> [!cite]- Metadata > 2025-08-10 19:28 > Status: #primary #book > Lexicon: [[Game Design & Interaction]] > Tags: [[Aesthetics]] [[Cognition]] [[Design]] [[Game Design]] [[Ideology]] [[Philosophy]] [[Programming]] [[Psychology]] [[Craft]] [[Creativity]] [[Dynamics]] [[Framework]] [[Mechanics]] [[Metacognition]] [[Systems]] [[Research]] `Read Time: 40m 15s` Written by Katie Salen & Eric Zimmerman > Rules of Play expresses the perspective that a theoretical framework for [interactive design](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_design "Interactive design") has not yet been established. This is not the first time this has been recognized or explored, but is explored in a fresh way in great detail - with one review stating that: _"the book manages to bridge the emerging field of game studies methodologies and design theory"_. Foreword Consider the vast kinds of experiences games can produce - complex networks of desire and pleasure, anxiety and release, wonder and knowledge. Games can inspire the loftiest form of cerebral cognition and engage the most primal physical response, often simultaneously. Instead of the rich spectrum of pleasures games are capable of providing, we seem cursed to suffer an embarrassment of variations on the all-too familiar pleasures of running and jumping, of Hide and Go Seek and Tag, of Easter Egg hunts and Cops and Robbers. What happened to the explosion of formal experimentation during the early days of computer games? For a while it seemed that every other title was a fresh attempt to answer the question "**What can you do with a computer?**" Compare that with the current crop of computer games, the majority of which seem to be addressing the question "What can you do while controlling an avatar that is moving through a simulated three-dimensional space?" One of the implications Rules of Play's approach to its subject is that the proper way to understand games is from the aesthetic perspective, in the same way that we address fields such as architecture, literature, or film. **The real domain of game design is the aesthetics of interactive systems**. Every game, from Rock-Paper-Scissors to The Sims and beyond is a space is the collaborative work of the game design process. **Rules of Play is perhaps the first serious attempt to lay out an aesthetic approach to the design of interactive systems.** Preface Why do people love pong? It is crucial for game designers to understand why people play games and why some games are so well-loved. Why do people play Pong? We can think of many reasons: **It is simple to play** **Every game is unique** - It is easy to learn but difficult to master **It is an elegant Representation** - It is an abstraction of Table Tennis **It is Social** - It takes two to play Pong, it is a great spectator sport **It is Fun** - It is genuinely fun to interact with Pong. Pleasure of competition, tactile control **It is cool** - A cultural artifact, evokes nostalgia Pong and the games of its time did something revolutionary. They turned the one-way interactivity of the television on its head, transforming viewers into players, permitting them not just to watch a media image, but to *play* with it. As game designers, have we fully taken into account the implications of this revolutionary act? Do we really understand the medium in which we work or the field of design to which we belong? Can we articulate what it is that generates meaningful play in any game, whether a video game, a board game, a crossword puzzle, or an athletic contest? The truth? **Not yet.** Because of its status as an emerging discipline, game design hasn't yet crystallized as a field of inquiry. It doesn't have its own section in the library or bookstore. You can't (with a few exceptions) get a degree in it. The culture at large does not yet see games as a noble, or even particularly useful, endeavor. Games are one of the most ancient forms of designed human interactivity, yet from a design perspective, we still don't really know what games are. **Chapter 1: About This Book** 1 What is this book about? A game designer is a particular kind of designer. A game designer is not necessarily a programmer, visual designer, or project manager, although sometimes they can also play these roles in the creation of a game. The focus of a game designer is designing game play, conceiving and designing rules and structures that result in an experience for players. *Rules of Play* provides something altogether different. Bridging the theoretical and practical aspects of making games, we look closely at games as designed systems, discovering patterns within their complexity that bring the challenges of game design into full view. As we explore game design as a design practice, we outline not only the concepts behind the creation of meaningful play (a core idea of this book), but also concrete methods for putting these concepts to use in your games 2 Establishing a Critical Discourse One challenge of our project has been formulating a set of definitions for terms such as "game," "design," "interactivity," "system," "play," and "culture," terms that form the foundation of our critical vocabulary. 4 Ways of Looking *A game is a particular way of looking at something, anything.* -Clark C. Abt, Serious Games Game designer and theorist Jesper Juul has made the comment that theories about games tend to fall into two camps: Everything is a game ("War is a game; politics are a game; life is a game; everything is a game!") or Games are X ("Games are an interactive storytelling medium."; "Games are how a child learns about rules."). In his book *Notes on the Synthesis of Form*, architect Christopher Alexander wrestles with the challenges of design, describing a methodology that centers on the inherent complexity of design problems. Alexander asks us to consider the range of factors affecting the design of a kettle. Alexander's answer to the challenge of complexity is to organize and classify aspects of the design problem at hand. Games too, share in this degree of complexity. As products of human culture, games fulfill a range of needs, desires, pleasures, and uses. As products of design culture, games reflect a host of technological, material, formal, and economic concerns. 5 Game Design Schemas Most of the chapters of this book are organized under the heading of a game design schema. A *schema* is a way of framing and organizing knowledge. A game design schema is a way of understanding games, a conceptual lens that we can apply to the analysis or creation of a game. We organize these varied points of view according to three primary schemas, each one containing a cluster of related schemas. Our primary schemas are *RULES, PLAY, and CULTURE*: • **RULES** contains formal game design schemas that focus on the essential logical and mathematical structures of a game. • **PLAY** contains experiential, social, and representational game design schemas that foreground the player's participation with the game and with other players. • **CULTURE** contains contextual game design schemas that investigate the larger cultural contexts within which games are designed and played. As a framework, RULES, PLAY, CULTURE is not merely a model for game design. It also represents a way of understanding any kind of design. Consider the model applied more broadly: • RULES = the organization of the designed system • PLAY = the human experience of that system • CULTURE = the larger contexts engaged with and inhabited by the system 6 Game Design Fundamentals Rules of Play is a book about *fundamentals*. As a design practice, game design has its own essential principles, a system of ideas that define what games are and how they work. Innovation in the field can grow only from a deep understanding of these basic concepts. What are these game design fundamentals? They include *understanding design, systems, and interactivity, as well as player choice, action, and outcome.