The Forge Archives

Contention over the definition of the word "game" (as a noun) has been implicit in a few recent threads. Allow me to share a definition that I've been using, and refining, for a couple years now.

Disclaimer: The way I define "game" is a purely intellectual matter and is not intended to advance anyone's political agenda, least of all my own. Though the purpose of the definition is to allow categorization of activities as being, or not being, games, no such categorization in any way condones or condemns the activity being categorized.

Game (n): An activity or process, involving at least one participant (hereinafter referred to as a "player"), that meets three criteria:

1. The player has a goal.

2. The decisions of the player affect whether or not the player's goal is accomplished.

3. The determination of whether or not, or how effectively, the goal is accomplished is more important to the player than the direct consequences of pursuing or accomplishing the goal.

This is the broadest definition I've been able to concoct that still draws meaningful distinctions between games and other forms of human endeavor. By focusing on the nature of its goal rather than e.g. the element of competition or the existence of established rules, this definition encompasses such activities as solitaire games, cooperative games, extemporaneous games (e.g. Calvinball), and games in which player(s) select their own goals or change their goals during play. A person who decides to throw a rock at a tree to see whether he will hit it is playing a game, albeit a brief and simple one.

Each of the criteria is, I believe, reasonable and necessary. Item 1 differentiates between games and other forms and aspects of play that are not games. Exploring is not a game in and of itself, but it becomes one if there is something to be found or achieved by exploring (as long as there's also the possibility that it will not be found or achieved). An interactive storytelling session is not a game unless (as is usually the case) the participants are given, or self-select, goals.

Item 2 constrains the nature of the goal that makes the activity a game. Since all volitional activities can be said to have goals, but not all activites are games, further conditions are necessary. The goal in question must be one whose success or failure can be affected by the player's decisions. The existence of a goal that cannot fail, for example, does not make the activity a game. In particular, if the activity itself is held to be the goal, that does not indicate the activity is a game because the activity takes place (and that goal therefore succeeds) regardless of the player's decisions. Similarly, "passing the time" as a goal does not indicate a game because time will indeed pass regardless of what the player does. (Note that the mere existence of such a goal also does not prove the activity is not a game, because there may be another simultaneous goal that does meet the criteria.) There must be a goal for which success or failure are both possible, and the player's decisions must be capable of influencing whether success or failure occurs.

Item 2 also differentiates between games and performance or spectatorship, where a goal may appear to exist (e.g. the hero of a story prevails, or the home team wins) but the stage performer or sports spectator cannot influence whether or not it's accomplished.

Item 3 distinguishes games from endeavors that for want of a better term are better classified as "work." A runner running a race may be said to be playing a game, but a runner running to catch a train is not, because in that case the desire to catch the train, rather than the revelation of whether or not the runner is able to do so, is the primary motivation for running.

This distinction can become tricky, but it seems to hold up when tested. For example, a lawsuit doesn't normally fit Item 3 of the definition, because the parties involved care more about what money changes hands or the public vindication of the tort (that is, the direct consequences of winning) than about determining whether they're able to accomplish a win. But occasionally, the reverse may be true, in which case calling it a game seems justifiable. (Tragically, it could be a game for one litigant but not the other.) Part 3 of the definition is actually a very restrictive condition that can exclude many pursuits often described as games: war games for training purposes, stock market investing, pro sports when the player cares primarily about the money, sports played mainly for exercise, salesmanship, espionage, gambling, diplomacy, etc.

However, such borderline cases must be carefully analyzed. A "war game" exercise, for example, might be conducted for the purpose of assessing force readiness or analyzing a military scenario. The decisions of the players do not affect whether this goal is accomplished, because the assessment will be made or the scenario analyzed regardless of which side wins. Furthermore, the assessment or analysis is probably more important to the organizers than finding out who wins per se. Thus, it appears that the exercise is not a game by both Item 2 and Item 3 of the definition. However, the perspective that's important in the definition is that of the player(s), not the organizer or observer. For the participants in the war game, the main goal is beating the enemy; their choices affect whether that goal is accomplished; and they care more about winning the exercise than about what the brass will do with the information learned. Therefore, for the actual players of the war game, it is a game, even if it's not for the top echelons.

In may cases, of course, multiple motivations for performing the same activity coexist and must be weighed. Does that pro ball player want to prove his skills against the opponents' challenge, or is he just playing for the money? Is that stock trader really so rich that for him the money is "just a way of keeping score" as he claims? In the spirit of GNS, it seems reasonable to assert that even though different motivations may coexist, in the end only one of them can be the most important to the player, even if it's not apparent from the outside which it is until a whole pattern of behavior is observed. So an activity always is or is not a game under this definition, but it won't always be easy to determine which. Which agrees with our real-world experience. Since it appears intuitively that the exact same activity performed in the exact same way with the exact same results (e.g. hunting for a rabbit using a shotgun) can be a game for some people and/or circumstances but not for others, some subjectivity based on the participants' inner motivation appears to be necessary.

What do people think? Is this definition viable? Comprehensible? Useful? How could it be improved?

- Walt

Bear with me, I'm thinking out loud here, so I may ramble.

I have a couple problems with this definition.

First, and most of, all, what about fun? I know Jared has said RPGs don't have to fun, but isn't that what makes it a game, and not work.

As an example, if someone comes up to me with a loaded pistol and forces me at gunpoint to dig ditches, telling me I must dig one 2 foot by 3 foot by 6 feet deep ditch every hour or he'll shoot me, well, what I'm doing is a game, right?

I'm participating in an activity or process. That makes me a player, right?

1. I have a goal. Dig a 2 foot by 3 foot by 6 feet deep ditch every hour, until the guy with the gun tells me to stop.
2. My decisions affect whether or not the goal is accomplished. I can choose to dig or not to. I decide how to pace myself, since I don't know how long I'll be doing this. And so on.
3. The determination of whether or not I accomplish the goal is more important than the consquence of persuing or accomplishing the goal... If I accomplish the goal, well, very well, I keep playing. It's the consequence of *losing* that I'm concerned about.

