Decisions for Us

Most of the games that we know and play include a slew of interesting and meaningful decisions. Oftentimes those decisions lead to us winning the game and trumping over our opponents. But sometimes, those decisions just allow us to revel in them. We take time and enjoy those decisions for what they are: a new experience.

There are games that are series of these interesting and meaningful experiences that we wouldn’t otherwise classify as orthogames. Rather, these are games whose decisions produce a personal outcome for ourselves.

Can games include decisions that serve just us?

Yes they can! These kinds of games are called idiogames and this article will take a deeper look into what they are. Challenges surrounding how we create definitions around games will also be included. This article will also cover the structure of how these meaningful decisions produce personal outcomes for ourselves. Finally, this article will close on some idiogame examples.

What is an idiogame?

An idiogame is a series of interesting decisions that produces a personal outcome. Unlike orthogames; these decisions don’t necessarily resolve to help individual players win in the game or win against each other.

The prefix “idio” in idiogame means “personal or unique.” Again, unlike orthogames; idiogames are a series of choices that provides us with a personal outcome. Some immediate examples of this type of decision structure includes Choose your Own Adventure style of books or the Black Mirror movie Bandersnatch.

However, there are elements of each of these examples that challenge this definition. If we enter the game with the intention to keep playing, then decisions that we make in Choose your Own Adventure could prevent us from doing that. We could also lose our character or go on series of decisions that cause the story to end prematurely. This is certainly the case in Bandersnatch.

This problem is challenged even further by players who know mostly orthogames for the purposes of winning. Therefore; they may not see decision making for personal outcomes in idiogames as legitimate because they are not “strategic choices.”

This is part of the reason why creating definitions for games can be a contentious process. Especially if game designers enter the field with an already narrow definition of games that are highly influenced by traditional strategy games.

Troubles with game definitions

Thinking about games in such narrow definitions – often influenced by our own experience – makes it so that creating new media that challenges the genre becomes increasingly more difficult.

I realize that the definition of “games” is a difficult one; especially when it comes to creating sub-categories such as orthogames and idiogames. But in order to fully explore the field and what it has to offer for players and students alike; definitions have to be consistently challenged.

If idiogames and their reliance on choice creation for personal outcome makes it so that we accept them as games; then we should continue to do so. But with the appropriate amount of discussion and debate about what constitutes a “game.”

I think that one of the most recent examples of this is the party game Just One where players are challenged to write single word clues to help their teammates guess the hidden word. Of course you can play the game as described in the rulebook. However, I’ve had much more fun playing it around a table with no discernable end in sight.

Am I still playing the game as designed? Or have I chosen to play Just One as a fun activity full of personal choices? If much of the game structure is based on choice; and idiogames are about player choices to produce personal outcomes; then perhaps we should take a closer look at the kinds of choices that players have to make in idiogames.

Idiogames and choices

Strategy games are considered a series of interesting decisions that players make with the intention of winning. Idiogames are a series of choices that produce a personal outcome. But games overall can be classified as a series of choices that meets the needs of its audience.

This is especially true of games-based learning; serious games; and simulations as they have been created to meet the learning outcomes of the students and players. Games have the structure necessary to accomplish this so long as it provides avenues for players to make meaningful decisions.

Unpredictability and randomness can certainly be incorporated in games but they are often included in measured doses. Some randomness is okay; but presenting randomness in way where the player cannot viably predict them can be a very frustrating experience.

As a principle: game decisions should influence the player in some way. Following this, designers should avoid player decision where the outcome has no impact. But certain idiogames like role playing games allow you to change the aesthetics of your character. While those choices may not have an impact on the character; they are still choices that matter: for the player.

Idiogame examples

Role-playing games are perhaps one of the most prime examples of idiogames. Players are not playing merely to compete with one another; but are engaging in the experience in order to achieve a personal outcome. Perhaps Dungeons and Dragons is one of the most popular idiogames available. But other examples include LARPS (live action role playing) games as well as the aforementioned Choose your Own Adventure.

Takeaways

This article took a deeper look into what idiogames are: a series of interesting choices that produce a personal outcome. This article also reviewed the challenges of creating game definitions. The structure of meaningful decisions in idiogames were covered along with some examples of popular idiogames.

This article was about aspects of idiogames. To learn more about idiogames in gamification, check out the free course on Gamification Explained.

Dave Eng, EdD

Managing Partner

dave@universityxp.com

www.universityxp.com

References

Bateman, C. (2008, July 2). A Game Isn't a Series of Interesting Decisions. Retrieved January 17, 2020, from https://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2008/07/a-game-isnt-a-series-of-interesting-decisions.html

Compton, C. (2019, November 18). Designing Interesting Decisions in Games (And When Not To). Retrieved January 17, 2020, from https://medium.com/@remptongames/designing-interesting-decisions-in-games-and-when-not-to-452af04d0e66

DeCoster, R. (2014). Idiogames. Retrieved January 15, 2020 from http://geeknightsrym.tumblr.com/post/57334608124/idiogames-better-definitions-of-the-word-game.

Definitions of Game - Orthogame and Idiogame. (2013). Retrieved January 15, 2020, from http://forum.frontrowcrew.com/discussion/9522/definitions-of-game-orthogame-and-idiogame.

Eng, D. (2019, August 6). Meaningful Choices University XP. Accessed January 21, 2020. Retrieved from www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/8/6/meaningful-choices.

Eng, D. (2019, June 25). Simulations vs Games University XP. Accessed January 21, 2020. Retrieved from www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/6/25/simulations-vs-games.

Eng, D. (2019, May 7). Serious Games University XP. Accessed January 21, 2020. Retrieved from www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/5/7/what-are-serious-games.

Eng, D. (2019, September 4). Game-Based Learning vs Gamification University XP. Accessed January 21, 2020. Retrieved from www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/9/4/game-based-learning-vs-gamification.

Eng, D. (2020, January 16). How do I win? University XP. Accessed January 21, 2020. Retrieved from www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/1/16/how-do-i-win.

Greene, M. (2008, July 5). 'A Game Isn't a Series of Interesting Decisions. Retrieved January 17, 2020, from https://kotaku.com/a-game-isnt-a-series-of-interesting-decisions-5022277

Cite this Article

Eng, D. (2020, January 24). Decisions for Us. Retrieved MONTH DATE, YEAR, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/1/24/decisions-for-us

Internal Ref: UXPNRKQUJ04I