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

[Sean Howard]

"Caliban Darklock" <cdarklock at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

There's the big picture, and there's arguing over spelling. Spelling
something right is important, but only after you know what you want to say
(and, I should point out, is not a requirement for getting the general
point across). You'll notice that I used the word "petty" to qualify the
argument. That's because ultimately, making a distinction between "toy"
and "game" is worthless. It may not ALWAYS be this way, but right now,
it's simply an argument over who's model is better - and they both stink.

What new problem can be solved by making a distinction between game and
toy? Seriously, what OLD problem is now solved? What predictive qualities
does such a distinction make such that future game concepts making that
distinction will benefit in any way? It's like being lost in a forest and
arguing that because there are pine trees, you must be in Yellowstone.
You're still lost, your conclusion worthless. Trying to derive a forest
from a tree....

> 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?

What game, video or otherwise, allows you to make up your own rules and
use them without full disclosure or acceptance of those rules?

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

EVERYTHING is a system of rules that has a consensus of its acceptability.
You just described my toilet. I know the little handle flushes, and that
I'll get in trouble if I stick my tv in it. You'll have to come up with a
MUCH MUCH MUCH better description of game than that, because you've said
nothing.

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

So, let's say I take a ball. That's a toy. I decide to play catch with my
daughter. The consensus is that we throw the ball back and forth and try
to catch it. And yet, that's not a game, but by your definition, it's not
a toy either. Or is it a game, and by the very nature of using the ball,
it stops being a toy for the duration of the game? If that's the case,
then you're describing something based on exceptions to being something
else - a game is just there because it's not a toy. That's a terrible
definition.

> 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.

Yeah, when you use your definitions for "toy" and "game", sure. But you've
created a defintion in which there can be no other result. You've created
a self fufilling definition - a circular argument. And you are patting
yourself on the back for creating "logic" nobody can affect. You'll have
to excuse me for not seeing your genius.

The definition of "game" needs to be something that is INCLUSIVE and
BROAD, which runs counter to your definition, which is exclusive and
narrow. Something can be a game and a toy. In fact, as far as predictive
qualities that improve one's understanding of game design, I would even
suggest that the two could be equals. A toy is a game and a game is a toy.
There isn't enough distinction between the two, at this point, that making
that distinction is anything but distracting.

-- 
Sean Howard