Okay, not the best example, perhaps, but I think point 3 is the slippery slope. If I play chess for money, and the direct consequence of the act -- getting money -- is more important to me than the act itself, does that mean chess isn't a game? I mean, how do you KNOW that 3 is the case? Isn't a lot to assume you can read the mind of the player to determine his intent? Shouldn't the criterion be more objective?

A game is a game when there is a conscious effort/decision on the part of the player to MAKE it a game.

So your digging a ditch example might be a game, but probably only for the guy with the gun.

I can't define the word/concept of game by myself. But I do know in my heart (FWIW) that this conscious decision is required. This is why I don't think simulationist RPGs are games.

The first question is what do you do?
And when the exploration of character/setting is brought up as the answer, I have to ask...well how do you know when you're done?

Quote from: Jared A. SorensenI can't define the word/concept of game by myself. But I do know in my heart (FWIW) that this conscious decision is required. This is why I don't think simulationist RPGs are games.

The first question is what do you do?
And when the exploration of character/setting is brought up as the answer, I have to ask...well how do you know when you're done?

When you're bored, or the character is dead or otherwise unplayable, or when whatever aspect of the game world you were interested in is gone.

Quote from: Jared A. SorensenA game is a game when there is a conscious effort/decision on the part of the player to MAKE it a game.

I can't define the word/concept of game by myself. But I do know in my heart (FWIW) that this conscious decision is required. This is why I don't think simulationist RPGs are games.

Even when those partaking of the Simulationism "MAKE it a game," even in the absense of competition or Premise?

Is the problem that what is given as the definition of Simulationism is incomplete?  This would mean that some Simulationism is game and some isn't and that the definition of Simulationism is simply too vague to exclude 'non-game' Simulationism?  That, I could buy; otherwise I get the 'baby (Simulationist games) is going out with the bathwater (non-game Simulationism)' feeling.

I'm more than a little curious about this 'Simulationism is not gaming' idea.

Fang Langford

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Let's say that Simulationism is not a game. OK, it's still an activity that I want to partake in. Reading a book or watching a movie is not a game, but I still like doing those. And I put way more copnscious decision making into a Sim RPG than those media. Might not be the types of decisions that some people are interested in, but "left or right" is interesting to me. This is so much a matter of preference that I wonder that we're still discussing it. Some like the Sim activity, some do not.

So who cares? Is it that Sim RPGs are labeled "Games" perhaps incorrectly? Seems like a pointless argument.

Mike

I have to say, I agree with Mike.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that Simulationist RPGs aren't, strictly speaking, "games". Let's say that Exploration of Character, as a goal in & of itself, isn't really "playing a roleplaying game".

...And then what? I mean, really, what's the goal here? What is there to gain?

On the other hand, let's say we definitively state that Simulationist RPGs are "games", & Exploration of Character is a completely valid form of roleplaying, right up there with "expanding on premise" & "use of resources to achieve victory". Again, what then? What do we gain by categorically deciding one way or the other that Sim is or isn't a "game"? I like theory as much as the next guy, but isn't this kind of verging on "vague intellectual exercise"? I thought the whole point of the GNS thing was "to make play better". Okay, so now there are people (like Mike & Mytholder) who can say, "Hey, I like that whole Exploration of Character thing. Woohoo! Lookee me, I'm a Simulationist!" Now we're going to turn around & say, "But that's not a game!" Um...okay...how is this making play better? How do my RPG experiences improve by deciding that a form of recreation I'm not even all that into (Simulationism) isn't a "game".

For the record, I think that Simulationism is a game. People predisposed to, say, Exploration of Character are entering into the activity with the set goal of "getting into the character's head & seeing what develops". Does the player have a concrete stopping point in mind? Maybe not. Not all games have concrete stopping points--sometimes, the goal of the game is to keep the game going as long as you can.

So, there. I've defined Simulationism as a game. One that I'm not really into, but a game nonetheless. And now what?

Hi folks,

In my essay, you'll see that the term "game" plays no substantive role. Although I have no particular objection to Walt's definition of the term, I still don't see any point to including it in the discussion in a formal way.

To me, the issues break down as:

Biggest category: Social leisure activity
Subset: shared Exploration of the five "things"
Sub-Subsets from there: individual and group goals (GNS)

I perceive (and use) the term "game" only for historical reasons. On a related note, the term "Gamist" is derived from "game" only etymologically, not substantively.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: xiombarg
First, and most of, all, what about fun? I know Jared has said RPGs don't have to fun, but isn't that what makes it a game, and not work.

I don't think thats relevant - not all games are fun, and some games are fun but have a decidedly useful purpose in the big picture.  

Quote
As an example, if someone comes up to me with a loaded pistol and forces me at gunpoint to dig ditches, telling me I must dig one 2 foot by 3 foot by 6 feet deep ditch every hour or he'll shoot me, well, what I'm doing is a game, right?

It is by my way of looking at it, yes.  It is simply not a fun game.

I think the important thing it is that it is BOUNDED - a game is a boxed off chunk of reality that operates under certain specific and understood rules.  It establishes certain forms of legitimised, expected or validated interactions between the participants, and the participants consciously use these within the bounds of the game.  To this extent, a game is at least partially predictable, in that cause and effect have been strictly delineated.

I don't even think that this is limited to creatures with human rationality - Fetch is a cross-species game played by humans and dogs.  Catch The String is a cross-species game played by humans and cats.  Whose Fault It All Was is a game played by divorcing couples.  The only distinction between game-as-behaviour, and game-as-entertainment, is the stakes.  Fetch The Stick is a low-stakes game which is itself training for a higher-stakes game of Fetch The Dead Bird From The Marsh - which might at times be a matter of life and death for the bird, the dog, and the human, and hence have very high stakes indeed.  In the meanwhile, Fetch The Stick can be fun and rewarding in its own right.

Quote from: wfreitagGame (n): An activity or process, involving at least one participant (hereinafter referred to as a "player"), that meets three criteria:

1. The player has a goal.

Um, does the goal need to be significant ? Do I have to be actively pursuing the goal ? Does it need to be related directly to the game ?

If I am playing pool with my mates on a Saturday afternoon, and me reason for playing is to be with my mates and I don't care if I win or lose, am I still playing a game ?

Quote from: wfreitag2. The decisions of the player affect whether or not the player’s goal is accomplished.

So if it is totally random there is no game ? Snakes and ladders is not a game, not even a bad one ?

Quote from: wfreitag3. The determination of whether or not, or how effectively, the goal is accomplished is more important to the player than the direct consequences of pursuing or accomplishing the goal.[/color]

So a family playing 'I Spy' on a long car journey to kill time are only playing a game if they are keeping score ? Not if they are just doing it for fun or to kill time ?

I guess my problem with your definition is that it is simultaneously too broad and too narrow ;-). It includes things which can be considered games but are not inherently games ('I go to work to earn money' seems to fit all rules). Likewise some games fail under the description - Snakes and Ladders is a game (a bad one I'll grant you, but a game nonetheless).

"Game" is a complex concept with many borderline cases. The test I apply to a definition of "game" is not whether or not it magically resolves all borderline cases without controversy -- which I don't believe is possible -- but whether it provides the tools for analyzing such cases, including understanding why they are borderline.

For those who have suggested alternatives, I'm struck not by the contrast of the alternatives but how similar they are. Each includes some criteria for distinguishing games from activities that may involve the same challenges and procedures as games, but have a different motivation behind them. Thus, whether or not the game is "for fun" or whether or not it is "recreational" or whether or not the participants consciously decide it is a game. If you were to attempt to further define "fun" or "recreation," however, I believe you'd end up with something like what my definition already includes, a weighing of motivations between the intrinsic and the extrinsic rewards. (Including in a definition of "game" the criteria that the participants consciously regard the activity as a game is unfortunately circular. It implies that no objective definition is possible... which I agree with in part, but I think the areas of subjectivity can be usefully narrowed down.)

QuoteDoes the goal need to be significant?

No. How significant is getting a small ball to go into a small hole, especially when you intend to immediately take it out again? Including a vague word like "significant" in the definition would be counterproductive. Significant to whom? In what way?

QuoteDoes the player have to be actively pursuing the goal?

Not necessarily. But if a player is not actively pursuing the goal, the activity is unlikely to meet criteria 2 or 3.

QuoteDoes it need to be directly related to the game?

Goals not related to the game will be irrelevant when criteria 2 and 3 are considered, so this is implicitly true.

QuoteIf I am playing pool with my mates on a Saturday afternoon, and me reason for playing is to be with my mates and I don't care if I win or lose, am I still playing a game?

Yes. Look at it item by item. You have a goal, getting balls into pockets, whose success and failure are contingent on the decisions you make. The determination of how well you do so is more important than the direct consequences of doing so, assuming you're not motivated by a strong preference for spherical objects being safely contained in pockets rather than openly exposed on flat felt surfaces. The issue of being with your mates is not relevant either way to the question of whether or not the pool is a game. Being with your mates is not a direct consequence of your pool play, nor is it a goal whose success or failure your decisions will affect. You were already with your mates when you started playing pool, and they won't disappear or reject you if you fail to sink balls.

However, in the seemingly similar case of a businessman who plays golf in order to be able to meet with golf-playing business contacts, who has little or no concern with the game itself, I would conclude that it is not a game for that person. Being able to meet with contacts is a direct consequence of actively pursuing the game of golf, attempting to get balls into holes, because if the businessman doesn't at least make an honest attempt, he will not be permitted to meet with the contacts in that venue in the future. For him, golf is part of his work. (And even the IRS agrees that the expenses incurred in playing golf to meet business contacts are legitimate business expenses. I defer to them as the ultimate authority in distinguishing between work and recreation.)

QuoteIs it a game if it's totally random? Is Snakes and Ladders a game?

Again, let me repeat that the important question to me is not whether or not Snakes and Ladders is technically a game, but understanding why the issue is in question. The reason in this case is clear: if the decisions of the player do not affect whether or not the goal is accomplished, then it's not a game, but it's difficult to perceive any manner in which a player even makes decisions in Snakes and Ladders.

The question is even more important in gambling games. In one sense one could say that my decision to put my money on red or black makes all the difference in whether I win or lose. But in another, one could say that it's irrelevant because the decision has no effect on my chance of winning or losing. Similarly, how hard or how high you throw the dice during Snakes and Ladders does determine what number is rolled and hence whether you win or lose. But on the other hand, it's still totally random regardless of the decision.

I'm inclined to give the gambler and the toddler playing Snakes and Ladders the benefit of the doubt. Their decisions are determining the outcome, even though a random mechanism intervenes and makes it impossible for them to truly direct those decisions toward a particular outcome. Of course, most adults do not play Snakes and Ladders, nor would they play roulette very often if money weren't involved. But there's no reason not to call them games. (Note that this may disagree with the game theory definition of games, which is also highly technical and not very useful for our purposes).

QuoteSo a family playing 'I Spy' on a long car journey to kill time are only playing a game if they are keeping score ? Not if they are just doing it for fun or to kill time?

No. This would be true if the only goal you consider is winning by getting the most points, but there is also the goal of guessing what object the person spied (or, for the "it" player, choosing a spied object that the others will have difficulty guessing).

I think I see what you're suggesting: don't the direct consequences "having fun" or "killing time" outweigh "the determination of whether or not, or how effectively, the goal is accomplished" in a vast number of cases as a motivation for play? That just twists the definition. "Having fun" or "killing time" are likely reasons why the determination of whether or how effectively the goal is accomplished is important to the player in the first place. So no, those "goals" cannot be more important than themselves.

Quote'I go to work to earn money' seems to fit all rules.

