"Simulation Game Design" Topic

Bill,

I appreciate the detail you've provided on the tests and methodology, and they all make sense. I've put the books you recommended on my wish list at Amazon as well.

A lot of the friction between you, Sam and Bob C. and others seems to be focused on the practical implications for the designer, with each side offended by what they perceive as the other telling them "how it works" on their side of the fence. That's where the mixing of "history" and the tests mixing together causes me some concern.

I can see how the approach is useful for testing those aspects of the game for which data is available, or at least can be guessed at. One of the obstacles to my understanding is the oft-stated "simulation equals historical accuracy", and the equally oft-implied "simulation equals detail". I've just read through John Salt's "The Seven Habits of Highly Defective Simulation Projects" article, and it's helped me get a better handle on the approach you're recommending. I'm gathering that a solid simulation approach can model reality such that realistic results can be achieved, but that doesn't equate to necessarily a "historical game".

What's been a bit of a breakthrough for me (I think) has been the realization that realism requires not controlling what the player does. The line you quoted from "Rules of Play" that historical wargames set the starting parameters for the game really rings true. The player has to make the game historical. The simulation can only reflect the factors that led to those historical decisions. It should not put the player on rails action-wise in the interests of "history". I'm not altogether certain you agree with me in this though!

I'm gathering the data NedZed so kindly pointed me to as it seems to provide a good set of data for the level of game I'm after. I'm approaching this from the perspective of simply modelling (in a general sense) that data, irrespective of game scale. Once that's done, I'll have to see what the repercussions are within the limitations of a game table play-wise. This discussion has strengthened my resolve to develop rules that let players drop 105mm barrages at their toes if they so desire.

I know you've taken issue with some of the semantics used in the "Process versus Outcome" thread, but I've read some of Sam's MWAN articles, and I do think he's got a good perspective on producing playable rules. I truly do not see any contradiction between his "simplified mechanic" approach, and the approach for validation of simulation that you've suggested. In fact, I see them aligning rather well with the recommendation in J. Salt's article. I see no reason a simplified set of mechanics that produce the same end results aren't perfectly suited to a simulation -- at least as you've defined here. Am I mad?

- Bob

"… a simplified set of mechanics that produce the same end results…"

As I see things (trying to follow along…) there's no problem with that statement. How one designs a game is not the issue of the thread, IMO. Rather, it is about an established set of tests that can be used by the designer to validate claims of "simulation, reflection, realism, accuracy" or whatever terms used to describe a game as being somehow representative of a historical genre of battle/combat --the "history" (of whatever detail/level) to be determined by the designer as his/her goal/benchmark.

Regarding the tablespace limitations of wargames: my POV tying computer sims to miniatures gaming was not intended to be restricted to physical stuff (like screen size), but instead to the limitations of the program itself --ie: no matter the simulation/game, and no matter the medium, the thing is going to have limits that players will bump up against --they can be physical boundaries or performance boundaries or action boundaries, but they are all still boundaries. A table edge may seem to be special because it's so obviously in-one's-face, but it's really no different than an economic "edge" that prevents a player from spending all his/her resources on rations and none on ammunition --the game/simulation can address "going off the edge" in the former case as simply as it would in the latter: the result is such-and-such an effect on the game based on a given set of (designer-chosen) parameters/data.

or not…

I'll admit to being an uneducated novice in all this..but I'm enjoying the opportunity to learn how ignorant I am! ; )

Bill H./McLaddie -- If you're the same Bill H. whose articles I stumbled across in the files section of the VLB group on Yahoo, I've downloaded them all and am reading through them now. Hopefully, I won't be troubling you to re-key the same material again!

Where were these published?

- Bob

Bob:
Yep, the same. The articles were published in the MWAN magazine and Fire and Movement.

Yes, lots of friction. Sam does a lot of things right designing games, and I have acknowledged those, as well as played his games and enjoyed them as games. Said so many times.

However, he is very comfortable stating both that wargames can't simulate warfare at all, while advertising his games as capable of "simulating Napoleonic Battles." He claims his games portray 'the way it was' while insisting it's all make-believe.

He also seems bent on placing game mechanics at odds with one another, like "Process vs Results", when all game mechanics have to have both: processes AND results. Simplified mechanics and processes are just fine, but it isn't a matter of more processes diminishing possible results or the other way around. In fact, in game design terms, the more processes you have the more discrete results you generate, albeit more incremental. Talking about simplified results or simplified processes makes far more practical design sense than "Process vs Results." Some posters on that thread were actually talking about getting results without any processes…

The one thing he seems to share with Bob C. is the propensity to reduce all game design discussions to one of personalities and "I've designed more games than you have".

And I have been focused on the practical side of designing simulation games. The problem with Sam [and apparently Bob C.] is that they don't believe it can be done at all and it's all make-believe or theory.

One of the obstacles to my understanding is the oft-stated "simulation equals historical accuracy", and the equally oft-implied "simulation equals detail". I've just read through John Salt's "The Seven Habits of Highly Defective Simulation Projects" article, and it's helped me get a better handle on the approach you're recommending. I'm gathering that a solid simulation approach can model reality such that realistic results can be achieved, but that doesn't equate to necessarily a "historical game".

Yes, a great article. I am not sure what you mean by an 'historical game'. A game like Battle Cry has miniature soldiers in ACW uniforms and the scenarios have historical names of battles. It is an 'historical game' in that sense. I think of that as 'flavor'. The spice but no historical/wargame substance. And I am talking about a game I enjoy.

What's been a bit of a breakthrough for me (I think) has been the realization that realism requires not controlling what the player does. The line you quoted from "Rules of Play" that historical wargames set the starting parameters for the game really rings true. The player has to make the game historical. The simulation can only reflect the factors that led to those historical decisions. It should not put the player on rails action-wise in the interests of "history". I'm not altogether certain you agree with me in this though!

No, I agree absolutely. I've mentioned it before: there are two basic kinds of simulations:
1. A Static Simulation, which recreates events, such as an historical event--but only one over and over again. The movie Gettysburg is a Static Simulation. So is an re-enactment. Every move and every decision is scripted to simulate events.

2. A Dynamic Simulation recreates environments, those 'factors' you mention. Think of it as a player being dumped into the role of the French commander at Waterloo. He faces the same circumstances and opportunities as Napoleon [in a limited sense]. That is what all games do--drop a player into a game system/environment from Chutes and Ladders to a Flight Simulator.

The player isn't Napoleon and any effort to make him act like Napoleon, good or bad, is injecting 'historical events' into the systme, creating a static simulation. The player is being scripted. The second you use game mechanics to force particular decisions on the player, it wrecks any possibility of the design being a functional game or Dynamic Simulation. It is mixing the two and getting neither. And that ain't theory, but a practical result.

I truly do not see any contradiction between his [Sam's} "simplified mechanic" approach, and the approach for validation of simulation that you've suggested.

I don't either. Sam has practically called me 'mad' for suggesting that simulations can work with simple rules and/or mechanics.

In fact, I see them aligning rather well with the recommendation in J. Salt's article. I see no reason a simplified set of mechanics that produce the same end results aren't perfectly suited to a simulation -- at least as you've defined here. Am I mad?

Sam might suggest it as he has with me. But no, it is done all the time. Very simple simulations have been created and validated to simulate very simple things/or few things. There is no requirement that says simulations have to be complex. It all depends on what the designer wants to simulate and the limits of the medium he chooses. And as "gweirda" says, all simulations have their limits.

Have fun. It is actually so much easier to design and get what you want when there is some conceptual and practical design clarity to one's efforts.

Best Regards,
Bill H.

McLaddie/Bill H. wrote:

[…] However, he is very comfortable stating both that wargames can't simulate warfare at all, while advertising his games as capable of "simulating Napoleonic Battles." He claims his games portray 'the way it was' while insisting it's all make-believe.

That really just strikes me as simply acknowledging one of your points: That simulations cannot be all-encompassing. Games model some aspects – a limited subset of aspects that the designer chooses to focus on – of warfare. As I read Sam's articles, he really just seems to be taking care not to set unrealistic expectations, and strives not to make outrageous claims of accuracy. I suspect what he attempts to get right, he gets right. But he's not out to get everything right.

He also seems bent on placing game mechanics at odds with one another, like "Process vs Results", when all game mechanics have to have both: processes AND results.

I've read all of those posts and articles that I've found, and throughout, the point has been that some players prefer to spend time on the process, while others just want to cut to the results. Of course all processes have results. But it's the time spent on the process by the player that makes a big difference in the feel of the game. I don't see anything in that statement that is contradictory to anything you've suggested should be done in developing a simulation, by the way. I see the "Emphasis on Process versus Results" as a purely game design decision that has nothing to do with the validity or testing of the underlying data used by those processes to derive results. Isn't that one of the key points you've been driving at?

Simplified mechanics and processes are just fine, but it isn't a matter of more processes diminishing possible results or the other way around. In fact, in game design terms, the more processes you have the more discrete results you generate, albeit more incremental.

With a good starting set of historical data, I evaluate the effectiveness of my simulation based on the results it provides. The processes used to derive those results are essentially modular, and one can easily replace another. So long as the same data produces essentially the same results, the simulation remains valid, does it not?

