Plausibility, Realism and game design goals [an essay]

[Sean]

I tend to agree with you from a normative standpoint, that games designed with everything aiming at a central goal will tend to be better/more interesting/whatever.

However, let's say, hypothetically, that it's all equal. You've got a clear point in the text where a rule is needed to help play, and you've come up with two possibilities. They both seem to solve the problem equally well, but one seems more realistic to you than the other.

It seems to me that that could be a criterion for making a decision. A decision that could go either way, but one that could sensibly be said to be made 'on the basis of realism alone'. Just like I picked my Honda 'on gas mileage alone', but not really, because I could have picked a scooter or something that got better mileage but wouldn't have done the work of the car.

Second, though, some people don't agree with you (and, more conflictedly, me) that there should be one single design goal. Now, for those people, they might pick based on realism here, color there, a cool mechanic in this other place. Some of these people are pro designers in the old-model industry. Gabby's swordfighting rules for Wraethuthu also come to mind. By making that comparison I suggest that, aesthetically, I'm for the most part on your side. However, you seemed to be saying that it was impossible to make a choice of type x period, and I agree with Walt that that formulation is too strong.

P.S. I was totally blown out by the opening text for R&R. Awesome stuff. I haven't had time to read the game yet, but it's a fantastic idea for a philosophically interesting game, on at least two levels (epistemological and ethical). I'm looking forward to some spare time to read the rest of it, and I hope you get it whipped into publishin' shape soon.

[Sean]

I tend to agree with you from a normative standpoint, that games designed with everything aiming at a central goal will tend to be better/more interesting/whatever.

However, let's say, hypothetically, that it's all equal. You've got a clear point in the text where a rule is needed to help play, and you've come up with two possibilities. They both seem to solve the problem and fit your design goals equally well, but one seems more realistic to you than the other.

It seems to me that that could be a criterion for making a decision. A decision that could go either way, but one that could sensibly be said to be made 'on the basis of realism alone'. Just like I picked my Honda 'on gas mileage alone', but not really, because I could have picked a scooter or something that got better mileage but wouldn't have done the work of the car.

Second, though, some people don't agree with you (and, more conflictedly, me) that there should be one single design goal. Now, for those people, they might pick based on realism here, color there, a cool mechanic in this other place. Some of these people are pro designers in the old-model industry. Gabby's swordfighting rules for Wraethuthu also come to mind. By making that comparison I suggest that, aesthetically, I'm for the most part on your side. However, you seemed to be saying that it was impossible to make a choice of type x period, and I agree with Walt that that formulation is too strong.

P.S. I was totally blown out by the opening text for R&R. Awesome stuff. I haven't had time to read the game yet, but it's a fantastic idea for a philosophically interesting game, on at least two levels (epistemological and ethical). I'm looking forward to some spare time to read the rest of it, and I hope you get it whipped into publishin' shape soon.

[Valamir]

However, let's say, hypothetically, that it's all equal. You've got a clear point in the text where a rule is needed to help play, and you've come up with two possibilities. They both seem to solve the problem equally well, but one seems more realistic to you than the other.

Sure, I've got no problem with that.  In such a situation you're not failing to take into account the underlying goal.

We could chew on the notion that "seems more realistic to you" being pretty much the definition of "plausibility" that I've been using all along, but I've already said pretty much everything I can say on that topic without repeating myself any more than I have.

Thanks for the compliment on R&R.  Please throw some thoughts and commentary down in the forum when you've read through.  

The rules are really starting to cook together now.  I've cleaned up alot of the clunk that its that pdf version.  Work is really kicking me in the teeth though so the going is slow, but progress is being made.


At this point folks, I'm not sure that there's much left to say in this thread that hasn't been already.  I'm not sure anybody who isn't already convinced is going to be by anything more I have to say on the subject.  So I think I'm going to try and bow out and rest my case on what I've already written.

Unless anyone has some burning final thoughts this might be a good place to call the thread and look to take sub topics out to new ones.

[contracycle]

[
Sure, I've got no problem with that.  In such a situation you're not failing to take into account the underlying goal.

Valamir, you are arguing your conclusion - the alleged existence of an "underlying" goal is your construction and not demonstrated.

The express and purposeful goal can indeed be Realism.  Thats all.  By itself.  There is no basket and nothing under it.  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I think the dichtomy you try to construct between "education" as a goal and "realism" as a goal is a false one.  I'm a big adviocate of seeing games in a sort of didactictic light and so I can advance a cogent gamist argument for realistic rules because otherwise the experience of play would be worthless.  In this case, realism is not a nominal goal and education an underlying one - they are just two methods of expressing the same concept.