Simultaneous Action Selection = Randomness
There are many games with a mechanic such that all players choose an action in secret at the same time, then reveal them and resolve. This is better known as "Simultaneous Action Selection" or SAS. It is used in games as diverse as 6 Nimmt!, Caribbean, Fairy Tale, A Game of Thrones, Himalaya, Hoity Toity, Niagara, Nobody But Us Chickens, Piranha Pedro, Pirate's Cove, RoboRally, and Wallenstein.It is my contention that SAS is simply another form of Randomness, not too dissimilar from rolling dice or drawing cards.
When players make choices, they are making intelligent choices, not random ones.
True. But given a finite set of choices, there are usually a small number that are directly beneficial. Given that, the choices are somewhat predictable. This means that you should not always be predictable. A certain amount of reverse psychology and reverse-reverse psychology ensues.
The best play for me is A, but everyone knows that, so I'll take B. But everyone knows I'll probably take B, so I'll really take A. What if they think that as well? Maybe I should take C just to through everyone off.
With multiple choices and multiple players, the final choices basically become unpredictable. Although they are being made intelligently, they are statistically random.
Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. Some games mitigate SAS very well. Wallenstein, for example, handles it by giving each player the same set of chocies. You put them in a certain order. Each player will always do (or have the option to do) all the choices. So it's less about what actions you ar choosing, and more about when they occur and how much money wil be available to carry them out.
In most games, however, SAS significantly lowers how seriously I take a game. Most of my list above shows the typical SAS game to be relatively light. This is where I think SAS belongs for the most part.
What heavy games have SAS? How is the "randomness" of SAS mitigated? Are there any really clever or novelle SAS mechanics?
posted by ekted @ 1:07 PM
14 comments
14 Comments:
Do you consider blind-bidding random as well?
Good point. I suppose that qualifies as SAS. The mitigating factors there are potentially: limited resources up for auction and limited money. The only blind auction games I've played are Modern Art (some auctions) and Ys (semi-blind).
Simultaneous action selection is the essence of game theory. Using a mixed strategy (randomly selecting from your choices according to a probability distribution) is optimal for many intresting games.
It is possible to create two-player turn-based games that effectively introduce simultaneous action selection, assuming the players have similar computational power. (If they don't, it might not be much of a game.) This basically entails both players encrypting their choices and then alternating revealing bits of the choices so that their intent cannot be guessed until all but the last few bits are revealed. Players can't change their intent in the last few bits because they can't find a move with a similar prefix ... finding any move at all will be harder than guessing the ending bits, and the move probably won't be a good one. This is just the situation where you can tell that your opponent has a plan but you can't figure out what it is.
With more than two players, another player might be given an choice where each option is equally valid but one favours you and the other doesn't.
That said, simultaneously selecting the same choice as another player, repeatedly and with disasterous consequences, is annoying.
mlvanbie
And a good encryption system makes the plaintext virtually 100% random bits, cribs notwithstanding.
SAS and blind-bidding are elements that a lot of gamers equate with "psychology" or "bluffing". The kingdaddy of them all, Adel Verpflichtet, is SAS in almost pure form. I'm not much of a fan, because so much goes on based on a dearth of information. This creates a huge amount of chaos particularly with a lot of players.
Now, one of the interesting ones is Kramer & Kielsing's Maharaja. It's SAS, no doubt, but the spark in the game is getting things done in spite of the chaos via long-range contingency planning. I enjoy Maharaja because the SAS can be used tactically and strategically at the same time, while most of the other games in this category are purely tactical.
SAS is sometimes used in wargames, and very effectively. Examples: Ace of Aces, Wooden Ships & Iron Men, Diplomacy, and Richtofen's War (if I recall correctly). These, especially the last three, are not necessarily "light" games. However, your point about randomness does apply, since both players (or multiple players in some instances) usually have many options to choose from. If you know your opponent and how he plays the game, you can make intelligent guesses about his likely choice of move, but, again, the reverse-psychology approach plays a role. A player may make what would normally be a bad choice, because his opponent knows it is a bad choice, and that move might give the first player a real advantage several moves later -- or not.
If you limit the question to Euro-games, I can add For Sale as an example, and it fits with your premise of "light" games, as a blind-bidding game. I do not typically do well in blind-bidding games, but used to be able to hold my own in the above wargames.
Many games using SAS will start off random, but evolve into something more predictable. Adel Verpflichhtet for example; if you know the red player's thieves are in jail when you visit the castle then playing detective is out for you.
I think it is this evolution from total randomness to deductive, cognitive and logical elements that makes some of these games stand out.
What do you consider heavy? How about Amun-Re, Game of Thrones, or Diplomacy? Though I'd say Wallenstein is at least as heavy as any of these. I'd also say Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation and Dungeon Twister count as medium-weight two-player games.
I think I agree with your premise here, that SAS is similar to randomness. I don't know if I agree that it means you'd do just as well choosing randomly as making some intelligent choice.
When I first played Wallenstein (recently on SpielByWeb), I thought it was somewhat silly compared to the 'great' game I had heard about, as not only do you not know what order all the actions will come up in, but you also don't know the turn order each round, nor which effect from the event cards will occur.
The only thing that did not bother me about the game was SAS... though that just adds to the chaos.
After playing Wally a bit more (like 3 or 4 games now), I've begun to appreciate it a bit more, that is to say I enjoy it. However I don't think it's any less chaotic or any heavier than my first assessment. I think I just realized that the game is inherantly a lighter game. It's not Caylus, it's Wallenstein.
I might like to try my hand at designing a game with some of the elements I like from Wallenstein - in particular the balance between all the territories: High Gold or High Grain or lots of cities...
Hey. Neat thread. I responded in a geeklist:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/13395
-thi
hibikir,
You have made the best point yet. Games in which all choices have equal value for all players are "more random" in my sense of the concept. In games with valuable choices, less valuable choices, and no-value choices, at least there's something to base your decisions on. Still though, since an opponent can choose anything, even if it is a stupid move, you have no basis to predict. Maybe there's mathematical (game theory) methods to find the best choice, but people don't play that way.
I omitted Diplomacy because I believe the primary mechanic is negotiation, not SAS. But I still think that the SAS in Diplomacy equates to randomness insofar as the unpredictability of the opponents is concerned. You can make a list of the most likely outcomes, the slightly less likely outcomes, etc., and still fail to do well through no fault of your own. This is no different from shuffling a deck of cards.
Using the Minimax theorem can give you an edge in the long run. Short run, SAS makes the game very random, as you correctly point out. If there are many successive SAS in the game and not too much hidden information, Minimax theorem analysis should be used.
Olivier
Steve, now you are crossing into the realm of what I call chaos. SAS is when you have to choose before knowing what others do. Chaos is when you have to choose not knowing what they are going to do (I use the term only in extreme cases where too much of the game situation can change before you get to go again). In both cases, the possibilities are known. But with SAS, you have to make your choices based onwhat think they will do. In Chaos, you make your choices partly based on what they have done. It is a fine point.
Post a Comment
<< Home