History TabletopGame / Mao

As might be expected of such a mutable game, Mao is extremely prone to HouseRules; it's pretty much a guarantee that any two groups of Mao players will play a slightly different version of the game.

* HouseRules: Any two different groups of people will play Mao slightly differently.
* LoadsAndLoadsOfRules: Any game that lasts long enough will inevitably build up a long list of rules. Some HouseRules state that the last person to stay sane keeping track of them wins the session.

* VideogameCrueltyPunishment: Some variants try to be easier on newbies in order to encourage them to play, since it's better to have willing players than frustrated ones. One such rule is the penalty for "ungentlemanly conduct", which penalizes people for engaging in deceptive or exploitative play. This usually stops once all the players have deduced the basic rules, at which point the gloves are off.

* LoadsAndLoadsOfRules: If you can play long enough, and people don't go crazy from trying to keep on top of them all...
** According to some HouseRules, the winner is the last person to still have some kind of sanity remaining.

* Giving cards special abilities

* Amending or extending an existing rule

One advantage of Mao is that it is an extremely easy game to begin; all you need is some playing cards, a few willing players, and at least one person who knows the starting rules. Since the aim of the game is to figure out the rules, this means newbies can get straight into the game without needing anything explained to them.

Conventionally, Mao has no GameMaster: the game is run democratically, with all players granted equal power to call penalties when they see them (although they do have to be correct!). There is also a "dictatorial" variant of the game in which the power to make rules and impose penalties sits with a single player.

If you are interested in learning the rules of Mao, there is a [[UsefulNotes/{{Mao}} Useful Notes]] page for it. There is also an [[UsefulNotes/ExampleMaoGame example Mao game]] if you would like to see what a Mao game looks like.

There is no real limit on what rules people can create, other than that they should be fair to all players and, if possible, simple to enforce. Otherwise, the sky is the limit and no aspect of the game can be taken for granted, as it can always be changed. Late-game Mao can look quite bizarre once a lot of new rules are in play.

Whenever a player succeeds in getting rid of all their cards, they win the round, and are permitted to add a new rule to the game or change an existing one - without telling anyone what the new rule is. The game therefore continually evolves as it is played and more rules are added, and the players must try to figure out and adapt to these changes as they play.

Some common rule changes are: changing something about the game state when certain cards are played, adding a condition to what cards ''can'' be played, requiring certain phrases to be said on certain actions, adding special moves to the game... people can get very creative with their rules.

* DropInDropOutMultiplayer: Mao is perfect for this, since it doesn't really matter who's in the game as long as you have enough players. In Cambridge-based versions, this is practically a design feature since play never stops; a person who gets rid of all their cards actually has to opt themselves back into the game.
* EndlessGame: Mao isn't really designed to end; it usually finishes when everyone has had enough. The "winner" can be considered the person who introduced the most rules, but really the game is about having fun.

* RulesLawyer: The whole point of the game, really. In some versions of Mao, you can actually be penalized for ''failing'' to enforce your own rule.

* TrialAndErrorGameplay: The only way to learn the rules for this game is to be penalized for breaking them. (Or watching other people break them.)

Mao is a "shedding-type" card game similar to TabletopGame/{{UNO}} or [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_Eights Crazy Eights]], in which the goal is to get rid of all your cards. However, there is a twist: you are not told, and are not ''allowed'' to be told, any of the rules of the game. You must instead work them out by inductive reasoning - [[TrialAndErrorGameplay watching people play, trying different moves, and being penalized with extra cards when you do something wrong]].

The flipside, however, is that the start of the game is rather asymmetric for new players, since they start off at a clear disadvantage against people who do know the rules.

Mao is a "shedding-type" card game similar to TabletopGame/{{UNO}} or [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_Eights Crazy Eights]], in which the goal is to get rid of all your cards. However, the twist is this: you are not told, and are not ''allowed'' to be told, any of the rules. You must instead work them out by inductive reasoning - [[TrialAndErrorGameplay watching people play, trying different moves, and being penalized with extra cards when you do something wrong]].

