efn

« Aquariums and interactivity | Main | Evil Dead 2 Get Together at the NuArt theatre »

September 15, 2005

On retrofitting Pachisi

Admittedly, when we were assigned to modify Pachisi, I thought it wouldn't be too difficult to improve on what I considered to be a rather dull, chance-based game. I've known for quite some time that I'm drawn to games which allow for a large degree of player choice, and which exhibit a particular mathematical elegance. Pachisi, to me, seemed more about random chance than anything else. Admittedly, the opportunity to form a strategy from the chance did arise occassionally, so maybe I was too hard on the game....

At any rate, retrofitting the game proved more challenging than I had expected. Game experiences are obviously multidimensional, and at least from my experience, narrative theme and mathematical elegence just don't seem to go hand in hand...

Cops and Robbers:
I think this was a really good example of a strong narrative theme without a good hold on mechanic. The idea of cops chasing robbers is classic, powerful, and lends itself well to the idea of Pachisi, wherin players "chase" each other's pieces around the board. However, the entirely chance-based nature of Pachisi undermined the attempted narrative, at least in my attempt to play this game. Basically, the robbers completed destroyed the cops because they rolled grace rolls too early. Only a single robber needs to escape, so the odds of all the cops actuall managing to land on the robbers seems very slim. In the version we played, all of the robbers managed to escape, without even using the additional fire mechanic. Honestly, I think this game would have turned out much better if we had time to play several versions of it, hoping that the chance factor would balance out.

Coattails:
Now here was a game that appealed to my sense of mathematical elegance and choice. This game was immediately engaging to me because it was a lot more dynamic than primary Pachisi. The ability to choose to switch lanes immediately gave me a way of escaping the fickle finger of fate and of messing with my opponents, since changing lanes directly affected the outcome of their dice rolls. Strategies also started showing up early, such as waiting in front of someone's start gate, then running them over after taking advantage of the bonus for them being there. Mathematically, however, I would have had the players start on the outside track, because the bonus of having all the players start there would have been offset by having to take a longer path. As it stood, this game was primary about everyone trying to rush their way around the faster inner track, so it still largely fell down to chance until someone had the guts to move into a full slower track.

Despite the great play mechanic, however, I didn't really feel like the game lived up to it's narrative premise. I agree with Tracy and the rest of the classes comments last Thursday, where they stated that the act of blowing past someone was exhilirating because you bowled them over and sent them back to start. This was like a reward for ceasing to ride on someone's Coattails. I would have named the game "Fast Track", or "Rush Hour", honestly, since with everyone crowding around the inner track it felt more like a racecar race than like the original premise.

Life Tropical:
Unfortunately, I didn't really have an opportunity to play this game, but I'd at least like to say that I thought it had a good premise with the idea of ecosystems and predators and prey. Predators and Prey lend themselves to chases around an environment - but I wonder if the delicate balance of a living ecosystem is adequately represented by the chance-oriented nature of Pachisi? I noticed that the movement restriction and bonus could act as a sort of dampening factor on the chance element, so I wonder how this game would have played out.

Pachisi of Verona:
So, since this was the game I presented, I probably don't need to comment on it directly, but I felt that this would be a good place to give a few designer's diary-esque notes.

It's interesting how the actual act of designing this game illustrated a major difference of life perspective between the members of our group. Doox had the (rather brilliant, if I may compliment him here) idea of subverting the competitive, warlike idea of the original Pachisi into a game where couples search for love. In fact, the blockade (which I recall giving him nightmares with the first time we played) was turned into a symbol of happiness. The Castles would be "love hotels" where people could roll the dice to see if the pair fell in love and could become a couple, or maybe if they'd break up.

I, of course, am kind of a contrarian, and can tend to be pretty cynical, so I tried subverting his subversion, and the main concept for Pachisi of Verona was born. Imagine a game of Romeo and Juliet where you play as Lord Montague and Lord Capulet. You'd be feuding with the other player, and would probably find it quite frustrating if your children fell in love with each other! At first, I brought up the idea as kind of a joke, but the more time I spent thinking it through, the more it felt to me like the game mapped pretty well to the chance based nature of Pachisi. I personally believe that love is a very chance based thing, but even if I'm wrong to think so, I imagine it must seem somewhat that way to a disapproving parent. The rather cynical nature of the premise also lent itself well to being a unique narrative, and it could be implemented with minimal changes to the original rules of Pachisi. If you were losing to your opponent, you might want your loser children to pair up with his winners, so that you could move your pieces faster, kind of like marrying upwards in social class. Mathematically, for a couple to reach the center of the board, one of the two tokens would not have made a full lap. In this case, either we could count it as a win for the opponent's piece, who made it into the center without completing a full lap (kind of like marrying upwards for money), or that piece could be stolen from that player for a bonus point. (Kind of like getting a great person to marry downward in social class)

We ended up going back and forth for quite some time on the topic, with Doox actually rather appalled at the idea of such a cynical game. Finally, we reached sort of a compromise wherin the couples would try to run away, much to the annoyance of both famlies. This also completed the narrative cycle of Romeo and Juliet. Unfortunately, it felt like it became too complicated to have the couples run away, and the mechanics kind of showed this, as Yuechuan pointed out. This might have been a little better on a computer, where the computer would have moved for the couples, instead. This way people wouldn't have to worry about managing them, since it was rather confusing.

Posted by efn at September 15, 2005 04:50 AM

Comments

Post a comment