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

[Caliban Darklock]

On 3/20/07, Sean Howard <squidi at squidi.net> wrote:
>
> I excused myself from this thread because I was becoming frustrated at
> such a petty semantics argument

All theoretical exercises are petty semantics arguments. A ray goes on
forever in ONE direction, a line goes on forever in TWO directions...
WTF? They both go on forever; what a petty semantics argument.

But in geometry, it's a pretty damned important one.

> Like for instance, by your definition, Warhammer 40k isn't a game and all
> the units are toys

I can make up my own rules for a unit in WH40K and use it without full
disclosure and acceptance of those rules? Where do you play?

Chess is a game because both sides know how the pieces move. If you
could invent your own rules for how the pieces moved, and I didn't
have to know them or agree to them, that would be destructive. We'd
all just say "everything moves like a queen!" and the game would suck.

A "game" is a system of rules that has consensus among all players as
to its acceptability.

A "toy" is a system of rules that DOES NOT have consensus. It is
CRITICAL to the definition that there IS NO CONSENSUS.

When you introduce a "toy" to a "game", you are adding a set of rules
that only some of the players follow. And that's destructive.