Follow-up on Bananagrams at PAX East 2011 and Bananagrams doubles

Since this year's PAX East Omegathon paired up players into teams, the Bananagrams round was played in doubles mode. The picture below (from the official Bananagrams Twitter feed), shows a winning grid from the first round of the Bananagrams part of the Omegathon.



I attempted to read off the words from the grid and got:

   H A     P
  NOON B ZOO
   R DEER  IDES
  AS         A
   EEL    FIAT
     E  Z U  E
     A  O E  N
     D COIL
   TEETH
   A R U
   K   MUTER
   EON   I
    N   ME
   PEST
      I
     YET

A few comments on this picture: The grid incorporates a lot of the short words that I find myself using including EEL, EON, YET, and ZOO (two ZOOs, actually). CHUM also seems like a useful word to have in one's Bananagrams vocabulary. And observe the left and right branches of the grid and the way that the players have positioned themselves. If both players are right-handed, it seems to make sense for the player on the right to move closer to the table, so he can more easily reach the upper-right corner of the board with his right hand and still easily cover the lower-right corner of the board. You can see a similar posture adopted in photos of other teams.





It appears that the player on the left sometimes also turns toward the center; this is probably the best strategy, as it will allow the left hand to contribute more.

I've wanted to experiment with Bananagrams doubles for a while now. Knowing that it has been successfully played in the Omegathon gives me confidence that Bananagrams can work well as a team game.

UPDATE: Some video from the Omegathon Bananagrams round is now up

Ghost, Superghost, and Disorder: Word-dodging games

I recently played a game called Disorder, which is a neat little word-building (or more accurately, word-avoiding) game. To explain it, it's best to start with the simpler games that it is based on:

We begin with an old parlor game called Ghost. In Ghost, players take turns adding letters to a word they are building, trying to avoid being the one to actually finish a complete word. If a player adds a letter that makes it impossible to form a real word (e.g., T-R-I-C-J), another player can challenge him. If the first player cannot name a legitimate word that he's trying to make, he loses the game. But if the challenger is wrong, he loses instead.

Example gameplay:

Player 1: A
Player 2: M [A and AM are words, but words shorter than 4 letters are permitted.]
Player 1: B
[At this point in the game, there are lots of words that players may be thinking of like AMBITIOUS, AMBULANCE, AMBUSH, AMBIGUOUS, AMBLE. But with each new letter the options narrow.]
Player 2: E
[This is a brilliant play because the only common words that can be formed starting with AMBE all have the root AMBER which is a valid word. The options for Player 1 are to choose the R and lose or choose another letter and try to bluff. Bluffing adds an interesting gameplay dimension to Ghost and related games.]

A Ghost variant called Superghost allows players to add letters to both the beginning and the end of the proto-word, opening wide the strategic possibilities and making for a game that you really have to think about.

The writer James Thurber enjoyed playing Superghost with his friends and wrote a New Yorker essay about it back in 1951 (delightfully titled, 'Do You Want to Make Something Out of It? (Or, if you put an "o" on "understo," you'll ruin my "thunderstorm")'). The essay can be found on the New Yorker site (behind a paywall) or in a collection of Thurber's writings called Thurber Country).

Finally we come to Disorder, which is a board game that comes with 1) cards that players get dealt so that they have a hand of letters to choose from, 2) a long skinny board with slots for each card to go into as the word is being built, and 3) chips for keeping score. In addition to giving players a set of letters that they can use for word-extending, Disorder introduces a few more twists on Superghost. Mixed into the deck of letters are four types of power cards. The Exchange card lets you swap a card in your hand with a card on the board. The Switch card lets you take two cards on the board and switch their positions. The Squeeze card allows you to make a one-card gap anywhere in the word and insert a card from your hand. And the Pass card lets you skip a turn.

And finally, any card can be used as a wild card, simply by flipping it over (they all say "wild!" on the back) and laying it down as part of the word. Wild cards can be tricky to deal with since (unlike in Scrabble, where a player declares what the blank tile represents) in Disorder, the wild card can be any letter. This makes it easier to build toward a word without giving away to your opponents what you are planning, but it also makes it difficult to think of all the possible words that could be in play.

