[Fictionary] anniversary

[Jim Moskowitz]

I'm in Swarthmore, PA, USA.

And back in December 2011 there was a smattering of discussion about 
an in-person meetup, in the results discussion thread after my 
variant round ("which are the actual rules for the 19th-century game 
STONE?"). I suggested that "when we organize the Fictionary 
Real-world Get-together (for instance, this July?), we try a few of 
the invented games from this round?  I'd like to play the winner, the 
real one, and Pierre's #4."



At 2:27 PM -0500 12/18/11, Jim Moskowitz wrote:
>To: fictionary at swarpa.net
>From: Jim Moskowitz <jim at jimmosk.com>
>Subject: [Fictionary] STONE rules Results
>Sender: fictionary-bounces at swarpa.net
>
>Thanks to all who participated in this variant round. Before I 
>announce the winner let's review the entries and the comments they 
>generated...
>
>
>Eric: Initial reaction: no way!  Not one of those is a real game.
>
>
>
>1) A large circle is drawn on the ground or floor in the center of 
>the play space. At either end of the ground a goal is marked off. 
>One player, chosen to be stone, sits on the floor in the circle. The 
>other players stand around outside the circle, taunting the stone by 
>stepping over into his territory. Suddenly, and the more 
>unexpectedly the better, the stone rises and runs for the other 
>players, who are only safe from tagging when behind one of the 
>goals. Any one so tagged becomes a stone and joins the first stone 
>in sitting near the center of the circle. They also join him in 
>chasing the other players whenever he gives the signal. This 
>continues until all the players have been tagged.
>
>Eric: Would not want to play.
>Ellen: One point, because I like the writing style
>J-J: A combination of Duck-Duck-Goose and Red Rover that's too 
>similar to my hayfield version.
>Linda: I like that a kid  is the stone.  Plus the cumulative effect.
>Elliott: Completeness:  Check.  Playability:  Check.  Compelling 
>reason to involve ``stone'':  Not found.
>   --a total of 1 point for The Real Rules [see the end of this 
>message for details]
>
>
>2) This is a game for 3-5 players.  Everyone stands along a line to 
>start the game and throws in the same general direction.  In turn, 
>each player throws a certain flat stone (with a letter or number 
>painted onto or scratched into the top) chosen blindly from several 
>in a small sack, tosses the stone away from the group, along the 
>playing area, trying for the longest distance from the line.  The 
>one who is IT uses a knotted or marked rope to measure the 
>distances. The player who tosses it the farthest wins and becomes IT 
>for the next round.  A more exciting alternative is to toss the 
>stones toward a goal, like a stick in the ground, or another stone 
>that can moved by IT with each round.  The player who hits another 
>player's stone or the goal stone gets an extra point.  If you are 
>near a body of water, stones can be pitched towards a target placed 
>into the water, either floating or anchored.
>
>Eric: Would not want to play.
>Pierre: If the stone is chosen blindly, what happens if the player 
>forgets which stone
>he chose?
>J-J: The first variant is shot put with random handicaps.  The 
>second is bocce with balls that don't roll.  And the third version 
>is probably pretty hard to score.
>Elliott: Completeness:  Not complete (what are points good for?). 
>Playability: Check.  Compelling reason to involve ``stone'':  Check.
>   --a total of no points for Linda
>
>
>3) An outdoors game, best played on leaves or turf. The players sit 
>in a circle except for one player, the "stone mason" who goes off a 
>distance. While the stone mason is absent, the players sit in a 
>circle, with one of them sitting an a stone the size of two men's 
>fists or larger. The players then call the mason to return, and he 
>must detect which player is seated on the stone, the other players, 
>of course, trying to seem as solid and comfortable in their seats as 
>possible.  A good game for a mixed group of boys and girls, as this 
>is one game in which girls may excel, by reason of their crinolines.
>
>Pierre: Two points.
>J-J: Just a liiiiittle creepy.  But after reaching bottom without 
>finding anything I believed in, I have to give this one point.
>Ranjit: One point.
>Linda: Like that this is a seated game and someone is a stone mason. 
>We used to play a circle game called, Button, Button, Who's Got the 
>Button?  A button is in one player's hand while It is out of the 
>room.  Once It comes back into the room, he others pretend to move 
>the button from hand to hand around the circle while It watches.  It 
>must guess who is holding the button.
>Elliott: Completeness:  Check.  Playability:  Check.  Compelling 
>reason to involve ``stone'':  Check.  Two points for plausibility.
>   --a total of 6 points for Eric, our silver medalist
>
>
>4) Three players each have a tire in front of them; the tires are 
>fifteen feet apart in a triangle. The boundaries between the 
>players' territories are marked with sticks or ropes, halfway 
>between the tires. Each player starts with 30-40 stones in a pile 
>next to his tire and throws stones at the other two players' tires. 
>If a stone lands outside the tire, it may be thrown again by the 
>player in whose territory it lands. Once a stone lands in a tire, it 
>is out of play. The game ends when all stones are in tires. The 
>winner is the player with the fewest stones in his tire.
>
>Eric: Plausible, except wasn't the game Victorian?  No tires.
>J-J: I might have voted for this except for the likely lack of 
>availability of Victorian-era tires
>Linda: Were there so many spare tires so long ago as the book was written?
>Elliott: Completeness:  How are the territories established to begin 
>with? Playability:  What if you hit someone in the head?  Compelling 
>reason to involve ``stone'':  Check.
>   --a total of no points for Pierre
>
>
>5) Players gather in a circle around a large tree suitable for 
>climbing. A small stone is required. On his turn a player must throw 
>the stone over a target bough, called the WHIP. If the throw is not 
>high enough, or the player misses the tree completely, he is out. 
>After making his throw, the current player, or CRACKER, must climb 
>to the WHIP to mark its location. Spectators and players alike 
>should cat-call the CRACKER during climbing; if he falls, he is out. 
>Previous CRACKERS already in the tree may attempt to dislodge the 
>current CRACKER as he climbs, but may not leave their WHIP to do so. 
>The next player must throw the STONE over a new WHIP at least as 
>high as the previous CRACKER. The first CRACKER in a round can 
>choose a WHIP at any height he believes he can throw over and reach 
>by climbing. Play begins with the shortest player, and proceeds in 
>increasing height order, so as to ensure a fair chance to all. One 
>round is complete once the tallest player takes his throw; all 
>players should come down out of the tree, and the next round begins 
>anew with the shortest remaining player. Play continues until all 
>but one player is eliminated. If any player hits any other player 
>with the stone, they are both immediately out; if a throw causes a 
>player sitting on a previous WHIP to fall without hitting him with 
>the STONE, such as by cowardly flinch, only he who fell is out.
>
>Eric: Would not want to play.  Ten creativity points.
>J-J: Good lord!  This reminds me of the stories that my friend Jimmy 
>used to tell me in college, which invariably ended "...and then 
>Floyd went to the hospital".  This will probably turn out to be 
>real, and I'll be deeply disturbed.
>Linda: Kids used to play dangerous games in the olden days and you 
>weren't supposed to be afraid of a little blood and a few bruises. 2 
>points for danger.  But isn't Cracker a derogatory term?
>Elliott: Completeness:  Check.  Playability:  Risky!  Compelling 
>reason to involve ``stone'':  Wouldn't a nice, soft ball be better? 
>One point for creativity.
>   --a total of 3 points for Nick, good for the bronze medal.
>
>
>6) The players form a pentacle surrounding the victim. They chant 
>the appropriate words. Should the victim attempt to break free, 
>restrain him, but do not shed his blood. When It comes to feed, the 
>players plead for parts of the victim. It will toss one part to each 
>player. The players then use these as blunt instruments upon each 
>other, but do not shed one another's blood. The surviving player 
>offers the bodies of the others to It, uttering "stone," but must 
>take care not to enter the pentacle. It then will grant a desire; 
>but be careful to formulate that desire carefully, for It has a 
>sense of humor.
>
>Eric: Would not want to play.  Ten creativity points.  One real point.
>Pierre: This doesn't sound like a children's game. Witch fictioneer 
>came up with it?
>J-J: Yeah!  But no, I don't think so.
>Ranjit: One backing-away-slowly.
>Linda: Too zombie-like.
>Elliott: Completeness:  Cryptic.  Playability:  Risky!  Compelling 
>reason to involve ``stone'':  None that I can see.
>   --a total of 1 point for David
>
>
>
>7) The players array themselves as they wish around an open yard. 
