War

"That's the only problem with War, you have to deal out all the cards."

This overheard from people in my living room. My immediate thought, probably unsurprisingly to anybody reading this, was, "No, it's not."

For starters, no you don't. Long, long before I would have ever considered myself a gamer, before I had two digits in my age in years, I was capable of reliably splitting a deck of cards into two equal parts by the simple expedient of cutting it roughly in half and smoothing the two piles until they were the same height. Certainly reliably enough for the purpose of playing War not for money.¹ Just shuffle the deck a few times until you're satisfied any clumping of the high cards is due more to chance than the previous state of the deck, cut it in half, smooth it, and offer the two halves to your opponent to select one.

Aside from having to deal out the cards not even being a problem with War, the game has plenty of more significant problems. Well, maybe just one. It has no meaningful decisions. In fact, it has no decisions at all. It's a "game" only in the sense that it's an entertainment² to pass the time.

I recognize that people can gain enjoyment from games without meaningful decisions, although at the moment I find it hard to think why. My first criterion for a game to be worth playing is that the player must be presented with opportunities to make decisions, and those decisions must affect the outcome of the game. This eliminates War and Candyland, and Snakes and Ladders, all of which are ultimately a matter of playing the game "cut for high card" multiple times. In the case of War, it's "cut for high" in a drunkard's walk with a cliff at either end. In the case of the others, it's actually "roll a die and add its value to your total, first to 100 wins".

The only decision you have in War, however, [other than whether to cheat] is whether to play at all. While it does eventually result in a victor, my first thought on hearing the question, "Do you want to play War?" is to hear Joshua's voice, "Would you like to play a game?"

---

1. War would make a curious choice of games upon which to gamble simply because it takes so long to reach a resolution, but I respect that sometimes that might be desirable. But if you're not playing it for money [or some other reward], can you really take it seriously enough to worry about one player starting with a couple cards' advantage? This is War we're talking about here.

2. If you find such an activity entertaining.