作者：Danc

多年来，我一直把游戏设计当作一种管理模式。

* 游戏机制、规则和系统好比法律。

* 玩家犹如公民。

* 强化游戏机制的编码和调节装置好比行政管理活动。

* 游戏设计活动相当于起草新法律的立法活动。

* 发布升级内容和用户服务好比司法活动。

所有这些话题可以探讨好几年。但为让文章简洁明了，这里我主要谈论游戏设计和政府管理的区别。游戏设计的管理具有如下几大特点：

* 游戏是自发活动

* 游戏允许快速更新

* 游戏擅于瞄准个人

游戏是自发活动

目前的游戏都是自发活动。在政治体制中，你是所居住地区或国家的公民。某人生于某地，其身份自动形成。放弃或获得公民身份非常困难，需耗费大量资金。在多数游戏中，玩家自愿选择在游戏规则定义的魔法圈内活动。玩游戏是个自发活动。

游戏自发性存在几大先决条件。

* 自由离开：玩家能够随时退出游戏。至少他们要能够退出魔法圈，回到现实世界的规则（游戏邦注：但他们或许只是从某款游戏转移到另一游戏）。若玩家无法选择离开时，游戏自发性就受到威胁。若你参加学校课程，其中《Wii Fit》是项必须活动，那它就不再是游戏。

WiiFit from boingboing.net

* 自由参与：同样玩家应要觉得其游戏活动具有自发性。自由意志或者虚拟自由意志是有意义选择、深刻经验学习和掌握的必备要素。无法探索游戏规则所定义的空间，你享有的就只是重复机械工作。最糟糕的是，你创造了一个教授和强迫盲目顺从编码机器的压迫政体。

参与和离开游戏都需付出代价。所有游戏都创造独立价值体系，其教导玩家了解算法概念对生活意义重大。构建这些价值标准涉及机会成本。放弃这个曾经十分在乎的系统需要付出代价。你在《魔兽世界》精心打造的宝剑在游戏之外将变得毫无意义。

游戏能够快速更新

多数现代网络电子游戏都涉及服务器代码执行。代码更新和发布只需几分钟。不满当前法律制度？敲击键盘几下后，你的民众就会重新受到现实规则的约束。传统政体的变革缺乏这种神速。法律条文出台需经几个月、几年的研讨。新法律条款通常逐步公布，逐步落实。人类容易犯错，所有人都会根据自己的偏见诠释法律。有些法律条款根本行不通。有些法律会产生令人费解的影响，其影响甚至会延续多年。

以下存在的系列影响。

* 参数：首先，涉及各种玩家行为的参数随处可见。在很多情况下，开发商可以通过测试获悉所创造规则是否会带来预期行为结果。

* 科学更新：我们可以轻松划分玩家群体。最近的A/B测试或Facebook地区调整就清楚说明这个事实。我们可以在某地区推出新规则，评估其结果，决定是取消，还是广泛推广。Valve有这样的说法：“若设计决策涉及看法问题，不要浪费时间争辩。相反，直接进行测试。”假如借助此科学方法制定人类法律，又会出现什么结果？

* 行为自由：这颠覆2500年的民主模式。你无需抽空填写表格，进行投票。相反，你只需用行动投票，让玩家活动决定参数信息（游戏邦注：投票率总能够达100%，因为通过选择体验，你就自动参与立法过程）。

游戏擅长瞄准个体

游戏就像瞄准个人活动的光束。它们处理个人选择和个人奖励。游戏知晓各玩家的活动，能够进行相应调整。传统政体创造影响实体或人口的宽泛规则。它们控制个人的力量非常强大，但更多是个迟钝工具。更具体地说，传统政体未能把握个人行为具体信息、频繁反馈和准确奖励结构。其中的税收是个反馈循环，一年执行一次，而《Pacman》一秒钟就调整30次，以适应玩家行为。

Pacman from pocketberry.com

* 游戏设计是瞄准自由意志的世俗活动。我们通过《宝石迷阵》改变你消遣自由时间的方式；通过《Wii Fit》奖励或惩罚你的运动方式；通过《Nike Plus》奖励和惩罚你移动双脚的方式；通过社交游戏改变你互动的方式。最后所有内容都将得到完善；游戏将瞄准更多活动（游戏邦注：包括旅游、睡眠、能耗、医学、爱、性和饮食）。若我们能够合理评估内容，我们就能制作出相应游戏。

* 无处不在的法律：这些司空见惯的活动就是生活的组成要素。随着游戏逐步渗透至我们日常生活中的分分秒秒，我们开始置身前所未闻的情形，即法律已开始影响我们80%的生活。

游戏邦注：原文发布于2009年12月17日，文章叙述以当时为背景。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Game design as government

By Danc

For many years, I’ve been thinking about game design as a form of governance.

* Game mechanics, rules and systems are comparable to laws

* Players are comparable to citizens

* The code and moderators that enforce game mechanics are comparable to executive activities.

* The act of game design is the equivalent of drafting new laws, legislative activities.

* Issue escalation and customer service are comparable to judicial activities.

Each of these topics provides years of future discussion. However, for the sake of brevity, I’ll limit this essay to some thoughts on how a game government differs from a traditional government. Game governments have the following unique attributes:

* Games are voluntary

* Games allow for rapid iteration

* Games excel at targeting individuals

Games are voluntary

The current crop of games are voluntary activities. In a traditional government, you are a citizen of the geographic region or nation in which you live. Membership for those who are born there is automatic. Renouncing or acquiring citizenship is a difficult activity with numerous costs. In most games players choose to operate within the magic circle defined by the rules of the game. Playing a game is seen as an explicitly voluntary activity.

There are several prerequisites for the voluntary nature of game to be realized.

* Freedom to leave: Player should be able to stop playing the game when they wish. At the very least, they can step outside the magic circle and return to the rules of the real world. However, they might also leave one game and switch to another. The voluntary nature of games is threatened when the player can no longer leave. If you are part of a school program in which Wii Fit is a required activity, it rapidly becomes something other than a game.

* Freedom to participate: Equally important, players should feel that their actions within the game are voluntary. Free will, or at least the illusion of free will, is necessary for there to be meaningful choices, deep experiential learning and mastery. Remove the players ability to explore the space defined by the rules of the game and at best you have rote mechanical work. At worst, you’ve created a crushing regime that teaches and enforces mindless obedience to a machine made of code.

Neither participating in a game nor leaving a game is without cost. All games create a self contained system of value where players are taught that algorithmic constructs are meaningful to their lives. There is always an opportunity cost involved in forming these values. There is also a cost to leaving the whirling blinking, pinging systems behind. The sword you worked for so hard in WoW has little meaning outside the game.

Games enable rapid iteration

Most modern networked electronic games involve code executing on servers. The code can be updated and pushed out to millions of players in minutes. Unhappy with the current laws? A few keystrokes later and your populace is now bound by a fresh, crisply defined reality. Traditional governments lack this speed. Laws are deliberated for months and years. They are slowly rolled out piecemeal by people and enforced piecemeal by people. People are fallible and each interpets the laws according to their biases. Some laws don’t work. Some laws have inexplicable consequences that play out over many years.

There are several consequences

* Metrics: First, metrics concerning large swatches of player behavior are readily available. In many cases, developers can set up tests that let them know if the rules they’ve created are generated the behavioral result they desire.

* Scientific iteration: The player population is easily segmented. We witness this currently with A/B testing or with the rollout of Facebook changes according to geographic regions. It is possible to launch rules in a population subset, measure the results and then either kill the experiment or spread the rules more broadly if they are a success. At one point Valve had a saying that went something like “If this is a design decision that is a matter of opinion, don’t waste time arguing about it. Instead play test it.” What are the ramifications of using the scientific method on the generation of laws for humans?

* Democracy of behavior: This leads to a fascinating reinterpretation of the 2500 year old formulation of democracy. You no longer vote by taking time out of your schedule and filling out a piece of paper. Instead, you vote by doing. The player’s actions determine the tale the metrics tell. There is always 100% voter turnout because by choosing to play, you automatically participate in the legislative process.

Game excel at targeting individuals

Games are laser focused on the individual’s activities. They deal with individual choice and individual rewards. A game knows exactly what a single person has done and adapts accordingly. Traditional governments create broad swathes of rules that affect entities or populations. Their hold on any one individual is powerful, but is very much a blunt instrument. Specifically, traditional governments lack the detailed knowledge of individual behavior, the frequency of feedback and precision of the reward structure. Wherein taxes are a feedback loop that occurs once a year, Pacman adapts to your actions 30 times a second.

* Game designs are laws targeted at the mundane activities of free will. With Bejeweled we influence how your spend your free time. With Wii Fit, we reward or punish how you exercise. With Nike Plus we reward and punish how you move your feet. With Facebook games, we mediate how you socialize. In time, each of these will improve. In time games will target more and more activities. Travel, sleep, energy usage, medicine, love, sex, eating. If we can measure it, we can make a game out of it.

* Pervasive law: These quotidian activities are the meat of life. As games spread throughout our everyday moments, we are suddenly in the hitherto unheard of situation where law affects 80% of our lives.

If you designed the rules that governed even a small portion of the lives of millions of people, what sort of world would you create? What are your moral obligations as a game designer? Are we still just talking about money? Are we still only talking about fun?（Source：lostgarden）