"Process versus outcome" Topic

It's times like this that I really miss Wally Simon. I never knew him closely; we met maybe a dozen times, always only at gaming Cons. And we corresponded a lot in the days before the internet. But I always felt he was sort of a kindred spirit, and I was proud that he was always such an advocate of my games. If Wally's philosophy of game design could be summed up in one sentence, it would be: "It's an Art, not a Science." That's my philosophy, too.

In a game with Tiger tanks and Sherman tanks, most players will expect the Tiger tank to beat up the Sherman, all other things being equal. As long as that happens on a routine basis, most players are satisfied with the outcome – it feels right to them – and most guys don't concern themselves too much with whether you used a d6 to make it happen or a d20 to make it happen, or whether you consulted five charts and tables, or none at all.

I run a lot of games at conventions, and I often get questions like: "If my unit is behind the hedgerow, will I get cover?" The new guy, who has never read the rules, doesn't care so much about what process, exactly, is used to simulate the cover; he just wants to know that his expectation for outcome is correct; he just wants to know that there is –some- sort of bonus built into the game for being behind that hedge.

For me, the most important game design criteria are the practical things: How big a table does a player need? How many figures will he need to play this game? How much time will it take from start to finish? How many other game gadgets are required in order to play, like markers, cards, or whatever? And does the sequence of play give both players something fun to do, often enough that they both feel engaged the whole time? For every game, those are my starting points.

I find that games which begin with those premises, and which also satisfy those basic expectations for historical outcomes (the Tiger kills the Sherman; the hedgerow gives you cover…) are the games that everybody loves. And since this is a business for me and not just philosophy, when I'm making decisions about whether or not a particular game design is worth two years of solid work and five digits of my money, then you better believe I'm going to be guided by what I think will be successful, popular, and fun. I don't design wargames to educate people about history; I'm a historian – I write books for that. I design wargames that people will want to play, and that they'll enjoy playing, and therefore that they will go out and buy.

On the contrary, I have often found that games which begin with the premise of "Let's find out exactly what happened in history and get the data and then we can try to come up with game mechanisms to model it…" are often pretty complex, dreary affairs. I'm not saying they all are. And I'm not saying that everybody feels that way. There will always be some people who prefer that approach. And the nature of the internet is probably to overemphasize the outspoken minority in any field, so a casual trip through forums like TMP will give you the false impression that there really are a LOT of gamers for whom SEEKRIEG 6.12 is the best way to spend an afternoon. (Not to mention the inevitable "Harrumph Harrumph if you're not playing my way, you're not Historically Accurate" guys who seem to rally around those sorts of games.)

It's all well and good to theorize about what gamers want, need, or expect. In the end, though, no matter how you re-arrange the components, you're just offering up an imaginative construction that they'll use with a table, figures, and dice, for the purpose of having fun. So you'd be well advised to get the "fun" part done right first, because interpreting the history is, comparatively, the easy bit!

Bob wrote:

I will use the terms "professional simulation" and "game simulation" to make that distinction for consistency. In my mind, there are many distinctions, but the biggest is in terms of the required resources for both the creator and the "player". Budget and possibly equipment separate the two, as well as a wealth of other assets.

Bob:
And? The game designer decides what is necessary. A 'professional simulation' can be and at times are very simple, while our hobby 'game simulations' can be far more complex. Hobby game designers often design the games as a business. Are they designing 'professional simulations?' Or the designer of the computer game "flight simulator". Is that a 'professional simulation?' Bob, the distinctions really don't mean much in this discussion. There are simply game designers who want to model portions of history and we are talking about simulation methods for doing that. The designer decides what the goals are for his game, based on everything from gamer desires and budget. If simulating a battle is one of them, shouldn't he be actually using the methods for doing that? It he feels he can't, too much money or time involved, though designers claim years of research and hundreds of hours of play-tests all the time, then don't design simulations and don't claim to be recreating history or anything else you have decided you can't do.

In the end, the question remains, does the game do what the designer says it does—and how is that achieved?

Even if the end results match the historical record? I'm not sure of the "fundamental design components" that you're referring to, so perhaps I'm missing the obvious.

"end results match the historical record." Bob, that doesn't establish a thing concerning a simulation, or recreating a battle environment or recreating history. I can put together a single game chart with one die roll for the battle of Waterloo. The die roll will produce 'end results that match the historical record.' Have I 'simulated' anything? Recreated history with this 'result' oriented game mechanic? I can create a complex game system that has absolutely nothing to do with how Napoleonic battle is fought, and still end up with 'results that match the historical record.' To avoid this requires those 'fundamental design components I referred to. And I can't say that this is obvious, because too often, game designers create games with 'historical results, without recreating history at all.

Do you feel it is more important that they justify the mechanisms based on simulation design principles, the results, or both?

Justify? If you mean that game designers establish that they do what they say they do, yes. If they want to do that with a simulation, simulation design principles seem to be the way to go. Or do they claim to have simulated history while ignoring all the methods for designing a simulation, while failing to establish that they have a successful simulation. Can that be 'justified?'

I've just read the pages-long thread on bow pull between Mike Snorbens, Rocky Russo and others, and there seems to be much debate about the underlying principles used in developing the mechanics, but less about the results. While not to the standard of a "professional simulation", isn't that good enough for a "wargame simulation"?

If a designer has decided that he is going to go down to the detail of studying variations in bow pull, and then state that his design is 'historically accurate' because of it, why shouldn't they be willing to at least have that information available—why go to all that trouble only to hide it? That kind of detail is NOT necessary for a simulation, but hey, more power to them. We've already talked about why it needs to be to provide a functional simulation.

I don't know. What is it they are trying to do with that information. How is it being used in the game system? Does the system simulate or recreate what they want it to? Those are the questions for the design, regardless of how interesting the actual data is.

Because a wargame/simulation is a system, a process with a wide variety of results throughout play.

It is vital that the validity/integrity of a simulation or game. Some of the reasons are:

1. Garbage in, garbage out. A simulation is only as good as the component information
2. A system can be completely wrong in operation, but still produce 'reasonable results' because
of other factors—at least some of the time, and all of the time if not tested thoroughly.
3. Because a hobby game or 'professional simulation' are a series of subsystems and mechanisms
that actually have to work together, all of them but one can be working fine, but the one that
isn't ruins the entire design.

The bottom line is that a game, a simulation or a simulation game are about performance, just like the model airplane. Does it do what it was designed to do, and how can you tell?

Some vague 'historical end results' criteria that seems to be different for each player doesn't mean much at all when the designer's intent is to actually create a historical simulation.

If using historical opponents and tactics in a given scenario, historical results are likely, is that not historical, regardless of the underlying mechanics?

Are you talking about ending up with the same 'historical result' every time? What does 'likely' mean? The Allies always win Waterloo? No, so what exactly are these 'historical results' you are talking about? How do you know you are using 'historical tactics and opponents' within the parameters of the game? What you are describing as 'proof' of the game's validity in recreating history is vague at best, and certainly meaningless unless you know what the designer used as criteria for determining what constituted a 'historical result.'

And regardless of the underlying mechanisms, it is what the system can do which matters.

I certainly won't try to speak for Sam, but I can see how a rules designer might adopt that as a standard response simply to avoid being drawn into those pages-long debates about bow pull and the like! By opening one's self up to defending the rules, particularly in a forum such as TMP, I think a designer is walking into a quagmire! Yet that doesn't mean their rules can't be perfectly valid.

I can see how they would too, and many do simply to avoid the issues. And it is a quagmire, no doubt about it. But why? Because of the vague, whatever feels good approach. That quagmire exists because their rules can't be validated—it is a quagmire for that very reason. There is no criteria for 'validity' and no information is offered to establish it.

Richard Hausenhuer says his Fire & Fury is "historically accurate", but nowhere has he stated what that means or how his game achieves it. Folks aren't even aware of what some rules actually represent, even years after its publication.

John Hill says his Johnny Reb "[This game] will present you with all the problems of commanding formed bodies of men in the midst of the maelstrom of battle. You will learn, as did many of the civil war commanders, that generalship in the face of the enemy is a difficult task indeed . . .The game is by nature complex, since we are simulating the complex interaction of many factors to produce a realistic effect." Introduction page viii"

All the problems? And how did he do that, and how would we know that he has succeeded?

Art Conliffe says about Shako "Consequently, SHAKO simulates the difficulties inherent in moving and maintaining order within large formations. The system of Orders used in SHAKO emphasizes the pre-battle planning and battle management necessary to fight such battles." [Introduction]

Does it simulate that? How did he establish that Shako 'simulates' those factors? How do gamers know—based on what? Here the song "Feelings" come up in the background.

I could go on with quotes like this for a long time, and I have avoided some of the most blatant and confusing.

No information source, no evidence of how they know this, and no model for establishing the claims is offered. If that isn't an invitation for a quagmire, then avoiding the quagmire they have initiated certainly is.

Those quagmires don't come into existence on their own. Making unsubstantiated claims, refusing to provide information, ignoring the issues, and then deciding they don't matter are some of the best known methods of quagmire-creating I know of.

Would you say that this flight sim was based on fundamental design components and methodology for simulation? Or is a hack that "feels" right for modeling wind close enough for a game?

I don't know. Is the designer 'hack' claiming to have created a flight simulator? Has he claimed his game models real flight, provides the challenges of real flight? Or is he saying he has created a game that 'feels right'? Again, the song "Feelings" can be heard. It all depends on what he is claiming to have as goals for his design.

What level of mix is OK? If I'm understanding you correctly -- and please forgive and correct me if I'm not -- you seem to be saying that there are fundamental design processes and methodology that should be followed if rules are to be described as "historical", and that, without those underpinnings, their claim to "historical" is dubious. Or am I mistaken?

No, you are correct. They are 'dubious' because no one knows what they mean. Does Art Conliffe or John Hill know anything about designing simulations? What does Richard Hausenhuer mean when he claims F&F is 'historically accurate'? I don't know. I don't know anyone who does. The claims of 'historical' are 'dubious' for the very definition of the word: "Uncertain", "Unconvinced", "Undecided". With no information, no validity, no concrete meanings to the designers' claims, 'dubious' is the word. And quagmire is the result. Quagmire:
dilemma, quandary, predicament. In other words, going no where.

1. There are proven methods for establishing what historically accurate, simulates, etc. means in technical terms, established for a long time by other disciplines, businesses, HOBBIES, and would work here.

2. If this 'dubiousness' was cleared up, it would be a big benefit for the hobby and wargame design.

To be clear: The game mechanics or the game results provided by the mechanic? I liken the game designer's challenge as akin to the software designers writing early incarnations of those flight simulators. They know what a multi-million dollar product can achieve, yet they need to provide some of that in a product that will fit in 640KB of RAM (I'm an old DOS guy!) and 2 floppy disks. (I played MS Flight Sim years ago myself.) And they're not above fast-forwarding through all the straight-and-level flying to get to the interesting landing bits! That's clearly a "fun" aspect, but I think the validity of the degree of "realism" provided is still there. I don't see them as mutually exclusive.

