"Realism is overrated" Topic

Yes, evoke is probably the operative verb here. For me, the "evocative scale" runs from, "chess pieces with Napoleon and Josephine" to "equivalent of counters with varying degrees of period chrome and flavor, to 1:2 figure ratios and accurate ground scales with enforced period methods. The width of that scale creates quite nice range of evocative comfort zones. (Imho)

jeffreyw3

So how does one evoke a historical period, a battle with a wargame design? The question is one that a number of artists ask, particularly fiction writers. And they have to work in the most abstract of mediums: the printed word. James Hynes in Writing Great Fiction: Storytelling Tips and Techniques says this:

The idea of evocation is at the heart of all fiction; it's the thing that allows a fictional story to lodge itself ineradicably, emotionally in the hearts of readers. In English, when talking specifically about art and literature, the dictionary definition of evocative is "tending by artistic imaginative means to recreate… especially in such a manner as to produce a compelling impression of reality."

To produce a ‘compelling impression of reality.' Well shoot. That's what wargame designs aim to do. So how is it done?

Writers often use the old saw of "Show, Don't Tell" as the quick reference for how to build evocative stories. So what is the difference between showing and telling?

The amount and quality of the detail in any passage. ‘Showing' always has more.

For game design, that's were it gets interesting. Just like a novel, the details in a wargame are what make it evocative in play, and evocation is what turns a narrative into a compelling story in a book or on the game table.

For example, here are two description of a wargame event:

The cavalry unit charges infantry up a hill, loses two strength points and retreats.

The Union Brigade is ordered to assault the French Young Guard forming squares at the top of the rise. The dragoons struggle up the slope only to be met by a hail of volley fire, horses reeling back, colliding with troopers further down the slope. Among the churning chaos of flailing hooves and swearing troopers, Colonel Whitethorn has the bugler sound the retreat.

Now which account is more detailed? Which account is more evocative? Which account is more compelling? Which account is more abstract? Which takes longer to read?

So at least one major way to create evocative play for the game is in the amount and quality of the detail. What is encouraging is that with a game, showing, not telling is centered around what the gamer is doing… not being told. So it is a balance between too much detail and the right detail for the novelist or the game designer. And as you noted there are different ways to provide that evocative detail in a game.

Well put, Mcladdie!

We are having THAT discussion. Again.

Good grief, this drivel again?

I find this topic intriguing every time it comes up, even with the smattering of pointless and unhelpful responses.

Who is forcing you to read it?

What would motivate you to contribute (even a contribution with no value) to a discussion on a subject in which you have no interest?

Is the implication that no one should be allowed to discuss topics you find to be tiresome?

I'd go along with Fritz and say fun and plausible works for me.

Christopher

People who make a fetish of realism are usually the types who think if they win a game of Afrika Korps they are a nascent military genius, an undiscovered Napoleon, the future emperor of the world. They need super detail and realism to prove chapter and verse their own superiority. They're not looking for gamers and friends, they're looking for worshippers.

Guys who make a fetish of fun are a lot easier on the knees. They also serve better wine, beer and munchies.

Plausable Schmausable. They're toy soldiers. I'm with Phil.

Guys like me

Now, Otto, play nice. Yanking chains will not advance the conversation, and if you have a point to make, the best way to make is not:

1. Trot out the old "realism and fun are mutually exclusive" myth, mix in a barely concealed insult directed at anyone who plays games that are not like yours, and disguise it as pseudo-psychoanalysis.

2. Wait for someone to feel slighted and respond.

3. Point to their outburst as proof of your original assertion.

"Guys like you" who have found the style of game that suits them best can be forgiven, I suppose, for thinking that they have discovered some universal truth about gaming, but no one owns the definition of "fun".

Guys like me was a fragment of a former sentence. Means nothing. All I know is whenever I met a guy who was a fetishist for realism, he was an extremely unpleasant person.

Realism??? really???

1. Physically nothing is in scale, nothing is in proportion, the terrain is way out of proportion to the troops and the table top. 100 yards, effective range for a musket, at 25mm is 50" of table top and everyone would be almost within canister range on turn1.

2. The rules. They are merely derivative and represent the prejudices of the game designer and nothing more. If the guy likes the French all French are +3. Why? Because if they're not +3 then gamers who Aren't nascent Napoleons won't get to wind Napoleonicallly. Even at the height of his powers his Marshalls rarely had the stuff to pull it off, and so because gamers want to feel Napoleonic, they make it an individual thing. But if it was an individual thing, then Napoleon's Marshalls would have been buoyed up by their troops.

The difficulties imposed in the game have no relation to reality. The difficulty of hitting a troop formation with a 12 lbder in a game have nothing to do with real life, and are arbitrary tests developed for no other reason than to be overcome and have neither real troops or real 12 lbders in any way. Most of the percentages or tests are pulled out of thin air or some orifice on the game designer.

3. The Scenarios are all "what-Iff's" or fragments with as many additions as one can think of, and no one makes a scenario drawn from history, and no thought is given to what "really happened." And in each period the stars are everywhere- Tigers Tigers everywhere…

Sorry War Artisan, we disagree. There's about much realism in a war game as there is in a Looney-Toon Cartoon.

And Phil is right. Gamers want the cartoon.

4. tests we make are

There are some gamers here getting on their high horses and insisting that their gaming preferences are the best.

Sorry but that is why I play solo: no club cliques and power freaks. There I've said it.

To get back to the OP do we not all strive for a compromise between enough detail (let's call this 'realism' without arguing about the semantics) and an interesting gaming session ('fun' fits the bill) or am I missing something?

detail (let's call this 'realism' without arguing about the semantics)

Nah, can't do it. Of the many definitions of realism, they all contain an element of comparing the game to some real-world referent. There's a big difference between that and detail. You can put a lot of detail into the way you do your taxes without putting in any realism …

The reason I can't let that slide is complexity (how much effort do actions take), level of detail (how much stuff is accounted for), and realism (how much does is reflect or evoke some target experience) can all vary independently of each other in a game design.

I think the big thing people try to balance is operational complexity (how much effort do I put into my decisions within the scenario) and administrative complexity (how much stuff do I have to do to make those decisions manifest). I would say that operational complexity is the fun (if you're playing the right game for you) and administrative complexity is what detracts from it.

Well, within the game, the most evocative aspect of the period has to be the figures themselves…and/or the terrain. Anything after that is simply inventing a reason to have them on the table in the first place. :)

Of the many definitions of realism, they all contain an element of comparing the game to some real-world referent.

That's what I was trying to say, just struggling to find another word for realism/reflection of the real world/acceptably simulated for whatever the players require from a game.

There's about much realism in a war game as there is in a Looney-Toon Cartoon.

OSchmidt:

That's true for many wargames. Alt Fritz said he wants a game to be 'plausible.' Are Looney-Toons plausible?

And Phil is right. Gamers want the cartoon.

So you know what all gamers want? Just that one thing? Really?? IF that were actually true, you should see about 1/3rd of the thread topics that are actually up on the TMP pages.

