Getting rid of Numbers !!!

Faces could fly. They could all be portraits, Use hair color, eye color, gender, age (young adolescent, adult, elderly) Race, Top clothing color, Background setting, Animal companion, Chin structure, nose type, frame, drawing style.

I try to convince you that Kpres is on the right track. Depending on what skill you want players to train. Counting, pattern recognition, collecting sets...?

Maybe never ending series is what is needed. Examples
http://www.bgdf.com/node/12465

- regzr

You could try *Nautical Flags*: http://www.bgdf.com/node/7691

It is a mix between shapes and colors. Each flag has a meaning if you use the standard one. The ones in the sample I modified for my own purposes.

On this WIKI are the default flags: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_maritime_signal_flags

Each one has the letter conventions used (A = Alpha, B = Bravo, C = Charlie, etc.) which also could be GOOD for your game... You wanted to get rid of *numbers*, what better than FLAGS that symbolize LETTERS!

I'm not sure how your original game plays - but you could create something unique with those flags (You could also put hints on the cards to tell players what letter it is...)

It appears that all you need is a set of objects that have a predefined set of properties that are only linkable based on what other properties the other two objects have.

Numbers are not integral to the play of the game at all. All they do is provide a UNIVERSAL AND OBVIOUS idiom in which to express these connections.

You simply need to think of the mathematical operations as “LINKING” the cards played across a row.

(For simplicity's sake only, I have discussed these mechanics as if a player were only considering how or whether to play in a single row, and only considering what to play in the third column. I understand that the rules allow for play in any column at any time while considering options for all three rows simultaneously - but explaining mechaincs while considering all of these options is unnecessary to illustrate the point of how to modify your existing mechanics)

In the case of Mathe Tornado, a "4" has many properties - it can be linked to any number 1 - 18 by another number played with it (since those are the lowest and highest numbers printed on the cards). Its "linkable" properties are only defined once a second card is played next to it, which then reduces its number of "linkable" properties to ZERO, ONE or TWO.

The “rules” that you have set forth in the game that define what “linkable properties” are possible are the set of properties a number gains after having addition or subtraction performed on it (the “+/-” card), and the result of such an action (the “=” card).

To explain this using the math, a "4" is an object, that when paired with "ANY" other card allows for the possibilities of linking it (ultimately) with a 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17, or 18 object (notice no “0” and no “4”). Once the "ANY" card is replaced with a "SPECIFIC" card, the number of "linkable" properties is reduced significantly:

EXAMPLE 1) if a 4 is in the first column, and an 18 is played in the second column, the number of objects that the "4" and the "18" can be linked to is reduced to ZERO by the rules of the groupings (4 + 18 = 22, and there is no "22" card, or 4 - 18 = -14, and the rules do not allow for a negative result in the total column).

EXAMPLE 2) if a 4 is in the first column and a 5 is played in the second column, the number of objects that the "4" and the "5" can be linked to is now ONE - ONLY a card with a "9" in the total column will allow the three to be appropriately "linked" to one another.

EXAMPLE 3) if a 4 is in the first column and a 3 is played in the second column, the number of objects the "4" and the "3" can be linked to is now TWO - cards containing either a "1" or a "7" in the third column can allow the three to be "linked".

All MATH does is provide a mechanic to establish properties that define the linkings. For this area of the game’s behavior, however, this makes math an ideal choice for PROPERTIES and, consequently, numbers an ideal set of OBJECTS.

Finding another way to have the objects linked is relatively easy – you simply need a set of objects with no DEBATABLE PERSONAL CONTEXT to the game players, and that has a set of OBVIOUS and relatively UNIVERSAL properties.

Regarding “UNIVERSAL”, most everyone for which this game will be age appropriate will understand addition and subtraction, so that is a VERY universal set of properties that the objects share (the objects in this case being NUMBERS). You just need something else where the properties of the objects seems intuitively obvious to those who would play the game. FOR EXAMPLE: If your objects are ROBOTS, then showing one that is made of grapes might not be intuitively obvious from the picture without explanation or context, and may result in the player describing the property of “made of grapes” as “purple” or “bumpy”. However, showing a robot that has 3 arms will intuitively and obviously separate it from a robot showing only 1 arm, and “number of arms” can be one of the properties that links the cards. Showing a robot with arms fits the UNIVERSAL definition of what a robot “could be”, as opposed to a robot made of grapes (which very few, if any, people would consider to be a possible property of a robot outside of the context of this game).

