The Royal Game of Ur (henceforth shortened to Ur) is so called because of the location original archeological discovery of the game in the royal tombs of the Ancient mesopotamian city, where a number of elaborate decorative sets of the game were found intact. Thought to may have potentially had a religious or prophetic purpose by some (see Becker, 1990 and Finkel, 1990), it's presence throughout the ancient Middle East and beyond seems more universal, with it's core race game mechanics being seen in many other later games, suggesting an influence.
The excavation by Sir Leonard Woolley, uncovered many copies of the game with different aesthetic designs for the boards and pieces, as well as a mixture of simple four sided dice, throw sticks and astragals. Despite these very different design elements on the surface, the core of each game set remains intact, two sets of seven counters, and a 20 squared board (leading some to describe it as The Game of 20 Squares) marked with evenly distributed rosettes (see Figure 1).
What makes this ancient game such a mystery is the lack of a complete ruleset. The only known copy of the written rules for the game come from a much later source than the original game pieces, and has been obfuscated by the abstraction of the mechanics into an allegory for the symbology of the Zodiac and planetary movements. (Finkel, 1990) As such, it has become difficult for any definitive answer on how the game should be played, leading to many interpretations of the rules. Consistent throughout each interpretation of the rules however is the assumption that the game is a ‘race game’ where the goal of the game is to get all of ones pieces off the board by following a set route through the squares, as dictated by throws of dice/sticks/astragals. The significance of the rosette squares is present in each as well.
Murray envisioned the game being played in a similar manner to the ancient Egyptian board game sen’t, with players pieces moving through a total of 27 squares (see Figure 2) using a similar throw mechanic using the sticks. (Murray, 1952). Bell on the other hand, saw a much shorter route by comparison (see Figure 3), and details how the throws might be played out, proposing rules for piece capture and ‘safe squares’. He suggests that the game might be played using a betting mechanic, with players adding to a prize pool as pieces are captured. (Bell, 1960).
Murray and Bell also mention a later version of the board (see Figure 4), where the smaller group of squares at the end have been ‘unfolded’ to make a longer tail. This was possibly done to increase the number of squares in conflict between players, or if the route proposed by Murray is correct, make for a shorter and simpler game. It is this version of the board that is used in the only written rules which Finkel refers to. (Finkel, 1990).
Irving Finkel, who has the benefit the others did not of having some form of rule set for the game (albeit incomplete, written much later, and obfuscated beneath confusing symbolism) interprets the game very differently from both Bell and Murray. While he agrees with Bell that the game involved a betting mechanic, he places more of an emphasis on the roles of the various pieces, giving each a unique set of attributes which changes gameplay significantly into something far more complicated than anything Bell or Murray suggests. It is also interesting to note that Finkel uses the later board layout in his analysis of the game. (Finkel, 1990).
From each of these variations of the game, three things remain the same. The number of squares available for play, the importance of the rosettes and use of them as ‘safe’ squares, and the use of some form of random number generator (whether dice, sticks, or astragals) to determine the movement of pieces. For the purposes of further iteration in this document, the proposed changes would be played on the later revised board, with five pieces per player, and the marked rosette placement intact. The pieces will be considered equal in value and movement potential.
Remove from the game any connection to symbolic or religious/prophetic significance, or the element of gambling, and the game quickly falls apart. The board is not interesting or long enough for an engaging race game, and the heavy reliance on random number generation for determining movement, prevents enough strategy being formed to become an engaging war game. This reliance on luck harms the enjoyment of the game, as both the loser and victor of the game can feel ‘cheated’ by how the dice/sticks/astragals landed, especially if a ‘throw again’ mechanic has been used in some form, giving one player a significant advantage through no skill of his own.
As Costikyan remarks: "Chess is such as strong game precisely because every move and every thought is dictated by the need to anticipate and deal with the move and thoughts of the opponent." (Costikyan, 2002) Comparatively therefore, Ur is a much weaker game as there is no such opportunity for the player to anticipate future actions, of himself or his opponent.
The majority of Ur’s problems can be traced to it’s core mechanic being overly reliant on random number generation in the form of dice rolls/stick throws. One solution to the problem caused by the use of random number generators could instead be resolved by replacing the dice/sticks/astragals with numbered playing cards dealt to each player. Cards resolve a number of problems caused by random number generation.
Cards can help limit potential outcomes allowing the game to be more tightly balanced.
Cards are still dealt/drawn randomly to keep the positive aspects of random number generation. The limited possibility space of the game necessitates some unpredictability to prevent a dominant strategy emerging.
Players holding more than one card at time allows for meaningful choice in what movements are made, as well as the potential to plan ahead or prepare to counter the actions of the opponent.
As Jesse Schell puts it in his chapter on balance:
“dealing out a hand of cards is pure chance - but choosing how to play them is pure skill.” (Schell, 2008).
