droqen's forum-shaped notebook

I haven't yet read it. I'm staring at the really beautiful icon-work that Jack did, that shows the "Understanding Aliveness" letter-postcard-icon with all of its connections to past letterclubs . . . in it I glimpse

• LIVING games
• What .. is res[ponsible?] .. Who .. responsibility
• .. Re[solution] Pro[blem]
• Em[ergence?]

1. It opens with a really strong gif. I've now added mushishi to my to-read list . . .

"I take it to mean in an 'organic' way, rather than an 'authoritarian' way [..] It is not asserting itself where it doesn't belong. It simply belongs." I think this is the way I take it too. It's good to call it out. I understand the 'authoritarian' feeling given off by the description of life and living . . .

"I think [What games are alive?] is a good first question to answer [..] Is aliveness a thing that exists when a player plays a game? Or is it something inherent to a game's design? Or a game's visible history of being played? // My instinct is to want it to be something inherent to the design, rather than something created by any number of human players."

I'm with you.

Regarding my quote "Something that respects the player's living process, as opposed to a game which boils play down to a number (e.g. a high score)"

Jack writes "Isn't chasing a high score a very alive activity? Or is it not enough to simply be an instrument of life? Is aliveness something more?"

Hmm. I need to remember what I was thinking when I wrote that . . . the activity of chasing is a very alive activity . . .
right, the activity is alive, but it's the post-action that is nonliving . . . can the game itself be allowed to 'forget' all of what the player did?

"I am hearing echos of 'What (or who) is responsible?' here."
--> I wrote 'W(ow)ir' . . . what was I trying to say there?
Oh yes, the problem of . . . specifically who is responsible for the resolution problem? I think I need to detangle, pull back. Think about the process.

Alexander does not give examples of humans interacting with things, but rather, the world and how it feels, whether it invites or not, and whether it has traces of the people who live there. Did people change their environment? It is specifically people taking part in THE ACTIVITY OF ARCHITECTURE that he is interested in, though not the capital-A Architecture, rather his more casual everyday sort of architecture, where anyone is in fact free to play with their environment. move a table. paint a wall. carve something into stone. as long as it is to . . . help the whole. an act of living process.

"[Play] is a transforming process, but what is it preserving? Is it up to the player to identify what is preserved? Or is it up to the game?"

"Alive," "living," may be a word with too much baggage here . . . there is a liveliness to games, in that they are played by people, living people, doing things. What about organic? Organic. Organic has the same association with life, with nature, with the living world, without the double association with movement and vivaciousness.

Having finished Book Two, and dusting my hands off, I can see that the idea of a 'living world' is very much about . . . how it is produced . . . the means of its production. It is involving people in the creation of the world, in the creation of their world. It is about a world full of adaptation.

Games already do this to a great extent. I have joked that certain games ask you to do some of the design yourself. For example . . . someone who does a Nuzlocke run, or a speedrun, is more actively participating in the 'design' of their experience. This is a good thing. This is what it means for a thing to be alive . . .

"It is a transforming process, but what is it preserving?"

The feeling.
The centers . . .
A game 'grows' out of a desire to play, out of some specific feeling of what it means to play in some specific way. That feeling of play is what is preserved . . . "I want to play with this," "I want to play with that."

"I said one of my big current questions was: "what makes a space something we connect with, something inviting, and rewarding, and staying?"" -Jack

Big topics. Trying to simplify, to understand what the discussion is at this point. I'm going to go back and re-read . . . what Jack said before, what I said before.

In my happy new year letterclub:

QuoteI'd like to put the questions to you three, coauthors, copilots:

What is letterclub?
What will, or should, letterclub become next? (if anything?)

Jack said:

Quoteletterclub is a place where we are encouraged to go out on a limb that has struck our curiosity, and describe what we find there, and what questions we still have about it. And to be inspired . . .

QuoteI have been wanting to synthesize some thoughts I've built up over my now five(!) years of interrogating the nature of puzzles and games. But that is not really a letterclub quest.

I want to touch this^! Bring it in. See if it sings. . .

QuoteI have also been thinking about worlds, and what makes a space something we connect with, something inviting, and rewarding, and staying. Something more than the gimmicks of game design. And this seems very much a letterclub quest. Even a continuation of haiku games in a way!

1. letterclub is a place for asking questions, exploring, being inspired by each other's perspectives.

2. jack has been thinking about his thoughts re: interrogating the nature of puzzles and games.

