Is there such a thing as a concept that absolutely cannot be made into a playable game? If so, has anyone run into such an animal?

If these unworkable concepts are common enough, I might enjoy making a taxonomy of them. The only category I can think of off the top of my head is "So unbelievably offensive that the players would have to be total monsters to enjoy it." You know, ideas like Rape: the Game or some sort of detailed Concentration Camp sim.

SrGrvsaLot wrote: Is there such a thing as a concept that absolutely cannot be made into a playable game?

The players are rocks.

No, not sentient rocks. Just rocks. They cannot move, speak, think or interact in any way, shape or form. Not can they sense anything that happens to them or around them in any way.

I think that would be unplayable.

Jack Aidley wrote: The players are rocks.

No, not sentient rocks. Just rocks. They cannot move, speak, think or interact in any way, shape or form. Not can they sense anything that happens to them or around them in any way.

Sounds like a wonderful game to play LARP style when babysitting nieces and nephews...:-)

Valamir wrote: Sounds like a wonderful game to play LARP style when babysitting nieces and nephews...:-)

Hi there,

SrGrvsaLot, I don't think this thread is going to be do-able unless you can provide us with a meaningful and specific definition of "concept," that we'll all abide by.

It's OK if the definition is only intended for use in this thread rather than forever. Everyone else, please wait for clarification.

Best,
Ron

quozl wrote:

Jack Aidley wrote: The players are rocks.

No, not sentient rocks. Just rocks. They cannot move, speak, think or interact in any way, shape or form. Not can they sense anything that happens to them or around them in any way.

You just defined a game right there. Now, it may not be a fun game but it's still a game and it can be played just by following your rules: not moving, speaking, thinking, or interacting in any way, shape or form.

Let's see

concept: The underlying idea that drives the game. Intentionally vague, it can describe any number of aspects of play, including: Who the characters are and what they do (like maybe the character's are goblins plotting to take over the surface world); The environment the character's find themselves in (like a world where everything is purple); A key mechanic (maybe all tasks are resolved by writing haiku relevant to the situation, with success determined by the artistic merit of the poem); or a philisophical conceit (a game whose whole point is to explore christian theology). To sum up, a game's "concept" is the short (1 page at most) description one would use to explain the game to someone who knows nothing about it (focusing specifically on what makes it different than other roleplaying games).

Now, it may not be a fun game but it's still a game

John,

Would you like to also define "playable game"? I consider the rock example to be a playable game (defined at m-w.com as an "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement"). Do you?

"Playable" is a bit trickier, and is probably one of those words like "pornography" that depends a lot on community values and individual judgement. I would say a game is "playable" if a group of reasonable people with roleplaying experience would agree that the game would be interesting to try (don't even try to ask me what "reasonable" or "interesting" means, because I don't know). A game like "rock" is a good example of not being playable. The whole point is to not do anything. How long could that possibly be diverting? 5 minutes? 10? A game like "rape" is unplayable for a different reason. Doubtlessly, there are some sick individuals who would derive pleasure from playing a game whose entire point was to pretend to rape people, but these people are deviants from the basic moral standards of the community, and not representative of "reasonable" individuals.

I would define as "unworkable" any concept that can not be made into a playable game, regardless of how it's presented (or, alternatively, is so extremely difficult to present in a playable manner that no one would even bother).

When you define all your terms subjectively like that, you're only asking, "Is it possible to design a game that some people won't like?" To which the answer is yes.

SrGrvsaLot wrote: "games that require no choices from the player." ... "indescriminate slaughter machine" (the game where the characters kill every NPC they encounter in order of proximity).

I again with Shreyas on this. We can't have a useful discussion on this topic without some hard and fast definitions. It's like trying to discuss "sports" without defining what a sport is. Some people consider fishing and churling (I think that is how you spell that) to be sports but I certainly don't, so without a non-subjective definition we're talking about two different things.

Perhaps we could drop the term "unplayable" and replace it with something "non-viable" or "unworkable"; although, we'd have to define that too.

Edit: Actually, the title of this thread is Unworkable Concepts. So, how did we get to talking about unplayable?

The definition isn't subjective, it's social. It's like the supreme court justice who said about pornography "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." To define "playable" empirically and eternally is an impossible task. The definition changes with time and social context, and many games that seem acceptable today would have been deemed "unplayable" in other eras (for instance, Call of Cthulu, a game that posits a universe with no Christian God would have been unthinkable in 16th century Spain).

The point of the post is speculative. What ideas for games are just plain bad? What ideas seem like they might be able to work with the right slant, and which are absolutely irredeemable? Where does the border lie? Is it possible to create a well-written (or even perfectly written) game that nobody, with a few aberrant exceptions, will like? Let's not get too caught up with terminology here. If people have different opinions on what constitutes "unplayable" that's fine by me, because really, exploring those opinions is part of the point too.

