[MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN] Excellent commentary on Vanguard'sdiplomacysystem

[Raph Koster]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mud-dev2-bounces at lists.mud-dev.com [mailto:mud-dev2-
> bounces at lists.mud-dev.com] On Behalf Of cruise
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 2:50 AM
> To: mud-dev2 at lists.mud-dev.com
> Subject: Re: [MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN] Excellent commentary on
> Vanguard'sdiplomacysystem
> 
> Thus spake Raph Koster...
> > "Presenting a series of challenges" does not equate to "competition"
> unless
> > you mean competing with yourself...
> 
> Yes, I do :P As I said in another mail, you are competing against
> whoever set the challenges - either yourself, or a third-party.

OK, fair enough. I wouldn't go quite that far as to say that it *must* be
competitive, if only because that may not have been the intent of the person
who set the challenges.

> On a more serious note, I do feel there can be some generic process that
> describes "game". An atom of game-ness, if you will, that is the
> indivisable building block from which games are created.
> 
> I claim that atom is "a challenge."

I do too. :) cf my Grammar of Gameplay stuff.

Incidentally, keep an eye out for notes from this talk at GDC, which is
inspired by the grammar stuff I did, but elaborated over two years with some
serious funding:

    A Working Notation for Game Design (Sponsored by ITI Techmedia)
    Speaker: Paul Sheppard (R&D Programme Manager, ITI Techmedia), Andrew
McLennan (Metaforic), Chris Walton (Metaforic)

    Session Description
    Making games that play well is an uncertain business, widely regarded as
a black art. This session proposes a working notation for game design that
can be used to understand games and why they work or fail. Real examples
will be shown to illustrate the notation and its practical application.
 
> My full definition of a game then becomes:
> 
> "A series of challenges within a fictional or imagined environment."

Hmm... it can be a very real environment. Just one that has been bounded
temporarily with a lack of consequence.
 
> And yes, I see these as inherently competitive - you are competing
> against the challenge, and indirectly the setter of that challenge. It
> isn't, however, inherently /confrontational/, which I suspect might be
> the aspect actually being objected to, and I wholeheartedly agree
> figures too frequently in current games. I don't, however, see anything
> automatically wrong with competition.

I don't see anything *automatically wrong* with it, per se.