![]() I do prefer it if the dictionary is effectively the entire OED and then some and not one of the official Scrabble dictionaries because part of the fun still is vocabulary play. Once you start getting into defensive and offensive play with reliable blocks and planning Scrabble is only partially about vocabulary or letter/word points. I'm ambivalent about Scrabble balancing the points and would try a game with more balanced points. A change like removing bingos might mean they could play fewer games, or play the same number but feel more comfortable that it really did end up being that the best player won, and I don't think a desire for that is a desire for monotony or a desire to kill all fun in games.īasically: I could see a change to bingos making sense in tournaments, and I don't think that's incompatible with people having fun (in the tournament, or in general). ![]() Right now, the way Scrabble tournaments manage it is by playing a bunch of games so that hopefully it evens out. I also basically don't play Chess anymore specifically because it's a game that's real hard to enjoy if the two players aren't very similar in skill level, because there's basically no luck element.īut: I can totally appreciate that people who are trying to play a game competitively would want to reduce luck. I've spent a lot of time thinking about various methods, because I like to geek out on game design (I am particularly fond of bag methods for evening out the extremes). I do want to say, to be clear: luck in games is good, if that's what you're after. But for most players this kind of change would make it a much less enjoyable game. I guess if your objective is to make competitive Scrabble more like competitive chess, with very fine-grained rankings measuring skill "objectively", I see the point. Otherwise it would just be a strict hierarchy of who's better than who in my limited circle of opponents, which would make it a lot less enjoyable to embark on a lengthy game if the outcome is basically predetermined because you know your opponent is a better player. In my experience as a pretty-good friends and family Scrabble player, it's the element of chance that keeps it interesting. Not sure what the point of trying to lessen the impact of chance is unless the game is really unbalanced, which IMO it's not. It seems kind of obvious that any game where you draw pieces/cards/tiles out of a bag/deck/pile, blind, will have some element of luck. Posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:29 AM on Septem The points on the tiles don't mean jack if you can't play them. "Could we actually just start the whole game over again?" He agreed, we wiped the board clear, reshuffled the tiles and redrew - and I sighed with relief when I got a much more mixed bag with a K, but also a T and an S and an H and an A and basically, stuff I could actually use to make words, and we went on with that game. "No, I." I studied my rack again, studied the board. ![]() ![]() My ex noticed that my turns were taking longer and longer, and I was getting glummer and glummer, as I studied the board and my rack and tried to find a way to play at least one of my tiles so I could trade in for an E or an S or SOMETHING. I even traded in some of those tiles for a couple of my turns, and was still getting things like X and K and such. But as the game progressed, there simply were no good opportunities to play them in the developing game. I am reminded of a Scrabble game I was playing with my ex once I started with a rack full of these high-scoring tiles, like Z and X and Q and such. So the argument here is that some of the high-scoring tiles are easier to play than others, and their scores should be adjusted accordingly.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |