Toys, Games, and Play

I adore game design in all facets, from game theory's exploration of strategy to the struggles (and joys) of putting together a cohesive art design. My love for game design manifests especially in the study of interaction: how do games push us towards certain types of engagement? How do games make us behave? What is "play"?

I want to start my dissection of game design by identifying and exploring ideas related to some of the primitives of play. I want to talk about toys and games.

Toys vs Games

Toys and Games are both terms that often live in the nebulous space of play. Definitions can usually be distilled to:

These definitions often failed me when I wanted to think critically about video games. As a huge fan of the simulation genre (think SimCity and The Sims), it can be hard to decide how to categorize them. As a counterexample, consider The Powder Game (Falling Sand Game), which feels like a toy but directly contradicts the physical aspect of the toy definition. Instead, we can try to develop an axiomatic definition for both toys and games.

Toys

Consider a toy: a rubber ball, for example. It is round. It is bouncy. These physical attributes prescribe inherent modes of interaction. We can roll a ball and we can bounce it. Playing with the ball is reasonably constrained by virtue of its form. Our play is not dictated or structured by arbitrary rules — instead direction comes from the nature of the toy. The player chooses their method of play.

Games

At the risk of being overly pedagogical, we will start the discussion with Tic-Tac-Toe. Tic-Tac-Toe is a game where two players alternate placing X and O marks on a 3 x 3 board until one player places their marks in a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal line. The game can be played with pen and paper or digitally with players on opposite sides of the world. Regardless of the medium used to play the game, the ideas of Tic-Tac-Toe remain the same. Deviating from these rules would be a new game, or at least not Tic-Tac-Toe.

Games are constrained artificially. Games are ideas: goals, systems, and rules. The mode of play is decided for us. Toys (and other artifacts) may be used as actors within the ruleset of the game, but there are always additional directives for how one plays.

Games are not necessarily strict, however. They offer different strategies and styles of play while still maintaining play in constrained procedures. One of the most important constraints found in games is the end condition. Play is designed to encourage players to perform behaviours that lead toward a "win state".

The Creator's Role

Do these definitions extend digitally? I assert that if I were to construct a digital toy I can choose its nature. I can program the intrinsic properties and interactions of the toy. If I create a digital rubber ball then I can decide how bouncy it should be. This is the same kind of decision that would face a physical toy manufacturer. The modes of play are still decided by the user while the creator chooses what aspects of the toy to enhance and make prominent.

Video games may be programmed similarly to our toy above, with the creator choosing forms of interaction. Creators can take that further and guide the user with goals and rules to engage them in the game's experience.

Play and The Player

Play rewards the player. It rewards in the satisfaction of skillfully throwing a fastball. It rewards in the emotional resolution of completing a video game's quest line. These reward systems and drives for the player are important to explore when thinking about game design. Toys differ from games in their sources of satisfaction. Games are imposed rulesets that create challenges or experiences through restricted play. The reward is a result of the external stimulus. Toys, on the other hand, lack, inherent goals. The joy associated with a toy comes from self-discovered play — how the player chooses to interact with the toy. Even when the player constructs a game around the toy (ex: see how far they can kick a ball), it is a manifestation of their desired form of interaction.

Although I have drawn distinct lines between games and toys, one is not a better vehicle for play than the other. Minecraft is a great example of both. Minecraft's initial release was as a creative toy where the player placed blocks and was free to build whatever they imagined. The game in its most popular state today is one with challenges, bosses, and death. The creativity has been restricted, but not to a detriment of the play. Each version of Minecraft has meaningful rewards and self-delight. The toy roots of the game lend towards deep and rewarding gameplay because so much of the experience remains centered around self-delight.

Meaning for Game Design

Developing the idea of toys and games separately allows us to deepen our understanding of the types of interactions we wish to encourage. They are extremely useful constructs and each model can develop meaningful experiences for the player.

Maybe your game could use more freedom of play and toy-like experiences. Maybe you opt to build a toy first and witness what brings players self-delight in the space you create. I have used these models to illuminate the types of play that I enjoy myself.

Thank you for reading. Thank you for exploring ideas with me.