"Process vs Outcome / Historically Accurate vs Playable" Topic

It often seems to me that wargamers are very divided between those who think in terms of "process" and those who think in terms of "outcome."

Just recently, though, I've been realizing that perhaps this is also the reason why so many gamers get so animated about whether or not a game is "historically accurate."

What got me thinking about this is a WW2 naval game that I wrote, but this could apply to anything.

The game has an air combat sub-routine. Originally when I wrote it, it was fairly detailed. Each plane was rated for its maneuverability, and for its Airframe (sturdiness), and then there was a note on the counter if it had weak armament. Furthermore, sometimes you had a bonus if you had "Veteran" pilots, or a penalty for "Green" pilots, and so on.

The routine had each player in a dogfight rolling a d10, adding any modifiers, plus his maneuverability. If he won, then he rolled against the enemy's Airframe to see if he shot him down, merely damaged him, or did nothing at all. (The Airframe number was a To-Kill score, in other words.)

Thus each dogfight required two d10 rolls.

It's not terribly complicated, but we were playing big battles and it took a while and I found myself getting bored with it.

I should point out at this point, also, that in designing this system I had looked at all different sorts of dice, different routines, systems, values, and had crunched tons of probabilities on Excel spreadsheets. So I knew, for instance, that in a typical Zeke-vs-Wildcat dogfight, the more maneuverable Zeke usually got the advantage, but then his wimpy guns had trouble putting away the sturdier American plane. The Wildcat had a lesser chance of getting the advantage, but if he did, his heavier guns usually shredded the fragile Zeke.

All well and good, until one day it dawned on me: When all was said and done, the overall chances of one plane versus another… were almost identical. The Zeke had a 19.1% chance of shooting down the Wildcat. The Wildcat had an 18.7% chance of shooting down the Zeke.

In other words, I could just as easily make the planes' values equal, and resolve all of this with one simple d6 roll. One roll, one teensy bit of addition, and the same spread of outcomes. When I tested it for other plane matchups, it was equally easy to convert.

So I did. I dramatically simplified the air combat system and radically accelerated the game. I then tested it out on a group of gamers, some of whom knew the game, and others were Newbies. I didn't tell them about the math being the same; just that I had "streamlined" it.

Everybody hated it. Many people complained that it wasn't "historically accurate" anymore. People told me that I'd "sacrificed accuracy for playability" and all the usual wargamer clichées.

This fascinates me. The outcomes, of course, are virtually unchanged. What has changed is the Process. Now that players can't go through the process, step by step, they no longer believe that the outcome is "realistic." Even though the outcome hasn't changed at all.

Now that they can't *see* all the factors that are factored-in, they assume that these factors are ignored, and thus the game is "not historically accurate."

The older I get, and the more experienced I get as a game designer, the more I understand that the secret of good game design has nothing at all to do with "accuracy" or "playability," but rather with giving people a good show. You have to give them a satisfying Process, without it taking too long to get through it.

A Zeke had wimpy guns? Cannons, I think not. Wimpy airframe, yes.

As for the rest: players want a process, either a comparison on a chart and roll for effect, or several steps with dice to a conclusion. A simple d6 roll, high die wins, is MB gaming, not wargaming. Even though, as you say, the outcome is identical. There isn't enough "atmospheric" involvement the swift way….

1066.us

M. St. Mango, is this not how WRG begat DBA?

I come down on the side of outcome based design, myself, with the caveat that both you and Doug threw in: There has to be enough process, and that process needs to have some flash to it, or the outcome arrived at, no matter how "accurate" or satisfying will lose credibility.

It has been my experience that when most gamers say "game X is not historically accurate" or "game Y is the most historically accurate game ever," they are actually saying "game x felt like it was just a game" and "game Y made me feel like my decisions influenced the outcome of the game in ways that meet my understanding of the history it's based on."

I think that sometimes what players are asking for when they say they want "more historical accuracy" is a good mix of decision points, mechanics that uphold decisions that would have been considred good tactics in the period the game represents, and outcomes that seem reasonable based on the decisions made.

