Comments on: Arguing about the rules of a game

By: Jean

Jean — Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:40:43 +0000

Is it too obvious to suggest Bourdieu?

By: Kasper

Kasper — Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:12:40 +0000

I agree that it causes a lot of unnecessary difficulties to use Wittgenstein-interpretations(!) to explain or clarify what games are. But I disagree that games are only used as a convenient metaphor by Wittgenstein. In my understanding he is actually talking about games of any kind – but naturally also more distant cousins in the family of related game-concepts. I do not intend to convince anyone that reading Wittgenstein is the way to gain knowledge about games. But I rather think that the antropology and sociology of games may have something to say about also the more distant relatives to croquet or cricket, i.e. cast a somewhat different light upon the rule-following debates of contemporary Wittgenstein-interpretation, that tends to spin in the void. In other words I am quite an optimist regarding the further possibilities of game research as discussed here.

By: Jesper Juul

Jesper Juul — Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:52:09 +0000

I don’t think it’s easy to use Wittgenstein to discuss games – games are just a convenient metaphor for him it seems to me. Perhaps the first two paragraphs are applicable, though I am not so sure about applying his discussion of meaning and interpretation to games, but I am open for suggestions.

By: LW

LW — Mon, 25 Aug 2003 12:39:32 +0000

Wo ist die Verbindung gemacht zwischen dem Sinn der Worte “Spielen wir eine Partie Schack!” und allen Regeln des Spiels? – Nun, im Regelverzeichnis des Spiels, im Schachunterricht, in der t?glichen Praxis des Spielens.
“Aber wie kann mich eine Regel lehren, was ich an DIESER Stelle zu tun habe? Was immer ich tue, ist doch durch irgendeine Deutung mit der Regel zu vereinbaren.” – Nein, so sollte es nicht heissen. Sondern so: Jede Deutung h?ngt, mitsamt dem Gedeuteten, in der Luft; sie kann ihm nicht als St?tze dienen. Die Deutungen allein bestimmen die Bedeutung nicht.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:13:42 +0000

Well, they tend towards the highly technical. Probably a good place to start would be “Rules and Processes” by John Comaroff and Simon Roberts. I think the main point to realize is that actual human behavior while playing games is not very much like interacting with a videogame where the rules and parameters are inflexible (unless you change the programming). I could go on about this, but I’d better stop. Email me and I’ll run my mouth as much as you want.

By: Ole

Ole — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:52:19 +0000

A common variation on the Monopoly rules – http://www.wunderland.com/WTS/Jake/Monopoly.html describes it:
“$500 is placed in the middle of the board at the start of the game. Any time a player must pay a fine or tax the money also is put in the middle of the board. Whenever a player lands on Free Parking, he or she gets the money in the middle.”

By: Jill

Jill — Fri, 15 Aug 2003 08:43:12 +0000

What’s the free parking pot in the middle of the board in Monopoly?

By: aki

aki — Fri, 15 Aug 2003 06:53:01 +0000

My two cents: I think one of the particular traits of digital (computer, video) games is that they do not leave much room for ‘house rules’, as the game as a system does not allow it. You only do what Tetris allows you to.

Still, different game modes try to capture gamers’ need for variation on rules, and ’emergent’ features – i.e. more or less ambigious definition of what can and cannot be done – aspire to the same desire, I guess.

Also, that’s partly why people build mods – so that they could change the rules. And as the game environment often is in central role in digital games, then numerous mods focus on modifying the environment and the rules that govern it.

Regarding Jesper’s problem, I myself have chosen an easy way out, I guess, by having a kind of ‘implied player’ within my ludological theories. These kinds of universal players are nice because they don’t contest the rules, most of the time ;)

By: Gerry Gleason

Gerry Gleason — Fri, 15 Aug 2003 00:47:37 +0000

Interesting discussion, but I’m a little unclear on the questions you are trying to get at. The development of good rules that work well in practice is one thing, but it isn’t what is taking place in on the field arguments. Are you interested more in informal street-ball methods of resolution, or how the PGA defines the official rules of golf for example? As Craig points out, rules evolve and result in differing extant variants, which players become aware of and discuss the resolution of at the begining of play. We even have this in highly official pro sports, for example the American League in basball with the designated hitter rule, or the introduction of the three point line in basketball. The more formal the setting of play, the more formal the process of rule making and resolution of disputes, resembling the legislative and judicial branches of government.

In sailboat racing, the rules mostly define who has right or way and who must alter course based on orientation to the wind and a lot of specialized rules around obstructions and racing marks (course turning points). Disputes can be resolved on the course when one competitor admits a foul and performs a penalty (usually turning two complete circles, hence called the 720 rule), but if not, a protest committee is conviened after the race. The existance of a foul can be a bit murky to establish because race courses are big and race committee are typically few. The foul becomes unambiguous in a collision, which is no big deal with small boats in light winds, but with larger and/or faster boats it becomes very dangerous. There is an overriding rule that you must do whatever is necessary to avoid a collision, so even if you had the right-of-way, you can be disqualified for not giving the other boat room. Safety first, which is one criteria for “good” rules for any sport with speed and risk. Although this is more sports than games, clearly there is a connection in the scene of an argument about the rules.

It is interesting that even with published games like Monopoly, rule variants emerge and evolve that are not printed anywhere in the rules (e.g. the “Free Parking” pot in the middle). It puts a bit more money in the game randomly; a little macro-economic boost to game play which probably improves play. Everyone I know plays that way, but I wonder how this becomes so widespread even without the rules on the box.

By: Jesper Juul

Jesper Juul — Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:33:47 +0000

Craig, what I was trying to say was that there are two things going on at the same time:
1) The development of ways in which to put rules such that the single rule is unambiguous and beyond discussion. (You figure out how to set up the game and the rules so that the rules state “if the ball passes through the hoop” rather than “if the ball is near the middle of the playing field.”)

2) A discussion of _what_ rules should be in the game. (You discuss if you want a rule describing how the ball should pass through the center hoop.)