I don't either. No simulation can recreate it all. All simulations have to pick and chose what to include, what part of reality to portray. A simulation can do that with one factor or a thousand, designer's choice. There is no rule here or some required degree of 'realism', whatever that is.
The designer is free to design it anyway he wants. I don't think he is free to claim he has done things he hasn't, isn't willing to prove, and then decides it isn't important. If a simulation wargame modeled only bow draw variations, it would be a simulation of that. But if the designer claimed the wargame as a simulation, he is under some obligation to state WHERE it is a simulation.

[…] But part of the fun was being challenged by actual flight dynamics
Or the perception thereof!

Let's be clear here. What a designer claims the wargame portrays and provides is different than the gamers' perception, and will differ in direct relationship to how much information the gamer has on what the game provides. With the example of "Peter and the Wolf". If the listener is not told what the music represents, then not only are the odds great that the designer's intentions will not be perceived, but that the listeners' perceptions will wildly differ. But hey, let's go zen and admit that eveyone's perception is unique, and if they enjoy the music, the storyline and characters in the music doesn't matter, right?

It is a simple matter of the designer providing the perceptions the game was designed to provide. If it is the story of Peter and the Wolf, or how a Napoleonic battle was fought in the Civil War, there are methods for providing those perceptions and reasons why it has to be done if the game is going to work as a simulation—a representation of something else.

I'm not sure what you mean by "that complicated" -- for the player, or the underlying rules development and validation process? I would think a good designer can make complicated things reflect themselves using simple mechanics without breaking some bounds of historicity.

Certainly, it can be done. I was saying that 'complicated' isn't a defining characteristic of 'professional simulations.'

Fair enough. But a lot of the language used to describe rules has changed over the years, perhaps in response to those pages-long debates held in places like TMP.

Yes, it has. Has it helped lessen the quagmire? Is 'playability vs realism', designing for effect, outcome vs process really improved game design technology or the discussions? You know my thoughts on the last one.

I think I know what you mean here, but all of our games truly are "make-believe"! There seem to be fewer qualms about admitting this these days, or at least an acknowledgement in many rulebooks that some emphasis is on ease-of-play along with realism. I suppose we could use the term "professional make-believe" to distinguish our historical-playing crowd from those other heathens? :)

Why the distinction? Our games depend on 'make-believe', a suspension-of-disbelief. Not all games, OUR games. Why? Because they are designed to. Why are they designed to, because they have to be, they are representational to various degrees, providing a model/representation/recreation of something else. That is designed into the games, and because they are, there are design techniques for creating and supporting that 'make-believe'. As simulations depend on that very same 'make-believe' to work, I would think that methodologies would overlap. That is as true for the heathens ad the professionals, for the computer game designer and our hobby wargame designs. They are just tools, to be use to achieve certain results, regardless of who uses them, and using them doesn't somehow change them from heathens to professional simulation designers or back again.

They are simply tools to achieve chosen goals. The goals that wargame designers CLAIM to have chosen and wargamers obviously want from games in some form could benefit from the tools. No one has to change their name tags or start designing something else. All they really have to do is start doing what they say they are and the tools can help.

Continuing the software analogy, is using a lookup table of results "cheating"? If the rules author has done his research and built his tables of results, is the lookup mechanic not still accurate (given game tolerances)?

How do you know? Based on what? How can you or anyone else know that without the data? The data helps the simulation to work when the players have that information. All these designers doing all these years of research and building 'accurate' tables and the like, and how much of this information do we see? Very little. And I can tell you, when pressed, some designers have had some pee-poor evidence or none at all for major portions of their designs. And no, I am not talking about potato—patatoe differences, but simple absences of anything. And that happens because designers can make claims they don't feel they have to substantiate. It avoids the quagmire, don't you know.

Game design, particularly our hobby's wargame design involves a lot of information, historical and military, alot of complexity, even with our 'simple' games [as compared to Chess or 'Chutes and Ladders'], and our game designers, from their claims, are an ambitious lot. The issues aren't simple and the technology of game design has taken great leaps in the last decades. So it isn't something that reduces nicely down into a 'outcome vs process' quip.

Another long one.

Bill H.

Hi

As a side note, I also have profession aero design credits in flying scale models!

In fact, no commercially available flight sim I have seen except, oddly, the Lucas films "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe" have numbers that stand up. And this actually addresses the concepts above.

The math is usually just wrong in these games. But they CAN supply insight into the problem.

The refrence to bow is kinda a case in point. i got interested and started doing actual bow physics. I have odd hobbies! Producing a lot of graphed out bows, I realzed that, for a game purpose, one could group bows into groups. No game "bow table" would be accurate completely for any given bow, but would for a game be close enough. Actually, even in reality. Two bows diffiering in initial velocity by a FPs aren't effectively different in the real world.

In my opinion.

So, after volumes of data, computer print outs larger than than some people's game library, I settled on 5 tables.

Did the same for the USAF as my day job. The task was "how did we get there"… using the computer to do the grunt labor producing rounds on target at given range, for WW2, say, I settled on the concept that I could use 12 specific gun layouts to effectively represent the 300 odd different systems in use during WW2!

Knowing enough to know what could be synthesized.

Now, that is my approach. And not others. I dont offer my approach as the superior one, just how I think.

Rocky

Holy cow, those are some loooonnng posts there, boys and girls. Sort of like the lengthy approach of some rules to get to "the outcome".

I like d6's and 2d6's. More than that, and more than one chart per outcome, and you've lost me….

I'm going to make an effort to boil this down a bit. The ol' TMP editor gets a bit tedious to work with on these long posts!

McLaddie wrote:

[…] If simulating a battle is one of them, shouldn't he be actually using the methods for doing that? It he feels he can't, too much money or time involved, though designers claim years of research and hundreds of hours of play-tests all the time, then don't design simulations and don't claim to be recreating history or anything else you have decided you can't do.

Reading this, I'm understanding you to mean that there are specific design approaches that must be used to provide a truly historical simulation. Is that correct? And if so, have you got a pointer to them?

[…] In the end, the question remains, does the game do what the designer says it does—and how is that achieved?

Here's where I think I'm not fully understanding you. Are you questioning the lack of supporting documentation provided by such designers, or the methods by which they derive results? If I can point to my volumes of data from which I've derived a simple results table that is used in a 2d6 mechanism, and independent inspection bears that out, have I met the gold standard for historical simulation?

I'm just not certain whether you fundamentally want a code of ethics and practice for those designating themselves as historical wargames designers, or simply for writers to provide background information.

[…] I can put together a single game chart with one die roll for the battle of Waterloo. The die roll will produce 'end results that match the historical record.' Have I 'simulated' anything? Recreated history with this 'result' oriented game mechanic?

If the game is "the History of the Western World", then perhaps so!

I can create a complex game system that has absolutely nothing to do with how Napoleonic battle is fought, and still end up with 'results that match the historical record.' To avoid this requires those 'fundamental design components I referred to.

Waterloo is perhaps a bad example for the point I'm trying to make. I'm thinking more in terms of calculating the odds of a killing shot. Is it necessary to model ambient temperature, variations in rounds and barrel wear, angle of shot, armor thickness and grade, or is a simple "15% odds to kill at this distance" sufficient? Does that answer vary depending on whether or not the author provided their references?

Any pointers to those "fundamental design components" would be much appreciated!

[…] I don't know. Is the designer 'hack' claiming to have created a flight simulator? Has he claimed his game models real flight, provides the challenges of real flight? Or is he saying he has created a game that 'feels right'?

I am framing this in terms of my flight sim experience. Clearly, there were shortcuts made along the way in coding older versions. And yet the result taught me quite a bit about flight instrumentation, as well as the need to deploy landing gear on approach. Yet it "felt" right, to the point that, if I'm not mistaken, it could be used to qualify for ground hours early on in the product's history. Was that vetting based on code review, or the "feel", perhaps subjected to some testing and validation process? Again, my question here is whether the results or the means by which those results are provided the key?

[…] Another long one.

Yes. I'm trying to boil this one down. Thanks for your explanations.

- Bob

If Wally's philosophy of game design could be summed up in one sentence, it would be: "It's an Art, not a Science." That's my philosophy, too.

Sam:

I agree with the philosophy as stated. What it means in concrete game design terms is the important part. How does that philosophy direct the real work?

If the art, game design or any other art is meant to be 'representational', recognizable as something else, it gets complicated very quickly, involving details, issues of accuracy, and methods for achieving that as opposed to free-form finger-painting.

If I want to paint a picture of Wellington that is recognizable, 'realistic' and historically accurate, I have to worry about uniforms, the 'science' of perspective [not my phrase], whether he was a blonde or brunette, how old he is in the picture. I have to measure his facial features to make sure it does end up looking like him, as most portrait artists do, regardless of their talent. Then, I have to jettison the idea of having him wear a tie-dyed T-shirt, even if I think that some customers might buy it.

All because I want my picture to represent something or someone real. That's why Don Troiani, Military Artist says, "If an historical painting is not accurate, then it is worthless as both art and an investment." So, if the artist/game designer wants his creation to represent something historical/real, then all those fiddly measurements, methodologies and facts just seem to naturally crop up.

It's the nature of representational art and the artist's goals, whatever your philosophy may be.

In a game with Tiger tanks and Sherman tanks, most players will expect the Tiger tank to beat up the Sherman, all other things being equal. As long as that happens on a routine basis, most players are satisfied with the outcome – it feels right to them – and most guys don't concern themselves too much with whether you used a d6 to make it happen or a d20 to make it happen, or whether you consulted five charts and tables, or none at all.

I run a lot of games at conventions, and I often get questions like: "If my unit is behind the hedgerow, will I get cover?" The new guy, who has never read the rules, doesn't care so much about what process, exactly, is used to simulate the cover; he just wants to know that his expectation for outcome is correct; he just wants to know that there is –some- sort of bonus built into the game for being behind that hedge.

Yep, those are very real player expectations and responses. And the gamer may very well not care one iota what is used to simulate the cover, or how it is accomplished in the game. That's not the issue here.

The designer is designing that game.
He may have some historical evidence that indicates hedgerows actually did provide 'cover' for tanks in some form, and so included that 'form' because that was within the scope of his design.
Or another designer might have included it because he heard somewhere, he can't remember where, that it was some kind of cover wanted to add it.
Or another may have just added it because he knew gamers would expect it and really doesn't care whether it is actually factual or not as long as gamers were happy.

Now, all three designers may have designed terrific games that the players love. However, if all three claim historical accuracy or that their games simulate actual historical evidence, who is blowing smoke? Who has actually designed a simulation of something factual, actually modeled history, and who has just made up a game for other reasons all together?

