Laws of Gaming
Posted by Rob Herman at August 20th, 2006
Incorrigible reader Nathan remarked in regards the What Is Rule 0? article,
“It seems you should be able to tie Rule Zero into a clever law of gaming as an Asimov reference.”
So here goes.
First Law of Gaming: A game may not harm a human being, nor through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
So maybe this is why my Looney Labs rejected my idea for Punch in the Face: The Boardgame?
Second Law of Gaming: A game must obey the orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
The Laws of Robotics weren’t just guidelines—they an integral part of the way a robot had to be designed for its positronic brain to work. This doesn’t appear to be the case for games, and clearly we have a long way to come in this regard. For instance, this very day I was demanding that Settlers of Catan give me the nine I desperately needed for road-building materials, but it came way too late.
Third Law of Gaming: A game must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
This seems to be pretty well upheld, notwithstanding the old story about tearing up a Chaos Orb in a Magic game. I can see how my idea for a card game you play with flashpaper cards and burn them when you capture a trick got rejected.
Then we arrive at Rule 0 of Gaming: A game must not allow humanity to come to harm.
This means ixnay on:
- War games with real nuclear weapons
- Dating/relationship sims so good they make actual reproduction obsolete
- Games that teach players how to subjugate humanity under an iron heel.
As Steven Colbert would say: Steve Jackson, you’re on notice!
On the third law of gaming: While the “chaos orb” card may no longer be torn into pieces, the crads “chaos confetti” and “blacker lotus” from the unglued set both require the destruction of the card to use their abilities.
I wonder how the game “Diplomacy” would hold up under the rules of gaming. I have heard horror stories of friends never speaking to each other after one backstabbed (figuratively) the other in the course of the game. If the game was widely played, it could destroy the social fabric of the world, not to mention the lost productivity of the 4 or many more hour games.
“The Laws of Robotics weren’t just guidelines—they an integral part of the way a robot had to be designed for its positronic brain to work. This doesn’t appear to be the case for games, and clearly we have a long way to come in this regard.”
Apparently, sir, you’ve never encountered the chilling mathematical precision of the Mall Madness Talking Computer.
As concerns the 0th rule:
But Rob… a certain game we both know has taught us the tao of the nerve stapler…
Incorrigible, eh? That’s probably the nicest thing you’ve ever said about me.