Regarding “OBVIOUS”, the intended audience for this game will not often need a calculator to subtract 8 from 13 – the result of the operation provides an obvious set of cards that will work in the third column (anything with a “5” in the correct row of the third column will work). Once again, as an example, if you use robots and would like “color” to be one of the properties in question, creating a “grey”, a “silver” and a “blue” may not be a good idea, since at first glance (and depending on the publisher’s printer) blue, silver, and grey may seem so similar as to defeat their intended distinctiveness. Choosing “GOLD”, “SILVER” and “RED” would be better choices, because it will not only be obvious to the players that the three are different, but that they CAN BE CATEGORIZED by such a distinctively different property among the robots.

Regarding “DEBATABLE PERSONAL CONTEXT”, consider choosing food items as your objects. If the first column contained gravy and the second contained bread, a player might play an apple in the third column, and an argument such as the following might ensue:

Player 1: “You can’t play ‘apple’ there – how does that link to ‘bread’ and ‘gravy’?”
Player 2: “Thanksgiving stuffing has apples in it, and since stuffing ALSO has bread and gravy in it, they all go together.”
Player 1: “I have NEVER had stuffing with apples in it – that sounds gross!!”
Player 2: “My mom’s stuffing has ALWAYS had apples in it for as long as I can remember, and it’s NOT gross – you’re gross!!”

(cue hair pulling and scratching noises, sounds of the board being upended in frustration and anger, etc…)

By allowing the personal preference of what foods go together to define what links the objects, you have introduced a DEBATABLE PERSONAL CONTEXT into the mechanics of the game. In some games (the ungame, scruples, outburst, scattergories, etc.) not only is personal context allowable for debate in most instances, it is an INTENDED MECHANIC FOR THE GAME. This game does not appear to be a good fit for this type of mechanic, however.

My suggestion is this:

1) Choose a set of objects with OBVIOUS and UNIVERSAL properties FOR EACH ROW on your card (possibly ROBOTS for the blue row, ALIENS for the green row, and DRAGONS for the red row – but if fantasy is not your favored milieu, you do not have to use my suggestions).

2) Establish the properties that each will exhibit and which will allow them to be “linked” to one another, yet will be UNIVERSAL and OBVIOUS, without allowing a DEBATABLE PERSONAL CONTEXT. *NOTE: BE SURE TO REMOVE ALL OTHER DIFERENTIABLE CHARACTERISTICS UNLESS THEY ARE A 'LINKING' PROPERTY (for example - if you choose COLOR as a property, do not make some of your objects 'COLORLESS' and then include "WHITE' as a color. Players may not be able to tell an object that is unable to be linked by color because it has none from a 'WHITE' object without explanation or an index - instead either remove COLOR as a property, or make sure that ALL objects can be defined, and therefore linked, by color - this will also mean that if you decide to eliminate color as an option, you MUST make EACH robot a different color, so as to have NONE of them able to be linked by color - otherwise, if you make ALL of them COLORLESS, then ALL of them will match by the fact that they have no color).

3) Scale the number of occurrences of each property so that certain properties are almost guaranteed, while others are considerably rarer (giving rise to the ‘Old Maid’ effect, wherein a player may end up with a card that is unplayable. If they cannot link it in the blue row, they will need to link it through either the red row or green row in order to get rid of it, or else wait until the game state changes to allow that card to be played). This will keep with the “cornered” effect of the playability that FORCES a player to use a card where they ordinarily wouldn’t want to, simply because they have no other choice based on the linkings available to them (limited resources/forced move mechanics).

4) Possibly investigate what happens if you allow more than one property to be available for “linking” three of the objects (multipliers on score, making other players draw an extra card, allowing for a discard or draw/discard – essentially allowing for a “swap-out” of a card in a player’s hand, etc…). That way, you can introduce strategy that does not currently appear to be there (if a player is able to link two properties of objects in the blue row, then that player can make the opponent with the fewest cards draw, or if a player is able to link objects across two different rows in a single play, ALL opponents are forced to draw).