Talking about simplified results or simplified processes makes far more practical design sense than "Process vs Results." Some posters on that thread were actually talking about getting results without any processes…

I read that as more the game designer providing results rather than the player calculating them. If a designer can provide a simplified mechanism that minimizes the "work" to be done by the players, they've achieved that simplification. To the player, they see quickly-derived results. So long as those results remain valid, the simulation remains valid, does it not?

[…] The problem with Sam [and apparently Bob C.] is that they don't believe it can be done at all and it's all make-believe or theory.

The results are not reality, so I don't see a problem describing it as "make believe". That's a bit of a disparaging term to use on a simulation design, but it's a term a designer can use to humbly acknowledge that their product does not fully reflect the realities of warfare! I'm certainly going to be concerned if a rules designer implies that he has, in fact, captured all of the realities of warfare.

[quoting me]… I'm gathering that a solid simulation approach can model reality such that realistic results can be achieved, but that doesn't equate to necessarily a "historical game".

Yes, a great article. I am not sure what you mean by an 'historical game'.

There is a recurring theme in some TMP threads that rules themselves provide historical accuracy. Reading the quotes you provided from "Rules of Play", I've come to realize that the goal of a historical wargame is to provide players the starting parameters for playing a historical game, but that it is ultimately up to the players themselves to play a historical game. This gets back to my earlier point about the game not being "on rails", that the players must have the freedom to "do it wrong" while the game mechanics should merely provide results that reward or punish them accordingly.

[…] No, I agree absolutely. I've mentioned it before: there are two basic kinds of simulations:
1. A Static Simulation, which recreates events, such as an historical event--but only one over and over again. […]
2.A Dynamic Simulation recreates environments, those 'factors' you mention. Think of it as a player being dumped into the role of the French commander at Waterloo. He faces the same circumstances and opportunities as Napoleon [in a limited sense]. That is what all games do--drop a player into a game system/environment from Chutes and Ladders to a Flight Simulator.

A very nice and concise summary, thank you!

[…] I don't either. Sam has practically called me 'mad' for suggesting that simulations can work with simple rules and/or mechanics.

I suspect that has much to do with the many interpretations of the term "simulation". Even within the VLB group files section, I find your articles mixed in with those of others insisting that there is a distinction between wargames and simulations. I'm beginning to suspect that the distinction is about as important as the badging on American automobiles. Call it a GM or call it a Chevy, it's the same engine underneath!

[…] Have fun. It is actually so much easier to design and get what you want when there is some conceptual and practical design clarity to one's efforts.

This is all a side interest, and I'd probably best keep my day job for now. But this discussion is making me think differently about how to approach certain aspects of wargames. I do appreciate hearing all sides in this discussion.

- Bob

OK I suggested a model of Waterloo should include terrain, distribution of troops a timeline and the major events of the battle. Bob said I didn't know what I was talking about. I challenged him to list the major elements you would include in a model of the battles. My first challenge was ignored. My second was rebuffed on the excuse that you couldn't define universal elements (even though that's not what I asked). On the third rebuff he tried to change the subject of the model. Three challenges three rebuffs I came to the conclusion that perhaps Bob didn't how to create a model of aspects of reality.

That's OK. I know that's not his field. His background is in Game Theory not simulations. All is not lost. I looked up on the net for simulation games of Waterloo. I came across several. So, I could now see what real simulation designers would include in a model of Waterloo. With each of them guess what I saw? First was a map showing the terrain; then the distribution of the troops. They also included a timeline for the most significant events of the battle. There was the model of the battle of Waterloo. If they had an automatic function one could start the model and see the unfolding of the battle.. When through, one could run the model again and see the same events unfolding just as they did the first time the model was run. If you noticed, the professional simulation game designers used the same elements I suggested: terrain, distribution of troops, timeline, and events tied to the timeline.

What's the big deal? The point is our wargame rule designers do not create terrain; they do not set out the distribution of the troops. They do not provide a timeline. And they do not relate the major events of the battle to that time line. Why, because they do not create models of battle. All they do is create the tools by which WE create the battle. We are the one's who set out the terrain; we are the ones who determine the distribution of the troops. As we play the game, it is we who create the timeline and the major events. What the rule designer provides is the tools (the rules) by which we can play the game. They are rule writers. They are not simulation game designers.

What I'm trying to get at is if we want to improve our games we should view them as what they are: games. Here is a definition of game by Schreiber. While extensive, it is not complete. However, it is a good place to start in order to understand aspects of a game.

Games are an activity, have rules; have conflict; have goals; involve decision making; are artificial, they are safe, and they are outside ordinary life; involve no material gain on the part of the players; are voluntary; have an uncertain outcome; a representation or simulation of something real, but they are themselves make believe; are inefficient; impose obstacles that prevent the player from reaching their goal through the most efficient means; have systems, usually it is a closed system, meaning that resources and information do not flow between the game and the outside world; are a form of art.

Try to improve these aspects of the game and you will have a better game. This does not preclude borrowing insights from simulation game designers. Bill asserts that in order to do these games must model aspects of reality. I disagree. We can take these insights and convert them into gaming procedures (rules). Though rule designers can borrow insights from simulation game designers, this does not mean the rule writers are creating simulation games.

That pretty well wraps up my argument. What simulation game designers do is not what wargame rule writers do. Although we can learn from the simulation game designers, wargame rule writers write rules for wargamers. They do not create models of aspects of reality. To improve wargames, focus on the gaming aspect of your rules.

There is, however, one final point I want to address.

That is Ian Schreiber's and Rodger Caillois' meaning of 'make-believe: a suspension of disbelief--and they are very clear on that.

They can't have been that clear because I found no reference to this definition of make-believe in Schreiber's writings. Schreiber juxtaposition make-believe and reality in such a manner that make-believe means not real. Clearly playing Parcheesi, Clue, Chutes and Ladder does not require a suspension of belief. Such an expectation is ridiculous. The only area where a suspension of belief is necessary is in game theory. Since this is a management tool it is important for manager to suspend their disbelief (since it is a game) and to assume what is being enacted represents the actual world. For wargaming, this is not required at all. There is no reason to suspend disbelief. It is, after all, make-believe, i.e. not real.

Rich

Rich wrote:

[…] What the rule designer provides is the tools (the rules) by which we can play the game. They are rule writers. They are not simulation game designers.

I am increasingly becoming convinced that the biggest distinction between a "game" and a "simulation", at least as those terms are commonly used, is the level of player commitment. With two players determined to play according to history, it becomes a simulation. The same game played by two powergamers becomes a game… or perhaps a broken simulation.

- Bob
(a different Bob, I think)

Bob:
I can appreciate your take on what Sam has said, but he has been very clear in stating that our wargames don't simulate a thing but pushing little lead figures around a table. [his words] It isn't about the limits of what a simulation can do, [which I agree with] but rather he insists that it can't be done at all--that our games are all make-believe. His words again. He even suggested I was a bit off for suggesting otherwise.

The process vs results dichotomy doesn't apply to testing simulations. It is a game system issue. If you think about it, a game that is practically all results is Yatzee. But that isn't the result of some process vs result dichotomy, where you want one, you have to reduce the other.

Most gamers aren't looking for an all results design, they simply want more fun processes faster. Another problem with the idea that you have to reduce the number of processes to increase the size of what the results represent [and do in the game] isn't quite true. The number of processes in a design and the 'size' or game impact of game play results are not 'linked' in any way. An hour-long set of play processes can led to a big game result, but one throw of the die can too. Simplified processes don't automatically lead to more inclusive results unless the designer wants them too.

If folks want to have simpler processes, or faster results, great. Describing them as process vs results, even suggesting it means 'emphasis' doesn't mean anything in a practical game design sense.

There isn't any process versus results relationship in game design.

With a good starting set of historical data, I evaluate the effectiveness of my simulation based on the results it provides. The processes used to derive those results are essentially modular, and one can easily replace another. So long as the same data produces essentially the same results, the simulation remains valid, does it not?

In terms of s simulation and even a game, no. The game play or processes are what 'simulate' history. Certainly one of the tests for this is the processes results. They have to correspond to the historical results [or can depending on the test]

Any game or simulation is a system. A system can be designed to do anything. I can create a system in process [read game play] of the battle of Waterloo that has nothing to do with the forces, maneuver and combat challenges, but the 'results' will be'historical' or match historical outcomes. That is one reason for the test. The players in playing the design are simulating. That is where the simulation works.

The decisions players make in the face of challenges that represent and mimic real-life challenges is where a simulation works.

I am increasingly becoming convinced that the biggest distinction between a "game" and a "simulation", at least as those terms are commonly used, is the level of player commitment. With two players determined to play according to history, it becomes a simulation. The same game played by two powergamers becomes a game… or perhaps a broken simulation.

A game and a simulation require the very same things of the players: follow the rules and actually think about the challenges "within the game system."

Any player who doesn't follow the rules, or disregards their value in playing the game creates a broken game, or if done with a simulation, a broken simulation.

The only thing that a simulation asks of a player that a typical game doesn't is to provide the players with game activities that actually have some relationship to real world circumstances and activities.

