Game Development Reference
In-Depth Information
In the case of Pascal's gambler friend, it was obvious that the point of the gam-
bling was to win
something.
The odds and the amount wagered itself were only a
means to an end. If the end is not accomplished, adjusting what it is you are willing
to risk is no longer an issue. To frame things back into terms of Pascal's religious
wager, if the terms of “living as if God exists� were structured such that it was im-
possible to accomplish, then even attempting that approach is no longer worth it.
Put another way, if your risk-management strategy is not capable of producing the
desired outcome, then it is not a viable solution. Therefore, why risk at all?
On the other hand, if your desired outcome is feasible if and
only
if you risk,
then you will not accomplish your goal unless you enter into the risky behavior. If
you elect not to risk, neither the odds nor the value of the prize will be of any im-
portance. It's like multiplying by zero—nothing else in the equation matters at all.
Therefore, at times, the utility that is present in a situation is specifically tied up in
taking
the risk in the first place.
A Monopoly on Preventing Monopolies
Many years ago, I had the opportunity to play the game Monopoly with some
friends. All of the people involved had played the game numerous times. With that
background, there is an assumption that people have an understanding of the core
game mechanics. By this, I do not mean the mechanics of rolling the dice, moving
around the board, and so on. I am referring to the fact that the overarching strat-
egy of the game is “get more and better stuff so that you can charge your opponents
lots when they land on it.� Of course, the pinnacle of this concept is the titular
“monopoly�—acquiring a collection of like assets so that their combined value is
significantly greater than the sum of their parts.
One method of acquiring a monopoly is through the random chance of landing
on the associated spaces (usually three of them) and purchasing them before anyone
else does. The odds of this happening are generally slim—especially seeing that we
had five or six players that night. Instead, it is a generally understood and accepted
tenet that, if anyone is going to get a monopoly at all, there will have to be barter-
ing of some sort. Sometimes this is straight up property-for-property, sometimes it
involves cash, and sometimes there is a combination of transactions. Sometimes
only two people are involved. Other times, there can be three-way transactions…
or even more. The bottom line is, unless
some
sort of transaction takes place, the
game stagnates quickly. Once all the properties are bought, the only action in the
game becomes “roll and pay.� And at the fees that are listed for the nonmonopo-
lized, nondeveloped properties are relative loose change in the scheme of things.
In this particular game, one of the participants, Marci, exhibited a peculiar
strategy. By the time the properties on the board were all bought up, she had man-
aged to accumulate pretty much one of everything important. Of the nine main