All I know is whenever I met a guy who was a fetishist for realism, he was an extremely unpleasant person.

Sounds pretty ugly. If by 'fetish' you mean someone with a strong and unusual desire, then the desire for 'realism' isn't all that unusual, not unless you have decided that most wargame designers are 'fetishists'.

People who make a fetish of realism are usually the types who think if they win a game of Afrika Korps they are a nascent military genius, an undiscovered Napoleon, the future emperor of the world. They need super detail and realism to prove chapter and verse their own superiority. They're not looking for gamers and friends, they're looking for worshippers.

So far, I don't see any of that being a part of this discussion, from the need for super detail to the Napoleon complex…unless you are tagging anyone who speaks the dreaded word 'realism' as automatically that 'type.'

If you aren't, why are you ranting about this unattractive character here?

Plausable Schmausable. They're toy soldiers.

Yeah, and we play with them, but they are just the counters we use in the games we play. They are interchangable with cardboard counters. e.g. the recent Blucher

We play games with toy soldiers. Who is arguing that point? This list is about game design. Even those on the toy soldier lists don't confuse the game system with their toy soldiers, as much as they love them.

Personally, I find it hard to see anyone having a 'fetish' for 'realism' in the hobby when it remains so undefined.

How do you overate something that no one has 'rated'?

Of the many definitions of realism, they all contain an element of comparing the game to some real-world referent.

From my experience, that is how simulation designer define 'realism', how well the game system compares to the real-life referent. What those real-life referents are and how the game system mimics them are designer choices.

The comparison determines how well he succeeded in his goal choices.

Agree, except that all referents aren't real life. If I want to design a simulation to evaluate a new tactic in operation, I may pit it against an abstract hypothetical to find the edges of the performance envelope.

The cyber discussion on this board gives a good f'r'instance. I may want to implement a new C2 operational structure. In evaluating it, I could (and I personally would) test it against capabilities for which there are no real life referents.

Maybe I want to see how resilient my C2 structure is, so I look at what happens when it goes down for 10 minutes at the start of an engagement (whatever that is for the particular system of interest).

I may have no actual examples of capabilities (or internal errors) that can do that. I may not be able to extrapolate that capability from a set of known capabilities.

In real life, I would run a range of timings and durations. And none of them would be based on a known referent, only a desired effect.

Which goes back to the OP … part of realism is in our mechanisms, but another part of it is in the effects we generate. Often times in game design, the quest for a desired state of realism is not so much getting more or less realism, but trading off one type of realism for another.

Agree, except that all referents aren't real life. If I want to design a simulation to evaluate a new tactic in operation, I may pit it against an abstract hypothetical to find the edges of the performance envelope

They test cars [and simulations] the same way…create 'unreal', hypothetical situations to find the limits of performance.

Whether it is a real-life referent or hypothetical, you still have those as the template/target/model for what the game system is designed to portray.

When my heavy cavalry/knights crash into a mass of peasants with no armor and no uniformity of weapons/training, and crush them, that seems "realistic" to me. When the very same cavalry try to crash through a line of spears or pikes backed by armor, and fail to crush their way through, that also feels or seems "realistic" to me. Getting both results to typically (not guaranteed, but likely) occur produces realism. It is what a consensus of military historians would agree should happen in either situation, barring freakish outcomes, of course, which are always possible. A game that ALWAYS produced those expected results, as the only possible result, would be unrealistic.

Examples of this can be multiplied endlessly. The game designers know, from their studying of expert seminal source material, and the original sources themselves, that their final product must fall solidly within the expected results for all such modeling of comparisons taken from history.

To design a completely fictitious game, i.e. scifi/fantasy, removes the requirement for realism entirely, or partially, or not a jot, depending on the needs and wants of the designer. Personally, I could never stomach gaming "The Hobbit" the way P. Jackson warped it. To enjoy gaming The Hobbit, I must have armies that behave like the above knights, peasants and pikemen, with the laws of physics kept as firmly in place as in the real world….

Ace:

Your description is common sense and certainly the approach many gamers take in analyzing a game by 'feel'. Much of it has to do with, as you say, adhering to the laws of physics, but mostly it is based on expectations. Those are developed by gamers over years of playing games and reading history among other things. That's fine for the gamer, but what about the game designer?

Let's take those knights as an example. Assume I am a game designer and I've done my extensive studying. I discover that there isn't a single example of knights breaching a shield wall or defeating a spear or pike unit--at all. What do I do?

Do I simply have that portrayed in the rules--as the only possible result ALWAYS? Will gamers with your sense of 'realistic' then label the rules flawed because they don't feel right?

The game designers know, from their studying of expert seminal source material, and the original sources themselves, that their final product must fall solidly within the expected results for all such modeling of comparisons taken from history.

So do they know? Have they done that kind of studying? Have they done as much as you? How do you know that? Designers don't document that at all. Considering how many game designers say they have done years of studying, very little of it is ever seen anywhere. The vast majority of evidence is in abstract game mechanics and that is it.

And then again how does a designer define that area 'solidly within the expected results?' If he's read different works than you, will his 'expected results' feel all solid to you? [like that example above] If they don't, then how can anyone speak of games falling 'solidly within expected results' other than what a majority of the gamers 'expect' for whatever reasons of 'feel'?

There is a lot of history, lots of books and now much more available on the internet, let alone a lot of historians' interpretations and less than solid agreement on any number of 'results.' The odds are that there will be a wide range of conclusions about such things and knights assaulting pikes. i.e. A vast multitude of feelings about such topics.

That leaves a game designer in a quandary. Does he design a game based on the history he knows, hoping it matches what the majority of gamers 'feel' or does he simply go with what he sees as the majority view, games already with acceptable 'feel' and design around that? That requires far less study and promises to be far more acceptable. The latter design choice makes the question "Is Realism overrated" far easier to answer with a yes.

It is what a consensus of military historians would agree should happen in either situation, barring freakish outcomes, of course, which are always possible.

You're not talking about historians, you're talking about operations analysts. That is, your expectations are based on the performance characteristics of forces involved, not on series of past outcomes.

Your expectation of what "freakish outcomes" also seems to be based on an assumption of (piecewise) linear responses to actions, that is, a little change a contributing factor leads to a little change in the outcome and changes to factors in a certain direction almost always lead to changes in outcomes in a specific direction.

This isn't a bad assumption in a lot of military situations. But not all of them.

You're not talking about historians, you're talking about operations analysts. That is, your expectations are based on the performance characteristics of forces involved, not on series of past outcomes.

I am not sure about military historians coming to any sort of consensus on what 'should' happen in a situation… historians are only interested in what did happen in most cases.

etotheipi:

However, do you mean that operational analysts don't pay attention to past outcomes?

However, do you mean that operational analysts don't pay attention to past outcomes?

They don't ignore them, however the outcomes are a very small part of the OA process.