3. jack has been thinking about inviting, rewarding, staying worlds, 'more than the gimmicks of game design' [is 2, then, not 'more than the gimmicks of game design'?]

4. my post on living games, on aliveness - mmorpgs? something about seeing traces of people in the world. ah, perhaps this suggests an answer to the responsibility/resolution problem . . . i like to . . . see environments shaped by their inhabitants to suit their needs. a living game allows its players to shape their environment as much as is necessary for it to be well-adapted to their needs. sometimes this is very little shaping, other times it is a lot of shaping.

4b. jack brings up mario. i want to understand: what about mario is living? he writes . . . "'why mario?'. It really could be any game, I suppose, any game that you play well." hmm. 'play well.' will have to think about this more.

5. jack: a common feeling as platonic ideal or something we are capable of feeling?
as i've let go of semantics arguments so too have i let go of ontological ones. what really is the difference between a platonic ideal which we behave as though it is true, and the actual truth? i don't think i care, actually. there is a difference but unless the difference presents a problem i will ignore it. new tenet: "no more ontological hand-wringing"

6. organic. already discussed above. perhaps consider the word 'organic' rather than 'living'? not sure.

oh no page break

7. gage's talk. i have specific thoughts about this - it is about development. the questions that arise. the 'latent centers', weak, the things that come up naturally in the common feelings. you develop the game according to these desires. if the feeling 'i want to play with this' arises, that is a weak latent center . . . you strengthen it. wow i can't believe i didn't include this in the post! but i must talk about it. i must.

8. aliveness. jack says "i want it to be something inherent to design, rather than something created by any number of human players". i agree. this is actually the thing that rubs me the wrong way about sicart's writing. he essentially seems to say that the design of the game does not matter, and that the responsibility and focus lies, and should lie, entirely on the players and their actions and their play. but no, this is a built environment! agree. agree agree agree with jack.

jack talks about some things from Rules of Play. perhaps just semantics games with the word play? probably worth considering seriously at least once.

Quotewe use the word 'play' to refer to the action of a button on a remote.

to put something into 'play'. Push over the first domino.

Watching a domino chain fall is a single player game that is alive.

The dominoes are alive while they are falling.

QuoteBut, I suppose there is an extra weight that comes not from simply being in action, like a tape player, or a chain reaction, but instead actively reinforcing itself within a larger ecosystem of change.

^emergence, emergentness? not from being in action like a tape player . . . actively reinforcing itself . . . is jack saying that the dominoes are actively reinforcing themselves? i'm not sure i understand

Quotethe ball is 'in play' vs. the ball is 'out of bounds'. When it is 'in play', the game, the simulation, is evolving, transforming. To me, this aliveness is simultaneously enough and not enough to satisfy our understanding of this feeling.

^simultaneously enough and not enough. i'm not satisfied with this construction! what does that mean?

Quote[the game, the simulation] is a transforming process, but what is it preserving? Is it up to the player to identify what is preserved? Or is it up to the game?

^hmm. what is it preserving. it must be preserving the centers of play . . .

Quote from: droqenSomething that respects the player's living process, as opposed to a game which boils play down to a number (e.g. a high score)

QuoteIsn't chasing a high score a very alive activity? Or is it not enough to simply be an instrument of life? Is aliveness something more?

^aliveness is about building-up . . . interesting . . . you build the environment to support the play, the play of chasing a high score. i was wrong to say that a high score does not respect the player's living process. what if the player's living process is perfectly served by that number? think: what does the player want, why is the player doing what they're doing? are they wanting for more.

are they empowered to build their world.

9. A World
aliveness as a lens for . . . "what makes a space something we connect with, something inviting, and rewarding, and staying?"

QuoteI want to get past this question of responsibility – is the game's design going to reveal life to any player?

^of course not, it can't! life . . . is not revealed . . . it is highlighted . . . hmm. maybe it is revealed. 'reveal' is a nice word.

QuoteOr is the player going to create life from any game? Or should we hope for something in the middle? [..] Perhaps it is just a matter of preference.

^I am adamant for some reason that it is not . . . something in the middle, or a matter of preference. There is a clear answer.

QuoteThere are times and places for games that take responsibility, and times and places for players to take responsibility. Then the question becomes: which are we primarily interested in, at this moment, in this quest to understand aliveness? Aliveness in play, or aliveness in games ______ ?

^There is one answer that captures all of this. If we allow for a split like this into 'kinds', we will . . . not truly solve anything. That is my uncomfortably strong feeling. I am looking for something like a general theory of physics.

Shortening my notes upon notes.
LETTERCLUB IS A SALON. this is no difficulty
JACK INTERROGATING THE NATURE OF PUZZLES AND GAMES. inquire, invite this in
COMFORTABLE WORLDS. (ah, such overlap with Alexander's architecture!)
THE RESPONSIBILITY QUESTION. it depends on the type of play, on the player's needs. does the player want responsibility? they should take it, they should be able to take it. each design has a different responsibility requirement. this must be about design. note my beef with Sicart's work. the general theory is local adaptation.
"LIVING" PLAY VS PLAYING "WELL".
A RELEASE FROM SEMANTICS AND ONTOLOGIES. meta. but useful?
"ORGANIC", NOT LIFE, NOT AUTHORITATIVE. born of a living process, organically formed
DESIGNING FOR PROBLEM SOLVERS important. so important. play-desire as latent-center. play-desire as what-must-be-preserved. "are they empowered to do that which they desire to do?" -> the way to design a game like this is to start with a desire, support it, and see what desires blossom naturally. again and again. empower the player to do more that they want to be able to do, in a way that is structure-preserving. step by step adaptation . . . the most wonderful answer to each question . . . without adding new centers, only strengthening existing ones.
COMMON FEELING, NOT A MATTER OF PREFERENCE. one solution. one general solution. if there are two cases, find the solution that marries them . . . that solution may be a larger pattern with room for local adaptation

Shortening my notes upon notes.

LETTERCLUB IS A SALON.

JACK INTERROGATING THE NATURE OF PUZZLES AND GAMES.
--> What are your questions? I think they can be a part of this. I am most interested in process . . . not what are puzzles but how are they born? Perhaps it folds neatly into another part?

COMFORTABLE WORLDS.
--> What is the 'play' in a comfortable world? What is the activity? What is the feeling of the activity and play?

THE RESPONSIBILITY QUESTION.
--> Is there a need to mention Sicart?
--> I fundamentally agree with Jack, the problem is - must be - the design not the player. Oh this connects to COMMON FEELING

"LIVING" PLAY VS PLAYING "WELL".

A RELEASE FROM SEMANTICS AND ONTOLOGIES.
--> Explicitly note the dismissal of this topic. Maybe a short conversation for the discord group.

"ORGANIC", NOT LIFE, NOT AUTHORITATIVE.
--> Explicitly agree with Jack's choice of words.

DESIGNING FOR PROBLEM SOLVERS
*** Jump straight into this one, because I have my answer.

COMMON FEELING, NOT A MATTER OF PREFERENCE.
--> One general solution must be found. That is part of the driving inspiration between my own desire to believe in Common Feeling. This answer's Zeigfreid's question and my question following.

WHY COMMON FEELING?
--> Finding a general solution. The problem is the design. The player may be idiosyncratic, we must design for the common feeling . . . Common feeling as something common yet multifaceted, not scattered into untraceable pieces but part of an interconnected whole.

DESIGNING FOR PROBLEM SOLVERS
--> Zach Gage has written "This is the goal" but not the process, this always bothered me. Well now I know the process. Book Two, biiiitch!

THE RESPONSIBILITY QUESTION
--> Who is responsible? Both of us. It is a whole. However the responsibility is part of the design. What parts need to be adapted to the individual? We can discover this, we can answer this. Sicart is attempting to make decisions too soon about what is necessary. It is more fine grain than that.

COMFORTABLE WORLDS
--> Subcategory of the responsibility question? This is a particular vibe. We can solve for it. USE AS EXAMPLE OF THE ABOVE.

SALON, EXPLICIT PRESERVATION OF THOUGHTS
--> I don't feel good about my crossed-out items!  Jack interrogating the nature of puzzles and games.  Living play vs playing well.  Organic games, living games.  Semantics and ontologies.  These do fit together.

THE NATURE OF PUZZLES AND GAMES
--> Is this related to PLAYING WELL? Tell me more

SEMANTIC PROBLEMS WITH "LIVING" GAMES
--> I can't answer this yet. I can see problems with the word "living", it evokes "liveliness", which is present in games aesthetically, simulation. What is life? Does it include the illusion of life? Architecture stops at the building. But we go further . . .

ONTOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
--> I don't worry too much anymore about questions of truth vs perception. It's worth saying that.

Oh shit! Jack also posted a followup, "Play to LIVE (https://letterclub.games/2023/02/04/play-to-live/)".