Scoring is simple. Each card has a point value on it, with harder letters like Q and Z having correspondingly larger point values (roughly like in Scrabble). At the end of the round, the point values of the cards that have been played on the board are summed, and the total is awarded to whoever lost the round. After how ever many rounds are played, the winner is the player who accumulates the least points. I enjoy playing Disorder so much that I am willing to play without keeping score (though that may just be the Bananagrammer in me).

Disorder is a great game. I have already bought someone a copy for Christmas.

I like having the cards and the board, but in a pinch, this could be played with Bananagrams tiles with a few modifications: Each player can take 7 Bananagrams tiles and, in the absence of racks, just stand the tiles up on their edges. Note that Disorder has a flat letter distribution (4 cards for each letter of the alphabet). While I haven't tried it, I think that using the standard Bananagrams distribution of letters will still be fine. The important adjustment I would recommend borrowing from Disorder is the notion that you can play a tile face-down and have it act as a wildcard. If you're playing for the first time, I suggest starting off with the regular Ghost version until you are ready to graduate to the Superghost variety.


Ghost lends itself to rule variation, spawning games with names like "Superduperghost" and "Spook". My ambition is to come up with a mutation that will best them all. I think I'll call it "Pac-Man".

Scramble: Part word game, part scavenger hunt, part Easter egg hunt

If you travelled back in time to the 2010 ARGfest in Atlanta (a conference for Alternate Reality Game designers and fans), you could have played in an original mutated word game called Scramble, masterminded by ARG designer Brooke Thompson.

Large letters have been scattered around the park and it is your job to find one. Once you do, you've got to find enough other people who have found letters so that you can form a word... a real word... not just one of those made up ones... well, not unless you can convince the Word Master that it’s a real one. Once you've gathered a word, head to the Word Master. Simple, right?

Not so much! Like Scrabble, each letter is worth a certain number of points... do you keep that Z you found or trade it in for an E? How many words, real words, can you spell with your letters? How many little tasks you were able to compete on the way? And... how quickly did you get back to the Word Master? Oh yes! It’s a battle between time & creativity. And it’s up to you to win.

Further event details may be found here. The exact rules of the game are not specified, but given that it was an experimental game, I don't think they need to be. The essence of the idea is enough for anyone who wants to try this. It seems like it would be well-suited to a party or also in a classroom, as it is the kind of challenge that also has educational value and teaches kids how to work together and think creatively.

I'd probably modify the game to make it more Bananagrams-like, requiring each group to form a single grid, and getting points for each word that they also can find a physical example of. Even I would like to play in that game!

I found a blog posting from someone who played in this game who writes:

The game was called Scramble, and the letters were valued like Scrabble tiles, the goal being to grab a group of people and get good letters to maximize your Scrabble score with them. Given that you could get credit for multiple words with the same letters, I picked up pretty quickly that the thing to do was to get 4-5 people, nab some good letters, and make lots of anagrams. You also got a double score for taking a picture of your word with an example of the word. My team went for C-O-D-E-S (and coeds, decos, and edocs), got pictures for all our words, and totally stomped on the other team, who only had one word, even though it was longer.

High marks to that team for devising a winning strategy on the fly, though if I were Word Master, I would have given the thumbs-down to the dubious "decos" and the hideous "edocs". A few more words like that, and I might think this was part of the ARGHfest.

Scrabble reformers: Donald Sauter and the Dover Scrabble Club

In contrast with the Scrabble reform proposed by Peter Roizen (see the previous post on WildWords), Donald Sauter's complaints are more of the "95 Theses" number. When he says he wants to fix Scrabble, some of the complaints he lists are:

• Bluffing was never a part of the original game of Scrabble and was only introduced in 1976.
  
• The Official Scrabble Players Dictionary has been anointed as the definitive word list, in spite of the fact that it contains lots and lots of bogus words (no longer printed in any dictionary), suggesting that about 5% of all OSPD words may be in this category.
  
• As a corollary, conventional Scrabble encourages lots of little words to be played.
  
• The standard Scrabble tile distribution gets boring after a while.

His solution?

Scrabble II: Amongst the new rules:

• Play with 8 tiles on each player's rack instead of 7 and allow bonuses for 6-, 7-, and 8-tile plays.
  
• Use a real dictionary (but toss some of its more made-up, iffy, or downright ridiculous words).
  
• Allow words to stretch beyond the borders of the standard 15-by-15 board. (The extended board is such a cool idea!)
  
• Forbid plays where only a single two-letter word is formed.
  