* They include a study of *rule-making and rule-breaking, complexity and emergence, game experience, game representation, and social game interaction.* They include the powerful connection between *the rules of a game and the play that the rules engender*, the pleasures games invoke, the meanings they construct, the ideologies they embody, and the stories they tell. As fundamental principles, these ideas form a system of building blocks that game designers arrange and rearrange in every game they create. As unlikely as it may sound, Go, Trivial Pursuit, Dance Dance Revolution, and Unreal Tournament all share the same fundamental principles, articulated in radically different ways. The range of game design expression is vast, deep, and largely unexplored. **Chapter 2: The Design Process** 11 Iterative Design A game design education cannot consist of a purely theoretical approach to games. This is true of any design field: *designers learn best through the process of design, by directly experiencing the things they make.* Therefore, a large part of their training as students of game design must involve the creation of games. This book offers a way of thinking about the process of designing games. It is a very simple and powerful approach, one that grows out of more than a decade of experience in teaching and designing games. We call this approach iterative design. Iterative design is a play-based design process. Emphasizing playtesting and prototyping, iterative design is a method in which design decisions are made based on the experience of playing a game while it is in development. In an iterative methodology, a rough version of the game is rapidly prototyped as early in the design process as possible. This prototype has none of the aesthetic trappings of the final game, but begins to define its fundamental rules and core mechanics. It is not a visual prototype, but an interactive one. This prototype is played, evaluated, adjusted, and played again, allowing the designer or design team to base decisions on the successive iterations or versions of the game. Iterative design is a cyclic process that alternates between prototyping, playtesting, evaluation, and refinement. 12 Why is iterative design so important for game designers? Because it is not possible to fully anticipate play in advance. It is never possible to completely predict the experience of a game. Is the game accomplishing its design goals? Do the players understand what they are supposed to be doing? Are they having fun? Do they want to play again? These questions can never be answered by writing a design document or crafting a set of game rules and materials. They can only be answered by way of play. Through the iterative design process, the game designer becomes a game player and the act of play becomes an act of design. We have a straightforward rule of thumb regarding prototyping and playtesting games: a game prototype should be created and play tested, at the absolute latest, 20 percent of the way into a project schedule. Early prototypes are not pretty. They might be paper versions of a digital game, a single-player version of a networked experience, hand-scrawled board and pieces for a strategy wargame, or a butt-ugly interactive mock-up with placeholder artwork. Still, the prototype is more than an interactive slideshow-it is a genuinely playable game that begins to address game design challenges of the project as a whole. The online multiplayer game SiSSYFiGHT 2000 was first prototyped on Post-It notes around a conference table, next as a text-only IRC (Internet Relay Chat) game, and then as a skeletal web-based game, which became the basis for the final application. At each stage, the game prototype was rigorously played, evaluated, tweaked, and played again. Most paper-based game designers follow an iterative design process, but most digital game designers do not. Typically, a commercial computer game is copiously designed in advance, with extensive storyboards and design documents often hundreds of pages long, completed before any actual game production begins. These documents invariably become obsolete as soon as production development starts. Why? Because the play of a game will always surprise its creators, particularly if the game design is unusual or experimental. Even a veteran designer cannot exactly predict what will and will not work before experiencing the game firsthand. Prototype your game early. Play it throughout the entire design process. Have as many other people as you possibly can play your game, and observe them playing. Let yourself be surprised and challenged. Remain flexible. And don't forget to have fun. 22 Design Process I don't have a fixed design process. Quite the contrary, I believe that starting from the same beginning will frequently lead to the same end. Finding new ways of working often leads to innovative designs. Of course, there are always the basic ingredients of game mechanics, game materials, and the theme or the world. Furthermore, there are some fundamental design questions about the player's point of view: Who am I? What am I trying to achieve? What are my main choices? How do I win? 25 One of the vital tenets of good playtesting is comprehensively to explore every possible strategy and style of play. It must be robust and exciting on many levels, for casual players as well as for experienced gamers. 28 Unit 1: Core Concepts "He who hopes to learn the fine art of the game from books will soon learn that only the opening and closing moves of the game admit of exhaustive dynamic description; and that the endless variety of moves which develop from the opening defies description; the gap left in the instructions can only be filled in by the zealous study of games fought out by master hands." - E. M. Avendon, The Study of Games 29 How does play happen? How is it that a game board and a pair of dice, or a game program on a hard drive, or a baseball, a bat, and an empty lot somehow ramify into the experience of play-an experience of endless pleasure and variety that defies ordinary description? What are games? What is game design? And how do we design for meaningful play? We begin to answer these questions by clarifying several key concepts that inform our study. After first looking closely at the concept of meaningful play, we introduce three interrelated ideas-design, systems, and interactivity-that lead us directly to a definition of games and game design. These core concepts provide the crucial foundation for any understanding of game design and meaningful play. 31 Meaningful Play "We have only to watch young dogs to see that all the essentials of human play are present in their merry gambols. They invite one another to play by a certain ceremoniousness of attitude and gesture. They keep to the rule that you shall not bite, or not bite hard, your brother's ear. They pretend to get terribly angry. And-what is most important-in all these doings they plainly experience tremendous fun and enjoyment. Such rompings of young dogs are only one of the simpler forms of animal play. There are other, much more highly developed forms: regular contests and beautiful performances before an admiring public. Here we have at once a very important point: even in its simplest forms on the animal level, play is more than a mere physiological phenomenon or a psychological reflex. It goes beyond the confines of purely physical or purely biological activity. It is a significant function-that is to say, there is some sense to it. In play there is something "at play" which transcends the immediate needs of life and imparts meaning to the action. All play means something."