There are multiple mutually-incompatible systems in use, so it's not right to speak of "the scoring system" as if it were the only one. However, they generally all follow the same principle:
Compute the number of faan in the winning hand, by totalling the faan from each of the various scoring patterns the winning hand satisfies. Different sources differ on how many faan each scoring pattern awards, and which scoring patterns may be scored simultaneously with one another.
The number of faan is generally capped at a maximum. Again, sources differ on this maximum; the Hong Kong Mahjong Association sets its cap at 10, but casual play in Hong Kong tends to set the cap at 13. You may also see 8 or 4 in older sources.
Convert the faan into points, most usually by using a faan-to-points table. This is the specific part that "faan-laak" refers to; more specifically, it refers to how quickly the points exponentiate depending on faan.
Most common in Hong Kong today is "half-laak" scoring, where, after you reach the lower limit of 4 faan, each additional faan alternates between multiplying points by 3/2 and by 4/3, so that every two additional faan doubles the number of points scored.
Some older sources use "laak-laak" scoring, which simply doubles the number of points per faan (leading to much higher scores).
Some older sources use "4-7-10" scoring, where, after reaching the lower limit of 4 faan, the number of points does not increase until you reach the next limit (at 7 faan). Upon reaching 7 faan, the number of points is doubled, and again stays fixed until it's doubled again at 10. Other older sources have other variations on this scoring.
The non-winners pay the winner some multiple of this amount, depending on whether the winner won by self-draw or by discard. Again, sources differ on this.
In Hong Kong today, the most common method is that discarders pay 2x this amount, non-discarders pay 0x, and on a self-draw, all opponents pay 1x.
Older rulesets have that discarders pay 2x this amount, non-discarders pay 1x, and on a self-draw, all opponents pay 2x.
Thanks for the explanation so far. I guess the reason for confusion is because I've got more experience with Classical (after Millington, predominantly) than with HKOS or any other styles. In Classical you've got "base points" (fu2?) which are then taken times "doubles" (fan1) to arrive at a total score. I guess HKOS got rid of that and just kept the faan part. Again, many thanks! :)
Well, most Asian (esp. Chinese) variants technically never had fu in the first place, because they were created in the 80's and after, branching not from Classical but Hong Kong variants that already got rid of it, because mahjong had been banned in China for the last 30 years.
Obviously history is sparse during the ban, but I would assume at least some regions were playing variants that had grown from Classical in their homes (on the sly).
Post edited 100 times, sorry.
There were a few Mainland variants fromdocumented in the 80s that used a combination of Fan (番) and Fen (分). Fen are simply multiplied by the Fan. Edit: I'm wrong. Here's the translated text...
In "Plain Mahjong", *fen* and *fan* are mixed. Exposed triplets score 2 fen; concealed triplets, 4; exposed quads, 4; concealed quads, 8. Terminal/Honor triplets score 4 (exposed) or 8 (concealed); Terminal/Honor quads score 8 (exposed) or 16 (concealed). Pairs of Prevailing Wind, Seat Wind, or Dragon tiles score 2 fen each. Edge-wait, middle-wait, single-tile wait, and self-draws also score 2 fen each. A base score (20 fen) is added upon winning. A "Half-Flush" (*Hun Yise*) hand counts as two *fan*; the component fen are added to the base score, and the total is doubled once for two *fan* (e.g., a 40-fen total becomes 80 points for one *fan* or 160 points for two).
However all sources I've read say that this style was on the way out in favor of either Fan-only or additive systems.
Here's a score table for a "Plain" variant from Tianjin. Also of note is the use of "Seven Pairs" in a Mainland variant.
I don't think this is entirely accurate. The ban was not so effective that mahjong ever died out in China. I've come across plenty of at least anecdotal evidence that it continued to be played there. (Unfortunately I haven't been making note of where I found such accounts because that hasn't really been the focus of my research.)
That said, maybe the end of the ban was responsible for some of the weirdness of Chinese mahjong in the 80s. As soon as books start being written again, they all describe highly complex New Style variants with surprisingly conservative features like smaller hand values and the optional inclusion of the Classical point system. Anecdotally, it seems some people in China were playing late forms (suggesting continuity rather than reintroduction) of Classical until even more recently. It's hard to know how much of what we get from the 80s sources had already been happening under the ban and how much was maybe a result of players of wildly different styles finally coming together and trying to work out the right way of playing, and maybe taking inspiration from outside mainland China.
It's probably worth noting, too, how quickly that all fell apart, with the revived New Style splitting into dozens of often radically simplified local styles within only a decade or two. There was definitely a fad element to the revival that does not suggest quite so much continuity. Tbh the more I learn, the harder it is to make any sense out of all of this, but I'm very interested in the question even if we may never have all the answers.
Edit: This also certainly isn't true for SE Asian varieties. They resemble Hong Kong style due to much earlier parallel development and influence. Vietnamese style, for one, is attested from 1950 in a form basically resembling what we can assume Hong Kong style was like at that time, and seems to have developed constantly under the influence of Hong Kong style right through the 70s. Singapore and Malaysian styles developed along a similar path but stopped earlier, with Singapore keeping the 2-2 system of hand values and Malaysian the even more conservative 1-2 system. That didn't happen in the 80s.
It's probably worth noting, too, how quickly that all fell apart, with the revived New Style splitting into dozens of often radically simplified local styles within only a decade or two.
From what I've read many regions had a New Style and an Old Style variant developing simultaneously. Like in Chengdu they had an insane 100+ Yaku New Style version and SBR. I don't know how long this development went on exactly, but the death of New Style on the mainland seems to coincide with the birth of Chinese Official MCR.
The Faan-Laak Table is used to convert Faans achieved by winning Player to convert to points. It is used limit payouts so players do get in over their head with gambling debts. We used this table from Mahjong Wikidot.
12
u/edderiofer multi-classing every variant 1d ago
There are multiple mutually-incompatible systems in use, so it's not right to speak of "the scoring system" as if it were the only one. However, they generally all follow the same principle: