This sounds similar (but not quite) to Ready Set Bet [1], which is probably a lot easier to find than this.
This game, as the title suggests, is pure luck, based on the cards you were dealt.
In RSB, it’s real-time, and as dice are rolled to move horses forward, you can place bets on a number of spots, based on how the dice are being rolled (always by a designated player that is either part of the betting or not — recommended that they don’t bet if you have enough players).
Obviously still a lot of luck, as with most dice rolling games. But a decent amount of strategy in timing your bets, especially since bets freeze once horses get to a certain line in the game.
A great uncle of mine had made a similar but simpler game like this we used to play, decades & decades & decades ago. He didn't take credit for it, but he'd gotten it printed on a huge nice sheet of paper, and had horses that advanced down it. You just place bets and turn over cards for each horse, and the highest card horse advances. On rainy days we'd sit in the living room, my sibling & I, basically on top of the giant horse race game, making bets & turning over cards to see who the winner would be.
Our game was shorter, and only had uhh 6 tracks I think. The odds rose quite a lot for the un-favored horses, like, a lot a lot. The horses/tracks all had names, but I can't remember their names.
I love what they're calling here "zero-player" games. They're automatons that you can build other games on top of (often in combination with other automatons) or, like this, they are games where players can simply identify themselves with one of the game's components. The latter are excellent for groups of drunk people.
Spectator sports are basically zero-player games.
Another classic is "LCR" (Left Center Right), and one that was popular a few years back is "Yahtzee Turbo."
A bit Off topic. I am looking for a Board Game for my step dad. He is a retired 80+ years old rancher. He doesn't know any english at all, so he is very limited on choices. Something that can be played by himself or with other person.
Translations are pretty easy to make these days, and you can print out cheat sheets.
Because so many board games used to be German back in the day, boardgamegeek.com always had rating for how much language proficiency is required / what's required if you don't speak the language the game was published in.
Not to distract from what is undeniably a pretty cool thing, it's hard to even call these "games" as there's absolutely no decision making going on. I absolutely loathe games like these because you're not actually doing anything.
The highly random and somewhat convoluted mechanisms remind me of something like character creation in the rpg classic traveller.
You do have a little choice there (unlike here), but I think the same appeal is present even without the choice.
The experience is a bit like reading fortunes from tea leaves.
The fun comes from assigning meaning to the outcomes. This happens, generally, automatically as a human instinct. In traveller, the process of character creation generates a kind of narrative in your head of who the character is.
I've been thinking about these kind of experiences a lot lately.
Is it a game? I don't think a discussion of definitions is very interesting, but I would call it a game by any casual meaning of the word. Certainty, in traveller's case, a roleplaying game. But I recognize the same appeal in these zero-player games.
You're playing something, just in your own mind. The primary game isn't what's on the table, but what's in your mind. You're not committing to choices in physical (or digital) space, you have no agency there -- but there's still a rich experience happening between your ears -- full of hopes, predictions, disappointments, elation, creativity. It's like reading but you're also part author. You're not reading from a book, but from pattern matching inside randomness.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around it myself. I have little more than the recognition of something interesting in this direction, but beyond that I can't articulate it.
> character creation in the rpg classic traveller.
This is half the game. I fondly remember a few "game days" in the early 80's with some friends spending hours "rolling" Traveller characters. Partly because it was quite possible for your character to due DURING GENERATION, before the "rpg" part of the game actually started.
I'd hoped this would be a post about Giro Galoppo, which is a fantastic little board game if you have kids (and can find a copy). It's easy enough for small children to learn, but the mix of strategy and luck is such that an adult can put real effort into winning, but will still probably only win 2/3 to 3/4 of games, not every time. And it's quick to play. Great game.
Reminds me of an arcade mechanical game where you tossed balls into a panel with holes and depending on where it landed it would push your designated horse faster. It was a massive thing with room for an announcer in the middle like 20 seats at least around him in a horseshoe shape.
We have an even simpler version of this called "Derby Dash". It's basically just the race portion of the board with dice.
It gets used a fair bit, but mostly because it is zero-player. Not to get too much into it, but since neither of us can influence the outcome, it's a good way to imitate a fictional competition fairly.
Repeatedly following a fixed algorithm by hand can be relaxing - simple Sudoku problems, Solitaire, simple Rubiks cube solutions, simple crosswords and math problems, word searches, etc.
