Minimum Number of Systems Required For Emergent Gameplay

[OneGameDad]

The talk of emergent gameplay and emergent stories from video games by the Thumbs, Ian Bogost, and plenty of others has got me wondering. What's the minimum number of systems a game needs to allow/create for emergent gameplay/stories? And for that matter, when is something merely a mechanic and something a system? If we take notably games like FarCry 2 or Breath of the Wild, how would you delineate between the various systems are work in them, if at all?

[Jutranjo]

I don't know how relevant this will be but the idea reminds me of this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality

[osmosisch]

Depending on your definition of gameplay and story, you could argue that the Game of Life comes pretty close to the theoretical minimum (and I've definitely played and had fun with it)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

 

e: @Jutranjo's already linked to a more general thing, haha, nvm.

[Jutranjo]

Do multiplayer games count? This one is very basic mechanics wise

https://www.gnu.org/software/liquidwar6/

 

 

[OneGameDad]

How many distinct systems would you say something like Breath of the Wild has? Or FarCry 2?

 

Is it even a matter of distinct systems or ones that interact actively in a game. Such as AI and combat, or physics?

[itsamoose]

From a purely technical perspective, the answer is 2.  So long as at least 2 systems are present in a game, and those systems are implemented in such a way that they can interact with each other then emergent interactions are possible.  Really all you need are 2 rules with the possibility of interaction with one another in a way that isn't prescriptive.  For example, the ability to press and buttons being pressed isn't an emergent interaction since one directly influences the other, but the ability for a ball to get knocked into a button such that it is pressed is since the ball pressing the button is just a logical consequence of the two rules interacting.  You could say all you need is one, since rule can interact with itself(such as physics impulses), but I wouldn't necessarily go that far because that rule's core functionality would necessarily contain internal interactions.  The result in this case might not appear prescriptive to us, but it's execution is entirely determined by explicit functionality.

 

To put more of a point on the premise, what do you mean by "emergent stories" in this context.  Technically a rocket jump in quake is an emergent story, although a limited one, but I get the feeling this case something particular is being driven at.

[OneGameDad]

  On 5/9/2017 at 7:52 AM, itsamoose said:

To put more of a point on the premise, what do you mean by "emergent stories" in this context.  Technically a rocket jump in quake is an emergent story, although a limited one, but I get the feeling this case something particular is being driven at.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the rocket jump. Some interactions are designed to happen such as the aforementioned ball pushing a button. Whereas those that were not planned but evolved from experimentation such as the rocket jump may be the emergent gameplay/story. Of course with testing some of those things occur and then a designer can implement them in their game. 

 

So I guess the question should evolve to, when should something be considered emergent gameplay? Is it when the possibility exists but was not part of the designer's original intention? Or is it something else?

[TychoCelchuuu]

The minimum number of systems is one. Take for instance the game "be the first person to press this button." Bam, emergent gameplay.

[OneGameDad]

  On 5/9/2017 at 6:49 PM, TychoCelchuuu said:

The minimum number of systems is one. Take for instance the game "be the first person to press this button." Bam, emergent gameplay.

That's very reductive. Not to say you're wrong. However, isn't the idea that emergent implies going beyond the intent or plan of the designer? If there's a single button to press and you only win by pressing the button then there is no other intent. 

 

And yes I realize that Wikipedia includes two forms of emergent gameplay - intentional and unintentional. Wikipedia's description talks of giving tools to players to solve problems, which means if a player can only do one thing then there isn't emergent gameplay.

[juv3nal]

I think that in its own, different way is being reductive about what a press the button first game would entail. I could imagine, for instance, jostling for position which, out of a desire to avoid serious physical harm, would probably involve some kind of negotation about what maneuvers should be allowed and which shouldn't (no punching, kicking, etc.) Maybe there's some kind of handicapping system that needs to be developed if players with some physical attribute (longer armspan?) have a consistent advantage etc.

 

Does the designer of such a game intend for players to bite and gouge eyeballs in an attempt to hit the button first? Regardless of whether the answer to that is yes or no, absent instructions explicitly allowing or disallowing that, players can elect to do something that was not intended.

[TychoCelchuuu]

  On 5/10/2017 at 11:33 AM, OneGameDad said:

That's very reductive. Not to say you're wrong. However, isn't the idea that emergent implies going beyond the intent or plan of the designer? If there's a single button to press and you only win by pressing the button then there is no other intent. 

 

And yes I realize that Wikipedia includes two forms of emergent gameplay - intentional and unintentional. Wikipedia's description talks of giving tools to players to solve problems, which means if a player can only do one thing then there isn't emergent gameplay.

Surely you aren't suggesting that the game designer intends every single possibility that a player might use to stop their opponent from pressing the button first. There's no way the game designer can even imagine all the possibilities, let alone intend them.

[OneGameDad]

@TychoCelchuuu no I don't think it's possible for a designer to account for every possibility. But if the only thing a player can do is press a button, as you posited, then there is no emergent gameplay. To jostle to be the first or maneuver as @juv3nal suggested implies there are additional systems such as movement, physics, gravity, etc. if we're talking purely about a video game. If it's a physical game of some sort that's another matter. And to be the first means there needs to be a tracking system of some sort or multiplayer, which takes the game beyond a single system. 

 

Again, as a physical game it's entirely possible to have a single system allow for emergent gameplay because of the inherent systems of life, i.e. gravity, movement, etc. But video games need that all to be constructed.  