What is just as interesting is why all three are claiming that in their game promotions? [an obvious fact]

For me, the most important game design criteria are the practical things: How big a table does a player need? How many figures will he need to play this game? How much time will it take from start to finish? How many other game gadgets are required in order to play, like markers, cards, or whatever? And does the sequence of play give both players something fun to do, often enough that they both feel engaged the whole time? For every game, those are my starting points.

I think all designers are free to determine what is most important to them, and those practical matters you mention certainly are things designers have to address in any game. The medium does frame the options and needs of a design.

I find that games which begin with those premises, and which also satisfy those basic expectations for historical outcomes (the Tiger kills the Sherman; the hedgerow gives you cover…) are the games that everybody loves. And since this is a business for me and not just philosophy, when I'm making decisions about whether or not a particular game design is worth two years of solid work and five digits of my money, then you better believe I'm going to be guided by what I think will be successful, popular, and fun. I don't design wargames to educate people about history; I'm a historian – I write books for that. I design wargames that people will want to play, and that they'll enjoy playing, and therefore that they will go out and buy.

All designers have to decide what makes two years of work and costs worth their time. I know they all don't have your set of reasons.

personally, it's been my experience that designing a game of any kind simply to educate won't fly. What is the point of designing a game that isn't played? And who would play a game they didn't enjoy playing? I haven't found anyone willing to do that more than once, even in research.

On the contrary, I have often found that games which begin with the premise of "Let's find out exactly what happened in history and get the data and then we can try to come up with game mechanisms to model it…" are often pretty complex, dreary affairs. I'm not saying they all are. And I'm not saying that everybody feels that way. There will always be some people who prefer that approach.

I suppose there are, but it is both bad game design and simulation design methodology. That isn't the way simulation designers or game designers I know approach design. You might be surprised to find it is quite the opposite outside of the hobby. In fact, the whole notion of designing a simulation and developing a game is backwards from what game designers and simulation designers do outside of the wargame hobby. How's that for a justification of your approach.

And the nature of the internet is probably to overemphasize the outspoken minority in any field, so a casual trip through forums like TMP will give you the false impression that there really are a LOT of gamers for whom SEEKRIEG 6.12 is the best way to spend an afternoon. (Not to mention the inevitable "Harrumph Harrumph if you're not playing my way, you're not Historically Accurate" guys who seem to rally around those sorts of games.)

Right, as if that was the issue here at all. I know you believe you have an accurate pulse on the hobby and know just how many of each type of gamers there are, and who rallies around what games. It does seem that you have a fairly narrow range of stereotypes of gamers--as in two.

It's all well and good to theorize about what gamers want, need, or expect.

I haven't been theorizing about what gamers want, or need, or expect. I haven't been discussing that at all.

You seem to have that all tied down to your satisfaction and I have never challenged it. I have mentioned the fact, not theory, that the vast majority of designers seem to feel that gamers want the recreating history, the actual challenges of battle, if their game promotional blurbs are to be believed.

I have been talking about game design and how designers achieve the goals they set for themselves--and claim to have achieved.

If your games don't mimic, represent, model, recreate, simulate history, then great, go for it. If you claim that they do somehow, then how in the hell do they accomplish that—particularly with your limited game component palette?

That's what I've been discussing. Either the game mechanics [those games components assist] actually do mimic something of the historical record in some fashion or they don't. You have chosen the "make-believe", they don't version from what I can tell. Not only that, but you appear to insist the other option is impossible, and all attempts at achieving it are doomed to be 'unfun' for everybody.

Regardless of what you believe gamers want, need or expect, I know that the vast majority of designers seem to be speaking to another kind of gamer when they advertise. To recreate, simulate, and model history because seems to be the theme,when selling their wargames to those gamers.

In the end, though, no matter how you re-arrange the components, you're just offering up an imaginative construction that they'll use with a table, figures, and dice, for the purpose of having fun. So you'd be well advised to get the "fun" part done right first, because interpreting the history is, comparatively, the easy bit!

Well, as long as you insist on limiting the game components, that is true. You must realize that those particular game components were invented by someone. That wargames before and after that moment in the 1820s have actually failed to use one or all of those components and still were 'fun' for a goodly number of folks—Even you remember H.G. Wells—he screwed up all the way around and played on the floor and furniture.

Sam, I have no problem with you designing games you think players will enjoy, nor do I feel it's necessary to challenge your views on 'what gamers want' and how many fall into your player categories. More power to ya.

It's simple Sam.

If you feel that it's all make-believe and fantasy gaming. Terrific, go design with my blessings {As long as you don't insist that game mechanics have outcomes versus processes.]

If you feel that you're designing something else or more than pure fantasy—terrific, What?

If you feel you are designing historical wargames that actually model portions of history and military combat, how do you do that without simulating it? How do game mechanics actually 'recreate' history with out simulating it? And this last question is a ringer because I haven't gotten the sense that you know how simulations do and don't work.

Notice that these questions have nothing to do with what the gamers want, need and expect, and everything to do with what you claim to be designing.

And I have to tell you. At the moment, I honestly don't know which of the three choices you claim to be doing…

Best Regards,

Bill H.

Reading this, I'm understanding you to mean that there are specific design approaches that must be used to provide a truly historical simulation. Is that correct? And if so, have you got a pointer to them?

Bob:
I appreciate your patience. I find the biggest two problems for me in writing about simulations is 1. the massive amount of preconceived ideas and emotional baggage surrounding 'simulations' in the hobby, and 2. The dominance computer simulations play in how gamers view simulations in general. It leads me to over-explaining things to avoid them--and I am not always successful.

"Must" is a loaded word. Let me put it this way. If you want to build a model that flies, 'must' aircraft design principles be used?

And Yes, I'll get you lots of references to them.

[…] In the end, the question remains, does the game do what the designer says it does—and how is that achieved?

Here's where I think I'm not fully understanding you. Are you questioning the lack of supporting documentation provided by such designers, or the methods by which they derive results? If I can point to my volumes of data from which I've derived a simple results table that is used in a 2d6 mechanism, and independent inspection bears that out, have I met the gold standard for historical simulation?

Both. And yes, that certainly would do the job, but it isn't the only way or even the easiest and best. For instance, you may have volumes of data, but you will also end up with 1. Representative data for the whole, and 2. An outcome for that mechanism. What happens if the outcomes themselves are completely unsupported by the history? Which of the two really establishes that the mechanism reproduces historical results?

I'm just not certain whether you fundamentally want a code of ethics and practice for those designating themselves as historical wargames designers, or simply for writers to provide background information.

Is there a code of ethics involved if the modeler uses aircraft engineering principles to build a model that actually flies? No. Just common sense. Is there some ethics involved if the modeler claims that the model he is selling flies, though he can't prove it, and hasn't tested it? Absolutely. Does he have right to complain that once bought, the customer doesn't 'fly' the plane correctly? Absolutely not.

First, it is achieving the design goals desired in a concrete, practical, meaningful way. Second, the ethics are simply 'truth in advertising.'

Waterloo is perhaps a bad example for the point I'm trying to make. I'm thinking more in terms of calculating the odds of a killing shot. Is it necessary to model ambient temperature, variations in rounds and barrel wear, angle of shot, armor thickness and grade, or is a simple "15% odds to kill at this distance" sufficient? Does that answer vary depending on whether or not the author provided their references?

You asked several question there. First, the only necessary information in the game are those the designer deems necessary to achieve his simulation goals.

There is no simulation rule that says a model of ambient temperature is a better simulation than one without it. The amount of detail or the coarseness of the grain does not determine the validity of a simulation. The only things the author has to reference is 1. the information used [reference means it can be checked if the buyer wants to] and 2. the evidence that the mechanisms actually does models what the designer says it does.

For instance, Art Conliffe says:

As in all previous periods, the nations that fought during the Napoleonic wars employed battle systems. It is important to simulate how these systems operated, and to represent the fundamental differences between them. . . . Consequently, SHAKO simulates the difficulties inherent in moving and maintaining order within large formations. The system of Orders used in SHAKO emphasizes the pre-battle planning and battle management necessary to fight such battles. [Introduction]

So 1. where did he get the idea that was 'the way it was', and 2. what game mechanics model this. That way the player, if interested, can find what is being represented, and how. He can check to see if he got what he payed for. There are many ways to simulate that, and many kinds of history that could be used as the template.

There is a lot of history, and it can be contradictory. So what history was used? is a vital question. How it is being interpreted in the form of game mechanics is just as critical. Without that information, knowing what you've got is just a guessing game without any answer sheet. Your 'quagmire' again.

For instance, I love the "Selected Bibliographies" that are provided in some rules, where nine out of the ten books obviously contradict major game conclusions. What is that all about?

I am framing this in terms of my flight sim experience. Clearly, there were shortcuts made along the way in coding older versions. And yet the result taught me quite a bit about flight instrumentation, as well as the need to deploy landing gear on approach. Yet it "felt" right, to the point that, if I'm not mistaken, it could be used to qualify for ground hours early on in the product's history. Was that vetting based on code review, or the "feel", perhaps subjected to some testing and validation process? Again, my question here is whether the results or the means by which those results are provided the key?

That is all about the 'validity' testing. And if the simulation was any good, and it sounds like it was, BOTH the results and how they were generated were necessarily controlled and employed.

That 'feel' can be designed it and I am sure it was in your case. That is one thing that I find fascinating in game/simulation design: Something as subjective as 'feel' can be consciously injected into a design, amped up, and tweaked by design. There are established methods. Hobby designers discover a few now and then, but there is a whole methodology behind it.

Best Regards,

Bill H.

Two bows diffiering in initial velocity by a FPs aren't effectively different in the real world.

In my opinion.

So, after volumes of data, computer print outs larger than than some people's game library, I settled on 5 tables.

Rocky:
Actually, it's your conclusion based on the evidence you collected, which still might be contradicted or just plain wrong, but it ain't opinion any more. You don't need reams of paper to have an opinion.

And if that is the conclusion in the game you design, if it is your view of the real world [or past], then I am sure as a 'test' you'll find some historical examples that illustrate that.

Did the same for the USAF as my day job. The task was "how did we get there"… using the computer to do the grunt labor producing rounds on target at given range, for WW2, say, I settled on the concept that I could use 12 specific gun layouts to effectively represent the 300 odd different systems in use during WW2!

Knowing enough to know what could be synthesized.

Absolutely. And that could be important to provide the player if used in a simulation.

Now, that is my approach. And not others. I don't offer my approach as the superior one, just how I think.

My point is that it is a very real tool, a method in designing a simulation. I know several scientists AND computer game designers who use it, some more than others. I never did. The tool did not do what I needed.

That is a technical set of distinctions, not opinion or just a personal preference.

Thanks,

Bill H.

[There is a lot of history, and it can be contradictory. So what history was used? is a vital question. How it is being interpreted in the form of game mechanics is just as critical.]

"Vital" and "Critical" to whom? (Aside from you, obviously.)

