"Game Trumps History?" Topic

Reading another thread about whether weapons should be limited to doing what they did in reality, (that thread was specifically whether a German 50mm mortar in WWII should be able to fire smoke rounds) I got to wondering whether we have reached the point where what happened in reality was now subordinate to what makes for a fun game?

My take on this is that if I was playing a game where weapons behaved in an ahistorical manner it would literally spoil the game for me. However, lots of posters seemed more concerned that changing the rules to better reflect reality would somehow complicate the game and suggested that the rules allowing all light mortars to fire smoke should be left as it was.

My gut feel is that ten or twenty years ago the precedent of reality would have been the decisive factor. German 50mm mortars could not fire smoke rounds in reality and therefore the rules should reflect this. However, it seems now that what makes the game balanced in peoples' minds takes precedent.

Any thoughts on that?

Writing historical games rules is always a compromise. So I think it's really a question of how easy it is to model specific historical details in the game versus how important the detail was historically and whether it is a factor that the rules author thinks should be included in the model used for his game.

As an example, I'd be a lot more concerned about whether a German 50mm mortar can fire smoke in a platoon level game like Chain of Command or Bolt Action than I would be for a battalion/regiment level game like Command Decision TOB.

Chris

In organized competitive play, balance is extremely important. If you charge all factions the same points cost for a light mortar but the German light mortar behaves differently, that's a problem.

Bolt Action is meant to be Hollywood WWII and I like it because it is a nice fun game played with WWII miniatures.

I generally play imagi-nations and sci-fi so I don't have to worry about nitty-gritty accuracy. I'd rather have a fun, quick-playing game.

For me, no matter the scale of the game, if a weapon could not do something in real life, then it can't in the rules as well.

If you don't like an era to game, then play another. Don't change ww2 into a Sci fi game, just go play 40k.

A panzerfaust is a one shot weapon. Would I have my rules allow it to act like bazooka? No.

Just my thoughts.

Matthew

Rules have ALWAYS subordinated reality to gaming. Does melee always happen after moving and shooting? Does a bullet suddenly "vanish" magically at maximum range? What about ranges and movement rates. They are almost always too short and too slow relative to ground and time scale. Does morale always break down into 4 neat categories, or six?

The issue really is, on which aspects of the game will you not compromise, even at the expense of more complex/slower game play?

Given that we play on a table, there has to be some adjustments on ranges. but I do see your point.

I look more the far out there rules for historical games. I guess also rules that generalize things like all tanks can move this fast. Can turn their turrets the same speed.

For me, no matter the scale of the game, if a weapon could not do something in real life, then it can't in the rules as well.
…
A panzerfaust is a one shot weapon. Would I have my rules allow it to act like bazooka? No.

Just my thoughts.

Matthew

But troops equipped with panzerfausts may well be carrying more than one per person/team/squad. So the question becomes whether worrying about running out of ammunition for a bazooka or running out of panzerfausts is a detail worth modelling for the scale and intent of the rules. At a low enough level it may well be, less so the larger the scale of action the game intends to model.

Chris

What if you don't know :-)

I don't have a hard idea about which ww2 tanks (for example) carry smoke rounds for their main gun, so if the rules say a Sherman gets them and a Churchill does not, I'm going to assume that's about right.

With mortars, I happen to know about the German mortar, so that might be an easy house rule. BUt if I didn't, I doubt the game would play all that differently in the end.

I'll be a bit provocative though:
Does weapon realism matter when so many other aspects are not realistic?
I've played plenty of games where the winner took 50%+ casualties, where taking casualties had absolutely zero effect on the squads (leave your buddy in that ditch, he'll be okay) and where there were more bayonet work in one game than the entire western front in real life.

With those things looming over us, does it /really/ matter whether a particular mortar gets a smoke shell it never had?

Discuss.

just go play 40k

That game is ruined now. Luckily there is Bolt Action and Flames of War.

I got to wondering whether we have reached the point where what happened in reality was now subordinate to what makes for a fun game?

Depends. Some games focus on realism, others focus on fun. I don't think there is an obvious dominator in the market.

It also depends on what you consider to be a historical game. If you consider Bolt Action to be a historical game, it would cut one way. If you consider it to be a fun game with some historical clothing on, then it wouldn't count.

With those things looming over us, does it /really/ matter whether a particular mortar gets a smoke shell it never had?

Depends. Again.

I don't believe there is any absolute standard of what constitutes history. Any history makes an a priori value judgement about the relative importance of different things and then focuses its attention accordingly.

If you found the other things unimportant and the smoke shell issue vital, it would make a difference.

I agree with your point.

Of course, easily fixed with a house rule.

