from: https://www.ericzimmerman.com/assets/pdfs/MCJ_Zimmerman.pdf
via, conversationally: https://bsky.app/profile/mattweiner19.bsky.social/post/3mb5yghkdyc2t

Revised definition of the idea of the magic circle: ". . . when a game is played, new meanings are generated. These meanings mix elements intrinsic to the game and elements outside the game."

what is my purpose? i would like to understand what a game is without gameplay, or even, what a game is without play. it follows then that i must understand what a game is without a player. i notice that many definitions of games are given in two parts: a game is a set of formal qualities regarding the artifact + some experiential qualities. what is the purpose of connecting these two? for example, the definition "a repeating set of chores that evoke surprisingly strong emotions" could be separated out into two aspects. "a repeating set of chores" may have any output, and then any input may "evoke surprisingly strong emotions". what can be learned from this?

inputs, formal parts
- a repeating set of chores
- a series of choices
- a system of rules in which agents compete by making decisions
- activities performed
- an attempt to overcome obstacles
- has a goal
- has rules
- has or is a system
- a force acts against the player
- ("has a player" is taken for granted, almost never specified as part of the definition)
- manipulation
- has an outcome
- a problem-solving activity
- engages players
- closed, formal system
- structured conflict

outputs, experiential parts
- (choices are) interesting
- (decisions are) endogenously meaningful
- (result of activities is) behavioral rewards
- (result of activities is) social rewards
- (result of activities is) psychomotor rewards
- (obstacles are) unnecessary [i don't think this counts as experiential, it's more formal]
- (attempts, participation, etc are) voluntary
- (outcome is) uncertain [i don't think this counts as experiential, it's more formal]
- (activity is) approached with a playful attitude
- indulges curiousity

not sure if this is really a proper dichotomy at this point but something i want to examine

idiosyncratic/personally provided definitions
- failure is part of the cultivated aesthetic experience
- when pixels dance to your baton
- ". . . anything you are still wrong about. so puzzles stop being games once solved . . ."
- a repeating set of chores that evoke surprisingly strong emotions
- voluntary / interactive / uncertain outcome / goal / has rules / has a force acting against the player / if there are multiple players (with opposing goals) they can impact one another

from books and stuff, still idiosyncratic but with more reach
- selection of idiosyncratic means / the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles
- a series of interesting choices
- closed, formal system that engages players in a structured conflict and resolves its uncertainty in an unequal outcome
- a problem-solving activity, approached with a playful attitude
- a system of rules in which agents compete by making ambiguous endogenously meaningful decisions ('endogenously' is roughly synonymous with 'intrinsically motivated', i.e. decisions which are meaningful due to the individual finding or making 'their own' meaning in them)
- a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome (blah so boring and dry! it just has all the expected bits)
- voluntary activity or occupation (this is "play", not games)
- manipulation that indulges curiousity (this is "play", not games)
- activities performed for self-amusement that have behavioral, social, and psychomotor rewards (this is "play", not games)
- free movement within a more rigid structure (this is "play", not games)

credit given for quotes in this kinopio

my go l is not to redefine games. i'll state that for myself. so, like, what the hell do i want? i'm currently sifting through definitions of games which center largely around

- rules, and a system or systems
- a player who makes decisions or takes actions, in order to alter the outcome
- more simply, we could just say a player, one who plays, or play.

Suits describes "a voluntary attempt", so even more broadly, there is some agent, acting at the dead center of each definition of games that I encounter.

this adventure has lead me down a path of trying to understand play, rather than games. the way that 'games' are defined is very silly. will 'play' make any more sense? i theorize not

I went to the reference library and grabbed a shit load of books. None of the books I expected were here (not in this section anyway) but lots by authors I recognized. And, unfortunately, my old enemy: Games: Agency as Art. I grabbed some random books too.

* It's nice going to the library and finding adjacent books. It's much more satisfying than going to Wikipedia and getting lost. Maybe I need to describe the difference someday but for now I think it's just worth stating as a touchstone. I'll get back to that.

raw notes below:

i made a bleet asking people to share definitions of games. i may edit this opening post to be the summary.

[A -> B]