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

[Caliban Darklock]

On 3/20/07, cruise <cruise at casual-tempest.net> wrote:
>
> Saying it's so doesn't make it so :P
> By your definition, are all single-player "games" actually toys?

No, because there is consensus on the rules. Once you enter a cheat
code, you introduce a toy to the game, which is destructive.

> So getting the cute chick nekkid is part of the game :P She can still
> put her clothes back on (or just stop playing) at any time.

That's not the point. There are real world consequences to many games.
Joe Theismann was playing a game, and was catastrophically injured.
That's a real world consequence, but it doesn't mean football isn't a
game.

> So it's 1): the reward is the motivation.

Actually, it's not. The reason I think working out is fun has nothing
to do with the progress that I make; it is exclusively about whether I
can go that far simply because I want to do it. The only reward is
knowing that I did it. I don't like benching 295 because it will make
my chest bigger, I like benching 295 because I benched 295.

This is actually a great example: when I go to the gym, I am playing a
game. Most people aren't. They're trying to get in shape; the gym is a
toy to them. Their rules are what they want to look like, and what
they want to weigh, and what they want to accomplish. But I play a
game - there are people at the gym I recognise, and we challenge each
other. The bench press, to us, is not just a toy for enlarging our
chests; it's a game where we compete for high score. Of course,
there's one guy doing 400+, and the rest of us are playing around in
the high 200s and low 300s... but that's okay. He's winning, but we
jockey for relative position.

> But do both "Toy" and "Game" descend from "Play"?

I'm not sure. I've never tried to define "play". If I were to make a
cut at it, I'd say "to adopt a system of rules". There may need to be
a further qualifier there to differentiate it from other things that
have rules. There may not.

Mark Twain said it nicely: work consists of what a body is obliged to
do, and play consists of what a body is not obliged to do. Volition
needs to be in there, I think.

> Is "it" the fun, the "game" or the "toy" in that last sentence?

The fun. I think it goes in more of a web: "play" descends from a
combination of experiential "fun" and a perceived "ruleset". Play by a
single individual becomes a "toy", while play by multiple individuals
becomes a "game", when a conceptual notion of finality is applied to
the ruleset. It gets complicated.

I think "play" in its pure form naturally implies a distinct openness
to continuing evolution of the ruleset.

> Excuse the pedantry, but since I'm trying to get as close as possible to
> a formal definition of these terms, precision is important.

I entirely agree.

> Yet a toy is, by your definition, "a deliberate attempt to induce fun."

Without consensus. It is the consensus that makes the "play" into a
"game", and when one deviates from consensus, it is destructive to
that status.