Since you feel that most game designers fail to meet your criteria for adequately citing their historical sources, and yet they still manage to sell tens of thousands of games every year, then doesn't that rather put the lie to your theory that it's "vital" and "critical" for gamers to have this sort of information in their game books?

Obviously, it isn't even vital for you, since you buy and play their games, too, despite having spent at least seven years complaining that they don't meet your documentary standards, and you've never been moved enough to publish one of your own that meets your alleged criteria.

That takes me back to the point I made on page 1. If I'm going to invest the time and money to produce a game, and you're asking me to provide footnotes and documentation to every rule mechanism (which would, at a minimum, increase page count by 10-15%), then let's see the evidence that there are hordes of new customers out there, wanting to buy this game only *after* it has been "improved" in this way.

Better yet, design and publish such a game yourself, and conduct the experiment yourself. And if you're right, then you'll not only reap the financial reward, but also become the new design leader in the hobby.

And we haven't even gotten to the basic substantive issue, which Bob asked you about twice now, and you've dodged, as you have for seven-plus years, and that is: HOW, exactly, were you planning to demonstrate that Such-and-Such a book, article, or memoir, proves that you had to use a roll of 7+ on 2d6 to represent a morale check? Or which page in which text definitively proves that Soult was a +2 command modifier, but Bülow only a +1? (Without, presumably, a historiographic essay after each footnote, adequately explaining why you used text A, and not text B, which offers different conclusions.)

Again, I'd prefer that you simply go ahead and *show* us, rather than blathering endlessly on the internet about how necessary, obvious, and simple it all is.

As I understand Bill's comments from this and other threads he has remained remarkably consistent.
Bill's basic argument is that gamers and designers can do whatever they want and there is nothing wrong about that. However, if they CLAIM to be doing something they are NOT doing, then they are fair game to be criticized. (It is a sort of "The Emperor has no clothes" situation.)
They are fair game because they are not providing "truth in advertising" and because any attack, defense, or discussion of their rules involve logical contradictions and thus become meaningless. This hinders communication and understanding.
If those designers say "This is the way I do it there, but there may be other ways worth exploring" they at least recognize the value of looking for new avenues . However, if they then go on to criticize others for faults that they themselves have, they do lay themselves open to charges of hypocrisy, or of unfairly criticizing others. (For example, stating that simulation is impossible, but only accepting a personal definition of "simulation").
Bill has always been consistent in stating that there are simulation techniques that designers can use IF THEY WISH TO. Nowhere does he say they have to.
He has explained how simulation techniques handle the question os "simulating history" on other threads. He has explained that a whole game does NOT have to be a simulation, but even just one small section could be an historical simulation while the rest of the game is not. The point about historical sources and simulation techniques is that a designer explains to the consumer which part of his design is INTENDED to simulate history; what the designer's interpretation of that history is, and the historical source he used from which he derived his interpretation, and what effect his game has to represent that history. He has given example of that in other threads (I think there was one showing the steps in a hypothetical example using artillery fire – he has never dodged any issue or stopped posting when challenged to something).
Bill did not say the Designer must choose the "most correct and accepted" source from contradictory primary sources. That is not called for by simulation design theory or by Bill's posts.
His main goal has been to say that many wargamers do not understand what "simulation game design" is, or that "historical representation" can be done in simulation theory. There are industry accepted definitions and practices in this field.
Bill does NOT say wargamers MUST do this. He DOES say that wargamers who deny that "simulation" is possible are mistaken. He does NOT say that wargamers SHOULD like, want, play, or design simulations.
He DOES say that if designers CLAIM to be simulating history then they must be using simulation techniques if they are to stay logically consistent. Designers who claim to simulate history but do not use simulation techniques are unable to back up their claims because their arguments become meaningless, subjective, and logically unsustainable.
On the other hand, those who make no claims to simulating or representing history cannot be held to any "historical" design standard, or at least, cannot be criticized for bad history since they never claimed to be presenting good history.
Bill does suggest that if designers do want to design games that in whole or part represent or simulate history, that using simulation tools or techniques and offer a set of objective definitions and shared understanding of language would facilitate and benefit such discussions.
If other people are not interested in such a goal, they do not need to participate, and NOBODY is saying they should participate or should even be interested in simulating history. Chacun a son gout – if they like and want to design and play and promote games that do not claim to be historical simulations, that is a perfectly acceptable choice and removes them from any criticism for not being "historical".
None of these points have to have anything to do with how much money designers make or lose, or how popular games are. Those are separate issues.
And this Game Design forum is a perfect place to discuss simulation techniques and logic, and historical representation without insisting that anyone HAS to do it or HAS to like it, or that some minimum number of people have to be interested in the topic for it to be worthy of discussion here.

There's a difference between musing about something, and actually doing it.

If Bill ever manages to transition to the "doing it" part, then I would certainly be fascinated to see the result. Somebody who has written so much, at such great length, for such a long, long time, could surely come up with a little wargame booklet, n'est-ce pas?

The proof is in the product. There is a lot of naive optimism involved in believing that: (A) a large number of gamers care as much about historical citation in their wargame rules as he does, and (B) all he has to do is cite his sources, and people will all recognize the objective validity of his method and think, "Yippee! An accurate simulation at last!"

The heavens aren't going to open and the angels won't sing. This is not a model airplane we're talking about. Historians don't agree what happened in history, nor which things are more important, nor which things caused which other things. I know this from first-hand experience; the writing of history is as much an ongoing historiographic debate as it is anything else. The "facts" do not speak for themselves. The context in which you encounter and represent them is everything. And that has limitless subjectivity, and is constantly being revised.

There is no "model" to model. History is not a math problem, nor an engineering problem, nor a chemistry problem. There is no final word, no single correct perspective, no objective position to take.

The SYW Prussians fired faster than everybody else… well, maybe. Sometimes. According to so-and-so, but not so-and-so… Probably.

More to the point: gamers will not give a damn whether the Musketry Table has four pages of historical footnotes explaining in excruciating detail why Prussian infantry gets a +15% bonus (as opposed to 14% or 16% or whatever). Gamers just want to know the rules, and then they are going to change the game to suit their tastes, no matter how persuasively "historical" the designer's arguments are.

I used to think that gamers cared about historical accuracy, but my naivete was cured by the realization that everybody's understanding of "accuracy" is so unique to them, that it's really just a preference for *process.* For one guy, a game driven by cards is great because the fog of war and the tension is "historically accurate," while another guy sees the deck of cards and thinks, "That's so gamey! Napoleon didn't use a deck of cards!"

I used to care about it, myself. But, in the words of Monty Python's Newt: "I got better."

Hi

Best example of this?

Mustangs and Messerschmitts uses the same computer modeling I did for the AF. Simplified so that non geeks "get it".

So, one day at a big convention game in Los Angeles, I wasn't running the game, just watching, guy complains the game sucks. See, in 1944 over Germanny, a B17 blew up, and the tail gunner fell from 28,000 feet into a hay stack, and walked away unharmed. No where in the rules did he find a rule for a chance of survival if you fell without a parachute!

Under commission, I design for the client. My gaming, i design for ME. Sadly, I never thought about "Art of War" being commercially published, as it was just a reflection of how WE like to game.

Rocky

Rocky wrote:

Best example of this?

Mustangs and Messerschmitts uses the same computer modeling I did for the AF. Simplified so that non geeks "get it".

So, one day at a big convention game in Los Angeles, I wasn't running the game, just watching, guy complains the game sucks. See, in 1944 over Germanny, a B17 blew up, and the tail gunner fell from 28,000 feet into a hay stack, and walked away unharmed. No where in the rules did he find a rule for a chance of survival if you fell without a parachute!

Under commission, I design for the client. My gaming, i design for ME. Sadly, I never thought about "Art of War" being commercially published, as it was just a reflection of how WE like to game.

Obviously, the guy wanted another game rather than the one you designed--I think it has something to do with skydiving without a chute…

We design the games we like for our reasons based on our research--or not. If we sell them to others, the least we can do is articulate them for the buyer.

Bill

Sam wrote:
"There's a difference between musing about something, and actually doing it.
If Bill ever manages to transition to the "doing it" part, then I would certainly be fascinated to see the result. Somebody who has written so much, at such great length, for such a long, long time, could surely come up with a little wargame booklet, n'est-ce pas?"

My reaction:
None of this is relevant to Bill's message. It does come off sounding like an attack on Bill the messenger. And from following the various threads where you two both appear, I infer here that you feel he has unfairly and obsessively attacked you, and so you return the favor. As an interested reader of the ideas and techniques, I find this reminds me of the Kiley-Hollins or the Hofshroer threads where sarcasm and personal attacks get the rest of us nowhere.

Sam wrote:
"The proof is in the product. There is a lot of naive optimism involved in believing that: (A) a large number of gamers care as much about historical citation in their wargame rules as he does, and (B) all he has to do is cite his sources, and people will all recognize the objective validity of his method and think, "Yippee! An accurate simulation at last!"

My reaction:

Again, a strawman argument. First, he never stated that he believes a large number of gamers "as much about historical citation in their wargame rules as he does". He did say that if one is to judge from the way the advertising of games is handled, or the phrases used to promote those games, it does seem that the designers of those games seem to think their potential buyers care.

Second, he did not say that if he "cites his sources" people will recognize an "objective validity" and say "An accurate simulation at last". From this statement it seems to me that you trying to describe his position as one where Bill CLAIMS to have the only ultimate and correct Historical interpretation, and that he CLAIMS to be able to design the game where everything in the game is "historically simulated", so you can later say that in history NOTHING is ever final and therefore he is claiming the impossible. That twists what he has said so you can show he is "wrong".

What he has said is that in the simulation community there are methods and definitions of things like, I assume, "validity". He has explained what many of those types of things are and sticks to them in his examples. If you can argue the merits of those things as defined and understood in simulation of design, there is no problem. If you use those phrases in a different sense, and then criticize them because they don't match the way you wish to use them, then you are comparing apples and oranges, but pretend to compare apples and apples.

When I see that, it again makes me thing you are avoiding engaging him on the merits of his arguments and are instead just looking for a way to discredit him (perhaps in retaliation for his remarks about your postings). You take refuge in the "published author" sanctuary; 'I have published "x" number of games, or spent "x" amount of money, and he hasn't. Therefore I do not need to logically show that my arguments are not contradictory or that his are flawed. He must publish something to my satisfaction before I will engage his message. Until that happens I will only attack the messenger.'

Sam wrote:

"The heavens aren't going to open and the angels won't sing."

My reaction:

Bill never said they would. He said simulation techniques exist which in his opinion could benefit those in the hobby who wish to do simulation games, or at least provide a lingua franca or set of definitions for discussing the topic.

And he brought up the subject originally only because some wargamers maintained that "simulation" wargames could not be designed. His point was that there was a "simulation design" community that existed that could be tapped into. Bill has shown that in the context of "simulation" games could be designed that combine various degrees of "simulation"and non-simulation in them. He also pointed out that when different people use their own subjective definitions of what "simulation" means, they can argue past each other – by using the terms used by professional simulators, people can have conversations that might be useful to them in their own designs. He did not guarantee their games would be "better" – he merely held that this was a tool from a toolbox that exists that a designer could choose to use or not use.

