Scrabble players are in an uproar over the announcement of a version of Scrabble to be released in the United Kingdom that will allow—among other things—the use of proper nouns in play. CNET has set the record straight that Hasbro, the American publisher of the game, is doing no such thing in the U.S. and Canada. One Scrabble purist, quoted in the Daily Mail’s article on the revision furor, bemoaned that the UK publisher, Mattel, was “dumbing down a classic.”
May I call bullshit? Well, not exactly bullshit. But may I point out that assigning a gameplay advantage to Scrabble players who memorize the 80,000-word Scrabble dictionary is located on the opposite end of the fun spectrum from fun? For a majority of players who aren’t married to a strict traditional ruleset, allowing proper nouns will, simply put, make Scrabble more fun. More players will be able to make more words, and making words is the fun of Scrabble.
Objections to seem to come from (a) people who spent the time to memorize the dictionary and would like to keep their advantage, and (b) those who feel tradition has merit for its own sake.
The former group is forgiven, I suppose, for their self-interest. Their willingness to spend that kind of time on that kind of pursuit suggests that they’re already beyond reason.
But for those of you in the latter group, look: The rules of even traditional games evolve over time. As a single example, Hold ‘Em was not invented until the early 1900s, and wasn’t introduced in Las Vegas until 1967. By any objective measure of quality that I can think of, Hold ‘Em is simply a better game than draw poker, even though it came later.
To say that a game must be played in a given way because that’s the way we’ve always played it is reactionary. If there’s some other argument against revising Scrabble to make it more fun for more people, I’m all ears, but I haven’t heard it yet.
I think it’s unfair to describe dedicated Scrabble players who memorize word lists as “beyond reason.” Dedicated fans of any past-time do things like memorizing rules for advantage; chess players studying major games, Starcraft players practicing micro, Magic players tweaking and retweaking decks. It doesn’t make them irrational, just enthusiastic.
That said, the new version of Scrabble (which, as an article you linked says, is a variant edition and will not replace the core game) does seem to be a lot more fun. It’s a good design guideline to have the rules work the way the players expect, and a new player would expect any word to work, not just non-proper nouns.
The addition of proper nouns (or certain sorts of proper nouns) seems like a perfectly viable house rule to me. If it’s a rule that Scrabble‘s owners adopt and choose to print, that’s fine. There’s plenty of record remaining of Scrabble’s traditional rules. They’ll continue to work with the hardware for a good long while, one presumes.
According to this site,
Also worth noting: Hasbro produces Scrabble in the US and Canada, so Mattel’s new rules (even if it were the base set and not a new variant of some sort) wouldn’t impact most North American players.
QUIJIBO
Scrabble is a game about numbers, not words. Proper nouns makes it more fun for… well, for retards who want to spell PEPSI and score 18 points on a double word space.
Those who wish to play “Scrabble Classic” can play Scrabble Classic.
Those who wish to play “New Scrabble” can play “New Scrabble”.
Where’s the problem? I suppose if the new version of Scrabble were replacing the old version, that would be a cause for complaint from fans of the old version. But I think the two can coexist — and if a new player becomes interested in Scrabble as a result of the new rules, then decides to try a more challenging variant by playing without proper nouns, isn’t that a win for the gaming and Scrabble communities as a whole? Without new blood, the hobby would die as its followers did. [Remember Pogs? Me neither :]
Hmm, I think you jump to a lot of conclusions. You assume that allowing people to make more words of any sort is an unqualified source of fun.
The prohibition against proper nouns always seemed like a useful limitation to prevent arguments. Proper nouns are much more changeable; they can be created at will, essentially. It’s a broader category. Excluding them avoids arguments about what is and what is not a valid proper noun. There is some good to be had from this limitation. It may be outweighed by the fun of being able to make more words, but I shouldn’t ignore it out of hand.
If the ability to add more words was an unqualified good, then why not let the letters on each tile serve as nothing more than a suggestion, and let people write in whatever letters they wished to on the tiles.
Choice and boundaries are part of the fun of any game; the proper balance is essential.
Gregory: Totally fair. “Beyond reason” is going too far. I can’t imagine making that kind of investment in Scrabble, myself.
David: I think that making allowable words that are in very, very common English usage in a win, in terms of fun, for most players, for Scrabble as a game, where Scrabble is broadly understood (and taught to new players) as a game where you assemble letters on tiles into words. Proper nouns needn’t be contentious. The easiest rule would be to simply allow proper nouns found in the dictionary of choice, but there are many other feasible ways to draw that line.
If they’re going to allow proper nouns, then they should add a set of lower case letters and require proper capitalization.
I come from a family of enthusiastic Scrabblers. As a kid, unfamiliar with Scrabble-sanctioned words like zyzzyva and zzz, but familiar with kid-sanctioned words (can’t think of an example… let’s steal Quijibo), we used house rules to make the game fun by allowing some words (common but not Scrabble-sanctioned) while still not allowing nonsense.