Another issue affecting the game’s balance is that of the ‘throw again’ mechanic, in which certain actions are rewarded by giving one of the players an additional turn. In the original game (where landing on a rosette awards the player another throw), these could potentially chain together to provide an enormous advantage to one of the players. When combined with the first iteration, this is less of an issue as skillful players could take advantage of this, however for the purposes of the remaining iterations, it has been removed.
Landing a piece on a rosette square is never a bad decision in the original game. The player is always rewarded by making that piece ‘safe’ from being sent off the board, and with the ‘throw again’ mechanic, the player also receives an additional turn. This limits the player, as if he has the option of landing on a rosette square, there is no good reason why he shouldn’t. However with a small change to the capture mechanic, the decision over where to move pieces becomes far more interesting.
In this next iteration, rosette squares still remain ‘safe’ for pieces in danger of being captured, but now also function as ‘checkpoints’ in the change to the capture mechanic. Pieces not on a rosette when landed on by an opponent's piece would no longer be sent off the board to start from the beginning, but instead would be knocked back to the next unoccupied rosette square (or if no free rosette tile exists, off the board as before).
The main advantage to making this change is that landing on the rosette is no longer a default movement, but a choice. Should the player move his piece onto the rosette, safe for another turn and preventing the opponent from claiming it, or leave it free to hopefully prevent another one of his pieces being sent back even further? Depending on the current state of play, either could be a preferred move, and it gives players more opportunities to make meaningful decisions, increasing the strategy of the game, making for a much more interesting experience.
These discussed iterations, work together to help transform Ur from an ancient race game of luck, to a more modern strategic experience with greater player engagement. There are a number of other changes that could be made to further improve the game, especially in terms of aesthetics, but these are beyond the scope of this essay.
Bibliography
BECKER A. (1990). “Ancient Board Games in Perspective”. in FINKEL. I, L. (1990) Ancient Board Games in Perspective - Papers from the 1990 British Museum colloquium, with additional contributions. The British Museum Press. pp 11-15.
BELL R,C. (1960) Board and Table Games From Many Civilizations. Volume 1. General Publishing Company, Ltd. Toronto. pp 23-25.
COSTIKYAN G. (2002). “I Have No Words & I Must Design: Toward a Critical Vocabulary for Games”. in MAYRA F. (2002). Proceedings of Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference. Tampere University Press. pp 09-33.
FINKEL I, L. (1990). “On the Rules for the Royal Game of Ur”. in FINKEL. I, L. (1990) Ancient Board Games in Perspective - Papers from the 1990 British Museum colloquium, with additional contributions. The British Museum Press. pp 16-32.
MURRAY H, J, R. (1952). A History of Board Games Other Than Chess. Clarendon Press. Oxford. pp 19-23.
SCHELL J. (2008). The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses. CRC Press. pp 183-184.
The excavation by Sir Leonard Woolley, uncovered many copies of the game with different aesthetic designs for the boards and pieces, as well as a mixture of simple four sided dice, throw sticks and astragals. Despite these very different design elements on the surface, the core of each game set remains intact, two sets of seven counters, and a 20 squared board (leading some to describe it as The Game of 20 Squares) marked with evenly distributed rosettes (see Figure 1).
What makes this ancient game such a mystery is the lack of a complete ruleset. The only known copy of the written rules for the game come from a much later source than the original game pieces, and has been obfuscated by the abstraction of the mechanics into an allegory for the symbology of the Zodiac and planetary movements. (Finkel, 1990) As such, it has become difficult for any definitive answer on how the game should be played, leading to many interpretations of the rules. Consistent throughout each interpretation of the rules however is the assumption that the game is a ‘race game’ where the goal of the game is to get all of ones pieces off the board by following a set route through the squares, as dictated by throws of dice/sticks/astragals. The significance of the rosette squares is present in each as well.
Murray envisioned the game being played in a similar manner to the ancient Egyptian board game sen’t, with players pieces moving through a total of 27 squares (see Figure 2) using a similar throw mechanic using the sticks. (Murray, 1952). Bell on the other hand, saw a much shorter route by comparison (see Figure 3), and details how the throws might be played out, proposing rules for piece capture and ‘safe squares’. He suggests that the game might be played using a betting mechanic, with players adding to a prize pool as pieces are captured. (Bell, 1960).
Murray and Bell also mention a later version of the board (see Figure 4), where the smaller group of squares at the end have been ‘unfolded’ to make a longer tail. This was possibly done to increase the number of squares in conflict between players, or if the route proposed by Murray is correct, make for a shorter and simpler game. It is this version of the board that is used in the only written rules which Finkel refers to. (Finkel, 1990).
Irving Finkel, who has the benefit the others did not of having some form of rule set for the game (albeit incomplete, written much later, and obfuscated beneath confusing symbolism) interprets the game very differently from both Bell and Murray. While he agrees with Bell that the game involved a betting mechanic, he places more of an emphasis on the roles of the various pieces, giving each a unique set of attributes which changes gameplay significantly into something far more complicated than anything Bell or Murray suggests. It is also interesting to note that Finkel uses the later board layout in his analysis of the game. (Finkel, 1990).