[TychoCelchuuu]

I don't understand your distinction between "video game" and "physical game." I have never played a video game without interacting with it physically - how would that work? In any case, if it must be a video game, then the button that has to be pressed can be a keyboard button. So for instance "the first person to press the spacebar wins." You say there "needs to be a tracking system of some sort or multiplayer," but I take it multiplayer is there already - you just play the game with multiple people. You could play it single player, also, although that would not be a very interesting game, as there would be little challenge unless you have physical disabilities that prevent you from pressing the spacebar or something similar. I am not sure why you think a tracking system would be necessary.

[clyde]

Providing players with in-game tools and a variety of feedback that suggests to them that the way they have solved a challenge is acknowledged has a tendency to increase satisfaction of play for me.

All games have various degrees of emergent gameplay, but the tendency for it to occur can be lessened or increased with various design decisions.

Personally, I find emergent objectives to be an interesting subject; what encourages the player to come up with their own ideas for what to do in the game and what are ways to reward that creativity?

I enjoy the sense of wonder when trying something with ingame tools that I'm not instructed to do and then being rewarded with authored content or an automatic reaction enabled by general triggers rather than keys opening doors of the same color.

[juv3nal]

I will refrain from further commentary as I don't want to be piling on, but basically ditto what Tycho said. There can be a whole lot more going on with a video game than what is either onscreen or going on in the guts of the code. As an example, pbem Diplomacy. The mechanics implemented in software will adjudicate results, but the actual meat of the play is going to be in talking to other players.

[OneGameDad]

  On 5/10/2017 at 5:53 PM, TychoCelchuuu said:

I don't understand your distinction between "video game" and "physical game." I have never played a video game without interacting with it physically - how would that work? In any case, if it must be a video game, then the button that has to be pressed can be a keyboard button. So for instance "the first person to press the spacebar wins." You say there "needs to be a tracking system of some sort or multiplayer," but I take it multiplayer is there already - you just play the game with multiple people. You could play it single player, also, although that would not be a very interesting game, as there would be little challenge unless you have physical disabilities that prevent you from pressing the spacebar or something similar. I am not sure why you think a tracking system would be necessary.

Sorry for the confusion, when I said physical game I meant something played in real life like rugby. And of course there are always physical inputs to a video game, other than those few that play themselves... But you point about assuming there's multiplayer already belies your point about one system, pushing a button. Because you right there have two. 

 

Which gets back to my original question, what is the minimum number of systems required for emergent gameplay? If the only way to express yourself in the game you're proposing is by pressing the button then is there really any emergent gameplay, regardless of whether there is multiplayer? 

 

I do agree with you @juv3nal that there is more going on than what's coded or seen on screen. However for Diplomacy to work there has to be a means of communication, which itself is a system. A very loose system but one nevertheless. Without it would the game be possible?

[TychoCelchuuu]

  On 5/11/2017 at 6:12 AM, OneGameDad said:

But you point about assuming there's multiplayer already belies your point about one system, pushing a button.

At this point I am not sure what counts as a "system." What do you mean by "system?"

 

  On 5/11/2017 at 6:12 AM, OneGameDad said:

Which gets back to my original question, what is the minimum number of systems required for emergent gameplay? If the only way to express yourself in the game you're proposing is by pressing the button then is there really any emergent gameplay, regardless of whether there is multiplayer? 

I still think that, to the extent the idea of a "system" makes any sense (I am suspicious it doesn't, but I didn't want to go there, because that's pretty thorny stuff), you only need one system for emergent gameplay. I think this is pretty obvious, for the reasons I and juv3nal have pointed out. If you want multiplayer to count as a system, then we can just look at the single player version of my game. Emergent gameplay could include things like getting very drunk to make it harder, playing it every day when the sun rises, etc.

[juv3nal]

  On 5/11/2017 at 6:12 AM, OneGameDad said:

I do agree with you @juv3nal that there is more going on than what's coded or seen on screen. However for Diplomacy to work there has to be a means of communication, which itself is a system. A very loose system but one nevertheless.

 

Sure it's a system, but for the purposes of discussion, it's not one designed by the designer of a game such that it is meaningful to say whether a particular application/expression of it was intended or unintended.

 

Otherwise we end up adding in things like a player's cardiovascular & central nervous system which are necessary unless our players are AI or something. I mean is that really a road we want to be going down?

[itsamoose]

In terms of emergence, it might be more useful to think of games not as systems and mechanics, but as rules.  For example:

 

Be the first person to push the button is actually 2 rules at play--order and pushing buttons.  We might see "first" and "push the button" as individual mechanics, and the interaction of the two could be seen as a system.  Both systems and mechanics are either collections of rules or describe interactions based on rules, but emergence is still possible without such organization.  For example, consider a the following two rules:

 

1. Boys like Girls

2. Girls like Robots

 

Neither of those two rules describe what the game might be, what actions the player might take, if those rules can interact with one another, or how those rules might be organized.  Those rules imply a number of concepts in the game (namely boys, girls, robots, and feelings) and the emergence is then a product of the interaction of those rules, or in other words things present but not necessarily defined.

[OneGameDad]

That's an interesting way of looking at it @itsamoose. So my next question would be, do the rules need to be directly related or indirectly related? The example you gave:

  On 5/12/2017 at 5:38 AM, itsamoose said:

1. Boys like Girls

2. Girls like Robots

is directly related. Because rule 2 is affecting something in rule 1. I am assuming that all rules in a video game are either directly related or indirectly related because they're all within the game. 

 

Also, I think @juv3nal and @TychoCelchuuu were touching upon something else interesting - the player. How much are players an aspect that determines when emergent gameplay arises? My original question was about the game itself, the one created by the designer regardless of the player. But what I infer from their arguments is that there is no separation of the player and the game. The designer can never account for the state of the player and so whether the player is drunk, up really late/early, or doing something else to impose their own rules upon the game. So the game is never a "closed system" in the truest sense of the term because the player's input is always required.