-Johann Huizinga, Homo Ludens 32 Introducing Meaningful Play According to Huizinga, play and games, which have been maligned in recent history as trivial and frivolous, are in fact at the very center of what makes us human."Play is older than culture," as Huizinga puts it, and Homo Ludens is a celebration of play that links the visceral, combative nature of contest directly to war, poetry, art, religion, and other essential elements of culture. Homo Ludens is, in many ways,an attempt to redefine and elevate the significance of play. - Huizinga emphasizes the fact that all play means something, that there is "sense" to play, that it transcends. The idea that "all play means something" is a wonderfully complex statement we can interpret in a variety of ways. 33 Meaning and Play Let's frame the connection between play and meaning as simply as we can. In the game of Pong, for example, the meaning of the interaction between player and game is mediated by play, from the play of pixels representing the ball, to the play of the mechanical knobs controlling the digital paddles, to the competitive social force of play between opponents. It is for these reasons, and many others, that game designers should care about the relationship between meaning and play. - Learning to create great game experiences for players-experiences that have meaning and are meaningful-is one of the goals of successful game design, perhaps the most important one. We call this goal the design of *meaningful play*, the core concept of our approach. - **The goal of successful game design is the creation of meaningful play.** - One of the difficulties in identifying meaningful play in games is the near-infinite variety of forms that play can take. Here are some examples: • the intellectual dueling of two players in a well-met game of Chess • the improvisational, team-based balletics of Basketball • the dynamic shifting of individual and communal identi ties in the online role-playing game EverQuest • the lifestyle-invading game Assassin, played on a college campus - What do all of these examples have in common? Each situates *play within the context of a game.* Play doesn't just come from the game itself, but from the way that players interact with the game in order to play it. In other words, the board, the pieces, and even the rules of Chess can't alone constitute meaningful play. *Meaningful play emerges from the interaction between players and the system of the game*, as well as from the context in which the game is played. Understanding this interaction helps us to see just what is going on when a game is played. - One way of framing what players do when they play a game is to say that they are *making choices*. They are deciding how to move their pieces, how to move their bodies, what cards to play, what options to select, what strategies to take, how to interact with other players. They even have to make the choice whether or not to play! - When a player makes a choice within a game, the action that results from the choice has an outcome. In Chess, if a player moves a piece on the board, this action affects the relationships of all of the other pieces: one piece might be captured, or a king might suddenly find itself in check. Playing a game means making choices and taking actions*. All of this activity occurs within a game-system designed to support meaningful kinds of choice-making. Every action taken results in a change affecting the overall system of the game. Another way of stating this point is that an action a player takes in a game results in the creation of new meanings within the system. 34 Two Kinds of Meaningful Play We define meaningful play in two separate but related ways. The first sense of meaningful play refers to the way game actions result in game outcomes to create meaning. Framing the concept in this way, we offer the following definition: *Meaningful play in a game emerges from the relationship between player action and system outcome; it is the process by which a player takes action within the designed system of a game and the system responds to the action. The meaning of an action in a game resides in the relationship between action and outcome.* - This way of understanding meaningful play refers to the way all games generate meaning through play. Every game lets players take actions, and assigns outcomes to those actions. We therefore call this definition of meaningful play *descriptive*, because it describes what happens in every game. This is our first understanding of meaningful play. This is the second sense of meaningful play. Instead of being a description of the way games operate, it refers to the goal of successful game design. This sense of meaningful play is evaluative: it helps us critically evaluate the relationships between actions and outcomes, and decide whether they are meaningful enough within the designed system of the game: *Meaningful play occurs when the relationships between actions and outcomes in a game are both discernable and integrated into the larger context of the game. Creating meaningful play is the goal of successful game design.* The word "meaningful" in this sense is less about the semiotic construction of meaning (how meaning is made) and more about the emotional and psychological experience of inhabiting a well-designed system of play. In order to understand why some play in games is more meaningful than others, we need to understand the key terms in the definition: discernable and integrated. Discernable means that the result of the game action is communicated to the player in a perceivable way. In the following excerpt from Game Design: Theory and Practice, Richard Rouse III points out the importance of displaying discernable information to the player within the context of the game world. The idea of discernable outcomes applies to all games, digital or otherwise. 