Règles / Résumé / But du jeu

[kerkael]

Trop souvent dans les règles des jeux, officielles comme retapées par les joueurs, on confond But du Jeu et Conditions de victoire.

Le but d'un jeu n'est pas de marquer des points, de finir premier, d'éliminer les autres joueurs.

Le but d'un jeu, c'est : lancer une balle sur des quilles, conquérir le monde sur une carte en 3D, échanger une balle avec les pieds dans son équipe jusqu'à la faire rentrer dans les buts.

Si on continue de dire que le but du jeu est de marquer des points, alors 80% des jeux sont identiques d'après une telle définition : le tennis, le football, le tarot, le monopoly.

Il me parait toujours important, quand j'explique les règles d'un jeu à un nouveau joueur de faire la différence, donc, entre :
[*] à quoi on va jouer = le but du jeu
[*] jusqu'à quand on va jouer = les conditions de fin de partie
[*] qui va gagner = les conditions de victoire
Il est possible que les conditions de victoire et de fin de partie soient confondues (tennis, volleyball, Lewis & Clark, échecs, Outlaws ...), mais souvent elles sont distinctes (football, handball, Race For The Galaxy, Eruption).

Est-ce que ça vous parait raisonnable de faire ainsi la différence ?

Dans les règles des jeux
Monopoly
But du jeu : Être le seul joueur qui n'ait pas fait faillite.

But du jeu corrigé : Acheter des terrains pour y bâtir des maisons et hotels et en tirer des revenus de location.
Conditions de Victoire = Conditions de Fin de Partie : Être le seul joueur qui n'ait pas fait faillite.

RFTG
Votre objectif : construire l’empire spatial le plus puissant et prospère !
Fin de partie : La partie se termine à la fin du tour (incluant la défausse) durant lequel un joueur possède 12 cartes ou plus dans son tableau, ou Le dernier jeton de PV est récupéré.
Condition de Victoire : Le joueur avec le plus haut total remporte la partie !

Rien à corriger dans ces définitions. Le but du jeu, ou objectif est relié au contexte du jeu, sans indiquer la mécanique. Un joueur spatiophobe pourra éviter d'aller plus loin dans la lecture des règles, et c'est suffisant, pour le moment.

...

[Liallan]

It might be a translation thing - it's translating "la but" as "goal."

A goal is a result, it's the ultimate thing you wish to achieve.

Like I could have a goal of graduating college. The rest is how I will achieve that goal, the means to the end. That would include taking appropriate courses, learning from them and trying to do well in them.

The goal in most games is to have the most victory points. But each game has a different path to get there, which is the meat of the game. For Monopoly, the path to get to the goal is traveling around, buying properties, collecting rent, etc. That's not my goal, but my path to achieving the goal. What makes games different and interesting is the path you go on.

It seems to me that saying 80% of sports become the same because their goal is the same is just semantics.

You could take the position that the goal is to enjoy the game.

[kerkael]

Hi Liallan, Thanks for your answer. Le but = The goal, indeed.

My point is, the "Goal of the Game" can't be reduced to the final moment where you find out who the winner is. The goal IS the gaming part of the game.

What's the meaning of life ? Being cynic, one could say :"Breeding food for the maggots".
That's the same when you tell the Goal of a Game is to win points, or be the winner.

I would accept that game rules start describing the goal as the ultimate part of the game if we had a real universal standard for games classification : Card Game / Collection Card Game / Draft & Stragey Card Game using Dice as Markers / Chance Dice Game Using Cards as Marker / Strategy Game Using Cards as Both Chance, Ressources and Markers (like in San Juan or RFTG ?) ...

[Liallan]

I don't think our classification of games is always too terribly standard. Some are obvious, some not so obvious, some are hybrids, some defy description... I would call using cards as "everything" like in San Juan simply a way to streamline play, and not as a way to classify it, for instance.

I think we probably just define the word goal differently. There's an ultimate goal at the end of a game. (Points, usually) Then there's the goal of taking up your time to play games. That is, my goal in playing a game is a different thing than the goal of the game itself. Or at least that's the way I look at it.

My goal in playing the game is to enjoy myself, to tackle a puzzle (and I think we all like puzzles), to test or challenge myself (in certain games), to just have a good time in playing a light, easy game, and in person, to also be social. Online, tackling the puzzle or challenging myself weigh more than in person where being social is a bigger piece of my goal.

Games or puzzles of any sort, to me, are something to achieve the end goal within the constraints of the rules. Each game has different constraints. (And to me, cheating or making up rules sort of defeats this purpose. Having to follow the constraints is part of the point.) So while I play to win, or at least do the best I can, I don't play games for the purpose of winning. I play them for the journey. My guess is we agree on this point, but we just call it two different things.

I'd be curious what anyone else has to say. I think we already know our two opinions.