Ludifying Lovecraft in Arkham Horror - Game Play: Paratextuality in Contemporary Board Games - page 7

(which has a form but can change it, and which is amoral but inluences
humanity in immoral ways), the series of short stories from which the mythos
develops has created a sprawling yet indeinable narrative. he unstructure of
Lovecrat's worlds can be found in the way that his stories themselves only sort
of cohere. According to Lovecrat expert Robert M. Price, Lovecrat's works do
not it together neatly—“the it [between all the titles] is not exact, nor need it
b e .” 11 Although general themes of Lovecrat can be teased out, at any one speciic
instance no individual text can be said to fulill all the “rules” of the Lovecratian
universe. 12 And it's not just one “universe”—unlike an auteur such as George
Lucas, for instance, whose Lucasilm has maintained the authority to artiicially
determine what is or is not part of the Star Wars canon, Lovecrat's stories have
been assigned into various cycles, myths, or universes, at various times, by
various authors and scholars. 13 Lovecrat “let it to subsequent systematicians to
lend artiicial order” to his catalog. 14
In order to detail how unstructure functions in paratextual board games, I
irst analyze the way rules work in Arkham Horror , then apply these rules to
an analysis of the game play in Arkham Horror , and inally discuss the way that
the rules determine the story of the game. Lovecrat's unstructure manifests
in Arkham Horror when the numerous rules of the game as laid out in the
24-page rule topic ideologically contradict the more luid and open rules of
the Lovecratian universe detailed in his overarching Cthulhu mythos. Ludic
necessities override paratextual connectivity. Arkham Horror uses rules as a way
of maintaining variability within game mechanisms to shit the prominent traits
of the main characters, ofering multiple routes through narrative by changing
the stories within its many play options.
Algorithms, games, and Lovecrat
For Salen and Zimmerman, any set of game “rules” can be broken into discrete,
formal structures. here are the operational rules, or the “guidelines players
require in order to play”—for example, the rules written in a rulebook. In
addition, there are the implicit rules of the game, which are largely the social
and cultural contracts that we subscribe to when we agree to play with each
other. Some implicit rules of games may include letting someone have a
“do-over” if they are inexperienced at the game, making the loser buy a round,
or refraining from punching the winners if they beat you. Mediating between