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

[Sean Howard]

"Caliban Darklock" <cdarklock at gmail.com> wrote:
> I keep saying "the introduction of a TOY to a GAME is destructive to
> the game." Understanding this concept will undoubtedly benefit your
> game.

Except that doesn't actually mean anything!

>> 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.

I know logic. Logic is a good friend of mine. And that, my friend, is no
logic. Not only is that not even remotely destructive to the game, I can
think of a dozen behaviors that are part of the game proper which are far
more destructive than that example (anything involving balance or PvP, for
example). Even if it were destructive (again, I maintain that it is not),
it is something that is included in the design of a sandbox game like
that. They set up boundaries with the game world, social structures, and
interactions with other players - and as long as you don't cross the line,
and sometimes when you do - it is an anticipated, appreciated parts of the
gaming experience. In fact, most MMORPGs advertise themselves on this sort
of freedom and unpredictability.

It's not destructive when it is controlled for, and it almost always is in
multiplayer games. If you are comparing high scores, there are unsaid
factors which define what scores are acceptable and which are not. As for
single player games, who cares if you use cheat codes or decide to play
Galaga blindfolded? It can't be destructive if it is temporary and
purposeful.


> 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.

I admit is certainly a novel approach. Apparently, your version of "toy"
implies a gerund. Somehow, a "toy" to you just means "playing against
design". I've never used or heard someone else use (until now) someone
else use toy to describe an action. A toy is a material thing. A category
of material things.

I'm not against narrowing the definition of particular words to the
subject matter, but I'm absolutely against redefining the entire english
language to fit your narrow definitions of how it should be. If you can't
win the debate on merit alone, you'll certainly not win it through...
let's say "creative reinvention".

>> EVERYTHING is a system of rules that has a consensus of its
>> acceptability.
>
> How does one play "yo-yo"?

You wrap the string around your finger, wind it up, and drop it. At the
bottom of the fall, jerk your finger, causing the spinning yo-yo to climb
back up into your hand. Repeat. If you'd like, there are a variety of
specific tricks, like walk the dog or rock the cradle, that can be done by
someone with some proficiency... like Tommy Smothers.

What a yo-yo can't do: it doesn't work in weightlessness. It doesn't light
candles. You can't use it to defend yourself from a bear attack. It
doesn't work underwater. You can't tape it to a body part for accurate
protection from piercing damage.

What a yo-yo can do, but most experts recommend against: You can strange
someone with the string. If you've got missing teeth, you can floss with
it. You can wrap it around your finger very tightly, thus cutting off the
circulation to your finger, turning it a bright shade of red, then purple.
You can do these things, but the consensus is that doing these things are
not the proper way to play with a yo-yo.

> Because "yo-yo" is not a GAME, it is a TOY.

By your assumptions, maybe. But by the definition of the dictionary, most
rational adults, and every kid on the planet, it is a toy. Now, if you
wanted to push a particular point, you could say that a yo-yo is a toy
that can be used in a game, much like a baseball is a toy until it is used
in a game of baseball - oh what insight a point like that would put forth!
- but that would likely shatter your ill conceived definitions.

> 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.

I've played many, many games in which there was no such thing as a
consensus. For instance, back when I played Goldeneye a lot, my friend
liked to camp spawn points. We disagreed significantly as to the moral
repercussions of such an act, and yet it was not destructive to the
experience (I learned to camp spawn point camps), it improved it by
providing additional challenge and enjoyment. And it in no way did it ever
draw into question the nature of what a game is or isn't, nor did it
redefine "toy" into something silly and worthless.

> 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.

Repeat it all you'd like, won't make it true or useful.

> 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.

But alas, not everything I call a "toy" does.

> 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.

Disagree. Understanding the boundaries of player-created content is
fundamental, but classifying it as destructive and separate from what the
game is and does is illogical and poorly thought out. Lode Runner was one
of the first games that shipped with a level editor, and it was entirely
possible for someone to create a level which didn't function properly as a
Lode Runner level, and yet some of those levels are amusing novelties that
promote the inclusion of further level editors, not argues against it. The
level editor may be a toy by either of our definitions, but it is also a
toy, and the product of the editor is a product of the tool or the toy,
and both are equally valuable in the long run. Gameplay is not changed,
only exposed.

-- 
Sean Howard