Royal Game of Ur Iterations Essay

Royal Game of Ur

The Royal Game of Ur is an ancient board game that existed long ago, around 3000 B.C and was discovered by an individual known as Sir Leonard Wooley in Mesopotamia, near the city of Ur (Bell, 1979). This game was discovered within the royal tombs of Ur. There are a multitude of different writers, such as Bell, Finkel, Becker and Murray who have done their own research and come up with their own interpretations, and their own discoveries into the Royal Game of Ur.

As Murray states in his book, the Royal Game of Ur is very similar to the ancient egyptian game of Sen't (Murray, 1952) however he also makes the inspection that the shape is very different, whilst the play style is similar. According to Murray, his interpretation as to how the Royal Game of Ur is played goes as follows:

Each game will offer the players a selection of different 'lots' which would signify four different throws. As shown in the picture that has been placed below, the board was made up from 3X8 shape, with two blocks removed on either side to offer the unique shape that is shown. Murray writes about the different pieces that were found, two sets of 'men': one set white with dark spots and one set dark with light spots. Murray suggests that these pieces would take a route that begins at the outer edge of four blocks and then turn into the main straight before heading for the other end of the board and finishing on the rosette piece there. (Murray, 1952)

Image taken from Murray's book, the game boards shape



(Murray, 1952)

Bell offers a more descriptive view of the rulings involved in the Royal Game of Ur. Bell suggests the following rules:

-The first ruling that Bell suggests involves agreeing on a sum that will be in played for in that particular game. This would be given to the winner upon the conclusion of the game.

-Secondly, one player will role one of the given dice and the other player must predict whether a marked or unmarked end will be on top. If the prediction is false, the rolling player will go first and vice versa.

- The third rule found in Bells writings is that both teams will begin off the board, and illustrates the direction of play with the following diagram. As shown in the diagram the players will enter on the larger segment of the board, travel along the outer edge and enter the central passage through the corner. They will then follow the central passage and turn onto the outer edge of the smaller segment before coming off the board. The shaded sections on the diagram below represent rosettes.

The direction of play(Bell, 1979)

-The fourth rule that Bell mentions in his book is in relation to how the player moves around on the board. Each dice is made up of two marked edges. According to Bell, who relates to them as 'jeweled edges', the move system works as follows:
"Three jeweled corners up...5 and another throw
Three plain corners up...4 and another throw
Two plain corners up...0 and another throw
One plain corner up...1 and another throw" (Bell, 1979)

When the game was played within the lecture in order to test it, we did not play it by these rules. Instead we played it with four dice with two painted ends. We played the game with the ability to move on with any roll and then move per the number of painted corners that were pointing up after we rolled the dice compared to Bell's fifth rule, which was that the player could only move a piece onto the board when they successfully rolled a 5.

Bell's sixth rule utilised his 'pool' idea, and whenever a player landed on a marked square, or 'rosette' the opponent was required to pay an amount into the 'pool'. When the game was played within the lecture, we did not utilise a pool and instead utilised the 'rosette' squares as a safe zone, allowing the player to not lose his piece when he is settled on this square. This leads onto Bell's next rule, which is that when a player lands on an opposing piece that piece is removed from play and must be brought back into the game with a roll of 5. As stated before we did not play by this rule. The remaining rules that have been set by Bell include the notion of taking an opponents piece by landing on it, an exact throw is necessary  to get a piece off of the board and the winner is the player who removes all of their pieces from the board first. (Bell, 1979)

If we were to compare the rule set that Bell gives to the description that is written by Finkel (Finkel, 1990) there is a lot more detail put into Finkel's writings. Finkel, using translated tablets from Babylon(referred to as BM in his writings) and another tablet which is considered to be founded from a southern Mesopotamian city known as Uruk(referred to as DLB).
Through the use of these tablets Finkel was able to specify some rules that were not found in Bells writings. These rules include the use of astragals, instead of dice as referenced in Bells writings. Finkel has also given names to the pieces, and they are:
UD.GAL bird
Raven
Rooster
Eagle
Swallow
Through the use of these different pieces, Finkel suggests that they require specific rolls in order to get them to enter the board through a technique he calls 'doubling' (Finkel, 1990) This is better shown in the table below, which also relates the UD.GAL bird as the 'storm bird'.

Table 3.1 as found in Finkels writings. (Finkel,1990)

The differences that are found between the two readings does suggest that there is a difference in the research conducted by the two writers, and also that they have possibly drawn similarities from one another as Finkel references Bell in his writings.

