What criteria must a game have?

There are criteria which apply to all games and those that apply to the "games with rules". First, I will describe the criteria that apply to "games with rules".

• Game rules
• Goal
• The course of the game is never the same - chance
• Competition

Game rules

As already discussed, the rules and the components define the game. Everything that is in the rules is part of the game. Everything that is not in the rules does not belong in the game. The rules are the borders and the heart of the game. They only refer to the game and never exist outside of the game. Although the game has rules which are like laws, playing a game is voluntary and cannot be forced on the players. Whoever plays a game, voluntarily binds himself to the rules. Where force is involved, there is no game. All games without rules are not "games with rules".

Earn money Today!  Click image below!

A game always has components and rules.

In most games, the rules are more significant than the components. But there are games where these roles are reversed: where the components are significant and the rules not very important at all. Usually, these are action games like Looping Louie.

The components are the hardware, the rules are the software. Both define the game. Both can exist independently from each other, but separately are not a game.

Archeology finds ancient game boards and game pieces, but no one knows what rules these ancients used to play their games. We will never know how these games were played.

Components and rules can be combined:

• a set of components may be used with different rules.
• a set of rules can be used with different components.

Suppose we just had the rules for Halma, but not the board and pieces and had to reconstruct the game.

• What should the board look like?
• How many spaces should it have?
• What shape do the spaces have: square, hexagonal, or round?
• How are the spaces laid out?
• Are all the spaces the same size or are they of different sizes?
• How many pieces are there?
• What do the pieces look like? Does a piece take more than one space when played?

The rules are not sufficient to define a game! (Unless the rules have pictures of the components and game situations.)

A game always has components and rules.

In most games, the rules are more significant than the components. But there are games where these roles are reversed: where the components are significant and the rules not very important at all. Usually, these are action games like Looping Louie.

The components are the hardware, the rules are the software. Both define the game. Both can exist independently from each other, but separately are not a game.

Archeology finds ancient game boards and game pieces, but no one knows what rules these ancients used to play their games. We will never know how these games were played.

Components and rules can be combined:

• a set of components may be used with different rules.
• a set of rules can be used with different components.

Suppose we just had the rules for Halma, but not the board and pieces and had to reconstruct the game.

• What should the board look like?
• How many spaces should it have?
• What shape do the spaces have: square, hexagonal, or round?
• How are the spaces laid out?
• Are all the spaces the same size or are they of different sizes?
• How many pieces are there?
• What do the pieces look like? Does a piece take more than one space when played?

The rules are not sufficient to define a game! (Unless the rules have pictures of the components and game situations.)

What is a game, really?

In the German language a game is any activity which is executed only for pleasure and without conscious purpose. In this definition every activity that brings pleasure is a game. For example, people dance, play musical instruments, act in plays, and play with dolls and model trains.

This definition people use today comes from the works of Johan Huizinga (Homo Ludens, 1938) and Friedrich Georg Jünger (Die Spiele, 1959). But there are more ways to define games. Manfred Eigen's and Ruthild Winkler's definition for game goes beyond the definition used by Huizinga. They see a game as a natural phenomenon: half necessity and half coincidence (Das Spiel, 1975). Their definition of games comes closer to Adornos' definition, who set himself apart from Huizinga by identifying games as an art form.

But in our sense these definitions are too wide, we define game more succinctly. Thus, I am writing about games which belong to the class that includes Chess, 9 Man's Morris, Checkers, Halma, Go, Parchisi, Monopoly, Scrabble, Skat, Rummy, Bridge, Memory, Jack Straws, Dominoes, and so on. Unfortunately, our language does not have a good term to call these games. Terms like table games, society games, tournament games are too narrow. In my opinion, the best term would be "rulegames" = "games with rules".

I will now try to find the criteria for defining "game with rules". Kevin Maroney defined game in his Games Journalarticle, My Entire Waking Life. Scott Kim defined puzzle in his Games Cafe article "What Is a Puzzle?" as separate from a game. Kate Jones writes about less aggressive games in her Games Journal article Non Predatory Games. My definition is a further attempt to explore the nature of games.