No, it fails miserably at rule #3. An easy way to test whether or not the pursuit of the goal motivationally outweighs the direct consequences of pursuing or achieving it is to take away those direct consequences and see if the player would still be interested. Would you still play Monopoly if at the end of the game, all your houses and hotels and deeds and hard-earned cash are just taken off the board and put back into the box? Of course, since that's the normal event. Would you still play an evening of poker with your pals if at the end of the evening, all the money was restored to its original owners? Probably, though you might wonder why you bothered with the poker and suggest just watching videos next time. Would you still go to work if you didn't get paid? I'll leave that one up to you.

- Walt

I totally agree with Walt on this one. His definiton of 'game' is the best I've seen so far. My game design theory uses very similar ideas in explaining what games really are. (Side note: I promise to unveil my theory as soon as possible).

I've been waiting a long time for someone to bring up the subject naturally. Our communication environment in the world of game design is still too vague, IMO. I mean, they don't tell you what to paint in art school but they teach you many tools to express yourself. So why not do the same with games? And to start developing these tools, we need to know what the hell games are in the first place.  
 
I feel it is imperative that we seperate the term 'game' from other words such as 'fun' 'activity' and 'play'. No matter how related, they mean different things. Somewhere along the way they got jumbled up. This leads to terrible miscommunication which I believe slows down designer creativity and blocks many paths of development. Whether the GNS model deals with the term 'game' or not is irrelevant.

It's true that the difference between a game and a project, a work, or even real life is at best semantic. But that's the whole point: a game is a simulation of a dynamic problem with a reachable solution through challenge. The whole point about games is problem solving under specific circumstances and parameters.

Games are very human. Our mind is designed to be a problem solver. Games help test and train the mind and society in hypothetical dangers and successes. This is also true for dogs, cats and other similar 'lower' lifeforms.  

As for Simulation, it is merely a design pattern. It is the designer's choice to simulate a specific environment but it serves the desginer's goal and not the player's goal. The player's goal provides the focus to the game. Otherwise, the game goes wild in all directions. It could be an 'interesting' and 'fun' activity but it will not be a game. I believe that some of the 'Player Dissatisfaction Syndrome' we see in RPG's is because these "games" not only provide rules which fail to express the experience desired but also that these rules lead to nowhere!

In the same notion, I liked 'Mulholland Drive' because it provoked my thoughts but I'm not surprised that 80% of the people watching it hated it as hellspawn. These people aren't dumb or prejudiced - they were given a problem and they want a solution. Same thing with all other art forms. What we like about 'abstract' or 'symbolic' art is the ability to interpret it in many ways. Our mind tries to solve the problem but can't. This is why it is also hated by many - it leads to confusion and frustration, which may also be unhealthy to some of us.

Simulation is legit but it's not a game, so please don't write on the box that it is.

With respect,

Joe Llama

Quote from: joe_llamaSimulation is legit but it's not a game, so please don't write on the box that it is.

Except by the English definition of a game, it is a game. It's only not a game according to the definition above, which is a highly-specialized subset of the normal English definiton of the word.

I can create a definition of "TV Show" that excludes sitcoms, and decide not to call them TV shows, while respecting them as "fine broadcast material, just not TV shows". However, I don't think you should get upset when other people call it a TV show.

I mean, you're not really defining "game" here, per se. You're defining another word you want to use in the place of the word "game", because "game" is too vague. I understand this. This is why I don't use the word "nice". It's too vague. But if you're going to do this, you need it to be a distinct word, just like "helpful" is distinct from "nice" but a helpful person is generally considered nice.

Quote from: wfreitagWould you still play an evening of poker with your pals if at the end of the evening, all the money was restored to its original owners? Probably, though you might wonder why you bothered with the poker and suggest just watching videos next time.

Leaving aside that this is the only way I play poker, I hate the idea of losing money in a game ;-).

Quote from: wfreitagWould you still go to work if you didn't get paid? I'll leave that one up to you.
- Walt

Hmm, that to me suggests that there is no such thing as an entity/activity that is inherently a game, there are merely activities which may or may not be a game depending on the motivations of those involved ?

By your description golf isn't inherently a game, likewise if I choose to go to work for fun, without being paid, does it then become a game ?

Also can the goal of a game not be the pleasure of playing ? When I take part in sport (a rare occurence) I am just there for fun, I don't care if I win or lose, taking part is what matters (bleagh that sounds sickening but its true), the only thing that spoils my fun is people taking the sport too seriously and getting upset about it. So for me a game doesn't require a goal in terms of an end-point, the game itself can be the goal.

Dragging this back to the original source, I consider sim RPGs games where the goal is the process of playing, the endpoint isn't that important.

Quote from: AndyGuest

Quote
Hmm, that to me suggests that there is no such thing as an entity/activity that is inherently a game, there are merely activities which may or may not be a game depending on the motivations of those involved ?

Thats pretty much how I see it.  IMO, there is a subset of games which exist for entertainment; this is what we conventionally refer to as "a game", something fairly trivial.  But that, quite literally, is just the tip of the iceberg.

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: AndyGuestHmm, that to me suggests that there is no such thing as an entity/activity that is inherently a game, there are merely activities which may or may not be a game depending on the motivations of those involved ?

Thats pretty much how I see it.  IMO, there is a subset of games which exist for entertainment; this is what we conventionally refer to as "a game", something fairly trivial.  But that, quite literally, is just the tip of the iceberg.

And this has made me realize why I don't like this definition. It's criterion 3: It relies too heavily on the intent of the players.

When someone says, say, that "RPG XYZ isn't a game", they're not referring to a particular instance of players playing the game, which is, IMHO, the only time you can even come close to sussing intent. They're talking about the "game rules". And game rules are an artifact... they have no intent, tho they may outline a Premise and a goal.

