In critical game studies of Computer games design we were introduced to an ancient board game called ‘The Royal Game of Ur. After playing the game and getting to know the rules of it, we were set a task to iterate the game rules.
The ‘Royal Game of Ur’ board consists of twenty squares in a rectangular shape. The right side consists of 2 x 3 squares, and the left consisting of 4 x 3 squares both sides are connected by a row of two squares. Sir Leonard Woolley excavated the Royal Game of Ur between 1926 and 1930. According to Andrea Becker ( Becker, 1990:p11) the game is thought to be dated from 3000B.C
Figure 1
Though the exact rules are still unknown, nonetheless analysis has produced these rules:
- Each player has 7 counters
- Four sided dice or a ‘stick’ numbered 1-4 where used
- Rosetta spaces have a significant meaning, which affect the player
- The aim of the game is to get all the pieces on and off the board.
R.C. Bell suggested these game rules players must first agree to the sum of the pool. (This suggests that the royal game of Ur was suitable for both adults and children). To decide who goes first, what colour will correspond to which player and which side they want to play on (Bell, 1979:p24-25). A player would throw a single die (a D4) and the other player would have to guess if the die would land on a tipped or un-tipped corner. Both teams start where it says enter (see above diagram) and the starting player would throw the dice. The next move is dependent upon these rules:
Three tipped corners up … move 5 and another throw
Three plain corners up … move 4 and another throw
Two plain corners up … move 0 and the turn finishes
One plan corner up … move 1 and another throw
Throwing a 5 is the only way to get on the board, if a player lands on a rosette space they will have to add to the pool. The feeling of competitiveness occurs when both player enter the single row. If a black counter was in the middle and the other player had thrown a number that meant it would land on top of the black, the white would be sent off and they would have to start again with a throw of 5. The players are not restricted to the number of counter on the board, but are only allowed one counter on a single space. An exact number is needed to be able to remove a piece off the board.
Bell’s rules on how to play the game it the general idea of what historians would agree on how it would have been played (Bell, 1979:p24-25). Only changing minor rules like how many die is used or what the meanings of the rosette squares represent.
Through time however, the board underwent a change in layout. Still with twenty squares, the single two squares row was replaced with long a single row of eight squares, with the rosettes still in place. This modification not only changed the aesthetics of the game but it also gave the game a more competitive nature to it, through adding a skill attribute. “…the new format would suggest a change in play, in that the pieces would remain ‘at war’ all the way to the end of the track” (Finkel 1990:p18)
Figure 2
Finkel stated that this change may have occurred in the second or first millennia B.C (Finkel 1990:p18). The change in the board does not affect the way it is played, or what ‘game bits’ (Braithewate and Schriebier 2008:p14) are needed; it simply improved the dynamics of the game. The new format made the game more tense and somewhat more of a serious game; increasing the row of squares the players can battle each other to the very end (see Figure 2). Leblanc (2006) states with the change in the dynamics ‘We can only create the circumstances from which drama will emerge’ (Leblanc.2006: p440)
Bell (1979 p 23) also stated that the number of counters on the board at one time is unlimited. Before the change of the board, one would assume it would be safe to put at least four counters on at the same time, as the probability of having a counter sent off is low. The new format of the board requires players to think more carefully about how many counters they are willing to put on the board. Battling each other for the majority of the game creates constant tension and drama through the uncertainty of losing a counter. If a player chooses to load 4 counters on the board, the risk of getting three sent off would be higher then having two counters on the board.
For our iteration of the game, we used the second form of the board. The rules were the same as Bell’s (1979 p23), but this time, pieces can double up and move together, the rosettes mean you get another go and you cannot be knocked off.
After playing the game I discovered some problems, initially I thought that the game was too long and got quite boring. Instead of taking away the amount of counters used, I replaced one of the rosette squares and changed it to a heaven square. If you landed on a heaven square the counter that landed on it would instantly cross the board, but that would also mean that the player would miss a go. The addition of the heaven square made the game more interesting as both players wanted to land on it. Though I said that I wanted the game to speed up, I included a miss a go turn because I wanted an ‘illusion’ technique to be included in the game which Leblanc states ‘…manipulate a player’s perspective in a game’ (Leblanc. 2006:p440)
With the addition of the heaven square it meant the possibility of increasing the number of counters on the other side of the board much faster. This made players more hopeful of winning, but with the miss a go effect after it, it lessened the chances of getting another piece off or on the board.
Now that I had introduced an illusion factor, I still had the problem of how to make the game run faster. To solve this, I replaced the second furthest rosette square with a chance square. With this iteration, if you land on it, the players would have to play rock, paper, scissors, if the player who landed on the chance square won and they had a counter anywhere behind them, that counter could double up with the one on the chance square, as well as that, that player would get 3 extra goes. However if that player loses the rock, paper, scissors round, the only benefit is that, if they had a counter behind them, they could double up. This iteration defiantly made the game run faster. Adding the rock, paper, scissors to the iteration still made the square have an uncertainty element. The appeal of doubling up as well as getting three extra goes makes the player more interested in the game as they would feel like they have gained the most out of landing on that square. Consequently if they lose the rock, paper, scissors the feeling of not being able to obtain the maximum usage of the square would affect them, thus making the player have emotion in the game.
My final interaction had nothing to do with changing anything on the board, since I thought that the amount of squares was just right, and changing anymore squares would make the board look too crowded. I introduced a ‘Fog of War’ tactic; I made it essential that the players need to hide how many counters have been though the board and have yet to go on. Unless each player keeps count on the other player, the uncertainty of how far along each player is in the game keeps the tension up throughout the game.
Playing with all three of my iterations The Royal Game of Ur became much more interesting, before it was long winded, and I felt that the rosette squares had of nothing of importance. With the changes made, I have achieved player game interaction, though not a major interaction, but enough to get the players to have emotions towards the game. The chance square made the most difference, as it removed my initial problem of the game being too long winded. Before I iterated the game I thought that the game was too straight forward, with no element of surprise. The majority of my iteration ideas came from Marc Leblanc’s (2006) article on how to create dramatic tension, because of his ideas, my iterated version of Ur now has extra features which draws the player’s attention to the game for longer and in my opinion has made the game more entertaining.
Before I played the game I thought that The Royal game of Ur in its original board form had its problems, where the competiveness was almost non-existent and it didn’t have any elements of modern fun. ‘The royal game of Ur served as the play station of its day’ ( Green/ London 2008) When reading from the summer journey (2008), Finkel’s quote about the game of Ur being the Playstation of its day changed my view on the game. I believe that the modern games have made us lazy in the way that we do not appreciate the minor details anymore. I noticed that every Ur board game excavated had different designs and detail on the, as we’ll as different counters. In conclusions I believe that the Royal Game of Ur would have been a fantastic game to play in the millennia B.C, as the aesthetics of the boards and the rules were simple and fun enough for all to play, but compared to modern board games, iterations to the game is greatly needed to match the attributes of a ‘fun’ modern board game.
Bibliography:
Beaker A. (1990) Ancient board games in perspective in Finkel, ed.1990
Bell, R. C. Board and Table Games from Many Civilizations. Revised edition. (1979)
Challenges for games designers, Braitewaite and Schriber, Charles River Media 2008
Finkel I, Ancient Board Games in Perspective in Finkel (1990)
Green, W. "Big Game Hunter". Time Magazine. (2008)
Leblanc M.The game Designer Reader, in Zimmerman and Salan MIT Press 2006
No comments:
Post a Comment