"Game or Sim?" Topic

An idea game would combine simulation and gameplay in one set of rules. However, one man's idea is another man's drudgery, and the ideal rules system doesn't really exist.

Games tend to come down either in the simulation camp, where the exercise is to make something that recreates a real world set of conditions in detail so that understanding of the subject can be gleaned from the experience. Other games are about fun, and may include a veneer of realism to make them feel like they are simulation, but in reality it's about having a good game experience.

As a player, where do you fall on this divide, and why? At the end of the day, if you had to pick one, would you rather take part in a simulation or a game? Why?

For purposes of this argument, let's restrict this to miniatures game only (answers might be different for computer games or traditional board war games) and to games where multiple people are playing (since a solo player might have very different expectations out of a game).

By such restrictions, I come down on the game side of things. I'm there to have fun with other people and enjoy the ride. I like the veneer of realism, but don't let that fool me into thinking my game experience is really a simulation. I can easily separate the reality of history from the conceits a game experience provides, and the latter doesn't dampen or lessen my experiences in the former.

Of course that answer might change over time and as I get older, but now, in middle age, that's my answer.

It's a game. "Simulation" generally just means more complicated; it doesn't automatically mean "better."

Honestly, I think this is a false dichotomy. The gaming community uses "simulation" to really just mean "complex and highly detailed."

But to answer your question these days I find I'm getting sick of the "Bolt Action" super-generic-fast-play-lightweight games and looking for more heft. Which may or may not mean more complexity.

The rules of chess are not very long….

Is it that time of the year again?

I would rather take part in a game. Many games make better simulations than some of the simulations out there.

A lot of game designers mistake friction for command and control. They have all of these fiddly rules to restrict who could move and when but the rules have little to do with actual command and control.

Those that do directly represent command and control often are either too restrictive or are too random.

A good simulation should have you controlling no more than 12 units. You should never be concerned with units more than 2 levels down. Example: If you are a Corps commander, you are not concerned with decisions below the brigade level. The simulation should not have you mired in the minutiae of details that you would likely have no control over anyway. It present you with the decision points of the same commander of the appropriate level.

Some examples of games that would make pretty good simulations are Big Bloody Battles and Fire and Fury. Both are appropriately "leveled" and both provide command challenges in a simple way.

I disagree with the original premise. This perpetuates an old, limited, and false way of looking at gaming and games. You describe the two extremes and then claim all wargames must be pigeonholed into one or the other.

I pick neither, or rather I pick both. I want games that look and feel like they are mimicking a small version of the events they are meant to portray while I have fun playing a game doing it.

Why is it only the "gamey" adherents that demand wargamers look at their hobby in this limited black and white way?

> Is it that time of the year again?

Year? More like week…

Bullpucky.

I simply asked if you had to choose, what would you choose. I never said all games must fall into that camp, nor did I say it had to be (or even is) black and white.

If you read what I said, I said moods can change and what you want out of a game can changed based on the media and type of game. Instead you boil it down to my opinion is 'old, limited and false.'

"Why is it only the "gamey" adherents that demand wargamers look at their hobby in this limited black and white way?"

Really? I'm hardly a "gamey" adherent. I'm merely professing a preference that I feel in my current miniatures gaming. I've held preferences for games with more meat and will likely do so again.

I asked what your preference is- now. Anything you read beyond that is not what I asked. My intention was to ask 'Do you like one or the other?' Not, 'your gaming sucks.'

From my posts on this board for now going on a second decade, I have never put up with 'you game wrong' types of arguments. I accept anyone's gaming. I merely asked what people preferred in their current thinking and acknowledge that thinking can and will change over time.

You can disagree with my premise, but to attack me for 'old, limited and false' seems a bit over the top for asking a preference.

Apparently I touched a nerve here.

It is the basic premise which is the issue, simulations does not equate with complex.

All our games are simulations, some are just more abstract than others, and some deviate more from real world outcomes than others.

I prefer simple simulations/games which reflect real world outcomes as far as possible within the level of abstraction they represent.

These are very, very hard to write. Much easier to produce 20 pages of modifiers and call it a simulation.

Ya'll should listen to Martin Rapier more.

As others have said they are not mutually exclusive. Why would I want to pick one when you can have both?

As Martin Rapier stated, it was the basic premise that I disagreed with, and in fact am tired of hearing, not whichever way you choose to wargame.

I did choose, and if you don't like my choice – that's unfortunate.

Game and simulation are just labels on a continuum of design abstractions. Even complex, computer-driven lab simulations have abstractions and assumptions built in, just for usability. It's mostly branding.

"> Is it that time of the year again?

Year? More like week…"

Yep…..

I say Game. I'm just looking for a fast way to roll dice and push my toys around the table. Realism doesn't even come into it, though to be fair, I'm dealing with Sci-Fi and Fantasy, so my perspective is slightly different.

I prefer a good, rousing gamulation, however the term "simulame" has it own attraction…

The two Simulation type games I have encountered are Valmy to Waterloo for napoleonics and Panzer war for WW2 .we played Valmy twice and Panzer war at least half a dozen times.
I felt the rules for Panzer war were much more complicated but I still enjoyed playing it more.
The reason for this difference in plays was purely down to interest and desire to make it work. It came down to us being more into the period which showed a willingness to persevere the more complicated ruleset.
Locally there are more players on the game side of things FOW and 40K being the most complex games around. Most of these players are also restricted by more important commitments like family and work.
I do believe over the coming years when retirement arrives and the kids are more self reliant (is this possible? ) simulation games will get the time and love they require.

You play a game. You run a simulation. However, the best way to simulate decision making, be it in business administration, railroad building, or warfare, the best way to do it is through a game. That's why they call the mathematics of decisions "Game Theory".

So, I prefer games which simulate historical decision making, generally around area of human conflict.

Dan, I had no issue with the choice you made at all. It's a reasonable answer sandwiched between some broadbrush handwavy passive aggressive attacks that ascribed to my premise things that I never said or argued.

It's the beginning and last paragraphs that I take issue with, not the choice you made. Your choice is perfectly valid.

And to Martin, I never equated complex with simulation or gamey with simple. Nowhere in my statement did I say that or even imply that. There are some very 'gamey' games that are plenty complex (many people here seem to argue that Warhammer isn't complex, but it's a bloated set of edge cases, exceptions and paragraphs designed to invoke arguments at the table between players that also happens to be popular and fun), and there are some great 'simulation' games that are in a 20 page center fold staple pamphlet. Please don't ascribe to me an argument I never made. I actually agree with your argument for the most part.

Clearly I shouldn't have used the word simulation since that seems to have scratched something best left untouched on TMP. Truth be told I'm more in line with Tango 2 3 Ditto's thinking.

My premise was that games TEND to go into the divide of game vs simulation, not that they should or had to, and yet that seems to be how my premise was taken.

I never said this is an issue that is black and white and I never chose a dividing line between complex and simple. I never meant to ascribe superiority of one style over another, as I've said. I'm sorry if anyone took offense to what I thought was a very simple premise without any implied undertones.

I like a bit of both. If it came down to a hard choice I'd err on which was the more entertaining or challenging: I don't game to get either bored or annoyed.

For me, I equate the goal of a simulation with being an accurate representation of the subject matter while I equate the goal of a game as merely having fun. Are they mutually exclusive? Certainly not. I like accuracy as much as any of us, but if I had to choose, I'd definitely select game over simulation. Why? I don't care how accurate a rules set is, if it isn't fun (again, for me) I don't want to play it. However, if I feel two games are equally fun, I will favor the one the I feel is more accurate.

I dont think I've ever met a "War Simulator", although I suppose there are people out there who get paid to do that. I do know that you'd have to pay ME to do it.
So yeah, I'll trade a little realism for playability as long as real world tactics work and are rewarded.
I'm a "War Gamer".

I like to play "games" with miniatures;
I would play "simulations" in a computer.

I prefer those rules which try to simulate warfare rather than game it. They don't seem to turn out better though,I still lose.

"I never equated simulation with complex"

Then why define simulation as "real world conditions in detail"? My apologies if I misunderstood, but it certainly reads as simulation as complex to me.

The real difference is between input based and output based models. The former can give very good results but usually require far more computing power and mathematics than most wargamers have at their disposal, and although you can model well constrained problems like airflow over wings or solar flares, unconstrained problems like warfare are very subject to GIGO. With dice and charts, all we can really aim for is much simpler stuff.

I like to play "games" with miniatures;
I would play "simulations" in a computer.

Nope. Simulations do not have to be computer based.

As a player, where do you fall on this divide, and why?

There is no such divide.

The type of games we play form a multi-dimensional space, and there is no single one-dimensional scale between fun/game/simple/norealism on the one hand, and boring/sim/complex/realistic on the other hand.

Moreover, we do not even agree on terminology. There have been countless debates on what exactly constitutes a simulation in miniature wargaming, or whether a sim in the context in miniature wargaming is even possible. As long as the 6mm ACW F&F player considers himself to be in a total different hobby than the 54mm glossy toy soldier Wellsian player (and vice versa), there's no hope for ever settling this debate.

As long as the social activity itself is fun, that's good enough for me. No point in playing your ideal game with people you can't stand. Better make a compromise so you can play games with people you do like.

Back in 1981, I designed Guard du Corps, a Napoleonic set of rules in a 1:50 troop ratio. I clearly in the subtitle had 'A Simulation of Napoleonic Warfare". I worked on the rule design for four years before putting them together for publication.
We avoided things like Historical General ratings since it was an effort to see how the player commanded rather than having to play with an inherent advantage or disadvantage. In regards to troop rating, we focused on training modifiers. A weak area were Army lists since the trend at the time was to build your own force based on unit troop points.

There are only games.
All simulations are frauds designed to cover up the shortcomings of a game with an appeal to a non-existent "authority." That authority being the delusion we think we really KNOW what happened.