Sam wrote:
"This is not a model airplane we're talking about. Historians don't agree what happened in history, nor which things are more important, nor which things caused which other things. I know this from first-hand experience; the writing of history is as much an ongoing historiographic debate as it is anything else. The "facts" do not speak for themselves. The context in which you encounter and represent them is everything. And that has limitless subjectivity, and is constantly being revised.
There is no "model" to model. History is not a math problem, nor an engineering problem, nor a chemistry problem. There is no final word, no single correct perspective, no objective position to take.
The SYW Prussians fired faster than everybody else… well, maybe. Sometimes. According to so-and-so, but not so-and-so… Probably."

My reaction:

IMO Sam is absolutely right about everything he says in this section about history and historiography. And none of that contradicts what Bill says. In fact, it supports Bill's assertions about historical simulation games. If you understand the simulation game is all about the designer having his own interpretation of history, then putting that into his simulation game, and letting the user know which part he claims is simulating history and why, then the user can judge, if he cares, if the designer met the test of successful simulation or not.

There could be some debate I suppose about the immutability of physical laws (the cannon ball will not reach the moon) and how that affects historical "interpretation", but I am not dealing with that detail in this posting.

Bill did not say the user MUST care or SHOULD care, or that "x" percent of the wargaming community does or should care. He only says that if the user DOES care if the game simulates history in some measure, there will be a standard against which the user can do so, perhaps to check the "truth in advertising". So, in fact I would never expect to see the ultimate total simulation of historical battle any more than I would ever expect to see the totally definitive history book. As Sam says and historiography shows, history and its books change – so this is good news for designers, because games can also change to illustrate changing historical theory and thus the market for such games would never end. It might be a small market, but that is a different argument and does not invalidate the method.

From this section, though, I infer that Sam is implying that Bill insists there is only "one" correct interpretation, or "one" authoritative cited source that must be used in a game. Bill does not say that. He only says that if the designer tells what his interpretation, and tells the sources he used for that, then he has simulated history as he understood it. If his sources turn out to be later proved wrong, then his interpretation will be shown to be wrong just as a history book might be superceded later. Bill careful to stay within the simulation community's definitions, which allow for multiple interpretations of history to be simulated. Sam says Bill is saying that there is "one history" and it can be simulated and would never need to change.

Sam wrote:

More to the point: gamers will not give a damn whether the Musketry Table has four pages of historical footnotes explaining in excruciating detail why Prussian infantry gets a +15% bonus (as opposed to 14% or 16% or whatever). Gamers just want to know the rules, and then they are going to change the game to suit their tastes, no matter how persuasively "historical" the designer's arguments are.

I used to think that gamers cared about historical accuracy, but my naivete was cured by the realization that everybody's understanding of "accuracy" is so unique to them, that it's really just a preference for *process.* For one guy, a game driven by cards is great because the fog of war and the tension is "historically accurate," while another guy sees the deck of cards and thinks, "That's so gamey! Napoleon didn't use a deck of cards!"

I used to care about it, myself. But, in the words of Monty Python's Newt: "I got better.""

My reaction:

I have no debate with Sam here. He has described his opinions very well. The only reason, as far as I can tell from the threads I have read, Bill ever criticized Sam is because Sam has claimed in at least one game to be in some sense recreating or simulating history, and because at times he has posted here and examined how or why something happened in history and then talked about how to represent/simulate that in a game.

In addition, Bill has no argument with Sam's points made above about game methods being made to please gamers and to not worry about historical accuracy – but points out that then there is no need to check the history in order to design a fun or easy game so the discussion is moot.

Finally, Bill uses his experience with the professional simulation community posts to rebut Sam's notions that simulation cannot be done, and that if only a few people are interested in simulation they are either too few in number to humor by discussing the subject, or are silly to think that "simulation" is possible. Sam seems to have no problem criticizing the naivete of those interested in the topic, but does has a problem with Bill.

I apologize if my posting contributes to an inflammatory atmosphere. I do get frustrated if on a design forum design issues are not debated on their own merits or message but instead get deflected on to personalities. If the moderator thinks I am just doing the very same thing, he should delete this (very long) post.

Ned,
No one can say that your post is "contributing to an inflammatory atmosphere". There are certainly a lot of misconceptions on both sides of the argument, but at least in my opinion you are doing a good job trying to dissolve those.

He said simulation techniques exist which in his opinion could benefit those in the hobby who wish to do simulation games, or at least provide a lingua franca or set of definitions for discussing the topic.

I find this quite important. Just look at this thread for example: discussion quickly becomes a confused hand-waving exercise, when nobody really knows what is actually meant with processes, outcomes or detail. When Bill finally tries to make some sense to it, the whole thread suddenly "goes command radius".

It's not even the lack of vocabulary and definitions that I find the most surprising, but the attitude that it is impossible to have definitions, or even that no definitions are needed.

Sam wrote:

[There is a lot of history, and it can be contradictory. So what history was used? is a vital question. How it is being interpreted in the form of game mechanics is just as critical.]

"Vital" and "Critical" to whom? (Aside from you, obviously.)

Sam:
Why, critical to the designer and his design, of course.

What history is being used is the history being modeled—what the game mechanics are designed to recreate. As there is a lot of history, identifying exactly which history the designer has chosen is central to his design. You want an example?

You wrote this about Grande Armee, which you say was designed primarily for 'fun'.

" . . . If the defender is doing what he is supposed to be doing, then all combats will be grueling 1:1 slugfests. That may not be as much fun as the way other games let you do it, but that's the way it was in the Napoleonic wars." From page 38 of the rule book.

So, this bit of "the way it was in the Napoleonic wars" seems to have been more important to you than offering what was obviously a popular [read 'fun' and financially viable] way of designing a wargame.

You might remember, seven years ago our 'disagreement' began with me posting a question about this very design quote. I had read it and was curious. I asked on the GA list "What led you to believe that?" It was a simple question. There was no "You're wrong and here are seven examples to prove it." I didn't even protest that it was 'unfun.' I simple asked what led to you believe that was 'the way it was.'

What I got in return was Zen philosophy, a pat on the back and a 'don't worry about it and enjoy the game'. And then anger when that didn't 'answer' my question. I am sure there was a previous history with such questions. I never found out why you felt that way or exactly what you thought you were offering in the way of history.

So, in the end, players have no idea what history led you to include those mechanics, the ones you feel were so important to the history included in your game that you sacrificed some of that all important'fun.'

I can find history that does question to your interpretation, but that isn't the issue at all. The question is what history did you chose for the game to model, offering, the 'way it was'. It obviously defined the design.

The player's understanding of what is being offered and the credibility of the rules depend on knowing what history we are playing. Simulations don't work without that information. I don't have to publish a game to 'prove' that…

Since you feel that most game designers fail to meet your criteria for adequately citing their historical sources, and yet they still manage to sell tens of thousands of games every year, then doesn't that rather put the lie to your theory that it's "vital" and "critical" for gamers to have this sort of information in their game books?

Obviously, it isn't even vital for you, since you buy and play their games, too, despite having spent at least seven years complaining that they don't meet your documentary standards, and you've never been moved enough to publish one of your own that meets your alleged criteria.

Actually, I buy wargames for many reasons. Battle Cry is one. I am looking forward to the Napoleonic version. I enjoy the system, and the designer is clear that history isn't critical to the design—unlike Grande Armee. I buy other wargames simply because I like to explore the designs themselves, without any hope of actually simulating history—regardless of the claims.

However, like most gamers, I buy what is available. When designers like you offer only three options, buy mine, buy nothing, or design your own, often time restraints and the desire to wargame win out. It's like buying that cheap bottle of gin because there is no Tanqueray London Dry available. Is the buyer being unreasonable because he asks that some be made available?

No, wait. The answer is that such a gin is impossible [even though it's been on a number of shelves], and if I think it is possible, then I should go ahead and distill it myself.

That takes me back to the point I made on page 1. If I'm going to invest the time and money to produce a game, and you're asking me to provide footnotes and documentation to every rule mechanism (which would, at a minimum, increase page count by 10-15%), then let's see the evidence that there are hordes of new customers out there, wanting to buy this game only *after* it has been "improved" in this way.

I don't remember suggesting that was 'The Way' to do it, and certainly not 'the only way'. That is your interpretation, and rather extreme compared to what I was thinking—and explaining, how many times?

10 to 15%? really? You easily spent that much ink with your designer notes in Grande Armee. And the issue isn't about whether 'hordes of new customers' will buy the game after it's been 'improved' this way. No, the reason is much simpler [see above 'vital information' and below- selling.]

Yes, I understand that selling the game is paramount for you in designing it. You feel you know what the gamer wants, which is 'fun'. That is the paramount issue, and history is only secondary.

Actually, you feel 'gamers don't care' about simulating history. You are convinced simulations are impossible. You have spent a good deal of list time in an effort to 'put the last nail in the coffin' of any and all wargame simulations. [which is one reason we have been at loggerheads for the last seven or so years.] You have made it abundantly clear that you believe wargames, bottom line, are simply enjoyable 'make-believe.'

So Sam, knowing this, how do you sell your games? You speak to what you feel the gamer wants, right?

Here is the last paragraph of a two paragraph description of your new game design, Lasalle. I just pulled it up from your website: [Didn't find the word 'fun' mentioned once.]

If you have a club, or a larger collection and gaming area, Lasalle can also be used to simulate historical battles of the Napoleonic Wars, such as Quatre Bras, Albuera, Saalfeld, or Eggmühl. In these cases, multiple players with multiple forces and a larger table will allow your group to simulate the excitement of a significant battle.

So what are you selling Sam? And what do the gamers believe they are buying?

I didn't make you write that nor did I insist your game 'simulate' anything. Am I being a piker to to respond with, "Huh? What the hell?" or "So how does Lasalle'simulate' historical battles?"

You know that 'tiny minority' of y wargamers you complain about? I think it is completely understandable if they express the feeling that what they are being sold is a load of BS.

Better yet, design and publish such a game yourself, and conduct the experiment yourself. And if you're right, then you'll not only reap the financial reward, but also become the new design leader in the hobby.

You mean design make-believe and sell it as simulating history? I don't want to be that kind of design leader, regardless of the rewards.

As for "and you've never been moved enough to publish one of your own that meets your alleged criteria" Actually, I'd be satisfied if wargames actually met the claimed criteria of the current designers--present company included of course.

And as for 'financial reward', I doubt many hobby designers expect to make a living at it… You certainly haven't retired off the games you've sold. I have made far more money selling training simulation games to businesses and educators. When I publish a miniatures wargame design, it will be for the love of it, [like the last one] and any realized financial rewards will just be gravy. And if I say I am simulating history, I will do my damnedest to let anyone who spends money on it know what I mean by that--what they are getting for their money.

