Home ยป Forum ยป Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

Engineering a Board 'Game'

awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

This is somewhat tangential to a story idea that warped into my head just I was about to fall asleep.

Take a board, same sort of size as a checkerboard but without the squares (apologies for my condescension to the colonials).

Take a set of pieces, same sort of size and shape as checkers, but with designs printed on the top for identification.

The first action of the 'game' is for the first participant to blindly randomise the positions of the pieces on the board.

I thought of enclosing the board in an opaque, tight-fitting case with no room for the pieces to flip over, then have the participant give the closed case a violent shake. But that would undoubtably produced a biased outcome depending on how the case was shaken. Vibration - ditto. Swinging - ditto (the pieces would likely end up at the edges of the board, resting against the sides of the case).

ETA: Muse says there is no reason for the pieces not to have vertical symmetry. So they could be allowed to flip over provided they land flat, rather than cocked.

It's crucial to the story that a physical board and pieces are used, rather than an e-version with a randomisation algorithm.

Any smart girls here? ;-)

AJ

Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

Take a board, same sort of size as a checkerboard (apologies for my condescension to the colonials).

Take a set of pieces, same sort of size and shape as checkers, but with designs printed on the top for identification.

Congratulations, you've "invented" chess. :)

whisperclaw ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

Put a device on top that "swirls" the pieces around the board using magnetism. Action would be similar to the randomization of shuffling dominos around on a table.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@whisperclaw

I asked my muse about that. She reckons the result would not be truly random and violates the principal that it must be powered by the participant. So if the lack of randomness could be addressed, some sort of hand crank might be okay.

AJ

REP ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

Define the order of the positions on the board that the pieces will be placed (e.g. start at bottom left and move left to right and bottom to top).

Place the pieces in a cloth bag and shake the bag. Withdraw each piece, one at a time, and place it on the next open position in the sequence.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@REP

There is no such concept in the 'game' unless co-ordinates on the board are specified by the millimetre, say.

AJ

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

There is no such concept in the 'game' unless co-ordinates on the board are specified by the millimetre, say.

You defined a grid board like for chess or checkers, so simple row/column numbers ought to suffice.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

You defined a grid board like for chess or checkers

Thanks for that observation.

Actually I said about the same sort of size and shape. I meant to say without the squares but it slipped my mind while I was typing.

I have corrected that omission in my original post.

AJ

Replies:   joyR
joyR ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

I meant to say without the squares but it slipped my mind while I was typing.

If your board is blank, having no squares, how will you define a move by any piece?

You didn't suggest that the squares would be replaced by another shape.

Maybe you should adjust the meds your muse is taking?

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@joyR

If your board is blank, having no squares, how will you define a move by any piece?

I've been trying, and failing miserably apparently, to omit the complexities of the 'game' and focus on my science/engineering problem. Suffice it to say, when my muse stuck the story idea in my half-braincell, I was intrigued as to how/whether it might be made to work.

AJ

Pixy ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

Why over-complicate it? Why not simply allow one player to place the pieces and the other to choose which side to play, this would mean any player that tries to 'rig' the game in favour of one side over the other, runs the risk of their opponent choosing that side.

The main reason board games like chess/droughts/ dominoes and the like are so successful, is their ease of transport and ability to be played on any flat surface in most weathers. Any mechanical means for randomisation adds in an unwanted variable of mechanical breakdown and depending on the severity of aforementioned mechanical fault, the risk of making the game unplayable.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Pixy

I apologise, I haven't explained it at all well. I really envy good teachers and their ability to explain complex problems in simple language.

Some process of randomisation is absolutely crucial; the 'game' concept is impossible without it. And my muse indicates that mechanical forms of randomisation are likely as forbidden as computer forms.

So IMO, it really is an engineering problem. What can be done to the board and pieces to get pieces in random locations?

And I do mean random. If Maxwell's demon decides to stick all the pieces in one corner, that's fine. But if they got there by the participant sharply jerking the board away from that corner, that isn't fine.

AJ

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

So IMO, it really is an engineering problem. What can be done to the board and pieces to get pieces in random locations?

And I do mean random. If Maxwell's demon decides to stick all the pieces in one corner, that's fine. But if they got there by the participant sharply jerking the board away from that corner, that isn't fine.

Do the locations have to be truly random?

To riff on Rep's idea. Put the pieces in a cloth bag, shake them up.

Player 1 selects a location on the board.
Player 2 draws one piece from the bag and places it at the selected location.