51 Rouse writes, Consider a strategy game in which the player has a number of units scattered all over a large map. The map is so large that only a small portion of it can fit on the screen at once. If a group of the player's units happen to be off-screen and are attacked but the player is not made aware of it by the game, the player will become irritated. Consider an RPG where each member of the player's party needs to be fed regularly, but the game does not provide any clear way of communicating how hungry his characters are. Then, if one of the party members suddenly keels over from starvation, the player will become frustrated, and rightly so. Why should the player have to guess at such game-critical information? Similarly, if you move a board game piece on the board but you have absolutely no idea whether your move was good or bad or if it brought you closer to or farther away from winning-in short, if you don't know the meaning of your action-then the result of your action was not discernable. When the relationship between an action and the result of that action is not discernable, meaningful play is difficult or impossible to achieve. Discernability in a game lets the players know what happened when they took an action. Without discernability, the player might as well be randomly pressing buttons or throwing down cards. With discernability, a game possesses the building blocks of meaningful play. Another component of meaningful play requires that the relationship between action and outcome is integrated into the larger context of the game. This means that an action a player takes not only has immediate significance in the game, but also affects the play experience at a later point in the game. Chess is a deep and meaningful game because the delicate opening moves directly result in the complex trajectories of the middle game-and the middle game grows into the spare and powerful encounters of the end game. Any action taken at one moment will affect possible actions at later moments. Whereas discernability of game events tells players what happened (I hit the monster),integration lets players know how it will affect the rest of the game (If I keep on hitting the monster I will kill it. If I kill enough monsters, I'll gain a level.). Every action a player takes is woven into the larger fabric of the overall game experience: this is how the play of a game becomes truly meaningful. Meaningful play can be realized in a number of ways, depending on the design of a particular game. There is no single formula that works in every case. In the example of the asteroid shooting game, immediate and visceral feedback was needed to make the action discernable. But it might also be the case that in a story-based game, the results of an action taken near the beginning of the game are only understood fully at the very end, when the implications are played out in a very unexpected and dramatic way. Both instances require different approaches to designing meaningful play. Meaningful play engages several aspects of a game simultaneously, giving rise to layers of meaning that accumulate and shape player experience. Meaningful play can occur on the formal, mathematically strategic level of a single move in Chess. It can occur on a social level, as two players use the game as a forum for meaningful communication. And it can occur on larger stages of culture as well, where championship Chess matches can be used as occasions for Cold War political propaganda, or in contemporary philosophical debates about the relative powers of the human mind and artificial intelligence. 52 Summary - Meaning, play, and games are intimately related concepts. The goal of successful game design is *meaningful play.* - There are two ways to define meaningful play: *descriptive* and *evaluative*. The descriptive definition addresses the mechanism by which all games create meaning through play. The evaluative definition helps us understand why some games provide more meaningful play than others. - The *descriptive* definition of meaningful play: Meaningful play in a game emerges from the relationship between player action and system outcome; it is the process by which a player takes action within the designed system of a game and the system responds to the action. The meaning of an action in a game resides in the relation ship between action and outcome. - The *evaluative* definition of meaningful play: *Meaningful play* is what occurs when the relationships between actions and outcomes in a game are both discernable and integrated into the larger context of the game. - *Discernability* means that a player can perceive the immediate outcome of an action. *Integration* means that the outcome of an action is woven into the game system as a whole. - The two ways of defining meaningful play are closely related. Designing successful games requires understanding meaningful play in both senses. 53 Chapter 4: Design "Design is the successive application of constraints until only a unique product is left." - Donald Norman, The Design of Everyday Things "Design" is half of "game design." As a concept and as a practice, the idea of design sits at the center of an exploration of games and meaningful play. Yet it is difficult to define. Like the term game, design is a concept with many meanings, "Its definition depends on whether design is considered to be an idea, a knowledge, a practice, a process, a product, or even a way-of-being." Each design practice has a human being at its core. Although this might seem obvious, it an often overlooked basic feature of design. We think it is of particular importance to game designers, for people are at the heart of the games we create. 54 Some Definitions of Design Design as making; the artificial; action; visual appearance; communication; a reflective process; thought; transformation: each definition offers valid and useful ways of understanding the practice of design by focusing on particular qualities or characteristics. Taken as a whole, the definitions point to a range of concerns affecting designers and help to bring the field of design as a whole into view. What is the "design" in game design and how is it connected to the concept of meaningful play? As an answer, we offer the following general definition: *Design is the process by which a designer creates a context to be encountered by a participant, from which meaning emerges.* 55 Let us look at each part of this definition in relation to game design: - The designer is the individual game designer or the team of people that creates the game. Sometimes, games emerge from folk culture or fan culture, so there may not be an individual designer or design team. In this case, the designer of the game can be considered culture at large. - The context of a game takes the form of spaces, objects, narratives, and behaviors. - The participants of a game are the players. They inhabit, explore, and manipulate these contexts through their play. - Meaning is a concept that we've already begun to explore. In the case of games, meaningful play is the result of players taking actions in the course of play. 56 When we ask what something "means," particularly in the context of design, we are trying to locate the value or significance of that instance of design in a way that helps us to make sense of it. Questions such as,"What does the use of a particular color mean on a particular product?" or "What does that image represent?" or "What happens when I click on the magic star?" are all questions of meaning. Game designers, in particular, are interested in the concept of meaning because they are involved in the creation of systems of interaction. These systems then give rise to a range of meaning-making activities, from moving a game piece on a board, to waging a bet, to communicating "Hello, my friend" with other online characters in a virtual game world. Semiotics: A Brief Overview It is…possible to conceive of a science which studies the role of signs as part of life…We shall call it semiology (from the Greek semeîon,"sign"). It would investigate the nature of signs and the laws governing them.- Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics In a general sense, semiotics is the study of how meanings are made. The question of what signs represent, or denote, is of central concern to the field. 57 Semiotically speaking, people use signs to designate objects or ideas. Because a sign represents something other than itself, we take the representation as the meaning of the sign. The smell of smoke (sign) represents the concept of "fire," for example, or the tallest piece in Chess denotes the "King." In the game Rock-Paper-Scissors, an outstretched hand means "paper," a fist means "rock," and two fingers spread in a V-shape means "scissors." Our capacity to understand that signs represent is at the heart of semiotic study. Similarly, understanding that signs mean "something to somebody" is at the core of any design practice. As David Chandler notes, We do not live among and relate to physical objects and events. We live among and relate to systems of signs with meaning. We don't sit on a complex structure of wood, we sit on a stool. The fact that we refer to it as a STOOL means that it is to be sat on; it is not a coffee table. In our interactions with others we don't use random gestures, we gesture our courtesy, our pleasure, our incomprehension, our disgust. The objects in our environment, the gestures and words we use, derive their meanings from the sign systems to which they belong. The American philosopher and semiotician Charles S. Peirce defines a sign as "something that stands for something, to somebody, in some respect or capacity." This broad definition recognizes four key ideas that constitute the concept of a sign: 1. A sign represents something other than itself. 2. Signs are interpreted. 3. Meaning results when a sign is interpreted. 4. Context shapes interpretation. 58 A Sign Represents Something Other Than Itself This concept of a sign representing something other than itself is critical to an understanding of games for several reasons. On one hand, games use signs to denote **action** and **outcome**, two components of meaningful play. These actions gain meaning as part of larger sequences of interaction. These sequences are sometimes referred to as a "**chain of signifiers**," a concept that calls attention to the importance of relations between signs within any sign system. On the other hand, games use signs to denote the elements of the game world. The signs signs that make up the game world collectively represent the world to the player as sounds, images, interactions, and text. Within the context of a game of Scrabble, words are reduced to sequences of letters-they literally do not have meaning as words. Rather, the letters are signs that have value as puzzle pieces that must be carefully arranged according to the rules of spelling. Looking at chains of signifiers within a game means dissecting a game in order to view the system at a micro-level to see how the internal machinery operates. Entire games themselves can also be identified as signs. 59 Signs Are Interpreted Signs are interpreted; they stand for something to somebody. It was one of Saussure's fundamental insights that the meanings of signs are arrived at arbitrarily via cultural convention. The idea that the meaning of signs rests not in the signs themselves but in the surrounding system is critical to our study of games. Children playing Tag during recess may change the sign from "home-base" from game to game, or even in the middle of a game, if circumstances allow. A tree in the corner of the playground might be used one day, or a pile of rocks another. Thus signs are essentially arbitrary, and gain value through a set of agreed upon conventions. 59 Meaning Results When a Sign is Interpreted Although this may seem like an obvious point it is important to not, for it calls attention to the outcome of the process by which signs gain value within a system. If player A in a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors holds up three fingers in the shape of a "W" instead of two in the shape of a "V," she has failed to create a sign that has value, or meaning, within the rock, paper, scissors sign structure of the game. Player B might say, "What is that supposed to be?" in an attempt to infuse the sign with value within the system of the game. If player A responds, "Scissors," then player B has two choices. She can either accept the new sign as representative of "scissors" or she can reject the interpretation. If she accepts the new representation, the players have, in effect, added a new sign to the system; a three-fingered sign that now means "scissors." 60 Context Shapes Interpretation Context is a key component to our general definition of design. Design is "the process by which a designer creates a context to be encountered by a participant, from which meaning emerges." We can also understand context in relation to the idea of structure, which in semiotics refers to a set of regulations or guidelines that prescribe how signs, or elements of a system, can be combined. In language for example, we refer to structure as grammar. In games, this concept of grammar takes the form of game rules, which create a structure for the game, describing how all of the elements of the game interact with one another. 61 This relationship between structure, context, and meaning tells us that the act of interpretation relies, in part, on the movement between known and unknown information. To design is to create meaning. Meaning that can thrill and inspire. Meaning that moves and dances and plays. Meaning that helps people understand the world in new ways. Designers sculpt these experiences of meaning by creating not just one isolated signifier but by constructing whole systems of interlocking parts. As Saussure points out, in language the value of one sign only arises in relation to other signs. The meaningful play you provide for your players emerges from the designed system of a game- and how that game interacts with larger social and cultural systems. What is it that game designers design? Systems. 62 **Summary** - There are many general definitions of design. Each emphasizes different aspects of the vast range of design practices. - Our definition of design emphasizes the creation of meaningful experience: **Design** is the process by which a **designer** creates a **context** to be encountered by a **participant**, from which **meaning** emerges. - **Semiotics** is the study of meaning. It is primarily concerned with the question of how signs represent, or denote. - People use **signs** to designate objects or ideas. Because a sign represents something other than itself, we take the **representation** as the **meaning** of the sign. Charles Pierce identifies four semiotic concepts: 1. A sign represents something other than itself. 2. Signs are interpreted. 3. Meaning results when a sign is interpreted. 4. Context shapes interpretation. - **A sign represents something other than itself**: In a game, gestures, objects, behaviors, and other elements act as signs. In the game Assassin, a tap denotes a "kill." - **Signs are interpreted**: A sign stands for something *to somebody*. Meaning emerges in a game as players take on active roles as interpreters of the game's signs. - Meaning results when a sign is interpreted: A sign stands for something to somebody *in some respect or capacity*. The meaning of a sign emerges from relationships between elements of a system. - **Context shapes interpretation**: *Context* is the environment of a sign that affects interpretation. The related phenomenon of structure also shapes interpretation. *Structure* is a set of rules or guidelines that prescribe how signs can be combined. 63 Chapter 5: Systems :) Games are intrinsically systemic: all games can be understood as systems. What do we mean by this? System 1. A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole. 2. A functionally related group of elements, especially: 1. The human body regarded as a functional physiological unit. 2. An organism as a whole, especially with regard to its vital processes or functions. 3. A group of physiologically or anatomically complementary organs or parts: the nervous system; the skeletal system. 4. A group of interacting mechanical or electrical components. 5. A network of structures and channels, as for communication, travel, or distribution. 3. An organized set of interrelated ideas or principles. 4. A social, economic, or political organizational form. 5. A naturally occurring group of objects or phenomena: the solar system. 6. A set of objects or phenomena grouped together for classification or analysis. 7. A condition of harmonious, orderly interaction. 8. An organized and coordinated method; a procedure. Despite differences in emphasis, there is something that all of these definitions of 'system' share. Look for it in the very first definition on the list, which describes systems as "as group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole." This understanding of a system as set of parts that relate to form a whole contains all of the other special cases of this same concept. When understood in this way- as a set of parts that together form a complex whole- it is clear that games are systems. As systems, games provide contexts for interaction, which can be spaces, objects, and behaviors that players explore, manipulate, and inhabit. Systems come to us in many forms, from mechanical and mathematical systems to conceptual and cultural ones. 64 A *system* is a set of things that affect one another within an environment to form a larger pattern that is different from any of the individual parts. Let's take a detailed look at a particular game, Chess. We will first think about Chess as a strictly *strategic and mathematical system.* This means considering Chess as a purely *formal system of rules.* Framed in this way, the four elements of the system of Chess are as follows: - The first is **objects** - the parts, elements, or variables within the system. These may be physical or abstract or both, depending on the nature of the system. - Second, a system consists of **attributes** - the qualities or properties of the system and its objects. - Third a system has *internal relationships* among its objects. This characteristic is a crucial aspect of systems. - Fourth, systems also possess an *environment.* They do not exist in a vacuum but are affected by their surroundings. - Objects: The objects in Chess are *the pieces* on the board and *the board* itself. - Attributes: These are *the characteristics the rules give these objects*, such as the starting positions of each piece and the specific ways each piece can move and capture. - Internal Relationships: Although the attributes determine the possible movements of the pieces, the internal relationships are *the actual positions* of the pieces on the board. These spatial relationships on the grid determine strategic relationships: one piece might be threatening another one, or protecting an empty square. Some of the pieces might not even be on the board. - Environment: If we are looking just at the formal system of Chess, then the environment for the interaction of the objects is **the play** of the game itself. Play provides the context for the formal elements of a game. - We can extend our focus and think of Chess as a system with experiential dimensions as well. This means thinking of Chess not just as a mathematical and logical system, but also as *a system of interaction* between the players and the game. Changing the way that we frame the game affects how we would define the four components of a system. Framed as an experiential system, the elements of the system of Chess are as follows: - **Objects**: Because we are looking at Chess as the interaction between players, the objects of the system are actually the two players themselves. - **Attributes**: The attributes of each player are the pieces he or she controls, as well as the current state of the game. - **Internal Relationships**: Because the players are the objects, their interaction constitutes the internal relationships of the system. These relationships would include not just their strategic interaction, but their social, psychological, and emotional communication as well. - **Environment**: Considering Chess as an experiential system, the total environment would have to include not just the board and pieces of the game, but the immediate environment that contained the two players as well. We might term this **the context of play.** Any part of the environment that facilitated play would be included in this context. For example, if it were a play-by-email game of Chess, the context of play would have to include the software environment in which the players send and receive moves. Any context of play would also include players' **preconceptions** of Chess, such as the fact that they think it is cool or nerdy to play. This web of physical, psychological, and cultural associations delineate-not the experience of the game -but rather **the context that surrounds the game**, the environment within which the experience of play occurs. 65 Lastly, we can expand our focus and think about Chess as a *cultural system*. Here the concern is with how the game fits into culture at large. There are many ways to conceive of games as culture. For example, say that we wanted to look at the game of Chess as a representation of ideological values associated with a particular time and place. We would want to make connections between the design of the game and larger structures of culture. We would be looking, for example, to identify cultural references made in the *design of the game pieces* (What is the gendered power relationship between King and Queen implied in their visual design?); references made in the *structure and rituals of game play* (Was playing Chess polite and gentlemanly or vulgar and cutthroat?); and references made to *the people who play* (Who are they-intellectuals, military types, or computer geeks?). Framed as a cultural system, the four elements of the system of Chess are as follows: __ - **Objects:** The object is the game of Chess itself, considered in its broadest cultural sense. - **Attributes:** The attributes of the game would be the designed elements of the game, as well as information about how, when, and why the game was made and used. - **Internal Relationships:** The relationships would be the linkages between the game and culture. We might find, for example, a relationship between the "black and white" sides of the game and the way that race is referenced when the game pieces are represented figuratively. - **Environment:** The environment of the system extends beyond any individual game of Chess, or even the context of play. The total environment for this cultural framing of Chess is culture itself, in all of its forms. 