After all of the discussion in relation to the history and how the game is played there is another major component that must be addressed in this Essay. The changes that have been made to the game itself.
The first change that we made was the ability to group together pieces. This offered the chance of 'risk vs reward' (Braithwaite & Schreiber, 2008) because it enabled the player to attempt to finish the game and win faster by getting more pieces to the end at the same time. The risk came from the rule that any number of pieces were able to knock a group of the board, therefore it allowed a player with a single piece to remove a group of five pieces off the board by landing on them. When implementing this rule, it was important to decide how the pieces would be removed and if their was a limit to the number you could group together. We decided against limiting the number and allowing a single piece to take any number because this increases the risk versus reward payoff.

Now we decided to address an issue that came with the rosette pieces. We were playing with a ruleset which enabled invulnerability to any piece that was located on a rosette. To address this we implemented a small rule which limited said invulnerability to a time of three turns. At the end of these three turns it revokes the invulnerability. This time frame was recorded through the use of a counter system  off of the board, with a piece moving along every turn so that the player did not forget. Due to the nature of the rules that we played the game with, every piece entered the board in the same place on any roll; utilising this rule change we implemented, it caused a player to think ahead and not leave his pieces on rosette squares further into the board to attempt to block his opponent due to the risk attached. This rule also, as above works on the risk/reward system but in more of a limited manner because of the risk of losing your pieces after three turns. (Braithwaite & Schreiber, 2008)

A rule that we thought would be an interesting implementation was the ability to block an opponents pieces. This rule worked in conjunction with the ability to group together pieces, offering the option that you would require an equal, or greater, number of pieces to break the block. However, through playtesting this iteration we discovered that late game the player with the least pieces left on the board was at a disadvantage because of the potential that the opponent could succesfully block the player and win the game. This iteration was one that we attempted in good faith that it would go well, but decided against using because of its unbalanced use late game.

From the reading that has been made in regards to the Royal Game of Ur I believe that it is a complicated game that could potentially be explored even further. Through the use of readings by Bell, Finkel and Murray i was able to decide how the game was thought to be played, even though they will often argue or even reference one another in their writings. Iterating the Game of Ur was an interesting experience which allowed different methods to be achieved and attempted in order to improve the quality experience that the game offered us. The iterations, I personally believe, allowed us to further explore the ideas that are found behind the Royal Game of Ur and begin to enjoy this ancient game.

Bibliography
-Bell, R. C. (1979) Board and Table Games from Many Civilizations. Revised
edition
-Brenda Braithwaite & Ian Schreiber (2008) Challenges For Games Designers 'Games Design Atoms' (Charles River Media)
-Finkel, I. L. ed. (2008) Ancient Board Games in Perspective: Papers from the 1990 British Museum
colloquium with additional contributions. London. British Museum Press.
-Murray, H. J. R. (1952) A History of Board Games Other Than Chess. Oxford. Clarendon Press.  

MUDS

This article, titled: 'Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds and Spades: Players who suit MUDS' is an article written by Richard A. Bartle. Bartle explores the notion of MUDS, and the different types of players and how they can influence the world found within the MUDS. Bartle mentions that there are two dimensions found in MUDs and are action vs interaction and world oriented vs player oriented, he continues to explore these topics further into the article.


Bartle begins the article by discussing a survey he carried out with 15 top level players involved in a popular MUD at the time. Through this survey he came to the conclusion of finding 4 different categories which all of the players opinions seemed to belong to:


1. Achievement within the game context
This is the notion of setting up goals within the game universe and setting out to complete them. If we relate this to previous readings it can be associated with Doug Churchs article about Formal Abstract Design Tools, because by setting themselves goals the players are offering themselves an intention to continue playing the game. Bartle labels these players as achievers.


2.Exploration of the world
This is the idea that the players would like to explore the entire game world and discover its breadth and depth. This ties in with Church's article in the terms of intention and narrative, because players will want to push forward and discover more about the game world whilst also discovering the story behind it. Bartle labels these characters as explorers.


3. Socializing with others
This, along with the fourth category, ties in with Church's article in relation to cooperation and conflict in video games. Socializing with others relates to the idea of using the games communication facilities to have a conversation and interact with other players. Bartle labels these players as socializers.


4.Imposition upon others
As is known in MUDs, these are the trolls, griefers and annoying people that are found in games. Occasionally there will be a good person who will attempt to help other players, but the majority of the time they utilize the game system in order to antagonize the other players. Bartle labels these characters as killers.