Then, of course, there are the gamers who equate "realism" with drilling down through multiple tables to get a result. These are the true Process Fanatics who aren't happy unless they get a +1 to something for some reason – and the more obscure the reason the better, but such curmudgeons are holding a crumbling bastion, in my opinion.

This is one area where game design is a balancing act. You have to produce reasonable outcomes, but if the process is unreflective of reality the game will be unsatisfying to somone who wants to see what he reads in a history (or fantasy) book represented in the play of the game.

After that, you are simply talking about the preferences of your market -- I can no more say a "process fanatic" wrong because he likes highly detailed games than I can say my brother in law is wrong because he likes red cars.

Are the more detailed processes more "realistic?" Well, they may well represented the player's preferred style of hisory book than the cleaner variety I prefer.

but rather with giving people a good show

Now that is a line worth remembering.

I think Lentulus and Ambush are on to something. Regardless of the accuracy of the outcome, the player wants to perceive that his/her decisions are meaningful to that outcome. The trick, then, is to balance the outcome with decisions that the player can make without absurdly lengthening the game.

Interesting comments.

When I first designed Watch Your Six is was highly abstract and frankly made no distinctions between the aircraft. I never intended to disseminate this model as it was a starting place.

To this day I have a couple guys that think I totally missed the boat by adding more process to the game. They really liked that very basic no frills game model.

Now not everyone feels that way. I think a lot of stuff relates to player prejudices. If a WWII gamer doesn't get certain stuff he's disappointed. BKC is a good example. It has its following but there are those that play FOW that will tell you that BKC isn't 'historical enough'. No, I am not making this stuff up.

The essence of game design is first and foremost a good game. Without this the rules stay on the shelf and don't get played. Then it turns into a balancing act of modeling concepts to make the game 'historical' vs. how much time does it take to do all that. Most of us are no longer willing to play a three day Empire game every month.

mjc

One of the things I'm having trouble coming to terms with, psychologically, is that I sense a certain contempt for the customer coming into my thinking with regard to game design. As in:

"Well, it would be better to do it this way… faster, simpler, etc… But I have to give them a good show. People like what they like…."

In my case, I've become somewhat less interested in "historical accuracy" and more interested in working out which parts of gaming I enjoy most.

I've gone back to the old-style, chart-heavy approach to tank gaming simply because that's the sort of game I like best. I don't claim it's more accurate or historical than any other method.

I've gone in the opposite direction for science fiction gaming and my non-computer-assisted naval wargaming. In one of my sci fi games I went through the trouble of "boiling down" a whole sequence of combat charts and ended up with single d10 rolls. The mathematical result ends up the same, but the process is much faster.

The great lord Mango has, I think, struck upon a universal truth of game design. It's a compromise between "Give 'em what they want" and "Get a result." After all, we know that wargamers want to be Napoleon AND order their columns into line or square -- and also get the resulting refight of Waterloo finished in a long afternoon.

Which never actually happens, given those parameters.

Whereas we can play Waterloo by flipping a coin and going to the pub early, if we really want to.

But we don't.

The first check for whether a wargame is a sim (historically accurate) or not is awareness – does the player have the same awareness as his real counterpart? If the answer no, it isn't a sim (historically accurate) no matter how great the underlying models are, or illusion of reality is.
If awareness is not the same, how can decisions be "historical"?

(source: a paper on the web somewhere written by a uni professor.)

>>>does the player have the same awareness as his real counterpart? If the answer no, it isn't a sim (historically accurate) no matter how great the underlying models are, or illusion of reality is.
If awareness is not the same, how can decisions be "historical"? <<<

But no game player can ever have the same awareness as an historical figure in a battle. There isn't even a modicum of comparison. That's why we have to invent game mechanics to help us make-believe.

It's basically the same as saying that reading a really engrossing book, or seeing a really good movie about pirates will put you in the same place as the pirates. No. You're still just a guy in a tee-shirt reading a book about pirates.

