CHAPTER 3

FOUNDATIONS OF GAMES AND GAME DESIGN
遊戲與遊戲設計的基礎

This chapter provides some definitions of game, according to philosophers and designers. These definitions are then used to describe the structural, functional, architectural, and thematic elements of games in systems terms. This systemic view acts as a foundation for game design in later chapters.
本章根據哲學家和設計師的觀點提供了一些遊戲的定義。這些定義隨後用來描述遊戲在系統層面上的結構、功能、架構和主題元素。這種系統化的觀點為後續章節的遊戲設計奠定了基礎。

Having examined this foundation of games, we look briefly at the development of game design from its hobbyist beginnings to current more theoretically informed approaches.
在研究了遊戲的基礎後，我們將簡要地探討遊戲設計從其業餘愛好者的起源到目前更具理論指導的發展過程。

What’s a Game?  什麼是遊戲？

In some ways, defining game seems like explaining a joke: you can do it, but you risk losing the essence of it in doing so. Nevertheless, because the topic is game design, you do need to know what is meant by the word game. Fortunately, many people have offered up wide-ranging definitions of game for decades. To provide some grounding for the discussion that follows, this section provides a brief examination of these definitions.
在某些方面，定義遊戲就像解釋一個笑話：你可以這麼做，但這樣做可能會失去其精髓。然而，因為主題是遊戲設計，你確實需要知道「遊戲」這個詞的含義。幸運的是，數十年來，許多人已經提供了廣泛的遊戲定義。為了給接下來的討論提供一些基礎，本節將簡要檢視這些定義。

Huizinga

In what has become one of the foundational pillars of academic game study, Dutch historian Johan Huizinga examined the role of play as a key component of culture in his 1938 book (translated to English in 1955) Homo Ludens, or Playing Man (as differentiated from Homo sapiens, “wise man”) (Huizinga 1955). In his view, play and games are “absorbing” but “not serious,” taking place “outside of ordinary life” (p. 13). In addition, play has “no material interest, and no profit can be gained by it” (p. 13). Finally, play takes place “within its own proper boundaries of time and space according to fixed rules and in an orderly manner” (p. 13).
在成為學術遊戲研究的基礎支柱之一的過程中，荷蘭歷史學家約翰·赫伊津哈在他 1938 年的著作《遊戲的人》（1955 年翻譯成英文）中探討了遊戲作為文化關鍵組成部分的角色（與智人「Homo sapiens」區分開來，意為「智慧的人」）。在他看來，遊戲和遊戲是「吸引人」但「不嚴肅的」，發生在「日常生活之外」。此外，遊戲「沒有物質利益，無法從中獲得利益」。最後，遊戲在「其自身的時間和空間界限內，根據固定的規則，以有序的方式進行」。

Huizinga is probably best known for calling out that play takes place in a separate space: “the arena, the card-table, the magic circle, the temple, the stage, the screen…” (p. 10). This has been condensed in recent times to the idea of the magic circle: whether a game has anything to do with magic or not, it takes place in a separate space and time set aside for it, “within which special rules obtain” (p. 10). This may be a table around which players replay the Cold War, as in Twilight Struggle; an imaginary universe where my little spaceship is outrunning the Rebellion, as in FTL; or anything in between. If the activity is absorbing but not consequential in terms of everyday life, if it has its own rules and takes place in its own separate space, then from Huizinga’s point of view, it is a game, and its activity is play. As you will see in Chapter 4, on interactivity and what it means for a game to be “fun,” this quality of a game being inconsequential turns out to be, perhaps paradoxically, extremely important.
胡伊青加最為人所知的，或許就是指出遊戲發生在一個獨立的空間：「競技場、牌桌、魔法圈、神殿、舞台、螢幕……」（第 10 頁）。這在近代被濃縮為魔法圈的概念：無論遊戲是否與魔法有關，它都在一個為其設置的獨立時空中進行，「在其中有特殊規則」（第 10 頁）。這可能是一張桌子，玩家在其上重演冷戰，如《暮光鬥爭》；或是一個想像的宇宙，我的小太空船正在逃離叛軍，如《FTL》；或介於兩者之間的任何事物。如果這項活動令人投入但對日常生活無關緊要，如果它有自己的規則並在其獨立的空間中進行，那麼從胡伊青加的觀點來看，這就是一個遊戲，而其活動就是玩樂。正如你在第四章中將看到的，關於互動性以及遊戲「有趣」的意義，這種遊戲無關緊要的特質，或許看似矛盾，卻極為重要。

Caillois

Building on Huizinga’s work, French philosopher and writer Roger Caillois (pronounced “kai-wah”) wrote Man, Play, and Games¹ (Caillois and Barash 1961). Caillois agreed with Huizinga about some of the definitional aspects of games, including the following:
在 Huizinga 的研究基礎上，法國哲學家兼作家 Roger Caillois（發音為“kai-wah”）撰寫了《人、遊戲與娛樂》（Caillois 和 Barash 1961）。Caillois 同意 Huizinga 對遊戲的一些定義方面的看法，包括以下幾點：

They are separate from regular reality and thus involve some amount of imagined reality.
它們與現實世界分開，因此涉及一定程度的想像現實。

They are not profitable or obligatory, meaning that no one has to play a game.
它們不是盈利的或強制性的，這意味著沒有人必須參加遊戲。

They are governed by rules internal to the game.
它們受遊戲內部規則的約束。

They are affected by uncertainty so that the course of the game depends on the players’ choices.
他們受到不確定性的影響，因此遊戲的進程取決於玩家的選擇。

Caillois went on to specify four types of games for which he is now known within game design circles:
Caillois 繼續具體說明了四種類型的遊戲，這些類型在遊戲設計圈中為人所知：

Agon: Games of competition where there is typically a single winner. The word in ancient Greek refers to contests and can be found in the English antagonist.
Agon：競爭類遊戲，通常只有一個贏家。這個詞在古希臘語中指的是比賽，並且可以在英文中的 antagonist 一詞中找到。

Alea: Games of chance, where dice or other randomizers rather than the players’ strategy or choices predominate in determining the course of the game. The word is Latin, meaning “risk” or “uncertainty.” Originally, it came from the word for “knuckle bone,” because these bones were used as early dice.
Alea：機會類遊戲，遊戲的進程主要由骰子或其他隨機因素決定，而非玩家的策略或選擇。這個詞是拉丁語，意指「風險」或「不確定性」。最初，它來自於「指節骨」這個詞，因為這些骨頭曾被用作早期的骰子。

Mimicry: Role-playing, where the player mimics real life by taking on another role, such as “pirate, Nero, or Hamlet” (Caillois and Barash 1961, 130).
模仿：角色扮演，玩家透過扮演其他角色來模仿現實生活，例如「海盜、尼祿或哈姆雷特」（Caillois 和 Barash 1961, 130）。

Ilinx: Play where your physical perception is changed, as for example by spinning around and around. Ilinx is Greek for “whirlpool,” thus evoking vertigo and similar feelings achieved through such play.
眩暈：改變身體感知的遊戲，例如不斷旋轉。Ilinx 在希臘語中意為「漩渦」，因此引發眩暈和類似的感覺。

In addition, Caillois specified a range of play from games with structured rules (ludus—a Latin word for sport-like games involving training and rules and also the word used for schools) to unstructured and spontaneous play (paidia—“child’s play” or “amusement” in Greek). Games and play of the types listed above may be anywhere along the ludus–paidia spectrum.
此外，Caillois 指出遊戲範圍從有結構規則的遊戲（ludus——拉丁語中指涉及訓練和規則的運動類遊戲，也用於學校的詞）到無結構和自發的遊戲（paidia——希臘語中的「兒童遊戲」或「娛樂」）。上述類型的遊戲和玩樂可能位於 ludus–paidia 光譜的任何位置。

These in-depth thoughts on games and play continue to inform game designers and discussions of the nature of games. In addition to these, several definitions from contemporary game designers are worth noting and referencing later in exploring games as systems.
這些對遊戲和遊玩的深入思考，持續影響著遊戲設計師以及對遊戲本質的討論。除此之外，來自當代遊戲設計師的幾個定義也值得注意，並在後續探討遊戲作為系統時加以引用。

Crawford, Meier, Costikyan, and Others
克勞福德、邁爾、科斯蒂坎和其他人

Chris Crawford, one of the earliest modern game designers, also wrote about game design as an art (1984). He wrote, “What are the fundamental elements common to these games? I perceive four common factors: representation, interaction, conflict, and safety.” (p. 7) He explained this sentence at length, first echoing Huizinga and Caillois in saying that a game “is a closed formal system that subjectively represents a subset of reality.” (p. 7) It has “explicit rules,” which form a system where “parts interact with each other, often in complex ways,” (p. 7) which is the focus of this book. Games possess interactivity that “allows the player to create his own story by making choices” (p. 9) and provide the player with goals along with obstacles and conflict to “prevent him from easily achieving his goal” (p. 12). Finally, Crawford noted that a game must be “an artifice for providing the psychological experiences of conflict and danger while excluding their physical realizations” (p. 12). In other words, games take place in Huizinga’s “magic circle”—a nonconsequential space with its own rules set apart for the purpose of playing the game. Along these lines, the American educator John Dewey made said that all play necessarily retains “an attitude of freedom from subordination to an end imposed by external necessity” (Dewey 1934, p. 279). When games become too connected to an “external necessity,” they cease to be experienced as play.
克里斯·克勞福德，作為最早的現代遊戲設計師之一，也曾撰寫關於遊戲設計作為一種藝術的文章（1984）。他寫道：「這些遊戲共有的基本元素是什麼？我認為有四個共同因素：表現、互動、衝突和安全。」（第 7 頁）他詳細解釋了這句話，首先呼應了胡伊青加和卡伊瓦的觀點，指出遊戲「是一個封閉的形式系統，主觀地代表現實的一個子集。」（第 7 頁）它有「明確的規則」，這些規則形成了一個系統，其中「各部分相互作用，通常以複雜的方式」，（第 7 頁）這也是本書的重點。遊戲具有互動性，能夠「讓玩家通過做出選擇來創造自己的故事」（第 9 頁），並為玩家提供目標，同時設置障礙和衝突以「防止他輕易達成目標」（第 12 頁）。最後，克勞福德指出，遊戲必須是「一種提供心理上的衝突和危險體驗的人工裝置，同時排除其物理實現」（第 12 頁）。換句話說，遊戲發生在胡伊青加所說的「魔法圈」中——一個不具後果的空間，擁有自己的規則，專為遊戲而設。 美國教育家約翰·杜威曾表示，所有的遊戲必然保有「不受外在必然性所強加的目的支配的自由態度」（杜威，1934 年，第 279 頁）。當遊戲過於與「外在必然性」相連時，它們就不再被視為遊戲。

Veteran game designer Sid Meier has said that “games are a series of interesting choices” (Rollings and Morris 2000, p. 38). That’s a pithy definition that seems to assume a lot: many things in life involve “a series of interesting choices,” such as education and relationships, but these are not typically considered games (perhaps due to their consequential nature). Nevertheless, Meier’s definition is a useful one, as it highlights the necessity of meaningful, informed player choices as a key difference between games and other forms of media (Alexander 2012).
資深遊戲設計師席德·梅爾曾說過：「遊戲是一系列有趣的選擇」（Rollings and Morris 2000, p. 38）。這是一個簡潔的定義，但似乎假設了很多：生活中有許多事情涉及「一系列有趣的選擇」，例如教育和人際關係，但這些通常不被視為遊戲（可能是因為它們的結果性質）。儘管如此，梅爾的定義仍然很有用，因為它強調了有意義且知情的玩家選擇是遊戲與其他媒體形式之間的關鍵區別（Alexander 2012）。

Another thoughtful and prolific game designer, Greg Costikyan (1994), has provided this definition: “A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal.” In the same article, Costikyan noted what a game is not as a way to arrive at his definition: a game is not a puzzle because puzzles are static, and games are interactive. It’s not a toy because toys are interactive without having directed goals, while games are interactive and have goals. It’s not a story because stories are linear, while games are inherently nonlinear. Games are unlike other art forms because those “play to a passive audience. Games require active participation.”
另一位深思熟慮且多產的遊戲設計師，Greg Costikyan（1994），提供了這樣的定義：「遊戲是一種藝術形式，其中參與者，即玩家，通過遊戲代幣做出決策以管理資源，從而追求目標。」在同一篇文章中，Costikyan 指出遊戲不是什麼，以此來達成他的定義：遊戲不是謎題，因為謎題是靜態的，而遊戲是互動的。它不是玩具，因為玩具是互動的但沒有明確的目標，而遊戲是互動的且有目標。它不是故事，因為故事是線性的，而遊戲本質上是非線性的。遊戲不同於其他藝術形式，因為那些「是為被動的觀眾而演繹的。遊戲需要積極的參與。」

More recently, game designer and author Jane McGonigal supplied this definition: “all games share four defining traits: a goal, rules, a feedback system, and voluntary participation.” (McGonigal 2011, p. 21) McGonigal didn’t specifically bring out interactivity as others have, but her inclusion of “a feedback system” speaks to that key point. (There is more detail about feedback and interactivity in Chapter 4, “Interactivity and Fun.”) Along similar lines, game designers Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman provided this formal definition: “A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome” (Salen and Zimmerman 2003, p. 80).
最近，遊戲設計師兼作家 Jane McGonigal 提供了這樣的定義：「所有遊戲都有四個定義特徵：目標、規則、反饋系統和自願參與。」（McGonigal 2011，第 21 頁）McGonigal 並未像其他人一樣特別強調互動性，但她提到的「反饋系統」正好說明了這一關鍵點。（關於反饋和互動性的更多細節，請參見第四章「互動性與樂趣」。）類似地，遊戲設計師 Katie Salen 和 Eric Zimmerman 提供了這樣的正式定義：「遊戲是一個系統，玩家在其中參與一場由規則定義的人工衝突，並產生可量化的結果。」（Salen 和 Zimmerman 2003，第 80 頁）

Game Frameworks

In addition to the definitions just presented, several well-known frameworks for understanding games and game design have sprung up in recent years.
除了剛才介紹的定義之外，近年來還出現了幾個知名的框架，用於理解遊戲和遊戲設計。

The MDA Framework

The first and possibly best-known of the game frameworks is the Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetics (MDA) framework (Hunicke et al. 2004). These terms have specific meanings in this framework, as defined in the original paper:
第一個也是可能最知名的遊戲框架是機制-動態-美學（MDA）框架（Hunicke 等，2004）。在這個框架中，這些術語有特定的意義，如原始論文中所定義：

Mechanics describes the particular components of the game, at the level of data representation and algorithms.
機制描述遊戲的特定組成部分，涉及數據表示和算法層面。

Dynamics describes the run-time behavior of the mechanics acting on player inputs and each other’s outputs over time.
動態描述機制在運行時對玩家輸入及彼此輸出隨時間的行為。

Aesthetics describes the desirable emotional responses evoked in the players when they interact with the game system.
美學描述了玩家在與遊戲系統互動時所激發的理想情感反應。

A key point of this framework is that players typically understand a game from its aesthetics first, then the game’s dynamics, and finally its mechanics. The MDA framework posits that in contrast to players, game designers see their games first via their mechanics, then the dynamics, and finally the aesthetics. Part of the point of the model is to try to get designers to think of aesthetics rather than mechanics first. In practice, however, different game designers work from any of these as a starting point, depending on their own style and the design constraints they face.
這個框架的一個關鍵點是，玩家通常首先從遊戲的美學來理解遊戲，然後是遊戲的動態，最後是其機制。MDA 框架提出，與玩家相反，遊戲設計師首先通過其機制來看待他們的遊戲，然後是動態，最後是美學。這個模型的一部分目的是試圖讓設計師首先考慮美學而不是機制。然而，在實踐中，不同的遊戲設計師會根據他們自己的風格和面臨的設計限制，從這些中的任何一個作為起點。

Another important point inherent in the MDA model is that only a game’s mechanics are wholly in the designer’s direct control. The designer uses the mechanics to set the stage for the game’s dynamics but does not create the dynamics directly. This points toward a systemic understanding of the designer’s task in specifying the parts to create loops to enable the desired whole (discussed in more detail later in this chapter).
MDA 模型中固有的另一個重要點是，只有遊戲的機制完全在設計師的直接控制之下。設計師使用機制來為遊戲的動態設置舞台，但不直接創造動態。這指向了一種系統性的理解，即設計師的任務是指定部分以創建循環，從而實現所需的整體（在本章稍後將更詳細地討論）。

Apart from the linear view of how players and designers approach games, and despite being a strong example of early game design theory, as other designers have noted, the terms mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics are themselves problematic. Mechanics is a term often used by game designers to refer to commonly recurring “chunks” of gameplay (Lantz 2015) and what Polanksy (2015) called “ludic devices,” such as the 52-card deck, turn order, jump, and double-jump. This definition is itself hazy, with some designers referring to only the most specific actions (for example, play a card, left-click to jump) as mechanics and others including more complex aggregations of actions, such as balancing loop effects like the blue shell in Mario Kart (Totilo 2011). The difference here is one of “chunk size” and thus may be somewhat elastic. In the MDA framework, however, mechanics include some but not all of these; mechanics include game pieces and rules but not how they combine. This is a useful distinction, but unfortunately, using the term mechanics in this way collides with preexisting usage.
除了玩家和設計師以線性方式接觸遊戲的觀點之外，儘管作為早期遊戲設計理論的一個強有力的例子，正如其他設計師所指出的，機制、動態和美學這些術語本身就是有問題的。機制是遊戲設計師常用來指代遊戲中經常出現的“塊狀”玩法（Lantz 2015）以及 Polanksy（2015）所稱的“遊戲裝置”，例如 52 張牌的牌組、回合順序、跳躍和雙重跳躍。這一定義本身就不明確，有些設計師僅將最具體的動作（例如，出牌、左鍵點擊跳躍）稱為機制，而其他人則包括更複雜的動作集合，例如平衡循環效果，如《瑪利歐賽車》中的藍色龜殼（Totilo 2011）。這裡的差異在於“塊狀大小”，因此可能有些彈性。然而，在 MDA 框架中，機制包括其中的一部分但不是全部；機制包括遊戲的組件和規則，但不包括它們如何組合。這是一個有用的區分，但不幸的是，以這種方式使用機制這個術語與既有的用法相衝突。

Similarly, MDA uses aesthetics as a term of art intended to take into account the player’s entire game experience, but unfortunately, the word already has strong meaning related to visual aesthetics. Confusion between these two is common and, unfortunately, often results in driving a focus among game developers on a game’s visual “look and feel” rather than on the player’s overall experience with it.
同樣地，MDA 使用「美學」作為一個專業術語，旨在考量玩家的整體遊戲體驗，但不幸的是，這個詞已經與視覺美學有著強烈的關聯。這兩者之間的混淆很常見，而不幸的是，這常常導致遊戲開發者更關注遊戲的視覺「外觀和感覺」，而非玩家的整體體驗。

Despite these difficulties—or at least keeping them in mind—MDA is a useful advance in game design theory that helps set the stage for a more systemic understanding of games and game design.
儘管存在這些困難——或者至少將它們考慮在內——MDA 在遊戲設計理論中是一個有用的進展，有助於為更系統地理解遊戲和遊戲設計奠定基礎。

The FBS and SBF Frameworks
FBS 和 SBF 框架

Similar to the MDA framework is an earlier model known as the Function-Behavior-Structure (FBS) ontology (Gero 1990). FBS is not typically used by (or even known to) most game designers, so we don’t spend a lot of time on it here. It does, however, provide something of a bridge between MDA’s three-layer structure to a more systemic understanding of game design and how design as a generic activity is considered outside the realm of games.
類似於 MDA 框架的是一個較早的模型，稱為功能-行為-結構（FBS）本體論（Gero 1990）。FBS 通常不被大多數遊戲設計師使用（甚至不為他們所知），因此我們在此不會花太多時間討論。然而，它確實在 MDA 的三層結構與對遊戲設計的系統性理解之間提供了一個橋樑，並且如何將設計作為一種通用活動在遊戲領域之外進行考量。

This framework has a similar three-part structure to MDA, albeit inverted with the highest or most user-facing part first and the most technical last:
這個框架的結構與 MDA 相似，分為三個部分，但順序相反，最上層或最面向使用者的部分在最前，而最技術性的部分在最後：

Function: An object’s purpose or teleology—why it was designed and created. The function is always the result of intentional design.
功能：物件的目的或目的論——為何被設計和創造。功能總是有意設計的結果。

Behavior: An object’s attributes and domain-specific actions that are derived from its structure and allow it to achieve its function. The behavior may change over time in order to fulfill the object’s designed function.
行為：物件的屬性和特定領域的動作，這些動作源自其結構，並使其能夠實現其功能。行為可能會隨著時間的推移而改變，以滿足物件的設計功能。

Structure: An object’s physicality, the physical parts and relationships that make it up. The structure does not change, though it may allow the behavior of the object to change. Examples of this include anything that can be expressed in topology, geometry, or material.
結構：物體的物理性，即構成物體的物理部分和關係。結構本身不會改變，但可能允許物體的行為發生變化。這方面的例子包括任何可以在拓撲學、幾何學或材料中表達的事物。

FBS originally came from the field of artificial intelligence as a way of representing design-oriented knowledge and the process of design in general. The teleological aspect is one that is often important in various kinds of physical object design but not one that is a major topic in game design. Today this framework is all but unknown in game design, though it and many variants (Dinar et al. 2012) are widely used in other areas of design and design research. Like MDA, the FBS model is not overtly systemic, but it provides useful pointers toward a systemic understanding of game design (and design in general).
FBS 最初來自人工智慧領域，作為一種表示設計導向知識和設計過程的方法。目的論的方面在各種實體物件設計中常常是重要的，但在遊戲設計中並不是主要的話題。如今，這個框架在遊戲設計中幾乎不為人知，儘管它和許多變體（Dinar 等，2012）在其他設計和設計研究領域被廣泛使用。與 MDA 一樣，FBS 模型並不明顯是系統性的，但它為系統性理解遊戲設計（以及設計的一般）提供了有用的指引。

A later general design modeling language inverted FBS to be SBF (Structure-Behavior-Function) and added important design/programming language and systemic components (Goel et al. 2009). Whereas FBS is top-down, SBF is a more bottom-up framework. SBF is a hierarchical description of both designed objects and the design process represented in the form of a modeling language that starts with the individual components and their actions—the parts and behaviors in the system—works up through behavioral states and transitions, and defines functional schemas in terms of those behaviors. At each level of the SBF representation is a component that incorporates structural, behavioral, and functional aspects, down to the base level of integers and other fundamental representations.
後來的一種通用設計建模語言將 FBS 反轉為 SBF（結構-行為-功能），並添加了重要的設計/程式語言和系統組件（Goel 等，2009）。FBS 是自上而下的，而 SBF 則是一種更自下而上的框架。SBF 是一種層次化的描述，既描述了設計對象，也描述了設計過程，並以建模語言的形式呈現，從個別組件及其行動——系統中的部分和行為——開始，逐步上升到行為狀態和轉換，並根據這些行為定義功能架構。在 SBF 表示的每一個層級中，都有一個組件，包含結構、行為和功能方面的內容，直至整數和其他基本表示的基礎層級。

While FBS and SBF are not themselves game design or game description frameworks—or particularly applicable to game design—they provide a useful bridge from MDA and similar popular frameworks to a more systemic view of games and game design.
雖然 FBS 和 SBF 本身並不是遊戲設計或遊戲描述框架，也不特別適用於遊戲設計，但它們提供了一個從 MDA 和類似流行框架到更系統化的遊戲和遊戲設計觀點的有用橋樑。

Other Frameworks

Various designers and authors have constructed many other frameworks to help articulate what game designers do when they create games and how they go about doing so. Some of these have proved useful to game designers despite being ad hoc and nonsystemic. That is, they are more of an accumulation of rules of thumb based in praxis (informed by practice) than systemic theory; they are helpful descriptive tools rather than maps of the territory to be covered. If other frameworks or tools help you create better games, use them! The systemic approach used here complements and includes others, but this does not mean other approaches are not useful.
各種設計師和作者已經構建了許多其他框架，以幫助闡明遊戲設計師在創建遊戲時所做的事情以及他們如何進行創作。儘管這些框架是臨時的且非系統性的，但對遊戲設計師來說仍然有用。也就是說，它們更多的是基於實踐的經驗法則的累積，而不是系統理論；它們是有用的描述工具，而不是要覆蓋的領域地圖。如果其他框架或工具能幫助你創造更好的遊戲，那就使用它們！這裡使用的系統方法是對其他方法的補充和包含，但這並不意味著其他方法沒有用。

Summing Up Game Definitions
遊戲定義總結

Bringing together the ideas, definitions, and frameworks discussed so far, we can highlight some of the elements that are common:
綜合迄今討論的觀點、定義和框架，我們可以強調一些共同的元素：

A game is an experience that takes place in its own context, separated from the rest of life (the “magic circle”).
遊戲是一種在其自身的情境中發生的體驗，與生活的其他部分分隔開來（即「魔法圈」）。

Games have their own rules (whether formal, as ludus, or tacit and dynamic, as paidia).
遊戲有其自身的規則（無論是正式的，如 ludus，或是隱含且動態的，如 paidia）。

Games require voluntary, non-obligatory interaction and participation (not simply observation).
遊戲需要自願且非強制性的互動和參與（而不僅僅是觀察）。

They provide players with interesting, meaningful goals, choices, and conflict.
它們為玩家提供有趣且有意義的目標、選擇和衝突。

A game ends with some form of recognizable outcome. As Juul (2003) put it, a component is “valorization of the outcome”—that is, the idea that some outcomes are considered better than others, typically codified in the game’s formal rules.
遊戲以某種可識別的結果結束。正如 Juul（2003）所說，這一組成部分是“結果的價值化”——也就是說，某些結果被認為比其他結果更好，通常在遊戲的正式規則中被編碼。

Games as a product of a design process have specific parts that are implemented in some form of technology (whether digital or physical); loops formed by the behavioral interactions of those parts; and experiential (dynamic, dramatic) wholes in the game as played when interacting with the player.
遊戲作為設計過程的產物，包含特定的部分，這些部分以某種形式的技術（無論是數位還是實體）實現；由這些部分的行為互動形成的循環；以及在與玩家互動時，遊戲中所呈現的體驗（動態、戲劇性）整體。

There are, of course, arguments and exceptions about each of these points. If you are playing Poker with friends for real money, is that truly a separate context, as Huizinga and Caillois said, or does this just point out that the magic circle is porous, having multiple points of contact with the real world? Do all games require conflict? Must every game have an end? Many massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) have as one of their central tenets that the game world continues even after any player stops playing. It may be then that these characteristics are typical but not necessarily prescriptive.
當然，對於這些觀點都有爭論和例外。如果你和朋友玩撲克牌並賭真錢，這是否真如胡伊青加和卡伊瓦所說的是一個獨立的情境，還是這只是指出魔法圈是有孔隙的，與現實世界有多個接觸點？所有的遊戲都需要衝突嗎？每個遊戲都必須有結局嗎？許多大型多人線上遊戲（MMOs）其中一個核心理念就是即使玩家停止遊玩，遊戲世界仍然繼續存在。這些特徵可能是典型的，但不一定是規範性的。

To that point, the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1958) wrote about the search for defining characteristics that are shared by all games. In his comments, he dissuaded the reader from trying to find one definition that covers all games. He discouraged the thought that “there must be something common, or they would not be called ‘games.’” Instead, he noted that in looking for a definition, “you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that.…The result of this examination is [that] we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing” (Segment 66).
哲學家路德維希·維根斯坦（1958）曾探討過所有遊戲所共有的定義特徵。在他的評論中，他勸阻讀者不要試圖尋找一個涵蓋所有遊戲的定義。他不贊成認為「一定有某種共通之處，否則它們不會被稱為『遊戲』。」相反地，他指出在尋找定義時，「你不會看到所有遊戲的共通點，而是相似性、關係，以及一整系列的這些……這項檢視的結果是，我們看到一個複雜的相似性網絡，彼此重疊交錯」（段落 66）。

Wittgenstein’s “network of similarities” recalls Aristotle’s “cause” that acts as an organizing principle to keep things from being “a mere heap,” D. H. Lawrence’s “third thing” that makes water wet, and Alexander’s “quality without a name,” discussed in Chapter 1, “Foundations of Systems,” and Chapter 2, “Defining Systems.” Rather than seeking hard-and-fast defining characteristics or building up ad hoc frameworks, the pervasive importance of these relationships, the “network of similarities,” is a big hint about the systemic understanding of games—and everything else.
維根斯坦的「相似性網絡」讓人聯想到亞里士多德的「原因」，這種原因作為一種組織原則，防止事物成為「一堆雜物」；D. H. 劳伦斯的「第三物」，使水具有濕潤的特性；以及亞歷山大的「無名的品質」，這些概念在第一章「系統的基礎」和第二章「定義系統」中都有討論。與其尋求嚴格的定義特徵或建立臨時的框架，這些關係的普遍重要性，即「相似性網絡」，對於遊戲以及其他一切的系統性理解提供了重要的啟示。

A Systemic Model of Games
遊戲的系統模型

Taking the above definitions into account along with an understanding of systems enables the creation of a new and more informative model of games as systems. The model presented here is intended to be descriptive, not prescriptive: this model represents elements of Wittgenstein’s “complicated network of similarities” among all games rather than limits beyond which no game designer can go. This framework is systemic in its structure, clarifying the practice of game design by helping you create a well-defined mental model of games in general and of particular games you want to create.
考慮到上述定義以及對系統的理解，使得創建一個新的、更具信息性的遊戲系統模型成為可能。此處呈現的模型旨在描述而非規範：這個模型代表了維根斯坦所說的所有遊戲之間“複雜的相似性網絡”的元素，而不是限制遊戲設計師不能超越的界限。這個框架在結構上是系統性的，通過幫助你創建一個對遊戲整體以及你想創造的特定遊戲的明確心智模型，來澄清遊戲設計的實踐。

Designers often have trouble finding where to get started with a design or not getting lost in the fog of an idea that they want to articulate. This systemic model provides important structural and organizational guides that allow you as a designer to focus on the game you’re trying to design. Think of this as scaffolding for constructing games, not as a straitjacket that keeps you from designing what you want to create.
設計師常常難以找到設計的起點，或是在想要表達的概念迷霧中迷失。這個系統模型提供了重要的結構和組織指引，使你作為設計師能專注於你正在嘗試設計的遊戲。將其視為構建遊戲的鷹架，而不是限制你創作自由的緊身衣。

Systemic Organization of Games
遊戲的系統性組織

Starting at the highest level, the game as played is a system that has two primary subsystems: the game itself and the player (or multiple players), as shown in Figure 3.1. (It should be no surprise that this bears a striking resemblance to figures you have seen before in this book.)
從最高層次開始，遊戲作為一個系統運行，包含兩個主要子系統：遊戲本身和玩家（或多位玩家），如圖 3.1 所示。（這與您在本書中之前見過的圖形有著驚人的相似之處，這應該不會讓人感到意外。）

This chapter explores in detail three levels of components within the game subsystem and how they map to a systemic view of games:
本章詳細探討遊戲子系統中的三個層次的組件，以及它們如何對應到遊戲的系統觀

Parts: Fundamental and structural components.
部件：基本和結構性的組成部分。

Loops: Functional elements enabled by the structure and built from parts.
循環：由結構啟用並由部件構建的功能元素。

Whole: Aspects of architecture and theme arising from the functional elements, the loops.
整體：從功能元素和循環中產生的建築和主題方面。

The player as a subsystem of the game is only briefly covered in this chapter; you will see more details in Chapter 4.
本章僅簡要介紹了玩家作為遊戲子系統的角色；更多詳情將在第四章中呈現。

In systems terms, the common structural components are the game system’s parts, each with its own internal state and behavior, as described in Chapter 2. The functional elements of the game are created by the interconnected effects of these parts’ behaviors and how they come together to construct game loops. Finally, the architectural and thematic elements are different sides of the whole that emerge from the systemic looping interactions of the parts.
從系統的角度來看，常見的結構組成部分是遊戲系統的各個部分，每個部分都有其內部狀態和行為，如第二章所述。遊戲的功能元素是由這些部分的行為相互作用所創造的，並且它們如何結合在一起構建遊戲循環。最後，架構和主題元素是從這些部分的系統循環互動中浮現出來的整體不同面向。

The overall purpose and action of the game is its gameplay. This is communicated to the player as an emergent effect of the structural, functional, architectural, and thematic elements. The forms that this communication takes are examined in detail in Chapter 4.
遊戲的整體目的和行動即是其遊戲性。這透過結構、功能、架構和主題元素的綜合效果傳達給玩家。這種傳達形式在第四章中有詳細探討。

The Player as Part of a Larger System
玩家作為更大系統的一部分

The player is the companion to the game: without the player, the game itself still exists, but gameplay, the playful experience, exists only when game and player come together (thus the “game+player” terminology used here).
玩家是遊戲的伴侶：沒有玩家，遊戲本身依然存在，但遊戲體驗，這種充滿趣味的體驗，只有在遊戲與玩家結合時才會存在（因此這裡使用“遊戲+玩家”的術語）。

Games may of course be designed for a single player, two or a small group of players, or even many thousands of players at the same time. Traditionally, most games have been designed for multiple players; it is only with the advent of computers-as-players that “single-player games” (meaning a single human interacting with the digital game) have become popular.
遊戲當然可以設計為單人遊戲、雙人或小組遊戲，甚至是同時供數千名玩家遊玩的遊戲。傳統上，大多數遊戲都是為多名玩家設計的；只有隨著電腦作為玩家的出現，“單人遊戲”（指單一人類與數位遊戲互動）才變得流行。

Players typically have some sort of representative and identity within a game. This may be an explicit persona, often called an avatar, which defines the physical and functional attributes that the player can use in the game. Or the player may be represented by an aggregate avatar, such as a pirate ship, including its captain, crew, and guns; or by nothing visible at all, being the “invisible hand” directing a small village or great empire.
玩家通常在遊戲中有某種代表和身份。這可能是一個明確的角色，通常稱為化身，定義了玩家在遊戲中可以使用的物理和功能屬性。或者玩家可能由一個集合化身代表，例如一艘海盜船，包括其船長、船員和火炮；或者根本沒有可見的代表，成為指導一個小村莊或大帝國的“無形之手”。

You will see more about the subsystems within the player portion of the game+player system in more detail in Chapter 4. For now, the key points are as follows:
在第四章中，您將更詳細地了解遊戲+玩家系統中玩家部分的子系統。目前，關鍵點如下：

Both the player and the game are parts within a larger system.
玩家與遊戲都是更大系統中的一部分。

Without a human player, the game has no utility or purpose; it is not really a game outside the played experience.
沒有玩家的參與，遊戲就失去了其效用和目的；在沒有玩家體驗的情況下，它實際上並不算是一個遊戲。

The player is represented within the game as part of its model of reality, just as the player constructs a mental model of the game as part of play. (Recall from the discussion in Chapter 2 that a model is necessarily more abstract than the “real thing.” This is true of both player and game as they model each other.) This co-representational relationship enables the interactive relationship between game and player and the creation of the playful experience.
玩家在遊戲中被表現為其現實模型的一部分，就如同玩家在遊戲過程中構建遊戲的心理模型一樣。（回想第二章的討論，模型必然比「真實事物」更為抽象。這對於玩家和遊戲彼此建構模型的過程都是如此。）這種共同表現的關係促成了遊戲與玩家之間的互動關係，並創造了遊戲體驗。

Structural Parts of a Game
遊戲的結構部分

Like any other system, each game has its own particular parts. These are representational tokens and rules that operate on them. In later chapters, you will see these as specific elements within individual games. For now, consider them as structures that are common to games—the parts in the game as a system—that are expressed differently in every game.
如同其他系統，每個遊戲都有其特定的組成部分。這些部分是表現性的符號和作用於其上的規則。在後面的章節中，您將看到這些作為個別遊戲中的具體元素。現在，請將它們視為遊戲中常見的結構——作為系統的遊戲中的部分——在每個遊戲中以不同的方式表達。

Tokens

Every game has representative objects that denote the different aspects of the game state. These tokens are not typically meaningful in themselves; they are figurative and representational, being part of the structure of the game but not, for example, functional parts of any world-simulation done by the game’s internal model.
每個遊戲都有代表遊戲狀態不同方面的物件。這些標記本身通常沒有特別的意義；它們是象徵性的，屬於遊戲結構的一部分，但並不是遊戲內部模型所進行的任何世界模擬的功能性部分。

Tokens are used to communicate current state and changes in state from the game to the player and vice versa by their accepted meaning within the context of the game. These tokens may be any of the following:
在遊戲中，符號用來傳達遊戲與玩家之間的當前狀態及狀態變化，並且在遊戲的語境中具有公認的意義。這些符號可能包括以下幾種：

Highly conceptual in their representation, such as the black and white pieces in Go
在表現上具有高度概念性，例如圍棋中的黑白棋子

Semi-representational, such as the medieval royalty pieces depicted in Chess
半具象的，例如西洋棋中描繪的中世紀皇室棋子

Detailed in their correspondence to recognizable real-world objects, as with the comprehensive specifications of weapons and armor in many role-playing games
在許多角色扮演遊戲中，武器和盔甲的詳細規格與現實世界中可識別的物品相對應。

Tokens are to some degree necessarily figurative in their representation, as no game fully represents the world. A map that has full fidelity at a 1:1 scale is of no use, and a game that attempts full verisimilitude leaves the magic circle and ceases to be a game.
代幣在某種程度上必然是具象的，因為沒有遊戲能完全代表世界。一張以 1:1 比例完全忠實的地圖毫無用處，而一個試圖達到完全逼真效果的遊戲則會打破魔法圈，失去作為遊戲的本質。

Game tokens define the “nouns” in the game—that is, all the objects that can be manipulated as part of play—and include the following:
遊戲代幣定義了遊戲中的「名詞」——也就是所有可以作為遊戲一部分進行操作的物件——包括以下內容：

The player’s representation, as discussed above
如上所述，玩家的表現

Independent units (as in Go, Chess, and war games) that act on their own or that the player uses as part of the gameplay
獨立單位（如圍棋、象棋和戰爭遊戲中）可以自行行動或由玩家在遊戲過程中使用的一部分

The world in which the game takes place, including any divisions that have their own state (from black and white squares in Chess to complex terrain and geography in digital strategy games)
遊戲所發生的世界，包括任何擁有自己狀態的區域（從西洋棋中的黑白方格到數位策略遊戲中的複雜地形和地理）

Any resources to be used in the game, such as money in Monopoly or wheat, sheep, and wood in Settlers of Catan
在遊戲中使用的任何資源，例如大富翁中的金錢或卡坦島拓荒者中的小麥、羊和木材

Nonmaterial objects in the game, including the concept of a player’s turn (the order and frequency with which players may act in the game), what constitutes a hand of cards, how many items a player may carry, how many dice a player gets to roll, and so on
遊戲中的非物質物件，包括玩家回合的概念（玩家在遊戲中可以行動的順序和頻率）、什麼構成一手牌、玩家可以攜帶多少物品、玩家可以擲多少顆骰子等等

In short, anything in the game that has state and behavior is one of its tokens, and everything that maintains state and has behavior in the game must be represented by a token or as an aggregate of other tokens.
簡而言之，遊戲中任何具有狀態和行為的事物都是其標記，並且遊戲中所有維持狀態和具有行為的事物都必須由標記或其他標記的集合來表示。

While game tokens are necessarily symbolic, they are also highly precise in their state and behavior. A Chess piece always has a specific location—it exists in one and only one square on the board—and has entirely specified ways it can move or attack. Along with rules, game tokens are the precise specification needed for any game. They each have definitive state and behaviors at all times. This is as true for the player’s and world’s representation as for any other objects in the game. Can the player fly in the game? Leap over mountain ranges? Are there mountain ranges in the game world? Each such concept the designer wants to include must first be specified in detail and contained in the game’s tokens and rules, a process you will see in detail in Chapter 8, “Defining Game Parts.”
雖然遊戲代幣必然是象徵性的，但它們在狀態和行為上也非常精確。一個棋子總是有一個特定的位置——它只存在於棋盤上的一個方格中——並且有完全規定的移動或攻擊方式。與規則一起，遊戲代幣是任何遊戲所需的精確規範。它們在任何時候都有明確的狀態和行為。這對於玩家和世界的表現與遊戲中的其他物件一樣真實。玩家能在遊戲中飛行嗎？能跳過山脈嗎？遊戲世界中有山脈嗎？設計師想要包含的每個這樣的概念，必須首先詳細規範並包含在遊戲的代幣和規則中，這個過程你將在第八章“定義遊戲部分”中詳細看到。

Rules

Whereas game tokens are symbolic objects within the game, rules are process specifications. They are understood cognitively by players and are expressed in code in computer games. Rules determine how a game operates by specifying the behaviors of the tokens.
遊戲中的代幣是象徵性的物件，而規則則是過程的規範。玩家在認知上理解這些規則，而在電腦遊戲中則以程式碼表達。規則通過規定代幣的行為來決定遊戲的運作方式。

Specifying Acceptable In-Game Actions
指定可接受的遊戲內行為

Rules help create the playful space wherein players act differently. It is generally not socially acceptable to lie, steal, or kill, but in a game, such behaviors may be entirely acceptable and even necessary. For example, in the popular tabletop game The Resistance, players have to lie flat-out to others about being a spy and betraying the cause. Similarly, in games like EVE Online, while stealing from other players isn’t required, it is entirely allowed as part of the play of the game and has created some stunning schemes between rival player factions.
規則創造了一個讓玩家以不同方式行動的遊戲空間。一般來說，撒謊、偷竊或殺人是不被社會接受的，但在遊戲中，這些行為可能完全被接受，甚至是必要的。例如，在熱門桌上遊戲《The Resistance》中，玩家必須對其他人謊稱自己是間諜並背叛組織。同樣地，在像《EVE Online》這樣的遊戲中，雖然不要求玩家從其他玩家那裡偷竊，但這完全是遊戲的一部分，並且在敵對玩家陣營之間創造了一些驚人的計謀。

Another part of “acting differently” in play is the acceptance that players do not always act in the most efficient way possible; for example, in Chess one player does not simply reach out and grab the other’s king and declare themselves the winner, as that’s “against the rules.” Similarly, in card games players do not routinely rifle through the deck to find the cards they want, even though that would be more efficient than just using the ones they were randomly dealt. The experience of play arises from our voluntary participation in the separate space in which some otherwise unacceptable actions are possible and not all possible actions are acceptable.
在遊戲中“不同行為”的另一部分是接受玩家並不總是以最有效的方式行動；例如，在西洋棋中，一名玩家不會簡單地伸手抓住對方的國王並宣稱自己是贏家，因為這是“違反規則”的。同樣地，在紙牌遊戲中，玩家不會經常翻找整副牌來找到他們想要的牌，儘管這樣做比僅使用隨機發到的牌更有效率。遊戲的體驗來自於我們自願參與一個獨立的空間，在這個空間中，一些在其他情況下不可接受的行為是可能的，而並非所有可能的行為都是可接受的。

Specifying How the Game World Works
指定遊戲世界的運作方式

What are often loosely called the rules of a game are the specifications for how the game is to be played; they are the conditions by which the game universe operates. If the players and tokens are the nouns, rules are the verbs: how the player and the game pieces are able to behave and affect each other as part of play. This relationship between the tokens and rules, the nouns and verbs, is a fundamental part of understanding how the system of a game is built out of its parts.
通常被鬆散地稱為遊戲規則的，是關於遊戲如何進行的規範；它們是遊戲宇宙運作的條件。如果玩家和棋子是名詞，那麼規則就是動詞：描述玩家和遊戲棋子如何在遊戲中行為並相互影響。這種棋子與規則、名詞與動詞之間的關係，是理解遊戲系統如何由其各部分構建而成的基本要素。

Rules define the allowable states at any given moment in the game, how those states may change over time, and how the players progress through the game. They describe how different parts of the game relate to and affect each other. They also detail the obstacles players must surmount in the game, how conflicts are resolved, and potential endings players may reach (particularly those defined by the game as “winning” or “losing”).
規則定義了遊戲中任何時刻允許的狀態、這些狀態如何隨時間變化，以及玩家如何在遊戲中進展。它們描述了遊戲中不同部分之間的關係及其相互影響。它們還詳細說明了玩家在遊戲中必須克服的障礙、如何解決衝突，以及玩家可能達到的潛在結局（特別是那些被遊戲定義為“勝利”或“失敗”的結局）。

The physical structure of the world is specified by rules: this includes how the player moves through the world and even the shape of the world itself. The game world may be a grid, like a chessboard, or it may be a sphere, or something else entirely. The rules may even specify the topology of a world that would be impossible in reality, such as the mind-bending Escher-like worlds in the games Monument Valley and Antichamber.
世界的物理結構由規則指定：這包括玩家如何在世界中移動，甚至是世界本身的形狀。遊戲世界可能是像棋盤一樣的網格，也可能是球體，或是完全不同的東西。規則甚至可能指定一個在現實中不可能存在的世界拓撲，例如遊戲《Monument Valley》和《Antichamber》中令人費解的埃舍爾式世界。

Rules include stipulations involving not just the physical in-game world but the structure and behavior of the game pieces. This includes conventions for how many cards a player may keep in their hand or how many workers each player possesses at the beginning of the game. Rules may also address universal circumstances, such as “a player may fall an infinite distance and still take no damage on landing.” Or even “gravity will change direction every 30 seconds.”
規則不僅涉及遊戲中的物理世界，還包括遊戲棋子的結構和行為。這包括玩家手中可以保留多少張牌或每位玩家在遊戲開始時擁有多少工人。規則還可能涉及普遍情況，例如「玩家可以從無限高度墜落而在著陸時不受傷害。」甚至是「重力每 30 秒改變一次方向。」

Preserving Player Agency  保留玩家自主權

Rules enable different player paths—goals, strategies, and styles of play—to emerge. The rules must not overly restrict the player’s ability to decide their own course, known as player agency. If the player’s actions are overly constrained, their decision-space of the game collapses to a small number of choices or even a single path. When this happens, the player is reduced from participant to observer, thereby removing one of the essential qualities that makes a game a game.
規則使不同的玩家路徑——目標、策略和遊戲風格——得以展現。規則不應過度限制玩家決定自己路徑的能力，這被稱為玩家自主性。如果玩家的行動受到過度限制，遊戲的決策空間就會縮減到少數選擇甚至單一路徑。當這種情況發生時，玩家從參與者變成觀察者，從而失去了一個使遊戲成為遊戲的基本特質。

Part of the game designer’s challenge in creating rules as part of the structure of a game is to make as few rules as possible to create a well-defined game-space; the game world and everything in it must be specified by the game rules. If there are not enough rules, the game is ambiguous, and a player is unable to construct or navigate a mental model of it. If there are too many rules, the player’s agency is overly constrained, and their engagement with the game evaporates.
遊戲設計師在創建遊戲結構時面臨的挑戰之一是儘可能少地制定規則，以創造一個明確定義的遊戲空間；遊戲世界及其中的一切都必須由遊戲規則來規範。如果規則不夠，遊戲就會變得模糊不清，玩家無法構建或導航其心智模型。如果規則過多，玩家的自主性會受到過度限制，對遊戲的投入也會消失。

Avoiding Exceptions to Rules
避免規則的例外

Rules that are arbitrary or create situational exceptions quickly tax the player’s ability to keep an accurate model of the game in mind and make the game more difficult to learn and enjoy. This is the opposite of the concept of elegance in games discussed in Chapter 2.
任意的規則或創造情境例外的規則，會迅速消耗玩家保持遊戲準確模型的能力，並使遊戲更難以學習和享受。這與第二章中討論的遊戲優雅概念正好相反。

For example, many board games use six-sided dice to determine the result of combat. Say that rolling all sixes is generally a “good result” except in a few cases, it’s actually a bad result; this creates a situation where the very same combination of token and rules (dice and how they are rolled) has varying definitions. This increases the amount the player has to learn and remember without increasing their engagement or the possible actions they can take. The same can happen in digital games when controller or key bindings to carry out various actions are assigned arbitrarily: left-click once with a mouse to jump, for example, but clicking twice to do something completely different, like drop everything you’re carrying. Because the two mouse-related actions are cognitively and physically similar, their results in the game should also be similar. When arbitrary rules or rules with lots of exceptions are used in a game, it becomes more difficult to learn, and the player’s engagement suffers. (You will see more about player engagement and mental load in this in Chapter 4.)
例如，許多桌遊使用六面骰子來決定戰鬥的結果。假設擲出全六通常是一個「好結果」，但在某些情況下卻是壞結果；這就創造了一個情境，即相同的標記和規則組合（骰子及其擲法）有著不同的定義。這增加了玩家需要學習和記住的內容，卻沒有增加他們的投入或可採取的行動。同樣的情況也可能發生在數位遊戲中，當控制器或按鍵綁定被隨意分配來執行各種動作時：例如，滑鼠左鍵單擊一次是跳躍，但雙擊卻是做完全不同的事情，比如丟掉你攜帶的所有物品。由於這兩個與滑鼠相關的動作在認知和物理上相似，它們在遊戲中的結果也應該相似。當遊戲中使用隨意的規則或有很多例外的規則時，學習起來就更困難，玩家的投入度也會受到影響。（在第四章中，您將看到更多關於玩家投入和心理負荷的內容。）

Structural Elements and Game Mechanics
結構元素與遊戲機制

The term game mechanics has been used in many different ways by game designers and in design frameworks (Sicart 2008). Grounding this term within systemic design, game mechanics can be thought of as semantically viable (that is, meaningful) combinations of tokens and rules. They can be thought of as the combinations of tokens and rules, much as meaningful phrases or short sentences can be constructed by combining nouns and verbs. Mechanics are typically simple, such as “when you pass Go, collect $200.” Those that are more complex are typically combinations of multiple simpler mechanics, just as a complex sentence is a combination of several phrases.
遊戲機制這個術語在遊戲設計師和設計框架中被以多種不同的方式使用（Sicart 2008）。在系統設計中，遊戲機制可以被視為語義上可行（即有意義）的標記和規則的組合。它們可以被視為標記和規則的組合，就像通過結合名詞和動詞可以構建有意義的短語或短句一樣。機制通常是簡單的，例如「當你經過起點時，收取 200 美元。」那些更複雜的機制通常是多個簡單機制的組合，就像複雜的句子是由多個短語組成一樣。

The point here is not to create a precise definition for game mechanics but to ground such phrases in systemic terms. Tokens and rules can combine in many ways, and so mechanics may take many forms.
這裡的重點不是要為遊戲機制創造一個精確的定義，而是要將這些詞語建立在系統化的術語上。標記和規則可以以多種方式結合，因此機制可能會呈現多種形式。

Games and Metagames

The separate space of the magic circle is defined by the game’s structural elements—its tokens and rules. With a few exceptions, tokens have no meaning, and rules do not operate outside the play of the game. For example, how many properties you own in one play of Monopoly does not affect how many you have in the next game. There are occasional exceptions that players may mutually agree to, such as “I went first last time, so you go first this time” that bridge the operation of rules between games. Other exceptions to this have begun to be known as “legacy” games, where the actions or events of one game affect the conditions or rules the next time it’s played. These illustrate both how important the structural parts of a game are and how they can be creatively superseded to create new and more enjoyable play experiences.
魔法圈的獨立空間由遊戲的結構元素——其標記和規則所定義。除了少數例外，標記在遊戲之外沒有意義，規則也不在遊戲之外運作。例如，在一次大富翁遊戲中擁有多少資產並不會影響你在下一次遊戲中擁有多少。有時玩家可能會互相同意一些例外情況，例如「上次我先開始，所以這次你先開始」，這種情況在遊戲之間架起了規則運作的橋樑。其他例外情況開始被稱為「傳承」遊戲，其中一場遊戲的行動或事件會影響下一次遊戲的條件或規則。這些例子不僅說明了遊戲結構部分的重要性，也展示了如何創造性地超越這些結構，創造出新的、更愉快的遊戲體驗。

This application of tokens or rules across games is called metagaming. In transcending the rules of a single game, the players traverse the barrier of the magic circle, bringing aspects of the game into the real world and vice versa. Some metagame rules are considered “house rules,” such as winning money when you land on Free Parking in Monopoly. Others might be special benefits for inexperienced players. In some cases, metagaming refers more to a player’s actions than to the game itself. For example, tit-for-tat actions referring to an out-of-game situation between players (“you didn’t help me in our last game, so I won’t help you now”) are not specifically forbidden by the game but may be considered poor behavior by other players whose own metagame response may be to not play again with a person who behaves this way.
在遊戲中應用代幣或規則的這種做法被稱為元遊戲。當玩家超越單一遊戲的規則時，他們穿越了魔法圈的屏障，將遊戲的某些方面帶入現實世界，反之亦然。有些元遊戲規則被視為「家規」，例如在《大富翁》中停在免費停車位時贏得金錢。其他可能是為了不熟練的玩家提供的特殊福利。在某些情況下，元遊戲更多地指的是玩家的行為而非遊戲本身。例如，針對玩家之間遊戲外情況的以牙還牙行為（「你在上次遊戲中沒有幫助我，所以我現在也不會幫助你」）並未被遊戲明確禁止，但可能被其他玩家視為不良行為，而這些玩家的元遊戲反應可能是不再與這種行為的人一起遊玩。

Incidentally, “tit-for-tat” metagaming leads into what is known as repeated games in game theory. (Strangely, game theory as such has little to do with game design; it’s more closely related to economics, but there are points of commonality.) Repeated games include those where the metagame is effectively part of the game; for example, if you know you’re going to play Rock-Paper-Scissors multiple times, this knowledge can help you, as players’ behavior in such games is not as random as it might seem. There are predictive mathematical models for how to play repeated games based on the economic payout—how often you are likely to win, given a particular strategy. In cases like this, the metagame becomes subsumed into the game; the magic circle is maintained across iterations of the underlying game.
順帶一提，「以牙還牙」的元遊戲引入了博弈論中所謂的重複遊戲。（奇怪的是，博弈論本身與遊戲設計關係不大；它與經濟學更為相關，但兩者之間有一些共同點。）重複遊戲包括那些元遊戲實際上成為遊戲一部分的情況；例如，如果你知道你將多次玩石頭剪刀布，這種知識可以幫助你，因為玩家在這類遊戲中的行為並不像看起來那麼隨機。基於經濟收益的重複遊戲有預測性的數學模型——根據特定策略，你可能贏得的頻率。在這種情況下，元遊戲被納入遊戲中；魔法圈在基礎遊戲的多次迭代中得以維持。

Functional Aspects of a Game
遊戲的功能層面

In addition to examining the structural elements common to games, it’s important to understand how those parts come together to create the game’s functional organization. As tokens and rules are the parts and behaviors—the nouns and verbs—of the game system, the functional elements are the looped assemblies that arise out of those parts. By analogy to the structures being phrases made of nouns and verbs, the functional elements are the meaningful concepts that can be constructed out of them. This is how the game comes to life and becomes an operational system with which the player can interact.
除了研究遊戲中常見的結構元素外，了解這些部分如何組合成遊戲的功能組織也很重要。作為遊戲系統的名詞和動詞，標記和規則是其組成部分和行為，而功能元素則是從這些部分中產生的循環組合。類比於由名詞和動詞構成的短語，功能元素是可以從中構建的有意義概念。這就是遊戲如何變得栩栩如生，成為玩家可以互動的操作系統。

Functional aspects of a game include any construct around which a player forms goals or any dynamic portions of a mental model. For example, economies rise out of the ebb and flow of resources represented as tokens in the game that interact via rules. Similarly, players work with functional aggregations of the game’s parts when they build heroic characters in role-playing games or vast empires in strategic ones. There is no way to make an exhaustive list of all possible functional components, but, briefly, anything within a game that completes or supports the statement “in this game, the player is a…” (pirate, pilot, florist, emperor, and so on) or that is a significant part of a player completing a goal is clearly one of the functional aspects of the game.
遊戲的功能性方面包括任何玩家用來形成目標的結構或心智模型中的動態部分。例如，經濟體系是由遊戲中以代幣形式表示的資源流動所形成，這些資源通過規則進行互動。同樣地，當玩家在角色扮演遊戲中建立英雄角色或在策略遊戲中建立龐大帝國時，他們也在處理遊戲部分的功能性聚合。無法詳盡列出所有可能的功能性組件，但簡而言之，任何在遊戲中完成或支持「在這個遊戲中，玩家是一個……」（如海盜、飛行員、花商、皇帝等）或是玩家完成目標的重要部分，顯然都是遊戲的功能性方面之一。

These are also typically the types of concepts game designers spend a lot of their time thinking about. While all concepts in a game need to be reduced to tokens and rules, game designers spend a lot of time creating the game itself by organizing those parts into functional, operational subsystems that work to support the desired experience.
這些通常也是遊戲設計師花費大量時間思考的概念類型。雖然遊戲中的所有概念都需要簡化為標記和規則，但遊戲設計師花費大量時間通過將這些部分組織成功能性、操作性的子系統來創建遊戲，以支持所期望的體驗。

Creating the Possibilities for Play
創造遊戲的可能性

It is important to understand that by their nature, the particular economies, characters, empires, and other similar functional constructs created are not static; they change over time as part of play. Nor are they coded directly into the structure of the game—but their possibilities are. That is, the structural tokens and rules set up the conditions and possibilities for an economy, a character, or an empire without determining the exact characteristics of how these appear in a given game.
重要的是要理解，這些特定的經濟體系、角色、帝國及其他類似的功能性結構本質上並非靜態；它們隨著遊戲的進行而改變。它們也不是直接編碼進遊戲的結構中——而是它們的可能性被編碼進去。也就是說，結構性的標記和規則設置了經濟體系、角色或帝國的條件和可能性，但並不決定這些在特定遊戲中出現的具體特徵。

As a result, the game must be designed to provide a space for these changing functional structures to emerge. It must define a model of the world built from its internal structures that provides scaffolding for these to grow and change throughout play. As discussed in Chapter 4, this model must correspond with and support the player’s understanding of the game world in their mental model; it must provide for opposition, meaningful decisions, and player goals to develop as part of play. Enabling these and, as a result, the construction of an effective mental model is a significant part of creating engagement and the playful experience.
因此，遊戲必須被設計成提供一個空間，讓這些不斷變化的功能結構得以出現。它必須定義一個由其內部結構構建的世界模型，為這些結構在遊戲過程中成長和變化提供支架。如同在第四章中所討論的，這個模型必須與玩家對遊戲世界的心理模型相符並支持它；它必須提供對抗、意義重大的決策，以及玩家目標的發展作為遊戲的一部分。促成這些並因此建構一個有效的心理模型，是創造參與感和遊戲體驗的重要部分。

Functional Elements as Machines
作為機器的功能元素

While the functional components of a game are part of the game as a system, people often refer to these complex looped combinations of parts as “the game systems.” If the structural elements are “static,” then these, by virtue of their looping interactions, are seen as “dynamic” in the general sense (of changing over time) and, to a large degree, in the sense used in the MDA framework.
雖然遊戲的功能組件是作為系統的一部分，但人們常常將這些複雜的循環組合稱為「遊戲系統」。如果結構元素是「靜態的」，那麼這些由於其循環互動而被視為「動態的」，在一般意義上（隨時間變化）以及在 MDA 框架中使用的意義上，都是如此。

In a similar way, game designer Geoff Ellenor described his concept for this part of a game as “a machine that does X” (Ellenor 2014), meaning, for example, “I want a machine that makes weather in my game” or “I want the player to receive an email from the mission-giver whenever a mission is completed.” In Ellenor’s thinking, these “machines” are nested—simpler ones inside more complex ones—rather than being built as big monolithic machines. This is an excellent description for the functional aspects of a game, with complex, long-lasting systemic “machines” built hierarchically out of simpler ones, all the way down to structural tokens and rules.
同樣地，遊戲設計師 Geoff Ellenor 描述他對這部分遊戲的概念為「一台做 X 的機器」（Ellenor 2014），例如，「我想要一台在我的遊戲中製造天氣的機器」或「我希望玩家在完成任務後能收到任務發送者的電子郵件」。在 Ellenor 的思維中，這些「機器」是嵌套的——簡單的機器在更複雜的機器內部——而不是建造成大型的單一機器。這是對遊戲功能方面的絕佳描述，複雜且持久的系統「機器」是由更簡單的機器層層構建而成，直到結構符號和規則。

The functional or dynamic parts of a game—the “machine” in Ellenor’s terms—consist of the game’s internal model of reality and the space it creates for the player to act within. This “space” for gameplay provides for meaningful decisions made by the player to chart a course through the space and, thus, for the emergence of player goals and a player’s mental model of the game. This is all based on the idea of second-order design and on the inclusion of uncertainty in the game’s representation. Each of these is explored in detail here.
遊戲的功能或動態部分——在艾倫娜的術語中稱為“機器”——由遊戲的內部現實模型及其為玩家創造的行動空間組成。這個遊戲空間為玩家提供了做出有意義決策的機會，以便在空間中規劃路徑，從而促使玩家目標的出現以及玩家對遊戲的心理模型的形成。這一切都基於二階設計的理念以及在遊戲表現中包含不確定性。這些內容在此處將被詳細探討。

The Game’s Internal Model of Reality
遊戲的內部現實模型

Every game has its own internal model of reality. This arises from the interactions of the game’s tokens and rules, as created by the game designer, and is explored and experienced by the player. Koster (2004) said that games “are abstracted and iconic” and “exclude distracting extra details [of] messy reality” (p. 36). That is, games are not isomorphic with reality but, like all other designed systems, are themselves models of something more complex.
每個遊戲都有其自身的內部現實模型。這是由遊戲設計師創造的遊戲代幣和規則的互動所產生，並由玩家探索和體驗。Koster（2004）指出，遊戲是「抽象且具象徵性」的，並且「排除了混亂現實中分心的額外細節」（第 36 頁）。也就是說，遊戲並非與現實同構，而是像所有其他設計系統一樣，本身就是某種更複雜事物的模型。

In many ways, each game is its own pocket universe with its own governing laws. This little universe may be abstract, such as that defined by the tokens and rules of Chess or Go, or highly detailed and with a high degree of verisimilitude, as in strategy or role-playing games that create a simulacrum of the real world. In either case, the structural and functional elements also create what Costikyan (1994) called the game’s endogenous meaning. This is the meaning that players attach to tokens and rules within the game. The tokens and rules are meaningful solely because they have some function in the game. Costikyan uses the example of Monopoly money: $1,000 in this currency is meaningless outside of the game but has significant meaning inside it, potentially making the difference between winning and losing.
在許多方面，每個遊戲都是一個擁有自身法則的小宇宙。這個小宇宙可能是抽象的，例如由象棋或圍棋的棋子和規則所定義的，或者是高度詳細且具有高度逼真性的，如策略或角色扮演遊戲，這些遊戲創造了一個現實世界的模擬。在任何一種情況下，結構和功能元素也創造了 Costikyan（1994）所稱的遊戲的內生意義。這是玩家賦予遊戲中棋子和規則的意義。棋子和規則之所以有意義，僅僅是因為它們在遊戲中具有某種功能。Costikyan 舉了大富翁遊戲中的例子：在這種貨幣中，$1,000 在遊戲之外毫無意義，但在遊戲中卻具有重大意義，可能決定勝負。

It is important to note that no matter how “realistic” a game’s model of reality, it will never be as complex or inscrutable as actual reality. Even if it were possible to create a game with this degree of detail and complexity, doing so would work against the nature of the game as a locus of a playful experience. Part of having the player enjoy the game is their ability to build an effective mental model of the simplified version of reality it presents. If the game’s model of reality is so complex, variable, or unpredictable that the player cannot build an effective mental model, it might be an interesting simulation to build, but it will not be a fun game to play. Sometimes game designers mistake creating a “hyper-realistic world” or a super-complex system for creating a compelling game. The two aren’t the same, and pouring on more realism or complexity does not inherently make for a better game.
值得注意的是，無論一個遊戲的現實模型多麼“真實”，它永遠不會如實際現實那般複雜或難以捉摸。即使能夠創造出如此細緻和複雜的遊戲，這樣做也會違背遊戲作為一種娛樂體驗的本質。讓玩家享受遊戲的一部分在於他們能夠建立一個有效的心理模型，來理解遊戲所呈現的簡化現實版本。如果遊戲的現實模型過於複雜、多變或不可預測，以至於玩家無法建立有效的心理模型，那麼這可能是一個有趣的模擬建構，但不會是一個好玩的遊戲。有時候，遊戲設計師誤以為創造一個“超現實的世界”或超複雜的系統就是在創造一個引人入勝的遊戲。這兩者並不相同，增加更多的現實感或複雜性並不會自然而然地造就一個更好的遊戲。

Creation of the Game World as a Space for Play
遊戲世界的創造作為一個遊戲空間

In talking about the internal model of reality of games, Salen and Zimmerman (2003) pointed out that game design is second-order design. This has a couple of different but related meanings. First, the game’s design as expressed in its tokens and rules creates the specification for a state-space, not a single path. That is, the internal reality of the game must be one the player can explore and traverse (as allowed by the game’s rules) along multiple paths, not just a single one that the designer has in mind. If there is only one path allowed by the design, then in effect the game has become a single narrative like a book or a movie. In such a case, the player is put into a passive role with no decisions or meaningful interactivity, and the experience of play evaporates. (There is a detailed definition of interactive in Chapter 4, but for now the common fuzzy sense of that word is good enough.) Defining the tokens and rules to allow the player to take multiple different paths through the game enables a player to have different experiences when playing and replaying the game and also to have experiences that vary from those of other players. Each time a player takes a single path, based on their actions in the game, they know that there are many paths they could have taken, even if not all are equally preferable.
在談論遊戲的內部現實模型時，Salen 和 Zimmerman（2003）指出，遊戲設計是二階設計。這有幾個不同但相關的意義。首先，遊戲的設計透過其標記和規則創造了一個狀態空間的規範，而不是單一路徑。也就是說，遊戲的內部現實必須是玩家可以探索和穿越的（在遊戲規則允許的範圍內）多條路徑，而不僅僅是設計者心中所想的單一路徑。如果設計只允許一條路徑，那麼實際上遊戲就變成了一個像書或電影一樣的單一敘事。在這種情況下，玩家被置於被動角色，沒有決策或有意義的互動性，遊戲的體驗就消失了。（在第四章中有對互動性的詳細定義，但目前對這個詞的模糊常識理解已經足夠。）定義標記和規則以允許玩家在遊戲中走多條不同的路徑，使玩家在遊玩和重玩遊戲時能夠有不同的體驗，並且這些體驗也會與其他玩家的體驗有所不同。 每當玩家選擇一條路徑，根據他們在遊戲中的行動，他們知道還有許多其他路徑可以選擇，即使並非所有路徑都同樣理想。

Contrast this with a movie or book in which the path the viewer or reader must take has already been determined. You as the viewer or reader cannot affect the course of the events of the story; you are a viewer, not a participant, and have no choices you can make in how the story unfolds. This highlights the well-known (and still unresolved) tension between traditional stories and games: stories follow a single scripted path that does not change on repeat encounters,² whereas games provide a space with many possible paths that can provide different experiences. The game designer’s job is not to create a single path—a first-order design for the experience that will be the same for all players—as that will quickly become boring rather than engaging as a participatory experience. Instead, the game designer must use the tokens and rules of the game to create a many-dimensioned space through which the players define for themselves their particular experiences.
與此形成對比的是，電影或書籍中觀眾或讀者必須走的路徑已經被預先確定。作為觀眾或讀者的你無法影響故事事件的進程；你是觀眾，而非參與者，無法選擇故事如何展開。這突顯了傳統故事與遊戲之間眾所周知（且尚未解決）的緊張關係：故事遵循單一的劇本路徑，重複觀看時不會改變，而遊戲則提供了一個擁有多種可能路徑的空間，可以帶來不同的體驗。遊戲設計師的工作不是創造一條單一路徑——一種對所有玩家來說都相同的第一階設計體驗——因為這樣很快就會變得乏味，而不是作為一種參與式體驗而引人入勝。相反，遊戲設計師必須利用遊戲的標記和規則創造一個多維空間，讓玩家自行定義他們的特定體驗。

The second but related meaning of second-order design is that designing the tokens and rules to form dynamic systems (and the space for an experience) is an example of enabling emergence in ways that are unique to games. As mentioned in the discussion of the MDA framework, the game’s mechanics—its tokens and rules—are directly designed; but its dynamics—its functional aspects—arise out of the tokens and rules during the play of the game. The game’s systems do not provide a single, predefined path but instead create an entire explorable play-space, as described above.
第二層次設計的另一個相關意義在於，設計標記和規則以形成動態系統（以及體驗的空間）是遊戲中獨特的啟發湧現的方式。正如在 MDA 框架的討論中提到的，遊戲的機制——其標記和規則——是直接設計的；但其動態——其功能方面——則是在遊戲進行中由標記和規則產生的。遊戲的系統不提供單一的預定路徑，而是創造了一個完整的可探索遊戲空間，如上所述。

The player’s experience emerges from their interaction with the designed space—arising from it but not being mappable back to any single part of the design or the simple sum of its parts. Often the player’s experience unfolds in ways the designer could not have predicted. If the space is sufficiently large and the player has enough autonomy in the game, that experience may be wholly unique and emergent. (You will see more about second-order design and emergence in Chapter 8 and elsewhere in this book.)
玩家的體驗源自於他們與設計空間的互動——這種體驗從中產生，但無法回溯到設計的任何單一部分或其簡單的總和。玩家的體驗往往以設計者無法預測的方式展開。如果空間足夠大且玩家在遊戲中擁有足夠的自主性，那麼這種體驗可能會是完全獨特且自發的。（在第八章及本書的其他部分，您將看到更多關於二階設計和自發性的內容。）

The Curious Case of Systemic Cat Deaths in Dwarf Fortress
矮人要塞中的系統性貓死亡奇案

The kind of emergent gameplay just described is at the heart of making systemic games. It can take innumerable forms, but here is one particular, possibly extreme, example of systemic interactions in a game creating an emergent situation. Dwarf Fortress is possibly the most systemic game yet made. The game depicts the growth and hazards encountered by a group of dwarves creating (with the player’s guidance) their underground empire. Dwarf Fortress is entirely procedural, meaning that the world and all that happens in it are defined as a second-order design, not handcrafted to depict a particular place or set of events. (The game also consists of almost nothing but ASCII graphics and is generally regarded as one of the most difficult video games to learn to play. This is an issue separate from its systematicity; it may well be that players strive to learn to play the game because its systemic nature makes it so compelling despite these obstacles.)
剛才描述的這種突現遊戲玩法正是系統性遊戲的核心。它可以呈現無數種形式，但這裡有一個特定的、可能極端的例子，展示了遊戲中系統性互動如何創造出突現情境。《矮人要塞》可能是迄今為止最具系統性的遊戲。遊戲描繪了一群矮人在玩家的指導下建立他們的地下帝國時的成長與遇到的危險。《矮人要塞》完全是程序生成的，這意味著遊戲中的世界及其發生的一切都是作為二次設計定義的，而不是手工製作來描繪特定的地方或事件。（該遊戲幾乎完全由 ASCII 圖形組成，通常被認為是最難學習的電子遊戲之一。這是與其系統性分開的問題；玩家可能正是因為其系統性使其如此引人入勝，儘管有這些障礙，仍努力學習如何遊玩。）

In late 2015, one player began noticing an epidemic of cats dying in the game (Master 2015). Cats aren’t a major aspect of the game but are part of the lush world it presents to the player. The cat deaths were unrelated to any combat or similar circumstances. After investigating, the player discovered that the cats were often dizzy (a “syndrome” that can be attached to a creature in the game) just before they died, and disturbingly “their death always leave [sic] a pool of vomit with them”—another systemic in-game effect. At first, the player thought there was a bug in the game where tavern keepers would serve cats alcohol if the animals were located in a tavern (as they often were). In actuality, the cause was even stranger: the cats frequented taverns to hunt mice and rats—this is what was programmed in as part of the cats’ behavior, without regard to any significant in-game effects it might have. The dwarves drinking in the tavern would often splash their wine on the floor, some of which would get on the cats. Since cats have a “self-cleaning” behavior, they would in effect drink the alcohol that had splashed onto them, and then shortly thereafter become drunk, dizzy, and, due to their very low body weight, often die.
2015 年底，一位玩家開始注意到遊戲中出現了貓死亡的流行病（Master 2015）。貓並不是遊戲中的主要元素，但它們是遊戲中呈現給玩家的豐富世界的一部分。貓的死亡與任何戰鬥或類似情況無關。經過調查，玩家發現貓在死前經常感到頭暈（這是一種可以附加在遊戲生物上的“症狀”），令人不安的是，“牠們的死亡總是伴隨著一灘嘔吐物”——這是遊戲中的另一個系統效果。起初，玩家以為遊戲中有個漏洞，讓酒館老闆會給貓喝酒，如果這些動物在酒館裡的話（因為牠們經常在那裡）。實際上，原因更為奇怪：貓經常光顧酒館是為了捕捉老鼠和鼠類——這是貓的行為編程的一部分，並未考慮到可能產生的任何重大遊戲效果。酒館裡喝酒的矮人經常會把酒灑在地上，其中一些會濺到貓身上。 由於貓有「自我清潔」的行為，它們會舔掉濺到身上的酒精，然後不久後便會醉倒、頭暈，並且由於牠們的體重非常輕，常常因此而死亡。

This entire situation is the result of multiple interacting systems. No designer working on this ever said, “Make sure cats can be splashed by wine and die from alcohol poisoning.” There are many systems in the game, including those for drinking alcohol (important to the dwarves in the game), for wine being spattered on things (in great detail: the game logs show entries for a cat in a tavern with “dwarven wine spatter fourth left rear toe,” for example), for ensuring that the size of the drinker increases or decreases the alcohol’s effect, and for animals to have the ability to clean themselves (only cats and red pandas have this ability in the game) and thus ingest alcohol, among others.
這整個情況是多個互動系統的結果。沒有任何設計師在開發這款遊戲時說過：「確保貓可以被酒潑到並因酒精中毒而死。」遊戲中有許多系統，包括飲酒系統（對遊戲中的矮人來說很重要）、酒液濺到物品上的系統（非常詳細：遊戲日誌中顯示一隻貓在酒館中，記錄為「矮人酒濺到第四左後趾」），確保飲酒者的體型會影響酒精效果的系統，以及動物有自我清潔能力的系統（在遊戲中只有貓和小熊貓具備這種能力），從而攝取酒精，等等。

All of these systems interact together as functional parts in a higher-level system to create a large play-space that includes the effect of the poor cats dying of alcohol poisoning. This wasn’t preplanned but emerged as an element of gameplay for a curious player. This is just one, albeit extreme, example of emergent systemic gameplay and, thus, of the second-order design of the game world.
所有這些系統作為高階系統中的功能部件相互作用，創造出一個包含貓因酒精中毒而死的效果的大型遊戲空間。這並非事先計劃好的，而是作為一個好奇玩家的遊戲元素自然而然地出現。這只是系統性遊戲玩法中一個極端的例子，也是遊戲世界二階設計的一部分。

Uncertainty and Randomness in the Game World
遊戲世界中的不確定性與隨機性

A common functional element of game worlds is uncertainty, typically achieved through some form of randomness. This takes many forms, from familiar dice rolls and cards dealt from a deck to sophisticated random number generators used in digital games (more on these in Chapter 9, “Game Balance Methods”). Not all games use randomness as a functional component, but all present the player or players with some degree of uncertainty. Some ancient games, such as Chess and Go, have no random action built into their rules; the uncertainty in these games comes from each player not knowing the actions of the other in advance. Most games today, however, have some amount of randomness as part of their rules. This is often seen as a balancing factor to the skill the players may have developed in navigating the game world.
遊戲世界中常見的功能元素是不確定性，通常透過某種形式的隨機性來實現。這可以有多種形式，從熟悉的擲骰子和從牌堆中發牌，到數位遊戲中使用的複雜隨機數生成器（更多內容請參見第九章“遊戲平衡方法”）。並非所有遊戲都將隨機性作為功能組成部分，但所有遊戲都會給玩家帶來某種程度的不確定性。一些古老的遊戲，如象棋和圍棋，規則中並沒有內建隨機行動；這些遊戲中的不確定性來自於每位玩家無法提前知道對方的行動。然而，現今大多數遊戲的規則中都包含一定程度的隨機性。這通常被視為對玩家在遊戲世界中所發展出的技能的一種平衡因素。

In short, the more deterministic the game world is, the more it can be known in advance. The more it is known, the more the game-space collapses to a single path, robbing the player of the ability to make any decisions about how to traverse the space. A prime example of this can be seen in the elaborate, dance-like, but also entirely deterministic openings memorized and used by skilled Chess players. That game becomes interesting as players manage to use existing functional “chunks” of information (combinations of pieces on the board—in effect, subsystems defined by the mutual relationships between pieces and their locations) in novel ways. As you will see later in this chapter, the ability for players to make meaningful decisions is crucial to creating engaging gameplay.
簡而言之，遊戲世界越是確定性，越能提前被了解。了解得越多，遊戲空間就越會收縮成單一路徑，剝奪玩家對如何穿越空間做出任何決策的能力。這方面的一個典型例子可以在熟練的國際象棋玩家所記住並使用的精心設計、如舞蹈般但完全確定性的開局中看到。當玩家能夠以新穎的方式使用現有的功能性“塊狀”信息（棋盤上的棋子組合——實際上是由棋子之間的相互關係及其位置定義的子系統）時，這個遊戲就變得有趣了。正如您在本章稍後將看到的，玩家做出有意義決策的能力對於創造引人入勝的遊戲體驗至關重要。

The Player’s Mental Model
玩家的心理模型

The game defines a play-space, a world for players to explore. Corresponding to this, the player creates their own internal mental model of the world as they play. While the player’s mental model is not part of the game per se, the functional aspects of the game must come together to support its creation within the player. As you will see in Chapter 4, the formation of this mental model is a vital part of the player being engaged by the game and ultimately of their experience of having fun. For now it’s enough say that the player builds their model of the game world by interacting with the tokens and rules and, via them, the functional elements presented by the game.
遊戲定義了一個遊戲空間，供玩家探索的世界。與此相對應，玩家在遊戲過程中創建了自己對這個世界的內在心理模型。雖然玩家的心理模型本身並不是遊戲的一部分，但遊戲的功能性方面必須結合起來，以支持玩家內部模型的創建。正如你在第四章中將看到的，這個心理模型的形成是玩家被遊戲吸引並最終享受樂趣的關鍵部分。目前，只需說玩家通過與遊戲中的標記和規則互動，並通過它們與遊戲呈現的功能元素互動，來構建他們的遊戲世界模型。

The more easily this model is to build within the player’s mind, and the more consistent the player’s understanding is of the world-model defined by the game designer, the more engaging the game will be. Conversely, if the player has a difficult time discerning the rules underlying the model of the game, or if those rules appear incomplete or inconsistent, the game will often fail to be engaging, or will at least demand more time and cognitive resources from the player (and in so doing will limit the game’s audience to only those willing to take the time and devote the resources needed to learn it).
玩家越容易在心中建立這個模型，且對遊戲設計師所定義的世界模型理解越一致，遊戲就會越具吸引力。反之，如果玩家難以辨識遊戲模型背後的規則，或這些規則顯得不完整或不一致，遊戲往往就不會那麼吸引人，或者至少會要求玩家投入更多的時間和認知資源（這樣一來，遊戲的受眾將限於那些願意花時間和資源去學習的人）。

Saying that a player’s mental model must be easily constructed does not mean that the game or the mental model must be simple. The mental model required for a game like Tic-Tac-Toe is simple because the game has few tokens and rules—but it is also a game that players tire of quickly, as they can easily see the game’s outcomes: there is no randomness in the game, no systemic depth, and few opportunities for players to create significant uncertainty for each other. The mental model for a complex game like Go or a modern strategy game like Stellaris can take a great deal of time and effort to build. However, the systemic quality of such games means that there are few inconsistencies to incorporate along the way. As a result, players are rewarded with increased capability as their mental model grows in completeness, which encourages further exploration of the game’s model—a highly effective reinforcing loop.
說一個玩家的心理模型必須容易構建，並不意味著遊戲或心理模型必須簡單。像井字遊戲這樣的遊戲所需的心理模型很簡單，因為遊戲的棋子和規則很少——但這也是一個玩家很快就會厭倦的遊戲，因為他們可以輕易預見遊戲的結果：遊戲中沒有隨機性，沒有系統深度，玩家之間也很少有機會創造出顯著的不確定性。像圍棋或現代策略遊戲如《Stellaris》這樣的複雜遊戲的心理模型可能需要大量的時間和精力來構建。然而，這類遊戲的系統性質意味著在構建過程中很少有不一致之處。因此，隨著玩家的心理模型日益完整，他們的能力也隨之增強，這鼓勵了對遊戲模型的進一步探索——這是一個非常有效的強化循環。

Meaningful Decisions  有意義的決策

As the player constructs a mental model of the game world (building on what they learn of its tokens and rules), they interact with it and exercise their understanding, trying out various courses of action. To do this, the player must be able to make meaningful decisions. As stated above, being able to make meaningful decisions requires uncertainty in the player’s mental model and typically in the game’s world model as well; without that, there is no decision for the player to make. Some games create the uncertainty wholly between players, with no hidden or random elements in the game’s representation. Most, however, include some hidden information the player does not yet know or that cannot yet be known because it is to be determined randomly and is not knowable in advance.³
當玩家在遊戲世界中構建一個心理模型（基於他們對遊戲標記和規則的了解），他們會與之互動並運用他們的理解，嘗試各種行動方案。為了做到這一點，玩家必須能夠做出有意義的決策。如上所述，能夠做出有意義的決策需要玩家的心理模型中存在不確定性，通常在遊戲的世界模型中也是如此；否則，玩家就無法做出決策。有些遊戲完全在玩家之間創造不確定性，遊戲的表現中沒有隱藏或隨機元素。然而，大多數遊戲包含一些玩家尚未知道的隱藏信息，或者因為是隨機決定的而無法提前知道。

No Choices, Ineffectual Choices, and Choices That Lead to Change
無選擇、無效的選擇，以及導致改變的選擇

If a game presents a player with no decisions to make, the player is forced into a passive rather than interactive role. They cannot explore but can only follow a single path, and so the experience of play collapses. (This can still be enjoyable, as when watching a movie or reading a book, but in those cases, all the decisions have been made, and there is no experience of play.) Similarly, if the game provides illusory choices—decisions that have no effect on the player or the world, such as choosing between two doors that are then seen to lead to the same place—these quickly become equivalent to no choice at all. Since there is no effect from choosing one option or another, the decision becomes arbitrary and thus as if it didn’t exist.
如果一個遊戲沒有讓玩家做出任何決策，玩家就會被迫處於被動而非互動的角色。他們無法探索，只能遵循單一路徑，因此遊戲體驗會崩潰。（這仍然可以是愉快的，就像看電影或讀書一樣，但在這些情況下，所有的決策都已經做出，並且沒有遊戲的體驗。）同樣地，如果遊戲提供虛假的選擇——那些對玩家或世界沒有影響的決策，例如選擇兩扇門卻發現它們通向同一個地方——這些很快就等同於沒有選擇。由於選擇一個選項或另一個選項沒有影響，決策變得隨意，因此就好像它不存在一樣。

The game must instead provide the player with opportunities to make meaningful decisions: choices that affect the player’s state or the state of the world in discernable ways and that either create or block the opportunity for further exploration and decisions along a particular path.
遊戲必須為玩家提供做出有意義決策的機會：這些選擇會以可辨識的方式影響玩家的狀態或世界的狀態，並且要麼創造進一步探索和決策的機會，要麼阻礙沿著特定路徑的進一步探索和決策。

Ultimately, what constitutes a “meaningful” decision may vary with each player. However, if the player believes the outcome of a decision will either bring her closer to a desired end or push her further from it, the decision carries meaning. This is for now a cursory description of meaning within the context of a game but one that will be filled out in the discussion of player goals and thematic elements below and different forms of interactivity in Chapter 4.
最終，什麼構成「有意義的」決策可能因玩家而異。然而，如果玩家相信決策的結果會讓她更接近或更遠離所期望的結局，那麼這個決策就具有意義。這目前是對遊戲中意義的一個粗略描述，但在下面對玩家目標和主題元素的討論中，以及在第四章中對不同互動形式的探討中，將會進一步充實。

Opposition and Conflict  對立與衝突

Games require opposition, and almost all games contain some form of overt conflict. If there were no opposition in a game, a player would be able to achieve their desired outcome without any significant effort. Being able to pick up your opponent’s king in Chess as your first move and say “I win” or being able to have all the money and power you want in a strategy game quickly drains the game of any engagement or fun. Thus, for players to be able to exercise their mental model of the game, to make meaningful decisions to achieve their goals, in addition to uncertainty, there must be forces in the game that obstruct their progress.
遊戲需要對抗，幾乎所有遊戲都包含某種形式的明顯衝突。如果遊戲中沒有對抗，玩家將能夠毫不費力地達成他們想要的結果。在象棋中，若能在第一步就拿起對手的國王並說「我贏了」，或是在策略遊戲中迅速獲得所有的金錢和權力，這樣的遊戲很快就會失去吸引力和樂趣。因此，為了讓玩家能夠運用他們對遊戲的心智模型，做出有意義的決策以達成目標，除了不確定性之外，遊戲中必須存在阻礙他們進展的力量。

The types of opposition found in games fall into a few categories:
遊戲中存在的對抗類型可分為幾個類別：

The rules: A large part of the opposition that players face in a game comes from the rules themselves. For example, in Chess the rules do not allow for simply swooping in and grabbing the other player’s king. Most games limit the player’s actions by the rules, using the tokens in the game. These may be articulated as limitations on movement, on resource-based actions, or on factors within the world (for example, terrain that the rules deem impassible to the player). Such rules should feel during play like a natural part of the game world rather than something forced into it to create a limitation. The more arbitrary a rule feels to players, the more they will think about how to play the game rather than just playing it, and the less engaged they will be.
規則：在遊戲中，玩家面臨的對抗很大一部分來自於規則本身。例如，在象棋中，規則不允許玩家直接衝過去抓住對方的國王。大多數遊戲通過規則限制玩家的行動，使用遊戲中的棋子。這些限制可能表現在移動、基於資源的行動或世界中的因素（例如，規則認為玩家無法通過的地形）上。這樣的規則在遊戲過程中應該感覺像是遊戲世界的自然一部分，而不是為了創造限制而強加的東西。規則越是顯得武斷，玩家就越會思考如何玩這個遊戲，而不是單純地享受遊戲，參與感也會因此降低。

Active opponents: In addition to the rules and the world, many games provide agents who actively oppose the player’s actions. Loosely, these can be termed “monsters”—anything that opposes the player and has some degree of agency in its actions—though this includes everything from anonymous goblins attempting to block the player-character’s path to a finely crafted nemesis spinning elaborate plans to ensure the player’s downfall in the game.
主動對手：除了規則和世界之外，許多遊戲還提供了積極反對玩家行動的代理。這些可以統稱為「怪物」——任何反對玩家並在行動中具有某種程度自主性的事物——這包括從試圖阻擋玩家角色路徑的無名哥布林，到精心設計的宿敵，編織精密計畫以確保玩家在遊戲中失敗。

Other players: Players may have roles defined by the game’s functional elements that put them in opposition to each other. In any game where players compete with each other, whether directly (for “who wins”) or indirectly (for example, for who has the higher score), players may act as obstacles in each other’s way. Many games are built on the idea of two or more players trying to balance achieving their own desired outcomes while thwarting others.
其他玩家：玩家可能因遊戲的功能元素而被賦予角色，這些角色使他們彼此對立。在任何玩家互相競爭的遊戲中，無論是直接競爭（例如「誰贏」）還是間接競爭（例如，誰的分數較高），玩家都可能成為彼此的障礙。許多遊戲的設計理念是基於兩個或更多玩家試圖在達成自己期望的結果的同時，阻撓其他玩家。

The players themselves: Balancing different desired outcomes shows how the player may be their own opposition. If a player has a limited amount of resources, they form their own economy, where they cannot apply resources to all the things they would like. The player may have to make a decision, for example, about whether to spend in-game resources on building troops now or on upgrading barracks to build more powerful troops later. This kind of trade-off is common and presents the player with meaningful decisions based on the fact that they cannot do everything at the same time.
玩家自身：平衡不同的期望結果顯示出玩家可能成為自己的對手。如果玩家的資源有限，他們便形成了自己的經濟體系，無法將資源應用於所有想要的事物。玩家可能需要做出決定，例如是現在花費遊戲內資源來建造部隊，還是升級兵營以便日後建造更強大的部隊。這種取捨是常見的，並且基於玩家無法同時完成所有事情的事實，為玩家提供了有意義的決策。

Player Goals

Decisions that a player makes are typically made within the context of the player’s goals within the game. If a player has no goal, no destination in the state-space of the game, then no choice is better than any other, and so there is no intent, meaning, or engagement. As such, goals are the guiding stars by which players choose their course through the game. Without goals, the player simply drifts, a condition as contrary to engagement and the playful experience as the passivity arising from not being able to make any decisions at all.
玩家所做的決策通常是在遊戲中玩家目標的背景下進行的。如果玩家沒有目標，沒有遊戲狀態空間中的目的地，那麼任何選擇都不會比其他選擇更好，因此也就沒有意圖、意義或投入。因此，目標是玩家在遊戲中選擇路徑的指引星。沒有目標，玩家就只是漂流，這種狀態與投入和遊戲體驗背道而馳，就如同無法做出任何決策所帶來的被動一樣。

Players thus desire goals within the game. Often, their ultimate in-game goals have to do with a measurable or valorous end (that is, “winning”). Such goals are often supplied by the game designer as part of its functional elements as a quantification of the game’s objectives. These are called explicit goals. When someone asks, “What is the object of the game?” or “How do I win?” they are asking about the game’s explicit goals.
因此，玩家渴望在遊戲中達成目標。通常，他們在遊戲中的最終目標與可衡量或光榮的結局有關（即“勝利”）。這些目標通常由遊戲設計師作為其功能元素的一部分提供，作為遊戲目標的量化表現。這些被稱為明確目標。當有人問：“遊戲的目的是什麼？”或“我該如何獲勝？”他們是在詢問遊戲的明確目標。

Most games have explicit goals that either cover the entire play of the game (“win conditions”) or that at least help the player learn the basics of the game and begin building a mental model. In games where these are not the only possible goals the player can have, they can be seen as “training wheels.” After a player has a sufficiently detailed mental model of the world, in some games they are then set free to create their own implicit goals that drive their actions and decisions. Even within the context of explicit goals provided by the game (“finish this level”), players may create their own goals simply for their own amusement (“I’m going to finish this level without killing any monsters”).
大多數遊戲都有明確的目標，這些目標要麼涵蓋整個遊戲過程（“勝利條件”），要麼至少幫助玩家學習遊戲的基本知識並開始建立心智模型。在那些這些目標並非玩家唯一可能擁有的目標的遊戲中，它們可以被視為“訓練輪”。當玩家對遊戲世界有了足夠詳細的心智模型後，在某些遊戲中，他們便可以自由地創造自己的隱性目標，這些目標驅動著他們的行動和決策。即使在遊戲提供的明確目標（“完成這一關”）的背景下，玩家也可能僅僅為了自己的娛樂而創造自己的目標（“我要在不殺死任何怪物的情況下完成這一關”）。

Implicit and explicit goals can be combined, such as when there are game-provided optional achievements or badges that are ends in themselves (such as a “pacifist” tag for completing a level without killing anything). Such achievements may incentivize players to begin creating their own implicit goals. Doing so increases the player’s engagement and the probability that they will continue playing the game.
隱性目標和顯性目標可以結合，例如當遊戲提供可選的成就或徽章，這些成就或徽章本身就是目的（例如完成一個關卡而不殺死任何東西的「和平主義者」標籤）。這類成就可能會激勵玩家開始創造自己的隱性目標。這樣做可以增加玩家的投入度以及他們繼續遊戲的可能性。

On the other hand, games that have only explicit goals tend to have lower longevity and replay value because the player’s potential set of goals is circumscribed by the game itself. This is consistent with the idea that as the game’s design reduces the possible actions the player can take, the state-space is narrowed, the player’s set of goals becomes smaller, their ability to make meaningful decisions is decreased, and their overall sense of engagement is either fleeting (until they see through the illusion of agency created by the game) or reduced. The game may still be enjoyable in the same way that a book or movie is, but without the same sense of agency and meaning that players can derive from creating their own goals and charting their own path through the game’s world.
另一方面，僅有明確目標的遊戲往往壽命較短，重玩價值較低，因為玩家的目標集合被遊戲本身所限制。這與遊戲設計減少玩家可採取的可能行動的想法一致，狀態空間被縮小，玩家的目標集合變小，他們做出有意義決策的能力減少，整體的投入感要麼是短暫的（直到他們看穿遊戲創造的行動幻覺），要麼是降低的。遊戲可能仍然像書籍或電影一樣令人愉悅，但缺乏玩家從創造自己的目標和在遊戲世界中開闢自己道路中獲得的那種行動感和意義。

Types of Goals

Chapter 4 explores different types of interactivity, but it is worth foreshadowing that exploration here in terms of different types of player goals. These types of goals all arise out of the endogenous meaning created by the functional elements of the game and from the mental model the player creates. If the game has no internal meaning, or if the player cannot create a viable mental model of it, then the player cannot form goals about the game. In that case, they are reduced to wandering aimlessly in the game (around the game world and/or its play-space), which quickly becomes boring.
第四章探討了不同類型的互動性，但值得在此預示的是，這些探索與不同類型的玩家目標有關。這些目標類型皆源自於遊戲的功能元素所創造的內生意義，以及玩家所建立的心理模型。如果遊戲沒有內在意義，或玩家無法建立一個可行的心理模型，那麼玩家就無法對遊戲形成目標。在這種情況下，他們只能在遊戲中漫無目的地遊蕩（在遊戲世界和/或其遊戲空間中），這很快就會變得乏味。

Player goals may be thought of as varying in several dimensions, including duration and frequency: how long does a goal take to complete and how frequently does the player attempt it? Player goals also correspond to different kinds of psychological motivations, as you will see in Chapter 4. Both explicit and implicit goals may be any of the following:
玩家的目標可以被認為在多個維度上有所不同，包括持續時間和頻率：一個目標需要多長時間才能完成，玩家又多頻繁地嘗試達成它？玩家的目標也對應著不同類型的心理動機，正如你在第四章中將看到的。無論是明確的還是隱含的目標，都可能是以下任何一種：

Instant: Actions the player wants to accomplish immediately by effectively making a time-based action. Examples include jumping or grabbing a rope at just the right time or using fast reactions to block an opponent’s shot.
即時：玩家希望立即完成的動作，通常是透過有效的時間控制來實現。例子包括在恰當的時機跳躍或抓住繩子，或是快速反應來阻擋對手的射門。

Short term: Near-term goals such as solving a puzzle, killing a monster, using a particular tactic, gaining a level, and so on. These goals are cognitive in nature, requiring planning and attention, but without a long time horizon. They typically include multiple instant goals that are satisfied along the way to completing an overall goal.
短期目標：例如解開謎題、擊敗怪物、使用特定策略、提升等級等。這些目標本質上是認知性的，需要計劃和專注，但不需要長時間的規劃。通常包括多個即時目標，這些目標在完成整體目標的過程中會逐步滿足。

Long term: Strategic, cognitive goals that encompass what the player wants to achieve in the game—for example, taking out a strong opponent, gaining a complete set of items, building up a particular skill tree, creating an empire. These goals require a great deal of focus and planning and are the backbone of a player’s long-term engagement with the game. Long-term goals contain multiple short-term ones, which in turn contain instant ones. The systemic hierarchy of these goals should be evident and is often a point of satisfaction to a player. (Again, see Chapter 4 for a more in-depth discussion of goals.)
長期目標：戰略性、認知性的目標，涵蓋玩家在遊戲中想要達成的成就，例如擊敗強大的對手、收集完整的物品套裝、發展特定的技能樹、建立一個帝國。這些目標需要大量的專注和規劃，是玩家長期投入遊戲的基石。長期目標包含多個短期目標，而短期目標又包含即時目標。這些目標的系統層次應該是顯而易見的，並且常常是玩家滿足感的來源。（再次參見第四章以獲得對目標的更深入討論。）

Social: Goals the player has that primarily involve their relationships with other players within the game. These goals can easily spill over into relationships outside of the game, too, illustrating the porousness of the magic circle. However, these goals are primarily those having to do with inclusion, status, cooperation, direct competition, and so on. Given the time it can take to form and adjust social relationships, these goals often contain multiple immediate, short-term, and even long-term goals.
社交：玩家在遊戲中主要涉及與其他玩家之間關係的目標。這些目標也很容易延伸到遊戲外的關係，顯示出魔法圈的滲透性。然而，這些目標主要與包容、地位、合作、直接競爭等有關。鑑於建立和調整社交關係所需的時間，這些目標通常包含多個即時、短期甚至長期的目標。

Emotional: Game designers often don’t think explicitly about a player’s emotional goals, though it should be one of the first things you consider in game design. Achieving an emotional resolution is key to many games (Gone Home, Road Not Taken, Undertale, and so on). While the players themselves may not consciously consider satisfying an emotional goal the way they do a more cognitive short- or long-term planning goal, these are even more important to enjoyment of the game.
情感：遊戲設計師通常不會明確考慮玩家的情感目標，儘管這應該是遊戲設計中首先考慮的事情之一。達成情感上的解決是許多遊戲的關鍵（如《Gone Home》、《Road Not Taken》、《Undertale》等）。雖然玩家本身可能不會像考慮短期或長期的認知目標那樣有意識地考慮滿足情感目標，但這些對於遊戲的樂趣來說更為重要。

Each of these dynamic and operational functional components—the game’s model of reality that creates a space for play, opposition, and decisions—enables the player to build a mental model of the game and interact with it, creating goals that are vital to their engagement. The player’s experience via these interactions and goals leads us to the highest level of the systemic description of games.
這些動態且運作中的功能組件——遊戲的現實模型，創造了一個供遊玩、對抗和決策的空間——使玩家能夠建立遊戲的心智模型並與之互動，從而創造出對他們參與至關重要的目標。玩家透過這些互動和目標的體驗，引導我們達到遊戲系統描述的最高層次。

Architecture and Thematic Elements
建築與主題元素

At a systemic level above its functional aspects, at the level of the whole experience, each game has both architectural and thematic sides. These emerge from the underlying functional interactions between the structural parts. In systemic terms, the architecture and theme are two faces of the same whole: the architectural elements are more inward (developer) focused, and the thematic ones are more outward (player) focused. Game designers must be constantly aware of both architecture and theme and how they link to each other and emerge from the more fundamental structural and functional aspects of the game to create effective gameplay.
在系統層面上，超越其功能層面，在整體體驗的層次上，每個遊戲都有其建築和主題兩個方面。這些來自於結構部分之間的基本功能互動。從系統的角度來看，建築和主題是同一整體的兩個面向：建築元素更偏向內部（開發者）關注，而主題元素則更偏向外部（玩家）關注。遊戲設計師必須時刻意識到建築和主題，並了解它們如何相互連結，並從遊戲更基本的結構和功能層面中浮現，以創造出有效的遊戲體驗。

Architectural aspects of a game are high-level constructions—built on structural and functional components—that support the player-facing themes of the game. The architectural elements include the following:
遊戲的建築層面是高層次的結構——建立在結構和功能組件之上——支持遊戲面向玩家的主題。建築元素包括以下內容：

The game’s balance of content and systems
遊戲內容與系統的平衡

The mechanical, technical components of the game’s narrative structure
遊戲敘事結構中的機械和技術組成部分

The organization of the game’s user interface—what is often called “user experience” development and is the more technical side of how the player interacts with the game
遊戲用戶介面的組織——通常稱為“用戶體驗”開發，這是玩家如何與遊戲互動的更技術性方面

The technological platform used (whether this is a board game or a digital game)
使用的技術平台（無論是桌遊還是數位遊戲）

The game’s thematic elements are all the elements that arise out of its structure and function to create the overall player experience. If the game’s theme is about finding love, achieving great power, or conquering the world, this must be conveyed by the thematic elements with the support of the game’s design architecture. The thematic components include the following:
遊戲的主題元素是從其結構中產生並作用於創造整體玩家體驗的所有元素。如果遊戲的主題是關於尋找愛情、獲得強大力量或征服世界，這必須透過主題元素並在遊戲設計架構的支持下傳達。主題組成部分包括以下內容：

The way in which the game’s content and systems support the creation of player interactivity and goals—in particular autotelic goals (described below)
遊戲內容和系統如何支持玩家互動性和目標的創造，特別是自我目的的目標（如下所述）

The content of the game narrative, if any
遊戲敘事的內容（如果有的話）

The appearance and feel of the game’s user interface—what is often called its “juiciness,” for the simple enjoyment derived from viewing and operating it separate from the player’s reasons for doing so
遊戲用戶介面的外觀和感覺——通常稱為其「豐富性」，因為從觀看和操作中獲得的簡單享受與玩家的操作理由無關

Architectural and thematic elements work together to enable the game’s interactions with the player and the player’s goals within the game. These will be discussed here as the final part of the systemic model of the game’s structure.
建築和主題元素共同作用，以實現遊戲與玩家的互動以及玩家在遊戲中的目標。這些將在此作為遊戲結構系統模型的最後部分進行討論。

Content and Systems

A game’s content and systems are key aspects of its architecture and theme. In terms of architectural organization, there is an essential difference between groups of parts that are complicated and those that are complex (as discussed in Chapter 2). Those that are complicated have sequential interactions, where Part 1 affects Part 2, which affects Part 3 (refer to Figure 2.5). These connections form no feedback loops; Part 3 does not loop around to affect Part 1 again. In complex systems, parts do form loops that feedback on themselves, a hallmark of systems in general (refer to Figure 2.6).
遊戲的內容和系統是其架構和主題的關鍵方面。在建築組織方面，複雜的部分群組與複合的部分群組之間存在本質上的區別（如第二章所述）。複雜的部分具有順序互動，其中第 1 部分影響第 2 部分，然後影響第 3 部分（參見圖 2.5）。這些連接不形成反饋迴路；第 3 部分不會迴圈回來再次影響第 1 部分。在複合系統中，部分會形成自我反饋的迴路，這是系統的一個標誌（參見圖 2.6）。

Games can be separated into those that are mainly based on content versus those based primarily on systems. To be clear, all games have some amount of content and systems; the question is which of these a game design primarily depends on for the gameplay.
遊戲可以分為主要依賴內容的遊戲和主要依賴系統的遊戲。需要澄清的是，所有遊戲都包含一定的內容和系統；問題在於遊戲設計主要依賴哪一個來實現遊戲玩法。

Content-Driven Games  內容驅動遊戲

Many games are based on content rather than systems. In terms of game development, content includes any locations, objects, and events that the designers must develop and assemble to create the gameplay they want to see. All games have some content, but some games rely on specific configurations of content to create the game. This includes games that are primarily level or mission based, where the designers have laid out exactly the placement and timing of objects and obstacles the player will encounter.
許多遊戲是基於內容而非系統。在遊戲開發中，內容包括設計師必須開發和組合的任何地點、物件和事件，以創造他們想要看到的遊戲體驗。所有遊戲都有一些內容，但有些遊戲依賴於特定的內容配置來創造遊戲體驗。這包括主要以關卡或任務為基礎的遊戲，設計師精確地安排了玩家將遇到的物件和障礙的放置和時間。

In such games, the play is primarily linear, as the player progresses along a path laid out by the game designer, experiencing—and consuming—the content created for players. The player’s primary goals are explicitly defined by the game, the forms of opposition they face are clear along the path, and their decisions are predetermined (both in opportunity and outcome possibilities) by the designer. Once a player has completed a level, or the entire game, they may replay it again, but the essential experience will not differ significantly: they may create implicit goals (for example, “beat my previous fastest time”), but the overall gameplay and experience do not change. Another way of saying all of this is that content-driven games show little emergence; in fact, designers often work hard to prevent emergent results, as they are inherently unpredictable and thus untestable and risk creating a poor gameplay experience.
在這類遊戲中，遊戲主要是線性的，玩家沿著遊戲設計師設計的路徑前進，體驗並消耗為玩家創造的內容。玩家的主要目標由遊戲明確定義，他們面臨的對抗形式在路徑上是清晰的，他們的決策（無論是機會還是結果的可能性）都是由設計師預先設定的。一旦玩家完成了一個關卡或整個遊戲，他們可以再次重玩，但基本的體驗不會有顯著的不同：他們可能會創造隱含的目標（例如，「打破我之前的最快時間」），但整體的遊戲玩法和體驗並不改變。換句話說，內容驅動的遊戲幾乎沒有出現性；事實上，設計師通常努力防止出現性結果，因為這些結果本質上是不可預測的，因此無法測試，並且可能導致不佳的遊戲體驗。

