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

[cruise]

Thus spake 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.

Consesus with whom? I will have different experiences and motivations 
for my actions from you, purely because we are different people.

The rules of a game are not constraining, they are enabling - they are 
the foundation from which a toy/game emerges. Just as everything we 
perceive in the "real world" is coloured by our pre-conceptions and 
desires, so to must the game-world. There will always be an element of 
"toy" in any "game", using your definitions.

>> 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.

Which is not really different from my distinction: We work because we 
need what we gain at the end, we play for the enjoyment of the activity, 
not out of necessity.


> 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 we're demonstrating that quite well, currently :P

What leads you to these definitions? For what reasons have you 
classified the terms in this way?