66 Framing Systems Even though we were talking about the same game each time, as we proceeded from a formal to an experiential to a cultural analysis, our sense of what we considered as part of the system grew. In fact, each analysis integrated the previous system into itself. The hierarchical nature of complex systems makes this integration possible. Because of the hierarchical nature of the critical or complex system, with interactions over all scales, we can arbitrarily define what we mean by a unit: In a biological system, one can choose either a single cell, a single individual, such as an ant, the ant's nest, or the ant as a species, as the adaptive unit. In a human social system, one might choose an individual, a family, a company, or a country as the unit. No unit at any level has the right to claim priority status. - PER BAK, complexity theorist In a game system, as in a human social system or biological system, hierarchies and interactions are scalable and embedded, as complexity theorist Per Bak points out in the quote above. Although no single framing has an inherent priority, there are specific relationships among the kinds of framings given here. The formal system constituting the rules of a game are embedded in its system of play. Likewise, the system of play is embedded in the cultural framing of the game. __ Similarly, when you are designing a game you are not designing just a set of rules, but a set of rules that will always be experienced as play within a cultural context. As a result, you never have the luxury of completely forgetting about context when you are focusing on experience, or on experience and culture when you're focusing on the game's formal structure. It can be useful at times to limit the number of ways you are framing the game, but it is important to remember that a game's formal, experiential, and cultural qualities always exist as integrated phenomena. 67 There are two types of systems, *open* and *closed*. This concept speaks not only to games themselves, but also to the relationships games have to players and their contexts. A *closed system* has no interchange with its environment. An *open system* receives matter and energy from its environment and passes matter and energy to its environment. What makes a system open or closed is the relationship between the system and the context, or environment, that surrounds it. The "matter and energy" that passes between a system and its environment can take a number of forms, from pure data (a thermometer measuring temperature and passing the information to the system of a computer program that tries to predict the weather), to human interaction (a person operating and interacting with the system of a car in order to drive down a highway). In both examples the system is open because there is some kind of transfer between the system and its environment. The software system passes temperature information from the outside climate. The car system exchanges input and output with the driver in a variety of ways (speedometer, gas pedal, steering wheel, etc.). __ When we frame a game as a system it is useful to recognize whether it is being treated as an open or closed system. If we look at our three framings of Chess, which framings were open and which were closed? - *Formal system*: As a formal system of rules, Chess is a closed, self-contained system. - *Cultural system*: As a cultural system, Chess is clearly an open system, as we are essentially considering the way that the game intersects with other contexts such as society, language, history, etc. - *Experiential system*: As an experiential system of play, things get tricky. Framing Chess as an experiential system could lead to understanding the game as either open or closed. If we only consider the players and their strategic game actions, we could say that once the game starts, the only relevant events are internal to the game. In this sense, the game is a closed system. On the other hand, we could emphasize the emotional and social baggage that players bring into the game, the distractions of the environment, the reputations that are gained or lost after the game is over. In this sense, the play of Chess would be an open system. Framed as play, games can be either open or closed. _ In defining and understanding key concepts like design and systems, our aim is to better understand the particular challenges of game design and meaningful play. Game designers do practice design, and they do so by **creating systems**. But other kinds of designers create systems as well-so what is so special about games? The systems that game designers create have many peculiar qualities, but one of the most prominent is **that they are interactive**, that they require direct participation in the form of **play.** 68 Summary A *system* is a set of parts that interrelate to form a complex whole. There are many ways to frame a game as a system: a mathematical system, a social system, a representational system, etc. There are four elements that all systems share: ♦ *Objects* are the parts, elements, or variables within the system. ♦ *Attributes* are the qualities or properties of the system and its objects. ♦ *Internal relationships* are the relations among the objects. ♦ *Environment* is the context that surrounds the system. The way these elements are identified in any individual game depends on the way it is framed as a system. The four elements would be different, for example, if a game were framed as a formal, mathematical system, an experiential system of play, or as a cultural system. These three framings of a game as a system, **formal**, **experiential**, and **cultural**, are embedded in each other. A game as a formal system is always embedded within an experiential system, and a game as a cultural system contains formal and experiential systems. • Although all three levels (formal, experiential, and cultural) exist simultaneously, it can be useful to focus on just one of them when making an analysis or solving a design problem. It is crucial when designing a game to understand how these three levels interact and interrelate to each other. • Systems can be open or closed. An open system has an exchange of some kind with its environment. A closed system is isolated from its environment. Whether or not you consider a game as a closed or open system depends on the way you frame it: ♦ **Formal** systems are closed systems. ♦ **Experiential** systems can be open or closed systems. ♦ **Cultural** systems are open systems. 