I got to wondering whether we have reached the point where what happened in reality was now subordinate to what makes for a fun game?

Depending on the game, that point was reached back a century ago. H.G. Wells chose that point very quickly.

It all depends on the designer's goals. If more designers are choosing H.G. Wells over von Riesswitz, that is just the flavor of the moment, personal preference and a whole raft of other things. It too will pass…

I don't believe there is any absolute standard of what constitutes history. Any history makes an a priori value judgement about the relative importance of different things and then focuses its attention accordingly.

Perhaps, but there are standards in the study of history, such as stating your priori judgments or what historical evidence that value judgement is based on rather than whatever you dreamed that night or is fun in the morning. For instance, what made you think that the 50mm mortar smoke shell was significant during WWII at whatever scale you are focused on?

Some games focus on realism, others focus on fun

With comments like these how can you be surprised at the outcome of the discussion? How about – some games focus on realism, other ignore it.

Sounds like a stupid cop out on the part of the writers/players to me.

As far as is possible, reality overrides everything else.

The example of a 50mm mortar firing smoke is a clear case. There will be a limit point when reality is too complex/fiddly and the game wins out.

Of late there has been a tendency towards simpler, quicker games with less detail. Opinion differs on whether these can be realistic or not.

My own POV is that the best compromise is for more detail and historical accuracy than the current fashion.

Well, I think that part of the issue is how the question is phrased.

Fun wins or realism wins, the game is the focus or reality is the focus. It must be less of one or more of the other.

ANY game can only portray so much *reality*. Like any game or any procedural system, every simulation designer knows that too much detail will kill a simulation design, regardless of purpose or type, including computer simulations.

So what reality is the wargame designer choosing to portray? How much of it? There are perfectly valid simulations that portray one thing, one aspect of reality, say movement and a fully functional, and possibly fun game could be designed around that portrayal.

As Dan observes,

some games focus on realism, other ignore it.

The problem is that designers are rarely that clear or specific about what reality they are--and are not--targeting--or ignoring--let alone where in the game system that is being represented.

Certainly there are a number of designers that are clear about 'fun' being the primary objective of their game designs, but they are still very fuzzy on what history is being protrayed, or if it is included at all. They sort of pretend at providing pretend reality.

I cringe when a gamer states that a game is more of a simulation than some other rules when the designer himself has stated categorically that the game was the point of the design in question and he doesn't believe simulation games are even possible. That kind of bizarre gamer conclusion can only happen when the history portrayed is never identified for the player and the whole issue remains in a fog. [And such observations happen too often to chalk it up to not paying attention.]

Here are some observations about wargames and simulations:

"The Primary Rule of Wargaming: Nothing may be done contrary to what could or would be done in actual war."
--Fred T. Jane (Of Jane's Fighting Ship's fame)

"The object of any wargame (historical or otherwise) is to enable the player to recreate a specific event and, more importantly, to be able to explore what might have been if the player decides to do things differently."
--Jim Dunnigan, Chapter 1, "What is a Wargame?"
The Complete Wargame Handbook, 1980, 1993, and 2000

"Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time . . . Simulation is used to describe and analyze the behavior of a system, ask what-if questions about the real system. Both existing and conceptual systems can be modeled with simulation."
--Jerry Banks, Engineer, Introduction, Handbook of Simulation, page 3-4, 1998

Now, some wargame designers will agree with the above statements and some won't and design wargames accordingly. That is all fine and good. The hobby has had and does current have both types of designers in varying numbers.

I enjoy wargames based on both premises, say Fire & Fury and BattleCry. The first designer states his design is "historically accurate" and the other that his game is "stylized history."

The problem arises when you can't tell or aren't told which choice the designer made with his rules…or worse, the designer claims both historical accuracy AND a game focus, but never explains how he achieved either.

For instance, how do you know that 'the game' as trumped history? Which wargame designers have stated that their game contains no representation of history? [Or even 'stylized history?]

Sounds like a stupid cop out on the part of the writers/players to me.

As far as is possible, reality overrides everything else.

The above is the cop out. It puts on the clothes of absolutism – overriding everything. But it begins with a highly situational and subject qualifier.

Really, this approach doesn't resolve conflict by establishing some objective standard of reality, but rather describing the difference in what two people think is practical. Which is what it was speaking against.

Of late there has been a tendency towards simpler, quicker games with less detail.

I'm not sure what that's based on. What tendency? With whom?

The problem arises when you can't tell or aren't told which choice the designer made with his rules

This is absolutely the case. The game designer has a value system for the game. You have a value system for your play. Normally (without direct feedback to the designer and the ability to change), you compare how your values align with the experience the system gives you (which may or may not be representative of the system as a whole).

some games focus on realism, other ignore it.