I've never agreed with the idea that a game ought to try to put you in the position of General X. The General had aides, subordinates, and a large staff to take care of "moving" all those units and managing all those battalions. We don't have that. We have to control and move every unit. So I've never been impressed with the argument that a wargame player is supposed to only be doing what his historical counterpart was doing. It's impossible for that to be true, since a wargamer is in fact standing over a game table, seeing everything, and moving everything, himself. There's not much point in trying to tell me I can't see something or don't "know" something, or *shouldn't* be moving something… When I can obviously see it, obviously know it, and HAVE to move it!

A lot of players get upset if you merely move the person who throws the dice. Same process even, but done by a different person. Gamers like to feel involved, which means they roll the random number.

When you changed the system from two rolls to one roll St Mango, I suspect it wasn't the process change that many would have minded. It was that they had lost their roll.

If you had moved the opposed rolls to two rolls by one player, you may have seen the same effect.

Witness the heat about whether the defender rolls "saving throws" or the attacker rolls "penetration". Succesful games go for saving throws because it makes the defender feel loved.

I've never agreed with the idea that a game ought to try to put you in the position of General X. The General had aides, subordinates, and a large staff to take care of "moving" all those units and managing all those battalions. We don't have that.

I may be misunderstanding what your intent here is, but we do have the staff for that, don't we? It's our hands and fingers. I'm not trying to be facetious, but it's our physically picking up a unit that represents the message transmitted by our staff (by voice, trumpets & drums, runner, radio, flags, fire, flares, or rider) getting to the unit and the unit reacting.

Of course, it depends at what level the general is and what level the various figures and stand combination represent. A general doesn't go worrying about companies, platoons and individual soldiers. As long as the stands on the table represent the level of units that the general controls, then there's not a whole lot of worry here, I don't think.

We have to control and move every unit.

As long as those units are at the level at which the general is concerned, then this is not a problem. If there are still too many units to worry about, then it means another general is required, just as in real life.
--
Tim

Fascinating thread…

Let me throw another point out there: I get more satisfaction from systems that use multiple die types because I ~feel~ like the process is more accurate. However, if there are too many die types, I feel like the designer just used them to use them.

- Cort

AHA! You've got it sir! At some point its all an abstraction and you will have some fudges so why not run with it?

One of the questions I was going to ask related to command level of your game. If you are on the individual ship captain level of command I can fully understand why you players balk at your "simplification". It's a little harder to understand when you are running a fleet.

That all said I do believe you can sometimes carry the simplification too far. If a 40 plus plane furball is crunched down to a single die roll then it does take a lot of the interactivity out of running one. This can also look weird depending upon what detail you've included elsewhere. From the sound of things your players may, MAY mind you, be on to something. I tend to lean on the simplicity side of things myself. I can't see chugging through an actuarial book the size of the New York City phone directory to tell me that I've lost five guys in the third platoon, fifth battalion when looking up a couple of combat factors and a die roll would have given us that.

Ultimately I like to fall back on the "command perspective" model for my determination of whether there is too much detail or not. If I'm are only running a ship or two then yeah, I'd like to see some more detail. If I'm running the Third Fleet, I'm probably being asked to do too much to chew through a multi-chart, multi-step process to determine some procedures that could reasonably be simplified. It all depends on the player's command perspective.

It should also be considered that whatever mechanisms or abstractions you use, it is never going to satisfy everyone – which is why we have zillions of different rules covering exactly the same subjects. Some approaches seem to be more popular than others, but what actually matters is the approach the people you regularly game with like.

Like Tim, personally I am very comfortable with the 'commander' perspective, it almost at once gives you an idea of how big your units and subunits should be. The trickier stuff is how much granularity you put into other areas, what you choose to emphasise in that particular model and sometimes, it is just about marketing. You can have a very pedestrian game, but it just has single original/enertaining idea in it which makes it work.

Getting back to your original question, Gouvion, it is my firm belief that most gamers are, despite their denials, more into process than results. One sure indicator of this is the number of wargames played that never reach resolution except over beers at the local bar.

What percentage of wargames are halted after 3-4 hours of process with no true result, other than in the minds of each side? "Well, if you had attacked with your heavy cavalry, I was going to bring my 12 lbr. battery around the hill…etc."

