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

[cruise]

Thus spake Caliban Darklock...
> Yes. However, a game is not required to be fun. (Crossfit.com has a
> slogan relating this to exercise, "it doesn't have to be fun to be
> fun".) It is only required to have mutually agreed-upon rules. It is
> not required to have win or loss conditions.

A war can have mutually agreed upon rules. And it doesn't, technically 
have to have a win or loss condition - stalemates happen quite often.
Again, however, I doubt most involved would consider it a game.

A game is free of consequences outside of "the game" - if you can't pay 
the rent in Monopoly, you don't have to mortgage your actual house to 
pay the other player. The game ends, and the world is as it was before.

Maybe "fun" is the wrong word. Rewarding, satisfying, enjoyable, 
pleasant; all of those can apply. The slogan you quote ("it doesn't have 
to be fun to be fun") is cute, but what exactly does it mean?

Fundamentally, there has to be a reason you partake of an activity:

1) You desire the end result the activity produces.
2) You enjoy the activity for itself.

Your motivation can be a mixture of the two, and of course, all 
generalisations have exceptions (including that one), but it's broadly true.

The greater the balance towards 1) the more it feels like work, and as 
you move towards 2) it becomes more "playful".

> On another note, I just lost the game. ( ilostthegame.org ) Which has
> no win condition, but does have a lose condition. This is unusual, but
> hardly unique... life itself has no win condition, but does have a
> lose condition (death).

Some religions might argue with that latter statement :P, but okay. So?

> A toy is not required to have an agreement among players, it is merely
> required to have some set of rules that govern one person's play.
> Fundamentally, the minimal ruleset is "this is a toy".

Okay, clarification time:

Would you agree with this hierarchy?

Play > Toy > Game

Do you agree with my definition of "play" above (an activity you enjoy)?

Am I right in saying, a "toy" is playing according to some rules, by 
your definition?

And you seem to be implying that a game requires several individuals, 
are "playing" to the same rules, yes?

> That's the mutual agreement. You are forced by the mechanisms of the
> game to agree on certain things - for example, in World of Warcraft,
> you can't play the T-101 Terminator. There's no model for it. You can
> act like the T-101 Terminator - nothing will prevent you from doing
> that - but you can't make other people act like you're the T-101
> Terminator. They have to agree to it. And if another player simply
> refuses to agree, you can't play this particular game with him.
> 
> In essence, everybody is playing the same game at a certain level, but
> beyond that all bets are off. The more ability your game provides to
> expand the rules beyond that lowest common denominator, the more
> disagreement you're going to have among your players. The player types
> are just the tip of this particular iceberg.

Which is what I (intended) to say - I have absolutely no disagreements 
there.

As I understand it, you feel that a player pretending to be a Terminator 
is playing with a "toy" because there are rules that apply only to him - 
it is no longer a game when a player adds his own objectives or concepts 
to the mutually agreed on rules?