69 *The word "interactivity" isn't just about giving players choices; it pretty much completely defines the game medium*. - Warren Spector, RE:PLAY: Game Design + Game Culture Introducing Interactivity Play implies interactivity: to play with a game, a toy, a person, an idea, is to interact with it. More specifically, playing a game means making choices within a game system designed to support actions and outcomes in meaningful ways. Every action results in a change affecting the overall system. This process of action and outcome comes about because players interact with the designed system of the game. Interaction takes place across all levels, from the formal interaction of the game's objects and pieces, to the social interaction of players, to the cultural interaction of the game with contexts beyond its space of play. _ In games, it is the explicit interaction of the player that allows the game to advance. From the interactivity of choosing a path to selecting a target for destruction to collecting magic stars, the player has agency to initiate and perform a whole range of explicit actions. In some sense, it is these moments of explicit action that define the tone and texture of a specific game experience. 70 We begin with a general question: What is "**interaction?**" Here are some basic dictionary definitions: *Interaction* - 1. intermediate action; 2. mutual or reciprocal action or influence; *Interact* - to act on each other; act reciprocally *Interactive* - reciprocally active; acting upon or influencing each other; allowing a two-way flow of information between a device and a user, responding to the user's input. In the most general terms, interactivity simply describes an active relationship between two things. Instead of asking about interactivity in the abstract, what does it mean to say that something is "interactive?" More specifically, how does interactivity emerge from within a system? 71 Each of these definitions provides its own critical way of understanding interactivity: it takes place within a system, it is relational, it allows for direct intervention within a representational context, and it is iterative. Yet none of the definitions describes how and where interactivity can take place, and none of them address the relationship between structure and context, two key elements in the construction of meaning. In other words, none of these definitions resolve the question of whether or not all media, or even all experiences, are interactive. If interactivity is really so ubiquitous, can it possibly be a useful term for understanding games? 72 Each of the previous definitions foreground a particular aspect of interaction; in our view, they are all are useful ways of defining interactivity. Rather than try and distill them into a composite definition, we have elected instead to offer a model of interactivity that accommodates each of these definitions. The model presents four modes of interactivity, or four different levels of engagement, that a person might have with an interactive system. Most "interactive" activities incorporate some or all of them simultaneously. ***Mode 1**: Cognitive interactivity; or interpretive participation* This is the psychological, emotional, and intellectual participation between a person and a system. Example: the complex imaginative interaction between a single player and a graphic adventure game. ***Mode 2**: Functional interactivity; or utilitarian participation* Included here: functional, structural interactions with the material components of the system (whether real or virtual). For example, that graphic adventure you played: how was the interface? How "sticky" were the buttons? What was the response time? How legible was the text on your high-resolution monitor? All of these elements are part of the total experience of interaction. ***Mode 3**: Explicit interactivity; or participation with designed choices and procedures* This is "interaction" in the obvious sense of the word: overt participation like clicking the non-linear links of a hypertext novel, following the rules of a board game, rearranging the clothing on a set of paper dolls, using the joystick to maneuver Ms. Pac-Man. Included here: choices, random events, dynamic simulations, and other procedures programmed into the interactive experience. ***Mode 4**: Beyond-the-object-interactivity; or participation within the culture of the object* This is interaction outside the experience of a single designed system. The clearest examples come from fan culture, in which participants co-construct communal realities, using designed systems as the raw material. Will Superman come back to life? Does Kirk love Spock? __ The rest of this chapter focuses primarily on explicit interactivity and how game designers can create the kinds of choices that result in meaningful play. However, even though we will be focusing on Mode 3, it is important to remember that the other three modes of interactivity are also present as players make explicit choices. 72 Interaction comes in many forms. But for the purposes of designing interactivity, it is important to be able to recognize what forms of interactivity designers create. As an example, compare the following two actions: someone dropping an apple on the ground and someone rolling dice on a craps table. Although both are examples of interaction proper, only the second act, the rolling of the dice, is a form of designed interaction. 73 Remember that meaningful play is tied not only to the concept of player action and system outcome, but also to a particular context in which the action occurs. __ The description of "someone dropping an apple on the ground," on the other hand, does not contain a designed structure or context. What is missing from this description is an explicitly stated context within which the dropping of the apple occurs. If we change the scenario a little by adding a second player and asking the two participants to toss the apple back and forth, we move toward a situation of designed interaction. If we ask the two apple-tossers to count the number of times in a row they caught the apple before dropping it, we add an even fuller context for the interaction. The simple addition of a rule designating that the players quantify their interaction locates the single act of toss-catch within an overall system. Each element in the system is assigned a meaning: the toss, the catch, and the dropped toss. Even in the simplest of contexts, design creates meaning. 73 Interaction and Choice The careful crafting of player experience through a system of interaction is critical to the design of meaningful play. Yet, just what makes an interactive experience "meaningful"? We have argued that in order to create instances of meaningful play, experience has to incorporate not just explicit interactivity, but meaningful choice. When a player makes a choice in a game, the system responds in some way. The relationship between the player's choice and the system's response is one way to characterize the depth and quality of interaction. --- ### **References** Rules of Play PDF https://gamifique.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/1-rules-of-play-game-design-fundamentals.pdf