Inside Eric Zimmerman's Philosophy — You Can Make the Rules, Not How They Get Played

Introduction — The Designer Who Taught Games to Think About Themselves

Eric Zimmerman is an American game designer who teaches at the NYU Game Center. He co-founded the New York studio Gamelab, and he is best known as the co-author, with Katie Salen, of Rules of Play.

He is not a puzzle specialist. I take him up anyway, because his central idea — making the rules is not the same as making how the game is played — applies directly to puzzle design. The designer fixes the solving rules, but cannot make the solving experience. Few people have put that gap into words as often as he has.

This is not a review of his work but a reading of the person through his own statements. I quote only sources whose text I actually checked. Some are press reports of talks or a campus newspaper rather than his own prose, and I say so each time.

Background — From Painter to Digital Game Designer

He describes his starting point plainly: "I was trained as an artist – originally as a painter" (Cordite, 2016). source ↗ He came to games through art training.

He also describes the climate when he began: "when I began designing digital games in the early 1990s, there was no established critical language" (Cordite, 2016). In short, there was no shared vocabulary for criticizing games.

He then co-founded Gamelab in 2000 and ran it until 2009; the studio is known for casual games such as Diner Dash (per his author bio in Game Developer, 2005). source ↗ He says the classes he taught with Frank Lantz at NYU were the foundation of Rules of Play (Cordite, 2016).

Philosophy — You Can Make the Rules, Not the Experience

What runs through his statements is a split between rules and experience: "In a game, the game designer makes the rules. But the game designer doesn't directly create the player's experience." (interview with Roy Christopher, undated). source ↗

The Dartmouth campus newspaper reports him saying much the same in a 2009 lecture there: "You design the rules, but they can play out in unexpected ways." (The Dartmouth, 2009). source ↗ Note that this is a reporter's record of his words, not his own text.

The other pillar is meaning. According to coverage of his 2007 design-expo talk, he said: "If you're not providing them with maximum meaning in the moment to moment or in the long term, then why should they be there?" (Game Developer, 2007). source ↗ Does the player get meaning on every move, and over the long run? He seems to keep asking that.

Obsessions — Inventing New Forms of Play

In his words: "My main interest in games is inventing new forms of play." (Cordite, 2016, page 2). source ↗ He goes on to say that designing in the same genre or for the same platform for years would not suit him.

The stance shows in how he ran his company. According to the Roy Christopher interview, Gamelab staff were expected to spend about a tenth of their time playing — play that is sometimes undirected. source ↗ In his words: "gameLab is a structure that is designed to create unexpected and surprising staff experiences and resulting design artifacts."

There is also his attitude to definitions: "For a designer the value of a concept is its utility, not its ultimate truth." (Game Developer, 2012). source ↗ Does the concept help design, rather than is it correct? That yardstick recurs throughout his writing.

Failures — When the "Magic Circle" Was Misread

A caveat first. I could not find, among the sources I checked, any in which he discusses a company failure or a cancelled project in detail. That Gamelab ended in 2009 appears only in an author bio. I will not guess at the reason.

What does exist is a public re-statement. The term "magic circle," popularized by Rules of Play, was later criticized as the idea that play is cut off from real life. In a 2012 essay he restated it: "The magic circle is the idea that a boundary exists between a game and the world outside the game." source ↗

He then argues that much of the criticism attacks an opponent who does not exist: "Propping up invented straw men just so you can knock them over is a lazy way to do research." He also admits: "Katie and I more or less invented the concept" (both Game Developer, 2012). This is not a failure story as such, but it is a record of him facing a misread concept ten years on.

Dilemmas — Teaching the Rules While Urging Students to Break Them

A tension shows clearly in how he describes his own role. Of his job at NYU, he says it is to teach students the classical rules of good game design — and also to encourage them to question, bend, break and refashion those rules into something entirely new (Cordite, 2016, page 2, paraphrased). source ↗

In the same answer he calls it the best development that young designers are questioning the principles of "good design" his generation tried to establish. He welcomes having his own generation's principles doubted. One way to put it: he wants to protect the value of principles while hoping they get renewed.

A second tension comes from another source: "As a designer, I like solving design problems, which doesn't merely mean making games that are fun for me." (interview with Henry Jenkins, 2006). source ↗ What he finds fun and what the design problem requires are separate matters.

Influences — Painting, Huizinga, Katie Salen, Frank Lantz

The influences he names himself narrow to a few. First, his painting training (Cordite, 2016). Second, he says he assembled the magic-circle concept from the ideas of Huizinga and Caillois (Game Developer, 2012). source ↗

Among people, there is his co-author Katie Salen: "Katie's background in design and semiotics was incredibly influential" (Cordite, 2016). source ↗ In other words, a co-author with a semiotics background shaped the language of Rules of Play.

Another is Frank Lantz, with whom he co-taught at NYU. He also writes that the 2005 "Game Developers' Bill of Rights" was inspired by a bill of rights for comics creators (Game Developer, 2005). source ↗ I do not list influences beyond these.

Kizuki's Reading

What follows is my interpretation, not his statement.

I read Zimmerman as someone who knows that a tool stops belonging to its maker the moment it reaches another person's hands. "You can make the rules, not the experience," and his own concept being misread as it spread, look like two faces of one fact. That may be why he measures a definition by whether it works rather than whether it is true, and why he teaches principles while urging students to break them. For puzzle makers this is no distant matter: the designer fixes the answer, but the joy of solving lives only in the solver's hands.

Closing — Where to Start

To meet the person, start with the 2013 "Manifesto for a Ludic Century." Its short statements include "Games are beautiful. They do not need to be justified." (Kotaku, 2013). source ↗ The gist: games matter not because they are useful but because they are beautiful.

Next, read his magic-circle essay to see how he handles a concept. For related designers, follow our pieces on Frank Lantz, who co-taught with him, and Raph Koster, whose thinking pairs well with Rules of Play.

Sources

Primary sources used in this piece (full text retrieved and checked):

・Christy Dena interview (Cordite, 2016-05-04, page 1)

・Same interview, page 2

・Manifesto for a Ludic Century (Kotaku, 2013-09-09, with Heather Chaplin)

・Zimmerman discusses future of game design (The Dartmouth, 2009-04-14, lecture report)

・Coverage of the 2007 Game Design Expo talk "Designing for Meaningful Play" (Game Developer)

・Henry Jenkins interview (2006-12-20)

・Jerked Around by the Magic Circle (Game Developer, 2012-02-07, his own essay)

・A Game Developers' Bill of Rights (Game Developer, 2005-11-21, his own essay)

・Eric Zimmerman: Play as Research (Roy Christopher, undated)