The Royal Game of Ur
Introduction to the Royal Game of Ur
Found by Leonard Woolley, the original
board of the Royal Game of Ur consisted of 2 square sections
connected by a single line of 2 squares, the squares being 3 x 3 and
3 x 2 in size, and was dated back to around 3000BC.
The objective is
to get your pieces onto the board and move them to the end square
(Movement shown in the diagram). Depending on the version, there
would be 5 or 7 pieces on each team. The players would throw 4
tetrahedral dice, with each dice being marked on 2 of its corners.
Players would then move a counter equal to the amount of face up
marked corners. Friendly pieces could not be on the same square, and
if a piece moved onto an enemy’s piece, the enemy’s piece would
be removed off the board and would have to re-enter from the start.
Landing on certain squares would make you safe from capture and would
grant additional rolls (Known as rosette squares). Also, the first
four squares upon entry are also safe, as only one player has access
to each particular side of the board. The Egyptians played a similar
version of the game, but with a different board (see image 2). The
safe squares remained in the same places, but the larger square is
straightened out, allowing more chances for pieces to be taken
(R.C.Bell, Board and Table Games, p23 – 25).
Gameplay
To get a feel of the game before we
iterated it, we played through the game several times (We played the
Egyptian version with 7 pieces each). After 2 hours of playing, we
noted several things about the gameplay.
Firstly, there was a lack of choice,
with the most common difficult choice in the game being whether to
take an enemy’s piece or land on a rosette square and get another
roll, hoping to get either another 4 or a roll that could capture an
enemy’s piece.
Secondly, the game generally rewards
players who are lucky. When a 4 is rolled, the player can usually
either get a piece onto the board straight onto a rosette square,
granting another go and an increased chance of capturing an enemy’s
piece. This is an example of a positive feedback loop, albeit a very
small one. A positive feedback loop rewards players who are doing the
best. In this case, it rewards the player with the most helpful roll,
and will more likely move them closer to winning the game. This also
helped you in getting past the “choke zone”.
Thirdly, the more pieces you got to the
end of the board, the harder it is to get the rest of them off, as
the other player will have more chances to capture them. The opposite
of a positive feedback loop, a negative feedback loop is used to
hinder players who are winning, or help players who are losing, in
this case, making it harder for the winning player to get their
remaining pieces off the board. While overuse of a negative feedback
loop usually makes a game very long, in this game, the loop is quite
well balanced. The “losing” player (The player with more pieces
remaining) still has a good chance of catching up to the “winning”
player by having more chances to capture their pieces, while the
“winning” player still has more chance of winning in the long run
because they will eventually roll a set of results that will get
their remaining pieces past the “choke zone” (see Appendix 1 for
link and details).
Speaking of that, the “choke zone”
refers to the first four squares on the board where pieces can be
taken (see image). As, on average, you would roll a 2 or a 3, your
pieces are almost guaranteed to end up in the marked area. Not only
did this make it easy for your opponent to capture your pieces, it
then made it easy to capture your opponent’s piece right back
again. The only easy way to escape was either to jump from rosette
square to rosette squares, or get lucky with the rolls.
To conclude my first experiences with
the game, while I’m not a huge fan of games that base their
mechanics on luck, I did find myself enjoying the game immensely for
a reason that can be summed up in one word. Schadenfreude, which is
the German word for “to gloat over the misfortune of a rival”
(Nicole Lazzaro, Why We Play Games, pg 6). There is nothing more
satisfying that rolling 3 4’s in a row, getting 2 pieces off the
board to safety and capturing an enemy’s piece in the process.
Admittedly, this occurrence didn’t happen very often, but there
were still several moments when you couldn’t help but feel a twinge
of savage glee as you took your opponents piece that was one space
away from safety.
Iterating the Royal Game of Ur
To start the iteration process, we
first had to choose the mechanics we wanted to focus on and tweak.
While I’m not a fan of luck based games, we decided to leave this
mechanic alone, as it was the luck mechanic that provided most of the
emotion to the game. However, we played one game where my opponent
only had 1 piece left and I had 4, and I went on to win by getting
almost perfect rolls. Because of this, we wanted to add more skill to
the game, or at least add more choices. (See Appendix 2 Paragraph –
The Downside to Luck).
1st iteration: Bearing in
mind that we thought the main mechanics were balanced enough to not
require any massive changes, for our first iteration, we decided to
remove the rule that didn’t allow friendly pieces to occupy the
same square. Also, when two pieces occupy the same square, the two
pieces become linked and have to move together. If a player gets the
pieces to the end, then they both exit the board. If an enemy piece
lands on the set of counters, then they both get removed off the
board.
The idea behind this iteration was to
introduce a higher risk/reward mechanic. In theory, this adds more
choices for the player to make, increasing the skill factor of the
game, as well as making the game more Narrative, which describes the
drama aesthetic of the game. This means the game should have more
tense moments and increase the excitement (Robin Hunicke, MDA: A
formal approach to game design, pg 2).
Results: After playing with the new
iteration a few times, we concluded that the game, while it still
relied on luck, was slightly more strategic and provided several very
tense moments. It also meant holding onto the rosette squares was
even more important, as you could safely hold 2 pieces on them until
they are safe to move. However, if a 2 pieces movement was misjudged,
it could easily result in losing both your pieces back to the start.
2nd iteration: For the
second iteration, we decided to add a new mechanic, rather than tweak
an old one. As the previous iteration added a more skill-based
mechanic, and we wanted to keep the original balance of skill and
luck, we added in the mechanic of trap squares. Trap squares are
located every 2 squares after a rosette square, with the exception of
the first 4 squares (Locations in image below).
When a piece lands on a trap square,
the player must draw a trap card and obey the effect written on the
card. The majority of the effects are negative, like moving pieces
back, but there are several good effects as well. If a trap effect
causes a piece to land on another trap square, then another trap card
is drawn. If a trap effect causes a piece to land on a rosette
square, you do not get another roll, but the piece is safe on the
square.
The idea behind this iteration was to
add a mechanic similar to the rosette squares, but would be more
likely to hinder the player rather than help them. It also adds to
the Challenge aesthetic of the game, as it adds a clear obstacle that
potentially hinders the player’s path to the end. (Robin Hunicke,
MDA: A formal approach to game design, pg 2).
Results: After a couple of playtests,
we came to the following conclusion. Landing on a trap square is
usually intentional, unless another trap square moved you onto one.
The act of landing on a trap square is less luck based whereas the
effect of the trap is completely luck based. While the effect will
more often be bad than good, when the effect is good, it can really
pay off, hence this adds to both the Narrative and the Challenge
aesthetics, as well as the Sensation aesthetic (The sensation
aesthetic describing the pleasure of the game). However, for the
majority of the time, the game was slowed down even further, and
didn’t have as much of an impact as originally thought.
Conclusion
The Royal Game of
Ur was a lot harder to iterate than it originally seemed, mostly due
to the game being well balanced to begin with. While the gameplay
revolves around luck, there is still enough skill based gameplay to
provide a good game filled with moments that will make you grin with
satisfaction and other moments that will make you pull your hair out.
Appendix
Appendix 3: Nicole Lazzaro, Why we play
games: Four keys to more emotion without story, March 8, 2004.
Appendix 4: Robin Hunicke, Marc
LeBlanc, Robert Zubek, MDA: A formal approach to games design and
game research, 2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment