Motivation
Previous research
In my master’s dissertation (Duarte, 2015), I proposed a conceptual framework first used in phonology --- the Distinctive Features system (DFs) --- for the study of games. Although the dissertation is written in Portuguese, its key points were also published in English, in a peer-reviewed paper (Duarte & Battaiola, 2017).
In order to validate the proposed framework, I endeavoured to study the strategical analysis process of board game players. Participants in an extension course on modern board games were asked to play several games, previously unknown to them. Before and after playing, participants were asked to evaluate strategic characteristics and their own expectations and reactions to the games.
Analysis of collected data was greatly enhanced with reference to the MDA (Hunicke et al., 2004) framework (Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics). Indeed, the results prompted me to propose a modification of this framework (Duarte, 2015a).
The next step in this research was again based on empirical data, this time with focus on cooperative mechanics in games (Duarte & Battaiola, 2017).
The data collection steps in both previous phases presented some challenges and some puzzles; most are sketched in (Duarte & Battaiola, 2017), and one of them is the main motivation for this proposal.
The puzzle
I have been playing extensively since the late 1970s. Until very recently, few foreign games were published in Brazil. Due to many players’ scant knowledge of English, I often created or translated player aids. During my research, I did the same with games presented to participants.
In this vein, the participants demonstrated a behavior pattern with which I was very familiar from previous years, but which had until then gone unnoticed. During play, questions about some rule or other were almost always asked out loud to me, or, if I was at another table, to other players --- even when the player could answer the question from a player aid in his hands, and even when just asking the question could give valuable information on his intents to his adversaries.
I have observed this behavior pattern several times. Further reflection has suggested that what may be at stake here is the relationship between players and rules.
Players and rules
Most (perhaps all?) definitions of game put a strong emphasis on rules. This goes back, at least, to Huizinga:
All play has its rules The rules of a game are absolutely binding and allow no doubt
(Huizinga, 1949), p. 11
and is still very much present:
Rules Define Games
(Adams & Dormans, 2012), p. 1
Some games bend this almost to the breaking point --- Nomic (Suber, 1990) comes to mind --- but it can be safely assumed that games must, indeed, have rules.
Still in Huizinga, we read his thoughts on what is the role played by rules in a game:
Play demands order absolute and supreme. The least deviation from it ‘spoils the game’, robs it of its character and makes it worthless.
(Huizinga, 1949), p. 10
He follows this with a discussion on “spoilsports” and “cheats” --- players who violate the rules. In his view, cheats may be tolerated, since they pretend to be playing the game; but spoilsports shatter the magic circle itself.
In truth, the relationship between players and rules is quite more complex than this, and there are many shades of gray between Huizinga’s stark extremes. This is more apparent in non-digital games, in which the players themselves must implement and enforce the rules --- unlike digital games, in which the game system itself plays this role. This difference is at the root of my proposed modification of the MDA framework (Duarte, 2015a).
In any game, the rules are the embodiment of its designer’s intent. In a digital game, the rules are embedded in the game system and in the player interface, and the player is mostly unable to change them. In a non-digital game, the designer’s intent is mediated by written rules, which will be interpreted by the players. The introduction of the human element as a mediator between the designer’s intent and the played game can introduce many unpredictable elements.
Further complication arises from the social nature of many games. Player groups will often have social rules. Some of these rules will have very little impact on games (who brings the snacks, for instance), but some of them may affect the games themselves. For instance, a group of Diplomacy players may consider that any agreement during a game is liable to be broken at any time, and may thus have a very dim view of players who trust each other implicitly --- and may even regard this a serious breach of the rules, even though the written rules of Diplomacy do not include this.
On the other hand, the group may very well decide that some rule or another in a rulebook is wrong, or inadequate, as written, and thus decide to change it, or ignore it. This is most prevalent in role-playing games groups, but is by no means restricted to them.
Even when the rules themselves are not changed, their enforcement may vary. For instance, when teaching a game, many rule breaches by the novice players may be glossed over by the more experienced players; or the players may distinguish between “friendly” games and “serious” games. A card trick which is amusingly tolerated in Gin Rummy or War will be considered a serious breach of the rules of a Bridge or Poker game.
As I mentioned above, I borrowed the DF concept from phonology. The relationship between players and rules suggests that games and language may have more common characteristics.
Games as complex adaptive systems
The systemic perspective is a very useful approach to game studies (Salen & Zimmerman, 2006). The relationship between rules and players may be seen as an emergent feature of a particular game (Sweetser, 2008).
However, labeling it as an emergent feature does not go very far in understanding it. A better abstract tool to understand it may be the concept of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) --- a concept that originated in mathematics and physics, but which has been successfully used in humanities, such as Lansing’s work in the field of anthropology (Lansing & Downey, s.d.).
In this paper, Lansing departs from a CAS-informed perspective of natural language to anthropological research, using networks to map social relationships, relationships between societies and local environments, and the transformations of such networks over time. Human agency and emergent behaviors are some of the most prominent features which can be studied from the CAS perspective --- and this suggests that CAS may also be useful to model the relationship between players and rules.
Methodology
In order to analyze the relationship between players and rules as a CAS, it will be necessary to collect data. I intend to build upon the experience of my previous research, and to establish an environment in which participants play selected board games.
As the first step, I propose to evaluate the use of player aids by players, when learning a new game. A player aid is a summary of some important rules of a game; as such, it presents a readily available source of information on the rules to the players.
At this point, my intention is to answer some initial questions: are player aids used at all? when are player aids used? are there any patterns in the use of player aids?
Ideally, this may be extended in order to investigate the establishment of rules inside a player group --- whether game-affecting rules, or more social rules.
It must be stressed that this research, as proposed, is exploratory. Both user experience and ethnographical data collection methods will probably be useful, but this is still an open question.