Another way to “link” the three columns is through TIME.

You might have three PROGRESSIONS (a plant growing from a seed, a building being built, Pangaea separating into the continents, etc… - each contained in 10 or more obvious stages, where which comes before or after which is INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS by the size of the plant or the positions of the continents for example), and then have your “+/-” and “=” cards replaced with left-to-right arrows.

Then, you only allow cards that come AFTER the previous step of the progression to be played across an arrow. This accomplishes the same effect with regard to restricting the number of possibilities played in each column. And, if you had wildly differing steps on each card (the blue row has step 4 in a sequence, the red row has step 10 in a different sequence, and the green row has step 1 of a sequence), then the sequential steps for the red row, for example, might become impossible unless someone plays over that card in the same column with a card that lowers the step number of the sequence so that other, later step in the sequence can be matched with it.

You could then have steps 1 -> 5 -> 11 be considered a match (but 3 -> 1 -> 8 would obviously not be) because in each column, the step comes AFTER the previous step in the sequence. Your "BONUSES" then could be if the steps are ACTUALLY in sequence (for example 2 -> 3 -> 4), then that player can force other players to draw, or give one of their unplayable cards to an opponent, etc.

(For example: if you had the above card in the leftmost column, then the red row would be nearly impossible, if at all, to link with since it is unlikely that someone will have steps for the red row on other cards where the red sequential step is higher than 10. Someone would have to match a card that overwrote say, the green step 1 with a green step 2. The card with the green step 2 might have a red step 4 on it, making the likelihood that someone could play a sequential step or two higher than 4 in the red sequence much more possible).

I have only outlined 2 different ways in which the game mechanics of MATCHING THREE CARDS ACROSS ROWS BY PLAYING CARDS THAT ESTABLISH MULTIPLE SIMULTANEOUS COLUMNAR VALUES can be accomplished. I am sure there are others, but I think I have been wordy enough.

I hope this was helpful.

@stubert

yes your analysis is very sound, but even so, substituting numbers for something else, like robot parts, is like comparing playdough to wooden blocks

numericals are abstract enough that they can be increased and decreased with any other number in the set, however long or large the set is, just like playdough where any amount can be removed or plastered together

something else, especially if we are talking about something aesthetic related. using shapes just isnt univeral enough, and what is a picture but a combination of shapes. my recommendation of polygons not only is just as abstract as mathematics, but also less aesthetically pleasing

the main problem is, currently the game using numbers as the "theme", any card can be the component and the answer at any moment, at least until it reaches the maximum value. the best solution would be to find something which has that property of being the component and answer at any moment

@Martin-r-m

at the moment however, all i can think of is to have a limited set of shapes, with a limited set of combinatons most probably obvious from observation, while tweaking the icons on the cards, such that the combination of icons on the card has a relatively high probability(or your desired probability) of at least one icon being able to be the component or answer

theres also the option of changing the criteria of joining the 2 components together, or lowering the criteria of an acceptable answer, but loosening the rules to be im-precise may lead into player discussion which can cause alot of problems socially if your unfortunate player happens to be playing with the wrong kind of player

another option might be color, but it will not be kind on the colorblind, and a last recommendation will be a combination of shape and color, such that the color is a binding that makes the card remain usable at most moments of the game, while maybe the shape combinations score more points, but i am not fond of such a clunky solution

fine, even if you define addition and subtraction as linking, my concern is to practically find something which can replace the universally abstract nature of numbers, NOT to explore its realm of possibility

so, say i use simple shapes instead of numbers, following the methaphor of wooden blocks and playdough. a square and triangle make a house shape. or when put in another order, taking a triangle out of the house shape makes a square

to continue making use of the house shape, you will need to create more complex shapes. so the (house + triangle) or (house + square) or (house + circle) or (house + X... this would have to occur for more or less every other shape

and aesthetically, the complex shapes might not be easily recognised. maybe its just me, but every alternative seems to bump into the problem of semi-specific combinations, regardless of how they are linked