To me, none of the mentioned games is unplayable. "Rock" is a great gamist game, we often played games like that as chrildren. And also "Rape" or "Concentration Camp sim" are playable, even by non-deviant ppl, since they raise deep questions that could be worked into great narrative permises about the nature of being human and about what makes us leave the commonly accpeted road of humanity. And "indescriminate slaughter machine" sounds to me like a dungeon-crawl :)

I think there is no such a thing as a unplayable game concept, since the game is only one part, the other is the group - and if a group is willingly to play a game, this game becomes playable.

And "indescriminate slaughter machine" sounds to me like a dungeon-crawl :)

I think there is no such a thing as a unplayable game concept, since the game is only one part, the other is the group - and if a group is willingly to play a game, this game becomes playable.

The game is Concentration Camp. The characters are high ranking SS officers at Auschwitz, and their mission is to ensure the racial purity of the German people, by any means necessary. Players will have to think of new and creative ways to humiliate the Jewish people (and assorted sundry undesirables) while simultaneously overcoming problems that might hinder "the final solution."

SrGrvsaLot wrote:
So by your definition, a game is playable so long as at least one group would want to play it? I'm not sure how useful such a definition is though. I'm fairly certain that if I went to the Indie Game design boards (or to any group of reasonable people) with the following pitch, I'd be justifiably scorned.

Hello,

I'm not satisfied. Shreyas hit it on the head:

... you're only asking, "Is it possible to design a game that some people won't like?" To which the answer is yes.

About "unworkable," at first it seemed obvious, but the more I think about, the more I don't know what it is. I think perhaps I was hoping to get a grasp on it by seeing specific examples of what people considered to be bad ideas for games. So far, I've seen things that seem pretty strong indicators

Offensiveness
Potential for Boredom
Inept Mechanics
Too much work involved
Nothing for players to do

Here's a tenative definition for unplayable:
A game is unplayable if some facet of its rules, setting, theme, etc is such that a sizable majority (at least 75-80%) of its potential audience would choose to play any (not some) other game. I.e. a game is unplayable if it is destined to become most people's least favorite game (excluding other unplayable games). Also: "I wouldn't play this if they paid me."

An unworkable concept is one that can in no way be made into a playable game.

So, I repeat my question. Is there any such thing as an unworkable concept? And, more to the point, is it possible to draw up a list of criteria that would weed out unworkable concepts?

Hi John,

Yeeks ... the trouble is, you didn't meet my request.

such that a sizable majority (at least 75-80%) of its potential audience would choose to play any (not some) other game.

I once proposed a class of games, called antigames or concept games ( and their close cousins "gedanken games" or "statement games") that exist for a purpose other than simply to be played in this thread.

I highly encourage you to read the above thread since I think it is handling a similar topic in a bit more focused manner.

I find the whole conversation in this thread thus far highly dubious. The reason why is that your question "Is there any such thing as an unworkable concept in a game?" is not a question of game design, but one of philosophy. Ultimately, the answer will revolve around retroactively defining such words as "concept" and "workable" to support your argument. I don't think that is particularly useful at this point; but if you can tell me why it is useful, I am more than willing to listen.

Later,
Mark

Mark Johnson's Concept games is an excellent example of games useful that are more useful in theory than in practice.

For another example, my initial reaction to the title may help:

An "unworkable concept" implies a theory that can not be applied to the play.

Some unworkable game concepts can be transformed to workable game concepts through innovative game design.

I had initially thought that this thread was going to meander toward game theories that are encountering significant barriers toward application. Game designers would toss out their game concepts that they are have trouble with applying and people could give ideas of how to apply it.

I believe that would be a workable topic for a thread.

Hopefully that helps.

Unplayable: A game can be unplayable for a variety of reasons. Some are technical, like bad writing, layout, mechanics, etc. It can also be unplayable for design reasons. The ideas could be presented in such a way as to be confusing, offensive (to a great many people, or to the game's intended audience), obscure to all but a small audience, boring, or insulting to the audience's intelligence. It's also possible to have interesting, well explained ideas that are poorly reflected in the rules. A key sign of unplayability is broad consensus on the game's poor quality, though it may attract a cult following (a good metaphor is that of the bad movie). Some games that utilize innovative ideas might be considered unplayable until the larger community "catches up."

A good example of something that would make a game unplayable is a mechanic I suggested earlier: assigning each object in the game world a mathmatical function, and then making task success contingent on integrating those functions.

Of course, all the above is sheer stuborness on my part. Cemendur explains what I was hoping for better than I've managed to so far.

SrGrvsaLot wrote: If there's no reasonable way to make it fun without fundamentally changing the concept itself. The rock game is a good example of this, and it would be easy to come up with lots of other examples that fail for the same reason.

Hello,

John, you are indeed being stubborn, and that's my cue. It's not hard to understand that there are many ways to be "unworkable." I've stated that if you don't choose one for us to use in this thread, it's closed. And three requests is too many, so closed it is.

Really. We're looking at two pages of occasional and localized insight, embedded in ambiguity. That's not good. Even M.J.'s post is, with all respect, an exercise in the obvious.

Another, more focused thread would be welcome. This one's over.

Best,
Ron