"GAME DESIGN CATEGORIES: Benefits and examples" Topic

Phil,
Not sure I understand what even IOG UGO. I assumed it meant more or less one side completes its activity for one element of its total force, then the oipponent does the same for on of his elements. The bound being completed when all eligable elements have been activated. However It seems somfoke call the normal one side activates all its elements and then the other side does the same. I assumed this was the norm so did not have an identifier. It would appear that my interpretation may not be correct. Hence ther is an outstanding need.

The characterisatio of say a battalion game is a long way from clear as another example. In real warfare the attacket almost always outnumbers the defender localy. D day being but one. To you class the game on the largest unit on the attackers side or the defenders. A modern game that has equal sides is really fantasy as that does not occour in the real world. A definition "A Catagory" would help to eliminate this confusion.

Plus what you may fine helpful or not helpful about a game is likely to be wildly different to other folk. Many of the games you describe as great with great mechanisms to me would be utter failures right from the start. Please do not tar us with your brush.

At the cost pf some games I would have no desire to buy them if they they were not remotely what I wanted. Some manufactures discriptions are a long way from usefull.

I'm waiting for the publishers and hobby organizations to do it… that is who does it in all the other markets. The best I can do is suggest as I have above by request.

OK, well I appreciate the honesty, then.

But it means that you're criticizing and demanding something that you have no intention of ever doing, yourself. You want other people to devote their time, energy, and money to do things to please you, and you claim vaguely that it will somehow be better for everybody. My understanding of capitalism is that that will happen only if and when there are a lot of "you" who are willing to pay for it.

Since most wargames are written by guys who have other jobs and are working on a shoestring budget, and since they don't belong to any sort of professional association or appear to have any interest in restricting themselves to some sort of globally-approved terminology… I predict that you're going to be singing this song, unchanged, until you shuffle off this mortal coil.

Not sure I understand what even IOG UGO

I believe IOG UGO is one of the Great Old Ones in the Cthulu mythos.

Alternatively this may help:

link

Phil, I agree that the BGG categories can be vague (as I said earlier, although as a designer they can be a useful starting point) and reviews are very useful. However, mechanics are important to many players and some sort of shorthand is necessary to avoid constant repetition of explanations in reviews. We do have terms like IGOUGO that would need unpacking and card-driven gets used a lot to cover different purposes. 'Random activation' might be useful as it doesn't really matter whether it's by drawing dice or cards.

I do think you would also need some sort of categorization or tagging to help filter. Why should people have to wade through 300 WW2 reviews to find a game they want to try, when they know at the start they want a scenario-focused game for two players ideally, with the company as the smallest unit and a standard game playing over three hours. Reviewers *could* preface their rules with these but it wouldn't flow particularly well, nor help searches.

But it means that you're criticizing and demanding something that you have no intention of ever doing, yourself. You want other people to devote their time, energy, and money to do things to please you, and you claim vaguely that it will somehow be better for everybody. My understanding of capitalism is that that will happen only if and when there are a lot of "you" who are willing to pay for it.

Garth: Wow, I am demanding, criticizing others to do a vague something to please me. And it will have to be paid for.

Perhaps because my career was in education, simulations and business, and I saw this development of categories and the results in the marketplace from the 80s to now, that it is so obvious to me.

The way I see it, I am watching the hobby stumble over the same obstacles over and over again and am simply pointing out how other hobbies have avoided them. I listed the benefits, hardly 'vague' and can give you more examples/specifics if you want.

The miniature wargame hobby has been stumbling along around these issues for a long time. Folks are used to it. After walking around the elephant in the room for thirty years, they don't see it. The hobby remains fairly amateurish when it comes to business, markets and hobby organization.

This does have consequences. If folks want to continually bang their heads against the same walls over and over again, I have no power to make them stop. I can only suggest there might be other, more profitable ways to spend their time… and point to those who do use them, how and why.

