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

[Caliban Darklock]

On 3/26/07, cruise <cruise at casual-tempest.net> wrote:
>
> Consesus with whom? I will have different experiences and motivations
> for my actions from you, purely because we are different people.

But whether your actions are permissible is independent of your
experiences and motivations. No matter how much you may want to move
your bishop horizontally on the chessboard, the rules say you can't.
Once you decide your desire is more important than consensus and do it
anyway, you damage the game. You may repair the game by "undoing" the
illegal move and making a legal one, or by altering the rules such
that the move is not illegal, but the game has still been damaged...
and some part of that damage is permanent.

> The rules of a game are not constraining, they are enabling

That's a semantic issue. They enable and constrain simultaneously. The
rule enables play by constraining behavior in an interesting fashion.

> Which is not really different from my distinction: We work because we
> need what we gain at the end, we play for the enjoyment of the activity,
> not out of necessity.

I think it's extremely different to say "work is what you MUST do"
than to say "work is what produces things you MUST have".

> What leads you to these definitions? For what reasons have you
> classified the terms in this way?

People need consensus to play well together. Every toy you introduce
to the environment dilutes consensus. Once consensus is sufficiently
diluted, it becomes impossible to regain it. Essentially, I'm
examining the concept of "toy-death" in online games... once toys are
introduced, their introduction to the community tends to accelerate,
and ultimately the community can no longer survive as a "game". It
then needs to reinvent itself or expire.