Here's a pretty simple tweak for Scrabble rules that you can try the next time.

1. Basic scoring and playing rules stay the same.

2. Multiply the word score by the number of unique, unrelated meanings for every word you made in the round.

3. If you provide any incorrect meaning, same rules as making incorrect words apply.

If you make the word "DASH", you get however many points as per the rule book at the minimum and can double the score for saying "dash" is (1) a pinch of something mixed in like a dash of salt and (2) punctuation sign (-). If you can also say dash is (3) a sudden rush or movement like dashing to the conference room, you get triple the word score.

If you cannot say at least two completely different meanings, it's just regular scoring. So saying "set" is (1) to put something, like on a table and (2) to position something, e.g. to set a trap, is not unrelated and hence not included. Other meanings of set like (1) a collection (China, jewelery, golf clubs), (2) stage i.e. a theater location, and (3) an equipment for receiving radio or TV programs, are all valid and unrelated in meaning to each other.

The goal is to move players away from rote memorization of word lists towards understanding and learning the contextual meanings of common words. We often don't realize how many common words mean completely different things depending on their context. Knowledge of context is very important, the lack of which helps explain the inefficiencies of most of the speech-to-text software today.

It's a great game for kids because while they may not know "iota" or "zygote" they know "fall" has at least two meanings (1) descending downwards or deterioration and (2) autumn. Gives them even more reasons to learn that "rapid" also has at least two meanings (1) fast and (2) small waterfall.

I have yet to play this game with someone so go ahead and play it if you have some time and see if you can compare your scores under traditional rules vs. the Double-Dash Scrabble rule and whether the winners change.

Thanks to my friend Megan for the inspiration.
-- chime, Jun 08 2007

Isn't "Set" the word in the dictionary with the most different meanings?
-- phundug, Jun 08 2007


Good intention, but how will you adjudicate 'near miss' definitions, and 'overlapping' definitions?
-- pertinax, Jun 08 2007


re: phundug

Yes it is. However, most of the meanings are very close to each other. To set a chair back on its feet and to set a vase on a table are nearly the same things but they're counted as two different meanings. I understand there are linguistic differences but the context is the same. A set of chess is much different from the above two meanings and the knowledge of this adds value to your vocabulary.

Of course, you can also say it is important to learn the intricate reasons behind why "to set a house on fire" and "set fire to a house" are two different meanings. DDS avoids the confusion and minimizes disagreements by stipulating that only completely unrelated meanings are counted.
-- chime, Jun 08 2007


I think the debates would rage over how "unrelated the definitions were... which would enhance gameplay for everyone!
-- CaptainClapper, Jun 08 2007


I used to play Boggle like this with my mom: we didn't want to allow millions of points for the same basic word - e.g. you could only pick *one* of "pine", "pined", "piner", "pines", "piners", "pining" and score that.

Unless (and this was the poorly thought out part) you could think of two completely different definitions for the words to justify that the similar spellings were from different words. E.g. "pines" meaning the trees, but "pined" meaning "longed for". In this case, you could score both.

The eventual result was a huge list of word forms which we had deemed to be equivalent/different from each other, and us having to consult this list every time we scored a game. It was complicated.
-- phundug, Jun 08 2007


//debates would rage// No they wouldn't. Dictionaries define distinct classes of meanings and have seperate entries for each. Just settle on a given dictionary and adhere by its categorization, just as you have to define your dictionary for regular Scrabble.

That said, the idea somehow doesn't enthrall me.

//I have yet to play this game with someone// suggests that it's not being leapt upon by hordes of Scrabblers.
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 08 2007


who, perchance, urinated in your corn flakes? there's not a terribly large distance between --to quote-- "setting a house on fire" and "setting fire to a house"

but said definitions are separate in the dictionary. Arguably, they are the same definition, just used as different parts of speech, which, under the rules stated by [chime], are not counted as separate definitions.

also, considering he has somewhat recently come up with this idea, it's not very surprising that //hordes of Scrabblers// haven't leapt on it just yet.
-- CaptainClapper, Jun 08 2007


How about a game of Understudy-Break-Grope? [+]
-- nuclear hobo, Jun 09 2007


Very very good, big quassoint for you.
-- zeno, Jun 09 2007


//who, perchance, urinated in your corn flakes// Well, OK, fair enough. Call me a curmudgeonly git if you like. It's not a terrible idea, just one that I didn't personally go for. Hence my actively neutral vote.
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 09 2007


//who, perchance, urinated in your corn flakes?//

I want that quote on a bumper-sticker. I'm cracking up every time I try to say it out loud.

Thanks for the crumbs :)
-- chime, Jun 11 2007



random, halfbakery