Perfectly legitimate to have a value set where if unless your personal standard is met, the game system has absolutely no realism.

The commanders in a battle are the primary factor in determining the outcome to a battle. However we already know the outcome to the battles involving those commanders. What we are doing now is determining the ability of the players in those situations.
I am a strict designer using the capabilities of the weapons which were available in that era. It is crucial to provide the correct and available 'tools' to the player to test them.

In Tunisia, a French Char 2D hit a Tiger tank in the turret ring and immobilized it. How many rules would allow that?

In Tunisia, a French Char 2D hit a Tiger tank in the turret ring and immobilized it. How many rules would allow that?

Allow that? Meaning all current and past wargame rules do not allow Char 2Ds to ever damage/knock out Tiger tanks?

1. I think you'll find that a number of rules do 'allow' such things, but at very, very slim odds of it happening.
2. No wargame or simulation is ever going to, nor should they take into account every single bizarre, one-off occurance. I still remember a board game of Antietam claiming more realism because the rules included the beehives one of the Union advances became victim to.

What is the wargame focused on?

1. I think you'll find that a number of rules do 'allow' such things, but at very, very slim odds of it happening.

This was one of my big philosophical debates in designing QILS. I decided to go a route where no figure (the basic unit in the game) design was invulnerable. You can make the Pk for Figure X against Figure Y as arbitrarily low as you want, but it is still above zero.

In such a situation, it requires very rare dice outcomes, so when it happens and you look at a defending armoured vehicle roll six ones and a single, unarmed attacking civilian roll one six, you're like "Wow! That outcome was as unexpected as that roll!". At least, I hope you are.

Looping back to the OP, history is our view(s) of one of many possible threads of events and outcomes that happened in the past. I don't think this trade space is as either/or as has been discussed in some posts above.

Looping back to the OP, history is our view(s) of one of many possible threads of events and outcomes that happened in the past.

Yes, I think that some gamers miss this point. A simulation can recreate an event or an environment. Recreating history doesn't simply mean reproducing the event. Simulations that create events are scripted: Only one outcome is possible no matter how often you play it. It's a movie, not a game at all.

The other, recreating the environment is what most all simulations are designed to do. As Jerry Banks and Jim Dunnigan say, a wargame/simulation allows players to "ask what-if questions about the real system" and "to explore what might have been if the player decides to do things differently." That is very much what wargames are about. That means creating an environment/relationships between game components that mirror history and reality, say an environment with Char 2Ds and Tigers.

I don't think this trade space is as either/or as has been discussed in some posts above.

etotheipi: Not sure what you mean by that. Is this a 'trade space?'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several of the above posts imply that you must sacrifice realism for fun or vice versa, creating a trade-off between the two. I don't think it is that absolute.

Etotheipi:

Got it. I agree. There is no absolute, or even an inherently fixed design contiuum where one must be sacrificed for the other. It is a myth created eons ago by designers who said that 'reality is multitudes of data, a lot of details, so the more facts and detail is ipso facto--more accuracy, and lots of detail is needed for a really 'accurate' wargame/simulation. [The notion, completely erroneous, all started with SPI.]And of course, when those detail-ladened games proved to be no fun [or game] at all, the opposite was accepted: more detail means less fun… [SPI called these detailed games 'dynamic history books.'] So, lots of gamers just 'read' them…but didn't play them.

It is a sad logic loop that doesn't do anyone any good, let alone designers. Unfortunately, there are designers who believe this game vs history, fun vs simulation rabbit hole and voted for the game and fun. Voila: "Game trumps history."

I see every historical wargame as 'alternate history' – otherwise, what is the point in playing?

So I actually enjoy the 'fun' aspect of it more than the realism – if we know what happened in one specific battle, we are already looking at what would happen if different tactics or different luck occured. It should reflect the environment, and that should reflect the possibilities of that environment.

For example, the Nazis using smoke previously. The question then is why not – was it doctrinal, was it logistics, or something else?

IMO, if they physcially had them available, they should be able to use them, even if they didn't in that particular scenario.

If they didn't have them with them, you could use it as a balancing aspect, because if you are sticking with TO&E, very often battles were not particularly fair – indeed, if you are fighting a fair battle you probably screwed up somewhere along the line.

In those cases, adding in different variables can help balance games and make them more tactically interesting.

I'd recommend the GM noting this in the rules and why he did it, so players understand the situation they are in.

To me, the game is the thing – because the more accurate your simulation, the more choices you take from players and the more likely you'll get the exact same results.

can help balance games and make them more tactically interesting.

I have always found balanced games to be much less tactically interesting . . . but that's just me, I suppose.

the more accurate your simulation, the more choices you take from players and the more likely you'll get the exact same results.

I disagree, emphatically.

It is true that "exact same results" are caused by limiting the players' options, but this has absolutely nothing to do with how well the game environment conforms to the historical record. If a game is (by whatever measure) "accurate" but the results are monotonously similar, then it is not because of its accuracy but because it is badly designed (i.e., the designer has failed to make the players' decisions drive the outcomes).

(Unless the players' choices you are referring to are like the one mentioned in a column in WSS, where the writer was bemoaning the limitations of historical games where "you can have King Arthur on a horse, but not on a dragon". As if Arthurian England and medieval pageantry were just too dull to contemplate without dragons.)

It boils down to this – in my opinion anyway.

You can't ever achieve complete historical accuracy. But you can try. Some games designers just make stuff up because they are lazy, foolish or have an axe to grind. Some just want history to be 'different' and make it so in their game.

If it's a WW2 game then basic well known facts about WW2 should be correctly represented. The level of detail is up to the game designer, but at the level selected they can at least try to get things right. If they don't then I won't play/buy their games.

To me, the game is the thing – because the more accurate your simulation, the more choices you take from players and the more likely you'll get the exact same results.

I agree with War Artisan, but this isn't a matter of opinion. A simulation's accuracy [in anyone's book] isn't dependent on how few choices you allow players. The ONLY time that would be true is if you were doing a re-enactment or movie. Then EVERY choice would be made for the actors/players. There certainly are a number of wargame designers past and present who think creating events [The French never win the Battle of Waterloo because that didn't happen so would be 'inaccurate history'] and controlling players' choices so only the historical events occur. Or they inject specific events into a game design so something has to happen. Mixing Static and Dynamic simulation mechanics is bad wargame design.

Most all simulations, from research to training and entertainment, aren't that kind of simulation.[Static] The only limitation to most simulations [dynamic] is that the player choices have to be within the possible for that time or situation/environment. That's all. Anything further in the way of choices is simply fantasy.

I disagree, emphatically.

It is true that "exact same results" are caused by limiting the players' options, but this has absolutely nothing to do with how well the game environment conforms to the historical record. If a game is (by whatever measure) "accurate" but the results are monotonously similar, then it is not because of its accuracy but because it is badly designed (i.e., the designer has failed to make the players' decisions drive the outcomes).

Its probably specific to the scenario choices we see played, specifically that they are often done so that both sides have some expectation of being able to win. Polish vs Nazis in 1939 isn't something we see that much of – becauase any level of historical accuracy there is likely to produce one sided results.

Though honestly, it might be fun to do a series of games at cons where you know you are going to get creamed, you are just trying to do better than the historcal result. :D

I agree with War Artisan, but this isn't a matter of opinion.

Sure, if you say so. :)

A simulation's accuracy [in anyone's book] isn't dependent on how few choices you allow players.

Perhaps a difference in semantics, but again I disagree. A 'simulation' is exactly that – a 'wargaming simulation' is different from a 'simulation.' Because the game aspect comes into play, and the design inherent there means choices for realism have to come into play to create fun gaming experiences.

I'd say it changes more dramatically over scope as well -simulations are perhaps easier to create at the skirmish level that so many play here. The further in scale going up the more likely you are to deal with 'simulation' impeding game play.

The Axis didn't have the industrial power to defeat the Allies in WWII. You have to fudge a bit to make both sides having a chance to win in that setting.

The ONLY time that would be true is if you were doing a re-enactment or movie. Then EVERY choice would be made for the actors/players. There certainly are a number of wargame designers past and present who think creating events [The French never win the Battle of Waterloo because that didn't happen so would be 'inaccurate history'] and controlling players' choices so only the historical events occur. Or they inject specific events into a game design so something has to happen. Mixing Static and Dynamic simulation mechanics is bad wargame design.

Peronally, I can see situations where it is very useful. Again, most often in dealing with larger scope of wargaming, operational and higher. A personal favorite of mine was the Paradox Software computer game Hearts of Iron. It included specific firing events that modified the game in historically accurate ways while still allowing players a wide scope of operational choices.

Most all simulations, from research to training and entertainment, aren't that kind of simulation.[Static]

I'd argue that most entertainment simulations are indeed static, but OK. Movies, TV, historical fiction…

The only limitation to most simulations [dynamic] is that the player choices have to be within the possible for that time or situation/environment. That's all. Anything further in the way of choices is simply fantasy.

Anything that differs from historic events is 'simply fantasy', in that it differs from what actually happened. Playing out a series of games for a historical campaign is going to differ more and more from history with each possible change by a player's choice.

It still would be construed as 'historical gaming', would it not?

At the skirmish and company level of most miniatures games, being able to accurately reflect battlefield conditions with the rules set is definitely important. No one wants to see a Stuart destroying multiple PzVs. The question is what variables does the rules set allow, and what the scenario design there is.

But if you are doing a specific battle from a specific point in time, the more you lock down the rules from 'pure fantasy' as you put it, the more chances you are to get a historical result.

And that doesn't always make for the best game. A balance between playability, balance, and historical accuracy is always something that game designers have to deal with.

From a lifelong study of wargaming I can say that a game is "realistic" and "a historic simulation" if it gives a +1 bonus to the guys the game is named after.

(French for Napoleon, Germans for WW2)

If I want historical analysis, narrative, controversy &c., I read a book; if I want to play a game for relaxation and entertainment, then it must be easy to understand, learn and play.
So, in that sense, when I'm wargaming, the playability of the game does – temporarily – trump the history.

Anything that differs from historic events is 'simply fantasy', in that it differs from what actually happened.

That doesn't make it 'simply fantasy', not when the idea is to make any choices, and subsequent game events historically feasible.

Static Simulation recreate an [historical event] with all decisions of all the actors being scripted. The same things happen every time with only one result, like running a movie. That is not a game, no matter how interesting.

Dynamic Simulation recreate the environment in which player/user input changes the simulation events. The player creates the story. This is the value of simulations for research, training and entertainment.

That is just a matter of basic design goals, not an opinion.

Trying to do both in one wargame, creating events and an enivornment, is bad design. For instance, more than one game of the 1870 battle at Mars-la-Tour tries to recreate the 'Death Ride' of Bredow's cavalry. So they have this 'special' rule where one cavalry brigade gets to suddenly appear with devastating results. Well, both players know this, so this one brigade gets far too much attention. Both players change tactics to anticipate it's one time use.
The same thing occurs with the McClellan rule in Antietam games. Both sides, knowing little Mac's piecemeal commitment of corps will occur change their game strategies and tactics to compensate/take advantage of the rule, completely outside of any historical dynamics. History and the players' historical choices get trashed in an effort to recreate one historical event.

That is a design dynamic that occurs every time such things are attempted and not someone's opinion.

Games and simulations are physical processes the players follow. Those processes aren't opinion, they just are. The only problem can be 'interpreting' the rules as written. Everyone knows the rules are written to describe one specific set of processes which players are certainly free to change.

Game mechanics [which many simulations use] again aren't opinion. They purposely behave in very particular ways to create very particular experiences for the players. Again, the mechanics aren't simply opinion.

Simulations, by definition, are supposed to provide game experiences that relate in specific ways to reality/history or some particular environment. That is what all wargame designers attempt, regardless of how much or how little history is actually targeted--unless the designer states that his design doesn't relate to history at all. Again, that isn't opinion.

The designer decides what those game mechanics are supposed to represent historically, where, when and how much is provided. Again, that isn't opinion, but rather something every designer has to do in creating a wargame.

Whether they have done it well, whether the mechanics are fun, balanced or 'playable' is certainly opinion. Whether the simulation, wargame or just a simple game is entertaining all depends on the design and what a gamer finds entertaining. Again, opinions differ and there is no 'right' answer.

However, if the designer provide a game that has Char 2Bs knocking out Tigers with every shot or Bredow's cavalry Brigade always rides over the French, they haven't simulated those relationships well, and again, that isn't opinion regardless of how entertaining it might be.

If I want historical analysis, narrative, controversy &c., I read a book; if I want to play a game for relaxation and entertainment, then it must be easy to understand, learn and play.
So, in that sense, when I'm wargaming, the playability of the game does – temporarily – trump the history.

Arthur:

I don't see any problem with that approach. Game designers have all sorts of goals for their game designs. That may or may not have anything to do with why gamers like you and I come to the table to play them.

I don't think game designers purposely create games to be hard to understand and difficult to learn. What designer doesn't want their wargame to be entertaining?

I also have yet to read or hear a historical wargame designer stating that his game portrays nothing of history… and if that's what you want, read a book because my game is only about entertainment.

So, I would think the questions in addressing the Thread issue would be:

1. How wargames are successful in being entertaining… and historical? and,

2. Why gamers [and designers] would conclude that games, to be entertaining and easy to learn, have to 'trump' history?

I don't think it HAS to trump history, but ultimately a historically accurate game that is boring to play will lose out to a less accurate game that plays well.

"49% history, 51% playability" is a phrase I've become fond of.