Of course the designer can fail to support his own design, and thus break it. If the designer doesn't articulate how the game design simulates and where the players are involved in activities that are meant to represent historical activities, then the players aren't fully capable of playing the game as a simulation, and in that respect it is broken for a lack of information.

So, if the players don't follow the rules, then they can break the simulation or game. If the designer doesn't articulate what is being simulated, the simulation fails at some point because the players can't play the game as a simulation.

Rules are what make games work and what make simulations work. That's it. Same mechanics can be applied, and certainly players in both cases don't have to do anything but what the rules say to successfully play the game or the simulation.

I suspect that has much to do with the many interpretations of the term "simulation". Even within the VLB group files section, I find your articles mixed in with those of others insisting that there is a distinction between wargames and simulations. I'm beginning to suspect that the distinction is about as important as the badging on American automobiles. Call it a GM or call it a Chevy, it's the same engine underneath!

Exactly. Name it what you will, when you design a game to represent/model, recreate, mimic, portray, simulate etc. etc. etc., you face specific game design needs and very specific game design options and opportunities.

It is the practical, 'how to' that matters. How do you model a battle? How do you know that you have actually represented a portion of history with any fidelity?

Those are the questions, and any definitions should help in the process, not muddy the waters. That is why *most* simulation and simulation game designers have fairly concrete and similar definitions for simulations--because they work and allow constructive conversation about simulation and game design.

Best Regards,

Bill H.

Bobstro: I am increasingly becoming convinced that the biggest distinction between a "game" and a "simulation", at least as those terms are commonly used, is the level of player commitment. With two players determined to play according to history, it becomes a simulation. The same game played by two powergamers becomes a game… or perhaps a broken simulation.

The problem Bobstro is that "simulation" is commonly used in different ways. I know I sound like a broken record but for good communication you need to define your terms.

1. Simulation can be defined at least two different ways
a) model of an aspect of reality [Bill]
Model: A model is a simplified representation of a system at some particular point in time or space intended to promote understanding of the real system. [Gene Bellinger, Systems
Thinking]
b) representation of something real [Ian Schreiber, Game Design Concepts]

2. Simulation game. There are two forms I've run across.
a) Game theory uses simulation games as analytic tools for political, economic and social issues.
b) Consumer simulation games primarily create a computer model with which to play the games. One can create a non-computer simulation game with physical elements. However, a script is needed in order to complete the model. The script includes information on time frame and when events happened.

3. game is a make believe activity which may or may not represents aspects of reality. [Ian Schreiber, Game Design Concepts]

The real hang up is what do we mean by ‘simulation'. Do we mean a "model of reality" or a "representation of reality"? The difference between the two is shown by Picasso's paintings. They are representations of reality but not models. As far as I know there is no way to turn a game, which is a make-believe representation into a an actual model of reality. I think what you are saying is that the more the game contains aspects of historical data the more ‘authentic' it feels. Let me give you an example, Renaissance rules generally designate cavalry as Extra Heavy cavalry or Medium cavalry. Change those to Gendarmes and genitors and you get a better feel about the period. Thus, you can increase the authentic feel without turning a game into a model of reality.

Here is another example, set up a scenario with a company being attacked by a sniper team. Now it's not just any company it's Charlie company 1st of the 28th (Black Lions of Cantigny) of the 1st Infantry (Big Red One). Stalking them is a German sniper team using a captured Russian Mosin M1891/30 sniper rifle with the PE/PEM scope.

On your weapons chart you don't list just rifles but the German Karbiner 98k, US M1 Gerand, British Lee Enfield No.I Mk. III. Details always bring games to life. It is these kinds of historical data that create the perception your game is more than a game. However, it never ceases to be make believe. This detail cannot turn a game into a model of reality.

Let's turn to your skirmish game and the issue of dimensions. For the consumer simulation game designer this is not an issue. He controls the terrain used in the simulation game. It is part of the model he creates. For the wargame rule designer it is a big deal. He must insure that rules such as gun fire ranges fit on a "typical" tabletop. He is not worried that this does not reflect reality. It is a compromise made for the sake of the game. As you pointed out.

If using a 1:1 figure-to-ground scale, using larger figures implies that any blast "should" potentially affect figures across the entire table. "Realistic" simulation perhaps, but it introduces a whole slew of other simulation problems. Distinctions between weapons become blurred, for one.

This is not a great problem when you realize that your game is a make believe representation of battle. It is not a model a real battle. However, let's play with your words. Lets rewrite your paragraph.

"If using a 1:1 figure-to-ground scale, using larger figures implies that any blast "should" potentially affect figures across the entire table. "Realistic" [representation] perhaps, but it introduces a whole slew of other [representation] problems. Distinctions between weapons become blurred, for one."

The issue now becomes how to represent certain historical data and the conflict this might have with other historical data presentations. This generally entails a bit of fudging here and a bit of massaging there. That's OK. This is a make-believe representation of reality for game purposes and not a model of reality. The art entails knowing how much detail to put in the game rules. Too much detail and the game risks bogging down. Not enough detail and you risk loosing that sense of feel for the period.

Rich

Bill: I've mentioned it before: there are two basic kinds of simulations:

1. A Static Simulation, which recreates events, such as an historical event--but only one over and over again.
2. A Dynamic Simulation recreates environments

I've discussed this with Bill before and I still don't where he got these definitions. If you go to a book on simulations (models of reality) you will find a completely different definition. For example, in Designing cdma2000 systems by Leonard Korowajczuk "The main characteristic of static simulations is that they do not model the time evolution of the simulated system, i.e. there is no correlation between consecutive simulation times." In other words, static simulations do not model the movement of time. This means that a dynamic simulation would be a simulation that tracks the evolution of the simulated system.

However, Bill is talking about Simulation Games. Game Theory uses simulation games. Here is the definition of static game from Game Theory.Net: "A static game is one in which all players make decisions simultaneously, without knowledge of the strategies that are being chosen by other players."

Introduction to Game Theory: Finite Dynamic Games by John C.S. Lui, "The main difference between them (dynamic and static) is what is known by the players when they make their decision!! … Previously, we studied static game in which decisions are assumed to be made simultaneously. In dynamic games, there is an explicit time-schedule that describes when players make their decisions."

The difference between a static game and a dynamic game is when decisions are made. If they are made all at the same time then the game is a static game. If the decisions are made over time it is a dynamic game. Wargames that use simultaneous movement would be called static wargames and wargames that use sequential or IGOUGO movement would be called a dynamic wargame.

Another problem I have with static simulations are events and dynamic simulations recreates environments is that all events occur within an environment making the distinction irrelevant.

Rich

Rich:

Leonard Korowajczuk and I don't disagree. He is simply describing a static simulation from a different angle. I provided a definition I thought would be clear, but we are both describing the same thing.

All he is saying is that any time 'evolution' is not modeled in a static simulation. Why? Because the 'evolution' of time--that means the measure of it within the system, unlike a dynamic simulation--is not necessary, because it is always the same. The events and activities are constant and require no time measurement to mark them. They are scripted too--no need to model the passage of time. They just happen as scripted.

There are never any differences in any playing through of the game. It is is the same thing over and over again. However, in a dynamic simulation, where the players are free to make a variety of decisions producing a variety of activities and events, all with different time requirements, the modeling of the 'evolution of time' is needed. That's all he is saying. For him it is a structural thing.

And the same is true of Lui's definition. In a static simulation, a player's actions are scripted, and remain the same, in every play through of the simulation. A dynamic simulation provides players with environmental information, but no script to follow--So the difference" is what is known by the players when they make their decisions." One has a script knowledge to follow, the other environmental options."

When Lui says:

Previously, we studied static game in which decisions are assumed to be made simultaneously.

Go back and find out why he says "assumed to be made simultaneously."

"In dynamic games, there is an explicit time-schedule that describes when players make their decisions."

Like Korowajczuk, Lui is pointing out that in a dynamic simulation time has to be 'scheduled' [That is both real game time and the representational passage of time] in some fashion so decisions, events, activities don't all happen at once. In a static simulation, the whole process is scripted as in a movie, so all decisions are 'assumed' to happen simultaneously. As the decisions are scripted, so are the activities they produce.

The difference between a static game and a dynamic game is when decisions are made. If they are made all at the same time then the game is a static game. If the decisions are made over time it is a dynamic game. Wargames that use simultaneous movement would be called static wargames and wargames that use sequential or IGOUGO movement would be called a dynamic wargame.

The methods used for monitoring time is the backbone of a simulation game. A static simulation can provide a player experience, like re-enacting, but not a game in the competitive wargame sense. It needs no time monitoring because the time is sent in stone by the script and never varies.

No Rich, what you give is not an example of the differences in game design--not even close, and a fairly strange translation of what those two gentlemen wrote--particularly when they are talking to two different audiences. They are actually describing the same things from different perspectives and/or about different parts of a simulation game.

Best Regards,

Bill H.