Developing categories isn't a panacea, it isn't a method to determine good from bad games, it isn't a process where every little detail of a game is explained, any more than every little detail of every salad or compact car or 'true scale' plane is explained by categories, let alone graded. It is simply an effective way of making the complex manageable in choices, in communication. development and market offerings.

Since most wargames are written by guys who have other jobs and are working on a shoestring budget, and since they don't belong to any sort of professional association or appear to have any interest in restricting themselves to some sort of globally-approved terminology…

Quite true. Amateurs. Generally part-timers who view such things as 'restrictions' are in stark contrast to full-timers and businesses who don't. They even create associations just for categorizing products: Category management

cpgcatnet.org

and write articles with titles such as Category Creation Is the Ultimate Growth

link

I predict that you're going to be singing this song, unchanged, until you shuffle off this mortal coil.

If that is true, then I can safely predict when you and I do, miniature wargamers will still be unable to agree on what a 'brigade-level' game is and still be vague on the design differences between process and results oriented games etc. etc. etc. and asking those deep philosophical design questions about whether fun or historical accuracy is 'more important.' The hobby will still be rehashing and perseverating over the same old issues that other hobbies [including board wargames] will have answered and moved on from long before. We will both shuffle off while miniature gamers and designers [unlike other hobbies] are unwilling to agree on anything for fear that *someone* is telling them what to do or 'restricting' them.

And that will be a shame.

And of course, business and hobby-wise, such behaviors and re-occurring problems are not good for business or growth… note the above article.

Why should people have to wade through 300 WW2 reviews to find a game they want to try, when they know at the start they want a scenario-focused game for two players ideally, with the company as the smallest unit and a standard game playing over three hours.

How do you find a book you like? A movie you like? Food you like? A spouse you like?

People sample things (ok, this could become a bit strange in the case of spouses, but anyway …). People try things based on reviews, word of mouth, what is available to them through practical means such as budget and time, or just sheer luck.

If you want a system, in which you input a set of requirements, and out comes the perfect ruleset for your specific combinations of requirements- a ruleset that might no longer be available, that no one playes anymore, and that you might not like after all …. Good luck with that. That's utopia. ;-)

And finding the perfect set of rules IS part of the hobby. The quest is the hobby.

Another thing: some might regret that our hobby is too amateurish. But we are a small niche, small in absolute numbers. It is our bane to be amateurish. It is also one of the attractive features of our hobby ;-)

That doesn't mean we should not try to bring order into chaos. But the efforts should be on the shoulders of those who think more order is needed.

Not sure I understand what even IOG UGO. I assumed it meant more or less one side completes its activity for one element of its total force, then the oipponent does the same for on of his elements. The bound being completed when all eligable elements have been activated. However It seems somfoke call the normal one side activates all its elements and then the other side does the same. I assumed this was the norm so did not have an identifier. It would appear that my interpretation may not be correct. Hence ther is an outstanding need.

No, it means you have to look up what IGO UGO means, not that the community has to redefine terms. ;-)

Don't get me wrong. I do understand the craving some have for more categorization. But I strongly feel that those who are in favour, should propose something, then try to convince reviewers, designers, gamers, to adopt their terms and practices.

If they come up with something good, ppl will use it.

If they come up with something unusable, ppl will not use it.

If it is good, but ppl don't use it anyway, it means there simply is no need for it in our hobby.

Personally, I am ok with the current situation. I like the slightly chaotic amateurish side of our hobby. Yes, it means it can look like a jungle sometimes, but it also means one can discover unexpected pleasant surprises in the jungle.

"Perhaps because my career was in education, simulations and business, and I saw this development of categories and the results in the marketplace from the 80s to now, that it is so obvious to me."

Lots of things look easy as long as somebody else has to do them.

I agree with Phil Dutre.

@Mcladdie:

I appreciate your efforts, and you know we both have a long history here on TMP discussing game design …

However, my feeling is that we could make better progress by insisting that rules writers – whether amatuerish or professional (whatever that
means in our hobby) – should include proper game design notes in the rulesets they sell.
That would be a first proper step towards trying to understand why specific rulesets work the way they do or were designed in a specific manner.

