"Game or Simulation???" Topic

Most people nowadays seem to prefer game over simulation where historical miniatures are concerned. Does that mean rules that are more simulation than game are dead in the water or is there still a demand for that type of system?

For me it depends. I don't like games which totally ignore the history of the period being played but I do not want those overly complex type rules of ages long gone. It is a balancing act. There has to be enough simulation to give a feel for the period.

Al

Pete, what do *you* mean when you say simulation?

The most complicated simulation is still only a game nothing more – it can take every historic detail into painful account but it's still just a game. So if you are asking if I like simple over more complex than yes I like simple. If you want to call that a game I'm OK with that.

I like rules that simulate the decision making process, not the physics.

I enjoys rules that reflect a Hollywood view on history.
But that's me all over!

I know that there are gamers out there who enjoy a good 'simulation' of how the battle occurred. Those are just not in my interests.

Like Rich said, and:

Simple rules that reward period tactics. Easy say, hard to do.

For example, the simple board game "Hold the Line" has some cracking scenarios (and some one-way wipe-outs). The game is fun, but the infantry scurrying from cover to cover isn't a great simulation of the period.

Do we think that stale old false dichotomies somehow cease to be so by the application of additional question marks???

All the best,

John.

No, there was another topic with one question mark, so it came up as a duplicate! At times it is best not to think too deeply about such matters as there can be a more mundane explanation.

Tuesday already?

While I prefer games which are not too taxing on the ol' noggin, there certainly seems to be plenty of people who still like to play more complex games, like Empire, Advanced Squad Leader, etc. Even some new rules tend to the older, more complex style; I've never played Republic to Empire, but I have heard that it's the next evolution of Empire (or derived from it). Field of Glory also tends towards more complex.

Simple doesn't mean stupid. A set of rules can run to two hundred single spaced pages but bear no relation to reality while a 'simple' set can capture the essence of a period and be far more accurate.
Advanced Squad Leader is a massive set of rules and supplements that are technically very accurate yet do nothing to simulate the chaos and confusion of modern warfare.
IABSM is a simple set but mirrors the battlefield friction I keep reading about superbly.
Both are games.

Obviously there is a continuum between playability and fun, at one end, and historical accuracy on the other. And each of us will have his preferred location along that continuum.

But as a game designer and also a teacher who likes to use simulation games in instruction, I think the REAL issue is what Rich says above: what decision-making process are you simulating? Army level or squad, or individual? And with what amount and type of information available? We all recognize as table top gamers that we possess a god's eye view of the battle that renders any claim to "realism" futile.

My goal is ALWAYS fun, but I also want, as much as possible, to teach something, or to give players some appreciation for the difficulties of making vital decisions under time pressure and with limited information.

My view on this question has changed with circumstance.
If one has 'unlimited' time, then I prefer a game that comes closer to being a simulation. I play such games at home, where I have my own table which can remain dedicated to a particular game for as long as I wish.
I play games at a game store on Saturdays. These are less exacting as fun is the main driver. Plus they must come to some satisfactory conclusion in a day.

I don't want to teach anybody anything. That's too much like work.

I think both goals can be realized without the brain strain! I have been advocating for years that the value sets (like numbers and casualties) be changed and replaced by those factors , more of a human angle. After all, it's not the number of people that become casualties, it's the effect that has on the unit to remain functioning as a unit.

Pick any period in history and you can find units that ran with little or no casualties and others that stayed until nearly the last man. So anyone who does study history can easily disprove the numbers game. This has been one of the worst falacies prepetuated upon gamers for decades!

I suspect it is because if gamers do not see the same in new designs, the new design is flawed in some way. Therefore, if a designer wants to make his game successful he perpetuates the myths in order to have a chance of having a highly popular game.

Games do not have to be complex to capture historical accuracy. Now I am not one that wants to play Gettysburg to where the Union always wins (and i am a yankee player)! I want to play a game that allows both sides (gamers) the ability to use historical tactics, technology and men of the period combine to where the winner out-generalled his opponent.

So mark my vote in a third category= Both are possible within a rules set.

I don't want any player in one of my games being at a disadvantage because he isn't as familiar with the rules as some of the other players. I would like my players to be free to do what makes tactical sense on the tabletop.

It is a big world -- I think that there is plenty of room for both flavours

I don't want to teach anybody anything. That's too much like work.

John, it is MY work, which I enjoy -- but note that this is on the Game Design board. Most of my designing -- either in terms of writing rules or (more typically) just setting up some sort of simulation/scenario for existing rules -- is didactic.

Years ago a colleague at my private high school asked if I could do something with the Peterloo Massacre for her 10 grade euro History class. I did a roleplaying tabletop thing -- had to use American revolutionary British for troops, and drawing civilians from everything from ancient Greece to the Wild West. Lots of built-in opportunities for confusion and misunderstanding and escalation of violence that only a few (the professional revolutionary agitators) really wanted. But it ended up a bloodbath.

I had designated the two least interested and most unmotivated girls in the class as reporters for the London papers, and at the end required them to write and submit a "story" about what happened. Which of course bore little resemblance to what happened on the tabletop. BUT, that DID determine "history" and also who "won" the game and got the best grades. (Howls of "unfair!" were ignored.)

Was I trying to teach a lesson? Oh yes. But it was fun, and my colleague was very happy with what they understood after about the real event.

Of course, Augie. There is plenty of room for all tastes! It's just difficult to find like-minded gamers sometimes to game with, without having to compromise your likes/dislikes too much. Just like the guy who is up to his neck in aligators realizing that his job was just to drain the swamp, many take their games way too seriously and forget that the original reason for gaming was just to have fun!

All rules are for games. Some are simple and some are complex but all are just games.

Simulations are simply games with delusions of grandeur.

Simulation:
"The act of simulating something first requires that a model be developed; this model represents the key characteristics or behaviors/functions of the selected physical or abstract system or process. The model represents the system itself, whereas the simulation represents the operation of the system over time."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation

Game:
"A game is structured playing, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool. Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherwise perform an educational, simulational, or psychological role."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game

- will someone please tell me the difference between a game and a simulation?

It's just difficult to find like-minded gamers sometimes to game with, without having to compromise your likes/dislikes too much.

I never have a problem finding like-minded gamers. I often play solo and when I do game with others it is with people who have a similar approach to me.

Agent Brown has it right: there's no direct relationship between the mechanical complexity of a game and the faithfulness of its representation of the real world phenomena it attempts to model. Considering the design constraints that a game played with toy soldiers on a tabletop unavoidably imposes, all we can hope to achieve is an abstract representation of those phenomena, and our creative outcomes are dependent on what our design decisions include and exclude.

Interesting topic. Another variable is where you play. At home I prefer the simulation. Leave it set up takes forever. Devil in the details and a little make it up as you go. I use Face of Battle(dang you Burkhard)

A game I play at the game store. A super ultra lite dumbed down version or somx popular system

> will someone please tell me the difference between a game and a simulation?

Calling something a "game" is an excuse for not even bothering with trying to get a simulation.

In my opinion the original premise of the question is flawed.

Most people nowadays seem to prefer game over simulation where historical miniatures are concerned. Does that mean rules that are more simulation than game are dead in the water or is there still a demand for that type of system?

I see NO evidence that this premise is true. Certainly not with the historical gamers I know. The two factors are not mutually exclusive.

Its more like a vocal minority of players that like short fast games vs the larger silent majority who don't mind a game that lasts longer than 3 hours.

So… I think the question should be..
"Do you prefer short games, or long games?"

"Simulations are simply games with delusions of grandeur."

Score one for McKinstry! Never said better….

I play a lot of Song of Blades and Heroes AND I've always wanted to have a go at Advanced Squad Leader, which do I stand?

Doc McB, I am not picking a fight with you. I am replying to the OP, but referencing you.
He asked what "we" prefer.

I assume that my friends are versed in the period, and I have nothing to teach them. I am setting up a fun game. GAME

No, no, no fight intended. I understand that everyone has his own priorities and preferences.

I think I would urge -- insist is too strong a word -- that anyone who plays games with toy soldiers -- historical ones, anyway -- has SOME notion that he is doing something not unrelated to real life. Of course we learn at some point that real life (and especially battles and war) does not much resemble what we imagine as youngsters. We become cynical about ideas such as patriotism and feelings such as glory -- at times to our loss. And we can then fall back on what is inarguably true: "it's just a game, and it is FUN."

But I think sometimes we secretly want the reflected glory.

I generally prefer the historically based, simulation end of the spectrum, but without it being so overly complex as to stupefy the participants.

There is definitely still demand for them.

Calling something a "game" is an excuse for not even bothering with trying to get a simulation.

Calling something a "game" is CAN BE an excuse for not even bothering with trying to get a simulation, but it certainly isn't always true.

Simulations are simply games with delusions of grandeur.

Hear, hear!

> wanted to have a go at Advanced Squad Leader, which do I stand

That leads to madness, and ASL is probably the poster child for a game versus a simulation. For all it's complexity whenever a valid (well any) criticism of the game's rules in regard to being a simulation comes up the hue and cry is always to keep the game as is rather then change anything.

> Calling something a "game" is CAN BE an excuse for not even bothering with trying to get a simulation, but it certainly isn't always true.

I was specifically referencing every time we read "it's just a game" as an excuse for not even trying.

Why can't one have elements of simulation in a game? Surely any game which is about war must, to some degree or another, attempt to present certain aspects of war within the game? In what way is this not a simulation.

The whole argument seem spurious to me.

I don't see any reason why a game can't be a simulation, and why it can't be fun and playable all in one package. I'm guessing that what the OP _might_ be thinking of is a fashion in some quarters for rules that are fun and playable, and which also play fast and loose with "reality", of which I can think of a few.

I agree with McKinsty except I put a different spin on it.

People who want to play simulations do so to convince themselves they are military genius'.

Games are what people play when they want to have fun.

No simulation is possible when we use figures on a table that are so hopelessly out of scale.

No siulation is possible when we use rules that are almost as completely out of scale.

No simulation is possible when Generals are asked to make decisions like wether a unit has its flints flaked, or it's boots dry and a sergeant who is responsible for telling off horse holders in a dismounted regiment, must also make decisions regarding point of attack of the entire army and ordering every unit within it.

Games for me are where I get to have a bunch of my good friends over the house, we laugh, greet, talk, have some munchies, drink beer or wine, gossip about the HMGS, dream big dreams of the next convention, tell lies about the battles we have won and lost and the absurd goings on of mankind, talk religion and politics and current events without anyone, even on opposite sides, kills each other, talk of our new projects, what we'd like to do, paint, build, and work on and what we can't, tell of our triumps of trajediese, and be complimented and consoled respectively. Then break for dinner and have a truly sumptuous meal with more beer and wine, then lounge in the room for a few hours after till the dark comes up and we've all sobered up sufficiently to get home OK.

Oy yeah, somewhere in there there's a game. Sure it draws us there, but all that "simulation stuff" means we don't have the fun of the game, or the company. But I'm sure the rules of the simulation are in bliss.

Otto

> People who want to play simulations do so to convince themselves they are military genius'.

I am the former but not the latter.

> No simulation is possible when we use figures on a table that are so hopelessly out of scale.

100% incorrect.

No simulation is possible when we use figures on a table that are so hopelessly out of scale.

No simulation is possible when we use rules that are almost as completely out of scale.

I think that's a slightly extreme view. In these situations I would not say that no simulation is possible, but rather that any game with such parameters is a very poor simulation. Because the model represents the key characteristics or behaviors/functions of the selected physical or abstract system or process, then it is by definitaion a simulation just not a very good one.

For example, I could postulate a wargame in that to determine the outcome each side rolls 1D6 and the highest score wins the game. It is a lousy simulation, but a simulation nevertheless in that the rolling of dice to decide the outcome is a model of the actual process of troops fighting the battle to determine the outcome in reality.

Any wargame is a model (however poor) of a potentially real battle.

What if wargamers were forbidden from using the word "Simulation" for one year? Imagine that they had to choose a different word to describe their games.

They'd probably say something like: "This is a game about the American Revolution…" and then everybody would be happy and nobody would make a fuss.

OSchmidt

What happens if the game used figures on a table that were perfectly in scale? Where the rules were not almost as completely out of scale. Where Generals were not asked to make decisions like whether a unit has its flints flaked, or it's boots dry etc., but instead were asked to make decisions more appropriate for a General to make.

In those situations would you say that it was possible to play a game which also included some elements of a simulation? Or are you just simply and irrevocably against the idea that such a thing is possible?

Rich

I prefer simple mechanics that provide the feel of the period. Complex is fine as long as it is intuitave. Complication for no reason is a no go.

Re ASL: agreed that it is complex. But, like any set of rules you get to a point where it 'clicks' and imo the experience is rewarding.

Regards,

J. P. Kelly

I prefer simple mechanics that provide the feel of the period. Complex is fine as long as it is intuitave. Complication for no reason is a no go.

You make a good point, but that is not really what we are discussing here. A wargame may well have simple mechanics and yet still be a reasonable simulation of the reality. There is not really any correlation between simple <-> complex and game <-> simulation.

This is all very simulating :-)

doc mb wrote:

Obviously there is a continuum between playability and fun, at one end, and historical accuracy on the other.

It might seem obvious, but it certainly isn't right.

There is one axis of playability, from easy to brain-meltingly difficult.

There is one axis of fidelity of simulation, from high to low (whose values might appear distorted depending on what you think the subject of the simulation is). Note that fidelity is not the main measure of simulation value; usefulness is (which depends on the purpose of the simulation). All other things being equal, the simpler model is the better model.

There is one axis of complexity of game mechanics, from simple to brain-meltingly complex.

These axes all point in different directions.

There is probably a pretty strong negative correlation between complexity and playability, although, given cunning and attractive design, some people very much enjoy playing mechanically complex games (I shuddered to see how complex "Magic, The Gathering" was, for example). I believe that it is easier for complex game mechanics to be made playable if it is obvious to the player what they simulate. There is also probably a minimum level of complexity of mechanism required to engage a player in a game and find it enjoyable -- which will vary from player to player.

There is probably an irreducible degree of complexity required to achieve some specified level of fidelity, as that's what we would expect from Ashby's law of requisite variety.

But nowhere is there any evidence that playability and fidelity of simulation are antithetic. As has been pointed out, the world of wargaming abounds in examples of games that are complex, unplayable, and bear precious little resemblance to their subject matter (ASL being a prime example in my book), as well as a smaller number of examples of simulations that are enormously useful and insight-providing while being a sheer pleasure to play.

Ask someone who claims to like playing games for the sake of the game if he prefers simple or complex games, and he will probably say "simple, of course".

Ask someone who knows anything about simulation modelling whether, given the ability to satisfy his other requirements, he prefers simple or complex simulations, and he will certainly say "simple, of course".

The whole "playability vs realism" shtick is a crock of, ummm, a container of fertiliser, and the wargaming hobby has collectively spent far too long talking ill-reasoned and ill-tempered tosh to itself about this nonsense. It is a false dichotomy, and always has been; anyone who wants you to believe different is probably one of those Fun Fascists who use the excuse that it's just a game to attack anyone foolish enough to attempt a modest level of historical research or mathematical analysis, and not have the decency to conceal the fact that they enjoy a bit of thinking now and again. If he's not one of them, he's a charlatan who conceals the feebleness of his attempts at historical research and analysis behind swaths of invented numbers and game mechanics of such Byzantine intricacy as to resemble a Heath Robinson cheese nightmare -- the sort of whom Phil Barker said "If you can't be accurate, be complicated".

Now, you kids GET OFFA MY LAWN.

All the best,

John.

Getting back to the original question, which was:

"Most people nowadays seem to prefer game over simulation where historical miniatures are concerned. Does that mean rules that are more simulation than game are dead in the water or is there still a demand for that type of system?"

…the short answer is definitely "Yes," the hobby trends of the past 25 years have been steadily moving toward simpler games, and away from the big über-detailed leviathans of yore.

And since there's not much evidence that we're recruiting lots of new historical miniatures players, it's likely that we're speaking of the same set of guys, who – in their 20s back in the 1980s – loved the über-detailed games, and now in their 50s don't have the time, energy, or eyesight for them any more.

What if wargamers were forbidden from using the word "Simulation" for one year?

Jim Dunnigan has a lot of crimes to pay for, and using the word "simulation" regarding wargaming has to rank near the top of the list.

People STILL believe that his overly complicated stuff reflected reality! Amazing.

One way of preventing these rather pointless discussions might be to reserve 'simulation' for the situation where a wargame is being used for a real-life purpose other than relaxation, fun or enjoyment. The military use simulations for training, to assess the use of new weaponry and to develop plans; other professions and businesses also use simulations to test ideas and develop plans to deal with disaster &c., and some educators and historians – notably Phil Sabin – use simulation as an analytical or teaching tool.

Thus, when Prussian officers played kriegsspiel for training or planning, it was a simulation of some aspects of warfare; when I play it for Napoleonic-themed escapism with my friends, we are playing a game.

Then we can stop using 'simulation' to mean 'complex, brain-taxing, slow and probably not very enjoyable to play' and 'game' as a shorthand for 'easy, enjoyable, simple, fun'.

No!

> Then we can stop using 'simulation' to mean 'complex, brain-taxing, slow and probably not very enjoyable to play' and 'game' as a shorthand for 'easy, enjoyable, simple, fun'.

Pointing out that is a false dichotomy is probably overkill at this point.

Those of you who want to play games, go right ahead, I won't stop you. Don't try to stop me from playing simulations either.

A wargame is both a game and a simulation.

Then each player has his own opinion about what is a good simulation.

Some wargame rules believed that every detail had to be precisely calculated to make a good simulation.

IMO if you have to roll dice and look at charts for 1/2 hour to do an action which takes 30 seconds in a real fight, it's not a good simulation.