The majority is an iterative process of figuring out (starting with a SWAG) what the important parts of the operation were and then decomposing the entire operation around those important parts for a synthesis of the components discovering a different view of what the important parts of the operation were upon which a new decomposition can be based leading to a synthesis that discovers … well, ya know.

Also, one of the major expenditures of effort in OA is taking these iteratively derived models and injecting new things (tactics, hardware, support doctrine, etc.) into them and trying to understand how the new things would affect the outcomes. Again, the outcomes are important, but only a small part and only important in the context of the other OA work that goes on.

Dredging up the venerable sports metaphor, a coach (well, a good one) doesn't train to outcomes, he trains to teamwork. Score is important in the real matches. But still, a (good) coach will admonish a win built upon sloppy technique and try to reinforce good teamplay executed during a loss.

Going back to military OA, a (good) analyst will analyze your successes as much as your failures (something militaries as a community tend not to do). If we won, we should try to understand the main drivers of that success and project forward the relevance of those main drivers on future engagements.

Looping back to the OP, I feel that the realism of a game is derived from the modeled "important things" and their "relationships" rather than having a better than average chance of resulting in the referent outcome.

The fact that General Buffington-Smythe won the battle of Tuesday doesn't mean that she would have won the "same" battle on Wednesday. Some of the aspects of the battle were within her control, and others weren't. Even if the aspects of the battle that were within the control of all three sides of the battle were held constant, there is no guarantee that these were the main drivers of the outcome.

Here we see the seductiveness of not analyzing our victories. We won because we are better. Obviously. Even if we are "better", that's no guarantee that that's the reason we won.

Plus, I've always found Wednesdays particularly challenging.

Looping back to the OP, I feel that the realism of a game is derived from the modeled "important things" and their "relationships" rather than having a better than average chance of resulting in the referent outcome.

Yes, the game is in the processes, not the results. I always wince when someone says that a game gave 'historical' or 'reasonable' results. I can throw two dice and get a reasonable result for Waterloo.

The fact that General Buffington-Smythe won the battle of Tuesday doesn't mean that she would have won the "same" battle on Wednesday. Some of the aspects of the battle were within her control, and others weren't. Even if the aspects of the battle that were within the control of all three sides of the battle were held constant, there is no guarantee that these were the main drivers of the outcome.

Granted. Yet, if all you have is that Tuesday battle, you certainly are going to try to suess out all that you can in creating a process the 'main drivers.' There are ways to discover the main drivers statistically etc.

Granted. Yet, if all you have is that Tuesday battle, you certainly are going to try to suess out all that you can in creating a process the 'main drivers.' There are ways to discover the main drivers statistically etc.

Absolutely. But there again, you are going to decompose those other referent activities (probably other battles) into their component parts (1) because you will need parts of the other battles to work together with the parts of the Battle of Tuesday, and (2) because you will need to establish some type of correspondence between the main drivers of both the BoT and the other referents to gain confidence that the comparison is legitimate.

In fact, your confidence in your model will be better will be better if you use referents with very similar main drivers but diverse types of outcome (no doubt win, Pyrrhic victory, loss, rout, surrender, etc.). The outcomes are important and part of the process, just not the main lifting.

In fact, your confidence in your model will be better if you use referents with very similar main drivers but diverse types of outcome (no doubt win, Pyrrhic victory, loss, rout, surrender, etc.). The outcomes are important and part of the process, just not the main lifting.

Yes, I agree. So in the end you are doing history [with decomposing ;-7 ] and operational analysis.

The original OP was whether "Realism is overrated."

And my question is how can you tell when realism remains 'unrated'--undefined and vague when applied to game systems. But let me give you an extensive example of that vague application of 'realism'. I just finished reading Wally Simon's Secrets of Wargame Design" Volumes 1 and 2. It was an enjoyable and thought-provoking set of booklets.

In the first Pages of the first section, "The Search for Tabletop Perfection", Wally writes:

I am an admitedly unadulterated, pure-bred gamer--as opposed to a war-gaming simulatorialist (one who stands at table-side and actually imagines he's re-creating what went on the battlefield a hundred or a thousand years ago.)

He explains further in a section "What's Historically Realistic?"

I concentrate on the gaming system. My desire is to produce a game which keeps all players continually busy and interested in what's going on.

Are these games 'historically realistic?" Certainly not! Are any miniature tabletop games 'historically realistic?" You've got to be kidding!…as soon as you start tossing 6-sided, 10-sided, or 20-sided dice to determine combat outcomes, command factor, or morale levels, as far as I'm concerned, you're in la-la land.

Now this is pretty clear, and Wally would obviously go down on the 'overated' side of the question at this point.

But then he writes in the very next sentence:

About the best you can do is mimic the battlefield results in history.

Now, where are we? Not in la-la land if the results of all that die rolling can 'mimic the battlefield results in history.'

But his position on realism gets progressively muddier. In the very next chapter, "ACW Telescoping Battlefield" he starts dissecting a set of rules with four stands representing an entire division:

Let's look at what the division represents in the ACW period. A brigade, we'll say, is composed of about 10 regiments,[to err on the side of conservatism] each with about 300 men. The brigade strength , therefore represents around 3,000 men. Put three brigades together, and we've got a divisional maneuver element of about 9,000 men, plus its artillery.

Right here, we're in trouble. In combat, if a division takes a hit, should we immediately remove one of its four stands, an entire brigade? Does the hit eliminate 3,000 ment? That's not a hit, that's a hydrogen bomb blast!

Who cares if rolling the die for that hit is la-la territory? If Wally only cares about interesting game mechanics and not realism, why is he bothering with this issue or reality? The only question for him should be--are the rules with four stand divisions interesting and fun.

In every chapter, you have the same discussions of 'representing' something real when he has stated that it isn't an interest of his and he feels questions of 'realism' is la-la land regardless.

For instance, in the second volume chapter "Battle-Line Ancient warfare" Wally speculates on "how thought an ancients warfare battle should go.

*Should* go?

'Twas my thought that the commander should devote all his efforts into keeping his battle-line intact.

What does that mean in regards to 'realim?'

Which means that the greater number of current wargames rules on ancients warfare don't really depict 'reality' and 'historical accuracy' and whatever else their authors cry out. For example, each turn, the commander shouts: "NUmidian Archers, run out to the left flank!" and , immediately off run the Numidian Archers…And then he shouts" "Zimbodbwe Heavy Cavalry, charge those unsuspecting Cricassian Kifethrowers!" and, without a moment's hesitation, off gallop the Zimbobwe cavalry.

This sort of thing makes for a good game, but it just doesn't ring true for me, historical buff that I am.M

So, even though the mechanics make for a good game, his stated goal in designing wargames, he then spends several pages describing his efforts to design something that does 'ring true.'

So, exactly how does Wally 'rate' realism? In reading his exploration of wargame design, his stated goals and views of the possibility of realism in games is contridicted and ignored by his subsequent two volumes of design experimentation in the hunt for something that rings true visa vie history and 'reality'.

So is 'realism' overrated by Wally? Reading his "Secrets of Wargame Design" you'd have to come to a definite I "don't know" and "I can't tell."

