For my Scrabble-fiend friends.

[randomness]

Forwarded from woodwardiocom:

"(And, just in case you ever wondered, here's what looks like a fairly workable set of rules for Strip Scrabble.)"

(There's also a drinking game rule but I think that's been dealt with adequately already.)

Enjoy!

Comments

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

when played with the correct people

I find this is the key point.

[gee-tar.livejournal.com]

I've never been much of a Scrabble fan, but this variation on the game may change my mind :)

[foldedfish.livejournal.com]

"Enjoy!"

No.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

And, you see, you illustrate why "correct people" is so key. :)

[choirsoftheeye.livejournal.com]

That looks fantastic. I've always enjoyed scrabble. However the fact that I generally am wearing no more than 4 pieces of clothing works against me. Also I thought the S&M thing said safety pin rather than clothes pin, and that scared the crap out of me. *shudders*

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

safety pin rather than clothes pin

Aieee!

[awfief.livejournal.com]

the funny part is, I was discussing the idea of strip scrabble just a week or 2 ago with a bunch of MIT geeks. I forwarded the link. They appreciated it. :)

[ketzl.livejournal.com]

My desire to decisively win would compete with my desire to lose and get nekkid. Tough call. I'd have to go with the win though, I've got my pride.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Yah, that's the classic dilemma with strip games. Play to win, or play to lose?

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Have fun!

Complaints about the ruleset

[adamhmorse.livejournal.com]

I have no use for Scrabble, so this comment should be taken with a large grain of salt. I do, however, have a strong interest in the theory and practice of rules design. I don't think that the rule set proposed is well-designed.

I start with two presumptions: 1) in general, strip games ought not to distort the underlying gameplay too much. The goal is generally to add a sexy fun consequence of game play while retaining the fun of the game. An analogy might be gambling. Some people view money bridge as more fun than regular bridge, because they like gambling. But you don't gamble on bridge in ways that distort the underlying gameplay, and betting on sports you're playing in is viewed as a no-no, because it creates incentives to distort the game.

2) All players should have basically even chances of winning (however they define winning). I view this as largely a matter of basic fairness. I also exclude handicapping, which can play a useful role, but should be deliberate, not due to seat advantage.

This rule set fails to perform well with regard to either of these criteria. The objective ceases to be getting the highest score-- it becomes not getting the lowest score on a given round, which will involve substantially different strategy. For example, if player 1 makes a weak play, scoring 4 points, and I have a strong play that would score me 20 points that I can use now or save by making a weak 5 point play, I will save the tiles for the strong play, because the objective is to make each play not the worst, not to perform well over the course of the game. Similarly, giving another player the ability to use a powerful square is not a problem, as long as I have a decent score so I won't lose the round.

On the fairness point, the last player has a large advantage, because the last player knows how many points are needed to avoid last place. The first player has a very weak position, because there is no way to know how the other players will perform.

Additionally, the scaling is wonky. More clothes are removed when fewer players play, because the game lasts more rounds. At the same time, reducing the number of players decreases the total supply of clothes. This may be intended as a feature-- two player strip games have a much stronger foreplay feel than multiplayer games. But it's still wonky, and appears to be an "unintended feature," as they say.

I suspect that you could build a substantially fairer rule set that did not distort strategy fairly easily if you know how many points your group scores in a typical game. A simple system would be something like, when any one player reaches 50 or a multiple of 50, every other player with a lower score must remove an article of clothing. If you wanted to have less of a cascade, where winners keep winning, you could reset the clock each time someone hits a multiple. That would mean everyone else removes an article when the leader hits 50, and then when the first player after that score gets 50 new points, everyone else loses an article, and so forth. It introduces some distortions, but much less than in the proposed version. I don't know Scrabble well enough to do this well, but I think it would not be very difficult for someone who does to tinker out a superior version. My suggestions favor the first player, but you could fix that by using the rounds concept a little: when any player hits 50, you play to the end of the round, and then any player who does not have more than 50 removes an article of clothing. The point is not that my off-hand comments are perfect. The point is that it's not difficult to do better than this rule set.