"Do we need a board on realism in wargaming?" Topic

Since this topic tends to happen frequently and attract significant ammounts of attention (something like 20 car pileup on the highway)…

1 – No, it's a stupid topic in the first place.
2 – No, while a worthwhile topic, it is best address in situ in other threads
3 – Come, now, be realistic.
4 – Yes, it's a worthwhile topic and merits its own place of prominence.
5 – God, yes. And once they go in there, don't let them back out! Oh, and replace the banner ad at the top of the page with seizure-inducing manga pictures.

it would be nice to have a place to talk without aggressive deniers of the possibility.

1 all the way.

Sure, why not? Next to the 741 boards already there, who will notice?

I mean: no.

That sounds like a topic well-suited for the game design board.

Rick

4

I would have even gone for 5, excepting the Manga pictures…..

1

Define realism.

Agent Brown wrote:

Define realism.

Oh, people have. And "simulation". People are very fond of defining things. Which is part of the problem -- if they would only learn the definitions already accepted and in widespread use, they would talk a good deal less nonsense.

All the best,

John.

2

1

I have no idea what 'Realism' is in concrete game design terms. I have yet to find anyone who can point to anything in a set of wargame rules or on the game table that is 'real' or somehow produces 'realism'.

Such efforts to identify 'realism' devolve into describing a gamer's personal experience of the game. It ends up meaning no more than "I like this" or "I don't like that" about some aspect of a game design, often because it reminds them of something they read 'somewhere.'

Certainly an enjoyable part of the hobby, but expressing what one 'likes' about some wargame really doesn't go very far in discussing practical wargame design.

If you like a game mechanism or rule, then what is there to discuss? If designing another game, a designer will want to use that preferred same game rule or component again. Right?

End of discussion--unless you want to talk him out of his personal preferences, which isn't justified on many levels and certainly doesn't offer much benefit to either party.

The TMP already provides a very broad range of boards for such expressions of preference as demonstrated by this thread. That's fine, but it sure ain't a discussion about how to design historical wargames…

Bill H.

1, and what Florida Tory said.

Realism is what my favourite rules do and yours don't.

Realism is what my favourite rules do and yours don't.

What I just said.

Yeah, you just need to TL;DR your post with his.

6 – YES, would hate to have the tiddlywinks players bothered by realism…

Yeah, right. I really want to be able to game a younger version of Wally the Wal-Mart greeter getting the thousand yard stare in the Iron Triangle~ Best reason for a new board I ever heard off~

Realism in wargaming is like realism in porn, its absence does not mean its any less enjoyable.

Realism in wargaming is like realism in porn, its absence does not mean its any less enjoyable.

Since the validation of wargames is a part of my job, I am so saying that Monday at work.

1

1 or No, Games are a more or mostly less attempt at realiztion without having a 20,000 page rulebook

How about a board for discussing what other people should or should not talk about?

How about a board for suggesting boards~

1

Let 10,000 flowers bloom!

I do not think there is a need for a separate board. I do think those who do not believe "realism" or "scale" are achievable in any form need to stop using rhetorical tricks and argue their points in a straight forward manner and I also think they should not run away from those who disagree with them. I'm getting lonely.

Bob Coggins

1, 1, and again 1! This discussion pops up like a venereal wart every couple of months and yields no useful content when it does.

LT

It is however a valid topic of discussion for the Game Design board.

2.

2.

Whirlwind,

I am glad you took such a position. Hopefully it indicates in future you will not run away from those who disagree. Other than slinging mud against a wall to see what sticks, what good is served to post on a topic then disappear when you have difficuly responding to questions?

Bob Coggins

Nope. Wargames and realism should a stay as FAR apart as possible!

1, 1, and again 1! This discussion pops up like a venereal wart every couple of months and yields no useful content when it does.

LT:

I agree wholeheartedly, but it has more to do with how the topic is dealt with, than the topic itself… "Realism" is a fairly direct question of 'how to' in wargame design… the purpose of this particular board.

Instead of dealing with it as a game design issue, as indicated by most miniature wargame designers, it is treated like a Gallup Poll of "What's your favorite color?" Lots of feelings about the 'flavor of a game' and whether someone 'cares' about the answers, but never anything specific or related to actually designing a wargame.

For instance, here is what the designers of Black Powder say about their design:

The Black Powder game is first, foremost decidedly an entertainment. Naturally, we wish our game to be a tolerably convincing representation of real battle; however, no pretence is made to simulate every nuance of detail of weaponry, drill, or the psychology of warfare.

Now, one question a miniature wargame designer would ask: How do you create a "tolerably convincing representation of real battle"? AND how do you know you are successful?

Obviously there is some kind of comparison being made between the game mechanics and 'real battle' which create a 'tolerable representation.' It is just a question of how and where it is done in the design.

Could the BP designers' claim that there is some connection between 'real battle' and 'a representation of real battle' in their design be a reference to 'realism?' That is a more reasonable game design question.

Instead we get this set of options in response:

1 – No, it's a stupid topic in the first place.
2 – No, while a worthwhile topic, it is best address in situ in other threads
3 – Come, now, be realistic.
4 – Yes, it's a worthwhile topic and merits its own place of prominence.
5 – God, yes. And once they go in there, don't let them back out! Oh, and replace the banner ad at the top of the page with seizure-inducing manga pictures.

Considering how central to wargame design the questions are, it is not surprising that 'it' keeps popping up. And considering how the questions are generally addressed, like a viewers' vote on "America's Got Talent" [the above responses being a good example], it's no wonder such responses never yields any useful information. Imagine trying to master the technical skills of singing by following the voting on that show?

Or imagine someone asking the thread question about 'realism' and 'tolerable representations of real planes' in the RC airplane hobby and getting similar responses… let alone a similar list of choices, as though all of them are 'reasonable' responses to a question about practical model design. It would never happen in RC modeling, and if it did, it wouldn't be taken seriously by the hobbiests…regardless of their preferences in models, because they collectively already know the answers in practical model design.

We don't, but we could if we wanted to.

Bill H.

"Nope. Wargames and realism should a stay as FAR apart as possible!"

Given you numerous postings on modelling and simulating modern tactical warfare, I suspect you are pulling my leg:)

1

Whirlwind,

I am glad you took such a position. Hopefully it indicates in future you will not run away from those who disagree. Other than slinging mud against a wall to see what sticks, what good is served to post on a topic then disappear when you have difficuly responding to questions?

Sorry Bob, I am ultra-confused – which thread do you want a reply on?

Regards

We once had one of our gamers suggest we could add to the realism of a wargame by not only removing casualties, but then stomping the removed figures flat. To simulate the economic costs of war everyone would be required to set fire to the contents of their wallets.

If we do a realism board, I would suggest this be the first topic.

Whirlwind,

Any and all threads you desire to reply on and I think I have something to add.

As I posted, Let 10,000 flowers bloom!

Bob Coggins

We once had one of our gamers suggest we could add to the realism of a wargame by not only removing casualties, but then stomping the removed figures flat. To simulate the economic costs of war everyone would be required to set fire to the contents of their wallets.

Just FYI, that isn't simulating economic costs at all… and takes all the fun out of wargaming. Those are real dollars involved and real possessions being destroyed. The whole point of a simulation is to be able to provide some of the aspects of war without the 'real' costs.

Bill H.

Bill – It was a joke. We were all too broke in those days to burn real money.

It was a joke. We were all too broke in those days to burn <real money.

John tG:

Oops, sorry. With so many folks writing such things in all seriousness, I completely missed that.

And yeah. I've never been in the situation where I could, let alone want to burn real money… Of course, I'd have to remember what it looks like first.

Bill H.

I am glad you took such a position. Hopefully it indicates in future you will not run away from those who disagree. Other than slinging mud against a wall to see what sticks, what good is served to post on a topic then disappear when you have difficuly responding to questions?

Whirlwind,

Any and all threads you desire to reply on and I think I have something to add.

As I posted, Let 10,000 flowers bloom!

What gives? You make some childish accusations of me 'running away' and 'mud-slinging' and 'having difficulty responding questions', I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about since I have done none of these things, but I try to ignore that, ask what you want a reply to and you can't be bothered. Nice.

I'm astonished that the people you actually want to have some kind of argument with stifle you or just ignore you. Amazing.

Either be polite or leave me alone.

The loneliest number;one.

Realism to whom? And at what level?
What is realism? Depends on your pre-suppositions.

Let me give you an example. When I set out designing my present game set some 10 years ago I made the design criteria that as the player repreented in the games I wanted to play, an army or commander of a wing of an army in the 18th century, then I only wanted him dealing with questions and issues that a real life wing commander or commander of an army would have to deal with. This basically was "What units do I have under my control? Which can participate in the plan arranged already or can be used in the execution of my orders. Which cannot? Which are a liability and require other units to protect them? What can the enemy do? What IS he doing? What resources do I have.

The other point about my rules is I have one universal set of "Rules for Rules." These are simple.

1 The rules plust charts, tables, illustrations, example, and artwork cannot exceed 12 typewritten single spaced pages, 12 point times roman bold. If you can't get it on this- get out the red pencil and start chopping.

The concatenation of these two principles yielded an 18th century game without all the folderol of formation, facing, flanking (except in the most vestigial manner), unlimbering, limbring, mounting dismounting, charge declarations, written orders, and on and on and on.

So-- yeah-- it's realistic. The commanders only deal with things their real-life counterparts would do (well they still have to move the troops on the table) and they work very well, but a lot of the chrome you might like is gone. At the same time, if you were pitching this at a battalion commander or a squad commander, the issues would be entirely different and realism and "what is real" would not be the same thing at all.

I don't think so.