Some common rule changes are: changing something about the game state when certain cards is played, adding a condition to what cards ''can'' be played, requiring certain phrases to be said on certain actions, adding special moves to the game... people can get very creative with their rules.

One of the rules of Mao is that we can't tell you the rules. But here goes.

Mao is a card game played with regular playing cards. In its basic form, it is a simple game of laying down cards according to the rules of the game, and winning when you have laid down all your cards.

The difficulty, as mentioned above, is that, barring a short introduction to at least clarify the turn order, you are not told, and are not ''allowed'' to be told, any of the rules. [[TrialAndErrorGameplay You must work them out by watching people play, trying things out, and being penalised with extra cards when you do something wrong.]]

For this reason, Mao is often hated by people who have never got beyond the newbie stage, since it is obviously quite unfair to newbies who have no idea how to play the game.

Unfortunately, this means that some people never get to the good part of the game, where the fun actually begins. Because when someone 'wins' at Mao by getting rid of all their cards, they are entitled to make a new rule and introduce it into the game, without telling anyone what it is. The rule could be a simple modification (for example, "you can't play a King on top of a Queen"), or it could fundamentally change the way the game is played. And as more people win, the rules stack up and the game becomes more and more complex, and even veteran players may be stumped by rules they haven't worked out yet.

Mao is often compared to Mornington Crescent, or {{Calvinball}}, but in reality it is neither of those. Mornington Crescent is a mock game with deliberately nonsensical rules that are invented on the spot to make it appear complex, while Calvinball is a game where the rules appear to change at the will of any player. While it often looks like people are making up rules in Mao as they go along, in fact it is a mostly deterministic game, and any rules that are introduced have to be followed by all players equally.

* BeatThemAtTheirOwnGame: If you've worked out a player's rule, you can enforce it on THEM if they break it.
* EndlessGame: There isn't really an end to the game; it normally ends when everyone has had enough. The 'winner' can be considered the person who introduced the most rules, but it's really about having fun.

** According to some HouseRules, the winner is the last person to still have some kind of sanity. Although arguably, the true winners are those who begin the game already insane.
* LogicBomb: The result of two or more people's rules contradicting each other. It's made even more difficult by the fact that the people whose rules are conflicting may not KNOW the other person's rule, and therefore be unable to decide whether theirs can override it or not. When this happens, a point of order is called so that people can discuss what to do.
* RulesLawyer: The whole point of the game, really. Some people even play it so that a person can be penalised for FAILING to enforce their own rule.
* TheScottishTrope: there is a word that, if said during the game when not required, results in one of the harshest penalties.
** If someone says the word to the tune of the "Meow Mix" advert, you might as well just penalise them the entire deck.
* TrialAndErrorGameplay: The way to learn the rules for this game is to be penalised for breaking them.
* UnstableEquilibrium: Downplayed. The more of the hidden rules you've figured out, the more likely you are to win a game. And when you win a game, you get to add your own hidden rule and penalize your opponents for breaking ''that'' in addition to the other rules they're still trying to figure out. However, it's unlikely that someone will gain an insurmountable advantage because good luck can compensate for incomplete knowledge of the rules.
* UrbanLegends: Some claim that the game was invented in China, as an illustration of what life is like living under Communist rule (IE, you don't know what the rules are until you've already broken them). In reality it's simply a TakeThat to such concepts.
* VideoGameCrueltyPotential: Oh, so much. It is perfectly within the spirit of the game to repeat a penalty call when the player fails to correct their error. Making bogus calls with a straight face that cause the other player to laugh and break the "no laughing" rule is not against the rules either (and an additional card for talking and for swearing when the person expresses their {{Angrish}}), though you still will be penalized correctly for the bad call. And new rules can have penalty calls that tend to incite laughter or swearing, both usually against the rules.
* VideogameCrueltyPunishment: Some variants try to be easier on newbies, noting that it would be very easy for people to become frustrated, so they penalize players for 'ungentlemanly conduct'. This usually stops once all the players have deduced the basic rules. Then the gloves are off.
** Most have rules against 'lying' or 'cheating'. The cheating rule deserves special mention. In games that have that one, there are certain plays that are legal unless you get caught. The proper call for said plays is "cheating", and CORRECTLY stating how they cheated. Normally, a rule against cheating goes without being said, but in this case, it makes sense.
----