• Mix three tile sets together and select a new, random tile distribution for each game.

Here are the full rules of Scrabble II, and a far more detailed description of the motivations behind and playing of Scrabble II. The latter is particularly fun to read because it is so spirited and analytical, and as a bonus it contains what amounts to a manifesto on two-letter words.

---

There are now tiny little ad hoc Bananagrams tournaments sprouting up in the U.S. without any organization or permanence to them. This is probably how Scrabble tournaments started up. Whether this will develop into anything like nationwide tournaments is yet to be seen. If it does, I would hope that some of the mistakes of the Scrabble tournament scene could be avoided. In particular, I would like to see competition divided into different groupings: one for the word-memorizers and one for the more casual player. Ideally, a newcomer to Bananagrams should be able to learn the rules of the game and start competing on the first day.

As Stefan Fatsis says in Word Freak (his book on the tournament Scrabble subculture), "Recruiting new players is Scrabble's toughest task." In addition to helping distinguish it from being just a "speed Scrabble" tournament, eliminating the requirement to learn a bunch of arbitrary letter sequences would make a Bananagrams tournament more inclusive and open and fun.

Synchronized Bananagramming and other ways to play Bananagrams

In thinking about games of Bananagrams I have played, I've realized that the amount of time it takes me to finish a grid can depend heavily on what letters I get and what order I get them in. Thus, the winner of any single game can depend heavily on the randomness of the drawn tiles.

Here is a way to take a massive amount of the randomness out of a Bananagrams game: Have someone who is not going to play, sort through all the letters and give each player an identical set of 21 (or however many) tiles to start off with. Also set up identical queues of tiles for each player to peel from. The outcome of such a match should be determined extremely strongly by the actual performances of the players.

Admittedly, it takes a lot of the drama out of the game and makes it a very different exercise. Played in a less competitive fashion, this would be a really strange and unique game: Imagine the reactions as all players peel a Q at the same time. It would be almost like everyone was sharing the same experience. Comparing grids at the end would also be interesting as it would better highlight the different approaches and tricks of each player.

This idea suggests to me a puzzle: Is there a way that two players could agree on an algorithm ahead of time which would allow them to make the same (or nearly the same) word grid? In principle, of course, you could just give them the same instructions as a Bananagrams-playing computer program, so the better question is whether there is a relatively simple way of doing it?

One more twist: It would be interesting to try to play a game where the objective was for players to make maximally similar grids. Without looking at the other player's grid, it would have a sort of mind-reading, Taboo-ish potential. If played where the players could look at the other players' grids (and where we would go back to a standard random drawing of tiles), it would add a sort of frantic element to gameplay.

UPDATE: Since writing this post, I've discovered that the Supernifty online speed Scrabble game (which I previously reviewed) actually implements the synchronization option that I described above. When one player starts a new Supernifty speed Scrabble game, they have the option (which appears to be the default) of having all players receive the same letters. This option can be changed by clicking on the link under the progress bar that counts down the time to the beginning of the game. So if you want to experiment with synchronizing your Bananagrams, you now just need two computers and a willing accomplice.

Scrabble reformers: W*W*S

Last month, the Scrabble world was briefly rocked by news reports saying that a new version of Scrabble would allow proper nouns to be used as words. (It doesn't take much to rock the Scrabble world.) These stories turned out to be false. Actually Mattel is just introducing yet another of its many tangential spin-offs of Scrabble - in this case, a game called "Scrabble Trickster". But the resulting outrage serves as a good illustration of how passionate people are about defending the standard rules of Scrabble.

And then there are those on the other side of the spectrum, who believe that something is wrong with Scrabble and that it needs to be fixed. And they have come up with some delightfully crazy solutions.

Discontent with the word-memorization and short words that optimum Scrabble strategy requires, Peter Roizen came up with two small changes that totally transmogrify Scrabble into something else. First, he got rid of the blank tiles (which can stand for only one letter) and added in twelve wildcard tiles (which can represent long strings of letters). So, for example, the word

TRANSMOGRIFY

could be spelled

TR*M*Y

Unlike blank tiles, when building off of the wildcard tiles in the other direction, they can again stand for any sequence of letters desired by the player. And the second change he made was to add wildcard squares to the board. When placing a word that includes one of the wildcard squares, any tile can be placed on the wildcard square, turned over so it looks like a blank, but still functions like a wildcard.