And we haven't even gotten to the basic substantive issue, which Bob asked you about twice now, and you've dodged, as you have for seven-plus years, and that is: HOW, exactly, were you planning to demonstrate that Such-and-Such a book, article, or memoir, proves that you had to use a roll of 7+ on 2d6 to represent a morale check? Or which page in which text definitively proves that Soult was a +2 command modifier, but Bülow only a +1? (Without, presumably, a historiographic essay after each footnote, adequately explaining why you used text A, and not text B, which offers different conclusions.)

Again, I'd prefer that you simply go ahead and *show* us, rather than blathering endlessly on the internet about how necessary, obvious, and simple it all is.

I can 'show you how' without doing that, but that's not your preference--got it. And yes, it isn't complicated. I will again 'attempt' to provide an example for Bob. The last three times you demanded a 'Show me how', and I provided or began to provide an example on the TMP list, you disappeared— so I can only assume you will do the same again.

And no, I don't see that I have to spend thousands of dollars to show how one can easily reference the history a game is designed to model.

And if we are talking about concrete, game design 'how it's done', am I being one of your curmudgeony minority to ask:

"How do you simulate historical battles Sam?"

And then be dissatisfied with the answer:

"We aren't simulating anything but pushing lead miniatures around on a table"?

Best Regards,
Bill H.

Sam wrote:

There is no "model" to model. History is not a math problem, nor an engineering problem, nor a chemistry problem. There is no final word, no single correct perspective, no objective position to take.

Who said there was? I never did. That's your issue, not mine. I haven't been talking about any 'final word' or 'single correct perspective' and if you bothered to look, I never have. That isn't what simulations depend on, for the very reasons you mention.

I used to think that gamers cared about historical accuracy, but my naivete was cured by the realization that everybody's understanding of "accuracy" is so unique to them, that it's really just a preference for *process.* For one guy, a game driven by cards is great because the fog of war and the tension is "historically accurate," while another guy sees the deck of cards and thinks, "That's so gamey! Napoleon didn't use a deck of cards!"

I used to care about it, myself. But, in the words of Monty Python's Newt: "I got better."

Sam it is evident that you don't care, [or got better] and I get the feeling that is because of this impossible picture you have built of what what simulations and historical accuracy "has to be". I agree totally. Your definitions are impossible and a very much a dead end.

However,your admittedly impossible definitions have nothing to do with what I am talking about. Eight years I have been saying that, and still that is the definition you stick with. Why? It's a dead end.

And I would think there is something very Monty Python about you stating that historical accuracy and simulations are impossible, and then claiming your game design can simulate historical battles.

Personally, I don't and haven't enjoyed Monty Python discussions of wargame design. Perhaps I just refuse 'to get better.'

Best Regards,

Bill H.

Let me approach this from a different angle. I play a smattering of rules, with a primary interest in WW2 land games. About half my gaming lately is done on the road, solo, sitting in hotels trying to keep out of trouble at night. (Working is bad for the hobby.) Yet I am interested in getting things as "historical" as I can.

Since I'm interested in achieving "true" historicity, it sounds like formal simulation methods will be useful. Yet I also know that history depends upon who wrote it. The numbers and descriptions of "what really happened" vary considerably between authors, nations and even the era of publication. So how do I go about achieving the level of historical accuracy that you guys are describing?

My concern is that putting a stake in the ground and basing my models on any one source is simply opening myself up for those sources to be questioned. Not that it matters, but I care. If the emerging scholarship reveals that those sources are flawed, my once-truly historical rules suddenly aren't. Unlike a plane, they simply don't fly any more, based on facts -- or rather, interpretations of fact -- that don't remain immutable. I can base some of it on first-hand research, but it seems that even Rocky's incredible levels of research merely open him up for long-winded, unproductive debates once revealed.

What I'm bothers me is that I could adhere to any given methodology, expend excruciating and tedious efforts on research and painstakingly develop mechanisms that accurately reflect that "reality", only to wind up someday in hospice, reading a journal that completely discredits and renders laughable everything I've based that on as I breathe my dying breath. My luck, I won't get any better. :)

Airframes, engines, propellers and physics can all be modelled and the world affects those in well defined ways. But how can one claim any degree of "accuracy" on anything based on the frailties of human memory, ego and prejudice? Isn't doing so just as faulty as just going for the "feel" of those very same source references, but a lot more work?

So far as Bill and Sam's point's, I'm taking from this that Bill feels that providing details on those references opens up the opportunity for players that care to pass judgement on them, and Sam feels that it really won't matter, since damnably few players will agree one way or the other. If this is the culmination of 7 years of debate, I don't think you guys have been listening to each other! :) My humble point is that, even with the greatest of effort, I'm unlikely to develop any level of accuracy that will stand up to more than a generation or two of history… or two days on TMP.

Nonetheless, I am genuinely interested in simulation and modelling correctly those things that are well understood. I am interested in design principles. But I also see that, given a wide range of source data, sometimes "fuzzing" the answers to fall somewhere along the spectrum is probably as "realistic" as things are likely to get.

Don't get me wrong: I am a firm believer in scholarship and the scientific method. I also delighted by open source software that allows outside scrutiny rather than just trusting that the black box does things correctly. It's just translating it to the tabletop that has me wondering.

- Bob

- what he said.

bottom line: or get off the pot, boys.

Bob wrote:

What I'm bothers me is that I could adhere to any given methodology, expend excruciating and tedious efforts on research and painstakingly develop mechanisms that accurately reflect that "reality", only to wind up someday in hospice, reading a journal that completely discredits and renders laughable everything I've based that on as I breathe my dying breath. My luck, I won't get any better. :)

I'm afraid simulation methodology doesn't really help you to choose which information, or "history", to simulate, but if you don't tell anyone what history you chose, then the design can never be proven accurate either. After you decide what you want to accomplish, what history to model for example, methodology can help you to get there. It's not supposed to make the process more excruciating or tedious!

The whole point, at least in my opinion, is that existing methodology can make it easier to accomplish your design objectives, verify your design, discuss the possible problems with others using existing definitions, communicate to players what you actually did and what the rules are supposed to do, make it easier for players to give meaningful feedback (again those definitions help), and modify your rules if they wish (actually, now when the players know what the rules are supposed to do, they might not be so keen to modify them).

My concern is that putting a stake in the ground and basing my models on any one source is simply opening myself up for those sources to be questioned. Not that it matters, but I care. If the emerging scholarship reveals that those sources are flawed, my once-truly historical rules suddenly aren't. Unlike a plane, they simply don't fly any more, based on facts -- or rather, interpretations of fact -- that don't remain immutable. I can base some of it on first-hand research, but it seems that even Rocky's incredible levels of research merely open him up for long-winded, unproductive debates once revealed.

Bob:
You're not alone in those concerns.
Three points:
1. That it is the nature of history. New information is discovered all the time. Scientists, historians and a whole raft of folks always risk having tens of years of work trashed by some new discovery. Steady State Theory? Trashed. Oman's Column vs Line Trashed. etc. etc. However, a game designer isn't writing history, or even proving one fact is better than another. The designer is simply picking particular evidence to model. Now, to simulate it, the player has to know WHAT they are involved in simulating during play.

Keeping the history used a secret because someone might come up with better information later or not like your choices now isn't a solution. You go with the best information you have and simulate it. That's all anyone can do. You can always avoid the whole issue by not trying to simulate any history.

2. As the designer, you get to pick the topic and you get to pick the history you want to simulate. If a gamer doesn't like the topic you picked, or thinks some other information is better, then they can go design that game or find someone who did.

You have to put that stake in the ground. The idea is to let everyone know what stake and where it is planted. Kinda necessary if you're actually designing a simulation. To plant the stake and then hide the fact, while claiming it was done is the hobby norm at the moment.

Many game designers follow Rune's rule: If you don't care where you are, you ain't lost. [You've gotten better] And then Malarkey's corollary: If they don't know what you did, you can't be held responsible.

3. "I'm interested in achieving "true" historicity". Terrific, what does that mean to you? Particularly when you also feel:

"But how can one claim any degree of "accuracy" on anything based on the frailties of human memory, ego and prejudice? Isn't doing so just as faulty as just going for the "feel" of those very same source references, but a lot more work?"

You think that problem isn't one that all simulation designers face? What makes you think that they are not having to deal with "frailties of human memory, ego and prejudice" regardless of the subject of their design?

Accuracy is picking a target and hitting it. The designer does the picking and the hitting. What is missing at the moment is any evidence of either. The game designers say they've achieved 'historical accuracy', but how or where is never, never provided. Oh, but their games are often fun.

What bothers me is that I could adhere to any given methodology, expend excruciating and tedious efforts on research and painstakingly develop mechanisms that accurately reflect that "reality", only to wind up someday in hospice, reading a journal that completely discredits and renders laughable everything I've based that on as I breathe my dying breath. My luck, I won't get any better.

Yeah, you and a million other guys in history, science, sociology, simulation design, education, game design, etc. etc. etc. You go with what you have and make sure that is being simulated. The simulation methodology does helps mitigate that possibility.

If you can point to the evidence, and then how it's been successfully simulated, you have an 'accurate' simulation. You have the target, the evidence, and the arrow, the simulation, and you make sure you hit the bullseye. That is all one can ever do.

However we have some designers saying that is impossible.

With some concrete methodology, you can at least be sure you did hit your target…even if later someone comes up with a better target.

"It's just translating it to the tabletop that has me wondering."

There are some really wonky ideas of what simulations and history are supposed to do and be. If we can past the idea that there is some absolute 'true' ultimate history to be found that then can only be simulated by that one ultimate design--we can. If simulation design can be 'translated' into disciplines and industries as disparate as science research and games, education and crowd behavior prediction, it can certainly be translated to the table top.

Simulation designers don't say to themselves "Is this the 'true simulation' of X?" "Have I created the ultimate design?"

No. They simply ask, "Does it work?" "Does it simulate X?"

And no, this thread isn't the culmination of any seven years of debate between Sam and I. As you pointed out, a debate actually has both sides listening to, and dealing with, the issues.

Best Regards,

Bill H.

Karsta:

Wow. Well said.

Hi

The US military spends a lot on sims which they have demonstrated works! On the old CA board I tried to explain that the puzzle palace has groups that do nothing more that game out scenarios trying to anticipate the future.

So, sims are possible. I have worked there.

I buy rules. I like reading rules and trying to learn not the subject, but the thinking of other people who think in these terms. I am frustrated that Sam prefers to be defensive rather than conversational.

Ned… next time I make a mistake or mistake or am misunderstood, could you defend ME! Grin.

30 some years ago, paramount tagged my friend "scotty" and I to do a RPG to reflect the first trek movie. I entered this with trepidation as trekkies are worse with the "bible" than napoloeonic gamers. To make it even better, they gave us a whole TWO WEEKS. WE had done a all encompassing SF type RPG that had module for various franchise gaming. So, we simply edited out everything in the larger work that wasn't trek.