He then continues to relate the stereotypes with a decks different suites: Achievers are diamonds. Explorers are Spades. Socialisers are Hearts and Killers are spades. These different types are often crossed into and no player is clear cut into a specific section, however, players will tend to have a 'regular' pattern when gaming and will often fall back into it if they are not attempting anything.


Bartle begins to go into more detail about each of these stereotypes:


Achievers

Always aiming to gain the maximum amount of treasure, points or maximising their level. These players will explore to discover new treasures or areas to gain more levels. They may socialise to discuss new methods of maximising their points and they may kill their rivals or people who interfere with their achieving.


Explorers

Explorers devote themselves to discovering the hidden machinations of the game, discovering its bugs and tend to only gather points when necessary to continue exploring, the same with killing and socialising.


Socialisers

Socialisers utilise the game as a backdrop and spend more time interacting with the players, communicating amongst themselves. Socialisers avoid killing and only tend to explore and gain points in order to access more levels of communication, or to get into the 'loop' about what everyone is talking about.


Killers

As the name suggests, these types of players enjoy killing others. They often do this for satisfaction in order to cause aggravation in other players. These players will often explore and gain points in order to find more entertaining methods of killing people, yet tend to avoid socialising unless it is to further taunt and antagonise a target.


The MUD itself can change what type of players are found within its midst, an example would be Star Wars: The Old Republic. This game is very story focused and offers many hidden objects to be found by exploring. However, there are also different servers for different types of players. This helps keep the types of players segregated, allowing less frustration from those not wishing to be disturbed by killers(PVE servers) and offering a place for players to actively attempt to kill each other(PVP servers.)

There is a balance between the players, if there is more of one type then there could be a decline in the others. As Bartle states, an admin would need to try and ensure the 'balance' but this is up to them how it is achieved and how they would like their MUD to 'feel'.


Below there is a graph that Bartle uses in his article in order to further explain the interests of each player type.

                                                                  ACTING  

                                     Killers                          |                                   Achievers

                                                                         |

                                                                         |

                                                                         | 

                                                                         |

                                                                         |

                          PLAYERS -------------------+------------------- WORLD

                                                                         |

                                                                         |

                                                                         |

                                                                         |

                                                                         |

                                    Socialisers                     |                                     Explorers 

                                                              INTERACTING

Following the Graph above, it allows us to show how each player archetype would act in a MUD.

1.Achievers
Achievers are ACTING within the WORLD, immersing themselves within the game world. They do not care much for sharing it with other players.

2. Explorers
Explorers are INTERACTING within the WORLD, they explore the entire world in its entirety, exploring its depth and breadth. They could easily reach the top, but choose not to.

3. Socialisers
Socialisers simply use the game as a backdrop and INTERACT with the PLAYERS. Socialisers enjoy getting to know the other players and care little for playing the game in the same depth as other types of players.

4.Killers
Killers are often ACTING with PLAYERS. They enjoy performing acts towards other players, often without their consent. Killers have to achieve in order to prove their superiority over the other players.




In MUDS it is possible to modify the MUD to suit one of the extremes on the above graph, however by moving towards one extreme it can ruin a part of the other.


If you are making a MUD more oriented toward PLAYERS, then you would need to provide more sources of communication, this will make the game less of a MUD and more of a chatroom.


If you are making a MUD more oriented towards the WORLD, then you need to add a bigger world, and create a world where people may rarely meet. This could alienate the Socialisers, because they would not be able to find anyone to socialise with.


If you are making a MUD more oriented towards ACTING, then you will be introducing tasks that are constantly repetitive and boring for the players.
If you are making a MUD more oriented towards INTERACTING, then it involves restricting a players freedom so that they are able to only take a specific path. This causes the player to be watching the game more than playing.

There are debates that compare MUDS as either social or gamelike. These means that games either operate below the 'x-axis' if they are more social, as is stated in the article, or above the axis in regards to being gamelike. The article compares the two arguements and also shows how a MUD can be considered both, such as a gamelike MUD having socialisers, or a social MUD having killers.

The different player types often interact with one another, as is shown below:


Achievers vs Achievers.

Achievers are often very competetive towards one another. They will often work together and do not need encouraging to start playing a new MUD


Achievers vs Explorers.

Achievers do not regard Explorers in high regard. They treat high level explorers in good regard though because they often know what to do.


Achievers vs Socialisers. 

Achievers tolerate socialisers, they are often used as the 'gossip' of the competition but otherwise they are not needed.