To clarify: When I pick up a box of Monoploy, any definition of "game" is going to have to include the idea that Monopoly is a game even if I'm not current playing it. This idea that if I don't play Monopoly with a certain intent, despite following all the rules, it ceases to be a game (like if, for some reason, playing it is part of my job and I don't like playing Monopoly) does not sit well with me. It's pulling in an element that wasn't in there before. Rather than nailing down the definition and making it more specific for the purpose of discusion, by pulling in intent, it broadens games into some areas where it previously was not, while excluding other things that were previously included. This does not strike me as useful.

Joe, I'm glad you find my definition useful (or at least interesting). I think it's still a work in progress. For example, AndyG's comments have convinced me that it should be stated explicitly that the goal is one that is achieved and achievable by means of the activity in question, rather than leaving that implicit.

I'd also like to point out that the idea that a game system rule book is not in and of itself a game is not a new one. I remember reading an article in the early 80's that just as an aside, as if mentioning a not very controversial point, mentioned that of course "AD&D is not a game but a game system; and in practice, it's really more like a system for creating a game system." I also just don't see this as being a problem. A game system becomes a game as soon as the GM and/or players make just a few of the many decisions they have to make in order to play.

So far, our definitions have all focused on the game as an actual practice. The fact that the word also refers to a box you buy at a store that contains the components needed to play a game is kind of an accident. It's a completely different meaning of the word, and a very recent one. Baseball is a game, but you don't go to a toy store and buy baseball. Until the last century this was true of all games. You didn't buy a "chess game" or "chess;" you bought chessmen and a chess board or perhaps both packaged together as a "chess set." "Chess" in the abstract is a game, and when you set up the board and played you have a chess game, but game pieces on the shelf weren't called a game until early 20th century marketing kicked in. We still don't refer to someone's set of golf clubs and accessories as a game. So I'm completely comfortable with the idea of buying game products that don't represent an actual game until played. It's the self-contained game product that's the aberration.

Xio, the normal English definition of the word, according to my Webster's Third, is "an amusement or pastime." So we're already using a highly-specialized subset of the normal English definition of the word, if we wish to declare that watching TV, riding roller coasters, needlepoint, gardening, and model train building are not games.

Of course, there are other more specific definitions also listed. The closest of these to our meaning in Webster's Third is this: "A physical or mental competition conducted according to rules in which the participants play in direct opposition to each other, each side striving to win and to keep the other side from doing so." Ask an average person to define "game" and you'd probably get a definition that includes most of the same elements: competition, opposition, rules, winning and losing. So dictionaries aside, we're already using a highly specialized subset of the normal English definition of the word in calling most role playing games "games" at all. That definition is the one I want to clarify. And please note that I don't agree with the blanket "simulation is not a game" idea, nor does that follow from my definition. It implies that simulation is not a game if the players have no goals whose achievement or nonachievement is affected by their decisions, but that, I believe, is rarely the case.

AndyG, you've asked several good questions, so forgive me for quoting you again so that I can respond coherently:

QuoteHmm, that to me suggests that there is no such thing as an entity/activity that is inherently a game, there are merely activities which may or may not be a game depending on the motivations of those involved ?

Yes, that is what I believe and that is what my definition implies. Note that other suggested definitions also imply (or explicitly state) the same thing, for example by stating that a game must be "recreational" or "for fun." My definition is actually less restrictive than that. I don't say "if it's not fun it's not a game," instead I say that it's not a game if your main reason for doing it is to gain some extrinsic reward from the activity. You can pretend that reaping the corn is really a game to see who can reap the fastest, but no one will be fooled.

Of course, some activities are so unlikely to produce any extrinsic rewards at all that it's hard to imagine the activity taking place for any reason other than as a game. The game of croquet is a really lousy way to proceed if what you really want to accomplish is moving several wooden balls from one end of your lawn to the other. The more abstract and the more bounded by arbitrary rules the activity is, the less likely the activity will produce extrinsic results that could not be achieved far more effectively by other means, which is why abstraction and rules are associated with games. Activities with fewer abstractions and rules, and higher potential for extrinsic rewards, such as hunting, are more likely to be gray areas.

Add prizes, or payment for playing, and the question becomes more complex. (However, even in this cynical age I believe that many professional athletes are truly motivated primarily by the intrinsic game goals, playing well and winning and setting records, so that for them it's still a game.)

QuoteBy your description golf isn't inherently a game,...

Right. Motivation must be considered. But given the abstraction of the activity, it's going to usually be a game. That it's not always so for golf is mostly due to its role as a business networking activity which is kind of a special accidental exception. If you see someone bowling you're pretty safe assuming that they're playing a game, to the point where saying "bowling is a game" is completely justifiable.

Quote...likewise if I choose to go to work for fun, without being paid, does it then become a game ?

It could, but doing it for fun or without being paid doesn't prove it so. (Nor does being paid prove it's not a game. Some people have jobs they would continue doing even if they weren't being paid.) All the other factors have to be there. If you volunteer to build houses for the homeless, you're not being paid but it's probably not a game. If you are doing it primarily because you want the houses to be built, it's not a game. If you're not there primarily to pursue goal at which you might fail, then it's not a game. However, if you go in saying "I want to see if I can frame up two walls today," and the process of finding out whether or not you can meet that goal is your main reason for doing it, then you can call it a game. Note that saying you're doing it "for fun" doesn't clarify anything. Fun can contribute to any of the possible motives mentioned. You might find it fun to be helping the community, or you might find it fun to work with your hands and use power tools, or you might find it fun to push yourself to try to frame up two walls in a day. The first two don't contribute to making it a game, but the third one does.

QuoteAlso can the goal of a game not be the pleasure of playing ? When I take part in sport (a rare occurence) I am just there for fun, I don't care if I win or lose, taking part is what matters (bleagh that sounds sickening but its true), the only thing that spoils my fun is people taking the sport too seriously and getting upset about it. So for me a game doesn't require a goal in terms of an end-point, the game itself can be the goal.