1. Simulation can be defined at least two different ways
a) model of an aspect of reality [Bill]
Model: A model is a simplified representation of a system at some particular point in time or space intended to promote understanding of the real system. [Gene Bellinger, Systems
Thinking]
b) representation of something real [Ian Schreiber, Game Design Concepts]

2. Simulation game. There are two forms I've run across.
a) Game theory uses simulation games as analytic tools for political, economic and social issues.
b) Consumer simulation games primarily create a computer model with which to play the games. One can create a non-computer simulation game with physical elements. However, a script is needed in order to complete the model. The script includes information on time frame and when events happened.

3. game is a make believe activity which may or may not represents aspects of reality. [Ian Schreiber, Game Design Concepts]

Rich:
NONE of those definitions are mutually exclusive and actually aren't meant to be. Certainly Ian Schreiber doesn't say that. You are taking two things he says and combining in ways he doesn't--and he only designs computer games and you are referencing him? You didn't want me to.

Are you simply making this up whole cloth?

Again, here is what Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman in their book about game design say about simulation games and I know that Ian wouldn't disagree--particularly when they have been designing games twice to three times as long as Ian:

A simulation is a procedural representation of aspects of "reality." Simulations represent procedurally and they have a special relationship to the "reality" that they represent.

There are many kinds of simulations that are not games. However, all games can be understood as simulations, even very abstract games or games that simulate phenomena not found in the real world. [Italics mine--that 'make-believe' you are speaking of.]

A procedural representation is a process-based, dynamic form of depiction. Procedural representation is how simulations simulate their subject matter. These forms of representation emerge from the combination of the formal system of a game and the interaction of a player with the game.

Simulations are abstract, numerical, limited, and systemic. A simulation cannot be both broad and deep. Because designing a simulation means radically reducing the simulation's subject matter, a game designer much carefully select which aspects of a phenomenon to depict and how to embody them within the system of the game.

These are very experienced game designers speaking about games. Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman are not theorists or professional simulation designers--simply commercial game designers.

Bill H.

Rich:

If you have Ian Schreiber's book Challenges for Game Designers

Go to page six and read "The Core of a Game". If you have Salen and Zimmerman's book you will see that he does agree with their 'definitions', but speaks to games simulating without talking calling it all 'make-believe', but his book deals with nearly all of the same points as Salen and Zimmerman's book.

Best Regards,
Bill H.

I finally tracked down the Ian S. quote you allude to:

Games are a representation or simulation of something real, but they are themselves make believe.

Ian is speaking of ALL games in general, not simulation games in particular--and the quote above is not HIS definition of games either, but one of many he gives as examples If you don't believe me, read his book.

Salen and Zimmerman say the same thing Ian does in a different way:

There are many kinds of simulations that are not games. However, all games can be understood as simulations, even very abstract games or games that simulate phenomena not found in the real world.

Ian's quote above is from the introduction to his on-line game design course where he gives several definitions of games:

Here are some definitions from various sources:

A game has "ends and means": an objective, an outcome, and a set of rules to get there. (David Parlett)

A game is an activity involving player decisions, seeking objectives within a "limiting context" [i.e. rules]. (Clark C. Abt)

A game has six properties: it is "free" (playing is optional and not obligatory), "separate" (fixed in space and time, in advance), has an uncertain outcome, is "unproductive" (in the sense of creating neither goods nor wealth — note that wagering transferswealth between players but does not create it), is governed by rules, and is "make believe" (accompanied by an awareness that the game is not Real Life, but is some kind of shared separate "reality"). (Roger Callois)

A game is a "voluntary effort to overcome unnecessary obstacles." This is a favorite among my classroom students.

It sounds a bit different, but includes a lot of concepts of former definitions: it is voluntary, it has goals and rules. The bit about "unnecessary obstacles" implies an inefficiency caused by the rules on purpose — for example, if the object of Tic Tac Toe is to get three symbols across, down or diagonally, the easiest way to do that is to simply write three symbols in a row on your first turn while keeping the paper away from your opponent. But you don't do that, because the rules get in the way… and it is from those rules that the play emerges. (Bernard Suits)

Games have four properties. They are a "closed, formal system" (this is a fancy way of saying that they have rules; "formal" in this case means that it can be defined, not that it involves wearing a suit and tie); they involve interaction; they involve conflict; and they offer safety… at least compared to what they represent (for example, American Football is certainly not what one would call perfectly safe — injuries are common — but as a game it is an abstract representation of warfare, and it is certainly more safe than being a soldier in the middle of combat). (Chris Crawford)

Games are a "form of art in which the participants, termed Players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal."

This definition includes a number of concepts not seen in earlier definitions: games are art, they involve decisions and resource management, and they have "tokens" (objects within the game). There is also the familiar concept of goals. (Greg Costikyan)

Games are a "system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome" ("quantifiable" here just means, for example, that there is a concept of "winning" and "losing").

He then says:

This definition is from the book Rules of Play by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. That book also lists the other definitions given above, and I thank the authors for putting them all in one place for easy reference.

By examining these definitions, we now have a starting point for discussing games. Some of the elements mentioned that seem to be common to many (if not all) games include:

Games are an activity.
Games have rules.
Games have conflict.
Games have goals.
Games involve decision making.

Games are artificial, they are safe, and they are outside ordinary life. This is sometimes referred to as the players stepping into the "Magic Circle" or sharing a "lusory attitude".

Games involve no material gain on the part of the players.
Games are voluntary. If you are held at gunpoint and forced into an activity that would normally be considered a game, some would say that it is no longer a game for you. (Something to think about: if you accept this, then an activity that is voluntary for some players and compulsory for others may or may not be a game… depending on whose point of view you are looking at.)

Games have an uncertain outcome.

Games are a representation or simulation of something real, but they are themselves make believe.

Games are inefficient. The rules impose obstacles that prevent the player from reaching their goal through the most efficient means.

Games have systems. Usually, it is a closed system, meaning that resources and information do not flow between the game and the outside world.

Games are a form of art.

Then he speaks to the "Weaknesses of Definitions"

Which of the earlier definitions is correct?

None of them are perfect. If you try to come up with your own definition, it will likely be imperfect as well…

Then he says what is the most important thing about all this:

Which of the earlier definitions is correct?

You might be wondering how all of this [the list of definitions] is going to help you make games. It isn't, directly… but we need to at least take some steps towards a shared vocabulary so that we can talk about games in a meaningful way.

Italics are mine.

The best shared vocabulary is the one that works the most effectively. I see no reason to re-invent the wheel when so much of the vocabulary has already been developed and has proven to work. Rich, there is little point in making up new definitions for things that already have functional definitions shared by game and simulation designers--which have been proven to work and are found in all game design literature and discussions.

Best Regards,

Bill H.

Thanks Bill. I've always struggled with the definitions of static and dynamic simulations, but your explanation is probably the best I've seen. I guess I have to thank Rich too, because without his efforts you would never have explained it so thoroughly.

All he is saying is that any time 'evolution' is not modeled in a static simulation. Why? Because the 'evolution' of time--that means the measure of it within the system, unlike a dynamic simulation--is not necessary, because it is always the same. The events and activities are constant and require no time measurement to mark them.

I'm afraid that is not what he is saying at all. Events and activities are constant only if the values added are constant. But that is true with dynamic simulations as well. If all values are held constant in a dynamic simulation it will repeat itself over and over again. What Korowajczuk says is that in a static simulation one may indeed have consecutive simulations and time may be reflected between simulations but that there is no time correlation between consecutive simulations. What occurs in one simulation does not effect subsequent simulations.

The main characteristic of static simulations is that they do not model the time evolution of the simulated system, i.e. there is no correlation between consecutive simulation times.

A dynamic simulation there is a time correlation between consecutive simulation times. That is to say events trigger other events.

In a dynamic simulations, there is a time correlation between consecutive simulation times, i.e. events trigger other events.

So I don't know where you got the idea that static simulations involve events and dynamic events involve environments. Both deal with events. They simply deal with them differently.

And I also don't know where you got the idea that only static simulations repeat over and over again. If the date in both static and dynamic simulations remain constant the simulation will repeat over and over again.

There are never any differences in any playing through of the game. It is is the same thing over and over again. However, in a dynamic simulation, where the players are free to make a variety of decisions producing a variety of activities and events, all with different time requirements, the modeling of the 'evolution of time' is needed. That's all he is saying. For him it is a structural thing.

I don't know where you are coming up with static games are scripted and dynamic games are not. Both can be scripted and both can be non-scripted. A variety of decisions can be made within a static game as well. Scripting has nothing to do with the difference between static and dynamic games.

John C.S. Lui A static game is one in which a single decision is made by each player, and each player has no knowledge of the decision made by the other
players before making their own decision. Decisions are made simultaneously (or order is irrelevant).

There is nothing scripted about this. Lui uses the Prisoner's Dilemma as an example of a static game.

Prisoner's Dilemma (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
First published Thu Sep 4, 1997; substantive revision Mon Oct 22, 2007
Tanya and Cinque have been arrested for robbing the Hibernia Savings Bank and placed in separate isolation cells. Both care much more about their personal freedom than about the welfare of their accomplice. A clever prosecutor makes the following offer to each. "You may choose to confess or remain silent. If you confess and your accomplice remains silent I will drop all charges against you and use your testimony to ensure that your accomplice does serious time. Likewise, if your accomplice confesses while you remain silent, they will go free while you do the time. If you both confess I get two convictions, but I'll see to it that you both get early parole. If you both remain silent, I'll have to settle for token sentences on firearms possession charges. If you wish to confess, you must leave a note with the jailer before my return tomorrow morning."

