What's a Game?

[xiombarg]

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.

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.

[Walt Freitag]

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:

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 ?

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.)

By 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.

...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.

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.

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

[xiombarg]

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...)

[Walt Freitag]

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.

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

[Walt Freitag]

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."

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.

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.

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?

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

[contracycle]

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.

[Mike Holmes]

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:

Normal 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

[contracycle]

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?

[Mike Holmes]

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.

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

[Walt Freitag]

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

[contracycle]

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.

[Mike Holmes]

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.

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

[contracycle]

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.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

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.

[contracycle]

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