Fun or the pleasure of playing can certainly be a goal. In fact, it's almost always a goal. But it can't be the goal that determines whether the activity is a game or not. You said it yourself: you don't care whether you win or not. Having fun is therefore not a goal whose success or failure is affected by your decisions.

Not all fun activities are games. My goal in bicycling is to have fun. So is my goal in doing a crossword puzzle. But the first is not a game, and the second one is. The difference is that when I do the crossword puzzle I have another goal besides having fun -- solving the puzzle correctly -- that I might succeed or fail at if I make the wrong decisions.

When you play a sport, apparently the sport's inherent goal is not important in whether or not you have fun or whether or not you would choose to do the activity. That's fine. But the presence of the inherent goal is what makes it a game. Do you see the difference?

- Walt

Walt, I admit this is a very specialized context we're in to begin with, but the part I find worrisome about the intent issue is: If I am playing chess, in exactly the game way under the act same rules, with an intent to win (for whatever reason), it bothers me that it ceases to be a game if I'm playing it just because I know I can make money off the game (and wouldn't play it otherwise).

Forget the "box" issue, it was a side concept. The sort of thing that bugs me is it seems that the activity of chess, under this definition, could magically transform from game to not-game during the course of a session. Let's say I'm playing it on a bet, but I'm normally an avid chess player. So it's a game, right? I'd play it even if no money is involved. But let's say I have a rapid mood swing during the game (my mother is manic-depressive, so trust me when I say this is possible), and I realize I don't really enjoy playing chess all that much, and I'd rather not keep playing, except the money involved keeps me playing. Bam! It ceases to be a game. And then, if I start to enjoy it again and return to my original mood, it becomes a game again.

I don't like the idea of a game flipping between game and not-game. It seems to me it's counter to even the more hobbist view of gaming, which includes games (like RPGs) without winners. A game is not a quark, it doesn't flip between quantum states.

Also, it strikes me as counterintiutive that two people could be engaging in the game activity, and it's a game for one of them and not for the other. I'm playing chess to get Bob's money, so it's not a game for me. Bob is playing because he likes the challenge, and the money is secondary to him. So it's game. So, considered from a more objective perspective, is it a game or not? Does one person not treating it as a game turn it into a mere "activity"? Or does at least one person treating it as a game make it into a game?

It seems like you've skating close to a definition of "art" that I've been known to use to deliberately annoy people, which worries me. ;-) What's art? Something is "art" if someone chooses to view it as art. Your definition almost seems to say something is a game as long as someone views it as one. Is this defintion useful?

In fact, hell, why not: I propose a simpler definition:

An activity is a game if at least one of the people participating views it as a game. (Of course, this is a recursive defintion...)

QuoteTo clarify: When I pick up a box of Monoploy, any definition of "game" is going to have to include the idea that Monopoly is a game even if I'm not current playing it. This idea that if I don't play Monopoly with a certain intent, despite following all the rules, it ceases to be a game (like if, for some reason, playing it is part of my job and I don't like playing Monopoly) does not sit well with me. It's pulling in an element that wasn't in there before. Rather than nailing down the definition and making it more specific for the purpose of discusion, by pulling in intent, it broadens games into some areas where it previously was not, while excluding other things that were previously included. This does not strike me as useful.

Xio, that's a really good point. You've brought up a problem that was also starting to creep in in my previous post, which looks like it brings my efforts crashing down around my ears.

I tried to separate out one alternative meaning -- the game as a set of physical components -- that my definition doesn't cover. But there's another important alternative meaning, which makes three:

- The game as a set of physical objects. (Only some games have this usage. Monopoly does: the box on the shelf, and its contents, are called a game. Golf does not: the bag of clubs and accessories, and the field down the street with holes in it, are not called a game.)

- The game as an abstract concept of how an activity is conducted. As implied by "the game of chess."

- The game as a specific instance of the activity. As implied by "a game of chess."

My definition applies only to the third. And I still believe it's close to being accurate when applied that way. But it's useless for applying to the second. It just plain doesn't work. Trouble is, people are rarely clear on whether or not they're talking about the second or the third when they ask something like "is X a game?" And a definition that applies to only one of the two is not very useful as a whole.

This was troubling me as I was writing previously about golf. I was thinking, "I still want to refer to it as 'the game of golf' even when I'm talking about instances of golf play that by virtue of motivation, by my definition, are not games."

Yet on the other hand, I don't see how the motivational factor can be eliminated from the definition. Do so, and hunting is either never a game, or always a game, neither of which makes sense.

Okay, back to the drawing board.

- Walt

Yikes, we're barrelling past each other with these posts. My last reply was to X's next to last post, which is why it looks like I was just echoing the points in his last one.

Okay, I'm convinced that this is a problem.

Jared offered the circular/recursive definition earlier. I was specifically trying to avoid it, as well as definitions based on "fun" or "recreation."

QuoteAlso, it strikes me as counterintiutive that two people could be engaging in the game activity, and it's a game for one of them and not for the other. I'm playing chess to get Bob's money, so it's not a game for me. Bob is playing because he likes the challenge, and the money is secondary to him. So it's game.

I still believe this is truly the case in some real-world examples -- including some real human tragedies. A prosecutor aggressively pursues a case based on shaky evidence because he enjoys the challenge of getting a difficult conviction, while the defendant is trying to preserve his life as he knows it. The prosecutor is playing a game; the defendant isn't.

QuoteSo, considered from a more objective perspective, is it a game or not? Does one person not treating it as a game turn it into a mere "activity"? Or does at least one person treating it as a game make it into a game?

Good question. The problem comes in trying to extrapolate instances of play to the activity in the abstract. We cannot generalize the prosecutor's experience and declare the entire criminal justice system (or even this one case) a game, nor can we generalize the defendant's and declare it not a game. Similarly we can't say "some hunt for survival, so hunting is not a game" or "some hunt for sport, so hunting is a game."

It's easy enough to fold the motivation into the description of the activity, and say e.g. "hunting for sport is a game, hunting for survival is not." But that doesn't help in generalizing a definition.

