Analsim | 26 Jun 2014 8:42 a.m. PST |
Mexican Jack Squint, I think the measuring part isn't really that hard. And from your comments, it seems to me that the 'Scope' of the design and use of 'Aggregation' are the root cause and real issue that the recreation wargame designers have the most problem dealing with in the present 'analog state and format' that we predominantly have to work within right now. Scope is: The range of real or imagined world objects or conditions represented by a particular model, simulation or simulation exercise. The broader the scope, the greater the design workload. Aggregation is the ability to group entities while preserving the effects of entity behavior and interaction while grouped. And,
YES, this essentially means trading off 'Details' for 'Simplicity'. But, if you don't attempt to reduce the scope of the wargame and use tools like aggregation, then you find yourself creating yet another design that takes longer to play than it's worth. I might add that 'Abstraction' factors into this particular issue too. Regards, Analsim |
Lee Brilleaux | 26 Jun 2014 10:36 a.m. PST |
We really are speaking different languages, aren't we? I think I understood 'scope'. Could you unpack 'Aggregation' again? |
McLaddie | 26 Jun 2014 10:36 a.m. PST |
Bo-oor-oor-ing! (To paraphrase Capn. Flashheart) Hey, the dancing girls were already booked. We didn't know we were supposed to entertain you two. Give us a heads-up next time. |
Analsim | 01 Jul 2014 4:19 a.m. PST |
MJS, Regarding you aggregation comment. The designers of large-scale combat simulation attempt to achieve a representation of warfare that is as accurate and believable as possible. Believability is largely achieved by adding certain amount of 'detail'. This works reasonably well up to moderate sized force levels, but as you go beyond that level, larger forces require aggregation to keep the models within managable limits in terms of scope, table size and play execution time. Thus, aggreagation is an attempt to eliminate detail by summing up the internal parts while attempting to preserve the overall outcome/results of the interaction of these parts. A simple example of aggreagation is the manner that the combat units are portrayed in the miniature wargame rules Napoleon's Battles. No individual Bn/Regt size combat units, only large Brigade size masses. However, aggreagation of these units allows it to preserve the overall effect and outcome of all the entitites operating within this Brigade size area of operation. Minus the detail of course. Regards, Analsim |
Cardinal Ximenez | 04 Jul 2014 8:49 a.m. PST |
I'm often wary of algorithms and the proverbial "smartest people in the room" syndrome unless they're coupled with a significant degree of experience in the related field. You could easily come up with the perfect product from a marketing research perspective that no one likes or wants to play. I can remember numerous new musical acts whose credentials and technical prowess were beyond question but the end result was just "not good" from a listener's standpoint. It's never a bad thing to start with a framework/plan but "seat of the pants development" has it's place as well. It's only messy when you don't do any research at all in the early stages. One last thing, it's rare for a customer to tell you what they want. It doesn't happen as often as you might think. DM |
Murphy | 04 Jul 2014 8:58 a.m. PST |
|
Great War Ace | 04 Jul 2014 9:14 a.m. PST |
Well, this went south. Bye, bye, Sam
. |
altfritz | 04 Jul 2014 10:44 a.m. PST |
Well, that was a whole lot of twaddle! |
doc mcb | 04 Jul 2014 11:34 a.m. PST |
I can't believe I read all this. And I am very sorry to see Sam go. And I love playing in Howard's games. |
toofatlardies | 04 Jul 2014 12:25 p.m. PST |
This is a whacky moment, and probably one where I should lurk in the background. But, there are times when one needs to nail one's colours to the mast; and this is it. There are two sorts of people who get noticed in this hobby: those who do, and those who make a lot of noise. Sam, without doubt is a man who does and, over many years and many sets of rules, has made a positive contribution to the hobby. He, in my books, is a man who has done something. His mark is made and we respect him for it. On the other hand, we have people who simply make a lot of noise. They shout down those whose ideas differ from theirs. They are not open minded, allowing people with a different approach to co-exist: No: They want everyone to share their view of the hobby. So now it seems that we have lost Sam, a real mover and shaker in the hobby, and we get to keep the self-important, self-promoting nobodies who have simply managed to shout the loudest. If we seriously want to make TMP a forum for high quality debate about the hobby, and God knows Bill works hard enough to provide us with an international forum, then it would be a damnably good start for people to start to respect the views of those whose opinions do not perfectly match their own. People like Sam who write rules which are enjoyed by gamers across the globe SHOULD be here so that we can interact with them. Surely we are better placed with the leading exponents of the hobby here with us? It's a general observation which I hope most of us can agree with. But, really, OSchmidt, you should try to accommodate the views of others in your world. It is simply good manners to accept that others may have views which differ from yours. Richard Clarke TooFatLardies |
CATenWolde | 04 Jul 2014 1:34 p.m. PST |
|
alexjones | 04 Jul 2014 1:37 p.m. PST |
Well said Richard. Looks like a simple case of jealousy to me, as is often the case with many critics. I know that I for one will miss Sam's input. |
KenofYork | 04 Jul 2014 2:14 p.m. PST |
I think this thread does a better job of providing reasons to not play war games, as it seems to consist of tedious arguments. On the other hand, it can be a bit of fun and I have had a good time watching the story unfold in front of me and try to influence it as the dice would allow. Best advice I can give- only play with people who are like minded. Tournament players should only play tournament players. People looking to create a narrative should stick with their kin. Simulators should simulate, and fun people should play light hearted "beer and pretzels" games. And each group should stop insisting the others are inferior. My order of importance is- narrative-simulation-fun-tournament. I would rather have a root canal than play a tournament player. Some games that are only for fun can be a bit too light for my taste. ( I played a role play game that only allowed me to speak 3 randomly chosen words. It was supposed to be a humorous cave man game but I became very frustrated in a few minutes). So a narrative simulation works best for me I guess. |
Tumbleweed | 04 Jul 2014 4:03 p.m. PST |
|
McLaddie | 04 Jul 2014 4:15 p.m. PST |
I'm often wary of algorithms and the proverbial "smartest people in the room" syndrome unless they're coupled with a significant degree of experience in the related field. You could easily come up with the perfect product from a marketing research perspective that no one likes or wants to play. Don: True, which is why I pay attention to experienced people in a number of related fields, where their experience converges and differs. It's never a bad thing to start with a framework/plan but "seat of the pants development" has it's place as well. It's only messy when you don't do any research at all in the early stages. Well, if you do the research, it isn't quite pure "seat of the pants development" either. Personally, I am all for anything that makes the work easier and more successful. One last thing, it's rare for a customer to tell you what they want. It doesn't happen as often as you might think. Yeah, that's why you ask what they like--now [what they want --in the future--is a different question] If it was what you thought, asking what gamers want wouldn't be an issue. . |
Sparker | 04 Jul 2014 5:32 p.m. PST |
What Richard Clarke said! I will miss Sam's input and hope he can be prevailed upon to return. Love or hate his rules (and I hate half of 'em and love the other half – go figure!) he is undoubtedly one of the contemporary giants of the scene
|
Brian Smaller | 04 Jul 2014 6:13 p.m. PST |
I figure our hobby is so niche that it should encompass all our gaming passions. There are so many rule sets that I have forgotten more than I remember gaming with. I have never had a bad wargame, because I have always gamed with like minded people who like to play with toy soldiers, enjoy the craft aspect of the hobby and an interest in the past (and present and future of warfare). |
Cardinal Hawkwood | 04 Jul 2014 6:50 p.m. PST |
a lot of overthinking going on here. |
fox news tea party | 04 Jul 2014 7:44 p.m. PST |
Well said Mr. Clarke! Even if you don't like my ideas for modifying your rules (no response to PMs on LAF!), you always come across as seriously well-intentioned. I think you even have a fair amount of honest fun with your games. No silliness, mind, but the rules make sense and the mechanics are sound. Then who is he to shoo away a legend like Sam Mustafa? The Cardinal preaches the truth as well: less thinking about all this rubbish, and more painting and playing games! And that's what I'm off to do
ROLL DICE!!!
|
passiveaggressive | 05 Jul 2014 2:28 a.m. PST |
Its playing with toy soldiers. Anyone who thinks its more than that is a moron. |
Tin Soldier Man | 05 Jul 2014 6:59 a.m. PST |
Passiveaggressive. Does that make the military "morons" when they play wargames? |
Dan 055 | 05 Jul 2014 9:11 a.m. PST |
Passiveaggressive, while I'm sure there probably ARE some wargames that could be descibed as for morons, are these the ONLY games you're familiar with? |
Cardinal Ximenez | 05 Jul 2014 9:23 a.m. PST |
TFL wrote: "There are two sorts of people who get noticed in this hobby: those who do, and those who make a lot of noise." Agreed. Failure assumes an attempt was made. Mcl wrote: "True, which is why I pay attention to experienced people in a number of related fields, where their experience converges and differs." "Experienced" can also be divided into the above two groups. When I have a choice between those who tell me how they feel about something and those who tell me what they're going to do about it, I'll take the doer every time. DM |
McLaddie | 05 Jul 2014 12:05 p.m. PST |
Well, I certainly didn't shoo Sam away and I'm sorry he gone too. He is certainly a 'doer' and adds to the hobby. He said he had trouble ignoring me, but always came into discussions after me, like this thread, and even then I didn't comment on his views. Why he didn't simply stifle me, I don't know. The two times I have used the stifle to ignore someone, it has workedfor me. Richard: You went to the Connection Conference for Professional Wargamers put on by military and academic wargame designers. You had some pretty scathing things to say about them. You concluded that: Most academic wargamers and military wargamers have a fixed idea of what a wargame should look like, i.e. on a board or on a computer.Most academic wargamers and military wargamers think they are cutting edge when in fact they are a generation behind recreational wargamers. I can honestly say that I met one chap who actually "got it" and was a shining example of how the military could embrace wargaming. And he had recently retired. Now, should I deal with that as the considered opinion of one experienced game designer on the focus and production of others in an different field? Or The self-important kibbitzing of someone who has not designed a board game and has never produced anything in the way of wargames for military or academic use? [i.e. not a 'doer'] I would think the first response is the only constructive approach and from the sounds of it, not one taken by many at the Connections conference. It is a shame. Others had that experience too. The conference was meant to build 'connections' between wargame designers, but ended up discouraging such sharing in some quarters. It was the first in England, so it could be a learning experience in mixing wargaming communities for everyone. In many ways, Bill established TMP for the same reasons the Connections conference was created: to make connections between a variety of backgrounds and experience. To share the hobby, which on this forum is game design. |
toofatlardies | 05 Jul 2014 1:07 p.m. PST |
Bill you can deal with that however you like. I am at a loss to understand what my comments of last year have to do with my comments of yesterday where I called for an inclusive approach and for people to allow others to hold views which differed from their own. Any clues on that, or are you simply trying to pick a new argument? That said, I stand by my comments last year. The conference was billed as follows: "The purpose of the event is to bring professional wargame practitioners together to share what we are doing and spread best practice. To quote Professor Phil Sabin (Kings College London): 'the trouble is at present that there is too little awareness of what other individuals are doing, and we are losing in terms of mutual support and the sharing of good practice.'" The vast majority of people attending were civil servants whose only real familiarity with "wargaming" was complex computer programmes and who had very little interest in anything which did not fit squarely into that box. As a result there was much focus in the discussions on what they as end users wanted, as opposed to what wargaming could do in its different forms. Major General Sharpe was the only speaker who said anything which encouraged an inclusive approach when it came to different types of wargaming. Indeed one could contrast that with Phil Sabin who made comments in his introduction which were, I felt, quite derogatory about wargaming outside the professional and academic spheres – lack of research, a "finger in the wind" approach. I was not alone in considering that his remarks set the wrong tone from the outset if he was indeed interested in sharing best practice or finding out what other individuals were doing. I know from talking to other delegates who were involved in business wargaming, something I am also involved in, that they too felt almost entirely excluded. In the end the conference focused its attentions on providing commissioning end-users with more of the same. There was little best practice on display and absolutely no finding out what others were doing outside the narrow parameters. In other words it was a missed opportunity, and one that was missed because the organisers were already confident that what THEY were doing was best practice and they had nothing to learn from others. There's nothing new in that sort of arrogance, but is certainly isn't best practice. I do totally agree with you that Bill created an arena where we can come together as a community and learn from others. I said precisely that yesterday. However, it is difficult to achieve such goals if we drive off others by being downright rude and disrespectful of their opinions. |
Patrice | 05 Jul 2014 1:35 p.m. PST |
I am still struggling to understand if all this thread is real or if it's just me having difficulty with the language? ;) |
KTravlos | 05 Jul 2014 10:08 p.m. PST |
When you start obsessing over a hobby it stops being fun. And when it stops being fun, it ceases to be a hobby.Sad to see Sam . |
Cardinal Ximenez | 06 Jul 2014 7:30 a.m. PST |
Omniscience must be awesome. DM |
Eclipsing Binaries | 07 Jul 2014 12:12 p.m. PST |
I started reading this thread after hearing the Sam Mustafa had left TMP. I hadn't known he posted on here and would have liked to have had the chance to talk to him. Oh well. Thanks for that. And apart from that, I think what this thread has mostly achieved is to suck another little bit of joy out of this hobby. Also
As a professional Graphic Designer who has used many tools such as the initial graphic to find marketing solutions I have to add that the graph is deeply, deeply flawed. Obviously you can use immersion or achievement with both many or few players. You can also achieve all the other elements no matter the quantity of players. All four boxes could be thrown in the air and put wherever they land and you could argue whether it works or not
and to what end? You have an analytical tool that doesn't actually analyse anything or offer up any productive answers. Bottom line. No matter how good a game design is, how accurate, how realistic, how much fun it is, the level of enjoyment is only equal to the interaction between individual players and the environment it is played in. Your graph does not take, and cannot take into consideration any realistic variables, and therefor fails in the same way you criticise rules systems for failing. There is only one way to create a game that works. First – create a game system and then play-test, play-test and then more play-test. |
Abwehrschlacht | 08 Jul 2014 1:54 p.m. PST |
|
Royal Marine | 09 Jul 2014 2:53 p.m. PST |
|
McLaddie | 09 Jul 2014 9:25 p.m. PST |
I am at a loss to understand what my comments of last year have to do with my comments of yesterday where I called for an inclusive approach and for people to allow others to hold views which differed from their own. Any clues on that, or are you simply trying to pick a new argument? Rich: Actually, I agree with you about the inclusive approach. I was responding to these comments: <qThere are two sorts of people who get noticed in this hobby: those who do, and those who make a lot of noise. Sam, without doubt is a man who does and, over many years and many sets of rules, has made a positive contribution to the hobby. He, in my books, is a man who has done something. His mark is made and we respect him for it. On the other hand, we have people who simply make a lot of noise. They shout down those whose ideas differ from theirs. They are not open minded, allowing people with a different approach to co-exist: No: They want everyone to share their view of the hobby. Point being is that 'inclusiveness' 1. doesn't divide people up into 'doers' and 'those who make noise'. 2. That division of doers [academics and Military] vs. noise makers[hobby designers is what you faced at Connections, as I said, from what I heard from others, as well your comments. "I know from talking to other delegates who were involved in business wargaming, something I am also involved in, that they too felt almost entirely excluded." Too bad and their loss. I did not 'drive off' Sam or made any suggestion of that desire. I have said the same things to him in personal emails and publically when asked. And obviously, we have had many debates on the very issues over a decade. So, why leave now? All in all, this thread was a train wreck on a fairly simple question about why folks play, which obviously is for fun. It was a question of what kinds. > |
McLaddie | 09 Jul 2014 9:39 p.m. PST |
Also
As a professional Graphic Designer who has used many tools such as the initial graphic to find marketing solutions I have to add that the graph is deeply, deeply flawed. Obviously you can use immersion or achievement with both many or few players. Uh, yeah, that's why it was a quadrant. "Deeply flawed" as what? It was a generalization, with the implicit assumption that any gamer will enjoy gaming for all those reasons to some degree
You can also achieve all the other elements no matter the quantity of players. That is true too. So, if immersion is the play goal, then the numbers of players isn't the issue, is it? If the social interaction is, then numbers do matter. All four boxes could be thrown in the air and put wherever they land and you could argue whether it works or not
and to what end? "The end" for the thread as well as for the game designers who have used it was stated at the beginning of the thread. Of course, the game designers who came up with it and use it have stated how it 'works' for them. The question was where gamers felt they sat on that particular construct of why gamers play, not whether you or anyone had to accept it as The Truth. As stated it was a tool the larger game industry came up with in an attempt to describe why people play
It is even used in the MIT textbook on game design for their degree in simulation and game design. It has had some utility because it is still used and discussed in that multi-billion dollar industry. That is why I was curious about where our hobby wargamers saw themselves on it. Simple curiosity. Obviously, that can kill. |
daubere | 10 Jul 2014 4:57 a.m. PST |
Tenniel was a wonderful artist, does anyone agree?
|
woundedknee | 10 Jul 2014 5:41 a.m. PST |
|
Bandit | 10 Jul 2014 7:44 a.m. PST |
That is why I was curious about where our hobby wargamers saw themselves on it. Simple curiosity. Obviously, that can kill. This had the potential to be a good thread, shame it fell apart. "I play for fun" is a silly answer because it is obviously the case. No one seeks out games they actively dislike to play. This is similar to asking how people decide what they like to eat: When you're deciding what to eat, what do you value: flavor or texture? "I eat things that provide sustenance." Ahuh, detailed thoughts there, so after you've decided to consume things from the general category of human prepared foods rather than tree bark and celery, what criteria do you apply to narrow it? "Sustenance. duh." Ahuh, OK, thanks for playing. Next caller please. Cheers, The Bandit |
Bandit | 10 Jul 2014 7:45 a.m. PST |
For my own answer Bill: immersion & cooperation. Cheers, The Bandit |
Nadir Shah | 10 Jul 2014 9:25 a.m. PST |
Is this an American fight? Did I miss something here between Sam and others? Well not to worry. I play games because I enjoy them. I write and publish games because they are the games I want to play. Oddly enough many others also enjoy them too and that makes me in turn happy. Some do not like my games and that is fine, each man decides his own gaming fate! The only time I get nervy is if someone says something stupid and hasn't actually read or played the games. If it simply they do not like a game mechanic or rather, water off a duck's back :) A certain thick skin is needed as a manufacturer, games designer and retailer, all three of which I have and am still doing! Let live and let live and just focus on what you and your mates enjoy and that is usually enough! |
McLaddie | 10 Jul 2014 3:03 p.m. PST |
Siege: No, it isn't something to worry about. A certain thick skin is needed as a manufacturer, games designer and retailer, all three of which I have and am still doing! Let live and let live and just focus on what you and your mates enjoy and that is usually enough! Here, here! |
McLaddie | 10 Jul 2014 3:12 p.m. PST |
Rich: I can see my response to you was garbled. The text box is not my friend. I agree with your assessment about inclusion I used your comments and experience as an example of how even a conference initiated to make connections between different wargame communities can stumble when judgements are made about who is speaking--doer/insider vs noise maker/outsider--rather than what is being discussed. You experienced being an outsider in a conference dedicated to inclusion. I have a sense that you and other hobby wargame designers were 'written off' as having nothing of value to add to the proceedings. As I said, that was too bad. |
thehawk | 11 Jul 2014 8:21 a.m. PST |
It's strange how two people can read the same thing and form different opinions. I am most likely wrong but from his posts, I formed the impression that Sam often misconstrued comments as personal attacks. I don't think he was forced out at all. Siege Works hit the nail on the head with the comment about only writing and publishing the games that you want to play yourself. A very wise statement. This might explain Otto's advice that opera is a basis for good wargames design. Personally I prefer the kill, maim and destroy version of a different type of Soprano. Boom-Boom. There are just too many differing views for this forum to succeed. I am a member of several design groups on Yahoo. These work well because people share the same view. They knew what the group was about before deciding to join in. And the sign-in process is usually sufficient to deter the village idiots from joining. Sabin was mentioned. He seems to be an historian not a systems designer. Only two types of people go to networking conferences like that – those looking for a day off work and those looking for reassurance of their own worth. The genuine pro's are usually too busy being creative – a lot like this forum in some ways. |
McLaddie | 11 Jul 2014 11:40 a.m. PST |
Sabin was mentioned. He seems to be an historian not a systems designer. Only two types of people go to networking conferences like that – those looking for a day off work and those looking for reassurance of their own worth. The genuine pro's are usually too busy being creative – a lot like this forum in some ways. Ouch. Sabin has been designing games for a long time, and most of the folks there at the Connnections Conference thought they were genuine pro's…including Rich C. |
Tin Soldier Man | 11 Jul 2014 3:32 p.m. PST |
This must be the weirdest thread ever and I am struggling to understand jus what the poking of it all is. I am interested, McLadfie, that on a wargaming forum you say that you say academics and Military are the doers In wargaming, whilst designers of commercial Wargames are just "noise makers". Can I ask what has lead you to that conclusion? |
clarkeshire | 12 Jul 2014 4:23 p.m. PST |
An interesting and sad thread:)…..do you all realise that you are all just playing with Toy Soldiers?:)….I thank any games designer for allowing me to play with my Toy soldiers with rulesets that they have worked upon….others who just talk about it and never contribute to said experience can in my opinion find a new Hobby….gaming is spoilt by by these sort of posts:( Methusalah…. Hopefully Sam will come back… Raise high the black flags, my children. No prisoners. No pity. I will shoot any man I see with pity in him.:) |
Repiqueone | 12 Jul 2014 5:03 p.m. PST |
Nothing is forever. Sam may come back, though like most designers he'll probably post more sparingly. There's simply damn little upside for designers to post frequently here, which is why most do not. The theory of game design is probably best left to those who only deal In theory, so they can theoretically offer hypotheses they they will never put in testable form. Unless it can be pointed to in an existing published recreational wargame example, I suppose they can never be proven wrong. The downside is that if the hobby depended on them, there'd be no rules at all! Two of them have been threatening to publish a set of rules for nearly 15 years now! Another has been telling various rule designers they've got it all wrong for nearly as long. I do believe that these postings are their real hobby. |
McLaddie | 12 Jul 2014 8:57 p.m. PST |
I am interested, McLadfie, that on a wargaming forum you say that you say academics and Military are the doers In wargaming, whilst designers of commercial Wargames are just "noise makers". Can I ask what has lead you to that conclusion? Tin Soldier Man: And yes, it is a weird thread…certainly not one I could have predicted. However, that wasn't my conclusion at all. Read the post. I was pointing out that: 1. It was the conclusion of any number of academic and military designers at the conference about Rich and others who didn't design military and academic wargames. 2. That kind of 'them' and 'us' labels, 'Doers' vs 'noise makers' are too easy to make regardless of a groups' intentions, particularly when the distinctions are based on who the group thinks they are rather than what ideas etc. they bring to the table.
Such as: I thank any games designer for allowing me to play with my Toy soldiers with rulesets that they have worked upon….others who just talk about it and never contribute to said experience can in my opinion find a new Hobby…. 3. Rich's thoughts about the Academics and Military designers sounds in some ways much like some of my comments about hobby designers. |
Tin Soldier Man | 12 Jul 2014 9:45 p.m. PST |
I HAVE. Read your posts, many of them in this thread. The problem is that you don't really make your case very clearly. It's difficult to know what you are intending to say. |
McLaddie | 13 Jul 2014 7:19 a.m. PST |
TSM: With this thread, making any case was like herding cats. I hope I at least clarified my point. Richard C. and other hobby designers were dismissed by a number of the Academics and Military designers because they weren't 'doers': they hadn't created academic or military wargames. Rich's actual experience 'didn't count' and he was relegated to 'noise-maker' status because he had never 'contributed' a single board game, academic or military wargame. They were basically 'invited' to go elsewhere with their ideas when the whole point of the Connections conference was to bring varied design experience together and share ideas. |
Tin Soldier Man | 13 Jul 2014 10:50 a.m. PST |
I see. Thanks for the clarification. In that case, why were miniature game designers invited in the first place? |
arthur1815 | 13 Jul 2014 1:37 p.m. PST |
So the academics and military could enjoy belittling them? So they would have a common 'enemy' to unite against? So they could pinch some good ideas? By mistake? BTW, what qualifies as an 'academic' wargame? Is it one designed by an academic post holder in a higher educational institution for use in said institution, like Professor Sabin? Or does any wargame designed for educational purposes at any level and used for that purpose, no matter who designed it, count? |