Topological metaphors for structuring games (II)
(…)
Examples for rule dimensions
The following small collection of rule dimensions are by no means exhaustive, but may give a hint on where the “Spiel Spiel hat” (where the game can ‘move’ – in german, the word “Spiel” not only means game or play, but also a slackness, a freedom to be moved).
Please keep in mind that, if the rules don’t exclusively prohibit an action, it may be allowed – thus a willful omission can be a ‘rule’, too, if perceived as such by the players.
- Mode of Cooperation
- Number of players
- Temporal boundaries
- Ressource boundaries
- Spatial boundaries
- Interfacing boundaries
- Mode of jurisdiction
- Handling of Information
- Randomness
- Systemic adaption
- Configurability
- Complexity and Emergence
Mode of Cooperation
This regulates how the players treat each other: as opponents, as potential allies against other players, as neutral jury of their actions, as collaborators, etc. Many games foster a shifting of this mode according to different phases of the game. For example in “Settlers of Catan” the players will first be fierce competitors for ressources, will then build up more or less stable trade alliances, and may at last team up work against the most likely winner.
Number of players
How many players are allowed or needed to play? A fixed number or a a variable one? A game may change in character when you’re playing it alone, with two people, three, four, six, a small group, a class, a lecture hall, thousands or potentially every denizen of the internet.
Temporal boundaries
Games usually have a beginning and an end, either marked by a time limit, a victory condition to be reached, or just by agreement of the players to stop. There are also potentially infinite games possible, either by a very large number of of constantly changing participants, or by dedicated sporadic playing of the same game.
Ressource boundaries
Many games use gaming material for play, and some of this material is per rule to be found, accumulated, controled and/or owned to play successfully or be victorious. This material may be limited, can be expanded during gameplay or by certain actions, or can even be potentially unlimited – the last one especially in games of communication. For example in Monopoly you’ll compete for money from the bank and from the other players; in soccer there’s only one ball to play with; in Go the board allows only for 19×19 gridpoints to compete for; but in “World Without Oil” you’ll have a growing supply of ideas and stories to reference to, and in “Passively Multiplayer Online Game” you’ll have all the internet to ‘own’.
Spatial boundaries
A game usually takes place in a defined area, whilst the area may be of importance for gameplay – like in soccer – or just a convenience – like playing cards at the same table. This area may be a board, a room, a house (“hide and seek”), a playing field (“Tennis”), a yard (“Tag”), a whole cityblock or city (“Pacmanhattan”), the entire world (“Geotagging”), and also virtual spaces like the dataspace of the internet (“Passively Multiplayer Online Game”) or just your computer (most commercial computer games).
Interfacing boundaries
This is often a technical or pragmatic question, thus can be often overlooked as a rule dimension. How may the player interact with the game and other players? Most often in e.g. board games this is restricted to moving playing pieces, the visuals of the game material, as well as spoken or written speech. In computer games, it’s mainly visuals and audios, combined with movement of the mouse, use of the keyboard, and also written or spoken speech. But what about a game like soccer, where mobility, movement, position and gestures play a crucial role? Many games can easily be modified by changing the interface required to play it. For an easy example, there are audio and haptic variations on “Concentration” (“Memory” in german) using matchable materials identifiable by sound or touch when you shake or feel into little boxes with different materials. There are games like “Pacmanhattan”, where players play “Pacman” by running around in a grid of real streets. And there are, of course the various approaches on exergames, requiring to use hand, arm, body or feet movement to play.
Mode of jurisdiction
This could also be expressed by algorithmic versus interpretative mode of rule enactment and enforcement. To which level are the actions according to the rules uniequivocally decidable? Is there – at least theoretically – always exactly one calculable optimal move in the game, are there several moves possible, or is the quality of the move subject to the decision of the coplayers? In japanese “Go”, the game ends when both players agree that there are no sensible moves left; in the german boardgame “Activity” players have to use pantomime, clay modeling and drawing to express concepts judged over by the other players. On the other hand, Tic-Tac-Toe or checkers have both clear rules and supposedly an algorithmically discernable best move in a given situation.