- Walt

Actually, I think Walts 2nd definition is the most correct and the other two are corollaries thereof.

I think that any bounded, regulated set of activities qualifies as a game.  A high proportion of human conversations are games; a large number of business behaviours are games.

A game is not called into being when the activity is pursued for one goal or another - the game exists independantly.  In the chess example, where two players have different motives, BOTH are playing games, one is merely playing with the goal of having fun, the other is playing with the goal of making money.  Possibly a better example would be the transition from casual poker player to professional cardsharp.

It does not matter whether the game gives pleasurable feedback or unpleasant feedback.  In most cases of games-as-entertainment, they do seek to provide pleasurable feedback - and hence not being able to play can be employed as a systematic penalty.  In games which provide unpleasant feedback, being able to break out of the game is itself a goal.

A gloss from game theory gives the following:

"Game Theory - Theory of rational behavior for interactive decision problems. In a game, several agents strive to maximize their (expected) utility index by chosing particular courses of action, and each agent's final utility payoffs depend on the profile of courses of action chosen by all agents. The interactive situation, specified by the set of participants, the possible courses of action of each agent, and the set of all possible utility payoffs, is called a game; the agents 'playing' a game are called the players. "

Games only exist in their rules.  Whether or not a set of physical objects is exploited for the express purpose of their use in an entertainment game, the physical object cannot be the game (although that is often the colloquial sense).  The object can only be a tool which is employed in a game - hence, games require rules about what those tools are, and how and when they are used.  Often, using a non-standard, non-specified object would constitute a violation of the game rules.  In some games, with dedicated tools, using the "wrong" tool is pretty much impossible - like say Go.  Sometimes, there are few rules about appropriate tools, and bringing in new objects is perfectly legitimate - frex introducing a new witness to a court case game.

game theory intro:
http://www.sfb504.uni-mannheim.de/glossary/game.htm

An interesting timeline of game theory:
http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/class/histf.html

Includes this interesting snippet:

"The Babylonian Talmud is the compilation of ancient law and tradition set down during the first five centuries A.D. which serves as the basis of Jewish religious, criminal and civil law. One problem discussed in the Talmud is the socalled marriage contract problem: a man has three wives whose marriage contracts specify that in the case of this death they receive 100, 200 and 300 respectively. The Talmud gives apparently contradictory recommendations. Where the man dies leaving an estate of only 100, the Talmud recommends equal division. However, if the estate is worth 300 it recommends proportional division (50,100,150), while for an estate of 200, its recommendation of (50,75,75) is a complete mystery. This particular Mishna has baffled Talmudic scholars for two millennia. In 1985, it was recognised that the Talmud anticipates the modern theory of cooperative games. Each solution corresponds to the nucleolus of an appropriately defined game."

Games are WEIRD shit, thats why I love them so.

I agree with Gareth's conclusions, here. Not that I think that it's particularly important to define what a game is, but a lot of good minds have defined it pretty well in Game Theory, and I see no reason why Game Theory should not be applied in RPGs where it pertains. I think that there is a myopia in RPGs (and probably other game design for recreation) that a specific theory has to be created that is specific to it's particulars. While I think that you can go beyond Game Theory to accomodate particular sorts of designs (which is what GNS and theories like it do), a knowledge of practical Game Theory is a great basis for understanding better how to make effective games.

In other words, if you haven't read Game Theory, I can only recommend doing so. So often I see soemthing discussed here as a new idea only to think to myself that it's just a long established Game Theory principle. Don't redesign the wheel, people, the heavy lifting's already been done. Consider the utility of the following definition taken from one of Gareth's links:

QuoteNormal form vs. extensive form game: In normal (or strategic) form games, the players move (choose their actions) simultaneously. Whenever the strategy spaces of the players are discrete (and finite), the game can be represented compactly as an NxM-game (see below). By contrast, a game in extensive form specifies the complete order of moves (along the direction of time), typically in a game tree (see below), in addition to the complete list of payoffs and the available information at each point in time and under each contingency. As any normal form can be 'inflated' to an extensive form game, concepts of strategic equilibrium in general relate to extensive form games. Whenever the exact timing of actions is irrelevant to the payoffs, however, a game is represented with more parsimony in normal form.

Pretty cool stuff, no? From this we can state that many classic RPGs are normal form during non-combat play, but extensive form during combat, for example. The classic Prisoner's Dilemma explains a lot of "Munchkin" behavior, IMO.

Again, I can only recommend giveing it at least a once over.

Mike

I was trying to think of a response to "so what use is this broader concept of game" question over the weekend, and came up with this - the worlds fist (AFAIK) RPG for real money.

It works like this - all participants must ante a nominal contribution to the game, agreed among the participants.  At the end of a single story arc, a winner is declared by points or acclaim, and that participant gets to spend the pot commissioning a work of art from an online by-commission artist for campaign posterity.  The individual goal is to be able to direct and own the piece of art; the collective goal is that the game is historically recorded in an accessible, and hopefully decorative, display object.

Variations: only the players stump cash as the GM bought the books and provides nibbles.  The GM does/does not get to contribute to the commissioning of the image.  Other players do/do not get to contribute to the image.  Frequency of image; free choice or pre-selected artist.  Whether the GM discussed the game world with the artist.

Of course, the potential problems are those which dog any for-real or for-keeps game: unfair decisions bite more sharply, not everyone can contribute the same amount, skirmishes over artistic direction. Etc.

Thoughts?

Quote from: contracycleI was trying to think of a response to "so what use is this broader concept of game" question over the weekend, and came up with this - the worlds fist (AFAIK) RPG for real money.

I proposed the idea of remuneration of some sort as a player reward, previously, and I think that what you have here might work. But it all depends on execution, of course. As you point out, "unfairness" will bite more than otherwise. So it would need to be extremely self-balancing.