Once wargamers start seeing the usefulness of more elaborate game design notes, a specific vocabulary will come to the front, exactly because we need it to describe various design issues.

Phil, you may well decide to pick your next book or film purely on the basis of a review section in the newspaper each and every time. I doubt it though. Most people often go by the theme, a genre or an actor you like or a director's style. The popularity of online dating suggests that people like being able to use categories to speed up their search for a spouse. Do categories through up wild cards? Of course. Can random sampling unearth a diamond in the rough? Sure. People still go by preferences and shorthand in many cases.

Gaming itself is huge right now. People on here often seem to query whether we need to grow the hobby. Now whether those new wargamers are under-represented minorities, women or more middle-aged blokes, it would put more money into the industry and maybe see people who are more open to trying new games. I don't see a 'craving' on this thread by most but suggestions that some common terminology could be helpful are worth discussing in my view. This is the game design board after all and it makes a change for arguing over turnbacks, opinions of generals or bricoles.

How it would happen is a different matter. Whilst I think that McLaddie's idea that rules producers themselves will come up with a set of agreed definitions is indeed doomed to failure, I did suggest on the last page the only way I could see such a resource and eventually usage coming about, which is not too dissimilar to your last point. As I said, TMP is not the place for that step to take place.

Dear MacLaddie,

I know you are one of the experts on Napoleon gaming on this board and that is something I am just getting into after a long time gaming Warhammer 40k. So could you point out an example of how I could pick out Napoleon gaming rules based on your way of doing things? I want something like WH40k, that allows me to put hundreds of figures on the tables and makes the French different from the English (like WH40k makes eldar different from orks. Would that be a good enough categorizarion for you to suggest something?

Lots of things look easy as long as somebody else has to do them.

It's true. And at the time I was in the middle of it, from a formless market to 'personalities' to the development of categories. It wasn't THAT hard. It was a group effort because everyone found it useful.

Whilst I think that McLaddie's idea that rules producers themselves will come up with a set of agreed definitions is indeed doomed to failure, I did suggest on the last page the only way I could see such a resource and eventually usage coming about, which is not too dissimilar to your last point. As I said, TMP is not the place for that step to take place.

The problem is that the game producers for the most part are amateurs. That doesn't mean they produce bad games or aren't smart, it means that they are never in the market long enough to help develop it.

I know you are one of the experts on Napoleon gaming on this board and that is something I am just getting into after a long time gaming Warhammer 40k.

So could you point out an example of how I could pick out Napoleon gaming rules based on your way of doing things? I want something like WH40k, that allows me to put hundreds of figures on the tables and makes the French different from the English (like WH40k makes eldar different from orks. Would that be a good enough categorizarion for you to suggest something?

Well, first of all, neither of your traits, like WH40K, hundreds of figures on the table or army differences
tells you much about how the game design plays

But I can say that if you want hundreds of figures on the table, you are going to want larger scaled games. [Oh, wait, we've just had a discussion about what 'brigade level' games are… and that didn't help much.] so, that is only a general guide line as you 'go fish.'
As far as as 'national characteristics', most all Napoleonic games claim that… though what that means for play is radically different. So there, you can choose just about any Napoleonic game, past or present, and find that to some extent.

"May way of doing things" isn't my way, but a fairly common approach, would be for the hobby to establish, not what you, Chris, particularly want, but descriptions that helps all hobby gamers narrow their choices among the hundreds of rules when they know what they want. IF that included national characteristics, then terrific. Lots of rules claim that, but what that means is vague. the number of figures needed is another thing you don't see on most game promotions for some reason.

There are a number of lists of all the Napoleonic rules available and/or created in the last thirty years. None of the hundreds of game titles are listed by 'type' or internal traits at all, but rather alphabetically. Your search would be much, much easier if 'types' of games were grouped in some fashion, regardless of the actual categories.