* ThatOneRule: Some players have tremendous difficulty with the '[[spoiler:the joker is the 9 of diamonds]]' rule, which is one of the basic rules in many variants. It is exactly what it says: [[spoiler:any joker is considered equivalent to the 9 of diamonds when played]].
** That rule is simple when compared to some others. Here are some fun ones to add: All clubs are called spades. All Diamonds are clubs. Can a Diamond be played on a spade? Can a diamond be played on a club? and what must be spoken, if the played card is the 7 of Diamonds? And what is the proper penalty to call for failing to speak what is required? [[spoiler:no, yes, and "Seven of spades, have a nice day.", and "Failure to call a club a spade, failure to say "have a nice day", of course.]] And that barely scratches the surface.
** This trope also occurs when there's a rule that's been introduced that a player just can't figure out, and they always end up getting penalised for breaking it without knowing why.
*** "Failure to be a Thwiggle-Thwoggle," anyone? [[spoiler:not hooking your thumbs after playing your card.]]

* ThatOneRule: Some players have tremendous difficulty with the 'the joker is the 9 of diamonds' rule, which is one of the basic rules in many variants. It is exactly what it says: any joker is considered equivalent to the 9 of diamonds when played.
** Bah, that rule is simple. Here are some fun ones to add. All clubs are called spades. All Diamonds are clubs. Can a Diamond be played on a spade? Can a diamond be played on a club? and what must be spoken, if the played card is the 7 of Diamonds? And what is the proper penalty to call for failing to speak what is required? [[spoiler:no, yes, and "Seven of spades, have a nice day.", and "Failure to call a club a spade, failure to say "have a nice day", of course.]] And that barely scratches the surface.

* VideoGameCrueltyPotential: Oh, so much. It is perfectly within the spirit of the game to repeat a penalty call when the player fails to correct their error, and (if your variant has the rather cruel 'stupidity' call) tack on additional cards for "stupidity", and even "extreme stupidity" if they fail to get the hint the first time the call is repeated. Making bogus calls with a straight face that cause the other player to laugh and break the "no laughing" rule is not against the rules either (and an additional card for talking and for swearing when the person expresses their {{Angrish}}), though you still will be penalized correctly for the bad call. And new rules can have penalty calls that tend to incite laughter or swearing, both usually against the rules.

* RulesLawyer: The whole point of the game, really. Some people even play it so that a person can be penalised for FAILING to enforce their own rule.

Unfortunately, this means that some people never get to the good part of the game, where the fun actually begins. Because when someone 'wins' at Mao by getting rid of all their cards, they are entitled to make a new rule and introduce it into the game, without telling anyone what it is. The rule could be a simple modification, or it could fundamentally change the way the game is played. And as more people win, the rules stack up and the game becomes more and more complex, and even the veteran players may be stumped by rules they haven't worked out yet.

The difficulty, as mentioned above, is that, barring a short introduction to at least clarify the turn order, you are not told, and are not ALLOWED to be told, any of the rules. [[TrialAndErrorGameplay You must work them out by watching people play, trying things out, and being penalised with extra cards when you do something wrong.]]

For this reason, Mao is often hated by people who have never got beyond the newbie stage, since it is obviously quite unfair to newbies.

