This concept sounds very similar to the ultimate game, Azad, played by Jernau Gurgeh in Iain M Banks' "The Player of Games".

Not only does that game reflect in great detail the running of an empire, but is actually played, as a tournament, to decide who the ultimate ruler of the Kingdom will be.

So you are saying.. that structure in necessary to the point where it atracts / generates just enough presumption to have something to bring to the table. i.e. the game could be thought of as the discovery and expression of these presumptions.

x

Any offers for a definition?
There'll be prizes for the most amusing attempt!

The existence of this 'RULE' should propel us in the direction of active subgame creation: let us do experiments! :let us play TODAY!

We need structure is we are to say "this is a game" to those who may not understand.

Mission has 3 rules:
1) Each player has a misison, self-chosen, written and secret.
2) The end of the game comes at an agreed time, when the outcome is agreed.
3) All other rules are negotiable.

http://www.netaxs.com/people/nerp/eleusis0.html
About New Eleusis

Agreement seems to require taking turns. You have to know that the other person really does understand what you think you are agreeing to and visa-versa. The taking turns can happen in very fast succession to taking much longer measures of time. The full spectrum of movement will have to be negotiated into game play.

The essence of negotiable is agreement. Agreement seems like it can be explored further to come up with the basis for process i.e. turn play in the game.

Outlining 'participation' is a fundamental requirement of game play.

And survey says: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/080...002-1068213-0070455

How to push a boat off a cliff and hope the tide comes in before it hits bottom.

Edited by author 04-27-2002 06:27 PM
This discussion space is for comments on the document "ReadMe".