User:Ssstephen/Reading/Rules of Play

Chapter 7: Defining Games

formal game, by definition, has a winner; and winning is the "end"... It has an agreed set of equipment and of procedural "rules" by which the equipment is manipulated to produce a winning situation.

From David Parlett, The Oxford History of Board Games. The "rules" and even equipment part of this make sense to me, although sometimes the equipment might be very minimal or nothing (is the 100m sprint a game? or hide and seek?). On the other hand the winner/winning part seems a little constrictive to me. While many games involve (and end with) winning, this seems to be missing the point of most games in a broader sense to me. If only one person or team wins, why would so many people want to play games when the odds of losing are so high? Perhaps the possible reward makes it worthwhile but I suspect in most games there is something else to gain for the players than simply winning. However where Parlett is trying to distinguish games and informal play I think this is a useful point as long as it is not over emphasised in other contexts.

Reduced to its formal essence, a game is an activity among two or more independent decision-makers seeking to achieve their objectives in some limiting context.

From Serious Games, Clark C. Abt. As discussed in this section, this definition allows elections, international relations and arguments to be considered games. I think this is missing the same basic point as Dave's definition in that it assumes the objectives of the game are the players' actual main objectives. "It's just a game", "I'm just playing with you". Gameplay implies on some level this is not real life, this might be consequential but it's not the goal. Serious games do exist but I think there is still an understanding that all games are minigames within life, not the main quest. They may be rewarding or satisfying, but the "end" of the game is not an ultimate end.

[play] promotes the formation of social groupings, which tend to surround themselves with secrecy
and to stress their difference from the common world by disguise or other means.

From Homo Ludens, Johann Huizinga. Jo seems to be getting closer to the point than the previous two in my opinion, looking at the important social consequences of play. It is maybe important that he is talking about play, not games. There are other consequences or outcomes to play and games that I think he is not mentioning, play as learning, play for money (eg. gambling and professional sports), and maybe play as personal (non-social) therapy. JHuiz implies games are artificial, but if they have consequences IRL then they must at least relate to real life some how, and in my opinion are a part of it even if they are constructed (it's all a game).

 [games are] uncertain: the course of which cannot be determined, nor the result attained beforehand, and some
latitude for innovations being left to the player's initiative. 

From Man, Play, and Games, Roger Caillois. The uncertainty element seems true to me, and is a good distinction from or comparison to ritual. What happens if you plot different activities/actions on a chart of gameness vs ritualness? Rodge says games are unproductive but I would suggest that they can actually use up resources (especially labour and time), just as rituals often do. "Is there a make-believe element to Tic-Tac-Toe?" Yes of course there is, three x's or o's in a row do not make me win outside of that game, real life is not turn based, etc.

Do all games allow the participants to be playful?

playing a game is the voluntary effort to overcome unnecessary obstacles.

From Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia, Bernard Suits. I think Benny is missing the point that the grasshopper is making in the story. Words like "less efficient" and "unnecessary" seem to be implying there is a more efficient way to achieve what making music achieves, or worse maybe even implies it is not needed at all. Maybe this is true in the sense that life is absurd and nothing happens for a reason re:Camus, but I don't think this is what B is getting at. "Lusory attitude": this is a nice idea. "Suits is actually pointing to the way that games create meaning as players accept these rules, goals, and obstacles in order to play."

The Ants & the Grasshopper

One bright day in late autumn a family of Ants were bustling about in the warm sunshine, drying out the grain they had stored up during the summer, when a starving Grasshopper, his fiddle under his arm, came up and humbly begged for a bite to eat.

"What!" cried the Ants in surprise, "haven't you stored anything away for the winter? What in the world were you doing all last summer?"

"I didn't have time to store up any food," whined the Grasshopper; "I was so busy making music that before I knew it the summer was gone."

The Ants shrugged their shoulders in disgust.

"Making music, were you?" they cried. "Very well; now dance!" And they turned their backs on the Grasshopper and went on with their work.

From Aesop's Fables.

A game is a closed formal system that subjectively represents a subset of reality. By "closed" I mean that the game is complete and self-sufficient as a structure... A game creates a subjective and deliberately simplified representation of emotional reality... The player is actively pursuing some goal. Obstacles prevent him from easily achieving this goal. Conflict is an intrinsic element of all games... Conflict implies danger; danger means risk of harm; harm is undesirable. Therefore, a game is an artifice for providing the psychological experiences of conflict and danger while excluding their physical realizations.

From The Art of Computer Game Design, Chris Crawford. Mmm complete universal games. The simplified representation of emotional reality is an interesting one especially in relation to music or theater; there is certainly a simplified representation of reality but traditionally people consider these ways to explore emotional truths in ways that "reality" cant. The simplifying of reality can in fact draw attention to certain elements and make them more clearly expressed. Lots of parts of this definition make me think of games and (participatory) art as the same or similar things, eg the contrived conflict and obstacles which are a part of lots of formal artistic systems like western harmony. What happens when games lie to you, when you don't feel safe playing a game?

A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal.

From I Have No Words and I Must Design, Greg Costikyan. I think Greg's throwing around of the a-word is what the other definitions were missing for me, and could be a useful way to explore a game's role for the individuals, groups and societies that play it. This also makes me think of the rules of games in general; when I play a board game I not only follow the rules in the rule book, but also more general rules that I know about board games. When I read the rules for a specific card game, there are plenty of words like "tricks" or "suits", terminology and metarules that I need to know in order to play that specific game.

Games are an exercise of voluntary control systems, in which there is a contest between powers, confined by rules in order to produce a disequilibrial outcome. 

From The Study of Games, Elliot Avedon and Brian Sutton-Smith. This definition again is really missing why games are played for me, which is ok I guess but I am really interested in that.

A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a
quantifiable outcome.

The definition of these authors, sounds pretty good to me except the quantifiable outcome part. I get that games often have a quantifiable outcome but I'm not sure it is an essential part of being a game. The Game with Michael Douglas, what a film. "Conflict is central to games". But sometimes the conflict is so artificial and inconsequential in real life that it does not feel like conflict is the right word at all. Overcooked can be very stressful but that is because of the conflict it creates between players attempting to collaborate, does that fit the way the word is being used here? What is the conflict in solitaire or in Tony Hawk's?

Thinking about a game as a puzzle, a game with a correct answer or set of answers, can be a useful way to frame a game. For example, is your 3D adventure game lacking a sense of play? Perhaps it is too puzzle-like

Nice. What is the difference between an adventure game and an RPG? Whether or not the outcome is an ultimate accomplishment, or a clear end point? Sometimes a game can still be played after you complete it, does it shift mode at that point from adventure to role-play?

The terrain along the borders of more rigid definitions offers fertile ground for insight and investigation. In these playful and liminal spaces, assumptions are challenged, ideas evolve, and definitions change.

Further reading Man, Play, and Games, by Roger Caillois.