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

[Morris Cox]

On 4/3/07, Sean Howard <squidi at squidi.net> wrote:
>
> "Caliban Darklock" <cdarklock at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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.

It can be destructive. You can use cheat codes and then find that your
enjoyment of the game has been cheapened. An action doesn't have to
affect another person in order to be destructive.

> > 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.

You can "toy" with someone. Toy is also a verb.

> 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".

It's not a redefinition of the English language as "toy" can also be
used as a verb.

> Sean Howard
-- 
Morris Cox