anyway: High Five the ISS

2015-03-20 : High Five the ISS

High Five the ISS
a game for any number of players

The Object of the Game
Jump up and touch the ISS with your hand.

Rules
1. No turn taking required.

2. Whenever you want, jump as high as you can and try to touch the ISS with your hand.

3. You can do anything you can think of to better your chances. Examples: go outside instead of jumping inside, climb a ladder and jump off the top, use a trampoline, find out when the ISS is overhead and try then.

4. No bonus points for getting hurt, so use your judgment.

5. First person to touch the ISS with their hand wins forever.

6. No points for getting closer than someone else. It's all or nothing.

Special Rule
Everyone who's ever worked on or served on the ISS honorarily wins forever. I think we can all agree.

I'll be honest, I'm no good at this game, but it makes me laugh.

1. On 2015-03-20, Vincent said:

(I originally posted this game on G+ a couple of months ago.)

My Point
In Rules of Play by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman, they do a survey of game thinkers' definitions of game. It doesn't have the same preponderance as "gameplay is willing," but still a majority of them include in their definition the idea that gameplay has an uncertain outcome.

I'm contrary!

direct link
marginalia

2. On 2015-03-20, Gordon said:

Saying "gameplay has an uncertain outcome" doesn't seem to me synonymous with "success/failure with regard to the object of the game must be uncertain". "High Five the ISS" doesn't disprove the first, only the second. I personally have heard some people say it makes them laugh, while others say they don't see a way to even really "play" it at all. Outcomes are uncertain, because people react to the invitation to "jump up and touch the ISS" in uncertain ways. I mean, that's one reason - there may be others, too, but for current purposes one is all I need.

Does that explain some of the issue here? Whether we're talking about uncertain outcomes specifically related to the designed object of the game or uncertain outcomes of gameplay (play triggered by the object but by necessity not solely defined by it) in general? Because that way, both "surveyed gamethinkers" and Vincent Baker get to be right - just about different questions.

(I think surveyed gamethinkers would be wise to remember Vincent Baker's out there to catch them when they collapse something like "gameplay" with "the object of the game" - if that's what they did. On the other hand, I sometimes wonder if Vincent Baker is spending too much time worshiping at the "Object of the Game" altar and has forgotten to pay attention to the big church that altar sits in. Except, of course, he totally pays attention to that church when writing his games, so - who am I to judge the altar he sits in front of?)

A fancy way to say it - Vincent, I'm with you in being against an apotheosis of uncertainty in the object of a game, but I'm also against an apotheosis of the object, period. It's not clear to me if "Rules of Play" is committing the first reification or (among other things) providing one argument to support resisting the second. (Can I use "apotheosis" and "reification" as, essentially, synonyms? Well, I just made the attempt ...)

direct link
marginalia

This makes...
GcL go "Other things like holding uncertainty generally important"*

*click in for more

3. On 2015-03-23, Adam said:

If you've touched something that went to the ISS, is that a half-win?

direct link
marginalia

4. On 2015-03-23, Vincent said:

Adam: An honorary half-win, yes, absolutely! That's pretty cool. Have you?

direct link
marginalia

5. On 2015-03-30, plausible.fabulist said:

If you touch something that touched something that went to the ISS, that's an honorary quarter-win, right?

direct link
marginalia