Must the play be the thing?

[Ribonucleic]

[As always: apologies in advance if this has been covered before. There's more than 100 pages of threads here, and I couldn't think of any useful search keywords.]

This question may not have any relevance outside the realm of philosophy, but I'd still be interested to take a straw poll...

Can a game design possess any intrinsic merit? Or is its value predicated on the play it (at least hypothetically) enables?

It may clarify my meaning to use an analogy. Frank Lloyd Wright's architectural drawings are handsome esthetic objects in their own right. [i.e. http://www.delmars.com/wright/falldraw.jpg] Yet our response to them is still founded on an imagined experience of the actual building. Even (perhaps especially) if - as is so tragically frequent in Wright's case - that building no longer exists, or was never erected.

For whatever reason, I'd like to think that an elegant design solution could have its own abstract beauty in the way a mathematical proof does. But I can't seem to persuade myself all the way there.

[Josh Roby]

The answer is Yes.  I doubt anybody on this forum is going to say otherwise.

I'd like to point out the difference, however, between an elegant and aesthetically pleasing game design, which is by its nature an idea, the text in which a game is expressed, and the layout and construction of the book that the text is presented in.  The design, the text, and the layout are all eligible for aesthetic appreciation, both single and (ideally) in combination.

[Nogusielkt]

At first I wondered if you were questioning whether one game design can be better than another... but your second question seems like you just want to know if a game design has any value without play.  Not to rain on Joshua's parade, but I don't think a design by itself has any value at all, much like the instructions to a time machine we couldn't build.  When I play a game, I enjoy parts of the game, and dislike other parts, but it's because I'm playing it.  I believe that any value from a game design comes from playing and the thought of playing (even if you think of these things yourself).  All the roads I see lead back to playing.  I might value the alignment system from Rifts, but that is only because I want to play rifts, or want to adapt it to a game I can play.  It has no value to me otherwise.

[simon_hibbs]

There ahve been a number of games that were not realy intended to be played. The classic example is Violence by Game Designer X - the game where you can buy experience point tokens from the game designer for cash. When Greg Kosik... er, I mean Game Designer X, wrote it I'm sure playability was far from his mind. HOL (Human Occupied Landfil) probably fits into the same genre, though I don't own a copy.

I do own a few RPGs I have never played, nevertheless I have enjoyed reading them and even if I never play them I still value owning them. This is especialy true of game that introduce interesting and novel idea that may be applicable to other games.


Simon Hibbs

[Mark Johnson]

This really isn't a place for polls, but I always have had an interest in this subject.  In the non-creator owned RPG field "the thing" is sales, not actual play.  Though you could argue that actual play drives sales, I have seen to many RPGers with bookcases full of games, splat books, etc that they have never used in actual play.  One guy I know had every Fading Suns book ever published, just because he likes reading about the setting, the color, but he never played it.  I am sure he is not a rare beast in that regard.

And to follow up on Simon's point, a few threads that might be of interest:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8139.0
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=10878.0

I would still argue that Actual Play is not a high priority in the 90s corporate model of game design, but as has been alluded to most of the theory and practice at the Forge is an attempt to get a way from those models.

[Mark Johnson]

A couple more threads on a related topic:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?t=7171

[Mark Johnson]

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?t=7495

Sorry about the multiple posts.

[Nogusielkt]

All of those links were related to the topic, however.  In one of them talysman posted pretty much what I meant:

...
outside of the realm of reading game books for their indirect benefits to play, there is also the issue of people reading gamebooks they will never play. the implied question in marco's post is "why do people read game books instead of either playing the game or reading an actual novel?" he hints at an answer when he talks about "thought experiments". although most people play "what if" with ordinary novels, a game suppliment encourages this far more; when you look at lists of "classes", races, spells, gadgets, super powers, or what have you, it's pretty much implied that you are supposed to imagine possible combinations of those features... and when you read about critical situations brewing in a setting's backstory, it's pretty natural to start playing "what if?" with all the potential flashpoints.

game books are actually much better for this than ordinary novels. a novel -- well, a good one -- only presents information relevant to the story. playing "what if" games in your head using an ordinary novel is thus more arbitrary than playing "what if" with statted-out entities. it's more satisfying to spin a tale from a thoroughly-described background than it is to rewrite someone else's plot, because it feels more like "this really could happen" (within the context of the game world.) rewriting the ending to the Lord of the Rings just feels like a personal argument with Tolkein (at least, it did before game materials made it easier...)

