Comments on: Boundless Play

By: FerrousBuller

FerrousBuller — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:57:07 +0000

There’s a difference between rules and goals in a game: rules are simply the constraints which govern the sorts of interactions which can occur within the game’s confines; goals are the objectives you need to achieve in order to win a game (i.e., reach a recognizable end-game state). Most videogames have clearly defined goals so you know when you’ve successfully finished a game: in most single-player games, you either beat all of the challenges or you don’t (or, in ye olden days, rank up the highest score); in most multi-player games, you either beat the other teams / competitors or you don’t. Then you can start the game over and try again.

Some games, though, provide few if any goals or end-game states: the Sims is the most obvious example, but the more freeform online games such as Second Life count too. These games provide rulesets which govern and constrain what you can do in the game, but they don’t tell you what to do nor how to go about doing it. PnP RPGs are another freeform-y gameplay experience, which is shaped by the GMs and players, with the added bonus that the GMs can disregard the rules whenever they feel like it and adopt an “anything I say goes” mentality: the rules become a guideline for gameplay, rather than a hard limit. [Though I suppose cheat codes and twinking are the videogaming equivalent…]

By: Bonnie

Bonnie — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:04:39 +0000

I'm trying to imagine two small kids playing without one trying to put rules into place.
There’s a form of staged interaction (For the life of me I can’t remember what it’s called) where you pair up with another person and just play, free-form. Except that it’s for adults. I’ve heard some very strange experiences come out of it. Another example to think of might be the way we play with animals. No rules, just interaction.

Kinda like the game in "~Enders Game', where there wasn't a point to it after a while.
Good comparison!

By: Coldstone

Coldstone — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:06:16 +0000

Good point Mike, with those defs, ‘playing a game’ would be an oxymoron.

I gotta agree with you Bonnie, at least from my personal experience. When I was a kid, playing always involved rules, hoever, they were flexible and fluid. We would begin playing and then add constraints along the way. But my gender bias maybe kicking in here (of course, I played with boys and girls and everyone did the same thing).

That is an more interesting idea, kinda like the game in ‘Enders Game’, where there wasn’t a point to it after a while, other than what the main character put into it. I can see MMORGs doing this and even Muds did this, where the the point of the game was determined by the players.

Perhaps that will be the next thing in Online Interactive Environments, the ability to create ‘rules’ which people obey to play your ‘game’. Like making mini-games on the fly. That’d be pretty cool.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:58:53 +0000

I’d have to go searching around to find it again, but recently I read an article that defined the difference between “play” and a “game.” The difference was that “play” didn’t have rules. A “game” does have rules.

Now that I’m thinking about it, if those definitions are used, then how can someone play a game? Can someone simply play with another person? I’m trying to imagine two small kids playing without one trying to put rules into place so that both are playing the same thing.. which would then become a game rather than just playing.