لطفا منتظر باشید ...
A Simple Die Roll
Because most of the examples used so far have come from complex digital games, we wanted to finish by looking at a cybernetic feedback system within a more minimal game context. Sometimes in games, there is no game AI or referee to sense and activate the changes in the game state. However, elegant feedback systems can still emerge directly from the game rules. Let us take a look at one of our favorite examples, Chutes and Ladders. Chutes and Ladders is an extremely simple game of pure chance. But can you spot the feedback system in it? It is not the actual chutes and ladders. Yes, those seem like they regulate the positions of the players, but they do not act in a cybernetic way. They merely randomly shift the position of the players on the board. The chutes and ladders do not constitute a dynamic feedback loop. The feedback loop in Chutes and Ladders occurs at the very end of the game, when players must land exactly on the final square in order to win (rather than being able to overshoot the final space and land there anyway). This rule creates a kind of negative feedback system.The exact landing rule serves as negative feedback on the distance between players. In a game of Chutes and Ladders, the player that is farthest ahead will eventually be within six spaces of the finish square and will usually end up spending a few more turns trying to make the exact roll, or possibly inch ahead by rolling small numbers. During this time, the other players often catch up. The overall effect is to level out the playing field by reducing the difference between the positions of the players. The result of stretching out the end of the game in this way is a closer and more dramatic finish.
Think about the game without this rule. If players can overshoot the final space and still win, imagine that you are playing against someone who is just three spaces away from the last square. Even if that player has very bad luck (rolling three 1s in a row), that player is no more than three turns from winning the game. If you are more than 18 spaces away (the total of rolling three 6s in a row), there is no way you can win. On the other hand, if your opponent has to make an exact roll, then he has a 50 percent chance of rolling too high so that he has to stay put, as you keep getting closer. The game is prolonged, the outcome remains uncertain, and in general, the game is more satisfying to play. Those last few die rolls become dramatic, nail-biting game events. We should point out that this is not a true example of a cybernetic feedback system. An orthodox systems theorist would point out that there is no sensor, comparator, and activator in actual operation. As a counter-example, if there were a rule requiring that the player in first place subtract 1 from his die roll, we would have a true feedback loop, in which a procedural change is enacted when certain conditions are met. Here the player is the sensor, the rule itself the comparator, and the activator is the action of subtracting one from the die roll. Coming back to our exact landing rule, if we frame the rule in the following fashion, we might consider it to have a feedback loop: "If a player is fewer than 6 spaces from the final space, then rolling higher than N, where N is the number of spaces between the player and the final space, has no effect." The rule now feels more like a feedback loop, where the player senses proximity to the finish and the rule acts to limit the effectiveness of the die roll. Ultimately, it does not really matter whether an orthodox systems theorist would approve of this example or not. As designers, the value of a schema is its ability to solve design problems. The rule that requires players to land by exact count on the final space does create more meaningful play. Understanding the rule as a cybernetic feedback loop, or even a pseudo-cybernetic feedback loop, can only enhance our appreciation for the game's design.