You find this kind of 'it isn't important or possible, but I'm going to spend a lot of time discussing its presence in wargames anyway' ambivalence regarding realism from many game designers, past and present, let alone gamers.

Bottom line? How can you say "Realism is overrated" when nobody has has even come up with a definition or coherent description that anyone agrees on so it could be rated.

McLaddie wrote:

Bottom line? How can you say "Realism is overrated" when nobody has has even come up with a definition or coherent description that anyone agrees on so it could be rated.

I should have been more careful with choosing a title for the post. A more correct title would have been: "The discussion about achieving realism in miniature wargames is overrated."

Let me explain:

Firrst of all, I do think that certain aspects of realism can be achieved in wargaming. Whether in combat resolution, C&C, morale, … each of these subsystems can most likely be modeled such that they correspond to their historical counterparts. There can be some debate whether we have a good enough ground truth to start from (i.e. historical records), whether certain mechanisms can correctly capture an aspect of realism, whether these mechanisms still make for a good game etc. In other words, the usual debate.

However, and this was the intent of my original post, I do think this is a bogus debate and moot point of discussion. The reason is not that realism cannot be achieved, but that most wargamers are just not interested in it. We pay lip service to the quest for realism, but most gamers are not all that interested in historical realism. What most gamers want (in my experience, YMMV) is a fun game that corresponds to heroic tales of the period, not the realism of the period.

Hence, I think that this realism debate that pops up frequently on TMP is "overrated". It is a nice academic exercise, but with little or no consequence to how most wargamers enjoy their games.

But where did this holy grail of realism come from in the first place (I do not have the answer)? Isn't it time that wargaming sheds this pretense of trying to achieve realism, and focuses more on designing fun games?
This does not imply that those game should not have their roots in military history. Quite the contrary. Wargaming is a variant of gaming that takes inspiriation from military history.

But surely, there must be more design ideas out there that use toy soldiers and visual stunning battlefields, and that go further than just trying to mimic "realism".

Isn't it time that wargaming sheds this pretense of trying to achieve realism, and focuses more on designing fun games?

Most wargame designers already do. The vast majority, as far as I can tell.

There are, however, designers who still wish to design games which are fun to play and at the same time maintain a meaningful correlation with historical events. (It is possible. I have seen it done, and all the anti-historical pooh-poohing and tiresome repetitions of "It's only toy soldiers" cannot undo it.)

Are you suggesting they should be encouraged (or forced) to desist? Isn't it enough that gamers who do not appreciate their efforts will probably not buy or play their games?

Perhaps it is time that wargamers shed this pretense of having some kind of say in what game designers should or shouldn't pursue (aside from the obvious economic influence) and focus more on just playing the games they like.

Does he design a game based on the history he knows, hoping it matches what the majority of gamers 'feel' or does he simply go with what he sees as the majority view, games already with acceptable 'feel' and design around that?

The designer creates rules that make sense to HIM. That's why we continually have rules appearing, despite thousands of previous rules being on offer. Everyone lives within his own paradigm. Gaming mimicking "realism" originates from there, for every individual gamer. That some games get popular is simple acquiescence in the face of the alternative: massive effort to come up with your own system.

So this far into "this" discussion, I'm standing on the premise that "realism" is important to the great majority of (possibly ALL) historical gamers. If a game system punches your BS meter too palpably or often you won't play it. What punches your BS meter? Many of the same things that other historical gamers notice. That's why the great majority of game systems overlap a great deal in the "feel" of the mechanics producing outcomes. Systems which produce extreme results usually fail to attract interest except in those who share the same extreme expectations. For example, a HYW system that allows longbow to shoot down fully armored cavalry, because the "warbow" was like the "machine gun" of the middle ages, will only gain participants among the fanboys of the English yeoman and his weapon as the super warrior of his age. But I'm sure that they know they are right and the rules feel right, i.e. "realistic", to their extreme world view.

Isn't it time that wargaming sheds this pretense of trying to achieve realism, and focuses more on designing fun games?

Not a chance. You may be right about "most" war gamers not being historically focused, ergo wanting to play out "the legends" instead of the history. But those games are clearly designed as such. The historically focused game systems originate from the study of the historical outcomes, thus deriving the expectations from such. Realism is and always will be bound to expected outcomes. Designing as much of that into the possible, probable game results is the joy of the historical war gamer….

However, and this was the intent of my original post, I do think this is a bogus debate and moot point of discussion. The reason is not that realism cannot be achieved, but that most wargamers are just not interested in it. We pay lip service to the quest for realism, but most gamers are not all that interested in historical realism. What most gamers want (in my experience, YMMV) is a fun game that corresponds to heroic tales of the period, not the realism of the period.

Phil:
Thank you for the clarification. Okay, I think I understand. The issue remains the same. We ALL want a fun game… and doing Hollywood wargames is great. I play them and have fun. But then you have *most* gamers [and many game designers] like Wally flatly stating that is what they want: A fun, interesting game and Realism isn't important, or even possible…

Until the next game. Personally, I have never started a thread about simulations, realism, or anything related…yet they keep popping up on a regular basis.

Hence, I think that this realism debate that pops up frequently on TMP is "overrated". It is a nice academic exercise, but with little or no consequence to how most wargamers enjoy their games.

They pop up because 'realism' is somehow important. It it wasn't, the threads would keep popping up. It don't think the discussions qualify as even academic exeercises. Not when the bottom line is 'I don't like your definition of 'realism', I'll stick to mine." Realism in a game design is a technical question that no one wants to get technical about: How do game mechanics mimic anything of reality?

Wally gave his answer and does what everyone else seems to do, goes right back to spending his time hunting for a wargame that 'rings true', and he and others aren't talking about some pure, unadulterated form of 'fun'.

I played Axis and Allies WWI with a couple of friends last Monday. They are squarely in the fun, not realism camp, which is obviously okay by me. It was a great game. Everyone had fun.

Yet, what did they spend most of our time talking about? History and how the game did or didn't succeed in representing WWI. I had nothing to add because 1. I didn't care whether it did or not, probably because 2. I don't know much about WWI.

But where did this holy grail of realism come from in the first place (I do not have the answer)? Isn't it time that wargaming sheds this pretense of trying to achieve realism, and focuses more on designing fun games?

This does not imply that those game should not have their roots in military history. Quite the contrary. Wargaming is a variant of gaming that takes inspiriation from military history.

The problems are:

1. Hobby designers are unwilling to define in technical terms what 'realism' is, so it continues to be pretense, Wally Simon style. [And that doesn't mean Wally didn't have some great games and great ideas.] This could be said to have started with wargame guru James Dunnigan in his How To Design Wargames circa 1979. He stated in his book that "wargames were meant to be realistic" and that "many military wargames were very realistic" yet in his entire book, he never once defines what consitutes realism in a wargame. He set a precedent.

2. The history of wargaming, from the very start was military, based on a concrete notion of--and need for--realism, even before von Riesswitz's Kriegspiel or our hobby.

3. Half of historical wargaming is history, so there is always a desire to find history in the wargames we play… i.e. realism, even if it is Hollywood realism…it still has to echo the real. If it isn't there at all we aren't playing historical wargames, even Hollywood history. THAT is why the issue keeps coming up.

4. The rest the wargame/simulation communities put the realism question to bed a long, long time ago. It is just this hobby that refuses to either come up with one or use the ones already developed.

But surely, there must be more design ideas out there that use toy soldiers and visual stunning battlefields, and that go further than just trying to mimic "realism".

Yep. I recommend Axis and Allies WWI If I recommended Blucher from all that I have read, would that be taken as a putdown--or an accurate description of what the game is designed to do?

Perhaps it is time that wargamers shed this pretense of having some kind of say in what game designers should or shouldn't pursue (aside from the obvious economic influence) and focus more on just playing the games they like.

War Artisan:
From what I gather, simply focusing on playing games they like, gamers are saying what designers should or shouldn't do… and they are vocal too. What seems to be the problems are what designers say they are doing and what players say they want, neither are very coherent, and certainly vary widely.

I believe the games you buy *should* be and do what the designers say [and imply] they are and do. Truth in advertising, right?

Personally I have never asked designers to do any more than what they said they were doing.

So this far into "this" discussion, I'm standing on the premise that "realism" is important to the great majority of (possibly ALL) historical gamers.

Great War Ace:

Yes, even when they categorically deny it, like Wally Simon. They are still searching for something that 'rings true', but because they can't seem to define 'it', realism remains an impossible dream, holy grail, blah, blah, blah. So, the topic keeps coming up, just as it did in Wally's chapters,over and over again.

It's worse when designers do that… say it is all hollywood smoke and mirrors and design games for FUN, and then carry on about the history represented in their creations. It isn't real, but…

McLaddie,

You are correct (I happen to agree with you that a little more openness and consistency from designers would be welcome) but the disparity between what a wargame designer says he will do and what he actually does is another issue entirely.

Phil's comments, and others like them, seem to imply that designers should stop trying to design the types of games that the commenters don't enjoy, or which, in their opinions, are not feasible.

If an author's writing doesn't meet your expectations, you don't read his books; if you find a songwriter's efforts to be aesthetically unsatisfying, you don't listen to his songs; but, apparently, if a wargame designer attempts to create something outside the parameters of what you consider to be possible or desirable then you get on the internet and start polls and discussions about whether he's wasting his time and should be doing something more to your personal taste.

As far as I'm concerned, the usefulness of games as a tool for exploring history is an established fact. It doesn't concern me that others don't find this to be so, until they attempt to impose their views on the gaming activities of others, or suppress conversation about things which, to them, are non-issues but which may be of interest to others.
I have no problem with gamers who just want a "only toy soldiers", "roll dice and blow stuff up", or "it ain't fun if you're not hootin' and hollerin'" type of game, but I resent being told that I can't or shouldn't do anything else.

It is my considered opinion that the time they spend questioning the validity of someone else's hobby activities would be better spent playing a game they enjoy, taking some pictures and writing it up, and sharing what they've done on TMP so that others with similar tastes can learn from and appreciate their efforts. Then this would be a much happier place.

You are correct (I happen to agree with you that a little more openness and consistency from designers would be welcome) but the disparity between what a wargame designer says he will do and what he actually does is another issue entirely.

War Artisan:
Well, for this OP, not entirely, if that designer addresses 'realism' in some way, he is in that rating game.

It is my considered opinion that the time they spend questioning the validity of someone else's hobby activities would be better spent playing a game they enjoy, taking some pictures and writing it up, and sharing what they've done on TMP so that others with similar tastes can learn from and appreciate their efforts. Then this would be a much happier place.

I totally agree. It is one thing for gamers to state what they like and how to design games that meet their preferences and quite another to insist as Wally and others on TMP do, that those with a preference for realism in their wargames are only trapsing through la-la land.

It is my considered opinion that the time they spend questioning the validity of someone else's hobby activities would be better spent playing a game they enjoy, taking some pictures and writing it up, and sharing what they've done on TMP so that others with similar tastes can learn from and appreciate their efforts. Then this would be a much happier place.

No one is telling anyone else what to do.
If that has been implied from some of the statements, it is just as a matter of speech, not to be taken literally.

This response to discussions "Don't tell anyone else what to enjoy", comes up on TMP fairly regulary. I think it is fairly meaningless, since it implies no one can have an opinion about anything, thus making forums such as TMP totally useless.

Discussion is about having differences of opinion, and yes, hidden beneath the formalities of discussion there's always the "I think I'm right and you're wrong"-attitude.

People might change their mind exactly because of having a discussion, but declaring that a discussion is void is basically belittling the people that brought it up in the first place.

This response to discussions "Don't tell anyone else what to enjoy", comes up on TMP fairly regulary. I think it is fairly meaningless, since it implies no one can have an opinion about anything, thus making forums such as TMP totally useless.

Phil:
Yes, I can agree with that. It is a strange response often seen with game design discussions, even when trying to describe realism in a game system. [How is that telling someone what to enjoy?] Yet, when someone insists that realism is not possible and a fool's errand [holy grail], that tends to have the same effect as telling someone what they can or can't enjoy.

Oh, and a correction from a post above:

"They [the threads] pop up because 'realism' is somehow important. IF it wasn't, the threads would NOT keep popping up."

Dear McLaddie

Realism IS important but not the way most people think.

You may recall one of our arguments from long ago, namely the difference between a "true game" (like Chess) and "real game" like MOST war games. If you made the instructions as anagrams the intelligent bees of Tau Ceti IV could play Chess without knowing any of the "reality" of bishops, kings, Queens and pawns. But war games are not true games and are "real games" because they are judged against how much fidelity they have to real life. Bazookas at Thermopylae? Scythed chariots at Normandy, from a game perspective-- why not? From the fidelity to reality- that's another thing. An example of a true game from the more usual war game items is Diplomacy. No dice, again, something the bees could play easily without needing to understand 1914 at all.

Wargames depend on their being matched to "reality."

However--- think about what that means. Reality is the expected, the normal, the humdrum the boring. An 88 should have an excellent chance of knocking out a Carden-Lloyd Tankette. That's reality. "Of course it should!" You say. But do players WANT reality? Do they WANT the humdrum? As Phil observes and as I have observed in my games, they certainly DO NOT! They want the surprising, the unexpected, the dramatic, the outlandish. The aspiration to reality is simply to aspire to the everyday. What they want is situations where wildly dramatic results can happen from ordinary die rolls or players are given the opportunity to do extravagant things. What Phil has introduced is the point (and my own experience backs it up) they want the exciting, and war games players not to the intellect which wishes to conform the game to reality, but to the emotions and the passions which throws reality out the window.

Hence, they'll tell you they want it realistic, but what they really want is the Looney-Tunes Cartoon.

In my Imagi-Nation of Princess Trixie of Saxe Burlap und Schleswig Beerstein, the Prince consort to the princess is a tall, blonde, well built sexy hunk who is great in bed, but is military idiot. He, and the Princess however want him to gain renown and fame in war, so once or twice a campaign, he's packed off to the army to show his mettle. In the game, officers have ability ratings from 1 to 4 which they can add on to units to get them to perform better. The Prince is a -2 and is moved by the ENEMY to any friendly unit he wishes where his -2 comes OFF the unit ability of the enemy's choice. Of course the effect is largely nullified by the Princess' side moving officers with a positive value next to him to net out the bad effect, so the whole thing is not really that important.

However, the excitement reaches an all time high when players come to the "move the chucklehad" part. The game STOPS and everyone is laughing and joking and arguing where to send him. It's an entirely trivial, silly, unrealistic thing, but it gives players huge joy when it comes up.

The event deck and a host of other things are what catches the players interest and lifts the game out of the humdrum (which it always must be) into the exciting.

Think of diceless games. I don't mean games which have some other mechanism of chance, but games where you take X percent of the number firing and the result is the casualties on the enemy. They become boring-- there is no excitement. Yes you can natter on about making adroit maneuvers to arrange favorable encounters for you, and that might appeal to some people, and there have been DOZENS of rule sets through the years that did this, and they all die the death of a dog. People don't want that. They WANT excitement.

Same in my modern game, the Shattered century. It is a game with very simple mechanics. It's hexed based and the hexes are big, about 11 across and you are allowed to cram in as many bases of troops as you wish. Can't tell you the number of times that I've seen one side carefully moving his pieces into a hex to make an overwhelming and crushing assault on a few measly stands in an adjacent hex. Meanwhile the Measly guy is sitting there stoically watching the build up!

The guy announces he's done.

Mr. Overwhelming's troops is triumphant, he has calculated that he will be able to throw enough die that even if he has a wildly bad roll, he will still blast the stands out of the opposing hex and make his strategic breakthrough and win the game.

confidently he picks up 94 dice and prepares to roll.

Then Mr. Measly drops 20 barrage cards on Mr. Overwhelming's troops. Mr. Overwhelming's reaction is a hearty AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! I forgot about the Barrages.

Mr. Measly smiles a Buddha-like smile of serenity.

But then one of the players on Measly's own side notes.

That's all well and good Mr. Measly but you can't use barrages on enemy troops in an adjacent hex to your own.

Now the AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH! is on the other foot, and
Mr. Overwhelming is euphoric having narrowly escaped being pounded to snail-snot.

These are all emotional highs and lows and have nothing to do with intellect, though they do have a lot to do with reality.

So humdrumedly Mr. Overwhelming rolls his dice and blasts the risible opposition to smithereens and advances triumphantly into the hex, and stops.

He does not see that in this advanced hex he is not adjacent to any other enemy units.

Get that AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!! ready!

However--- think about what that means. Reality is the expected, the normal, the humdrum the boring. An 88 should have an excellent chance of knocking out a Carden-Lloyd Tankette. That's reality. "Of course it should!" You say. But do players WANT reality? Do they WANT the humdrum? As Phil observes and as I have observed in my games, they certainly DO NOT! They want the surprising, the unexpected, the dramatic, the outlandish.

O'Schmidt:

First of all, what you describe is certainly something I have seen among wargamers…even experienced. Just last week with Axis & Allies WWI. I can appreciate what you describe as something players want, but reality can be surprising, unexpected, dramatic and at times extremely outlandish. I don't see the either/or choice in this, boring intellectual humdrum or passionate looney-tunes. [Other than the those either/or choices forced on players by game designers.]

Then again, I'd never design a game where the main event was a Carden-Lloyd Tankette vs an 88.

Historical novelists speak of writing about the important and the dramatic. They want the passion, the surprises and fiction writing is at heart emotional. They don't talk about throwing reality and history out the window because of those goals.

Washing clothes at the public fountain in the ancient Roman village of Aci-Ducii isn't going to be their subject matter unless it can be important and dramatic. Why write about it otherwise? The same is true of wargames.

That's why you don't see a lot of wargames with their sole focus on logics, Supply in the Peninsula! I imagine someone could find it emotionally satisfying to get the cavalry fed or re-supply the artillery. Then again, why couldn't that game be surprising, dramatic and even outlandish…and still deal with reality?

I know players want 'realism' because it keeps being an issue, a perpetual discussion topic. What they mean by 'realism' is another question altogether… It's all over the map, anything from 'looney-tunes' as you note, to the other end of the spectrum, where every move and rules has some relation to specific history/combat. I really believe that is one reason the topic won't go away… it never settles anywhere or means anything other than an individual gamer's 'feelings.'

And that's the problem. Eveyone is using the word and it means nothing particular at all, which is why gamers can say 'realism' and mean looney-tunes.

The looney-tuners are using the wrong word as you note and those at the other end of the spectrum demanding the nth degree of intellectual detail for it to be 'real' are just as off. I don't think either group knows exactly what they want and I know they don't have a coherent idea of how game systems can and can't technically portray reality. If they did, there wouldn't be the constant confusion or silliness like 'realism' equaling looney-tunes. They would still like what they like, and that would be just fine. That isn't the point here.

These are all emotional highs and lows and have nothing to do with intellect, though they do have a lot to do with reality.

Well, I can agree--with a 'not exactly.' The game situation you described had a lot to do with the intellect. If the players had remembered the rules, it might have been even more intellectual. Competition, game play and using the imagination is just as intellectual a pursuit as it is emotional. I wouldn't want to short-change either in my wargame experience. I do agree that the emotional aspects have been short-shrifted in any number of designs, past and present.

What they want is situations where wildly dramatic results can happen from ordinary die rolls or players are given the opportunity to do extravagant things. What Phil has introduced is the point (and my own experience backs it up) they want the exciting, and war games players not to the intellect which wishes to conform the game to reality, but to the emotions and the passions which throws reality out the window.

There certainly are players who want that. I don't have any problem with that, but I don't think that is all or even a vast majority of gamers. In fact, how many want what isn't an issue either way. It was a question of whether 'realism' was overrated. From all that you have written above, if true, a large number of players are not 'overrating' realism, they are mis-labeling and misundertanding it altogether.

However, I don't believe emotions and passions are somehow unrelated to reality, or portraying reality in a wargame is at all unrelated to emotions and passions. In the game you describe, a good part of the emotions revolved around real things like barrages being portrayed in the game… however 'real' the mechanics actually were.

Personally, I wouldn't want to play wargames that didn't have the kind of emotional highes and lows you describe--or the surprises. However, I can't agree at all that such game experiences require Looney-Toon mechanics in the place of portraying reality or that all gamers want the looney-tunes in place of any realism…OR that fun games must be totally brainless and wholly focused on the emotional fix, however all that is identified in game design.

In that effort to find what works, without technical definitions, the pendulum swings from one extreme to another, where both extremes are valid parts of a good, fun game.

So many false premises, Otto, but one has to admire your enthusiasm and creativity.

All wargamers have types of games they prefer.
They tend to game with others who share the same preferences.
Then, from within their bubble of shared entertainment, they often make the mistake (as both you and Phil have done) of extrapolating their own preferences onto the population of gamers in general.

The games I design and play incorporate a relatively high degree of correlation between game mechanics and historical events, compared to most wargames. I find them to be great fun (you will have to take my word for that, unless you prefer to assume that I am so masochistic as to have pursued an unpleasant pastime for close to half a century) but you, by your own admission, would find them "humdrum". On the flip side of that coin, if all wargames were like the ones you describe, I would quit wargaming entirely.

I, however, do not make the mistake of convincing myself that everyone really wants the same things I want.

We differ, Otto.
I'm OK with that.
Apparently you are not.

Dear War Artisan

You say,

"We differ, Otto.
I'm OK with that.
Apparently you are not"

No, it is YOU who are not OK with other people being different. If you really were you would just leave it at "We differ." of course we differ, but then you are wrong and I am right." To you. By you bringing it up that "Apparently you are not" You're attempting to impose a semantic bit of legerdemain to cast the onus on me. Actually I really don't care what other war gamers do, and I firmly believe in the maxim, "When I'm at your house, I play by your rules." You apparently can't bear (otherwise you would not have said it) that ANYONE has any different idea or paradigm in war games. What is obvious is that you are offended if anyone has a different idea and philosophy.

That's OK, don't worry, I don't care what you do.

What they want is situations where wildly dramatic results can happen from ordinary die rolls or players are given the opportunity to do extravagant things.

High fantasy is not something I would want a wargame to be and that is what those gamers will get. Even if you play sci-fi surely you want some believability/realism (maybe especially in that genre?).

The event deck and a host of other things are what catches the players interest and lifts the game out of the humdrum (which it always must be) into the exciting.

That's stirring for the sake of it. If a player finds the central aspects of wargaming dull (minis in terrain, dicerolling, the tactics working or not) and needs gimmicks to keep their interest up maybe they should stick to console games? Kids today and all that.
But is realism overrated? It shouldn't be and there is no best practice to be had; the hobby is varied enough for everyone to find what they want out of a set of rules.

But do players WANT reality? Do they WANT the humdrum? As Phil observes and as I have observed in my games, they certainly DO NOT! They want the surprising, the unexpected, the dramatic, the outlandish. The aspiration to reality is simply to aspire to the everyday.

OSchmidt:
You say that Artisan is "attempting to impose a semantic bit of legerdemain to cast the onus on me. Actually I really don't care what other war gamers do,…"

But you do care and are talking about all gamers here. So it isn't what you like or Artisan or I like. We are all free to do whatever we want when gaming. No argument there. Your position above is about what ALL gamers want and how reality is portrayed in wargames. That's a different kettle of fish.

Enjoyment in activities is a subject that has been studied for over 20 years, known as Flow. The subject is well understood in the computer games industry (Flow In Games).
There is a short summary here. These are just a starting point.
link

Referring to summary, point 3 "the activity is intrinsically rewarding" is possibly what is being discussed here. What makes an activity rewarding? Is it reality? Is it sensationalism? Is it simulation?

The answer is that everyone is different. Some people think golf is great, others find it boring. Some people like opera, others hate it. Some people like <insert game name here>, other hate it.

But it is well known that most gamers prefer reality. The best selling games usually are set in the "real" world. Chess is an example, it uses familiar objects. But because it does not use real (familiar behaviour) mechanics, players can find it difficult to get enjoyment from. It is not intrinsically rewarding to many people.

But change that knight piece to a unit of 30mm knights, add the ability to charge etc, change the game board to a realistic landscape and now we're getting somewhere. Instead of capturing another piece, our gallant band of brothers is hacking, slashing and teaching our foes a lesson – as they would in the real world.

But how far do you take reality? Can it be too real? Can it be too fake? As an example, the movie Fury has some very realistic action, including a real Tiger tank. But the climax of the film is not realistic. Realism In Games is also well understood in the computer games industry.

So, if we want realism, why do some realistic wargames suck? The answer is the mechanics i.e. the rules. The designer does not know how to create good rules (that obey the laws of Flow).

There are other factors, such as the lack of knowledge of battle mechanics by wargamers. Making a game realistic can be a problem if the players do not know what the historical reality was. How often have you seen the comment on TMP saying "this game captures the feeling of the period accurately"? I have seen it written many times about a game that is nothing more than a poker dice game with a deck of cards that manipulates the dice rolls.

In summary, reality is not over-rated, it might be the designers' rules that are the problem. The best wargame rules I have played satisfy all the Flow criteria. The players' gameplay are part of the story e.g. units aren't moved by the player as in chess, the units understand realistic commands and behave as agents in a story. That is what realism is.

Hawk:

There is a great deal in what you write. Flow, the Magic Circle, The Fourth Wall… lots of names for it.

Thanks for the Link:

The blog author Mark says Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi was the "discoverer" of the flow concept. He did coin the term and described its attributes, but at the time there were a number of researchers in learning and brain function following the same threads unassociated with Hihaly's.

Hihaly writes of Flow:

"The ego falls away. Time flies. Every action, movement, and thought follows inevitably from the previous one, like playing jazz. Your whole being is involved, and you're using your skills to the utmost."

Gamers can get into that mode when painting figures or reading history. Fiction writers speak of the same 'dream state' for readers.

You definitely want that as a product of playing your game design or simply playing any game.

Simulations, wargames and any 'reality' experienced by players definitely involve that "Flow." However, it has to involve specifics. Historical wargames or simulations are 'Guided Pretending." [Not mine, coined by Marc Prensky] That means the Flow experience, if successful, has specific attributes of reality recognized by the players, dynamics simular to aspects of real life.

All training simulations and military exercises depend on that suspension of disbelief, so that Your whole being is involved, and you're using your skills to the utmost.

But all players are really doing is pushing around figures on a table, so where is the realit in that?

Well, OSchmidt gives a great example above:

In my Imagi-Nation of Princess Trixie of Saxe Burlap und Schleswig Beerstein, the Prince consort to the princess is a tall, blonde, well built sexy hunk who is great in bed, but is military idiot. He, and the Princess however want him to gain renown and fame in war, so once or twice a campaign, he's packed off to the army to show his mettle. In the game, officers have ability ratings from 1 to 4 which they can add on to units to get them to perform better. The Prince is a -2 and is moved by the ENEMY to any friendly unit he wishes where his -2 comes OFF the unit ability of the enemy's choice. Of course the effect is largely nullified by the Princess' side moving officers with a positive value next to him to net out the bad effect, so the whole thing is not really that important.

Look at the specfics that are given about Trixie and the Prince Consort. The relationships between her and the army. The mechanics to mimic that. Those details and mechanics are the framework for the game experience…and hopefully the Flow experience too.

And those specifics--and dynamics are found in real life and certainly history… even if the game's Trixie and her boy toy aren't.

So the question is where 'reality' can be interjected in games in a demonstatable fashion… So we can determine whether realism in games is 'overrated.'

In summary, reality is not over-rated, it might be the designers' rules that are the problem. The best wargame rules I have played satisfy all the Flow criteria. The players' gameplay are part of the story e.g. units aren't moved by the player as in chess, the units understand realistic commands and behave as agents in a story. That is what realism is.

That is well-said. Realism is dissed when the real issue is that game designers have neither defined it nor done a good job of providing it in wargames. [The two go together]

Players in a wargame [dynamics simulation] create the events in a game environment that mimic's the real thing--as it is identified by the game designer.

Approaching this from a perverse direction: if the game, whatever it is, flows so well that it engages the gamers in that "dream state" of total absorption, the experience can (and probably will, at least for a while) convince them of a "realism" that is counter to the RL world. If "flow/feel" is what we are after in order to define "realism", then anything, literally any paradigm, can achieve that convincing quality simply by "flowing" properly. The actual facts inherent or implied in the game become irrelevant. Then, if the players are taking what they experience to be some sort of simulation of reality, they have been tempted into a world that never existed and never will….

Dear Great War Ace

Ah!!! You get it. You see it. Excellent. That's my point, if it all resolves down to individual subjectivity-- which is all it can, then you are correct. Further, as is implied in your post, you can have two players whose "feel/flow" projects images and sensations in their brain which are completely different from the players next to him. My point is always that, that subjectivity is all there is. But that's OK., because we are all different. But many rules attempt to give the players an identical subjectivity "flow/feel" which is impossible. Generally similar maybe.

Yep, Ace, that was pretty preverse.

…if the game, whatever it isflows so well that it engages the gamers in that "dream state" of total absorption, the experience can (and probably will, at least for a while) convince them of a "realism" that is counter to the RL world.

That isn't how it works. The 'dream state', Flow or immersion experience doesn't convince a player of anything. The convincing is done by the game [the designer] before and during the experience… and if it isn't convincing enough, the player never 'gets into the flow' or is rudely 'popped out of' that dream state. We have all experienced that.

Further, as is implied in your post, you can have two players whose "feel/flow" projects images and sensations in their brain which are completely different from the players next to him. My point is always that, that subjectivity is all there is.

OSchmidt:
'Completely different?' Not unless you are playing two different games. Not if you believe that ALL gamers want the same game experience. IF I watch the Movie 'Fury', I won't have a totally different experience from the person sitting next to me…if we both 'get into the flow'. Nobody is going to walk out of 'Fury' praising it as being the best Doris Day film ever because they had a completely different experience.

The 'subjectivity is all there is' dooms game design to being a one game/one person experience. And it just ain't so for the following reasons:

1.Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi identified the common conditions that invite the 'Flow State', the common experiences during it, and the common results from the experience. It if was completely different for each person, he wouldn't be able to find any commonalities.

2. The Flow state is created by conditions etc. outside the Flow experience. They shape the experience, it is the 'subject of the experience', so common conditions create common experiences. Totally, no. Completely unrelated, never. Control the conditions that invite the flow state [like a movie or a game] and you control what is experienced in the flow state. OSchmidt, no body confused Princess Trixie of Saxe Burlap or her consort with a Doris Day movie did they? Your group all enjoyed the same game mechanic for much the same reasons.

3. Even subjective experiences can be understood, becoming more objective issues. For instance. I can say the word "POST" to a group and each person may well have different images flash in their mind in association. Mail, the Postman, stamping a letter, putting a notice up on a board, an email post, a piece of wood or metal stuck in the ground, a bowl of cereal or the word on a cereal box. The odds are good that not one is going to think of Doris Day. Because I can predict the common subjective images in response to that word, their experience nor mine is totally subjective.

4. People engage in such immersion/fLow because it is pleasurable, it's entertaining. However, they only commit to such experiences under specific, common conditions, one of which is meeting expectations… and if something of reality is part of those expectations in whatever form, then and ONLY then will the Flow experience be compared to the real thing by the participants. The Flow itself doesn't create an experience of an altered or different reality. A person can get into the Flow regarding very real experiences from race-car driving to painting military miniatures.

5. Educators, trainers, entertainers, novelests, film makers and many more people, particularly game designers, know all of the above and use it to create experiences that are 'guided immersion', structured Flow, where participants have common experiences, shared experiences. That's how games, movies and other entertainment become popular… they provide each participant with commonly accepted, commonly experienced 'dream-like' states.

So, the wargamers can see their experiences as completely subjective, completely different from everyone else, but game designers will fail every time if they base their creative efforts on that notion.

So back to game design. The question is how realism is created for the player and how that can be presented in such a way as to provide the conditions that invite 'Flow'?

If "flow/feel" is what we are after in order to define "realism", then anything, literally any paradigm, can achieve that convincing quality simply by "flowing" properly. The actual facts inherent or implied in the game become irrelevant. Then, if the players are taking what they experience to be some sort of simulation of reality, they have been tempted into a world that never existed and never will….

Just to clarify: our wargames aren't real. I will add to that. Simulations aren't real either—nor will they ever be. Is a computer flight simulator real? It's just a series of '0's and '1's in a computer program creating a picture on a screen, nothing like a real plane in flight.

I enjoy computer flight simulators and play them often. I easily get into the 'Flow', the 'Zone' with them. Are they games or simulations? They're designed to be both. I now fly real sail planes and am working on my license. The first time I flew a sail plane, my instructor was sure I'd had some kind of previous experience because I did better than expected. I hadn't--I'd only played with a flight simulator on my computer.

Now, I'll be the first one to admit that a flight simulator has nothing on the Real Experience of flying a sail plane at 5,000 feet. Even the simulators I played were for powered craft, not gliders. Even so, while the computer model was far removed from the real experience, it HAD simulated what the game designer had attempted to recreate for fun--some of the flight characteristics of airplanes in relation to gravity, speed, and the ground. And the simulation did it with enough validity that I demonstrated a number of skills when I piloted a real plane for the first time.

If I'd had fans blowing air past my computer room window at 60 MPH and been seat-belted to my chair while playing the flight simulator, that would not have been a 'better' simulation of flying or 'closer to the real thing'--nor would I have flown the sail plane better because of it. Of course, those little touches might have ‘felt' more realistic, but that totally subjective conclusion wouldn't have meant a thing in regards to the effectiveness of the simulation. In fact the added complexity could have interfered with what was being simulated—and the skills I was learning.

The computer program ‘worked' as a simulation because of what reality it focused on, not how much. It also worked as a game not only because I could ‘win', but because the game decisions were interesting and the design focus kept the complexity manageable---that, and the fact a good deal of reality can be challenging and fun, particularly when you don't have to worry about crashing your plane. Game mechanisms can co-exist with the simulation processes without any conflicts, because as design issues, they are very similar, if not identical.

When gamers look for the similarities between their wargame experience and what they read in the history books or hear from actual combatants, they aren't looking for or expecting the 'unreal'.