Whilst I think that McLaddie's idea that rules producers themselves will come up with a set of agreed definitions is indeed doomed to failure, I did suggest on the last page the only way I could see such a resource and eventually usage coming about, which is not too dissimilar to your last point. As I said, TMP is not the place for that step to take place.

Ben: I would have to ask why, if that is true in our hobby alone, are producers unable or unwilling to provide those product categories in a developing process over time? I'm not disagreeing with you, only asking why you think they would never do it and act in such an atypical fashion among the various hobby markets? [I have my ideas about that too.] There are a number of consecutive avenues that could help develop those categories… including Phil's last point.

How do you find a book you like? A movie you like? Food you like? A spouse you like?

Phil:
Really? You have never walked into a book store and gone to the military history section and then to the WWII selves? Read a story tag of a movie, gone on line looking for a recipe under the heading "Salad'? As Ben points out, find a date on a date website by 'types.'

I think that the use of categories to help in selection is so ubiquitous in our world that many people don't realize how often they use them to make choices easier or understand why some searches are so difficult without them.

However, my feeling is that we could make better progress by insisting that rules writers – whether amatuerish or professional (whatever that means in our hobby) – should include proper game design notes in the rulesets they sell.
That would be a first proper step towards trying to understand why specific rulesets work the way they do or were designed in a specific manner.

Well, there we go with categories: "proper game design notes" and who will do the 'insisting'? I think it would be a positive step, but it doesn't have to be the first one.

Categories like design notes involve communicating what the game design provides gamers. When the categories and/or designer's notes provide USEFUL information for the gamers BEFORE they buy the rules, then they will be naturally picked up, like current categories such as 'card-driven games' or 'designed for 15mm figures' or European board games.' Hardly as meaningful as they could be, but certainly picked up and widely used because they help.

Shouldn't this be a concerted effort directed at market places?

Let's say I am the author of Sturm Panzer Eagles of Iron over Europe In Flames and I categorize it as "squad-stands, company-level, alternating turn sequence" or whatever.

How would the customer know?
How would they search for that? On what store front?

Phil,

IgoUgo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Type of site
Travel website
Available in English
Owner Sabre Holdings[1]
Launched 2000

IgoUgo is also a term used for a type of turn-based strategy game.

IgoUgo was an online travel community and travel-planning resource. It was winner of the 2004 Webby Award for "Best Travel Site in the U.S.,"

IgoUgo.com was launched in June 2000.

Please try and be positive not a complete negative individual.

PS the hobby is playing a good game. Searching for the perfect game is DEFINITELY NOT the hobby and I have written rules. Looking and writing was becuase I could not find an acceptable set is a lot work with very poor remunaration.

I strongly feel that those who are in favour, should propose something, then try to convince reviewers, designers, gamers, to adopt their terms and practices.

I believe that is exactly what the OP is trying to do.

my feeling is that we could make better progress by insisting that rules writers – whether amatuerish or professional (whatever that
means in our hobby) – should include proper game design notes in the rulesets they sell.

The challenge with this is that without standard terminology, those things become difficult to read and decode. Without a kind of guide (the vocabulary list) to tell you what is important, there will be no consistent focus nor comparability across different writers' notes.

Plus, if you can't get people to write a short description of a few important characteristics, how do you expect to get them to do a long one?

If they come up with something good, ppl will use it.

If they come up with something unusable, ppl will not use it.

If it is good, but ppl don't use it anyway, it means there simply is no need for it in our hobby.

This assumes a rational market. That's a good assumption for necessities (where the real world has well-defined and important feedback like killing you when you screw up) markets. Not so much for luxuries.

There was no need for people to read for the millennia where most of the population could not. People didn't die (often) from lack of literacy before it became common. But a lot of things could have been a lot better if it had become common practice earlier.

The current world is full of people who complain that it is completely unnecessary to teach algebra to school kids and then go on to complain about the fact that it is too hard to do any planning (nutrition, finances, government budgeting etc.) that involves anything more than the immediate addition and multiplication of two numbers directly in front of you.

Shouldn't this be a concerted effort directed at market places?

