h a l f b a k e r yA dish best served not.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
The game Snakes & Ladders is not really a game at all, as there are no choices or decisions to make. Just throw the dice and move. With one simple rule change the game can be transformed in to a real strategy game.
On every roll of the dice the player decides which direction to move, either forwards
or backwards. On the surface this looks like a no-brainer, as you would always move to the nearest ladder. But what if that ladder took you to a level that was nothing but snakes? You might be better to sacrifice some height to avoid a risky part of the board. This is the kind of oportunity-cost decision making that one small rule change brings to a boring game.
[link]
|
| |
It's been a long time since I played it, but isn't ludo a bit like that? (No it's not) |
|
| |
Looking at ludo, it occurs to me that the other way you could introduce choice would be to have a series of pieces to navigate to safety, the player having the freedom to decide which one to apply a particular die roll to. |
|
| |
- or give the players a set of pre-rolled dice (or a list of random numbers) and the players can decide which number they use on any given turn (but can only use a given number once). This would turn it into a 'perfect knowledge' game (each player knows all the possibilities and also knows everything their opponent knows) like Chess. |
|
| |
You could play the game the normal way but give each person a set of special powers (e.g. "Go Only HalfWay Down Chute" or "Roll Again") but you can only use each power once. |
|
| |
The game would then be mostly luck with a bit of fun judgment added. |
|
| |
one player could try to move around the board and the other player could move the snakes and ladders. |
|
| |
- or both players could move the same counter - each trying to get to opposite ends of the board. |
|
| |