"Thought experiments"... "what if" situations.  To me this is the same as playing.

I do own a few RPGs I have never played, nevertheless I have enjoyed reading them and even if I never play them I still value owning them. This is especialy true of game that introduce interesting and novel idea that may be applicable to other games.

Same thing.  You value owning games that introduce interesting and novel ideas that may be applicable to other games.  IMO, you want to play with these bits, and that's the interesting part.  I also own a few RPGs I've never played.  If game design had a value outside of play, how would you gauge it?  Would it just be inherently known?  I won't deny that the layout and text that Joshua mentioned can have value, but I still do believe the value of game design is inherited from some form of play.

[Callan S.]

For whatever reason, I'd like to think that an elegant design solution could have its own abstract beauty in the way a mathematical proof does. But I can't seem to persuade myself all the way there.

It's a bit like the Andy Wahol framing of the Cambells soup can. Yeah, its art. But you've stopped appreciating it for the taste of the soup, then.

[Vaxalon]

I have many games that I like very much, that I never play.  They are useful to me for ideas that they express for me to use in play in another game, or to use in the design of another game that is intended for play.

[talysman]

All of those links were related to the topic, however.  In one of them talysman posted pretty much what I meant:

...
outside of the realm of reading game books for their indirect benefits to play, there is also the issue of people reading gamebooks they will never play. the implied question in marco's post is "why do people read game books instead of either playing the game or reading an actual novel?" he hints at an answer when he talks about "thought experiments". although most people play "what if" with ordinary novels, a game suppliment encourages this far more; when you look at lists of "classes", races, spells, gadgets, super powers, or what have you, it's pretty much implied that you are supposed to imagine possible combinations of those features... and when you read about critical situations brewing in a setting's backstory, it's pretty natural to start playing "what if?" with all the potential flashpoints.

game books are actually much better for this than ordinary novels. a novel -- well, a good one -- only presents information relevant to the story. playing "what if" games in your head using an ordinary novel is thus more arbitrary than playing "what if" with statted-out entities. it's more satisfying to spin a tale from a thoroughly-described background than it is to rewrite someone else's plot, because it feels more like "this really could happen" (within the context of the game world.) rewriting the ending to the Lord of the Rings just feels like a personal argument with Tolkein (at least, it did before game materials made it easier...)

"Thought experiments"... "what if" situations.  To me this is the same as playing.

I have to interject, here, that I don't think I'm saying quite the same thing. I'm not talking about game design in that quote, I'm talking about content; I'm saying that the way the content in a gamebook is arranged and described aids "what-if" pastimes.

the question at the beginning of this thread, as I recall, was whether a game design, rather than the game content, could have intrinsic merit distinct from its play value. I'm not sure, but I'm inclined to say no. I can see how that may be confusing, since content creators in the rpg industry are usually called "game designers" even though they aren't designing a game. a guy who writes a monster manual suppliment isn't a game designer; he's a writer.

the purpose of a game design is to affect play. therefore, it has no merit outside of play, even though the text describing the game design may have merit for other reasons.

[RedWick]

Can a game design possess any intrinsic merit? Or is its value predicated on the play it (at least hypothetically) enables?

Sounds like the difference in appreciation felt by either a theorist or an engineer.  The appreciation felt by either is different from the other, as they're looking at different things to appreciate.  Though, in the case of a theorist, ideas are generated for the simple pleasure of deveolping an idea.  Game designers, I'd hope, would develop games so that others could have a chance to play them.

[timfire]

In all honesty, this nothing more than personal opinion. Some people appreciate the aethethic of a design, others only the actual play.

I don't mean to be all moderator-like, but I doubt there's really anything to discuss here. I don't see how anyone can come to a objective conclusion here.