# note: to be added proceeding the creation of the first few games
Game roles.
let's think about the philosophy about what a game is. A game is when people compete against each other or collaborate to reach a goal. Usually a target score of points.
What then, does it mean to be a player? Is it just any form of participation? Or do you have to have enough influence to impact the goal?
I think the answer is, you must hold your own score to compete with.
In the traditional sense that we think of these games, we divide people into two groups: players, and spectators.
More often than not, players do all the action while spectators just watch. But what happens if we allow spectators to do more than just watch?
Let's take cards against humanity for example. If we break this game down, there are 3 parts.
1. Writing cards for the game. This part is done before the game, but let's imagine that it isn't, or that we allow for adding new cards mid game. Someone will have to write them, or has already done so.
2. Playing said written cards. This is the thought portion, where you do the active thinking.
3. Judging the cards. one or more people are in charge of this task.
Out of these 3 roles, which ones are considered to be appropriate for only players, or only spectators? Do any apply to both?
Ignoring role 1 for now, it seems that roles 2 and 3 work for both players. While only role 3 would work for spectators.
But only role two really counts as a true player role. Because that is the only time that they can earn points.
It can be argued that role 3 has the impact of giving points, which is true. But the person themselves are not able to have their own impact on the target score.
What if we did something interesting, and allowed for spectators to gain points if they voted for the card that got the most votes in total?
Suddenly they would be considered a player since they have their own score.
A role isn't about if the person is a player or a spectator. It is about if they can have their own scoring or not.
Extending this idea further, some people may want to judge cards, but not play cards. And some people might want to just watch.
You wouldn't be able to call someone who only judges cards a spectator or a player. Especially if they are allowed to gain points from judging.
What if you only allow for people to have a maximum of 1 role?
Someone can either play cards and win a point if their card is chosen, or they can judge cards and gain a point if their vote was the most agreed.
You could technically call both groups players, but this only works until you add another role.
What if again you wanted to add being able to write cards mid game. If you don't award points for that, people who write cards would still be participating, without being considered players since they do not have a score.
So the conclusion is that table members should not strictly be treated as players or spectators, but instead hold different roles which may or may not award points.
When thinking of table members in this way, management becomes much simpler:
1. It directly correlates to game phases.
2. Control who is allowed to have this role and when. For example, alow for people to join the table at any point and optionally take this role, and optionally leave this role. Or automatically assign it to people who join the table, and can not remove it. It could also be possible to block the role from being added unless manually specified. This goes hand in hand with the previous paired of game phases.
3. A role can hold its own keybinds, eliminating the need for keybind states altogether in some cases.