Royal Game of Ur iterations

Iterating ‘The Royal game of Ur’

Having done research on the topic of ancient games, the attention was finally brought to the topic of this essay, ‘The Royal game of Ur’.

After completing further research on this particular game, it was evident that our task would be to iterate the rules and objectives. The idea of this essay is for me to formally contextualize and explain the iterations I made during the playing process.

The majority of my iterations were heavily influenced by readings that I have done to give me a better understanding of game mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics (Hunicke, 2004).

Leonard Wooley, was the first to discover the game whilst exploring the Royal cemetery of Ur, located in Mesopotamia. Due to scientist being able to date the tombs back to 2,600 BC, the game can therefore be identified as the oldest known board game to be discovered.

From the very beginning the game was found in the exact state it would have been if it were just about to be played. 7 pieces sitting either side of the board, of opposite colour, were accompanied by potential die objects. With coloured tips alternating from corner to corner, these were seen as the games randomiser which is why they could be so closely categorised as dice.

Supporting this idea that the game was purposely left in a ready-to-play state, is the discovery by W.F.Albright who found another board and set of pieces in the same layout.

Without clarification of the rules as far, it was down to the discovery of two tablets stating very partial similarities of the two sets of rules scribed upon each tablet. Credited for this discovery was Finkel (Finkel in ‘Finkel’ (2008) p.11-32) who studied both tablets and tried to generalise a basic set of rules.

The way to win the game is to move your own pieces onto, along, and off the board. This, however, is made more difficult from the competition element. The opposing player’s goal is to do the same, as well as hindering your progress by landing their pieces on spaces that are occupied by one of yours. When this happens, the piece that was taken is removed from the board and must be brought back onto the board on another of that players turn. Essentially it is a race to the end, the end being when all your pieces have made it along the board unscathed and then back off the board.

A random element is introduced by the use of dice. As always these are used as a random way to determine your move. In this case the die affects the quantity of spaces you are able to move each go.

The board provides its own advantages by containing special spaces (often decorated with a rosette) at certain intervals along the way. These spaces, if landed on, give the player the possibility to roll again. Another advantage is that pieces on these spaces are immune from being taken by opponents.

Along with the rules of the game, the design of the board is also up for debate. For example some believe the player begins and ends on the same space on the board, following a circuit motion (H.J.R. Murray)

From the opposite view, it seems players may have been assigned sides and are restricted to remain on these sides. This is the opinion of Robert. C. Bell who says players enter one end of the board and exit the other. With each end opening out different ways, this leaves the competition for players in the centre aisle.

Due to the different variations of the game style, I am led to believe that it is not the first time this game has been iterated. By the looks of it, over time there have been non-official changes, which depending on who is asked, may or may not improve the game play.

Iterating the game was made easy by the way I found many different problems with the game play. When participating myself, I found numerous mechanics that I thought hindered the idea of a game, ‘fun’.

One being the ability for a player to land on a space occupied by a rosette, then allowing them to have another roll, would just bring another piece onto the board. Rather than moving the first piece further ahead, players would much rather leave the piece there, meaning the opposition wouldn’t get the advantage of the space. If I am the same as other players, then I would do the same and wait for another roll to give me the ability to move that piece to another rosette.

The previous point also affects my next, this being the time that it takes to complete one play through. Although it varies, it is often the case that it takes much too long for it to remain fun. For too long I was spent on the same spaces due to the possibility of throwing the dice and getting nothing. This and either rolling a low number or the opponent is blocking my only possible move, made the game time incredibly long. Add these with the ability for players remove each other pieces by landing on them, and the game can become tedious and dull after a while. For example I found myself wanting to make iterations regarding the game speed before I had even finished my first play through.

MDA frameworks (Hunicke, 2004). To begin with I look at what I want the player to feel when playing the game, this is the aesthetics. The next part is to look at how this is done by using the board, which comes under dynamics. After all that it comes down to the mechanics, where I have to be able to know what to change to make all of it possible.

My first iteration was aimed directly towards the aesthetics where a player needs to feel some emotional connectivity towards the game. As it stand I don’t feel the game does enough of this, I have added the element of more risk. By slightly changing the layout of the board I manage to create more risk for the player, this can lead to excitement, anxiousness, satisfaction and overall fun. I have done this by making two separate paths around a ‘dead zone’. If the player decides to take the shorter route and go through the ‘dead zone’ they are taking a larger risk than going around the long way. However, the risk of going the shorter way is that if you don’t roll a large enough number to move your piece all the way through the ‘dead zone’ then that piece is removed from the board and back to the beginning.

This iteration also improves the other problem I found whilst playing. There is not a lot of choice for the player and options are limited. When spaces ahead are occupied it can resolve it you not being able to move at all. Therefore adding these extra routes give the playing more choice, do they go through the middle or do I go the long way around the outside. This can make the player feel more involved with what’s actually happening as having the die make a lot of the game elements random. Getting the balance of skill and luck needs to be right as adding too much skill can also take the fun out of the game for some players, narrowing the audience range (Braithwaite & Schreiber, 2008).

After testing these iterations by getting people to have another go at the game, I received positive feedback from players about how my iterations improved how the players feel when playing. A lot of what was said was referring to the way they liked the new ‘death zone’ spaces to add more risk and that players really had to think about whether it was worth the risk.

More positive feedback came from the idea that players had more control over there pieces. This made them feel more like they had more of an idea of what they were going to do next. Mainly whether they were going to take more risks or not.

My second iteration is designed to reduce the overall game time. I made it so that when you take an opponents piece by landing on them, you automatically get another go. I did this so that it keeps people moving along rather than sitting in the same space, thus increasing the pace of the game (Venturelli, 2009). Because of this iteration I found that as soon as one player was ahead, they tend to storm off into the lead which can end up being unfair. Which is an example of a positive feedback system.

My third iteration is of a very similar idea. Once a player has got a piece to the end and off the board, they are automatically allowed another go to bring another piece onto the board. This acts as a reward system for players who want to get to the end.

I found the other two iterations where just as successful as the first. I received plenty of positive feedback about the way they speed up the game time which meant the game remained fun for longer periods of time. The only negative things that were mentioned was the fact that people started to get bored when they realised that if they lose the first piece, they are often already 2 pieces behind their opponent. This would have to be something I would have to look at for iteration in future. The other thing was the way that even though I managed to speed up the game time, I didn’t manage to speed up how long people took to make decisions on moves, or how long players could sit on one space. Again these are other possibilities for iteration.

Another thing I heard from people who played my reformed version of the game was that if I wanted to introduce more choice in to the moves people make, I should include more of my first iteration. For example I should put more branches off of the main path. This would also enhance the element of risk even more.

In conclusion, MDA frameworks. Overall I was set a task of making iterations to a quite incomplete idea of a game, I feel I have successfully taken it a step further to becoming fun.