In her paper "The Puppet Master Problem: Design for Real-World, Mission Based Gaming", Jane McGonigal suggests that "the success of the puppet master challenges our assumptions about the kinds of action and interaction that qualify as gameplay, reveal dramatic interpretation to be a viable game mechanic, and demonstrate the value of a dramaturgical perspective for pervasive game design." Discuss how these ideas could be applied to designing elements of narrative and gameplay in interactive media systems.

In our previous readings, ludologists like Huzinga have described games as something "outside ordinary life" while Greg Costikyan defined a game as "an interactive structure that requires players to struggle toward goals". Other ludologists give different definitions of games, but basically most agree on the fact that games are free, separate from real life, where player interact within a given set of rules to work towards a goal. Powerplay, which McGonical considers "live gaming events" where players were given no goal, no rules, no choices, no resources to manage... just a series of very specific, physical locations and an impending cascade of actual, real-time moments" hardly seems to fit the definitions of games earlier stated. However, they were still highly successful, with up to thousands of players participating.

One characteristic of powerplay which could be constructive in designing gameplay in interactive media systems is the lack of choice. Uninteractive as it may sound, having set routes for players to follow may make a game more successful. As can be seen from the success of powerplay, having to make choices does not necessarily make a game more enjoyable. Sometimes, perhaps it may be useful to allow the players to decide or interpret how they should perform the tasks instead of what task to perform.

Another concept that game designers could adopt is the concept of “live gaming events”. I feel that what makes powerplay so exciting and enjoyable is the fact that boundaries are so blurred, and players actually have to go around the real world at specific times to participate. The fact that no expectations or goals are given makes it even more mysterious. Even on interactive media systems such as the computer, it is possible to link real life to games, thus blurring the lines between them. Designers could allow players to perform tasks on certain websites only at certain times of the day, for example, or link current affairs to the game being played. Items/codes needed to continue with the game could also be sold in convenience stores at certain times of the day so that players will have to leave their computers and walk in the ‘real world’ to continue the game or to find out what’s going to happen next. Perhaps this use of space and real time will lead to greater immersion on the part of the players, where the game becomes less like an online game and more a part of their lives.

Ultimately, I feel that it is not the level of interaction, the goal, or the level of separation a game has from real life, but sometimes the uniqueness of the game which causes people to want to play. By adopting some features of powerplay previously not adopted in interactive media, designers could possibly create a whole new class of games which gamers truly enjoy.