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

[Caliban Darklock]

On 4/3/07, Sean Howard <squidi at squidi.net> wrote:
>
> "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!

Yes it does. You just don't understand it.

> I know logic. Logic is a good friend of mine. And that, my friend, is no
> logic.

There are three possibilities of any given activity in the game.

1. It has zero effect on the game.
2. It has positive effect on the game.
3. It has negative effect on the game.

Let's consider the use of a toy by a player.

Case 1 is readily discarded because the player is on the game field,
occupying some portion of the finite space available, and for which
demand exceeds supply.

Case 2 is readily discarded because the network effect of a player
playing the game exceeds the effect of individual activity. When you
account for the lack of this network effect, you cannot end up with a
net positive.

By the process of elimination, you have case 3 - a negative effect.

There are three premises underlying this.

1. Demand for game space exceeds supply. (Implies players consume
space.)
2. The network effect of players playing the game together is
necessarily positive.
3. That network effect necessarily exceeds any individual effect.

You may certainly attack any of the above premises as untrue, but I
think the only one really susceptible to such an attack is premise 3.

There are some bad arguments you could make about premise 2, like
"players cheating together isn't positive". But cheating isn't the
game. Cheating is *a* game, if they do it as a group, but that gets
into the relative size and importance of games and subgames and when a
game is a toy in relation to another game. I don't have firm rules
about that yet, because it's complicated - and much of that complexity
requires me to solve problems that I need to solve in the general case
anyway. So by ignoring it for the moment, I'll naturally reduce the
complexity as I go, and then it will be an easier question to answer.

There's an additional possibility: when a toy is introduced to the
game, it may be assimilated as part of the game. However, this
destroys the game you had before, replacing it with a new one. Nomic
aside, arbitrary introduction of a new ruleset is rarely a positive
development - it might have something to do with entropy. That would
be cool, but "cool" and "true" aren't the same thing and I'm not
really interested in that question right now.

> I can think of a dozen behaviors that are part of the game proper
> which are far more destructive than that example

The game cannot be destructive to itself. It may not be the game you
wanted, but it is still by definition the game that it is.

> In fact, most MMORPGs advertise themselves on this sort
> of freedom and unpredictability.

But they don't really offer it. Fundamentally, the terms of service
always include what amounts to an agreement that if you don't adhere
closely enough to the consensus of what the game is, you don't get to
play anymore. They call it "disruption". If enough people get mad
about what you're doing, you get the boot.

> 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.

Is a stick a toy? I can certainly play with a stick. I can even play a
game with a stick; it's called "fetch", and even a dog can understand
the rules.

But is a stick a toy? Does it fit into the category of "toys"?

My assertion is that whether a stick is a toy depends on what I do
with it. It isn't the object that matters, it's the action. I can play
fetch with any number of things; a stick, a ball, a stuffed animal,
whatever. And in a virtual world, the toy with which I choose to play
- while it may certainly look and act like an object in the game world
- DOES NOT EXIST. It's just data on a server. I'm playing with an
idea, just as I might play with mathematical concepts, and the lack of
a material object doesn't in any way diminish my enjoyment of it.

> 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.

So you believe it is more accurate and useful to say "a game is a
specific type of toy" than to say "a toy is a diminutive relative of a
game"? Both are true. A toy is not necessarily a game, but a game is
necessarily descended from a toy. The minimal toy from which a game
descends is a rule.

Consider word association: there is no physical object. The only rule
is "say the first word that comes to mind". You can play this by
yourself, and it's a toy. I can sit around and free associate all day:
poodle, skirt, broad, sword, sorceror, spell, bee, bonnet, boot, shoe,
polish, sausage, hot, dirty, pig, spider, web, net, butterfly, moth,
sleep, bed, and so on. But if I add another person, it becomes a game.
I simply take the toy - a rule - and obtain consensus that we will
take turns observing it. The game must descend from a toy.

The key factor in these definitions is that it alters the fundamental
view of what a toy or a game IS. A toy is not a toy because it is a
specific type of thing, but because someone has decided that it is a
toy. A game is not a game because it has goals or teams or equipment,
it is a game because at least two people have agreed that it is a
game.

It is about PEOPLE. It has always been about people. It is always
going to be about people. All the theory and rhetoric about "a game is
a closed formal system that subjectively represents a subset of
reality" (Chris Crawford, "The Art of Computer Game Design") falls
down when you notice this: a game is a game because it has players. No
players means no game. Closed formal system or not, you need two
players to agree before you have a game (and the rules need not be
closed or formal or even a system, let alone represent any amount of
reality in any way at all). One player, you have a toy, but not a
game. No players, no toy, no game. It's just stuff.

> > 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.

I just said it's a toy. Now you're arguing that it is not, it's a toy.
I suggest that you are confused.

> 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.

Didn't I already say this? I think I did. Here we go, March 29...

> > 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.

Wow, YOU JUST QUOTED IT YOURSELF.

[**SENTENCE REMOVED BY MODERATOR**]

> 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.

You don't understand what I mean by consensus. Consensus doesn't mean
you LIKE all the rules, or that you USE all the rules, but that you
agree to ACCEPT all the rules. If you don't accept the rules, you
either change them by consensus, or some players stop playing the
game.

The best example, to my knowledge, is the "house rule". My AD&D
campaign has three races: elves, dwarves, and humans. The rest simply
do not exist. I don't care how much you whine about wanting to play a
halfling or a gnome, you don't get to do so. If you don't like it,
play someone else's game. If you choose to play my game, then you are
part of the consensus, whether you like it or not. You can whine all
you want about the rule, it's not changing, and as long as you play my
game you're following it.

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

Yes it does. The minimal ruleset of a toy is "this is a toy". If you
say it's a toy, it's a toy - for you, and as long as you continue to
call it a toy. Because there is no requirement for consensus, I don't
have to agree that it's a toy.

> 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.

Yes... which is why I didn't do that. I simply said that this is an
important concept to understand if you're going to have player-created
content. It is certainly possible for player-created content to
enhance the game, and that's why we want to expand its use throughout
the industry. But it is also possible for that content to destroy the
game, and the industry hasn't a very clear picture of how and why this
happens. I'm trying to get a better picture of that, because I think
it will be useful.

> Gameplay is not changed, only exposed.

This is because the player has not actually created any content -
merely rearranged it. Back to Crawford:

"A properly designed game precludes this possibility; it is closed
because the rules cover all contingencies encountered in the game."

We're dealing more and more with games that not only permit but
*pursue* emergent gameplay opportunities. This is a Good Thing, but
along with it comes the boogeyman of not really knowing what your game
is or how it's played. This makes it very difficult to close the
system.