>One player closes his eyes and counts aloud to twenty whilst each 
>other player selects a stone from the ground, remove a boot, place 
>the stone into the boot, and replace the boot upon his foot.  Upon 
>the count of twenty, the counting player opens his eyes and all 
>players begin walking about the yard.  The counting player then 
>attempts to guess in which boot each player placed his stone.  A 
>player whose stone is so located retires from the yard.  The game 
>ends immediately upon an incorrect guess from the counting player, 
>the player winning who fooled the counting player, or the counting 
>player himself if none fool him.  In common practice, a number of 
>games are played consecutively, with the winner of a game serving as 
>counting player for the next.
>
>Eric: Two real points.  Also, maybe I would play this.
>David: 1 point
>Pierre: One point.
>Ellen: Two points.
>J-J: Somewhat similar to the "guess what I have under my skirt" 
>game, but less creepy, so two points.
>Ranjit: Two points
>Linda: Sounds uncomfortable but 1 point for "whilst."
>Elliott: Completeness:  How small can the stone be?  Playability: 
>Check. Compelling reason to involve ``stone'':  Check.
>   --a total of 11 points for Larry, the running-away (hopefully 
>without a stone in his shoe) winner!
>
>
>8) This game is played in a field of tall grass, ideally taller than 
>the players.  One player is chosen to start the game as the "stone", 
>while the others are initially "ploughs".  The ploughs avert their 
>eyes in order to allow the stone to hide somewhere in the plot of 
>grass.  After an agreed upon time (perhaps a count to ten), the 
>ploughs form a line and march across the field.  The stone attempts 
>to grab one of the ploughs by the ankle, while the ploughs try to 
>spot the stone.  If a plough is caught, he drops into the grass and 
>becomes another stone.  If the stone is spotted, the plough may 
>attempt to run away.  All of the ploughs who arrive at the far edge 
>of the field form a new line on an adjacent side and begin another 
>march, perpendicular to the previous one.  Play continues until 
>there is only one plough remaining, who becomes the starting stone 
>for the following round.
>
>Eric: Most Likely To Be By Elliott Award.  Also, consistency points 
>for the spelling of "plough".  Might play this, depending on the 
>insect situation in the grass.
>David: 2 points
>J-J: Mine.  So obviously not right.  Basically Red Rover, with added 
>excitement for those who are afraid of snakes.
>Linda: Like the cumulative effect of this one.  Sounds a bit like 
>Snake Pit from New Games.
>Elliott: Completeness:  Check.  Playability:  You'd need to luck 
>into a field of the right size and shape.  Compelling reason to 
>involve ``stone'':  Well, OK.
>   --a total of 2 points for J-J
>
>
>
>
>
>The actual game rules are taken verbatim from  __Games for the 
>Playground, Home, School and Gymnasium__, copyright 1909 by Jessie 
>H. Bancroft, specifically its "Active Games" section. (There are 
>also "Quiet Games" and "Singing Games" -- which is what really 
>indicates that the word "games" is being used broadly enough to 
>include what we'd today call "activities".)  You can read the book 
>here, thanks to Project Gutenberg: 
>http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25660/25660-h/25660-h.htm
>
>Another game from the same book, which was my backup choice in case 
>some of you actually knew the rules to STONE, was:
>
>SPOONING
>All but one of the players stand in a circle. The odd player is 
>blindfolded and placed in the center. He is given two silver 
>tablespoons. The players in the circle clasp hands and move around 
>until the blindfolded player clicks the spoons together, at which 
>signal the circle must stand still.
>The blindfold player then goes up to any one in the circle, and by 
>feeling over the face and head with the bowls of the spoons must 
>identify the player. He may not feel on the shoulders or around the 
>neck, only on the face and head. A player may stoop to disguise his 
>height for this, but otherwise may not evade the touch of the 
>spoons. If the blindfold player correctly identifies the one before 
>him, they exchange places. If incorrect in his guess, the play is 
>repeated.
>
>May I suggest that when we organize the Fictionary Real-world 
>Get-together (for instance, this July?), we try a few of the 
>invented games from this round?  I'd like to play the winner, the 
>real one, and Pierre's #4.
>
>The reins of Fictionary are all yours, Larry!
>
>-Jim