Repeat until all the pieces are on the board.

Player 1 can't get an advantage out of the location selection because he doesn't know which piece will be placed there until they are down to the last piece.

Player 2 can't get an advantage because he is selecting the pieces blind.

Replies:   awnlee jawking  Keet
awnlee jawking ๐Ÿšซ

@Dominions Son

Do the locations have to be truly random?

Yes. And the randomisation must be performed by the participant, not by multiple participants.

AJ

Keet ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@Dominions Son

To riff on Rep's idea. Put the pieces in a cloth bag, shake them up.

Player 1 selects a location on the board.
Player 2 draws one piece from the bag and places it at the selected location.

Just emptying the bag over the board is much easier. It's a more random version of shaking an enclosed board. Maybe instead of a bag create a box with holes like a shower head, closed while shaking , and then removing a lid on the bottom to have the pieces fall more spread out because the bag could cause many pieces to gather in a single heap.

richardshagrin ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

For a lot more information on board games, see Boardgamegeek. Many of them use hexes rather than squares.

"BoardGameGeek is an online forum for board gaming hobbyists and a game database that holds reviews, images and videos for over 125,600 different tabletop games, including European-style board games, wargames, and card games. Wikipedia
Founded: 2000
Founders: Scott Alden, Derk Solko"

Remus2 ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

Alternating magnetic fields should work.

Mike-Kaye ๐Ÿšซ

@awnlee jawking

As someone who knows how to make good random numbers with computers it's hard to think about this problem. So I put on my hard thinking cap.

Assumption 1: You don't see the board as having squares or exact defined positions.
Assumption 2: You want non-overlapping piece placement.

Define some exact positions anyway. 20 positions high and 20 positions wide give 400 home positions. These positions would allow 400 non-overlapping pieces. (Or 10x10 if that floats your boat.) But you must have far fewer pieces than positions.

In a bag you have 400 position tiles. Draw one at a time. Roll a die subtract 1 then and flip a coin. The coin says up/down and then microstep away from the position based on die-1. Do that again for left/right. Take a piece out of a bag. If an overlap occurs draw another location tile and start over.

This would work but would be time consuming.

Even easier, but less random โ€“ blindfold a player who places pieces pulled from a bag.

madnige ๐Ÿšซ
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

Assuming your pieces are single sided, print the same design on both sides (so they can be either way up)

Assuming not all squares are to be covered by pieces, include blank pieces so all squares will be covered

Have the board as a tray with sides nearly the same height as pieces are thick

Shake all pieces together in a bag/box/tin, then pour then into the tray

Gently shake the tray, including raising one corner so all pieces register to the opposite corner or slide off the tray if they were stacked on others

Collect the pieces that fall off, and shake these again, then pour into the empty area

Repeat the last two actions until there is only one piece not placed

Put last piece in remaining hole.

The last few rounds of this could be sped up by arranging the tilt to be uneven in the two directions so there is preferentially just a single row vacant in the latter stages, then pouring the remaining pieces out in a line adjacent and transferring them across

The tray could be made double sized (10*20) with a transparent cover over one half (with enough height/gap for just one piece to slide in) and higher walls on the other half, then pour once and shake until all pieces have migrated under the cover

The oversize tray extension could be made into the tin/box by extending the side height and adding a cover; tip the board one way to slide the pieces into the box, shake, tip the other way and shake until all pieces have fallen into the board (which is still the 1-high, covered tray)

If the tray extension is the same size as the board, and somewhat higher than a piece on edge (to enhance the randomisation shaking), it could be hinged at the junction to allow it to be folded under as a kind of plinth during play leaving a single board sized, unobstructed playing surface. The problem of sealing the transfer slot whilst not transferring pieces to the board is left as an exercise for the astute reader (I've thought of a few)

The hinge area could be covered with a curved loading ramp to guide pieces into the board with the board and plinth at an angle (perpendicular?). This curved feature could be reproduced on the other edges of the board to provide a consistent look. The plinth/box would probably need a tapered funnel structure to feed pieces into the curved guide.

If the plinth height was increased, it could probably incorporate a full width taper with a nearly 180 degree loading ramp so the hinge could be eliminated, but this would probably look unbalanced and unwieldy.

Alternatively, have a single sized tray with a lid deep enough to form a box, shake vigorously to mix then gently to spread out, continuing the last until a single layer is formed.

Back to Top

Close
 

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...

Storiesonline is for adult entertainment only. By accessing this site you declare that you are of legal age and that you agree with our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.