This has nothing to do with scripted or not scripted. Each prisoner must make a decision without knowing what the other will do. This is not like a movie.

On the other hand, Lui describes the structure of a dynamic game.

In dynamic games, there is an explicit time-schedule that describes when players make their decisions. We use game tree: an extensive form of game representation, to examine dynamic games. In a game tree: we have (a) decision nodes; (b) branch due to an action; (c) payoff at the end of a path.

A decision tree is shaped like a Christmas tree. At the apex of the tree stands the first decision maker and the first decision node. What is decided by the first decision maker will effect the decisions of those under him. In a decision tree, decisions are made sequentially from top to bottom. Thus a static game is where each player must make a decision without the knowledge of what the other players will chose. A dynamic game is where subsequent decision is based on previous decisions. No scripts, no movies.

NONE of those definitions are mutually exclusive and actually aren't meant to be.

They are not meant to be exclusive but if you mean they are functionally the same then you're wrong. However, you will notice that Simulations and Simulation Games have one thing in common that general games do not. At the heart of Simulations and Simulation Games is a model of aspects of reality. This is not true for general games. This is what separates general games from simulation games. Now Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman book is about electronic games, including computer games but not general games. Ian Schreiber's book Challenges for Game Designers should read Challenges for Game Designers: Non-Digital Exercises for Video Game Designers. The Salen/Zimmerman book and the Schrieber book were written for a specific type of game: computer-electronic-video games. They were not written for designing general games. Schrieber's course Game Design Concepts was written with general games in mind. Salen/Zimmerman book and the Schrieber book addresses the issues of computer-electronic-video games. Their comments should be viewed as directed towards these kinds of games. Wargaming as we practice it is not a computer-electronic-video game. Therefore their comments should not be viewed as directly addressing the issues of Wargaming as we practices it. Wargaming properly falls within the scope of general games because of the lack our model design in wargaming rule books. Because of this Schrieber's course on general gaming is more germane. Regardless of what Schrieber may say about simulation games, what he has to say about general games is far more on target with regards to wargaming rules.

Schieber: You might be wondering how all of this [the list of definitions] is going to help you make games. It isn't, directly… but we need to at least take some steps towards a shared vocabulary so that we can talk about games in a meaningful way.
Italics are mine.

Bill: The best shared vocabulary is the one that works the most effectively. I see no reason to re-invent the wheel when so much of the vocabulary has already been developed and has proven to work. Rich, there is little point in making up new definitions for things that already have functional definitions shared by game and simulation designers--which have been proven to work and are found in all game design literature and discussions.

In psychology there is a concept called transference. It is where one's own behaviors are projected onto another. I have been saying all along that we need a shared vocabulary. It should be type relevant and presented by someone a respected member of the relevant to the industries under discussion. Schreiber and I are saying the same thing.. Every definition I have presented come from industry leaders. I have named them. You, on the other hand, have a penchant for making up your own definitions. Static game is about events and Dynamic game is about environment. No body in the field of simulation games defines these terms this way. They are your own very special definitions. It is you, my friend, who is making up new definition. I'm using the old standbys.

I finally realized where you got your ideas about static and dynamic games. The dictionary defines ‘static' as "lacking in movement, action, or change." Dynamic is defined as "characterized by constant change, activity, or progress." You simply took those definitions and stuck them onto games. The problem you have is the simulation game industry doesn't use those definitions. They have their own. Static is when all decisions are made simultaneously without future knowledge of what the other players are planning to do. Dynamic is where succeeding players make decisions based on what the previous player did.

Rich

Just a few unfinished notes.

I finally tracked down the Ian S. quote you allude to:

Shoot Bill, if you had asked I would have given you chapter and verse.

You are taking two things he says and combining in ways he doesn't--and he only designs computer games and you are referencing him? You didn't want me to.

I'm not combining what he says. I'm taking two of his thoughts and using them in appropriate sections.

Go back and find out why he says "assumed to be made simultaneously."

I did but I didn't highlight what he said. "A static game is one in which a single decision is made by each player, and each player has no knowledge of the decision made by the other 
players before making their own decision.Decisions are made simultaneously (or order is irrelevant).

In the case of the Prisoner's Dilemma the decisions by the two prisoners do not have to be made simultaneous for the game to be static. One prisoner could make his decision at 3pm and the other at 10pm. What makes it static is that even though the second prisoner made his decision later that than the first, as long as he makes his decision without knowing the first prisoner's decision it remains a static game.

Rich

"A static game is one in which a single decision is made by each player, and each player has no knowledge of the decision made by the other 
players before making their own decision.Decisions are made simultaneously (or order is irrelevant).

Rich:

Yes, a "single decision game" can be static in the sense that it, like all other static simulations, has no time component, no marking of time within the game. It also has no environmental changes during the game…the player's decisions do not affect anything other than when the game is concluded.

That is not the same as a simultaneous movement wargame where time IS monitored during the game, where movement may be in some sense done at the same time, but they are still done in a 'turn' system that marks the passage of time. And it is an interesting in the Prisoner's Dilemma is an example where the entire environment of the simulation is mental and barely a competitive game if at all…

The definitions of static and dynamic still hold. The Prisoners' dilemma is a good example of how different designs can fall into one definition or another…or even straddle them. The question is whether the definitions help in understanding how simulations work.

I'm afraid that is not what he is saying at all. Events and activities are constant only if the values added are constant. But that is true with dynamic simulations as well. If all values are held constant in a dynamic simulation it will repeat itself over and over again.

It is what he is saying. If all the decisions for a two wargame are constant--the same and all the values in the wargame are the same, including the die rolls, all you done is make the system static--producing the same events over and over again because all the activities and events [and values including decisions] are constant, the same. He is simply describing static and dynamic simulation in terms of a computer system.

At the heart of Simulations and Simulation Games is a model of aspects of reality. This is not true for general games. This is what separates general games from simulation games. Now Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman book is about electronic games, including computer games but not general games. Their comments should be viewed as directed towards these kinds of games. Wargaming as we practice it is not a computer-electronic-video game. Therefore their comments should not be viewed as directly addressing the issues of Wargaming as we practices it.

From the first page of the Preface to Salen and Zimmerman's book, Rules of Play:

Although this is not a book about Pong, or about computer and video games, it is a book about game design.

In their book they discuss games from tennis to "Ace of Aces", Warhammer to tic-tac-toe, Survivor the TV game show, Tiddlywinks and Volleyball as well as many card games. They have a whole section on wargames--even reproduce part of a map to a board wargame.

And back to:

At the heart of Simulations and Simulation Games is a model of aspects of reality. This is not true for general games.

You are the one who quoted Schreiber as the game expert:

Here is a definition of game by Schreiber. While extensive, it is not complete. However, it is a good place to start in order to understand aspects of a game.

Games are an activity, have rules; have conflict; have goals; involve decision making; are artificial, they are safe, and they are outside ordinary life; involve no material gain on the part of the players; are voluntary; have an uncertain outcome; a representation or simulation of something real, but they are themselves make believe; are inefficient; impose obstacles that prevent the player from reaching their goal through the most efficient means; have systems, usually it is a closed system, meaning that resources and information do not flow between the game and the outside world; are a form of art.

If that is HIS definition of games--and it includes being a representation or simulation of something real. Gadzooks man, read your own posts. How is that different than Salen and Zimmerman, OR what I have been saying?

Note he says the game itself is make-believe [the little counters and board etc.] not what it represents.

And no, I didn't get my definitions from the dictionary, though those you give certainly work.

Every definition I have presented come from industry leaders. I have named them. You, on the other hand, have a penchant for making up your own definitions. Static game is about events and Dynamic game is about environment.

I have given you pages and examples, though you don't remember them or dismissed them. And the examples you give from Lui give are terrific:

In dynamic games, there is an explicit time-schedule that describes when players make their decisions. We use game tree: an extensive form of game representation, to examine dynamic games. In a game tree: we have (a) decision nodes; (b) branch due to an action; (c) payoff at the end of a path.

How is that different from what I have said? He is simply describing the environment as the time-schedule and the game tree. The branches are depended on the actions in response to decisions [that's the environment in my terms…but same thing. The environment determines what decisions can be made, which branches will occur etc.

Again, that environment is expressed as how time is scheduled, what decisions can be made, what actions will result leading to further specific decisions on that branch, and even when the payoff will occur "at the end of the path."

Same thing Rich. Even the Prisoners' Delimma needs "a game environment" to give the decisions context, meaning, possible outcomes, even when it is simply a mental image in the players' heads.

Best Regards,
Bill H.

I was going through old Miniature Wargames trying to answer a TMP question.

I found a 1980s article with the title of 'Simulation vs games'.

So it looks like this is one of those never ending topics for debate!