Many wargamers LOVE process. The more arcane and laden with multiple steps-each one illustrating some added level of consideration, the happier many gamers are because they equate process with realism. If it's quick, insightful, and to the point, they feel that it can't be right without at least 2-3 tables and 2 die rolls.

It shouldn't be a surprise that people who fret over the number of rows and color of buttons on a habit-veste, and the exact shade of yellow the term "Aurore" denotes, would want an equivalent amount of granularity in their rules.

Besides, it lends itself to long winded arguments and TMP postings and intense navel gazing, which is the true reward of wargaming for many people.

Not to mention they DO NOT want the game to end because the clear statement of winning and losing, especially being a loser, is too much for some to bear-better to get lost in endless process and muddy, indecisive results.

The bulk of the historical wargame rules market serves this need quite well.

[I may be misunderstanding what your intent here is, but we do have the staff for that, don't we? It's our hands and fingers. I'm not trying to be facetious, but it's our physically picking up a unit that represents the message transmitted by our staff (by voice, trumpets & drums, runner, radio, flags, fire, flares, or rider) getting to the unit and the unit reacting.]

But it's hardly the same "perspective." My point was that we (well, most of us, at least!) don't get into arguments between our eyes, brains, and fingers. The fact that we, ourselves, are doing the work that historically would have been done by hundreds of men, each with a very limited and different perspective, means that we can *never* put ourselves in the same situation as the historical commander.

We're more like some sort of Omniscient Psychic, channeling ALL the historical commanders *and* all the troops, simultaneously: "Let's play Waterloo: I get to be Victor Hugo!"

[it is my firm belief that most gamers are, despite their denials, more into process than results…. Many wargamers LOVE process.]

Oh, I agree. Many people are really into numbers. Thank God, or we wouldn't have any bridges built or tax-returns completed!

Like you, though, I can't figure out why just about every gamer claims to want a game that is "fast" and "simple," when in fact many get very turned-off by accelerating or simplifying the rules, and a game that doesn't offer a sufficient pretense of complexity is usually the object of derision and contempt.

"But I have to give them a good show. People like what they like…"

I have never been upset when people gave me what I liked, and the result was a good show.

But that does not have to be faster and simpler. Some people *like* loads of detail and consider a good show to involve three levels of table.

I'm just not one of them. Designers should produce rules that they want to play. If anyone else does, it's just bonus. There is not enough money in this buisiness to make "selling out" at all worth while.

"Many wargamers LOVE process"

Why not? While the outcome may be the bottom line the time of the game is spent with the process -- thick or thin, detailed or abstract, if you don't love the process of your game, you are not going to play it much. It is hard to picture a wargame with no process to turn decisions into tabletop events.

Victor and Hugo – bunglers in crime!? I loved that show!

"Designers should produce rules that they want to play"

Exactly, One can get very far off the mark if one tries to design a game strictly for commercial reasons, or to please others. As with any art, the artist/designer must first please himself, and not be afraid to do things that are new, or might upset traditionalists of all stripes.

There are always enough "assemblers" of rules, as opposed to designers, to insure that the same old crap gets carried on from year to year, decade to decade. Creative people should let ideas drive their rule writing, and those ideas should be concepts they have a strong commitment to and offer fresh and inventive ways to wargame.

Good topic St Mango! I agree with your post but think that your topic title assumes certain things that I don't agree with (ie that historical accuracy and playability are at odds with one another.)

I think a lot of people use the terms "accuracy" and "detail" to mean the same thing but they are different imo with respect to wargaming. For many years in the 70s and 80s gamers assumed that detail always meant accuracy. But in my 20 years of gaming I've played plenty of hyper-detail rules that were anything but "realistic". Their nominal time scales allowed division-sized battles to be concluded in just a few scale minutes but took untold hours to actually resolve!!!

Today there are many games that claim to be accurate in "outcome" but which include absolutely absurd incentives for completely inaccurate tactics/processes (eg Flames of War) which actually result in silly outcomes.

