A while ago I took a course in game design, and as an assignment we got to write a small piece about a subject of our choice. Now, what did I select? Something cool? Something interesting? Something about Ultima IV? No, of course not. I compared emergence and meta-gaming. Insert big sigh. Anyway, I might as well put it up here, loosely translated from Swedish. Note that the references are to Rules of Play by Zimmerman, fourth edition.

Background
Emergence and meta-gaming are two similar concepts that I intend to compare. Superficially, the two are replaceable with only minor differences; one may spontaneously wonder why a comparison like this is necessary at all. There are several reasons: first of all, this is an attempt to illustrate that game design is a complex science with many factors involved - more than one may initially believe. Second is the word science that may seem malplaced in the previous sentence; in order for game design to be viewed as a science, formalized structures and concepts are needed. This is a humble attempt at further defining and analyzing ideas about emergence and meta-gaming.

Meta-Gaming
When games are played, an interesting effect can occur: the primary goal of the game is cast aside, and secondary or completely made-up goals take precedence. This can happen, and often happens, in all types of games (481). For example, a new goal might be to finish a stage as quickly as possible, collect extra lives, explore the world, try to break the rules of the game or an almost infinite amount of other types of meta-gaming. An excellent example of a game where meta-gaming is encouraged is Super Mario Brothers 3; the game is full of large stages that invite exploration and experimentation. Social aspects may also be the cause of meta-gaming: in a strict strategy game like Diplomacy, seemingly strange alliances can be formed depending on who are playing – a social meta-game takes place, where the opponents themselves become aspects of the game. Meta-gaming can occur in all types of games, from statistical games with simple rules, to komplex games with enormous game-worlds. Only the player’s imagination limits meta-gaming.

Emergence
If meta-gaming is a consequence of the player himself, emergence is a consequence of the rules of the game. Emergence is a concept that describes what happens when the rules of a game form a complex system. Complex systems in turn emerge when rules are linked; if these rules are detailed and complex enough, unforeseen results can happen (152). This does not mean that chaotic and unintelligible rules are complex; a balance between chaos and simplicity is necessary (155). An example of a game where the rules form a complex system is Chess; every game piece has simple rules concerning their movement, but the combination of the different game pieces on a game board form a complex system of rules. This system is also the foundation of emergence in Chess; despite the simple rules, advanced strategies are necessary in order to win, and emergence has thus emerged when the rules of the game give the players unforeseen consequences.

The Difference Between Emergence and Meta-Gaming
Consequences between emergence and meta-gaming are thus rather similar. Worth noting is that emergence is a result of the rules of the game and the possibilities that they offer, while meta-gaming is an activity initiated by the player himself, and is only limited by the player’s imagination. Meta-gaming is something that is always possible to experience, despite the game’s design, while emergence is dependent on rules. Emergent systems do facilitate meta-gaming, however.

As this figure attempts to illustrate, emergence is not always acheived – nor desireable, as is the case with educational games or, to some degree, periodic games like Poker. Emergence can emerge without meta-gaming, however. Take Chess as an example: many players only play the game utilizing various strategies, without looking for meta-games. The most interesting situation is, however, when emergence become the foundation for meta-gaming. Game design is described as a second-order design problem, where game designers decide rules that in turn have indirect consequences through emergence (168). When emergence becomes the base of meta-gaming, we arrive at an even more complex model: indirect consequences have indirect effects on the end result, and game design becomes a third-order problem in those cases.

Conclusion
Hopefully, this essay has succeded in clarifying a complicated part of game design as a science. Game designers are presented with numerous decisions: game type, rules, what social interaction is desired and a plethora of other choices. Onto this I have put another aspect of game design to concider: what type of indirect consequence is desired? There are emergent games, there are non-emergent games and there are also the games that I believe is the majority: emergent games that invite meta-gaming, where meta-gaming becomes a complicated consequence of emergence, which in turn is a consequence of the rules that the game designer chooses to implement.

This entry was posted on Monday, May 15th, 2006 at 11:22 am and is filed under Games. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.