"Discussion on the Game" Topic

I became interested in War Games in 1962 with the publication of Joe Moreschauser's "How to Play War Games in Miniature." But the subject of this post is really the period of about 6 years before that, when from the age of 8 on I became fascinated with games. I was not alone, about 7 or 8 of the other kids of the neighborhood had discovered games and we used to play them avidly, often, and with an eagerness that was astounding in retrospect. The game did not matter. It could be Monopoly, Clue, Conflict, or any others including the "Traffic Game " (about driving around a city and not getting tickets) or the game of Life, or the Barbie game, the group which included white, oriental, Latin, and blacks were absorbed in it, and to quote Wells, "
became quite heated about it at that!" Heated here mean't excited, not argumentative. The allure of it was quite obvious- the spell of "Make Believe"-- that is-- of vicariously doing things we could not yet- drive, date, go to the moon, have a life, be pirates and so forth. The games were NOT educatonal in any way (in spite of the fond hopes in parents by the advertising hype of the makes) nor were they predictive of anything and no one thought them to be.

I loaned Moreschauser to the nine members of our adolescent group but none of them picked it up or was fascinated as I was. None of them went into Wargames at all let alone as I did. The gaming group continued until it broke up about four years later when everyone went to high school and their most favorite course was "Bluejeans biology" and real life took over. In retrospect I saw that the times when I attempted to involve them in the game were not successfull and they did not enjoy the game as much as they enjoyed the boxed board games. I didn't understand why then, Now through other experiences think I do.

#1 Authority. – I discovered this about fifteen years ago when Warhammer was all the thing. I was in a shop looking at the minis wondering if I could use them for anything when another gamer came up and asked if I played. I told him that I didn't, I played historical minis. He was unfamiliar with this and I told him about it, and how it was essentially the same hobby as Warhammer. He was shocked and asked the question "Well if you make up your own rules and your own scenarios, what's to prevent you from cheating?How can you make up something an do something that's not sanctioned. By sanctioned he of course mean't approved by the Gods of Battleballpeen etc., He was astounded that anyone would play such a game in the first place, and second, did not see how anyone so unqualified could even hope to have such a game accepted. He was immune to all arguments that the designers of Warwhackker were no better or that people had been doing it since Robert Louis Stevenson, H.G. Wells and G.K. Chesterton (who were they?).

#2 Uncertainty. This was discovered quite early. The other players from the original non-war gaming group were extremely uncomfortable with the idea of moving terrain. That is terrain that would change from battle to battle. They felt they could not develop game play if they didn't know where the obstacles were. That is, in effect, what they objected to was a non-fixed boad like a board game, and also that the forces could change from battle to battle. That is, the formal boxed game. "Everything I did in the last battle is meaningless in this new one.

#3 The craft. Wargames represented for them not a pleasurable experience, a diversion, but a vocation. They didn't want to make up the game as I did with terrain making, painting soldiers, buying soldiers, writing rules etc.

Now so far all of this is mildly interesting but "so what." The "so what" came for me in reading C.G. Lewin's "War Games and their History" ISBN 978-1-78155-042-7. This is a history primarily of board games, but board games entirely pre Avalon Hill and SPI. The book is a wonderful source and it has dozens and dozens of beautiful color photographs of these classic games. Now many of them would be quite silly to us and look very childish, but the artwork is positiviley striking in some, and though this artwork has absolutely nothing to do with the game, it has an evocative quality just as many of the classic games do. Many of them we would consider quite stupid, being simply re-artings of the classic games of "Nine Men's Moris" or checkers or Stratego, or "Game of the Goose" or any of a hunded others and all of them are gridded or bounded or simple race games and in many the rules can be intuited from the illustrations.

But the overwhelming feature of these is that they are "evocative" and alluring . That is, one wishes to play them even thought hey are silly and simple. And that is where this all begins pre-1962, pre-Moreschauser, Pre War Games.

And here comes my observation #4. Each year at "The Weekend" convention in lancaster we have a pile of big flashy-splashy- enormous and small games put on by the GM's . After these are over some go to the Munchie pit for some refreshment and beer, wine or soda. But at the same time they quickly gravitate to other games just starting up, OR they will gravitate to small non-scheduled pick up games which frequently are commercial board games some of which are not war based at all.

