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

[cruise]

Thus spake Caliban Darklock...
> On 3/5/07, cruise <cruise at casual-tempest.net> wrote:
>>
>> We'll have to disagree on that point. If I'm not enjoying it, it's no
>> longer a game.
> 
> So because I personally do not enjoy playing hockey, hockey is not a game?

For you, personally, yes.

A particularly out-of-touch general may view war as a game, and enjoy 
himself immensely, though it's unlikely the soldiers on the ground would 
agree. Fundamentally, this is what we do everytime we play an RTS: 
playing at war, without all the inconvient dying. Have you read "Ender's 
Game"?

>> Failing is defined in the space between the player's mind and the "game
>> world"
> 
> You are describing a toy, not a game. A game, by definition, entails
> agreement among multiple parties on what the rules are.

To an extent, I'd agree, though I'd be interested in your definition of toy.

> The difference
> between your perception of the rules and someone else's perception of
> the rules is called "cheating".

Sometimes, but doesn't have to be. This is the reason for conflict 
between the different player types. Role-players see the game as a means 
to be someone other than themselves. Min-maxers attempt to "solve" the 
rules for the most effective in-game results.

The former is an elf in middle-earth, that happens to be represented as 
a level 36 loremaster. The latter is a level 36 loremaster that happens 
to be represented as an elf in middle-earth.

The rules of the game are identical for both. How the players view the 
rules makes a world of difference to their experience within the game.

> Since I write UI automation code, I
> might write a program that plays the boring parts of the game for me.
> Since you probably don't expect that, and can't do it yourself, you
> would probably call it cheating.

Our sterotypical role-player above might, just as the min-maxer would 
call it sensible.