New Rule

… you are not allowed to discuss the rules of Mao.

Seriously. Has anyone played this? It’s a card game where it’s against the rules to explain the rules. There are certain exceptions… or perhaps there aren’t, and people were just breaking the rules. Or perhaps they weren’t, and I don’t know all the rules yet. Then again, the group I learned with may have been applying house rules. Or, the experienced players may have been working from different, conflicting mental rulesets.  All of these are possible, and indeed likely. Confused? Here’s the kicker: Mao may well be the best game I’ve ever played. Read on…

Mao is a card game. It begins with a five-card-hand deal and the dealer’s declaration: “Standard five-card Mao begins now, starting with [desginates a player] and proceeding to the [designates a direction].” At least, that’s how it was played when I was introduced to the game, and it’s the way I’ve played ever since. Depending on how you interpret the rules (see convoluted description above), there may be other basic mechanics that are permissible to explain, though I will refrain out of caution. The game can only be learned through play, which is itself a fascinating and powerful mechanic. Consider: how would people react if this was applied to Risk or Poker? What if digital games had no interfaces and no HUD? People would never play. They would become instantly frustrated and hostile. And in all fairness, I have seen many people react this way to Mao, which raises another interesting question: why are people resistant to this type of trial-and-error learning process when presented with a defined game?

Consider small children They invent games constantly and seamlessly, many of which have hidden or mutable rulesets, often known only to the inventor and sometimes not even then. And almost without fail, they derive immense enjoyment from their unpredictable games. The key, it seems, is in the old adage, “ignorance is bliss.” As adults, we’re taught to distrust that statement and adopt another parable, “knowledge is power.” But children are just as comfortable in ignorance as in knowledge, and thus seem perfectly happy to accept frequent and catastrophic failure as a part of the game itself. I submit this attitude is critical to both their mastery of the system and their enjoyment of the game. The same is true of Mao: if you’re not prepared to make a complete and total fool of yourself, and to lose frequently and for consistently, you’ll hate the game forever. But if you can relax long enough to enjoy the hilarity and confusion of your fellow players as well as your own, you’ll love the game forever. Mao is, first and last, a social game: you gotta play with the right crowd. I remember wild and crazy nights of Mao with far more clarity than I remember great triumphs in Risk, or intense marathons of Starcraft or CStrike or WoW, and it is on the basis of that that I consider it the best game I know. It’s a game that never forgot what it’s like to be a small child

But what is it? Well, I can’t tell you, obviously. It’s a tragic conundrum, as Mao is a game that deserves to be propagated. Some enterprising individuals have come up with a possible solution, though: they made a site that chronicles a sample game which the reader can analyze to try to deduce the rules—just as you would were you sitting down and playing. Check it out, and see what you think. When you do, please comment here as you please, but no discussing the rules! I’ll delete it if you do—I must ensure the integrity of the game

Tags: Game Design //