Reactions to Rules of Play Article

Luis and I realized yesterday that by defining our game as one that travels easily, we severly limited ourselves in terms of materials, space, and play possibilities. We, therefore, decided to separately analyze our favorite games for their most enjoyable feature(s) and to try to integrate several disparate features into one meaning game. We would then regroup with 2 games to choose from (or combine)

We have lots of ideas, but are having trouble funneling down into just one. Part of the difficulty is that we see value in many different types of games and keep bouncing around between concepts we like. Also, we seem to have grown up playing very different games from one another, so communicating about them is sometimes a bit challenging for both of us.

Game elements that Luis and I currently want to include:

-ability for any # of players to participate (and potentially join in at any time)

-a mix between skill and chance

-some element of mystery regarding the upcoming plays of other participants

-relative simplicity => relatively short game length (20 min)

-fast moving / short turns (short reinforcement schedules)



Regarding Rules of Play.

Wow. Salen and Zimmerman's treatise is certainly well-researched and exhaustive. Honestly, I also found it to be exhausting, tedious, and unnecessarily redundant. That said, I think I did gain useful information from the writing, although I'm not entirely sure how to apply much of it to the creation process. The issue, it seems, is how one integrates all this information into the game design process. The writing did a good job of dissecting and defining what consistutes play and game, but is not that helpful in helping a newbie actually create a meaningful game. In other words, it's a nice, theoretical, academic dissertation, but not a very useful instruction manual.


What I gleaned from the reading, though, is as follows:

-Definitions of "play" and "game" vary widely, depending on linguistics and cultural context. Even experts in the fields don't seem to agree on what constitutes a game. I find the authors' definition of game to be pretty reasonble.

-In order for a game to be played at all, it must be enjoyable. It also must attract the players in the first place and encourage them to play until the game ends. For this to happen, the game must be meaningful, on at least one level, for all the players involved.

-As a game designer, one creates the system through which it is expected that the players will interact. The designer, however, does not control the actual experience of the players. The more a designer can understand the perspectives of the players, the more likely he/she is to create a meaningful, and therefore desirable, game.

-Games need to have at least some measure of feedback for the players or else the game seems pointless. However, the game also needs to allow leeway within the actions of the players; otherwise, the game is boring and also pointless.

-Formal games (such as the one we're trying to create). Generally have a beginning (initial setup in which all players are equally able to win), a middle (the actual play / carrying out of actions), and an end (a goal that, once met, terminates the game)

-Games are contextual (culturally/extrinsically, and within themselves/intrinsically). Since we're likely to be designing for our own culture, this is just more of an obvious observation.

So, basically, we need to create the system in which the game operates. And to do that, we need to come up with rules that allow player choices to influence the outcome of the game, but within certain constructs. The constructs should have reasonably simple rules, with the overall game being of medium complexity (to avoid frustration or boredom). The game must have a perscribed goal and multiple ways of achieving it (through the varied actions of players) through the concept of "imperfect information." This allows for some mystery and strategy, and therefore, interest. We need to think carefully about the structures of our "action-outcomes,">

So, how do we actually do this?

I think the article made me think about the "macro" version on the game, which may help. In other words, what do we want the overall theme to be? How does the game look at the end? Perhaps working backward will get us unstuck...

A decision tree, as suggested in the writing, may help us with our overall concepts & may be a good place for us to start trying to diagram the game.

By the way, from now on, I intend to refer to pigs as "squerdlishes." It's just way, WAY more fun to say than "pig." :)