Exactly

Let's say I am the author of Sturm Panzer Eagles of Iron over Europe In Flames and I categorize it as "squad-stands, company-level, alternating turn sequence" or whatever.

Well, if that is just the author's categories, you have the same problem as knowing what a 'brigade level' game is. If those categories had some common meaning, then much better.

How would the customer know?
How would they search for that? On what store front?

Where do customers find that information now? That is a search question.

Currently they don't because there's no way to search for it on amazon or wargame vault.

Agreed categories and their meanings such as you suggest would be great.

The nature of the hobby being what it is, though, sadly it isn't going to happen.

Rather than endlessly argue about suitable categories and what they might mena with the equally endless arguments when people diagree, why not just encourage game designers to include a summary paragraph or rubric along the lies of:

"In this game each player commands a … with each element representing a … The minimum (or maximum) playing area required is … The game sequence is … Casualties are represented by … The game can be played with figures of xxx sizes…"

… and so on.

It would be interesting if some of the more long winded posters on this thread were yo tell us what PUBLISHED rules they have written, and their sales.
This is not one of those "You have never released an album, so how dare you criticize Justin Timberlake's latest disc?" things.
I just want to know your credentials.

"I've been working on my home rules for the War of Devolution for 35 years" does not lend much credibility.

Currently they don't because there's no way to search for it on amazon or wargame vault.

Weasel:
Good example. I get lists of 'wargames' and historical wargames from the wargame vault and they are just lists of titles. Even the descriptions, such as they are, tell you very little.

So, one thing categories do is help in those searches.

Agreed categories and their meanings such as you suggest would be great.

The nature of the hobby being what it is, though, sadly it isn't going to happen.

MajorB:

What is it that you see about the 'nature of the hobby' that will keep it from happening?

What is it that you see about the 'nature of the hobby' that will keep it from happening?

The simple fact that we cannot agree about many things such as the meaning of "level".

Winston Smith it is unlikely anybody will tell you their sales. I would not.

link

Our rules will not sell mass market anyway so sales figure would be meaningless as a indicator of quality. I dislike the mass market type (mostly Featherstone derivatives) aimed at muli-player with few folk with any understanding of the period.

why not just encourage game designers to include a summary paragraph or rubric along the lies of:

I believe that is what the OP is trying to do. Your following sample statement is listing the categories. One would assume that you would have to explain what to put in the blanks, otherwise you would get the same type of variation in responses we get now.

And you have to allow for variation, which means several different variations of the statement.

F'r'ex, most of my games would not fit well into that statement. Mostly, we do not specify a unit size for command; they specify sides and give different ways to break up the sides depending on how many players you have.

For QILS, our ruleset of choice, casualty representation is integral with damage representation. To understand it, you really pretty much have to read all the rules. (The price of innovation is you can't make an easy direct comparison to other things.)

The QILS rules were written specifically in "units", so you can pick your own ground scale and figure size. For games, we uaually pick one scale, announce it, and stick to it. Though in several we provide both metric and imperial units, and don't really care about the difference between 6' x 3' and 2m x 1m.

what PUBLISHED rules they have written, and their sales.

Look up Irrational Number Line Games on WGV for published.

Sales: Right now about 1 in 20 people who download our free rules pay for a scenario on a later date. Roughly 6 in 10 people who pay for a scenario (or several at once, they're cheap!) buy another scenario (or pack) on another day. Deciding to risk <$10 on a couple scenario packs means one thing to us. Coming back later and buying more after you've read/played them means something else to us. Within the 4 that don't come back, we have seen a lot of people who bought the "whole line" of something (say, Ace Goodknight pulp adventures) in the first lot, and some people buy the scenarios right when downloading the free rules.

"why not just encourage game designers to include a summary paragraph or rubric "

Most games do have some sort of blurb to that effect on the back cover. What the OP is attempting, though, is to get them all to use some sort of common terminology when they do so.

And even if that could be achieved, I don't see how it could be connected to the alleged goals of better-informing the customer and increasing sales.