An extra twist is that the player placing the tiles does not have to immediately reveal what the wildcards stand for. The opponents then have to decide whether to challenge the word, based on whether they believe the first player really knows a word that matches the wildcard pattern. Therefore, bluffing and pattern matching play a large role in this game.

The main effect of the wildcards is to break the game open, so rather than being dominated by short words, the board becomes covered in long words (albeit, long words that tend to be represented by 5 or 6 letters and some wildcards).

The web site for the game is filled with amusing discussion and digressions on Scrabble and WildWords.

There is also a free computer version of WildWords for computers that run on the Windows operating system. It allows people on different computers to play together.

The obvious question now is, what effect would including either blanks or wildcard tiles have on Bananagrams play? My guess is that both tiles would just make Bananagrams go faster. But it might be interesting to mix them in to balance other variations that tend to slow down the game to get a game with different strategy while maintaining Bananagrams speed.

Another reason Scrabble dictionaries are inadequate for Bananagrams

The Scrabble board is a 15-by-15 grid, so naturally, Scrabble dictionaries have no need for words longer than 15 letters. Oddly even "Super Scrabble" which is Scrabble played on a larger board and with more tiles, still uses the 15-letter limit.

Some 16-letter words for your consideration:

ambidextrousness
anagrammatically
anthropomorphize
autobiographical
biodegradability
bureaucratically
counterclockwise
crystallographer
cryptozoological

I can totally see someone staring off with "clocks" in their grid, turning it into "clockwise", and then in a brilliant burst of insight, combining it with "count" and some stray tiles to make "counterclockwise". If I ever pulled that off, I would be so proud that I wouldn't even care if I won the game. (OK, I'd still care, but either way it would be awesome.)

What is the longest word that you have ever used in a Bananagrams match? For those who like games with rounds that escalate, the must-contain-an-N-letter-word would be an interesting and challenging variation. How high can you go?

Palindromes you are most likely to be able to make in Appletters

Since making palindromes earns players bonus points in the Applescore game (as described in this previous post on Appletters), I've compiled a list of the palindromes you are most likely to be able to make during the game (really short ones or ones that use common letters).

Off the top of my head, using only the minimal length examples:

bib, bob
dad, deed, did, dud
eke, ere, eve, ewe, eye
gag, gig
kook
mom
noon, nun
pap, pep, pip, pop, pup
radar
sees
tat, tit, tot
wow

And, of course, there is one Scrabble-legal letter combination that is two letters long and a palindrome: AA. A'a (pronounced /ah ah/) is a type of lava, which is thicker and more viscous than other types. It is characterized by flowing in a sporadic fashion and leaving a rough surface when it cools.

And if it's not already been suggested, then I propose a variation of Appletters called Palindrominoes: The word snake is formed as in regular Appleletters, but if you can form a palindrome where the base letter (the "head" of the snake, I suppose) is inside the palindrome, then you are permitted to position letters both above and below the end-tile, as shown in the example below:

  e   
  VIGOR 
  e   I
      N  
      KITE

Then you can give the snake multiple heads, like a hydra or a planarian or something. A little extra chaos to spice up your Appletters game.

How else to play Bananagrams

Playing with the sort of people that memorize lists of Scrabble-legal two-letter combinations (there really ought to be a name for these people... Scrabble obsessives? Scrabble maniacs?) can be difficult for the non-memorizers. One variation that eliminates this particular advantage is the no-two-letter-words rule. Of course, since two-letter word formation is often the fastest way of adding a new letter to the grid or reconfiguring a grid, eliminating two-letter words can slow down the game. It's also surprisingly challenging. When playing against beginners, I sometimes self-handicap by not allowing myself to use two-letter words.

Must-contain-an-N-letter-word is also an interesting change of pace. Variations that slow the game down may not be ideal for games of two or four players, but when you get up to six or more players, it seems that winning depends a lot more on what set of letters you get (and what order you get them in). An additional rule to balance things out may be a useful thing to have on hand.

My favorite variation on a variation is no-two-letter-nouns. This eliminates most of the letter-combinations that nobody but the memorizers have heard of, while allowing the game flow permitted by common two-letter words. (I would exclude from the exclusion two-letter pronouns. Because I like HE, IT, and ME.)

But I have some crazier ideas for variations which I intend to try out. Stay tuned...