clue?

First, I would solve the movement issue by redesigning the layout of the murder mansion. The new layout would consist of a main hall surrounded by the rooms in a U-shape. Pairs of neighboring rooms connect both to the main hall and adjacent rooms. As for movement, each turn a player may either move twice (into different rooms) or move once and look for clues (more on this in a moment). Players start in the main hall.

The clues are the next thing I would fix. Give each type of card a different color and pattern of backing so they are easily identifiable (even for color blind players). For  the set up, with each type of card, deal one to each room, starting with the main hall. Then, if the game must have figurines, use a figurine of the victim. Maybe a chalk outline? This is placed ontop of the cards in the main hall, eliminating the need for the envelope. The cards are still clues players collect to try to deduce what happened. With the different colors, it is easier to see if an error has been made (Two weapons and a room? Really?).

Players look for clues by moving into the other rooms and picking one of the three cards, playing it face down in front of them. A player may only keep one face down card of each type. Whenever two or more players share a room, they may “look for clues” by asking to see one of other player’s cards. When players meet up in the main hall, the player looking for clues exposes another player’s card to the entire table by turning it face up. This adds a bit of strategy of trying to avoid other players, especially in the main hall, but can help others (even players who are behind) with learning the clues.

One final fix…The guess! First, no one may make a guess until all the clues are found, which means all cards are taken out of the surrounding rooms. With fewer players, this may mean there are more cards exposed to the entire group. Once all the cards are claimed from the rooms, the game boils down to catching up with the other players withholding evidence. To make a guess, the player enters the main hall and pronounces their guess to the group. For any wrong elements of the guess, these wrong elements are placed face up for all to see. The player who guessed poorly loses their next turn and must stay in the main hall. This makes them vulnerable to having their concealed clues exposed. Any other player moving into the main hall may force them to expose one of the clues. Maybe the poor guess forces another player to expose a clue, but with a penalty. More strategy! In the unlikely event the guesser is wrong but not proven wrong by another player, the game ends in a forfeit.

That is how I would recalibrate Clue to be better balanced. Next time, I will discuss the unbalanced game of Rummy.

The post Unbalanced Games – Part One – Clue appeared first on PegamooseG's Blog.

Puerto Rico is a city building and resources game. Players earn points by constructing buildings and shipping goods. Money, in doubloons, is needed to purchase buildings. Goods need to be produced to sell to the market to earn money. Plantations need to be established to acquire the goods. And, both buildings and plantations need to be populated by colonists in order function. There are seven types of rolls that help facilitate all these moving pieces, and players change rolls throughout the game. It may seem confusing or overwhelming, but once players understand the roles, it makes much more sense and is very straight forward. Why did it take me so long to learn to play it? Well…

Over those years, I would come across it in the game cabinet and think, “Oh yeah! I really need to break this out and learn how to play it!” Two problems delayed this. The first problem, I needed to be in the right mindset to learn how to play it. Every once in a while, I would open the box, become overwhelmed by all the pieces and the 12 page instruction booklet, then place it back into the game cabinet to learn how to play another time. The second problem, I needed the right number of players. Puerto Rico requires three to five players. Somewhere along the way, I did find and print the two-player variant rules. Still, I needed other people in the right mindset to learn how to play, too.

Flash forward (or…lather, rinse, repeat these aborted attempts every few years) to this past holiday season. Shortly after the 2024 New Year, my daughter and I finally sat down and learned how to play the game (after a few minutes of choking on the dust brushed off the box). With the family free and at home for the holidays, I thought it would be a good chance to have three or four people available to finally play it. My wife suggested my daughter and I sit down, figure out the rules, and try it out first, then we could explain it to everyone else. And, that is exactly what we did.

Because the game requires three to five players, we imagined playing a game with four players. At first, we explored each of the roles to understand their function. Once we learned how the roles worked, it became more like a two player game as it would have been played with more players. We did this for a several rounds, getting a better understanding of how the roles and turns worked. A standard game can take one to two hours. At some point, since we were not really playing an actual game, we pretended one of the end game states triggered, played one final round, and figured out who “won” the trial game. Counting up our points (as you would in a normal game), the scores were very close, but I “won” by a couple of points.

Okay. Cool. We learned to play Puerto Rico…finally.

Unfortunately, once again, there were scheduling issues, and we could not round up at least a third person to try playing an actual game while the holidays lasted.

A couple days passed, and my daughter and I were itching to play the game, again. This time, we tried out the two-player variant rules. The game played much better than our trial attempt. That afternoon, we ended up playing through two complete games, each winning one of the games. In one of the games, because some of the points gathered are covert until the tallying, I was sure I had enough points to win. When it was my turn to select a role, I picked the Mayor which would have depleted the number of colonists to keep the game going for at least another round. She asked if I was sure I wanted to end the game, and I smugly said I did. I misjudged, and she won the game by a considerable margin of those covert points. Curses!

A few nights ago, we went to our friend’s house for dinner and games, and finally played Puerto Rico with the requested number of players for a normal game. Our friends’ son agreed to also play the game, so we actually played with the maximum number of five players. The game was a much different experience when there are five players, each with their own, varying strategies. The game took a little longer, because there were four players still learning the game, and me, the person who needed a rules referee to correct me on some of the rules. Still, it was a fantastic night of gaming, and our friends’ son ended up winning the game, while the person to introduce it everyone else to the game came in last. (*sad trombone*)

One final set of thoughts on this game. After finally learning to play, I instantly understood the appeal why so many friends praised this game. At first, it did seem a bit overwhelming with all the moving pieces. There seems to be a growing trend with many of the new games (especially the more expensive ones) including an overwhelming number of pieces. As I write this, I wonder if this is any different than Monopoly or Risk? With all those moving pieces, it makes me more excited to bring my Peggy Game Engine to life. In a virtual setting, I can create a game with any number of pieces, and as long as the instructions are straight forward (as they are in this game), I know people will be willing to play.

I’m not sure if Puerto Rico is in print any more, but if you ever have a chance to play it, take that chance.

The post Ahoy! Puerto Rico! At Long Last! appeared first on PegamooseG's Blog.

I recently picked up TotK. My son and I play TotK in time-shares, avoiding spoilers as much as possible. He and I also replayed BotW leading up to TotK’s release. Because he had been finishing up school at the time of purchase, I have had a bit of a head start. We continue to play after several weeks and are roughly even progress-wise.

Exploration

Exploring the worlds is one of the main reasons I love these games. Both games immerse the player in a world rich in beauty and lore. Yes, monsters lurk around every corner itching for a fight, but the varying scenery is full of pleasant surprises. In fact, when players discover something curious in the distance or on the map, it usually is a significant detail of the game worth exploring. These curiosity magnets are really what pulls players through the game. Often, I will notice something odd, travel in that direction to explore, and get pulled into something that initiates a quest. The whole game is a series of curiosities and micro-quests! Not every mystery encountered has an explanation, which is okay. Many of the unsolved mysteries can be assumed to be part of the world’s long lost lore. The map in the game even allows players to mark the map with different stamps for things to deal with at another time. As my son and I play, we tread lightly, asking each other vague questions to understand what the other has already encountered. And, <i>there is so much to encounter!</i>

The game’s uses a subdivision of tasks and quests, ranging in varying degrees of difficulty, to track the story. Some quests will take a while to complete, while others may be completed as players explore the world. This allows players to keep track of what they can and should do in the game. If a quest is too difficult, players can return to it when they are more ready (or not at all). Even if a player chooses not to face the final boss, the game is filled with plenty to do. Since the games contain a form of teleportation, players who do not want to travel the long, across-land route between points, can often teleport from place to place (assuming they complete various challenges).Which leads me to my other favorite aspect of the game…the puzzles.

Puzzle Solving

Both games contain many puzzles and riddles. Some simple, some complex. Many of the trickier puzzles do not require a single solution. Players can experiment until they find a solutions that works. Accomplishing puzzles often reward the player. A few puzzles have really stumped me, only to realize I had a skill or item I forgot about, or didn’t know I could use in a unique way. Just like all the other quests, players can mark the trickier puzzles to attempt at a later time.

As a writer, I am fascinated by how the story is delivered by these games. Previous Zelda games advanced the plot in a linear way. Barriers prevented players from exploring areas until they acquire a specific tool or ability. How do you tell a story in an open world where major plot points can be encountered randomly? Some story elements involve how the Big Evil impacts a side character’s life, or after a quest is completed, how thankful they are to the hero relieving such burdens. Other, more key points reward players with what is essentially a flashback sequence. After obtaining enough of these flashbacks (which can be replayed after unlocking), players have a clear enough picture of the backstory and what they may be up against for the final showdown.

Where to Go From Here?

With two fantastic games to explore and enjoy, I wonder where Nintendo will go from here. Already, they took BotW and raised the bar with TotK by adding the game elements of crafting and group battles. For this latter addition, would the Zelda franchise move into some form of multiplayer version? How would that even work? Would Link, the character players control in all versions of the game, become an NPC and players become his sidekicks? Would players be allowed to play on the side of the monsters?

Whatever Nintendo plans for their next Zelda game, I would love for their other games to provide similar open-world versions. After the Super Mario Movie (which was much better than I anticipated), and with their other Super Mario World games, I can imagine playing Mario exploring a much larger open world environment, especially for a Super Mario RPG. What about reviving Kid Icarus in an immersive mythological world? My top pick for such an game upgrade would be an immersive alien world of Metroid.

Further Exploration

For further understanding of immersive video game world building, I encourage you to watch the following videos:
This <a href=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30jGWna4-Ns” target=”_blank”>video</a>, talks about how BotW was designed and evolved.
And this <a href=”https://youtu.be/0-PMmMjoCkQ” target=”_blank”>video</a>, which is more about Skyrim (a completely different open world game), is designed to motivate players to travel from place to place, and everywhere they go, the game organically feels like they were meant to be there. Similar methods are used in both Zelda games.

The post For the Love of Zelda appeared first on PegamooseG's Blog.