So my idea in a nutshell is, create an event (or party) where people generate other events. So the creative act becomes a collaborative one where each participant is invited to contribute to the construction of a set of rules that generate an event.
The whole system is governed by a set of rules, where each rule is a simple statement, followed by maybe a simple example, possibly an illustration. Like Alexander's A Pattern Language, but perhaps a bit simpler. I want something I can absorb quickly.
Each rule is a constraint that sets boundaries for action, and these constraints become the groundrules for the lower set of rules.
So, the fundamental set of rules, e.g., what would happen at the meta event where everyone came together to design games/parties/events, would be very simple and fundamental, akin to gravity or momentum. If the deeper games of life were, for example, setting up a camp for refugees of a flood, or starting a software company, then the base rules would be things such as the basic social rules of communication that govern a society, agreements about money or private property, etc.
The idea is that you have this set of cards, and on each card is one of these rules.
Maybe you can pull them out in different combinations, to generate new rules, or create new constraints.
Maybe certain rules need to belong together, e.g., rules of physics.
Maybe there are bounds rules, versus behavior rules--e.g., "this thing can only grow so high," or "thing thing only lives in marshlands".
But part of what makes creating these rules so fun is that you are participating in a form of "artificial" intelligence. And you are basically taking over the role of creator. Analogous fields of study would be living systems theory, or also the theory of constructing games.
If the world (and whole universe) was in fact created by sentient agency, then these would be the types of considerations that these agents might engage in.Â
This kind of game (meta-game, actually) would be fun for everybody who both enjoys creating the rules and also trying them out.
I don't like normal games, because they involve closed universes that don't seem to engage with the "general world." But I also don't like normal parties, because there are no puzzles to solve, no clear and gettable challenges.
But with this idea, you have the fun of both. And in fact, the game designers at the initial meta design meetings, could design parties where there were actually generative grammars that were usable in the games themselves. That gets so meta that it's scary, but that's all right.
Part of the fun of all this is that you are engaging in real time with things that are very tangible, sensible, limited--such as, a physical card--but then, you are dealing with personal choice to generate within those constraints.
On a personal sort of "meta" level, you get to observe how rules of human behavior or dynamics function in real time. E.g., when I say "these are the rules," notice how everyone agrees to play by them. (Or if they don't--the consequences of not doing so...)
Maybe these are games where people would learn a lot about reality creation. Or, they would learn a lot about how to discern what elements of a creation were helpful, and which were impeding. Maybe they would just learn a lot about the art of creating fun. In any event, the act of acting as creator might bring out some really interesting things, really interesting points.
And, this type of action would require collaboration. It could require collaboration between people from very different backgrounds--anthropology, sociology, economics, business, art, dance, theater, counseling ... just about anything, in fact.
The core operating principles will be the physical rules of the cards. For example, "every card contains exactly 1 rule". "Each rule represents a capacity, a capability, a constraint, or ... ?"
And I think that outside of the entire thing, there has to be this one, big, but very broad goal: To have fun.
prguitarman
blakekathryn
yousharknotpass
ellievsbear
germansingergirl