Whether you are truthful and admit that you play to win, or you are nice and claim that you play for the enjoyment, or the camaraderie, or the challenge, or simply to pass the time, most play is systematic. Random disorderly play is frightening. Systematic play requires various elements, including a goal (or "object of the game"), a set of rules defining parameters, action within those parameters, a combination of luck and/or skill and/or strategy, recordkeeping, and an eventual winner or multiple winners. Other optional elements for systematic play include other players, meaningful choices within the rules, active hope, a learning curve, and creative tension. Random play only requires unrestrained, creative imagination; (think of Gladiators in the Arena, or Witches burned at the Stake, or Heretics Drawn and Quartered, or a Cat playing with a Mouse).
It sounds contradictory but perhaps it is true that we can only find freedom and enjoyment when bounded by rules; and in the face of arbitrary freedom, we find fear in the possibility of repression, persecution, and violence.
This week I have been thinking about systematic play.
The first requirement for systematic play is a goal, but in some play the goal or objective is not clearly defined. When this occurs, the first question to ask is, "Is this systematic play?" If you look beyond the ambiguous (or seemingly nonexistent) objective and see rules and recordkeeping, then it is systematic play. Perhaps it is a form of play in which you are given clues along the way to aid in finding the objective. Or perhaps it is a form of play in which the objective is unique to, and therefore defined by, the individual player. Or perhaps it is a form of play in which multiple players form factions claiming to know the objective and you must choose a group that you believe will lead you to the promised land. Or perhaps it is a form of play in which you must work to form your own faction in search of the promised land. These possibilities may or may not be addressed in or inferred from the rules. Regardless, in any form of systematic play, whether the objective is defined or uncertain, one's direction will be determined by various degrees of luck and/or skill and/or strategy and a winner or winners will eventually emerge. Though it is also possible that winning or losing will be a sudden discovery at the very end. Or, if the recordkeeping / calculations are a drawn-out process, a winner or winners may not be immediately determined.
I have always preferred games that have:
- a definitive goal,
- rules with some room for interpretation and evolution,
- rules that are applied equitably,
- meaningful choices that inspire hope that stimulates thoughtful analysis,
- meaningful choices that offer a layered complexity of possible outcomes,
- a constant and challenging learning curve,
- more strategy than skill,
- more skill than luck
- simple recordkeeping that does not get in the way,
- action elements (that may include surprise, confrontation, negotiation, cooperation, surprise, adversity, conspiracy, a little luck, and a little more surprise) to create competitive tension, and
- a clearcut winner.
I like to win. I play one game in which, (depending on various elements), the ending scenario is randomly chosen and I may be thrown in with a group of players fighting an evil, or I may be the lone player representing that evil. I prefer being that lone player. Due to my skeptical nature, constant questioning, and overall general surliness, I do not always play well with others. This week's internal analysis of systematic play, has been enlightening.
A Final Note: While I see systematic play as having evolved from random disorderly play, I also see some games allowing for a greater creative freedom in widening parameters. In many ways this can positively add to a game; as long as all players continue to be bounded by the same or very similar rules.
Random disorderly play---with differing rules that take away meaningful choices, or with no rules at all---is frightening