Games Detrimental?

So I'm at on this high, seeing games all around me, either being played, whether the participants would call it a game or not, or potentially played. I go to the coolest game store I've ever seen, End Game of Oakland, where they not only survive in an urban core, but thrive, going vertical and offering a strong venue for game players. Then I watch this TED talk by Barry Schwartz where he decries incentives as the proverbial "carrot" in a "carrot/stick" dichotomy tempting leaders and others in fiduciary roles away from the just, right, and good choices.

What does this have to do with games? Well, games can change the world, as Jane McGonigal has thoroughly argued in her book, Reality is Broken, and others cited on this blog have argued similarly. Games do this in primarily two ways, either they provide a simulation of the non-game world, where a problem to be solved resides, which can then be played to find solutions, or non-game life becomes game life to steer us toward better behavior, such as the Prius automobile and the gas mileage display on the windshield encouraging better driving to reduce petroleum based fuel consumption. The latter comes about with incentives. You aren't consuming less petroleum based fuel because doing so is the equivalent of spending money to put carbon dioxide in the air and heavy metals in the water, but because it is exciting to get that short-term confirmation that something you did had an impact on something tangible, in this case the digital display.

Are games detrimental? Is there certain places, and certain ways, games shouldn't be?

The Value of Randomness

The scenario: the tension has built during the course of the game and you've developed a strategy that is clever and potentially a game changing or finishing one, the moment of execution comes and the result is left to the toss of dice or drawing of completely random cards. The result can be very disappointing and not at all rewarding to those who come up with exciting moves. Do we want to leave such things to complete chance, holding great ideas to the same level as mediocre and even bad ones? 

Randomness can be a good challenge in a game, for example, when determining your resources, such as who will go first in turn based games, or which tiles will you draw in Settlers of Cataan. It can also be a fun way of determining  your obstacles, such as which property will you land on in Monopoly after they have all been purchased or which monster will be revealed in the Adventure Tile System. There are times when randomness provides a challenge because of unpredictability, the lack of information which I've discussed previously, but also the uniqueness of each game, and thus its "re-playability." But these are all very different than the unexpected and the not (directly) controlled nature of another persons decisions. 

In Chess or International Football, the field and the tools are set before the game begins. The tools being the pieces you'll be using, chess pieces and a football, respectively, and the mental and physical capabilities of the players. Also, the rules are a kind of tool, as well. Some games offer different rules depending on the role, resources, and scenarios the game is experienced by a given player. Yet, these games are exciting because it is unknown exactly how a given player will respond under specific, but yet to be determined, circumstances. In Apples to Apples and DiXit the outcome of your choices is determined by deliberate, but unknowable beforehand, decisions by other players. The rules explain the abstract conditions for winning or the effects of resolved conflicts, such as:

The object of the game is to checkmate the opponent; this occurs when the opponent's king is in check, and there is no legal way to remove it from attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess, October 11, 2011.

However, the specific scenarios are created and evaluated by the players. Chess rewards strategic thinking because the rules are clear and the outcome of a given move is never in question. Likewise, in Apples to Apples a clever choice of word based on a careful evaluation of the judging player is rewarded because the rules are clear and, although the judge will decide subjectively, that subjective adjudication has internal logic. The same with DiXit where a well laid card based on the psychological assessment of all the players, except the storyteller of that round, will be rewarded because the rules are clear and the internal logic of the other voters.

What do you think of randomness in games?

Mind Games

Drum roll please...the name for the new website is: purposeful-play.com Thank you all for your feedback and conversations. I am still working on the programming of the site, trying to decide the best way to present it, but the domain name is purchased and associated with my server space. In the course of preparing the site I've realized that my aptitude in some programming isn't where I would like it to be. Which means I can use new knowledge, practice for underused skills, and concrete problems to avail.

What I realized was in my excitement to prepare the site and share not only these blog entries, but other new aspects of the site, that this drive was inadvertently encouraging me to go through motions which would lead to my learning and improving skills. Isn't this the beauty of games? To review my definition for games, "an endeavor which has the goal of overcoming challenges, but the value is primarily in the action, not the outcome." I want my web presence for game design and game-play to be found on purposeful-play.com and I want it to be more than a blog. I could pay someone to do that for me. But, because I have chosen to make it myself, to have total control, I'm finding all this joy in the endeavor itself, and that is propelling me through the challenge of learning new skills.

For a great view of what and how games can and are influencing our behavior watch this video a then tell me what positive things you've gotten from recreation.

Wii Games - E3 2012 - Guitar Hero 5

Name of The Game

I'm happy to say I'm invigorated and driven to continue with this line of posts about game design and theory, and game playing. What seems most desirable now is to have a website independent, unlike the current situation of using blogspot. The question remains, "what shall the new site be called?"

Unfortunately, MichaelAtPlay.com andGameOn.com are taken. PersonalLiberation.com is available, but I'm not sure if I want to use it for this narrow purpose. PuzzlePawn.com is available and I think it has a ring to it, as well as being on topic.

I open it to you, Audience. Tell me what you think should go into the name of the new site?

Information Disparity - Using The Edge

Some crave surprise and the nuance of subtle novelty. Some appreciate the real life simulation that lack of knowledge provides. For different reasons a lack of information is desirable in games. As we've talked about recently, unknowns make strategizing more difficult and make more prudent decisions most viable, such as rejecting the British monk's due to fear they would cease making payouts, or pre-emptive nuclear attacks.

So, what is a good long term strategy in this paradigm? Mitigate risk may be a good baseline, but a viable more aggressive strategy might be to place yourself in a position to benefit when another succumbs to revelation. When deciding a play in American football the best choice is a play you do well that has a high payoff in distance. The second best is the one the opponents don't expect, and therefore are vulnerable to. What your opponents know and what they think is powerful information, as it allows you to maximize exploiting the unknown with the least amount of risk. So, a game that allows for not only a lack of information, which any with randomization does, but also the ability to cultivate information disparity offers more viable strategy options.

Now the academic point of view on the last might be that there is only one best option, assuming asymmetric values. However, "in the field" we know information is being gathered in constant, subtle moments. The body language of our competitors across the table can instantly make a change in the calculations.

Options and Moving Parts

When making a statistical study you limit the options of possible answers so as to make comparisons easier. There are different degrees of this, but whether cardinal or ordinal, there certainly isn't a free form of organic options, such is human reality. When we think of games we often think of the moves available as categorizable. In American football the players performances may vary extremely, but the rules definitely limit the options of "moves."

One way of adding move variability is in making the arbitration mechanism binary or cardinal, but this is just a framework that gives shape to the play field, which is free form. Examples are voting and reputation ranking.

One way to simulate human society would be to collect each option, as they are realized, in a relational database, where different options could be ranked under conditions, and still be associated with specific people, times, et cetera.

Information Costs

Many games assume the players know all the rules and have an equally universal assessment of the value of all resources. In the board game Monopoly the only unknown is the outcome of dice rolls. The cost of improvements, rent, property, and number of properties per set, is all known so one might assess the value of each pair. The game of Clue, however is all about research costs, the winner is whoever has the lowest. The shortest route and the best recall of the information, suspects and potential murder weapons and the rooms, is going to win, with a slight deviation based on statistical outliers in the form of consistently high dice rolls.

In life we could benefit from knowing as much as we can. And we can know almost everything about now and extrapolate a lot about tomorrow. We can be aware of interest rates, average wages per industry and region, property values, stock market trends. We can also know a lot about ourselves. Where are we spending our resources? How much are we putting in to each task and how much are we getting out?