So, instead of debating accuracy vs playability and process vs outcome (which assume certain false choices imo) I think its more useful to define what one expects from a set of rules and then accept that for different gamers that means different things with respect to issues such as level of detail. In no particular order here's what I expect from a good wargame:

1. ENTERTAINMENT
Is it fun no matter how accurate it claims to be? I play games to be entertained and if I feel like I'm re-doing my high school geometry class (check out the Field of Glory rule book!), filling out tax forms using rosters, need a calculator to keep track of endless modifiers and calculations, or need a flow chart to understand the turn sequence (Empire!) then I'm not having fun!

For me a game must be fun and that fun can be derived from many different game features (or diminished by others). For example, a friend of mine runs some homegrown colonial rules that include VERY entertaining and quite historical/plausible event cards. Great fun! Fun can also be generated through interesting scenario parameters and colorful unit or leader capabilities. Fun can also be generated simply through the inherent nature of the conflict and player attitudes (eg my two sons taking pleasure in defeating my Imperial Guard repeatedly as I insist on fielding a "realistic" force based on modern unit TO&Es instead of a typical 40K min/maxed force.)

2. HISTORICAL EXPECTATIONS
Does the game meet my expectations with respect to history, whether through process or outcome? This is NOT the same thing as detail and counting rivets on a tank. It simply means that relative unit capabilities are accurately represented regardless of the level of abstraction or detail.

For example, Flames of War does not meet my historical expectations since I don't expect 105mm artillery to operate in indirect fire mode in the same AO as a rifle platoon or company and I fully expect static defenders covering a kill zone/field of fire to get the first shot against an enemy moving into that kill zone in the open. And I've played plenty of very simple games which have met my historical expectations (eg Crossfire) without being complex or detailed. IMO simple + historical outcomes = elegant game design and it's a rare thing indeed!

3. EASE OF USE
Also known as playability but that's such a loaded term I prefer the ergonomic-centric phrase "ease of use". Ease of use means that the processes are easy to understand and execute without confusion/checklists, there are limited calculations required, there is limited data to be remembered, there are limited or (better yet) no logs to be recorded, there are few charts to be referenced, there is as little "marker clutter" as possible, and you don't need a tool box full of templates and measuring devices to play.

Note that a game can be easy to use but little fun since it lacks color or interesting interactions. And a game can have very little detail but be hard to use if it requires tiny, mili-metric measurements to be played accurately (eg DBx).

A game can also be easy to use while still meeting historical expectations by carefully constraining the level of detail to the player's command level.

Ease of use also includes prep time/requirements. If I have to re-based, well, that's not easy to use. If I have to fill out rosters before the game or photocopy a ton of different game charts then that also diminishes ease of use. The ideal game from an ease of use perspective does not require re-basing or highly specialized terrain models and requires just a single play sheet so I can set-down my terrain and troops and get to playing (a trip to the copy shop should not be required!)

Finally, ease of use respects time and money limits. You should be able to have an entertaining game without having to invest vast amounts of money and time in collecting an army and an average game should be completed in a reasonable amount of time (2-3 hours, sort of like most sporting events or a long movie). That also means playing to a decisive finish with clear victory conditions instead of the usual "time to go home to the wife, if we played 2 more turns I woulda/coulda beaten you."

SUMMARY
So instead of playability vs detail, blah, blah, blah I want games that meet my historical expectations, are easy to use, and that are entertaining. And there are a lot of ways to get there…or not.

MB

>>> in my 20 years of gaming I've played plenty of hyper-detail rules that were anything but "realistic". Their nominal time scales allowed division-sized battles to be concluded in just a few scale minutes but took untold hours to actually resolve!!!

Today there are many games that claim to be accurate in "outcome" but which include absolutely absurd incentives for completely inaccurate tactics/processes (eg Flames of War) which actually result in silly outcomes.<<<

Ah, but see, one of the reasons I really like FoW is that it's the only WW2 game I can play in something that feels like close to "real time." Most WW2 games take hours to game a little 10-minute "battle." So in that sense, because of its funky game mechanisms, I think FoW has achieved a sort of "realism" that none of its competitors have: a realistic pace of play and action.

>>>I want games that meet my historical expectations, are easy to use, and that are entertaining.<<<

Bingo. That's what I like about FoW. It's just that you and I have different historical expectations.