But across the two modes of gaming the thing I find is that the moe popular games are the simpler, and that while a game may be vast and visually strking unless they are quite simple in their running, they will not yield lasting player satisfacton nor will the commercial board games that are large and complex either. The attitudes noted in all the examples seem to support this. They want to play not learn rules.

My point now and departure for discussion is the following thesis.

1. What is most important IN a game is what goes on OUTSIDE and AROUND the game, and BEFORE the game.People come to a game wanting to have fun. Fun for them IN the game is the "spirit of play," the sense of make-believe, and at the same time the "Sense of wonder" invoked by the artwork of the board which is the same as the "artwork of the terrin." This physical artwork must be striking even if it is out of scale, inappropriate or outlandish.

2. People want to PLAY the game not learn the game, and that this "playing" the game is on an emotional and visual level, not intellectual. Perhaps the most vibrant example of this was a game at a Historicon convention in a four hour slot, where by hour three the GM was still explaining the rules. He originally had a crowd of 12, by the time he started, he had a crowd of 2, himself and his friend who already knew the rules.

3. Peoples "Playing" the game takes place largely in their heads and imaginations, wether it's leading the charge of the Light Brigae or knowing that you're going to take Barbie to the prom. Therefore anything that takes them "out of their heads" is not going to help the game.

4. "Equity and Equality" is most important in the game, far beyond realism or accuracy. People want to feel they have and equal chance against the other guy(s) regardless of realism or the situation. Balanced inequality works but poorly, and people somehow feel they are being cheated even when they are winning if they are not equal to their opponent. This too is an emotional hold over from real life where nothing is equal and fair. In games this is one of the cardinal desires to depart from real life.

Simple, equal games, even if unrealistic are therefore the best, because the desire of all is not to undo or prove history but to have fun in make-believe.

Excellent points, and matching my own experiences as well. I, too, prefer games where the emphasis is on fun and at least a perceived equality of possibly winning the game, with simplicity of the experience being key. Overdone rules are a mistake in creating mass interest, and handing the newbie the "turkey" forces is a bad idea if you want the newbie to continue to participate.

This doesn't mean that complex games and intricate rules and victory conditions can't be fun— but that fun is going to be restricted to those willing to spend time learning and playing the game repeatedly. That's not a suitable convention experience, but a club or home one.

All of this doesn't mean the forces have to be perfectly balanced, and what is meant by perceived equality is up to the individual. I participated in a Wings of War game that was a Zeppelin bombing run. The Zeppelin, of course, could only really move straight forward, and whether or not he could shoot anything was entirely dependent on where the biplane players happen to end their move; the Zeppelin had no way to "catch" anyone in a firing arc through its own actions. I saw this from the start, and indeed the game's presenter had no intention of assigning the Zeppelin to any player. But a young boy saw the Zeppelin as "the big bad battleship" and excitedly asked if he could control it. He spent the game delightedly picking the dirigible up and moving it forward and handing cards to whomever happen to blunder into his guns. He didn't care that he was only fulfilling an essentially automated role, or that winning or losing the scenario would be entirely determined by everyone else. To him, he had The Big Gun, and that was "equal" and that was "fun." In the same way, someone might enjoy the role of the plucky-but-hopeless lost battalion (or what-have-ye), while another prefers the nigh-indestructible super tank. That can be great fun for everyone.

But in the main, I think that in a convention game, the equal forces approach is indeed the most likely to be enjoyed by any participant.

First off … well done!

I agree with Parzival about there being an interaction between your points 3 & 4 in terms of immersion in the milieu influencing what is percieved as being "fair".

Generally, I think it is a good idea to have "balanced forces" for a convention game. I think people are perfectly willing (and often excited or proud) to play an underdog, but to be invested in the underdog, they have to have chosen to play it. Not happened to walk up at the "wrong" time or had it arbitrarily assigned to them.

I think your point two about wanting to play the game also has some influence on the perception of fairness. Part of playing the game is feeling that your decisions had a significant influence (to your advantage or detriment) to the outcome. If I started the game surrounded in a bad spot of terrain near Little Big Horn, I may not feel like what I did made any difference in what happened.

That leads to another point … feedback. To achieve the immersion, play, and sense of fairness the game has to provide me some feedback on how I am doing. One of the simplest types of feedback to grasp and (oh, I hate saying this, but …) quantify in a tabletop game is attrition of enemy units. "I am in ur base, killin' ur d00dz!" may be easier to relate to than "Wow! You aren't dying out as rapidly as you might have had you done something else."

That said, I like to have asymmetric (run the roadblock) or third party objectives (destroy/protect some resource) for my convention games, and seem to have success in terms of players having a good time.

I wholeheartedly do agree with the first point that you do need something to visually capture attention and draw players in, in the first place. While I am certainly not a master craftsman in terms of minis and terrain, I'm not too shabby at making a thing or two that makes you look twice. [This officer's men would follow him to the ends of the Earth, if only out of morbid curiosity.] I think one of my greatest successes in that vein was a set of small 18th Century textile factories for a Luddite Rebellion game. While not especially visually spectacular, they were so not what everything else here is that they drew attention.

All true, Otto, and yet . . .

the gaming experience you describe so colorfully and so well is not the whole story of what games are about. You have put your finger on the aspects of games that appeal to the vast majority of game players, but there are those who achieve a satisfying immersion through, for example, the mastery of a long and complex set of rules. No, really! Have you ever observed the passionate dedication of the fans of games like (just to name two examples) Starfleet Battles or Squad Leader?

While these gamers are admittedly a minority, they are going to be even more scarce (read "absent") at an event like The Weekend, which is promoted as a gathering of people who don't like the kinds of games they enjoy. I'm not sure it's reasonable to draw conclusions about gamers in general (which you have done on more than one occasion) from observing the attendees at The Weekend, any more than it would be reasonable to observe several pie eating contests and then conclude that nobody likes cake.

Someone who wanted to make a game that would appeal to the widest possible audience would do well to heed your observations, but it's a good thing that not every gamemaster, or chef, or movie director, or musician aims at the widest possible audience, or we would miss out on some very fine things.

I'm not saying you're wrong ('cause you're not); I'm just saying that it's not a complete picture.

With great respect,

Jeff

Very excellent discussion and great insight all around. Bravo Boys !!!

I agree with others above; I think you've reached an overzealous conclusion.

Simple, equal games, even if unrealistic are therefore the best, because the desire of all is not to undo or prove history but to have fun in make-believe.

This is true of introductory level games at conventions, or any situation where the GM is recruiting random strangers into a game they may never have played before. But conventions are not the only places we play wargames, and not all games at conventions are meant for teach-me-now players. For example:

• I play plenty of complex games with small cadres of like-minded players who enjoy the same rules or obscure periods, sometimes at a fellow gamer's house (or my own), sometimes at a club meeting, sometimes at a convention.
  
• Wargame tournaments continue to be popular and appealing, but a player who enters one without knowing the rules is frowned on and might even be excluded if his/her ignorance proves too big an obstacle to the tournament proceedings.
  
• I've played in (and sometimes run) games where it was clear a walk-by player would not be allowed in, and foreknowledge of the rules was a prerequisite to being invited to play.
  
• As Jeff pointed out, intensely detail-heavy games (like ASL and Seekrieg V) still have a dedicated cadre of players, and there are plenty of examples of even less complex rules that still seem unnecessarily complicated to bystanders but deeply satisfying to the adherents.
  
• Wargames campaigns usually feature a number of severely lopsided games. These can still be fun if the player of the losing side has an objective besides winning the current battle, and knows he can achieve it despite a severe check or loss.
  
• It's harder to make severely lopsided one-off games fun, but it can be done with compensatory victory conditions. I've have started most of my AWI games with the explanation that the rebels are almost *certain* to lose the battle, but can easily win the scenario on victory points if they're dogged and vicious enough. This refocuses players on the objectives instead of the immediate results, and helps losing players enjoy the game even while getting kicked around like a football. There are lots of people who enjoy desperate last stands.
  
• I refuse to believe that the way to make the Alamo a fun game is to reduce the number of Mexican troops or give the Texans machine guns. There's only one way a game of the Alamo should end, everybody knows it, and it draws a big crowd anyway (if it's attractively modeled).
  

Personally I am not attracted toward artificially balanced games with simplified mechanics. It's not that I prefer complexity – I don't. I just prefer that all the aspects I consider important to the period are simulated somehow, and most "simple" or "fast play" systems achieve a shallower learning curve by simply leaving out the things that "more complicated" games included. Worse, I find that as players grow more familiar with such "simple" games and the background of the period simulated by them, they start adding house rules and special rules and other chrome that eventually bring them up to the same complexity as the "too complicated" games the rules were supposed to supplant – only these additions are in the player's heads, not printed in the official rules or supplements where I can read them myself.

- Ix

Having said all that, I totally agree that presentation is critical to miniatures gamers. I've seen crappy games draw huge crowds because the terrain and/or miniatures were irresistably pretty, and I've seen excellent games flop because the owner didn't put enough effort into making it look nice. We play miniatures games because of the fun toys. If it were only about the simulation, it would make more sense to stick to boardgames or computer games, which do a better job of simulating war in most cases.

- Ix

The point that I am making in the dissertation is that the essence of the appeal of GAMES, of which war games are a part (and a numerically trivial part at that) is that the appeal of games is to the emotions, that is in the limbic or cerebellum, not in the cerebrum. They are especially an appeal to the senses and the passions, not to the intellect. Complex games cannot but remove this immediacy of emotion, of passion, and the gratification of those passions, and these destroy the game. Worse! they destroy the willingness to game in the individual because they destroy the very reasons for playing the game.

Further it is pure folly and illusion to think that most people will wish to advance past this very basic level of play and make-believe. The number of people who enjoy these monstrously convoluted and complex games is vanishingly small among an already vanishingly small population. Nobody ever advertises such rule systems with the words "enormusly detailed and tremendously complex" or "not playable in less than sixteen hours." To return though what all the incidents in the dissertaton point to is that most people want what they get from all games which is excitement, riskless danger, and a picture in their own mind of derring do and excitement. The learning curve is not only unimportant to them, it is exacty what they don't want to do. That is an appeal to the passions and emotions in a rapid pace. Such passions and emotions will be excited only by the visuals and sense of wonder on a table top and a game. No one is going to get all oogly about pages and pages of charts and data that one must wade through or 252 modifiers.

My point again, is that the major points of engagement is the passions, the emotions, the excitements. that is what players want in the game, any game, and that is why the other games were such a big part of my post.

how would chess or bridge fit in to this view of games as only appealing to emotions? I get a great deal of enjoyment from learning rules and understanding how they interact to make complex scenarios.

Is it possible that when people start to play games that the points you make are what draw them in, but after understanding the tactics that can be used with simpler games they want to move onto more complex games to achieve that same sense of rules mastery that I enjoy?

thanks

We play miniatures games because of the fun toys.

From the sample set of convention players, you have a small amount of time in one shot to evaluate whether or not you want to play. The visual aspect of the game is your best indication of how much effort went into "the game". Of course, there is no real tight binding between effort in how it looks and effort in how it plays.

how would chess or bridge fit in to this view of games as only appealing to emotions?

Beyond the learning level, bridge and chess are both about playing your opponent(s) (or with your partner), not the game.

Chess is a "true game." Wargames and all the rest I have been talking about are "real games."

A "True Game" is a game which you could package up and make the rules in anagrams and the intelligent bees of Tau Ceti 4 would be able to play it without ANY knowledge of what kings, bishops, queens etc., are for.

A "Real Game" is a game which requires a knowledge of reality to make it work. That is you must know the "reality" that the game is a mere pantomime of, a mere bit of mummery of to make it work. How it appeals as a substitute reality to the emotions or how it compares with reality in it's execution is the key element. You can't have the game without the reality. It makes no sense otherwise, but the only "sense it makes" is to the emotions.

On the other hand some players create whole emotional stories in their mind about a simple game of chess. It does not matter if they lose, only if they make certain moves or gratify certain passions. See Maury and Silver "Flirtation and Ambiguity" for an example where they use the idea of flirtation as comparing it to chess, and saying "No one makes the moves for the pleasure of just making certain moves." But later on they do admit that this is a part of the play.

But Chess does not require a tallying with reality, as I've said many times bishops in reality do not move catty-cornered up and down a street ricocheting off the edges of the white-picket fences, and castles don't move at all.

The games you are talking about with the extreme complexity can never be true games. Indeed, it would be a negation and refutation fo the very idea of games with 252 modifiers, vast compendia of charts and cases, all of which are there simply to give the illusion that the game is realistic. After all there's no real justification for them if NOT to make the game more realistic. If you just want a brain teaser of complication thans tudy canon law.

The definitions of "real game" and "True Game" are my own.

A "Real Game" is a game which requires a knowledge of reality to make it work. That is you must know the "reality" that the game is a mere pantomime of, a mere bit of mummery of to make it work. How it appeals as a substitute reality to the emotions or how it compares with reality in it's execution is the key element. You can't have the game without the reality. It makes no sense otherwise, but the only "sense it makes" is to the emotions.

This is an interesting dichotomy. If taken as something other than sophistry, your 'real game' is close to the description of a simulation game.

But Chess does not require a tallying with reality, as I've said many times bishops in reality do not move catty-cornered up and down a street ricocheting off the edges of the white-picket fences, and castles don't move at all.

That may be true now, but Chess, and specifically European Chess started out as a Real Game using your definition.

The Castles represented the ability to 'make boundaries' in war by building castles. Bishops were very much lords of their own lands during Medieval times and controlled church boundaries which crisscrossed manor lands, hence the different but similar moves between castles and bishops. Knights and pawns strike to the left of or right because that is how soldiers struck over or around their shields. Knights, being on horseback, are the only pieces capable of moving over/through others.

Queens were made the most powerful piece with moves combining those of a bishop and castle because she commanded when her lord was gone and was often seen as the 'glue' that bound the church and state together as a social entity for her lands.

This is all representative of the reality that they lived in. It means nothing to us now. Chess was a real game that has, over the years, become a true game. It not only is based on what was in the mind of the designer, but also as you note, "How it appeals as a substitute reality to the emotions or how it compares with reality in it's execution is the key element. You can't have the game without the reality. It makes no sense otherwise, but the only "sense it makes" is to the emotions.

If taken as something other than sophistry, your 'real game' is close to the description of a simulation game.

Actually, I would go the other way. A simulation or wargame are both 'true games', that is collections of rules that can be executed without an understanding of what they represent in the real world.

A computer simulation is the extreme case, as the computer that executes it has no "understanding" of what it is doing. If you change the Pk of this against that from 0.42 to 0.97, the computer doesn't care; it simply multiplies the different number. A human playing the game may "see" an increase in "the effectiveness of firepower" in the results, but the computer won't (though, through branching logic, it may follow a different set of commands (that were all there in the first place) in execution).

The idea of a tabletop wargame as a 'true game' has been addressed above, by the Yellow Admiral and others. Playing WH40K (f'r'ex) as a collection of rules, stats, conditions, and environments without buying into any of the background is possible. In fact, it is pretty much the only way for mini-max players (or powergamers) to operate.

It is not necessary to play a tabletop as a 'true game'. You could go to the other extreme and play it as a 'real game' entirely. In fact, GW might be quite happy indeed if every time a Space Marine was killed in a game, its body was disposed of and you bought a new one to take its place.

I think most people play somewhere in between, gaining some pleasure from playing the rules and some from playing the milieu. I would guess the balance for an individual changes from game to game, day to day, situation to situation, and likely as time progresses inside a single encounter.

I have noticed the last behaviour in myself and others. When I am winning, I am more likely to rest my mind in the milieu. However, if my hindquarters are being served to me on a silver platter, I tend to "buckle down" a little more and play more "seriously". Except, of course, when I play Somali Warlord #3, in which case taking brash, ill-advised action is playing in the milieu.

@McLaddie – Didn't know that about European chess. Cool. Thanks.

Actually, I would go the other way. A simulation or wargame are both 'true games', that is collections of rules that can be executed without an understanding of what they represent in the real world.

I have found that, in general, a game as a simulation doesn't work if the players don't know what the mechanics represent. It isn't only emotional. Simulations require an intellectual connection too. They can't use the simulation as a 'real game'. Ignorance of what reality the design represents makes play de facto, a true game like present day Chess.

Yeah, you bet. The evolving design history of chess is fascinating. I have found that most True Games found today started as OSchmidt's 'Real Games' for the most part, from GO to Chinese Checkers and Monopoly.

If at any point in a game you say "That's not realistic" or that's not what really happens, then you do not have a "True Game." You have by definition a "Real Game." Where reality is indispensable to the game. With the frightening that this occurs in "simulations" it is impossible to have a "true game" and worse- one wonders if one has a game at all as there is no emotional content and passion other than anger that it violates the tenets of reality.

With the frightening that this occurs in "simulations" it is impossible to have a "true game" and worse- one wonders if one has a game at all as there is no emotional content and passion other than anger that it violates the tenets of reality.

I'm not sure I follow this. Could you elaborate?

I have found that, in general, a game as a simulation doesn't work if the players don't know what the mechanics represent.

A game in general (which is not what you meant, but give me some rope :) may not actually represent anything. Something like Tetris or Bridge does not represent any real world activity. However, we get the occasional example of something like FoldIt, where the 'true game' simulation represents something in reality that the participants have absolutely no comprehension of. In fact, part of the intent of FoldIt was to enable lots of people to try 'possibilities' in the state space that were not influenced (read: restricted) by subject matter expertise.

A wargame has an inherent 'real game' component, that it is intentionally trying to represent some type of violent conflict (though occasionally we 'wargame' economic activities, etc.). I think because you begin with a large percentage of inherent mechanic-to-reality parallels, people demand it from all the mechanics. And often, players over-relate the mechanics to real world things, such as mentally considering one die roll to explicitly parallel one bullet (in an Old West game) or one automatic weapon volley (in a modern conflict).

So, I agree that for people to use a wargame simulation in a reasonable manner, they have to develop some type of parallel between real world events and the mechanics, but …

If at any point in a game you say "That's not realistic"

Whether it is or not. The standard for detachment (pulling yourself out of immersion) is not correlation with reality but rather correlation with your expectations of reality (of the milieu, which may be fictional).

I think expectations are part of what the OP is getting to. People have their expectations about the type of gaming expericence they want and have to make judgements (quick, walk up ones or register for the tourney weeks in advance ones) about what they are doing.

So, if their expectations are aligned in a specific way, I think people can easily treat a simulation as a 'true game' of interaction with pure mechanics devoid of real investment in the milieu. Again, I fall back to the example of min-maxers and powergamers … they are truly playing the 'game' and not experiencing the milieu.

So, I agree that for people to use a wargame simulation in a reasonable manner, they have to develop some type of parallel between real world events and the mechanics, but

etotheipi:

From my experience, the designer has already created the wargame around specific "parallels between real world events and the mechanics". If the gamer is then left on their own to 'develop' some sort of understanding of the parallels, you are just begging for disconnects and misunderstandings.

And often, players over-relate the mechanics to real world things, such as mentally considering one die roll to explicitly parallel one bullet (in an Old West game) or one automatic weapon volley (in a modern conflict).

That 'over-relating' is just one of those misunderstandings.

If at any point in a game you say "That's not realistic"
Whether it is or not. The standard for detachment (pulling yourself out of immersion) is not correlation with reality but rather correlation with your expectations of reality (of the milieu, which may be fictional).

Those 'expectations' are what the simulation designer has to directly engage, clearly delineating the correlations between reality and the game play or he is simply inviting those disconnects where the players keep popping out of the 'magic circle' of immersion and pretending.

That is what hobby designers fail to do in any consistent manner and the resultant disconnects [imagined, fantasy or historically-based] dominate many of the wargame 'discussions'on historical representation.

I wrote an article about these issues in Miniature Wargame #362 in response to Ross McFarlane's previous article asking "Whose History?"

Those 'expectations' are what the simulation designer has to directly engage

But there is not absolute standard for what different people expect. So …

the designer has already created the wargame around specific "parallels between real world events and the mechanics".

… based on their interpretation of what is and isn't important. In a tabletop wargaming environment where players the designer hasn't met will be playing, it is not possible to close those gaps. Even in a formal environment where the focus of the simulation is well-known, it is hard.

I had a user detach from a simulation because he was shot by a unit after he killed it. From his perspective.

From a more global perspective, he was shot by another unit working in tandem with the one he killed. From a "realism" perspective that was a typical tatic. Given the geometry, the user would have never detected the second unit. In the situation where the first unit came under fire, the reasonable expectation is counterfire at a target that has pretty much given away his location (sufficient for an accurate shot) by firing.

This isn't the only "no win" conflict between a simulation designer carrying out the intent of the sim and the expectations of the user; it's just an easy one for demonstration.

If a wargame participant expects six shots in a gun (which may not apply) and that ammunition management must be handled explicitly (we can't assume trained people just know how and when to reload in combat), then without that, there is a disconnect.

I think the only real way to mitigate the issue is to be as clear as possible about what the intent of your wargame is (and a bit about what it is not). That said, I have still received negative feedback about a scenario because it didn't do something I explicitly said it wasn't going to do. Moreover, it was criticism of the applicability of the system to the task, not my implementation or my decision not to include that element.

It's a tough row.

… based on their interpretation of what is and isn't important. In a tabletop wargaming environment where players the designer hasn't met will be playing, it is not possible to close those gaps. Even in a formal environment where the focus of the simulation is well-known, it is hard.

Sure it is. Those gaps are created by a lack of information. The game can only do so much. IF the players know 'how much' that is and where, they make want more and may not like what has been offered, but the majority of the gaps disappear. Providing the right information on a game designed to represent *something* fails if the players fault it for not representing something else it was never designed to do in the first place.

I had a user detach from a simulation because he was shot by a unit after he killed it. From his perspective.

From a more global perspective, he was shot by another unit working in tandem with the one he killed. From a "realism" perspective that was a typical tatic. Given the geometry, the user would have never detected the second unit. In the situation where the first unit came under fire, the reasonable expectation is counterfire at a target that has pretty much given away his location (sufficient for an accurate shot) by firing.

This isn't the only "no win" conflict between a simulation designer carrying out the intent of the sim and the expectations of the user; it's just an easy one for demonstration.

No, it isn't. And every conflict negates what the simulation was designed to do, not because of the gamer's expectations conflicted with the designer's intent, but that the gamer was ignorant of the designer's intent, so inserted his own.

I think the only real way to mitigate the issue is to be as clear as possible about what the intent of your wargame is (and a bit about what it is not).

Yes, and there are several ways to do that. But it is the only way.

That said, I have still received negative feedback about a scenario because it didn't do something I explicitly said it wasn't going to do.

Well, at least you have a clear response to that off-target negative. That happens, but not anywhere near the frequency of gamers detaching from the sim not clear at all about the intent.

Moreover, it was criticism of the applicability of the system to the task, not my implementation or my decision not to include that element.

Well, I don't think that being clear will eliminate criticism [though I am not sure what that means, "Applicability of the system to the task." The conflict simulated in the scenario?]

It's a tough row.

Putting any creative endeavor is tough. However, I think there is a lot a simulation/wargame designer can do to lessen and focus such criticism while upping the odds of their wargame 'working' for players, which is the real point. After all that effort to design a system that simulates, it is a shame when many gamers completely miss the what and how of that in play.

The question is what information in what format is the best for communicating that clarity of intent for gamers.

@Otto – like your 4 points

Simple, equal games, even if unrealistic are therefore the best, because the desire of all is not to undo or prove history but to have fun in make-believe.

I have been thinking along the lines of "A wargame is a game of chance and skill with a military flavour"

So it is up to the individual what constitutes "military flavour" which means however good your rules are, someone won't like them

What are the most famous games that have persisted ? Simple equal ones. Monopoly, backgammon, card games and so on. Play some games with kids. They won't play games where they don't think they have a chance of winning, and can't cope with complex rules.

On the equal thing. How many battles were between equal forces ? The best generals outmaneuvered their opponents so the battles wasn't equal. I believe Sun Tzu had something to say along those lines. So we are going to have to take some historic license to get equal games, but this is what we should be doing

because the desire of all is not to undo or prove history but to have fun in make-believe.

John

Simple, equal games, even if unrealistic are therefore the best, because the desire of all is not to undo or prove history but to have fun in make-believe.

From what I have read of game descriptions and promos, undoing or proving history [re-living it] is a fundamental element of that make-believe.

I have yet to see a designer promote his rules set on that basis, other than 'simple'. If that is the desire of all, most all hobby designers have missed that universal desire. Why is that, do you think?

Most all game descriptions claim that the gamer will face the same command challenges as the real commanders, simulate combat and recreate battles. Want some examples? And those claims are made, regardless of how simple the game mechanics are.

Most all game descriptions claim that the gamer will face the same command challenges as the real commanders,

Without actually counting, I am going to go out on a limb and say that most wargames aren't in a milieu of actual events where there were actual commanders. The existence of 40K, Necromunda, Cthulu, and 6.5B (or so) zed games makes me confident in that statement. Speaking of which, just picked up Triassic Terror yesterday. (Not played yet.)

The question is what information in what format is the best for communicating that clarity of intent for gamers.

Which gets back to the diversity of mindsets and expectations of the audience (and designers). While I disagreed with your generalization about designer intent above, I also disagree with the one you are disagreeing with.

I think the variety of intents by both designers and gamers is too broad to treat as a single thing. Even when you narrow the field down to a very specific subset, it is difficult (and if you believe Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem applies, it is impossible) to cover all the bases. And very resource intensive to cover most of them.

Here we are, assembled for a military training simulation, with our intents:
* I'm here because I have to be here.
* I'm here to learn about my current job.
* I'm here to learn about my next job.
* I'm here to practice things I already know.
* I'm here to get a good grade.
* I'm here to avoid my day job for a week.
* I'm here to learn about the new command I just reported to last week.
* I'm here to place fill because I am leaving this command next week.
* I'm here to inculcate my command posture to my troops.
* I'm here to figure out how little I can do to get by.
* I'm here to figure out how to improve our current doctrine.
* I'm here to practice task A.
* I'm here to learn task B which depends on task A.
* and so on…

Of course, all these views are distributed among the participants, and participants aren't limited to one objective. Their emphasis of their different objectives will change as the simulation progresses, based on different factors.

The one thing you can fix is the designers' intent. If you can get that to a formal specification, that is a win. Then you are stuck with explaining it in natural language (as your participants aren't all (or very many of them) experts in the formal specification), across multiple contexts.

While I disagreed with your generalization about designer intent above, I also disagree with the one you are disagreeing with.

Well, if you include all fantasy and SF games with historical wargames, I would also have to disagree with myself.

The question is what information in what format is the best for communicating that clarity of intent for gamers.

I think the variety of intents by both designers and gamers is too broad to treat as a single thing. Even when you narrow the field down to a very specific subset, it is difficult (and if you believe Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem applies, it is impossible) to cover all the bases. And very resource intensive to cover most of them.

etotheipi:

That broad variety is the whole point. What I meant has nothing to do with 'covering all the bases' there. With so many, as you say, it is impossible. The individual game designer has his intent. For his game, it is a single *thing*, the focus of the design. In many ways, that is what he is selling.

So "the question is what information in what format is the best for communicating that clarity of intent for gamers."

And I say that because a great deal of the controversy around historical wargames at least is generated by the muddle of intentions and the lack of clarity concerning what 'the game is supposed to do' in regards to history--and even fun, because there is a wide variety in that experience too. That is one reason I get nervous when someone insists that everyone wants X from their games.

As you say:

The one thing you can fix is the designers' intent. If you can get that to a formal specification, that is a win. Then you are stuck with explaining it in natural language (as your participants aren't all (or very many of them) experts in the formal specification), across multiple contexts.

So, the issue is how to best communicate the designer's intent in natural language.

Of course, all these views are distributed among the participants, and participants aren't limited to one objective. Their emphasis of their different objectives will change as the simulation progresses, based on different factors.

Of course. There is no reason the players should be limited to one objective in play… However, the game design will focus on the designers' objectives. That is what the system is designed to do and what should be clearly articulated for the player. Wargames can also be designed to allow inclusion of other, participant objectives, but that too is a designer decision and a set of methods.

The impact of those multiple objectives in play is one reason for play-testing. And knowing your audience is a big factor also in addressing the variety of gamer desires and intentions.