Meanwhile social games are fun even if they are extremely simple - rules-lite RPGs, Guess Who, Pictionary, etc.
This seems to exist at an intersection of the two. It's interesting that following a mindless algorithm with a group of people sounds so ridiculous and pointless in principle, but it's actually fun. Our brains are somehow wired to find it rewarding.
Extreme luck has the benefit of bringing everyone to the same level regardless of age or background, whereas e.g. chess, Counter-Strike or boxing is much less fun if one person is 10x better than the other. The more skill a game requires, the more it needs separate leagues for differing levels of ability.
Maybe there's also ironic enjoyment in playing a horse-race gambling game when most people playing have likely never watched a real horse race, let alone bet on one.
29 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 65.3 ms ] threadThis game, as the title suggests, is pure luck, based on the cards you were dealt.
In RSB, it’s real-time, and as dice are rolled to move horses forward, you can place bets on a number of spots, based on how the dice are being rolled (always by a designated player that is either part of the betting or not — recommended that they don’t bet if you have enough players).
Obviously still a lot of luck, as with most dice rolling games. But a decent amount of strategy in timing your bets, especially since bets freeze once horses get to a certain line in the game.
[1] https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/351040/ready-set-bet
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/260605/camel-up-second-e...
Our game was shorter, and only had uhh 6 tracks I think. The odds rose quite a lot for the un-favored horses, like, a lot a lot. The horses/tracks all had names, but I can't remember their names.
Spectator sports are basically zero-player games.
Another classic is "LCR" (Left Center Right), and one that was popular a few years back is "Yahtzee Turbo."
Because so many board games used to be German back in the day, boardgamegeek.com always had rating for how much language proficiency is required / what's required if you don't speak the language the game was published in.
What language(s) does he speak?
see f.e. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nDQEI3s_2aI
You then have people roll the dice and move the horse one spot forward if the number on the dice match the horse number.
It's total luck but a great way to explain probability to the younger kids and probability distributions to the older kids.
You do have a little choice there (unlike here), but I think the same appeal is present even without the choice.
The experience is a bit like reading fortunes from tea leaves.
The fun comes from assigning meaning to the outcomes. This happens, generally, automatically as a human instinct. In traveller, the process of character creation generates a kind of narrative in your head of who the character is.
I've been thinking about these kind of experiences a lot lately.
Is it a game? I don't think a discussion of definitions is very interesting, but I would call it a game by any casual meaning of the word. Certainty, in traveller's case, a roleplaying game. But I recognize the same appeal in these zero-player games.
You're playing something, just in your own mind. The primary game isn't what's on the table, but what's in your mind. You're not committing to choices in physical (or digital) space, you have no agency there -- but there's still a rich experience happening between your ears -- full of hopes, predictions, disappointments, elation, creativity. It's like reading but you're also part author. You're not reading from a book, but from pattern matching inside randomness.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around it myself. I have little more than the recognition of something interesting in this direction, but beyond that I can't articulate it.
This is half the game. I fondly remember a few "game days" in the early 80's with some friends spending hours "rolling" Traveller characters. Partly because it was quite possible for your character to due DURING GENERATION, before the "rpg" part of the game actually started.
https://www.amazon.com/WM-Desktop-Derby-6-Horse-Racing/dp/B0...
There are some really old versions too that you crank and it knocks a ball around to move your horse.
It gets used a fair bit, but mostly because it is zero-player. Not to get too much into it, but since neither of us can influence the outcome, it's a good way to imitate a fictional competition fairly.
I also find pure skill games boring. I mean like running races. You might as well play "who's tallest?"
But I seem to be in a minority
Meanwhile social games are fun even if they are extremely simple - rules-lite RPGs, Guess Who, Pictionary, etc.
This seems to exist at an intersection of the two. It's interesting that following a mindless algorithm with a group of people sounds so ridiculous and pointless in principle, but it's actually fun. Our brains are somehow wired to find it rewarding.
Extreme luck has the benefit of bringing everyone to the same level regardless of age or background, whereas e.g. chess, Counter-Strike or boxing is much less fun if one person is 10x better than the other. The more skill a game requires, the more it needs separate leagues for differing levels of ability.
Maybe there's also ironic enjoyment in playing a horse-race gambling game when most people playing have likely never watched a real horse race, let alone bet on one.
randint(1..6) per horse and watching them race was the "drug", that made me follow programming as a career.