[MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN] Consensus and control [was: What is a game? (again)]

[cruise]

Thus spake Caliban Darklock...
> On 4/10/07, cruise <cruise at casual-tempest.net> wrote:
>>
>> Have you examples of disruption that aren't "bad" for a game? This is an
>> interesting way of classifying gameplay that hadn't occurred to me 
>> before.
> 
> The consensus may include a means of altering the rules without the
> other players' consent. In effect, you consent to a rule that says you
> don't have to consent to a rule which will be stated later.

Ah, so you mean Nomic games? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic

Other examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mornington_Crescent_(game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_(game)

It's probably just another argument of semantics, but technically there 
is consensus in these games - everyone agrees that what everyone is 
agreeing about will change, and how it will change.

In your nomenclature, the game is to turn toys into games.

> There used to be consensus, because we didn't used to play with people
> on the opposite side of the world. Most tribal hunter-gatherer
> cultures have excellent consensus. The more players you have, the less
> likely you are to have full consensus over the entire game. You are
> instead managing a collection of subgames.

Well, yeah - as you reduce the number of players, the opportunity for 
disagreement lowers. That's the easy case - what needs to be figured out 
is how to apply it to increasing numbers of players.

The simple fact we can't manage it for something counter-strike should 
tell us that psychologically and socially we cannot make MMOG's yet.