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

[cruise]

Thus spake Michael Sellers...
> cruise wrote:
>>> But when all you have is a hammer...
>> I agree we need more in games than combat, I really do. But games are
>> inherently about competition in some form, in that they present a series
>> of challenges which you must overcome.
> 
> See, this is what I'm talking about.  Games are not inherently competitive.
> That is one kind of game ("agon" in Caillois' terminology), but by no means
> the only kind.  But when you design to competition from the get-go, you
> drastically limit the breadth of possible design.
> 
> Others have said that games are inherently a series of contingencies, which
> I think is a better way of putting it: they enable and require decisions
> that change some meaningful state in the game-world; your state in the world
> is contingent on your decisions.  These decisions may or may not be
> challenges, much less competitions.  

We've had these discussions here before, and it looks like we're no 
closer to agreeing on what the heck a game is than last time :P

No wonder we're stuck in such a rut, if we're not even sure if what it 
is exactly we're making!

Here's my reasoning for claiming all games are competitive:

I consider something competitive if it includes challenges - I'm 
competing against the challenge (and indirectly against whoever created 
the challenge, which could be myself).

I consider a decision a challenge if I have to think about which choice 
to make. But a choice I don't have to think about is not really a 
choice, anymore - you could take the option I will never pick away, and 
change nothing. Therefore, any decision worth the name is a challenge, 
however small.

A game is, as you say, changing the state of a system by making one or 
more decisions. Since, as above, I consider all decisions to be 
challenging, and any challenge involves competition, I view all games as 
fundamentally competitive.

I don't recognising this is limiting the game-design at all - finding 
the smallest atom of "game" possible gives much wider and finer-grained 
control over the final product, and enables more diverse results.