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

[Caliban Darklock]

On 3/16/07, cruise <cruise at casual-tempest.net> wrote:
> 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.

And yet, that's precisely what it is. Just like "The Sims" isn't a
game, even though many people call it one, because it doesn't involve
mutual agreement on the rules. It's a toy.

> A game is free of consequences outside of "the game"

This isn't true. See strip poker. The consequences of being naked are
largely the intent of playing the game in the first place.

> The slogan you quote ("it doesn't have
> to be fun to be fun") is cute, but what exactly does it mean?

If you don't get it, you don't get it. ;)

The best explanation I can offer is that you can enjoy doing something
even when it is not enjoyable. I don't enjoy doing a push-up. However,
if I do as many push-ups as I can in twenty seconds, then rest for ten
seconds, then repeat the process for a total of eight times... what
they call the Tabata method, after its Japanese inventor... that's
fun. It hurts like hell and I'm sore for two days afterward, but it's
fun.

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

I think it's a lot more complicated than that.

> > 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?

It's possible to have any combination of win conditions and lose
conditions. You can have one, or both, or neither. It is also possible
to have multiple conditions which are "win" or "lose", and may or may
not have relative rankings. There may also be a "neither" condition.

> Would you agree with this hierarchy?
>
> Play > Toy > Game

No, because I don't think "Toy" and "Game" are heirarchical. I think
they are parallel. I don't think one evolves out of the other. I think
both descend from "Fun" in the sense that there is a point where one
is enjoying himself, but has no control over it.

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

When you examine it, you find that a "toy" is any deliberate effort to
induce "fun". Intent and an apprehension of causal relationship makes
the difference. You may have fun when you see someone slip on a banana
peel, and you may even understand that this is why you are having fun.
But the banana peel does not become a toy unless and until you start
seeking out the banana peel in the hope of seeing someone slip on it.
(Or, in the extreme case, placing banana peels in foot traffic areas.)

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

At least two, but yes. Similar to the above. Sex is a game.

> it is no longer a game when a player adds his own objectives or concepts
> to the mutually agreed on rules?

A game is damaged and potentially destroyed by the introduction of
toys, because the toy alters the game for everyone. Even if only you
have the toy, I now play a game where a player might have that toy.
That alters my game decisions. Eventually, there are simply too many
special cases - it requires more effort to track all the toys than it
does to track the actual productive rules of the game.