The fact that we, ourselves, are doing the work that historically would have been done by hundreds of men, each with a very limited and different perspective, means that we can *never* put ourselves in the same situation as the historical commander.

Try Kriegsspiel.

Now you ARE faced with incomplete information, recalcitrant commanders, someone else doing the bookwork etc.

Most WW2 games take hours to game a little 10-minute "battle."

An absurd statement. There are plenty of WWII games that run as fast as FoW. Some of the larger ones run at much faster than real time.

Hi

A lot of this "time" thing involves who you play with!

I cannot remember any game my group has done in the last 10 years that didn't resolve in 2 hours. As we often game from 6 to 10, this means two battles.

In the old "wellington/longbow" thread, one thing we were interested in was how various tactics available to the attacking french might affect the scenario. So, we did 8000 nappy french against the english long bow four times in two hours to resolution. Didn't do any chin stroking or pontificating about the troops, hero worship, the wife's cooking or any of the other "shocks a game is err to".

Sometimes "inaccuracy" means "I know I am as good as alex and I STILL lost"!

Just as accuracy means "I sent your guys running in terror"!

R

"Some of the larger ones run at much faster than real time."

It just depends on your time/ground scales. I've got through ten days of real time in a couple of hours in larger operational games, and even for Grand Tactical stuff you are cranking through several hours of combat in an evening. It is only really skirmish stuff which runs at sub real-time, and only because you have such short turns.

If use variable length bounds you can get through weeks or even months in no time at all (this usually works better in some sort of campaign format).

>>>I want games that meet my historical expectations, are easy to use, and that are entertaining.<<<

"Bingo. That's what I like about FoW. It's just that you and I have different historical expectations."

Precisely! I'm pretty certain that we probably have very different views on FoW with respect to that old saw "historical accuracy" and could debate that endlessly.

But by focusing on "historical expectations" designers are free to modulate their quest for "accuracy" based on market expectations which is what really matters if you want people to play your game.

I think this focus on historical expectations also mellows what can often be acrimonious debate. I call a good friend of mine our gaming group's "spotting Nazis" (in a friendly way) since he insists that 20th century wargames MUST include a spotting roll to be "realistic". I'm happy to abstract spotting into the combat mechanics. Thus, for a game to meet his historical expectations it must include discrete spotting while my expectations are satisfied by abstracted spotting.

We could endlessly debate the spotting issue with respect to "realism vs playability" but why bother? If I assert that abstracted spotting is realistic enough he would be tempted to object. If he asserts that spotting is required to be accurate then I would be tempted to object.

But if we both assert that our respective positions satisfy our personal expectations then such objections are moot and we can get on with gaming (in spite of our personal positions on the subject we both play one another's games. Which is as it should be!).

MB

That's interesting. I try very hard to find and create examples of historical accuracy not translating to greater complexity. I think its a key to making the hobby more appealing to newcomers.

One of my first exposures to 'proper' commercial rules was 4th Edition Squad Leader in 1977, by John Hill.

His intro talked about 'design for effect' and it allowed him to get rid of complicated so called realistic routines and instead replace them with simple but not simplistic rules that generated the 'right feel'

That kind of ideal has stayed with me ever since and I resented the trend of the 80's and early 90's to go for ever increasing complexity in the name of realism.

When I think of say a German Tiger tank from WWII, it's traits to me are that it should be able to hit and destroy vehicles from a distance and that the enemy will need to get close to the Tiger before there is a chance of harming the Tiger and even then a flank shot might be needed. I think of the tank as being relatively slow and it is something that the enemy treat with respect and caution. So I just want my rules to reflect that FEEL, I don't particularly need a rulebook to be based around an exact science of armour penetration.

I am obviously in the 'effect' camp and am comfortable with that but I can well understand the process people wanting to know whether a 17 Pdr APDS can penetrate a Tigers mantle at 1700 yards.

The problem I see is, far to many think that kind of detail has to be complex, and it doesn't. Comparing the average penetration of a gun at a range versus the armor of the tanks is simply knowing which value is harder. Displaying that information on small reference card is simple and easy to use.