This is the point that addresses Sam. the release of the rules paid us more money in the first check than pretty much the sum total of the two dozen other games we had designed! Obviously, if you want REAL money, you work for Hollywood!

Rocky

Karsta wrote:

I'm afraid simulation methodology doesn't really help you to choose which information, or "history", to simulate, but if you don't tell anyone what history you chose, then the design can never be proven accurate either.

True enough. I think the discussion is covering two distinct topics:

1. The application of formal simulation methodologies to the design of historical wargames.
2. Validity of historical sources.
3. User perceptions of historicity.

Three. There are THREE distinct topics. While use of 1 can address 3, there will always be debate about 2. A designer hoping to use formal simulation methodology to answer questions about historical correctness is sure to be frustrated. This, I think, is at the heart of what Sam is getting at: Yes, you can use such methods, but in the end, it probably won't matter to either the designer's livelihood, nor the players. It will matter most to the designer based on his or her desire for "accuracy" in reflecting their chosen perspective on history.

After you decide what you want to accomplish, what history to model for example, methodology can help you to get there. It's not supposed to make the process more excruciating or tedious! laugh

Understood, and I was being melodramatic just to make the point that any level of effort still won't provide any degree of certifiable authenticity. It does, however, provide a hallmark of care in the design, which might be one of many evaluation criteria used by prospective buyers. ISO9000 certification for design rules?

The whole point, at least in my opinion, is that existing methodology can make it easier to accomplish your design objectives

That is the reason I'm interested in the simulation methodologies.

- Bob

Bill H./McLaddie wrote:

[…] However, a game designer isn't writing history, or even proving one fact is better than another. The designer is simply picking particular evidence to model. Now, to simulate it, the player has to know WHAT they are involved in simulating during play.

Bill, in reading through this, I'm understanding that you're objecting to the casual use of the word "simulation" without detailing what is being simulated. And yet that word is also defined as meaning nothing more than "the act or process of pretending; feigning." This highlights the distinction I was feebly trying to make before between "professional" and "game" simulation. As a designer, I would think there are varying levels of effort between them. Not to say that one proficient in formal simulation methodologies couldn't readily apply them to possible benefit. But it might also be prudent to acknowledge that doing so is no guarantee of acceptance, nor of commercial success.

[…] You go with the best information you have and simulate it. That's all anyone can do. You can always avoid the whole issue by not trying to simulate any history.

I haven't yet seen the guiding principles that you referred to earlier, but are you saying that without following a formal simulation methodology, producing a simulation -- perhaps in the looser meaning of the word -- is impossible? Would you mind providing your definition of the word simulation in that context?

[…] You have to put that stake in the ground. The idea is to let everyone know what stake and where it is planted. Kinda necessary if you're actually designing a simulation.

I would agree that doing so is admirable. I was certainly impressed by the background that Doug Larsen and Rocky Russo patiently provided in the long-running bow pull thread -- to the point of ordering a PDF copy, even though I don't play the period. To be honest though, I based that decision based on their description of what they've done rather than any validation by means of a formal simulation methodology! If they've used one in developing the rules, I'll be very interested in reading through my copy of the rules knowing that to see if there's a discernible difference from my perspective. Knowing that the authors know their stuff is important to me. I'm willing to yield to their expertise in the subject at hand in determining whether they've go the "feel" right in the rules. Knowing that a formal methodology was used is interesting, but not a primary decision point. (Sam, is this the point you were making?)

To plant the stake and then hide the fact, while claiming it was done is the hobby norm at the moment.

I don't disagree that hyperbole is rampant, but that said, a dry, uninspiring presentation isn't going to help me get stoked up for a game. I'd rather read a rules intro written by an enthusiastic designer than a technically accurate lawyer! The sort of validation you're suggesting might be important to me if I was after a degree of "accuracy" that matched my historical basis of understanding. Much as I like history, though, I'm not that exacting when playing games. I'm sure this varies throughout our community though.

3. "I'm interested in achieving "true" historicity".

Terrific, what does that mean to you? Particularly when you also feel: […]

Let me rephrase that do "I'm interested in knowing how a "professional" judgement can be made in light of those considerations. I'd like to think I might come up with some rules or mechanics that meet such standards."

[…] You think that problem isn't one that all simulation designers face? What makes you think that they are not having to deal with "frailties of human memory, ego and prejudice" regardless of the subject of their design?

I don't think that… I'm genuinely asking! I'm sure they do. I'm curious, then, what makes their approach "correct" with target data so nebulous as "history" as opposed to a physical challenge such as flight.

Accuracy is picking a target and hitting it. The designer does the picking and the hitting. What is missing at the moment is any evidence of either. The game designers say they've achieved 'historical accuracy', but how or where is never, never provided. Oh, but their games are often fun.

I understand what you're saying here, and I do agree that such background information is helpful. It's something I really do look for, and I'm guilty of making impulse buys when suitably impressed (see above). I just see that doing so doesn't address the flood of usual gripes about other aspects of the game, nor does applying sound design principals to hit a chosen set of historical target data guarantee the results will be widely accepted as "historical".

Putting this in context of Games Design, I am impressed by the level of research and first-hand experience that Doug and Rocky have shared with us, and yet I can see in numerous lengthy threads that even their fist-hand data is questioned. Hopefully they enjoy the discussions. If they have applied formal simulation design methodologies in developing their rules, so much the better. By the same token, I've read some of Sam's articles in the past, and have always appreciated his insights into rules and mechanics as applied to historical gaming. Having developed a set of rules based on his perception of history, I can understand why he might not want to debate that perception ad infinitum. As you say, it is his. Yet I'm impressed enough with his approach to consider purchasing his Napoleonic rules -- another period which I do not game -- simply because I want to see how his approach is reflected in game mechanics. (Impressive, because I have considered playing guys with axes, but never guys in funny hats.)

[…] Yeah, you and a million other guys in history, science, sociology, simulation design, education, game design, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, I realize I am no pioneer here. An as-yet under appreciated genius, perhaps. :)

You go with what you have and make sure that is being simulated. The simulation methodology does helps mitigate that possibility.

I appreciate your information. I'm going to start poking more into those methodologies, and really would appreciate any pointers as to where to get started! Better late than never.

[…] If you can point to the evidence, and then how it's been successfully simulated, you have an 'accurate' simulation. You have the target, the evidence, and the arrow, the simulation, and you make sure you hit the bullseye. That is all one can ever do.

However we have some designers saying that is impossible.

I do agree with the sentiment that making everybody happy is impossible. And that is, I expect, what most gamers gripe about. I've yet to read a thread with anybody conceding a point because the in-game simulation of historical data that they disagree with was good. "Your source data is rubbish, but you've done a fine job modelling it" isn't something I can recall seeing hereabouts.

There are some really wonky ideas of what simulations and history are supposed to do and be.

The many interpretations of those terms doesn't help any, particularly as the community grows. I don't mean to come off as argumentative in any of this. I'm truly interested in game design, and you guys have hit on topics that I've pondered for years. My current perspective is that there are three (honest) aspects to a historical game design:

1. Historical basis (varies on many levels).
2. Accuracy in depicting that basis (simulation).
3. Expression of data (mechanics).

For 1. Historical basis, as a (would-be) designer, I have to pick one. The view of the world as a squaddie is different than a leader's.

For 2. I can use the best means available to develop data that, to some degree of precision, models 1. Bill, this seems to be what you've been driving at in this thread.

3, mechanics, is what I find the most troubling. I can do a wonderful job researching my history, developing simulation data that accurately captures that, and yet have it all dismissed as rubbish because I used a mechanic involving d6 with a saving throw to derive exactly the same percentage as one using multiple table lookups and a percentage roll.

I see these as major factors on which a game is judged. Am I off-base here?

- Bob

Bob wrote:

And yet that word is also defined as meaning nothing more than "the act or process of pretending; feigning." This highlights the distinction I was feebly trying to make before between "professional" and "game" simulation. As a designer, I would think there are varying levels of effort between them.

Bob:
Certainly, there is those distinctions. If a designer is using the word 'simulating', it would be good to know what distinction that refers to. See the issue is that all simulations depend on that 'process of pretending or feigning' to work. It is a fundamental, technical component of the wargame/simulation process--regardless of their 'professional' or 'game' status. So where do you draw the line between distinctions?/ How do you claim to be 'simulating', but not 'simulating'? A designer must explain what the player is being offered--and in game terms, playing terms, in technical terms. If they don't, the the word can and does mean anything a person wants it to, which is the opposite of technical.

Not to say that one proficient in formal simulation methodologies couldn't readily apply them to possible benefit. But it might also be prudent to acknowledge that doing so is no guarantee of acceptance, nor of commercial success.

Yes, quite true. But what does guarantee acceptance or commercial success? Got a sure thing in the sixth too?
The bottom line is that if you design a simulation, simulating a historical battle, the designer has to:
1. Identify what history was modeled
2. How the game models that history

Simulations don't work if those two pieces of information aren't provided. It directly ties into the issue of pretending, and what the designer has designed the game to 'feign.'

[…] You go with the best information you have and simulate it. That's all anyone can do. You can always avoid the whole issue by not trying to simulate any history.

I haven't yet seen the guiding principles that you referred to earlier, but are you saying that without following a formal simulation methodology, producing a simulation -- perhaps in the looser meaning of the word -- is impossible? Would you mind providing your definition of the word simulation in that context?

I have provided a few, but they have gotten lost in the clutter. A simulation is an artificial system designed to model a portion of past or present reality. Concepts, theories and proposed reality can be included in that. Basically, it is a model of something else.

If I want to build a plane that flies, but have several definitions for the word "fly", the definition I chose will dictate what the plane can and can't do technically, physically. There won't be any 'looser' definition of the 'same' thing. And without knowing the definition applied, when the plane crashes or flies beautifully, will anyone
know why or even if in either case it is actually 'flying' according to the designer's definition?

When you speak of something technical, definitions matter. Most all hobbies and pasttimes have technical terms and 'technologies' because most all hobbies have technical aspects that need them. I have always thought that "Historical Wargames" tends to be far more technical than many hobbies or pasttimes.

Game simulations are Dynamic. They provide a decision-making environment, the environment being what is modeled. The players or controller creates the events within the simulation.

A static simulation, like movies or re-enactments, are artificial models of events, having only one outcome regardless of how many times you 'run' it. Wargame designers do confuse the two, which makes for bad simulations and worse games.

There are a few of those principles.

"Your source data is rubbish, but you've done a fine job modelling it" isn't something I can recall seeing hereabouts.

Yeah, because they don't see any difference between the two. The history and how it is modeled are technically two distinct things in wargame design.

1. Historical basis (varies on many levels).
2. Accuracy in depicting that basis (simulation).
3. Expression of data (mechanics).

For 1. Historical basis, as a (would-be) designer, I have to pick one. The view of the world as a squaddie is different than a leader's.