* VideoGameCrueltyPotential: Oh, so much. It is perfectly within the spirit of the game to repeat a penalty call when the player fails to correct their error, and (if your variant has the rather cruel 'stupidity' call) tack on additional cards for "stupidity", and even "extreme stupidity" if they fail to get the hint the first few times. Making bogus calls with a straight face that cause the other player to laugh and break the "no laughing" rule is not against the rules either (and an additional card for talking and for swearing when the person expresses their {{Angrish}}).
* VideogameCrueltyPunishment: Some variants try to be easier on newbies, noting that it would be very easy for people to become frustrated, so they penalise players for 'ungentlemanly conduct'.

* VideoGameCrueltyPotential: Oh, so much. It is perfectly within the spirit of the game to repeat a penalty call when the player fails to correct their error, and (if your variant has the rather cruel 'stupidity' call) tack on additional cards for "stupidity", and even "extreme stupidity" if they fail to get the hint the first few times.Making bogus calls with a straight face that cause the other player to laugh and break the "no laughing" rule is not against the rules either (and an additional card for talking and for swearing when the person expresses their {{Angrish}}).

* RulesLawyer: the whole point of the game, really. Some people even play it so that a person can be penalised for FAILING to enforce their own rule.

* BeatThemAtTheirOwnGame: if you've worked out a player's rule, you can enforce it on THEM if they break it.

* HouseRules: any two different groups of people will play Mao slightly differently.
* LoadsAndLoadsOfRules: if you can play long enough, and people don't go crazy from trying to keep on top of them all...

* LogicBomb: the result of two or more people's rules contradicting each other. It's made even more difficult by the fact that the people whose rules are conflicting may not KNOW the other person's rule, and therefore be unable to decide whether theirs can override it or not. When this happens, a point of order is called so that people can discuss what to do.

* ThatOneRule: some players have tremendous difficulty with the 'the joker is the 9 of diamonds' rule, which is one of the basic rules in many variants. It is exactly what it says: any joker is considered equivalent to the 9 of diamonds when played.

** If someone says the word to the tune of the "Miaow Mix" advert, you might as well just penalise them the entire deck.

* VideogameCrueltyPunishment: some variants try to be easier on newbies, noting that it would be very easy for people to become frustrated, so they penalise players for 'ungentlemanly conduct'.

Mao is often compared to MorningtonCrescent, or {{Calvinball}}, but in reality it is neither of those. MorningtonCrescent is a mock game with deliberately nonsensical rules that are invented on the spot to make it appear complex, while Calvinball is a game where the rules appear to change at the will of any player. While it often looks like people are making up rules in Mao as they go along, in fact it is a mostly deterministic game, and any rules that are introduced have to be followed by all players equally.

* GameBreaker: As a guideline, any rule favoring a specific player is against the spirit of the game. It is, however, quite possible with a bit of ingenuity to rig the game with a well chosen and timed sequence of new rules that do not favor any one player. Introduce "players may play any number of cards, with the top card counting as the played card", but do not reveal it yet. Next time you win, introduce "players may play any card on any other card", and use both rules to win on your next turn, silencing all complaints with "New rule, and previously introduced new rule" (and watch the other players go "wtf?"), then introduce "dealer plays first" when you win that game, causing you to win all other rounds with ease. Don't expect anyone ever to play with you again, however.
* GameBreakingBug: it's quite easy to make a rule which can break the game and prevent anyone from playing anything at all. When this happens, the players generally take a vote on whether to keep the rule or not.

* Most have rules against 'lying' or 'cheating'.
** The cheating rule deserves special mention. In games that have that one, there are certain plays that are legal unless you get caught. The proper call for said plays is "cheating", and CORRECTLY stating how they cheated. Normally, a rule against cheating goes without being said, but in this case, it makes sense.

** Bah, that rule is simple. Here are some fun ones to add. All clubs are called spades. All Diamonds are clubs. Can a Diamond be played on a spade? Can a diamond be played on a club? and what must be spoken, if the played card is the 7 of Diamonds? And what is the proper penalty to call for failing to speak what is required? [[spoiler:no, yes, and "Seven of spades, have a nice day.", and "Failure to call a club a spade, failure to say "have a nice day", of course]] And that barely scratches the surface.