Rudy,

Was that THE WARGAME: GAME OR SIMULATION? by G.W. Jeffrey? If so, anyone who wants to see its three parts can find them in the files section at:
link

However, I believe Bill can point out that George's use of the word simulation was not the same as the technical descriptions he has given in this thread.
You are correct about interest in the subject going way back.

– Ned

Yea it was Ned. As you say I was trying to point out that it has been a long standing debate in the historical ganming community.

I even remember similar discussions in 1981 when we came out with "Guard du Corps:" We even put into the subtitle "A simulation Study of napoleonic Warfare.

Ya but it took me to break it down, define the parameters and to provide the definitive solution to the problem.

Merry Christmas everyone, even you Bill!

Rich

Rudy,

After reading your Guard du Corps post I went back and checked to see if my 1981 "Vive L'Empereur!" set mentioned "simulation", and sure enough, I see my Designer's Notes began with:

"DESIGNER'S NOTES; BACKGROUND AND THE THEORY BEHIND THE RULES; PLAYABILITY AND REALISM RATIONALES. (Ned Zuparko c.1981)

With these rules players can recreate the typical grand tactical, one-day Napoleonic battle with emphasis on maneuver and command decisions, using simplified mechanics. In order to emphasize the simulated command of one player to a corps, smaller considerations have been abstracted. These notes, describing the rules section by section, explain concepts that might otherwise be hidden in a table or modifier. Players may not agree with all the interpretations, but I hope they will recognize that at least there is a reason for every rule in the game."

Season's Greetings to all!

- Ned

Yes it is significant Ned that as designers back in the 1970s My first GdC informal copyright-in the mail which had limited validity was in 1979 and I would bet that you had a similar one during playtest) Then in the 1980s , we and others had a great concern for maintaining the intergrity of the tactics, weapons and leadership parameters of the era that we were working in.

I would imagine that there were mechanis that we both avoided because they did not rreflect the era or were not accepted by a lot of the gamers. Game designing and the accompaning research has made the histoprical gaming hobby very enjoyable over the decades.

Merry Christmas Ned and to all the game designers. Since all historical gamers have that design spark in them, Merry Christmas to All.

Happy designing in the New year to all. Let it be the light of your hobby activities.

Rudy, back in the '60s and '70s we were so desperate for any kind of Napoleonic tactical detail or data, that we searched through the few available books (for me, at least, that were in English) with a fine-tooth comb.

I think that might have led in some ways to complexity in games, because useful detail was so hard to find that many designers tried to use it whenever they could. A book like Quimby's The Background of Napoleonic Warfare (c.1958) was a treasure trove.

It is ironic that while now there is so much more available, games strive to have less detail. (I'm not saying that is bad – just funny). Between the internet and Google books, the amount of information now becoming available is mind-boggling, not to mention that French, German and Russian language sources are opening up to a wider audience, too.

Imagine if you had that in 1979 !

Ned you are right the amount of available research material was there in the 1970s but no where as accessible as it is now. i do not even remember a functional library loan program for hard to find books like we have now.

One of the issues that people sometimes fail to understand that so much of what we can put into a book lies on the cutting room floor by editors and publishers to make sure that the project can fins into a set number of pages of a book.

The same goes for rule design. meshing the available data with mechanics that flow with others concepts which present what the designer envisions. Sometimes this focuses on playability adn speed and other speed is sacrificed for realistic mechanics.

One of the problems in game design is what you, ned mentions about available sources. If you look hard enough and a lot of rules lawyers will do so, you can find many excetions of situational examples for just about any mechanic that has been adopted in a set of rules. Such gamers will take their shots on TMP and in other forums.. Now moreso than back then.

Convincing such critics on the need to ficus on the common practice or examples rather than exceptions has and will be a constant thorn for game designers.

Yes, a "single decision game" can be static in the sense that it, like all other static simulations, has no time component, no marking of time within the game. It also has no environmental changes during the game…the player's decisions do not affect anything other than when the game is concluded.

Korowajczuk said one could have consecutive static simulation choices. It's just that there is no correlation between these consecutive simultaneous input decisions. In other words, you can have consecutive simultaneous decision points, then time as events roll on, have another simultaneous decision point. You can have time flow between these simultaneous decisions. But at the time of decision, the decisions are made simultaneously i.e. no time dimension at the point of decision. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand,

The definitions of static and dynamic still hold. The Prisoners' dilemma is a good example of how different designs can fall into one definition or another…or even straddle them. The question is whether the definitions help in understanding how simulations work.

Bill this is nonsense. You cannot have a game that is both a static game and a dynamic game at the same time. Nor can you have one that straddles the two. You can't just throw out a definition because you find it inconvenient. Definitions define the nature of the game.

It is what he is saying. If all the decisions for a two wargame are constant--the same and all the values in the wargame are the same, including the die rolls, all you done is make the system static--producing the same events over and over again because all the activities and events [and values including decisions] are constant, the same. He is simply describing static and dynamic simulation in terms of a computer system.

You are still confusing your definition of static (unchanging) with the definition used by simulation game designers. Static game is where the decisions are made simultaneously. A dynamic game is where decisions are made one after another. This is not rocket science.

It is what he is saying. If all the decisions for a two wargame are constant--the same and all the values in the wargame are the same, including the die rolls, all you done is make the system static--producing the same events over and over again because all the activities and events [and values including decisions] are constant, the same. He is simply describing static and dynamic simulation in terms of a computer system.

No, that is what you are saying. You are confusing your definition of static with the industry's definition. You can have all the decisions in a dynamic game constant including die roles and you will have a static situation. The static situation would result if all the decisions and die rolls were the same in a dynamic game.

From the first page of the Preface to Salen and Zimmerman's book, Rules of Play:

I only had access to the Introduction in which the introduction writer stated the book was about electronic games. I therefore dismissed it. Since I am not above admitting to making a mistake, I will admit I should not have dismissed Salen and Zimmerman's book. To rectify that I will go back and review your quotes from the book, but first I need to present this quote of yours.

If that is HIS definition of games--and it includes being a representation or simulation of something real. Gadzooks man, read your own posts. How is that different than Salen and Zimmerman, OR what I have been saying?

You have been saying that games can be "models of reality." This is your definition of the word ‘simulation'. Salen, Zimmerman, Schreiber and myself have been using the other definition of the word simulation: representation of reality but a representation that is make-believe, i.e. not real.

Salen, Zimmerman: "There are many kinds of simulations that are not games. However, all games can be understood as simulations, even very abstract games or games that simulate phenomena not found in the real world."

You know they are using the second definition because you cannot model an aspect of reality out of something that is not found in the real world. Here is the quote in which I've simply replaced ‘simulation' with ‘representation'. You will notice this switch does not change the nature of thoughts presented.

"There are many kinds of [representations] that are not games. However, all games can be understood as [representations], even very abstract games or games that [represent] phenomena not found in the real world."

Salen and Zimmerman are not talking about models of reality. To continue:

"Games are a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome" ("winning" and "losing")."

Since artificial means "a situation or concept not existing naturally" We can rewrite the sentence using make believe instead of artificial.

"Games are a "system in which players engage in [make believe] conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome" ("winning" and "losing")."

Yes, a "single decision game" can be static in the sense that it, like all other static simulations, has no time component, no marking of time within the game.

But Korowajczuk pointed out that a "multiple decision game" can also be a static game so long as the decisions at each point of the decision nodes are made at the same time (simultaneous). Thus time can well be a factor EXCEPT at the time of decision. Simultaneous decisions are what define these games as static. It has nothing to do with things being repeated again and again. That is a static situation not a static game.

Same thing Rich. Even the Prisoners' Delimma needs "a game environment" to give the decisions context, meaning, possible outcomes, even when it is simply a mental image in the players' heads.

You are contradicting yourself Bill. First you say static games are about events and dynamic games are about environments. Now, you are saying a static game such as the Prisoner's Dilemma is also about environment.??

Let me summarize:

A static game is when the players make simultaneous decisions. A static game can have a number of simultaneous decision nodes. Time can progress between simultaneous decision nodes but as long as the decisions are made simultaneously it is a static game.

A dynamic game is where decisions are made one after the other and where the effects of the previous decisions impact current decisions.

The state of repeating over and over again is a static situation; not to be confused with a static game.

There are two functional definitions of ‘simulation'.

1. It means a model of aspects of reality.
2. It means a representation of an aspect reality

A Picasso painting is a representation of an aspect of reality. But it is not a model of reality. A game is a make-believe representation of reality and not a model of reality.

However, he [Sam] is very comfortable stating both that wargames can't simulate warfare at all, while advertising his games as capable of "simulating Napoleonic Battles."

It would seem both definitions of ‘simulation' are at play here. I'll repeat the quote with the proper definitions given for each use of the term ‘simulation'.

However, he is very comfortable stating both that wargames can't [model aspect of real warfare] at all, while advertising his games as capable of "[representing] Napoleonic Battles."

Once you realize there are at least two different definitions for the same word, the meaning of what Sam wrote becomes quite clear with no inconsistency.

A simulation, or model of an aspect of reality, is a management tool. A game lies within the nature of play (Salen and Zimmerman). If you wish to create better wargames, approach them as what they are: games. Do not approach them as what they are not: models of aspects of reality.