From each of these variations of the game, three things remain the same. The number of squares available for play, the importance of the rosettes and use of them as ‘safe’ squares, and the use of some form of random number generator (whether dice, sticks, or astragals) to determine the movement of pieces. For the purposes of further iteration in this document, the proposed changes would be played on the later revised board, with five pieces per player, and the marked rosette placement intact. The pieces will be considered equal in value and movement potential.
Remove from the game any connection to symbolic or religious/prophetic significance, or the element of gambling, and the game quickly falls apart. The board is not interesting or long enough for an engaging race game, and the heavy reliance on random number generation for determining movement, prevents enough strategy being formed to become an engaging war game. This reliance on luck harms the enjoyment of the game, as both the loser and victor of the game can feel ‘cheated’ by how the dice/sticks/astragals landed, especially if a ‘throw again’ mechanic has been used in some form, giving one player a significant advantage through no skill of his own.
As Costikyan remarks: "Chess is such as strong game precisely because every move and every thought is dictated by the need to anticipate and deal with the move and thoughts of the opponent." (Costikyan, 2002) Comparatively therefore, Ur is a much weaker game as there is no such opportunity for the player to anticipate future actions, of himself or his opponent.
The majority of Ur’s problems can be traced to it’s core mechanic being overly reliant on random number generation in the form of dice rolls/stick throws. One solution to the problem caused by the use of random number generators could instead be resolved by replacing the dice/sticks/astragals with numbered playing cards dealt to each player. Cards resolve a number of problems caused by random number generation.
Cards can help limit potential outcomes allowing the game to be more tightly balanced.
Cards are still dealt/drawn randomly to keep the positive aspects of random number generation. The limited possibility space of the game necessitates some unpredictability to prevent a dominant strategy emerging.
Players holding more than one card at time allows for meaningful choice in what movements are made, as well as the potential to plan ahead or prepare to counter the actions of the opponent.
As Jesse Schell puts it in his chapter on balance:
“dealing out a hand of cards is pure chance - but choosing how to play them is pure skill.” (Schell, 2008).
Another issue affecting the game’s balance is that of the ‘throw again’ mechanic, in which certain actions are rewarded by giving one of the players an additional turn. In the original game (where landing on a rosette awards the player another throw), these could potentially chain together to provide an enormous advantage to one of the players. When combined with the first iteration, this is less of an issue as skillful players could take advantage of this, however for the purposes of the remaining iterations, it has been removed.
Landing a piece on a rosette square is never a bad decision in the original game. The player is always rewarded by making that piece ‘safe’ from being sent off the board, and with the ‘throw again’ mechanic, the player also receives an additional turn. This limits the player, as if he has the option of landing on a rosette square, there is no good reason why he shouldn’t. However with a small change to the capture mechanic, the decision over where to move pieces becomes far more interesting.
In this next iteration, rosette squares still remain ‘safe’ for pieces in danger of being captured, but now also function as ‘checkpoints’ in the change to the capture mechanic. Pieces not on a rosette when landed on by an opponent's piece would no longer be sent off the board to start from the beginning, but instead would be knocked back to the next unoccupied rosette square (or if no free rosette tile exists, off the board as before).
The main advantage to making this change is that landing on the rosette is no longer a default movement, but a choice. Should the player move his piece onto the rosette, safe for another turn and preventing the opponent from claiming it, or leave it free to hopefully prevent another one of his pieces being sent back even further? Depending on the current state of play, either could be a preferred move, and it gives players more opportunities to make meaningful decisions, increasing the strategy of the game, making for a much more interesting experience.
These discussed iterations, work together to help transform Ur from an ancient race game of luck, to a more modern strategic experience with greater player engagement. There are a number of other changes that could be made to further improve the game, especially in terms of aesthetics, but these are beyond the scope of this essay.
Bibliography
BECKER A. (1990). “Ancient Board Games in Perspective”. in FINKEL. I, L. (1990) Ancient Board Games in Perspective - Papers from the 1990 British Museum colloquium, with additional contributions. The British Museum Press. pp 11-15.
BELL R,C. (1960) Board and Table Games From Many Civilizations. Volume 1. General Publishing Company, Ltd. Toronto. pp 23-25.
COSTIKYAN G. (2002). “I Have No Words & I Must Design: Toward a Critical Vocabulary for Games”. in MAYRA F. (2002). Proceedings of Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference. Tampere University Press. pp 09-33.
FINKEL I, L. (1990). “On the Rules for the Royal Game of Ur”. in FINKEL. I, L. (1990) Ancient Board Games in Perspective - Papers from the 1990 British Museum colloquium, with additional contributions. The British Museum Press. pp 16-32.
MURRAY H, J, R. (1952). A History of Board Games Other Than Chess. Clarendon Press. Oxford. pp 19-23.
SCHELL J. (2008). The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses. CRC Press. pp 183-184.