Designers can add more gameplay to content-driven games by creating a new level or other objects, but the game is fundamentally content-limited because it is so directly authored by the designers. The creation of content itself becomes a bottleneck for the developers, as players can consume new content faster than the developers can create it, and adding new content becomes an increasingly expensive proposition. This is sometimes known as the “content treadmill” in game development. Being on this treadmill makes for a more predictable development process (an important factor to game development companies), if at the cost of needing huge development teams to create all the content needed—and the risk of not being seen as being sufficiently innovative by players.
設計師可以透過創建新關卡或其他物件來為內容驅動的遊戲增加更多的遊戲玩法，但由於遊戲是由設計師直接創作的，因此從根本上來說是受內容限制的。內容的創作本身成為開發者的瓶頸，因為玩家消耗新內容的速度比開發者創建的速度更快，而添加新內容則成為一個越來越昂貴的提議。在遊戲開發中，這有時被稱為「內容跑步機」。處於這個跑步機上使得開發過程更加可預測（這對遊戲開發公司來說是個重要因素），但代價是需要龐大的開發團隊來創建所需的所有內容，並且有被玩家認為創新不足的風險。

In extreme cases, when new content does not add to or change the underlying tokens and rules (the parts, states, and behaviors possible in the game), players quickly realize that there is little novel in the new content and become bored with the game. When a player realizes that a game fits exactly with an existing mental model, at first this can be comfortingly familiar; but as soon as they realize that there is nothing new to be learned and no new mastery to be attained, they become bored and stop playing the game. This has been the case with games that have been “reskinned” from other games, where only the context and art style changed (for example, from medieval to science fiction or steampunk) but the underlying gameplay remained the same. Game development companies that have tried this have learned that players are enthusiastic at first but then burn out of the game quickly as there is nothing new to be learned or experienced.
在極端情況下，當新內容未能增加或改變底層的標記和規則（遊戲中可能的部分、狀態和行為）時，玩家很快就會意識到新內容中沒有什麼新意，並對遊戲感到厭倦。當玩家意識到一個遊戲完全符合他們現有的心理模型時，起初這可能會讓人感到熟悉而舒適；但一旦他們意識到沒有新的知識可學習，也沒有新的技能可掌握時，他們就會感到無聊並停止遊戲。這種情況常見於那些從其他遊戲“重新包裝”的遊戲中，僅改變了背景和藝術風格（例如，從中世紀變為科幻或蒸汽龐克），但底層的遊戲玩法保持不變。嘗試這種做法的遊戲開發公司發現，玩家起初會很熱衷，但由於沒有新的知識或體驗可獲得，很快就會對遊戲失去興趣。

Systemic Games

In contrast to content-driven games, systemic games use complex interactions (that is, feedback loops) between parts to create the game world, opposition, decisions, and goals. In such games, the designer does not have to author the specifics of the player’s experience. The designer doesn’t create a path (or a small set of branches) for the player to follow but sets up the conditions that will guide the player in creating their own path—one of a large number in a vast game-space that could exist, as described in the discussion of second-order design. This path typically changes each time the game is played, keeping the game feeling fresh and engaging even after many replays.
與內容驅動的遊戲相反，系統性遊戲利用部分之間的複雜互動（即反饋迴路）來創造遊戲世界、對抗、決策和目標。在這類遊戲中，設計師不必撰寫玩家體驗的具體細節。設計師不會為玩家創建一條路徑（或一小組分支）來遵循，而是設置條件，引導玩家創造自己的路徑——在廣闊的遊戲空間中可能存在的眾多路徑之一，如在二階設計的討論中所描述的。這條路徑通常在每次遊戲時都會改變，即使在多次重玩後，仍能保持遊戲的新鮮感和吸引力。

Game designer Daniel Cook wrote an excellent description of the difference between taking a content-driven versus systemic approach to designing his company’s air-combat game Steambirds: Survival on his blog, Lostgarden:
遊戲設計師 Daniel Cook 在他的部落格 Lostgarden 上，對於在設計他公司空戰遊戲 Steambirds: Survival 時，採取內容驅動與系統性方法之間的差異，寫下了一篇精彩的描述：

When the game wasn’t engaging, we added new systems such as having downed planes drop powerups. A more traditional approach might be to manually create more detailed scenarios with surprise plot points where a pack of planes pop out of a hidden cloud when you collide with a pre-determined trigger. However, by instead focusing on new general systems, we created an entire universe of fascinating tactical possibilities. Do you head for the heal powerup or do you turn to face the Dart at 6 o’clock? That’s a meaningful decision driven by systems, not a cheap authored thrill. (Cook 2010)
當遊戲不夠吸引人時，我們加入了新的系統，例如讓被擊落的飛機掉落強化道具。一種更傳統的方法可能是手動創建更詳細的場景，並在你碰到預定的觸發點時，讓一群飛機從隱藏的雲層中突然出現。然而，通過專注於新的通用系統，我們創造了一個充滿迷人戰術可能性的完整宇宙。你會選擇前往獲得治療道具，還是轉身面對 6 點鐘方向的飛鏢？這是一個由系統驅動的有意義的決策，而不是廉價的預設驚喜。（Cook 2010）

Even when a systemic game sets an overarching explicit goal for the player (for example, Civilization’s “conquer the world” or FTL’s “destroy the rebel mothership”), the player makes his own decisions and thereby creates one of innumerable routes to this goal. The game systems provide ample uncertainty and different potential combinations to ensure that the game-space does not collapse into a single optimal strategic path through it. Of course, this is not entirely random but is itself systemic in nature. For example, while a systemic game may create a new physical landscape each time it’s played, a game constructed with effective subsystems might place cacti at random locations in a hot desert but would not make polar bears appear there.
即使一個系統化的遊戲為玩家設定了一個總體的明確目標（例如，《文明帝國》的「征服世界」或《FTL》的「摧毀叛軍母艦」），玩家仍然會做出自己的決策，從而創造出通往這一目標的無數路徑之一。遊戲系統提供了充足的不確定性和不同的潛在組合，以確保遊戲空間不會簡化為單一的最佳策略路徑。當然，這並非完全隨機，而是本身具有系統性。例如，雖然一個系統化的遊戲每次遊玩時可能會創造出新的物理地形，但一個有效的子系統構建的遊戲可能會在炎熱的沙漠中隨機放置仙人掌，但不會讓北極熊出現在那裡。

Balancing Content and Systems
平衡內容與系統

Even in highly systemic games, game developers still need to create supporting content, and the game design will often define an overarching set of explicit goals. Likewise, in a content-driven game, there are many subsystems at work (economy, combat, and so on), but they exist within a primarily linear/complicated context rather than a systemic/complex one. Thus, content and systems are not exclusive but represent balance points for game design.
即使在高度系統化的遊戲中，遊戲開發者仍然需要創建支持內容，遊戲設計通常會定義一組明確的總體目標。同樣地，在以內容為驅動的遊戲中，存在許多子系統（經濟、戰鬥等），但它們存在於主要是線性/複雜的背景中，而非系統化/複雜的背景。因此，內容和系統並非互斥，而是遊戲設計的平衡點。

The focus in this book is on designing systemic games while making use of linear aspects of play when appropriate. The fundamental idea is that games are becoming more systemic over time—more complex rather than just more complicated—and creating systemic games leads to more engaging, enjoyable, replayable games overall.
本書的重點在於設計系統化的遊戲，同時在適當時利用遊戲的線性方面。基本理念是，遊戲隨著時間的推移變得更加系統化——更複雜而不僅僅是更繁瑣——創造系統化的遊戲總體上會帶來更具吸引力、更愉悅、更具重玩性的遊戲。

The Autotelic Experience
自足體驗

An autotelic experience is an experience that has a purpose in itself rather than being dependent on some external goal or necessity. When a player creates their own implicit goals from their own motivations and is able to take actions in the game whose results have intrinsic value to the player, then their goals and actions are autotelic.
自足體驗是一種本身具有目的的體驗，而不是依賴於某些外部目標或必要性。當玩家從自身的動機中創造出自己的隱性目標，並能在遊戲中採取行動，其結果對玩家具有內在價值時，他們的目標和行動就是自足的。

As discussed earlier, the experience of playing a game is necessarily separate, nonconsequential, and voluntary, but it must also be satisfying in and of itself; remember what Dewey said—that the play of the game must not be subordinate to some other end, or it loses the essential nature of play. This is the point on which many “gamification” efforts often run aground: you can make something look like a game, but if the player’s experience is not seen as valuable simply for the experience itself, it quickly becomes subordinated “to an end imposed by external necessity” (Dewey 1934) and thus becomes something other than play.
如先前所述，遊戲的體驗必然是獨立的、無關緊要的和自願的，但它本身也必須是令人滿意的；記住杜威所說的——遊戲的進行不應該屈從於其他目的，否則它就失去了遊戲的本質。這是許多「遊戲化」努力常常觸礁的地方：你可以讓某件事情看起來像遊戲，但如果玩家的體驗不被視為僅僅因為體驗本身而有價值，它很快就會被「屈從於外在必然性所強加的目的」（杜威 1934），從而成為非遊戲的其他事物。

Explicit goals in a game help the player learn the game and create their own mental model of it. Eventually, however, leading the player by the nose with one explicit goal after another becomes what many call “the grind”—one mission or quest after another but none that the player finds inherently valuable. Each mission or quest is done for an explicit, external reward. For many players, this can become more like a job than play. This approach also tends to rely more on creating expensive, ephemeral content rather than evergreen systems for the game.
在遊戲中設置明確的目標有助於玩家學習遊戲並建立自己的心智模型。然而，最終，接連不斷地以一個又一個明確的目標引導玩家，會變成許多人所稱的「重複勞作」——一個又一個的任務或探險，但玩家並不覺得其中有任何內在價值。每個任務或探險都是為了明確的、外在的獎勵而完成。對於許多玩家來說，這可能更像是一份工作而非遊戲。這種方法也更傾向於創造昂貴且短暫的內容，而不是為遊戲建立長久的系統。

In contrast to these extrinsic, explicit goals, many games—in particular those that players return to over and over for years (Chess, Go, Civilization, and so on)—enable the players to create their own intrinsic, implicit goals. Early on, a player may be given predefined objectives to complete, but eventually, as the player constructs a sufficiently advanced mental model of the game, these give way to implicit, autotelic goals created by the player for their own enjoyment. This autotelic play is based on and supported by the thematic, systemic elements in the game and is inevitably more engaging, enjoyable, and meaningful to the player.
與這些外在、明確的目標相反，許多遊戲——特別是那些玩家多年來反覆遊玩的遊戲（如象棋、圍棋、文明帝國等）——讓玩家能夠創造自己的內在、隱含目標。起初，玩家可能會被賦予預定的目標來完成，但最終，隨著玩家構建出足夠先進的遊戲心智模型，這些目標會讓位於玩家為自己享受而創造的隱含、自我目的的目標。這種自我目的的遊戲基於並由遊戲中的主題性、系統性元素所支持，對玩家來說無疑更具吸引力、樂趣和意義。

Narrative

A brief working definition of narrative is a recounting of one or more individuals living through a series of connected events in a way that becomes meaningful to the reader or viewer. Both the events and the individuals living through them are important. A series of events alone is not a story, nor is a recounting of time passing for someone during which nothing noteworthy happens. Most games have elements of narrative in them; only the most abstract seem to be wholly free of any sort of connected series of events that carry meaning.
敘事的一個簡單工作定義是，敘述一個或多個人在一系列相連事件中生活的過程，並使其對讀者或觀眾產生意義。事件和經歷這些事件的人物都很重要。僅僅是一系列事件並不是故事，也不是對某人時間流逝的敘述，其中沒有發生任何值得注意的事情。大多數遊戲中都包含敘事元素；只有最抽象的遊戲似乎完全沒有任何具有意義的相連事件。

Narrative is important in that it bridges both architecture and theme: it has an inward, developer-focused side in terms of how the story is put together out of the underlying functional elements, and it has a player-facing thematic side in how it sets the stage for the players and informs them of what the game is about.
敘事的重要性在於它連結了架構與主題：從內部來看，它是開發者專注的部分，涉及如何將故事從基礎的功能元素中組合起來；而從面向玩家的角度來看，它則是如何為玩家設置舞台，並告知他們遊戲的內容。

In a game, the narrative or story may be the focus of the player’s experience, or it may be only the game’s premise. Whether or not there is additional story in the gameplay, the premise informs the player as to why the world is the way it is when they encounter it, and the narrative typically gives them an idea of what their goals are in the game (for example, right a wrong, kill a dragon, discover a secret). In this way, the story behind or within the game helps the player situate themselves and begin creating their mental model of the game’s world. In the same way, narrative elements may be used during the game as rewards, further informing the player about the world (for example, using narrative cut-scenes or similar expository/revelatory story).
在遊戲中，敘事或故事可能是玩家體驗的重點，也可能僅僅是遊戲的前提。無論遊戲中是否有額外的故事，前提都會告訴玩家為什麼當他們遇到這個世界時，它會是這樣的樣子，而敘事通常會讓他們了解在遊戲中的目標是什麼（例如，糾正錯誤、殺死龍、發現秘密）。這樣一來，遊戲背後或內部的故事幫助玩家定位自己，並開始創建他們對遊戲世界的心理模型。同樣地，敘事元素也可以在遊戲中作為獎勵使用，進一步告知玩家有關世界的資訊（例如，使用敘事過場動畫或類似的解說/揭示性故事）。

Games with a story built in as the backbone of the player’s ongoing experience are called story-driven games. In these, the player takes on the role of a particular character, making choices to work through various crisis points in the story and to an eventual end. On the architectural side, such games tend to be more content driven than systemic. (Although games where the story arises from underlying systems are also possible, few examples exist.) In story-based games, the player’s opposition, goals, and decision points are defined by the designer, and rarely does the player have the opportunity to alter them. Thematically, such games have to balance driving the story in a particular direction (and thus narrowing the play-space potentially down to a single unalterable path) against giving the player the ability to make their own decisions. The more directive the game is, the fewer decisions the player makes, and the more passive their role becomes. But if the game does not direct the player’s course, they may miss the story (and its expensive content) altogether, and the game may not effectively communicate its theme.
以故事為主軸構建玩家持續體驗的遊戲被稱為故事驅動遊戲。在這類遊戲中，玩家扮演特定角色，通過做出選擇來解決故事中的各種危機，最終達到結局。在架構方面，這類遊戲往往更依賴內容而非系統。（雖然也有可能存在從底層系統中產生故事的遊戲，但例子不多。）在基於故事的遊戲中，玩家的對手、目標和決策點由設計師定義，玩家很少有機會改變它們。在主題上，這類遊戲必須在推動故事朝特定方向發展（從而可能將遊戲空間縮小到單一不可改變的路徑）與賦予玩家做出自己決定的能力之間取得平衡。遊戲指導性越強，玩家做出的決策就越少，他們的角色就越被動。但如果遊戲不引導玩家的路徑，他們可能會錯過故事（以及其昂貴的內容），遊戲也可能無法有效傳達其主題。

Story-based games can be immensely enjoyable but tend not to have a lot of replay value. In some cases, the player has sufficient options that exploring other parts of the game-space provides for more replay experiences. The game Knights of the Old Republic is an example of this; in this game, players decide to build a character as a “light side” or “dark side” Jedi and experience the built-in story differently depending on those choices. Even here, though, there are only a couple of possible endings. Such narrative construction typically leads to a narrowing of paths, if for no other reason than building the content for multiple endings is simply too expensive.
以故事為基礎的遊戲可以帶來極大的樂趣，但往往重玩價值不高。在某些情況下，玩家有足夠的選擇，探索遊戲空間的其他部分可以提供更多的重玩體驗。遊戲《Knights of the Old Republic》就是一個例子；在這款遊戲中，玩家可以選擇將角色塑造成“光明面”或“黑暗面”的絕地武士，並根據這些選擇以不同的方式體驗內建的故事。然而，即便如此，可能的結局也只有幾個。這種敘事結構通常會導致路徑的縮小，原因無他，僅僅是因為為多個結局構建內容的成本過於高昂。

A systemic game can have a premise that sets the player going in a particular direction but then leaves later events up to them. In such games, the possible forms of opposition are set by the designer, but the player’s choices (and potential randomness in the design) determine how and when the player confronts them. In these situations, the player has a great deal of latitude in decision making and setting their own goals. Terraria, for example, provides a bare-bones premise for the procedurally generated world, and once play begins, the player may determine almost entirely their course in the game. Likewise, in classic systemic games like Sid Meier’s Pirates, the player inhabits essentially the same world each time, having a basic narrative set up for how they became a pirate. Once play begins, they can literally chart their own course, following optional story-related goals they may pursue if they choose. In these games, the narrative is not written but is experienced by the player nonetheless.
系統性遊戲可以有一個前提，讓玩家朝某個方向前進，但之後的事件則由玩家自行決定。在這類遊戲中，可能的對抗形式由設計師設定，但玩家的選擇（以及設計中的潛在隨機性）決定了玩家如何以及何時面對它們。在這些情況下，玩家在決策和設定自己的目標方面有很大的自由度。例如，《Terraria》為程序生成的世界提供了一個簡單的前提，一旦遊戲開始，玩家幾乎可以完全決定他們在遊戲中的路線。同樣，在經典的系統性遊戲如《Sid Meier’s Pirates》中，玩家每次都生活在基本相同的世界中，擁有一個基本的敘事背景，說明他們如何成為海盜。一旦遊戲開始，他們可以真正地規劃自己的路線，追隨可選的故事相關目標，若他們選擇追求的話。在這些遊戲中，敘事不是被寫下來的，而是由玩家親身體驗的。