Achievers vs Killers. Achievers dont like Killers. They believe that killers are necessary but do not like the way that they act within MUDs



Explorers Vs Explorers
Explorers hold good explorers in great respect, but are merciless to bad ones. One of the worst things a fellow explorer can do is to give out incorrect information, believing it to be true. Other than that, explorers thrive on telling one another their latest discoveries, and generally get along very well.


Explorers Vs Socialisers
Explorers consider socialisers to be people whom they can impress, but who are otherwise pretty well unimportant. Unless they can appreciate the explorer's talents, they're not really worth spending time with.


Explorers Vs Killers
Explorers often have a grudging respect for killers, but they do find their behaviour wearisome. It's just so annoying to be close to finishing setting up something when a killer comes along and attacks you. On the other hand, many killers do know their trade well, and are quite prepared to discuss the finer details of it with explorers. Sometimes, an explorer may try attacking other players as an exercise, and they can be extremely effective at it.


Socialisers Vs Achievers Socialisers like achievers, because they provide the running soap opera about which the socialisers can converse. Without such a framework, there is no uniting cause to bring socialisers together (at least not initially). Note that socialisers don't particularly enjoy talking to achievers (not unless they can get them to open up, which is very difficult); they do, however, enjoy talking about them. A cynic might suggest that the relationship between socialisers and achievers is similar to that between women and men.


Socialisers Vs Explorers Socialisers generally consider explorers to be sad characters who are desperately in need of a life. Both groups like to talk, but rarely about the same things, and if they do get together it's usually because the explorer wants to sound erudite and the socialiser has nothing better to do at the time.
The number of explorers in a MUD has no effect on the number of socialisers.


Socialisers Vs Socialisers
A case of positive feedback: socialisers can talk to one another on any subject for hours on end, and come back later for more. The key factor is whether there is an open topic of conversation: in a game-like environment, the MUD itself provides the context for discussion, whether it be the goings-on of other players or the feeble attempts of a socialiser to try playing it; in a non-game environment, some other subject is usually required to structure conversations, either within the software of the MUD itself (eg. building) or without it (eg. "This is a support MUD for the victims of cancer"). Note that this kind of subject-setting is only required as a form of ice-breaker: once socialisers have acquired friends, they'll invariably find other things that they can talk about.


Socialisers Vs Killers
This is perhaps the most fractious relationship between player group types. The hatred that some socialisers bear for killers admits no bounds. Partly, this is the killers' own fault: they go out of their way to rid MUDs of namby-pamby socialisers who wouldn't know a weapon if one came up and hit them (an activity that killers are only too happy to demonstrate), and they will generally hassle socialisers at every opportunity simply because it's so easy to get them annoyed. However, the main reason that socialisers tend to despise killers is that they have completely antisocial motives, whereas socialisers have (or like to think they have) a much more friendly and helpful attitude to life. The fact that many socialisers take attacks on their personae personally only compounds their distaste for killers.

Killers Vs Achievers

Killers regard achievers as their natural prey. Achievers are good fighters (because they've learned the necessary skills against mobiles), but they're not quite as good as killers, who are more specialised. This gives the "thrill of the chase" which many killers enjoy - an achiever may actually be able to escape, but will usually succumb at some stage, assuming they don't see sense and quit first.


Killers Vs Explorers Killers tend to leave explorers alone. Not only can explorers be formidable fighters (with many obscure, unexpected tactics at their disposal), but they often don't fret about being attacked - a fact which is very frustrating for killers.


Killers Vs Socialisers
Killers regard socialisers with undisguised glee. It's not that socialisers are in any way a challenge, as usually they will be pushovers in combat; rather, socialisers feel a dreadful hurt when attacked (especially if it results in the loss of their persona), and it is this which killers enjoy about it.


Killers Vs Killers
Killers try not to cross the paths of other killers, except in pre-organised challenge matches. Part of the psychology of killers seems to be that they wish to be viewed as somehow superior to other players; being killed by a killer in open play would undermine their reputation, and therefore they avoid risking it (compare Killers v Explorers).

If i was to attempt to relate to this article then I would bring my attention to more modern versions of MUDs, commonly known as MMOs. Within these MMOs i would classify myself as part Achiever and part Explorer. By using this article I am able to relate because I personally dislike the types of players who would go around causing grief, and are often related to 'trolls'. 

I enjoyed reading this article because of the above reasons and it allowed me to discover what type of player I am classified as.