“If a player stops playing – https://tinyurl.com/phbbre5 – it is because he is attracted to another game”.
The part in a game where typically minimum two players are in, they have to fight or compete to win. The part where I see the difference and to make it more exciting is to involve more players, maybe five players, well, as long as there are two players I can explain the first part, circulation. Circulation can never be continuous with only one player, there has to be two, it is like a self-contemplation of spirit as I have read in some of Thomas Troward’s articles, he explains that something always have to be there and in a certain circulation, otherwise nothing could come out. So circulation is important, and that is in every game.
Of course the player has to start rolling the cubes so he or she can make a move then the opponent can have a turn. What a tiny secret of perception is here, is that the player gets his turn to add to the circulation and keep it going. Now some games just have an end but some doesn’t have an end. The player will keep adding to the circulation as long as the interest is there. The player-role is very much-needed, to of course keep the circulation going, but if one or more jumps away, then the game will gradually stop and will be replaced by something. The players choice.
To see the game as the circulation and the player has to be a part of, is actually more remarkable than what first perceived. A game is not a game without the player or the circulation, a game is like the result of a player plus a circulation, that is the value. I am not only talking about a game of chess or monopoly, I am referring to the money-game, the game that makes our civilized society spin. What is your perception of a game, what do you see besides the circulation and the player? Is there anything else besides the two things combined?