Theme, Experience, and Meaning
主題、體驗與意義

A game’s theme is built from and yet supersedes its tokens and rules and its functional elements. The theme is what the game is about and relates to the type of experience the game designer wishes to provide for the players. The game may be about being a heroic adventurer, a skulking thief, a skilled gem merchant, or great empire builder; finding true love; surviving a betrayal; or any other imaginable experience.
遊戲的主題是從其標誌和規則及功能元素中構建而成，並且超越了這些元素。主題是遊戲的核心內容，與遊戲設計師希望為玩家提供的體驗類型相關。遊戲可能是關於成為一名英勇的冒險者、一名潛行的盜賊、一名技藝高超的寶石商人，或是一位偉大的帝國建設者；尋找真愛；在背叛中生存；或是任何其他可以想像的體驗。

The theme is the player-facing side of the game as a whole. It provides overall scaffolding and direction for the player, acting as the context for the player’s mental model, decisions, and goals. The player has to interpret the game’s tokens and rules in light of the theme in order to create a mental model, make meaningful decisions, and set effective goals. If the player is able to do so—if the structural, functional, architectural, and thematic elements of the game combine effectively together as a system—then the game and the player together create meaning. This meaning is ultimately the result of the overall player+game system, the effect of the combination of these two subsystems via play.
主題是整個遊戲面向玩家的一面。它為玩家提供了整體的框架和方向，作為玩家心智模型、決策和目標的背景。玩家必須根據主題來解讀遊戲的標記和規則，以便創建心智模型、做出有意義的決策並設定有效的目標。如果玩家能夠做到這一點——如果遊戲的結構、功能、架構和主題元素能夠有效地結合在一起作為一個系統——那麼遊戲和玩家就能共同創造意義。這種意義最終是整體玩家+遊戲系統的結果，是這兩個子系統通過遊戲結合的效果。

This does not mean that the theme needs to be particularly deep or profound. It only needs to be consistent with the structural and functional elements in the game and help propel the player forward. Even in the most systemic, non-story games, it is important for the game designer to keep in mind the experience they are trying to create and the architectural elements needed to embody it. Nearly all successful games—even the most “open world” ones—have a directed experience and theme, though sometimes it can be a bit thin. For example, in Minecraft the overarching theme is one of open-ended exploration and crafting new objects. That’s not thematically deep, but it is sufficient for many players to begin building a mental model of the game and mastering the world; anything more would just get in their way.
這並不意味著主題需要特別深刻或深奧。它只需要與遊戲中的結構和功能元素一致，並幫助推動玩家前進。即使在最具系統性、非故事性的遊戲中，遊戲設計師也需要牢記他們試圖創造的體驗以及體現這種體驗所需的架構元素。幾乎所有成功的遊戲——即使是最“開放世界”的遊戲——都有一個指導性的體驗和主題，儘管有時可能會有些薄弱。例如，在《Minecraft》中，整體主題是開放式探索和製作新物品。這在主題上並不深刻，但對許多玩家來說已足夠開始建立遊戲的心智模型並掌握這個世界；再多的東西反而會成為他們的障礙。

However, when game designers include just the barest of story premises or don’t connect the theme to the game’s architecture, gameplay suffers. The game No Man’s Sky allows the player to explore all over an almost endless number of planets, for example—but as the game neither provides explicit goals nor allows players to create many of their own implicit goals, the almost entirely themeless experience ultimately falls flat. The model of the world is technically deep but not in a way that supports a deep mental model or coherent theme. The lack of meaningful decision points and intrinsic player goals comes from the lack of theme (downward causality in the design) and prevents an emergent theme from arising (upward causality).
然而，當遊戲設計師僅僅包含最基本的故事前提或未將主題與遊戲架構相連接時，遊戲性便會受到影響。例如，遊戲《No Man’s Sky》允許玩家探索幾乎無窮無盡的行星，但由於遊戲既未提供明確的目標，也未讓玩家創造出許多隱含的目標，這種幾乎完全沒有主題的體驗最終顯得平淡無奇。世界的模型在技術上雖然深奧，但並未以支持深刻的心智模型或連貫的主題的方式呈現。缺乏有意義的決策點和內在的玩家目標源於主題的缺失（設計中的下行因果），並阻止了主題的自然生成（上行因果）。

Similarly, the board game Splendor is visually beautiful and has mechanics that are cognitively attractive. However, the theme (being a gem merchant) is only tenuously connected to the gameplay as expressed in the game’s highly abstract tokens and rules. As such, those who are not enamored of the game’s mechanics in and of themselves often find that the game does not hold their attention. The game design doesn’t provide a sufficient connection between the game’s architecture and its theme, and so players may have difficulty creating an internal sense of meaning from the experience.
同樣地，桌遊《Splendor》在視覺上非常美麗，且其機制具有認知上的吸引力。然而，遊戲的主題（作為寶石商人）與遊戲中高度抽象的代幣和規則之間的聯繫卻相當薄弱。因此，那些對遊戲機制本身不感興趣的人往往會發現遊戲無法吸引他們的注意力。遊戲設計未能在遊戲架構與其主題之間提供足夠的連結，因此玩家可能難以從體驗中創造出內在的意義感。

As game designers learn more about systemic design and how to embody story and theme in systemic games, more of them will make games with broad and deep play-spaces, within which players can explore many different sides of the game’s theme. These games may often be coupled with strong narratives that avoid either overly directing players into a few different options or leaving them stranded in a thematically barren and uninteresting play-space.
隨著遊戲設計師對系統設計的了解日益加深，並學會如何在系統化的遊戲中體現故事和主題，越來越多的設計師將創作出具有廣泛且深刻遊戲空間的遊戲，讓玩家能夠探索遊戲主題的多個不同面向。這些遊戲通常會結合強烈的敘事性，避免過度引導玩家進入少數幾個選項，或讓他們困在一個主題貧乏且乏味的遊戲空間中。

The Evolution of Game Design
遊戲設計的演變

Having developed an extensive definition of games, our discussion turns briefly to the development of game design itself to understand how it has changed over the past several decades.
在我們已經對遊戲進行了廣泛的定義之後，接下來我們將簡要探討遊戲設計本身的發展，以了解它在過去幾十年中是如何變化的。

Games have been part of the human experience for millennia. The oldest known game, Senet, was invented more than 5,000 years ago in ancient Egypt (Piccione 1980). Our oldest records of this game show it as already having elaborate tokens and rules, indicating that it had been known and developed long before. Games have remained a pastime in cultures around the world since then. However, it wasn’t until the technological revolution of the late 20th century that game design became a recognized activity of its own rather than being a side effect of the ad hoc creation of games.
遊戲自古以來便是人類經驗的一部分。最古老的已知遊戲，Senet，早在五千多年前的古埃及就被發明（Piccione 1980）。我們對這款遊戲的最早記錄顯示，它已經擁有精緻的棋子和規則，這表明它在很久以前就已被人們所知並發展。自那時以來，遊戲一直是世界各地文化中的消遣活動。然而，直到 20 世紀末的技術革命，遊戲設計才成為一項獨立的活動，而不再只是遊戲隨意創作的副產品。

It’s difficult to say when game design started as a field rather than as a collective hobby practiced sporadically by a small group of designers. However, it’s safe to say that it has been around as a known area of practice since at least the early 1980s. Chris Crawford’s book The Art of Computer Game Design was published in 1984 and has been cited as the first serious examination of game design as a field of its own (Wolf and Perron 2003). Crawford would go on to publish the Journal of Computer Game Design (1987–1996) and organize the first Computer Game Developer’s Conference in his living room in 1988 (Crawford 2010)—a conference that is now thoroughly professional and attracts tens of thousands of people each year.
很難確切說明遊戲設計何時從一個小群體設計師偶爾從事的集體愛好，轉變為一個獨立的領域。然而，可以肯定的是，自 1980 年代初期以來，它已經作為一個已知的實踐領域存在。Chris Crawford 的著作《The Art of Computer Game Design》於 1984 年出版，被認為是首次嚴肅探討遊戲設計作為一個獨立領域的著作（Wolf and Perron 2003）。Crawford 隨後於 1987 年至 1996 年間出版了《Journal of Computer Game Design》，並於 1988 年在他家客廳舉辦了首屆電腦遊戲開發者大會（Crawford 2010）——這個大會如今已經非常專業化，每年吸引數萬人參加。

There were game designers prior to Crawford’s book, of course, but there was little in the way of an acknowledged shared craft of game design before the advent of both early computer/video games and detailed paper simulation and role-playing games in the late 1970s and early 1980s. During the 1980s and 1990s, up until the early 2000s, most people who became game designers more or less fell into it: they wandered in from fields like theater, anthropology, psychology, or computer science—when they came from a field at all; many were just avid players who tried their hand at game design and found they had a talent for it. Then as now, for many people game design has primarily been a hobby, and now and again a few figure out that maybe they can turn it into a career.
在克勞福德的書之前，當然已有遊戲設計師，但在 1970 年代末和 1980 年代初早期電腦/電子遊戲以及詳細的紙上模擬和角色扮演遊戲出現之前，遊戲設計作為一門公認的共同技藝並不多見。在 1980 年代和 1990 年代，直到 2000 年代初，大多數成為遊戲設計師的人或多或少都是偶然進入這個領域的：他們從戲劇、人類學、心理學或計算機科學等領域轉入——如果他們有來自某個領域的話；許多人只是熱衷的玩家，嘗試著設計遊戲，發現自己在這方面有天賦。當時和現在一樣，對許多人來說，遊戲設計主要是一種愛好，偶爾有些人會發現或許可以將其轉變為職業。

Since the early 2000s, game design as an educational field has gained ground. Nevertheless, for many years, at least up until 2010 or so, most game design degrees were generally seen in the games industry as not creating strong, professional designers. Not only did the large majority of universities offering these degrees not know what they should be teaching (few of those teaching these courses were themselves professional game designers), even game designers had a difficult time articulating what went into the occupation of being a game designer.
自 2000 年代初期以來，遊戲設計作為一個教育領域逐漸獲得重視。然而，多年來，至少直到 2010 年左右，大多數遊戲設計學位在遊戲產業中普遍被認為無法培養出強而有力的專業設計師。不僅提供這些學位的大多數大學不知道應該教授什麼（教授這些課程的人中很少是專業的遊戲設計師），即使是遊戲設計師本身也很難清楚地表達成為遊戲設計師這一職業所需的內容。

As a result, game design remains a difficult area to teach because it’s still forming. Most senior game designers even now have learned most of their craft by the age-old apprenticeship method: you make a game and see what works or doesn’t. If you’re lucky, you get a job where you can shadow a more senior game designer and learn from them. And, even with improved game design curricula today, the number-one way people learn game design is by doing it. There is still no substitute for going through the process of designing, developing, testing, and launching a game.
因此，遊戲設計仍然是一個難以教授的領域，因為它仍在形成中。即使是現在，大多數資深遊戲設計師也是通過古老的學徒方式學習他們的大部分技藝：你製作一個遊戲，然後看看什麼有效或無效。如果你幸運的話，你會找到一份工作，可以在那裡跟隨一位更資深的遊戲設計師並向他們學習。即使今天的遊戲設計課程有所改進，人們學習遊戲設計的首要方式仍然是親自去做。經歷設計、開發、測試和發佈遊戲的過程仍然是無可替代的。

Toward Game Design Theory
遊戲設計理論探討

Game designers are now well into a movement beyond apprenticeship and simple praxis. There has been an explosion in the number and types of both digital (computer-based) and analog (table-top or board) games that are being made. One of the benefits of this is that just since 2010 or so, actual game design theory has begun to accumulate in more articulate, generally applicable ways. (As noted earlier, game design theory is not the same as and has little to do with game theory. The latter is the province of mathematics and economics, having to do with highly constrained decision making in abstract situations, and rarely has any relevance to or effect on game design.)
遊戲設計師如今已經超越了學徒階段和簡單的實踐。數位（基於電腦）和類比（桌上或棋盤）遊戲的數量和種類都出現了爆炸性的增長。這其中的一個好處是，自 2010 年左右以來，實際的遊戲設計理論開始以更清晰且普遍適用的方式累積。（如前所述，遊戲設計理論與博弈論不同，兩者幾乎沒有關聯。後者屬於數學和經濟學的範疇，涉及在抽象情境中的高度約束決策，且很少與遊戲設計有關或產生影響。）

There is a long way to go yet, and no doubt a lot more game design theory will be added in the field in coming years. Game design as a field is, however, at the point where anyone wishing to learn game design can speed their education by incorporating principles, theories, and frameworks along with examples and exercises into their design work.
遊戲設計的道路仍然漫長，毫無疑問，未來幾年這個領域將會有更多的理論被加入。然而，遊戲設計作為一個領域，已經達到了一個階段，任何希望學習遊戲設計的人都可以通過將原則、理論和框架與範例和練習結合到他們的設計工作中來加速他們的學習。

It is easier than ever today to design and build your own games. Game designers have available a wealth of free or low-cost technologies, tools, and distribution methods that were unimaginable just a decade ago. The combination of tools and well-tested principles and frameworks will make you a much more successful game designer much faster.
如今，設計和製作自己的遊戲比以往任何時候都容易。遊戲設計師可以使用大量免費或低成本的技術、工具和發行方法，這在十年前是難以想像的。工具與經過驗證的原則和框架的結合，將使你成為一名更成功的遊戲設計師，並且速度更快。

Summary

In this chapter, you have examined games in detail, first from the views of various philosophers and game designers and then in systemic terms, as applied systems thinking. You have seen that the following:
在本章中，你詳細檢視了遊戲，首先從各種哲學家和遊戲設計師的觀點出發，然後以系統思維的方式進行應用分析。你已經看到以下內容：

Games take place in a separate, nonconsequential context (the “magic circle”) expressed by their own tokens and rules.
遊戲發生在一個獨立且無後果的情境中（即“魔法圈”），由其自身的符號和規則所表達。

Playing a game is necessarily voluntary and requires participation, not just observation.
玩遊戲必須是自願的，並且需要參與，而不僅僅是觀察。

Games provide players with a defined world, meaningful decisions, opposition, interaction, and different types of goals.
遊戲為玩家提供了一個定義的世界、有意義的決策、對抗、互動和不同類型的目標。

This chapter also provides a detailed examination of games in systemic terms, focusing on the following:
本章還從系統的角度對遊戲進行了詳細的檢視，重點關注以下幾個方面：

Structures: The game’s parts—its tokens and rules that are the “nouns and verbs” of any game
結構：遊戲的組成部分——其代幣和規則是任何遊戲的「名詞和動詞」

Functional elements: The looping operational components created as “phrases” from the nouns and verbs that enable the game’s world model as a second-order creation and, thus, the player’s mental model along with meaningful decisions and goals
功能元素：作為“短語”創建的循環操作組件，來自名詞和動詞，這些元素使遊戲的世界模型成為二次創作，從而形成玩家的心理模型，並伴隨著有意義的決策和目標

Architectural and thematic constructions: The whole of the game experience; its balance of content and systems, narrative, and the overall experience of play
建築和主題結構：整體的遊戲體驗；其內容和系統的平衡、敘事以及整體的遊戲體驗

Understanding games in terms of their structures, functional aspects, and the combination of architecture and theme is the first application of systems thinking discussed in Chapter 2.
從遊戲的結構、功能方面以及建築和主題的結合來理解遊戲，是第二章中討論的系統思維的第一個應用。

This chapter has set the stage for the next topic, a detailed exploration of the other part of the overall system that is the game as played: player interactivity, engagement, and fun. With these foundations in place, you will be ready to begin applying these concepts and learn more about the details of the process of game design.
本章已為下一個主題奠定了基礎，即詳細探討遊戲整體系統的另一部分：玩家的互動性、參與感和樂趣。有了這些基礎，您將準備好開始應用這些概念，並進一步了解遊戲設計過程的細節。

 

1. In French, Les Jeux et les Hommes, loosely “Games/Play and Men,” highlighting that in that language and in Caillois’ view, game and play are essentially synonymous (jeu). One does not occur without the other.
在法文中，《Les Jeux et les Hommes》大致可譯為「遊戲與人」，這強調了在該語言中以及在卡伊瓦的觀點中，遊戲與玩耍本質上是同義的（jeu）。兩者是不可分割的。

2. Some may cite “choose your own adventure” books as an exception. These provide limited choice where the reader can decide which course to follow, enabling the story to unfold in different ways. These books in fact originated as “an RPG [role-playing game] in book form” in the late 1970s (History of CYOA n.d.) and are representative of many hybrids on the narrative-game spectrum.
2. 有些人可能會提到「選擇你自己的冒險」書籍作為例外。這些書提供有限的選擇，讀者可以決定要遵循哪條路線，使故事以不同的方式展開。事實上，這些書籍在 1970 年代後期起源於「書本形式的 RPG [角色扮演遊戲]」（CYOA 歷史，無日期），並且代表了敘事-遊戲光譜上的許多混合體。

3. Random determination includes both wholly random results, where, for example, a number can take any value between 1 and 100 with equal probability, and weighted results, where some numbers are more probable than others, such as in a statistical normal or bell curve distribution. See Chapter 9 for more on this.
3. 隨機決定包括完全隨機的結果，例如，一個數字可以在 1 到 100 之間以相等的概率取任何值，以及加權結果，其中某些數字比其他數字更有可能出現，例如在統計的常態或鐘形曲線分佈中。更多相關內容請參見第 9 章。