So I just want my rules to reflect that FEEL

How better to do that then with knowing that You cant penetrate the armor at a certain distance. having penetrations for set ranges on a quick reference card can do that

It all has to do with expectations. All gamers begin a game with certain expectations. This is something they bring to the game. It's like going to the movies. If the movie doesn't meet certain expectations you will be dissatisfied.

Take the movie Excalibur. Over the years I've tried to watch that movie but simply cannot get into it. It's the armor. I don't care when Mallory lived, if you are going to do a serious retelling of the Arthurian legend they should look a bit like the time period of the story. Now shift to First Knight. Another retelling of the Arthur myth. Same basic armor but it didn't bother me. I couldn't take the story serious so the armor wasn't an issue. Now, Clive Owens King Arthur had armor and clothing I could associate with the the time of Arthur. It met my expectation of a rip-roaring adventure story. The only question about the movie was why wasn't Guenevere ravished by her own side?

The same goes with wargames. We have certain expectations. The figures should look about right, the terrain should look right given the scenario (you wouldn't expect to meet Germans fighting the Russians in the dessert). And the action should flow "right" [you can't have your troops march up on cannons, fire at them before the cannon has had a chance to fire). It's not even about "Historical Accuracy". We all have our own ideas regarding "historical accuracy". But it is about meeting expectations. Since we all have our own expectations no designer can meet them all.

Rich

Hi

Rich, the simple solution is to write your own rules!

But it is true. Our rules started for the vary reasons you mention. I wanted, for instance, to play the intersecting lines of the checkerboard.

Rocky

Just my view, but there`s nothing wrong in simplifying the process if the modelled outcomes are the same as the real ones were then, or are now.

Rocky

Rich, the simple solution is to write your own rules!

I am. And I have discovered something about myself. While I am a brilliant intellectual, I suck at writing rules. But I persevere.

Rich

Some people who are not good rule writers can use the framework of another set and then modify the sets to fit their needs. Sometimes it makes the original concept designer upset. but those of us who have been in the business for 20 years or so have seen many clones of our work. If not full clones then key concepts have been adopted by otehr sets often about other combat eras than our original work.

I think Ambush Alley nailed it on the important point of credibility to players. I'll add that quality designer's explanatory notes can provide credibility for mechanisms that might otherwise seem excessively simple to the player. Also, dramatic pacing in the game flow is good, and that's about getting process right.

Mike KT wrote:
I think Ambush Alley nailed it on the important point of credibility to players. I'll add that quality designer's explanatory notes can provide credibility for mechanisms that might otherwise seem excessively simple to the player. Also, dramatic pacing in the game flow is good, and that's about getting process right.

Mike:
I agree with that. If I don't know what the mechanics are supposed to do, I sure can't appreciate what they actually do…

"Flow" is an important term in game design. Lots of techincal game methods behind that.

Bill

Any choice between accuracy and playability should be made in the context of the overall game design. By that I mean you should have an actual design plan that you use as your limiting factor. I think it is often forgotten in game design.

Example. I want to recreate the battle of Waterloo such that it takes 30 minutes to set up, 30 to take down and 3 hours maximum to play. With in that 3 hours I know I want to have 10 turns. That means each turn has to be done and over with in 18 minutes. That is not a lot of time – and my design must reflect the level of detail necessary to produce the results necessary. What comes after that is producing a set of rules that fit in that time frame and produce "reasonable" results – and that qualatative is up to the game designer.

So to be clear you are always giving up accuracy for playability from the moment you put your fingers on the keyboard and start entering your ideas into a wordprocessor. Unless you are recreating the battle at the ratio of 12 inches to the foot, something has been abstracted.

Just my opinion.

CorpsCommander:

I don't quite see it that way. It isn't any design choice between accuracy and playability. It doesn't exist. If you have one hisorical fact that is modeled adequately in the game, just as you've described, you have achieved accuracy. If there are twenty such facts that have been modeled adequately, that design is also achieved accuracy.

I think what you are referring to is the amount of historical detail that has to be limited. Too much detail, too much history, and the game doesn't work.

Of course, the amount of detail always has to be limited, no matter what the game or simulation parameters are. Even Professional Simulation Designers recognize that too much detail keeps the design from functioning properly, if at all.