For 2. I can use the best means available to develop data that, to some degree of precision, models 1. Bill, this seems to be what you've been driving at in this thread.

To a point. I am not saying that there is some pre-determined level of data that all simulations have to adher to equally. If Rocky wants to go and simulate bow string pull, he certainly can, but that method or detail isn't inherently necessary to produce a functioning simulation.

3, mechanics, is what I find the most troubling. I can do a wonderful job researching my history, developing simulation data that accurately captures that, and yet have it all dismissed as rubbish because I used a mechanic involving d6 with a saving throw to derive exactly the same percentage as one using multiple table lookups and a percentage roll.

Ah, here is where I get excited for the hobby. Detail does not equal accuracy. That is a dead-end conclusion that was started decades ago by SPI, and has done worlds of damage in game design. I will say that again: A greater amount of detail does not produce a better simulation. It is the quality of the data, and the quality of the model that produces a better simulation. And a simulation of five facts can be just as 'accurate' as a simulation modeling five thousand. Remember, target and arrow. It isn't the number of arrows fired…

If I can 'validate' that my simulation does model the history I chose, the whether I use a single die roll or multiple die rolls on five different charts to do that is not going to be an issue.

At the moment all the technical issues in simulation design and accuracy are all tangled up together--and appear far more complicated and far more unreachable than they actually are.

I see these as major factors on which a game is judged. Am I off-base here?

Bob, I don't think so. They are major factors on which a game is judged. It is often 'gamer perception'. But where did those perceptions of historical wargame design come from? It didn't bubble up out of the ground.

And simply because they are common perceptions doesn't mean they aren't off base all the same.

Why? Because the judgments are technical game judgments without any technology to support them. Why dismiss a d6 mechanic? On what basis? They don't like it. The dismissal never asks if it actually does what it's supposed to because no one knows how to judge whether a simulation 'works'. That knowledge would be a powerful thing for the hobby. Sure would clear out a lot of the criticisms you describe.

I will provide the 8 tests and some more of those principles.

Best Regards,
Bill H.

Perhaps Bill would like to revisit the beginning of this thread, where Extra Crispy began talking about different mechanics, and then got on to "decision points" and other things, and use that era (or some of those posts) as illustrative examples when he gives the "8 tests" and other principles.

For example, if a gamer wanted to simulate lower level combat with those tanks, or if a different designer wanted to simulate a higher level, what might be a layout of questions to be addressed in a "simulation"?

For example I could imagine a simulation game being designed for just the men within the turret and body of one tank vs those in the turret and body of an opponent, or a game designed to illustrate 3 vehicles against 5. Both low level. Or someone may wish to "simulate" a company against a company, which would be a higher level.

Different levels, and a designer would have to focus on some emphasis to simulate in part of his rules set, even if the remaining parts of his game rules were not a "simulation", but just supporting rules to help make the rules work.

Ned:
Will do--I'll use the Tiger vs Sherman example.

Bob:

In a desire to reduce the length of these threads, I will provide five shorter ones—and it will take me a while to get them all out—will that work?:
The five posts:

1.Those principles you asked for, which actually describe the conceptual structure of simulations.

2.How history and simulations can be 'accurate' in a technical sense.

3.How and why the 8 tests for simulation were developed and what they actually produce for the designer.

4.The 8 tests

5.So what? How it works with simulation games--using Ned's suggestion-—and those books you were asking for.

Just some caveats to this, sort of an anticipatory set to avoid a lot of unnecessary digressions:

*What I am presenting in the way of methodology is how I understand simulation game design, having used the concepts and methodology commercially, all gathered from a wide variety of disciplines, sharing ideas with a variety of simulation designers. The terms and applications do differ between the Military [they love their 'own' terms with lots of acronyms!], computer simulators in research and business, education and training.

How rigorously the methods were applied also vary, depending on what designers want from their simulation. I am sure Rocky and other folks involved in simulation design can speak to this too.

However, there are some core similarities to simulation design shared by all, regardless, and applicable to wargame design-which is regularly proven by the military and game companies—so I am making no claims to originality here, though I may be explaining it in different or simpler terms.

•I am not advocating that every designer has to use
any of this.

•I am saying that 1. I don't see how wargame designers can avoid the issues and solutions addressed by simulation design if they claim to be designing wargames that simulate history, and 2. the entire hobby could benefit from taking up the technical methodologies.

•This does not require our wargames to be more complex,
less fun, or any more technical than they are now or claim to be now. Different, but not *more* complexity, facts, or rules. No design tomes presented as wargame rules. And of course, publishing a game myself as Sam demands I do, would certainly provide one example of this, but it would only be one example among many that already exist, though those games are outside the hobby. Inside the hobby, one design demonstrate one principle, another two, but never as a coherent design methodology.

There is something else I must address. In our hobby, there are some Game Design Myths that seem to be as insidious as malware. And each myth is interrelated--twisted together is more like it. It all started because the question was raised: What makes a 'good' simulation? This started back in the late 1970s, when hobby wargame and simulation design was just beginning to grow. Of course, the wheels came off very quickly in answering that question because there was no technical game definition for simulations in the hobby.

THE MYTHS ARE:
1. Because reality is complex, it was concluded that the more complex the game, the more 'realistic' it is, and thus 'better.' Compexity equals simulation quality. Read Jim Dunnigan's book on Wargame Design. In it he liberally uses the term "Realism' as a major quality of simulations, but he never provides a definition for it. He does suggest that when games are more complex, they are more 'realistic.'

2. Because 'realism' depends on piles of details, a simulation with more detail is better, quantity being quality, and therefore more 'accurate.' [I can imagine this notion is what produced your concern about Rocky's analysis of bow string draw--"Is that the amount of detail I have to gather to produce an 'accurate simulation.' The answer is no, not necessary at all.

3. Because accuracy depends on the quantity of historical
facts stuffed into a game and not the quality of the
information—or how it's used, the best simulations are the ones most heavily burdened with detail and complexity. Of course, when wargames got so buried in details, it obviously became hard to actually play them. SPI was a major contributor to these myths about what constituted accurate simulations. As no one could 'play' many of their games, they started touting such
simulations as 'dynamic history books', or 'educational tools'. If you can play them, describe them as something other than 'games.'

4. This led to a big problem and the myth of "Simulations vs Games" You either had an 'accurate', detail-heavy design, or a game you could actually play. As one wag stated, simulations became an exercise akin to doing your income taxes rather than playing a game. It became very difficult to justify a design being both with the above Myths so ingrained in the hobby, designers began avoiding explanations of how their game could be both. For instance, Richard Hasenhuer has stated that his designFire & Fury has succeeded in being both "Historically Accurate" and Playable. You won't find any
explanation of how those two were achieved, or what he meant be those terms. And he certainly isn't alone. Many other designers, such as the designer of Napoleon's Battles claim the same accomplishments without any details of how that was actually achieved. This information vacuum led to an even starker contrast:

5.History vs Fun, Realism vs Fun, Simulations vs Fun. You could have one or the other, but not both.

6. In the end, gamers are in the hobby for 'the fun', so
with that dichotomy ingrained in the wargamer psyche, which side are most gamers logically going to fall on?

7. As there were no technical descriptions of just what a
simulation was or what one did in our hobby, this all led to designers concluding what Sam M. has:

8. Simulations are impossible, and no fun, so the ONLY thing that a game can be or should be designed for is Fun.

Of course, that conclusion wouldn't be an issue at all if gamers didn't see a major portion of the fun in their wargames simulating/recreating historical battles.

I am here to tell you that ALL of those 8 Myths are just that, categorically not true and damaging to any concrete discussion of simulation and game design. I lay a great deal of the blame on Simulations Publications, Inc. and other contemporary designers for starting them. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, they even went as far as to divide their game designs into 'simulation and game. SPI stated that they "Designed a simulation, but developed a game." They often even had two different people doing the honors. Schizoid, as if those two things were totally different or were using different game mechanics. Several game companies like GMT still use that design 'process' to design wargames.

What is really fascinating is that simulation designers outside our hobby overwhelmingly use the opposite process. They design the system, make sure it works as designed, and then test to see if it actually simulates anything as designed. Wargame systems and simulation systems can and do use the very same mechanics to get the job done. And very often the design purposes are the same: entertainment--so that dichotomy creates all sorts of incoherence in wargame design.

I laid this out now, because I don't want to get sidetracked with such non-sense.

Best Regards,
Bill H.

Bill, it might also be a good idea to start a new thread with "Simulation" in the title, and move your most recent post here to the new thread. That way if people later want to refer back to it, they will be able to find it easier than remembering "process or outcome". Plus, knowing what the thread is about means those who wish to follow to that thread can do so, while those who don't can avoid it. And those who asked you to consolidate the points you have made in a variety of threads can find it all in one place.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing.

Thanks,

Bill

Okay, I'm moving the simulations discussion to a new thread, Simulation Game Design.

Bill

Bill: This whole "outcome vs process" issue is a misnomer. All games are process, and all game mechanics produce outcomes. It is impossible to have one 'versus' the other.

You've made a categorical error. You are talking about one subject category and Extra and Sam are talking about a completely different subject category. What they are talking about are two different game mechanics. One mechanic goes through a series of steps in order to reach an outcome. The other mechanic reaches an outcome after a single die. Which do the readers prefer? They used 'process' as a label for the first mechanic. And, outcome for the second. They could just as well used "Boogaloo 1" for the first mechanism and "Boogaloo 2" for the other mechanism. [Extra, Sam. are you taking notes? It is no longer process and outcome. It is now Boogaloo1 and Boogaloo 2.]

Where you erred was in thinking they were saying the first mechanic represented a process and the other mechanic represented an outcome. You wound up with process vs outcome when in reality it was mechanic 1 vs mechanic 2. The result is the rest of your post is irrelevant to the subject at hand: mechanic 1 vs mechanic 2.

Rich

If you want outcome…. admire the figures…..throw two opposed die….. drink beer.

If you want to have fun, include the following sequences,

[1]
Make some decisions….
Roll some die…..and root for your die roll

[2]
Make some decisions….
Roll some die…..and root for your die roll
Make some decisions….
Roll some die…..and root for your die roll

[3]
Make some decisions…
roll some die…
make some more decisions based upon the result
roll some die

[4]
make more decision based upon the results
Roll some die

[5]surprises come from the game umpire

{6} combinations of all the above in multiple orders.

The more places where you can get a thrill out of rooting for you die the more fun.

The more places where you can make a decision to influence to a more favorable die-roll-situation, the more fun.

A good game will have the "grit" at the correct level for the "scale" of the game. Running battalion orders around with a courier is okay if the biggest unit is a brigade or maybe a division, not ok if the biggest unit is a multi-corp army.

A good game will allow the flavor of the period and the weapons to become realistic and lived. Following correct tactics of the time and wrestling with problems faced by the people of the time should be a big part of how the players can implement their strategies.

It is really very simple.