Rich

Rich: A static game is when the players make simultaneous decisions. A static game can have a number of simultaneous decision nodes. Time can progress between simultaneous decision nodes but as long as the decisions are made simultaneously it is a static game.

A static game can have several decision nodes only if players don't know results of their previous decisions or decisions of other players. As you said, game becomes dynamic if effects of the previous decisions impact current decisions. If time progresses between decision nodes, then the decisions can't effect anything that is a function of time and can effect future decisions, and vice versa.

Only very simple games like this prisoner's dilemma or rock-paper-scissors can be static. Even rock-paper-scissors is really static only if you play one round; results of previous rounds would effect the decisions made by players. Wargames can of course have mechanics (submodels) that are static, but whole wargames are always dynamic.

A static game can have several decision nodes only if players don't know results of their previous decisions or decisions of other players.

Karst, not quite. Dynamic or static only pertains to the moment that decisions are made. A static decision is where all players make their decisions simultaneously. A dynamic decision is where players make their decisions one after the other. After the decisions have been made, regardless of whether the decisions were made one after the other or all at the same, all players may view the results of the decision process. In a multi-node game, the result of the first decision making go around may necessitate another decision making node. In a static game the decision making will be simultaneous. In a dynamic game the decisions will be one after the other.

A wargame is a perfect example. At the decisions nodes, in a turn, if the decisions are made simultaneously then it is a static game. If the decisions are UGOIGO then the game is dynamic.

Rich

Rich: Dynamic or static only pertains to the moment that decisions are made. A static decision is where all players make their decisions simultaneously.

Yes, games may have mechanics (or nodes if you will), like simultaneous movement, that are static. However, when you group individual static mechanics into a complete multi-node game and let results of previous nodes impact current decisions, the whole game becomes dynamic. IMO static multi-node game doesn't make much sense as a definition when we are talking about wargames.

Difference between dynamic and static is whether current state is dependent on previous states or not. Usually that's the same thing as whether effects of the previous decisions impact current decisions or whether time is taken into account or not.

Yes, games may have mechanics (or nodes if you will), like simultaneous movement, that are static. However, when you group individual static mechanics into a complete multi-node game and let results of previous nodes impact current decisions, the whole game becomes dynamic.

True. It becomes a dynamic situation. It dosn't become a dynamic game. I said above, don't confuse the two and that's what you have done. The definition, set by the those who create games, of whether a game is a dynamic game or a static game is based on the type of decision making. You can have a static situation in a dynamic game and a dynamic situation in a static game.

Rich

Rich, are you sure you understood Korowajczuk correctly? I couldn't find the text you are referring to. Here are Game Theory .net definitions for static and dynamic games (simultaneous game has same definition as static game, underlining is mine):

A static game is one in which all players make decisions (or select a strategy) simultaneously, without knowledge of the strategies that are being chosen by other players. Even though the decisions may be made at different points in time, the game is simultaneous because each player has no information about the decisions of others; thus, it is as if the decisions are made simultaneously. Simultaneous games are represented by the normal form and solved using the concept of a Nash equilibrium.

When players interact by playing a similar stage game (such as the prisoner's dilemma) numerous times, the game is called a dynamic, or repeated game. Unlike simultaneous games, players have at least some information about the strategies chosen on others and thus may contingent their play on past moves.

It becomes a dynamic game. I'm not really sure what you mean with dynamic situation.

There is no discrepancies here with what I said. It revolves around how decisions are made. If decisions are made simultaneously it is a static game. If the decision is made sequentially it is a dynamic game.

Your definition also includes a third example. Games like Prisoner's Dilema that can be played over and over again are also called 'dynamic' but in this case dynamic simply means repeatable.

The idea I was trying to convey with 'dynamic situation' is the nature of the game itself regardless of how decisions are made. For example, Beneath the Lily Banner's command phase is simultaneous. This would be considered a static game since decisions are made simultaneously. LaSalle, on the other hand, is played with a command segment that is sequential (IGOUGO). However, the nature of both games can be quite dynamic (full of actions and progress). While the game uses a static decision mechanism and the other uses a dynamic decision mechanism both games can be quite dynamic.

Rich

I admit to being confused.

Defintions should, IMO, clarify.

Saying that "static" means a game in which decisions are made simultaneously is, to put it bluntly, stupid --there's already a word for that: SIMULTANEOUS. Why stick another word in (static) which has nothing to do with the word itself…why not use "muffin" or some other word? Silly, that is --on the edge (if not over) of being scholarlarly pretentious (…like that phrase).

Bill's definitions (meaning those he's posted, not necessarily of his creation) make more sense to me --and if clarity and usefullness is the goal, doesn't that count for something?

The problem is we can't all go and make up our own definitions. I agree simultaneous and sequential are better terms/labels. That makes more sense than a static game that is dynamic. However, that's the convention they use and we're stuck with it.

Rich

Rich: Games like Prisoner's Dilema that can be played over and over again are also called 'dynamic' but in this case dynamic simply means repeatable.

But playing simultaneous command phase over and over again is static? And no, it's not 'dynamic', it's dynamic. Whole point of these definitions is that they don't change all the time! I understand what you are trying to say, but no one else is going to call wargames static, no matter how simultaneous the command phases are. We can say that the command mechanic is static, or simultaneous, but calling the whole game static is just confusing.

However, that's the convention they use and we're stuck with it.

Could you please tell me who they are?

Rudy N. wrote:

I was going through old Miniature Wargames trying to answer a TMP question. I found a 1980s article with the title of 'Simulation vs games'. So it looks like this is one of those never ending topics for debate!

Rudy:
Happy New Year. The topic has changed radically since the 1980s and that article—except for our hobby—which is what I have been trying to point out.
The notion that there is a "Simulation vs games" dichotomy in wargame design is nonsense in design terms when both are built the same way and a "simulation game" is one design, not two. It is a not an issue among everyone who designs games, simulations or simulation games.
This is the general point of reference for both Game and Simulation designers from a basic text book on game design:

A simulation is a procedural representation of aspects of "reality." Simulations represent procedurally and they have a special relationship to the "reality" that they represent.
There are many kinds of simulations that are not games. However, all games can be understood as simulations, even very abstract games or games that simulate phenomena not found in the real world.

[p.457 Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals]

There is no "simulation vs game" design problem except in the minds of wargame designers… And many wargamers appear to be still lost in what you say is a 'never ending' debate. Lots of wasted time on such things that add nothing to the task of designing wargames and simulation games, let alone enjoying them.

Best Regards,
Bill H.

Rudy:

It isn't a problem unique to wargame designers. I am sure you are aware of that, but let me respond anyway.

The issue of playability and *sacrificing* 'realistic' mechanics has been dealt with by the larger game design community [as well as by simulation designers] because it is such a basic issue. There are methods developed to deal with the issues--not guesses, but proven methods. One of the things they worked out were ways to avoid such *sacrifices* in the search for playability.

Every simulation and/or game designer has to deal with the need to develop simulation to be 'user friendly' in all it's variety, 'playability' being a big one for Research simulation designers as well as Trainers or commercial game designers. It is another given that too much system or detail destroys a simulation as fast as any game, regardless of the purpose.

Again, here is what is said about this very issue in Rules of Play:

Working within the intrinsic limitations of simulations is one of the key challenges of game design. What are you going to simulate in your game? How are you going to abstract it? Which features of the phenomena will you include and which will you ignore? How deep and how broad can your simulation be? How do you tie each aspect of your simulation to the larger player experience? To understand these kinds of design decisions more fully we look in detail at a particular genre of game, the historical wargame…

History, in a very general sense, represents a fixed series of events. But a historical wargame is a game, which means that uncertainty, risk, and unpredictable outcomes play a roles. What a historical wargame really simulates are the starting conditions of a conflict. The way that conflict plays out is what makes the game interesting as a game experience. Will history repeat itself? Was the historical outcome inevitable? How much can a masterful strategy affect the outcome? These are all questions that wargame designers and players seek to answer though the creation and play of their games.

The meaningful play of a historical wargame derives not only from the strategic complexities of military decision making, but also from the fidelity of the game to its historical referent.

That fidelity to historical referents is what we are talking about here. Without that fidelity gamers can't possibly answer the questions mentioned above.
As we know, a simulation can never contain every possible aspect of the phenomena being simulated. Historical wargaming has been wrestling with this challenge for at least a century, making it a wonderful case study for the design of simulations.

[page 442:]

We aren't alone with the issues, and the number of folks who have been working on them over the last five decades outnumber our wargame designers 100 to 1. They also have enjoyed billions of dollars of financing that our hobby hasn't. We can benefit from what they've learned, if only in avoiding spending time on dead-end concepts and design beliefs.

Best Regards,

Bill H.

Rich:

The holidays were too much fun, so it has taken me a while to get back to your last posts.

Rich, you need to actually read all of what these folks are saying in full, not flying through the internet on a 'simulation' and 'game' Google search cherry-picking what you want to in cobbling together your set of definitions. You have even picked some extreme/fringe uses of simulation games as your core examples.

Your erroneous assertions about the what the authors of Rules of Play think and wrote is a good example. Your skewed interpretations of what Korowajczuk wrote about the Prisoner's Dilemma case is all part of the same problem. You are dancing on the fringes of both simulation and game design picking up disparate pieces, Rich, and then misinterpreting them in your attempt to establish what you believe are the definitions for first games and now Dynamic and Static simulations.

First, remember you believed that games and simulations resided in totally different circles, and refused to accept any of the references I gave because they weren't from 'our hobby'. Now you are quoting Game Theory Researchers and computer design experiments to prove your points. You have misinterpreted what they are saying because you don't agree with the foundational aspects of simulation and game design they are working from—for instance, Korowajczuk is stretching the boundaries of simulation research [which he alludes to] and you are trying to use his ruminations to establish your basic definitions. It's like using a platypus to define "mammals."

Even so, Korowajczuk's use of 'static simulation is congruent with mine, though he is discussing it in different terms and for different applications. His simulations remain static because they:

1. Have no mechanism for monitoring the passage of time. In fact time is not a factor at all in each simulation.

2. There is no environment or set of rules for the players to interact with, simply a script regarding a single decision to be made. Once the decision is made, it has no impact on the script: the 'game' is over. Korowajczuk's simulation game is marginally a simulation and a game.

You say:

Korowajczuk said one could have consecutive static simulation choices. It's just that there is no correlation between these consecutive simultaneous input decisions. In other words, you can have consecutive simultaneous decision points, then time as events roll on, have another simultaneous decision point. You can have time flow between these simultaneous decisions.

Rich, they aren't 'simultaneous', but rather as he says "can be thought of as simultaneous" because there is no time element at all. As K. states, it doesn't matter when either player actually makes their decisions. Simultaneous decisions require a time count to qualify as being done 'at the same time.' Static simulations don't have that quality. And any time element he is speaking of is between simulations, not part of the simulations themselves. The time element has NO effect on the individual simulations. Korowajczuk is linking static simulations. As he states, depending on the nature of the time linkage [and it's effects on the simulations], a string of static simulations [minimalist single decision games], one could construct a dynamic simulation. He's speculating, not defining what constitutes a dynamic simulations.

Bill this is nonsense. You cannot have a game that is both a static game and a dynamic game at the same time. Nor can you have one that straddles the two. You can't just throw out a definition because you find it inconvenient. Definitions define the nature of the game.

Rich, you don't understand the nature of definitions, particularly working definitions to say that. As Schreiber stated, there are no perfect definitions. That means that all definitions at times "straddle" other definitions. For instance, Male and Female. Those are two dichotomous definitions. Yet, physically, mentally, operationally, mammals of all shapes and sizes including humans 'straddle' those two definitions at times, exhibiting elements of both. Does that mean the definitions have failed? No, they work to help analyze even those points where the definitions blur. This is true of any definition.

When I said that Korowajczuk was using elements of both Static and Dynamic Simulations, that's what I meant, and that is what Korowajczuk was alluding to with his ideas—if you'd been paying attention.

You are still confusing your definition of static (unchanging) with the definition used by simulation game designers. Static game is where the decisions are made simultaneously. A dynamic game is where decisions are made one after another. This is not rocket science.

Sorry, Rich, you are trying to make this much harder than rocket science. Static simulations can only have ONE decision, which is an on or off switch for running the whole thing. And of course, with no time monitoring system, any decisions have no time placement within the simulation or game. That can be thought of as simultaneous as Korowajczuk says, but it isn't in real time or in 'game time'. Simultaneous decisions would require a clock to determine 'at the same time' as well as game mechanics to utilize the linked decisions. As Korowajczuk notes, it really doesn't matter WHEN the players in his games make the decision, in the game or in relation to each other. That is not the definition of simultaneous: 'at the same time'.

You are trying to make these guys say things they simply aren't saying, regarding things that are at the fringe of game and simulation design—which is throwing you off even further.

You have been saying that games can be "models of reality." This is your definition of the word ‘simulation'. Salen, Zimmerman, Schreiber and myself have been using the other definition of the word simulation: representation of reality but a representation that is make-believe, i.e. not real.

You know they are using the second definition because you cannot model an aspect of reality out of something that is not found in the real world.

Rich, I am still baffled as to why you insist on this: "You cannot model an aspect of reality out of something that is not found in the real world." Who told you that was a ruling fact of game and simulation design? It makes no nonsense whatsoever, Rich. i.e. Give me an example of attempting to model something in the real world out of something not found in the real world.

And why do you think Salen, Zimmerman, and Scheiber agree with you and that 'statement' when they use the terms 'model' and simulation interchangeably in their writing about GAMES, which you insist are 'make-believe'?

You are making a complete hash out of what they are saying.

A wargame is a representation of reality with unreal [make-believe] pieces. What is represented is real, and can only be thought as real if there is some relationship between the 'make-believe game elements and reality. The game elements model reality.

Rich's definition: "Games are a "system in which players engage in [make believe] conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome" ("winning" and "losing")."

That could be the definition for any number of simulations: Players engaging in [make believe] conflict defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcomes."

Any military simulation like the Laser Tag exercises fit that definition.
Any number of research simulations for business, the military, etc. fit that definition
Any computer simulation game fits that definition [computer programs only a set of rules.]

And then, games like SimCity wouldn't be a game under your definition because there are no players in conflict, make believe of otherwise.

etc. etc. etc.

And the important question: "How does that definition help you design games?"

But Korowajczuk pointed out that a "multiple decision game" can also be a static game so long as the decisions at each point of the decision nodes are made at the same time (simultaneous). Thus time can well be a factor EXCEPT at the time of decision.

Boy, I am not even going to try to unscramble this. He does NOT mean what you think he does—he is NOT defining static games as those with simultaneous decisions-at all. He has just said the decisions at each node don't have to be made at the same time… and that time ISN'T a factor in the play of the game. Static.

You are contradicting yourself Bill. First you say static games are about events and dynamic games are about environments. Now, you are saying a static game such as the Prisoner's Dilemma is also about environment.

No, that isn't what I am saying or have been saying. It is what those designs create for players. See above.

Listen to what Salen and Zimmerman say about wargames:

History, in a very general sense, represents a fixed series of events. But a historical wargame is a game, which means that uncertainty, risk, and unpredictable outcomes play a role. What a historical wargame really simulates are the starting conditions of a conflict. The way that conflict plays out is what makes the game interesting as a game experience. Will history repeat itself? Was the historical outcome inevitable? How much can a masterful strategy affect the outcome? These are all questions that wargame designers and players seek to answer though the creation and play of their games. The meaningful play of a historical wargame derives not only from the strategic complexities of military decision making, but also from the fidelity of the game to its historical referent.

[Italics mine]

Those 'starting conditions' is the game environment I am talking about, the one where players 'play out' the conflict interacting with those conditions. Players don't interact with the environment in a static simulation, just as they don't in the Player's Dilemma. It is just a set of events that any players are scripted to perform in.

A static game is one in which all players make decisions (or select a strategy) simultaneously, without knowledge of the strategies that are being chosen by other players.

No, it isn't. You have spun what Korowajczuk speculates about concerning experiments with one type of Decision Matrix game, the Prisoner's Dilemma, into another universe. Rich, you are taking bits and pieces of different websites and building something quite alien to what they are discussing.

A static game has no simultaneous play because such a concept doesn't apply to a static game—And whether players have knowledge of other player strategies has nothing to do with identifying "Static Simulations". Any Dynamic Simulation can find players doing the same kind of decisions, and actually doing them simultaneously in the game, unlike a Static Simulation. You have taken a 'could be thought of as' side comment by K. and taken it as the defining quality of a static simulation. You are sooo far a field, Rich.

Even though the decisions may be made at different points in time, the game is simultaneous because each player has no information about the decisions of others;
thus, it is as if the decisions are made simultaneously.

Rich, can't you see what you are doing? For a guy so deep into definitions, I am amaze you are coming up with that as proof of 'simultaneous', all from Korowajczuk's throw-away line that such decisions "can be thought of as simultaneous."

Simultaneous games are represented by the normal form and solved using the concept of a Nash equilibrium.

Now, you are just saying whatever you find on the internet without any context. Simultaneous games are not 'solved' by a Nash Equilibrium, or anything else.

When players interact by playing a similar stage game (such as the prisoner's dilemma) numerous times, the game is called a dynamic, or repeated game. Unlike simultaneous games, players have at least some information about the strategies chosen on others and thus may contingent their play on past moves.

No, Rich. Now you're making this up whole cloth. K., Lui nor anyone else as said anything even close to your 'interpretation.'

Such a design could be said to contain an element of Dynamic Simulations… no, wait, you feel definitions can't straddle each other, sooo… it isn't a Dynamic Simulation. The players never interact with a simulation/game environment, only an unchanging script, the ONLY part of the game that could be considered Dynamic [changing?] is the players' growing awareness of past game play. That isn't even part of the simulation game rules or mechanics… It is just the 'skill' players develop after playing several games. You don't define a game design by how many times a person plays it.

What the simulation is composed of defines whether it is a Dynamic or Static design, not how often folks play it. Got it?

Best Regards,

Bill H.