In other words, the amount of detail in a game does not equate to the amount of historical accuracy in the design. The quantity of facts stuffed into a game doesn't produce more historical accuracy. It's just more stuff.

That's my thoughts on the subject.

Hi

Rich, over the last 35 some years I have ghost written rules for various people and companies. If you need help, I will offer.

Rocky

I think what you are referring to is the amount of historical detail that has to be limited. Too much detail, too much history, and the game doesn't work.

I agree with this point. Detail is not necessarily synonymous with accuracy. There are plenty of "detailed" games that are not accurate, or have outcomes that defy history.

It isn't any design choice between accuracy and playability. It doesn't exist.

Scotty, I beg to differ. It maybe historically accurate that a wargame battalion's frontage is accurately portrayed on the tabletop. However, the depth, because of playability, is not accurately portrayed. It is too deep. Here is a clear sacrifice of accuracy for playability. This occurs time and time again as the designer tries to translate what was done on the battlefield into a playable game.

Rich

It maybe historically accurate that a wargame battalion's frontage is accurately portrayed on the tabletop. However, the depth, because of playability, is not accurately portrayed.

That's exactly right. In Napoleonic gaming often what we perceive as a "line" on the game table is actually a column, right? A French battalion in column of divisions would be what? Nine ranks deep (3 companies) by about 80 men wide. With each inch on the tabletop representing 20 yards (for the sake of argument), the "column" would be about 3/4" deep by 5" wide. I do not know any Napoleonic rules that accurately portray a French column of divisions, even so-called "detailed" battalion level games.

Rich wrote:
Scotty, I beg to differ. It maybe historically accurate that a wargame battalion's frontage is accurately portrayed on the tabletop. However, the depth, because of playability, is not accurately portrayed. It is too deep. Here is a clear sacrifice of accuracy for playability. This occurs time and time again as the designer tries to translate what was done on the battlefield into a playable game.

Rich:
We can disagree on this. Unit Depth can't be portrayed because of the limits of the medium--the figures and scale on the table, the physical limits of game markers, not any need for the game system itself to be 'playable'.

Translating what is done on the battlefield into a playable game requires a limit on the amount of detail [gross information] modeled, but there isn't a conflict between modeling whatever history is chosen to represent and 'playability'.

There IS a conflict between the amount of detail a game system can represent and gamers' ability to play it--as a game, or at all. That isn't a conflict with modeling accuracy, but with modeling too much. Attempt too much, and that is the death of any simulation or game, regardless of the medium.

Unit Depth can't be portrayed because of the limits of the medium--the figures and scale on the table, the physical limits of game markers, not any need for the game system itself to be 'playable'.

But it certainly goes towards the issue of "accuracy", right? If a unit occupies too much space, then its footprint or deployment area is too large, therefore by definition inaccurate.

John wrote:
But it certainly goes towards the issue of "accuracy", right? If a unit occupies too much space, then its footprint or deployment area is too large, therefore by definition inaccurate.

John:
Yes, but that is inescapable and has nothing to do with the game system's design. It is a basic, and unavoidable problem with the game markers, not something the game designer chose to do. If it is really an issue for the designer, he needs to find another medium that can accommodate the unit depth.

So, if you want to pick out all the things that a table top game simply can not accurately portray, there certainly are any number of things, but that is a condition of the medium, table top miniatures, not something about the game designer's design. Two different issues. Both are very real, but game marker limitations and game design decisions are really two different issues, albeit very real ones.

That is the only thing one can 'judge' as accurate or inaccurate concerning the designer's creation are his game rules….

It is a basic, and unavoidable problem…

Not entirely. In grand tactical games (whatever they really are) a base can represent two battalions deep for example.

Just saying …

Hi

The "practical" part. Laying out the historical terrain, it is usually frontage that you need to deal with, excess depth because of the fig depth doesn't really affect the deployment in most cases.

As we have all discussed elsewhere, our rules were triggerd by wanting to play hastings on the correct terrain, and none of the rules THEN worked. But they all failed in frontage, not depth.

Rocky