The problem is that you either have to rely on an unbiased method of determination like chess or craps, in which case you have a totally gamist thing that will almost certainly lose any other focus quickly (and be illegal in most of the United States, as it will constitute gambling). Or you have to rely on biased agents such as a judge. In which case, perception of bias will cause hard feelings.

So not easy to do well, IMO. A less contentious, but still probelmatic option would be to have the GM offer the money/art/thing/whatever out of his own pocket. That way it is a simple (legal) contest, and any bias can be forgiven, as it's "his rules". OTOH, I do not see this being played much, unless the amount of money is small. Like the prizes given out at Cons.

But the concept is intruguing.

Mike

Am I the only old school gamer who remembers "money dungeons?" They might have been a very short-lived (early 80s) and/or very local (mid-Atlantic) phenomenon at game cons. You paid a steep entry fee to play, and you got to keep any treasure your character gained, converted one for one from gold pieces to dollars.

I never actually entered one. I couldn't afford the entry fee, and it sounded very like gambling to me. But I enjoyed imagining the court case over the issue, attempting to explain to the jury (at that time) enough about D&D for them to judge whether it was a game of chance or a game of skill. Skill game contests with entry fees and cash prizes are, after all, legal.

- Walt

Ha ha - what an image that court case would offer, Exhibit A the baggied character sheet of Player A... rules lawyering would take on a whole new meaning.  Vorpal swords don't kill characters, characters kill characters.

Quote from: wfreitagAm I the only old school gamer who remembers "money dungeons?" They might have been a very short-lived (early 80s) and/or very local (mid-Atlantic) phenomenon at game cons. You paid a steep entry fee to play, and you got to keep any treasure your character gained, converted one for one from gold pieces to dollars.

Sure, I remember. This is an example of a tacked on rule of he sort, though, and not a game written with money as a reward originally. Gareth could still be the first person to publish a game with such written in. Hmmm... on the extraordinary logic that some CCGs are RPGs, and that they are played for RW objects (the cards wagered themselves) one could say that it's already been done, though only by the shakiest of arguments. In fact, of those that claimed to be RPGs, I cannot remember if any did actually wager cards.

In this case, we have a monetary reward for accumulating gold in-game. But this promotes only a rather obvious Gamism. How would you promote other RPG behaviors this way?

I can see it working for, say, Primeval which is set up this way pretty much already. The prize would be split proportionally among the player's who's character's stories were told most down through the ages.

But this all seems tacked on. Rewards stacked on to of what normally are already rewards. For example, gold in game is its own reward in campaign play, so why do you need the further reward in that circumstance?

What did you intend to reward in your theoretical game, Gareth?

I think that the point has been made that a wide definition of Game can lead to lots of possibillities. If we continue to discuss this in particular, we out to split it.

Mike

Well, I was trying to tackle the motivation discrepancy - that a game is for fun if the motivation is entertainment and the stakes are ficitonal.  The ga,me rewards come "in the box" as it were.  So, on the basis, that "game" can be much broader sorts of behaviour, can I find a gaming behaviour which employs real stakes and is still interesting and rewarding as an RPG?  That, and my obsession with visuals, made this concept click into place.  The idea would be that the real reward the player gets is something tangible and economically valuable; thus we have taken the game somewhat out of the pure entertainment region.

And the other thought was partly inspires by Tim Dedopoulos lament* on RPGNET about throwing money into an RPG black hole - hardly the first time this thought has been floated.  So my Secret Agenda is also partly the construction of a new economic model - the text component of an RPG becomes the hook which attracts players, and the players buy the true product - personalised artworks.  An RPG publishing house then is really in the business of flogging artwork, and the game book proper is something of a loss leader.  Thats real pie-in-the-sky shit, but again: the expanded concept of game allows us to re-examine everything we do.

* = indeed, a Dark Lament.

OK, two pages of post on "what is a game?" This is getting loopy. And that's bad coming from me (just dig back to some of my posts. I'm mighty loopy).

This is probably why I was trying to change the term "role-playing game" to simply "RPG" so that discussion of the components: Game, role, playing, role-playing, etc. could be avoided. (much like how Kentucky Fried Chicken is now KFC because they don't just fry their chicken, and the recipe may not be from Kentucky)

Fact is, RPGs are their own thing. They share traits with games. They share traits with writing. They share traits with theatre. They probably share traits with a lot of other things. But RPGs are a separate entity not to be confused with any of the others. RPGs are not a subset of wargames. Wargames are wargames. RPGs are RPGs.

That said, some RPGs are built and played very much like a game in every sense of the word. Take baseball, for example. You could gather a bunch of friends together, go to a local park and play. You could keep score, maybe you won't. Unless you'd gotten enough friends you'll probably have to use "ghost runners" on the bases. But mostly you're just doing it to do something with your friends. In this case, it probably wouldn't matter if it was baseball, lawn darts, or robbing liquor stores. The play is just an activity the group is engaged in socially. Sort of like a Saturday night poker game where the players sit around and spend as much time simply socializing as playing the game at hand. The game is an excuse to socialize. Much like church.

Or you could join a league. You'd then have to purchase uniforms. Game times are fixed and you must show up. But the structure is of the game is maintained. The play is the thing in this case. Socializing still goes on, but more attention is played to the game and the team's performance, and improving it, than in the looser game above

Some RPG's can be like this, but not all. Some are more like Ron's band analogy where the point is more to come together and make cool sounds, so to speak.

But these analogies are just that. Saying RPGs are like this is not the same as saying RPGs are this. In the end, RPGs are neither games nor bands but RPGs. Comparison may aide understanding, but comparison is just comparison. Apples and oranges are both fruit, both have seeds, grow on trees and are sort of round. Yet an apple is not an orange.

An apple is not on oragne, but they are both fruit.  Thus one may reasonably expect to find them attached to plants.

I suggest that everyone interested in this thread read Greg Costikyan's truely excellent article "I Have No Words And I Must Design." It can be found here:

http://www.costik.com/nowords.html

IMO it's one of the best and most foundational game design texts that can be found anywhere.