[MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system]

[Caliban Darklock]

On 3/27/07, Sean Howard <squidi at squidi.net> wrote:
>
> What predictive qualities
> does such a distinction make such that future game concepts making that
> distinction will benefit in any way?

I keep saying "the introduction of a TOY to a GAME is destructive to
the game." Understanding this concept will undoubtedly benefit your
game.

> What game, video or otherwise, allows you to make up your own rules and
> use them without full disclosure or acceptance of those rules?

All of them. They can't stop you. Let's say you're playing WoW. You
decide "I'm going to run from here to there and back, and see how fast
I can do it" - and you do. You don't have to tell anyone what you're
doing. Nobody else has the right to say "you can't do that". But it's
destructive to the game, because you're not playing the game... you're
playing with your own personal toy.

Note that the toy is not necessarily a physical or virtual object of
any sort. It is simply a notion of rules which carries no consensus.
If you explain these rules to other players, and they agree to abide
by those rules, and they join you in running back and forth - now
you're playing a game.

> > A "game" is a system of rules that has consensus among all players as
> > to its acceptability.
>
> EVERYTHING is a system of rules that has a consensus of its acceptability.

How does one play "yo-yo"?

I may prefer to let the yo-yo hang at the end of its string and swing
it back and forth. I may think this is fun. And you have NO RIGHT to
stop me, any more than I have any right to force you into this style
of play. Because "yo-yo" is not a GAME, it is a TOY.

> The consensus is that we throw the ball back and forth and try
> to catch it. And yet, that's not a game,

Yes it is. You have rules and you have consensus. That's a game. The
ball ceased to be a toy as soon as you reached consensus.

> a game is just there because it's not a toy.

A toy is not a game because there is no consensus. ADD consensus, and
it becomes a game. A game is MORE THAN a toy.

> Yeah, when you use your definitions for "toy" and "game", sure. But you've
> created a defintion in which there can be no other result.

That's true. I've created a definition of "toy" and "game" such that I
can say "adding a toy to a game is destructive" instead of saying "the
introduction of elements to a game in the absence of broad player
consensus as to the implications and operation of those elements
inevitably creates a dispute that ultimately damages the community and
creates a negative impact on the game as a whole".

I suggest that this is an advance.

> The definition of "game" needs to be something that is INCLUSIVE and
> BROAD, which runs counter to your definition, which is exclusive and
> narrow.

The only thing I've done is split off a subset of your "game" and
called it "toy". Absolutely everything you might call a "game" fits in
one of the two sets. Nothing has slipped through the cracks, and
indeed a great many things you wouldn't call games actually turn out
to be toys.

> There isn't enough distinction between the two, at this point, that making
> that distinction is anything but distracting.

It is productive to distinguish between them because they are
fundamentally incompatible. The distinction is absolutely critical in
any scenario where player-created content is relevant to gameplay.