Valerie Putman: Game solved
Let’s start with my working definition.
Solved (as related to boardgaming): the conclusion that a game with multiple paths to victory has only one optimal strategy. Once identified, this strategy prescribes choices and decisions to such a degree that game play becomes uninteresting.
First of all, are games ever really solved? Which games have been solved? I remember sitting down to a game of Puerto Rico a few months ago, after not having played the game in over a year. As we worked through the initial turn sequence I said out loud, “I can’t remember what I’m supposed to do first.� People laughed, but nobody questioned what I meant by it. I’ve also heard people describe St. Petersburg as solved and I can’t say I disagree. Watching a tournament I found that I could predict what each player would do with eerie accuracy. When someone didn’t play as expected, the player to his left often won.
Is it a bad thing for a game to be solved (or perceived as solved)? I must say that I truly enjoy the process of trying to figure out the solution. But I don’t understand players who wait for someone else to solve a game and then read the strategy guides online. Is winning the only point for those gamers? I got tired of Magic: the Gathering because I found that people with more time and more money than me figured out all of the best card combos and by the time I felt like I had crafted a clever deck, it had already been “done� before—and the “anti-strategy� deck to beat it was already worked out with a card list available online. For that reason I most enjoyed Magic prerelease and sealed tournaments. Likewise, I love figuring out new boardgames. I like to consider every possible strategy I can think of and then try each one. I’ll mentally replay games that I lost to figure out if the strategy failed or if I failed to execute the strategy well.
But as soon as my fellow players start commenting that I haven’t made the “right� play—my interest in a game plummets. So I enjoy solving a game, but I don’t enjoy playing games that my opponents perceive as solved. Just the other evening a Caylus opponent commented that he was “surprised� by a move someone made and my heart sank. It looked like a reasonable play to me. But I guess there is an article on the geek somewhere that explains in excruciating detail the fruitlessness of that particular choice. I do love when someone plays a “solved� game innovatively and wins the game, but not all game groups will tolerate someone who thinks outside the box. When creative choices don’t win, the player may be accused of ruining the game or playing kingmaker.
So can a game be solved? If so, let me at it! But please don’t spoil my fun if you’ve solved it first. Just beat me mercilessly until I figure it out on my own, thank you.
Next on the gaming itinerary
I’ve been in Chattanooga with my hubby this weekend for a few days of gaming with the Gulf Gamers. Next weekend starts my spring break and I have gaming planned for every day of vacation. I’ll tell you all about it in another Prose on Cons article next week.
I’d rather be gaming,
Valerie Putman
Posted by Valerie Putman on Mar 5, 2006 at 03:00 AM in Columnists, Valerie Putman / 1729
Comments:
To comment, you must register with BGN. Registration is free, but donations are greatly appreciated!|
I think one has to be careful to jump the gun and declare a game where suboptimal play occurs to be a solved game. A player in Settlers could put a starting settlement in a less-opportune spot, but that doesn’t mean the game is solved. There is some freedom to each player to decide which spots are “best”. Most of the time, there are several likely spots, and rarely one is far and away the best. In many multiplayer games (greater than 2), there is a definite danger of any suboptimal play benefitting the next player to take a turn. Does this mean the game is “solved”? I beg to differ. For example, in Risk, a player can overextend themselves and thus become a target for the next player, but that doesn’t mean the game is solved. I totally agree that in a game with experienced players, others should keep their comments to themselves unless they’re of the diplomatic/sway the opinion of the table sort of meta-game comments. A final comment: while many consider the game Puerto Rico “solved”, I just don’t see it <yet>. It seems to me that the early game is fairly rigid in optimal moves, but as the game progresses it can get quite diverse. I suspect that only in groups that are fairly insular does the game become “solved”. Each gaming group may tend towards a particular path of play, but if 2 or 3 players actively choose a different path (building vs shipping, etc..), the game dynamics can quickly change… That said, I have to admit I haven’t played it to death in live settings, just read many articles online and played in several different group settings. Posted by Matt J. Carlson on Mar 5, 2006 at 01:29 PM | #
|
|
interesting Posted by Joe Steadman on Mar 6, 2006 at 10:56 PM | #
|
|
A good article that echoes many of my own sentiments. I love taking an underdog strategy and trying to figure out a way to make it work. I don’t like being taught strategy while being taught games. Who cares if I’m at a disadvantage? The discovery of dark horse strategy (even if it means a big loss in the first game) is what makes gaming fun. On the whole “solved” and “optimal strategy” issue, I think we need to keep separate the idea of solving a game strategically and solving a game tactically—and only if we do both should we label a game solved. I find most of todays games show their optimal long term strategy in the first couple plays (there is too little hidden information and two few turns not to), and all that is left to enjoy is the subtle variation in tactical play that results from the interaction with other players (notice how the slightest bit of randomness makes each game tactically different). I admit that I have grown fond of games with hidden information though (despite the Rock-Paper-Scissor or ‘luck’ elements they become subtler in their hunt for the optimal game long strategy). Posted by Ray Petersen on Mar 7, 2006 at 10:29 AM | #
|
Next entry: Andrea "Liga" Ligabue: Fredericus - Gripped Variant
Previous entry: Gone Cardboard News: Silk Road - More Information plus Rules
