On 2015-07-14, Dan Maruschak wrote:
"The best I've got is to try to figure out the missing piece or pieces that create good tension with the existing rules."
But if games can have zero objects how do you determine if there's a missing piece or not?
"I don't know for sure of any games with no objects."
I believe that this game has no object, just procedures. I could be wrong, or possibly using different definitions than you. Do you believe this game has an object? If so, what is it?
"That seems unnecessary to me, but whatever."
This is the same reaction I have to the things I've been describing as your "do the things the game said to do" objects. It strikes me as a somewhat circular process that's predicated on the idea that there must be an object so you end up plugging in this thing that, to me, seems to play a very different role than objects play in games that clearly and unambigously do have objects (e.g. checkmate your opponent).