My question is: since they have to update the Scrabble dictionary occasionally, will Google be filed under proper noun (under “Google, the”) or verb (to google)?
@Jeff – using a selected dictionary of choice is a great way for us to play, but seems like a terrible marketing idea for the makers of the Scrabble Dictionary.
I agree with your two rebuttals of potential objections. However, I think there is another potential objection from a fun perspective. I’d be worried that excessively broadening the pool of permitted words could lengthen each player’s turn. Off-turn downtime is a real pitfall of Scrabble as it is–particularly for casual play. Of course, the proof is in the play, so I could be wrong.
For sure, Sam, the publishers can’t (well, won’t) advise players to use a dictionary other than theirs, but it’s the obvious way to play the game. If it were me, I’d probably suggest Wikipedia was a good source to which everyone can have convenient access.
Justin, I can also see it shortening turns, as a way to make finding some word—any word—that will allow you to score at least something and pass play along. Perhaps it would shorten turns for novice players and lengthen turns for advanced players. (But one-thousand times yes to the underlying problem that Scrabble is a game of waaaay too much downtime.)
One other thing: the proposed rules changes seem to encompass more than just allowing new/different words. Does allowing backwards spellings, tile-stealing, etc. enhance the game or make it something completely different?
Since so little information about these new rules was available, Sam, I don’t know. Imagining the probable rules for such things, I’m less impressed with how these changes might “fun up” Scrabble. They don’t really extend the core gameplay of “assemble words from tiles and play them to this crossword board” so much as they undermine (or, maybe, “deconstruct”) it.
I’d weigh in on the side of Scrabble not being about words. Scrabble is a surprisingly chance-driven game, with the hope being that you get the proper combination of letters that lets you spell some word with maximum overlap with an existing word on the board by which you squeak out extra points for additional two- and three-letter words. Adding a category to allowed words doesn’t change the basic nickel-and-dime gameplay.
I love words and language. I hate Scrabble.
“But may I point out that assigning a gameplay advantage to Scrabble players who memorize the 80,000-word Scrabble dictionary is located on the opposite end of the fun spectrum from fun?”
When did possessing a broad vocabulary become a bad thing? This statement minimizes those who love literature and language into a bunch of point-starved, Scrabble obsessed junkies. I have a large vocabulary. It has nothing to do with Scrabble, it is because I love to read. I’m really surprised to see an author making an argument like this.
“More players will be able to make more words, and making words is the fun of Scrabble.”
More words does not equal fun, when the words are as open to interpretation as proper nouns. I have always loved the strategy of Scrabble. The people I play with also love the strategy of Scrabble. It’s more than just plunking down words. The addition of proper nouns, and the addition of backward spellings and unconnected words remove a significant part of the strategy of the game. It’s no longer Scrabble at that point; if all you want to do is put down words, you might want to consider playing something like Upwards instead.
Liz: I’m trying to draw a distinction between a real-world love of words, vocabulary, and literature (on one hand) and the memorization of obscure and pointless “words” for the purposes of assembling high-scording plays in Scrabble (on the other hand).
You point out that your vocabulary has nothing to do with Scrabble, and that disconnect dovetails with my point. My gripe with Scrabble is that its rules arbitrarily restrict the utility of a real-world vocabulary (which includes proper nouns) in favor of a a smaller set of words (that nevertheless includes useless letter-assemblages like “zek,” which are not generally part of a real-world vocabulary).
Also, yes, Justin, we are agreed that Scrabble is not a particularly great game, as games go.
You can’t simply and meaningfully restrict proper names. What’s to stop the Kwyjibo move?
Also, the majority of scrabble players are tournament players, who DO care about the rules. Thanks for dismissing them so casually.
You can very easily restrict proper names in the same way you restrict other words: Choose a word list that has authority. IMDB, NOAD, Wikipedia, Britannica, or any of a dozen other authorities that have entries for proper names could be chosen.
Please hit me with some evidence that the majority of Scrabble players are tournament players. I’d be very surprised if that were true.
(But even if it were true, that makes it even easier to solve the simple and meaningful restriction problem, because tournament Scrabble depends entirely on a canonical word list, and so the makers of Scrabble would simply be able to decide on, print, and distribute a list of which proper nouns are kosher for play.)
I didn’t know you didn’t like Scrabble, Jeff. I still rather like it, though I’m only okay at it.
Scrabble is a lot like Windows, for me. Massive penetration, and you can get the job done with it (you can play it, you can have fun), but there are obvious alternatives that do the job better.
Scrabble should only be played with the OED as a reference. Limiting one’s self to the Scrabble Dictionary is an act of purile anti-intellectualism.