Handling of Information
This is an important, manifold aspect of games. In mathematic game theory one differentiates between games of perfect information like Chess, where every player knows every event, every move past and present in the game, and games with imperfect information like Poker, relying on private or unknown information about the game. Other aspects of information handling may be the amount of information as ressource for playing – can it be ‘used up’ by the players, as in quizzes with a closed ressource of questions? Will it provide it’s own ressource of information by reconfiguring a defined amount of variables, like in the countless possible of Chess or Poker parties playable? Or will it generate it’s own information and playing stock through the creativity of the players, like in toying or some massive multiplayer games like the Alternative Reality Game “World without Oil”?
Some games tend to be one-shot-games once the informational ressource is depleted, e.g. by knowing all answers or the way to solve an adventure. Some games may remain attractive by the reconfigurable information generated and played with. And some for the same reason, but with a more emergent, unforeseeable development of the pool of information drawn upon.
Randomness
What Caillois would call “Alea” (the dice) is the role of random events are playing in a game. This may vary from a game based 100% on randomness, like Roulette, to games with absoulte control of the players over the events happening in-game, like in Chess. Randomness can excite and bring a moment of uncertainty into a game of wits (like in real life), but may also frustrate if one’s skill, craft and dedication in a GBL-environment is brought to naught by a random event. In “Simcity” for example it is recommended for the beginning player to switch off the disaster-option, which may randomly destroy portion of the budding city with floods, fires, riots or Ufo-attacks.
Systemic adaption
Does the gaming environment – the playing material and the coplayers – always behave in the same, rule regulated way (Chess)? Are there different phases of gameplay, with the use of different rulesets (many of the more complex Conflict Simulation Games)? Maybe a computer game adapts to the current skill level of the player, so called “Rubberbanding”, to keep up suspension and challenge, just within her ability. A game may also either support a negative feedback loop, so a player’s advantage will multiply with his successes and vice versa (“Risk”, german “Risiko”); or, on the other hand, may support a positive feedback loop to make it harder for the most succesful player, because his coplayers will team up on him (also “Risk”).
Another combination, very often used as motivation in computer games is a “level up”, expanding the player’s abilities, most of the time accompanied by more powerful opponents or increased difficulty of play.
Configurability
Is the ruleset itself accessible to the player, either from within the game (“Calvinball”, “Nomic”, “Thousand Blank Cards”) or from the outside? Most computer games are hermetically sealed to prevent technical tampering from both sides, but there are always semantic mods possible, like “Speedrunning”. In contrast, the rules of commercial physical games can usually be out-of-play negotiated over by the players (“House Rules”). Communicative games often get reconfigured, or rely on accessible regulations in the first place.
Complexity and Emergence
This is no rule per se, but may be supported or hindered by rules. If a game reaches a certain level of complexity, i.e. there are several system elements connected via interaction and feedback loops, the play may ‘react’ to certain actions of the players in a way not foreseeable by the inventors, and thus also challenges the players to invent ‘workarounds’ to rules or discover hidden feedback loops not obvious in the publicy known rules. For example Tic-Tac-Toe will have nearly none in-game variation. Molyneux’ “Fable” leaves much freedom for the player, as do the “Sims”, thus eliciting the ‘misuse’ of system elements (like finding complex ways to kill your Sims). Nearly all games with strong communicative elements will automatically have an emergent quality, unless it is regulated by rules to prohibit such behaviour threatening the integrity and balance of the rule system. For example trading and haggling in “The Settlers of Catan” is only allowed to and with the player making his move, thus preventing a chaotic continuing marketplace-atmosphere and supporting the strategic aspects of the game. On the other hand, in games like “World Without Oil” relying heavily on communciations, or “BridgeBuilder” with a high degree of abstraction, complexity and striving for emergent gameplay is a tangible and valuable goal of the game.