Since most game sales are online nowadays, you'd have to persuade all the online retailers to include the game description – using the Official Terminology – on their websites, which means many man-hours of input for retailers who have a large inventory, and of course it potentially clogs up their sites, if they use older designs in which multiple products are displayed on one page.

And I still don't see how any of that would make it more likely for me to get a game that I liked better? I really don't think that most gamers start off by saying, "Okay, I have these criteria for the sort of game I want… let's search for something that meets those criteria…"

But OK, let's pretend that they do. Say I'm looking for a game that has certain scale characteristics (for example, a two-player WW2 skirmish game in which I command a platoon and move individual figures, and… let's say I hate card-driven games). It's not hard to figure out which games meet that description, from their existing blurbs, websites, whatever – even without the Official Terminology.

But beyond knowing that – which is already pretty easy to learn – what does the Official Terminology tell me about whether or not I would enjoy game A more than game B?

Let's say that I found three games that met my criteria, according to the Official Terminology: they're two-player WW2 skirmish games in which I command a platoon, move individual figures, and they don't use cards. OK: which one is best for me?

And even if that could be achieved, I don't see how it could be connected to the alleged goals of better-informing the customer and increasing sales.

Garth:
As I said, you use categories every day, using the information to buy more efficiently. If you want to buy a good book on WWII about armored warfare, where do you go when you enter Barnes and Noble or go to Amazon?

Because those books are categorized by objective, commonly used types [military history] and period [WWII], it is easier and more efficient for the buyer. It is like having a number of rooms labeled with different interests. You enter the room that interests you, you find a lot of other people there interested in the same thing… AND businesses wanting to offer you those things… Those folks that come into the room are 'qualified buyers'. That WWII book publisher doesn't have to advertise everywhere to everyone. It makes selling more efficient. That is why roadside stands are labeled 'Fruit' instead of 'groceries'. The people that stop are there for Fruit.

And I still don't see how any of that would make it more likely for me to get a game that I liked better? I really don't think that most gamers start off by saying, "Okay, I have these criteria for the sort of game I want… let's search for something that meets those criteria…"

More likely is the word, not some guarantee. If you want a WWII game using individual model tanks and platoon command, IF rules were categorized that way, you will find the type of rules sets you want faster and have a better chance of finding the game you want.

Publishers will be able to focus on what makes that particular type of game successful… focus on what that particular gamer is looking for in that type of game, rather than the pray-in-stray or personality cult market approaches the hobby lives with now.

I am sure you are aware of gamers and publishers fussing over the whole hobby market, insisting that ALL gamers just want to have 'fun' or that history is the most important aspect or… etc. etc. etc.

The hobby is complex, with lots of kinds of fun and types of games. The desire to make All games for all gamers comes from a lack of common terms to describe games that offer different pleasures in concrete terms so gamers can appreciate the differences AND find what they want rather than hunting through every game which claims to offer everything to every gamer.

Again, Categorizing isn't a panacea, it is an improvement that has benefits for both the buyer and the seller.

If I call something a "common vocabulary" and you call that same thing an "Official Terminology", we are already talking about two different things . . . which nicely illustrates the importance of a common vocabulary.

An "Official Terminology" is promulgated by authority (which, quite naturally, doesn't exist in a hobby environment); a "common vocabulary" is cooperatively developed by people with shared interests and a desire to communicate effectively.

In my experience, those who oppose the use of tools which clarify meaning and facilitate communication do so out of a fear that it will allow others to discover that they don't know what they're talking about.

why not just encourage game designers to include a summary paragraph or rubric along the lines of:

I believe that is what the OP is trying to do. Your following sample statement is listing the categories. One would assume that you would have to explain what to put in the blanks, otherwise you would get the same type of variation in responses we get now.

No, I'm not listing the categories, I'm listing the attributes for a category to be assigned to each. The difference is that I don't mandate a particular wording for a category, but leave the rules author to describe in his own words.

F'r'ex, most of my games would not fit well into that statement. Mostly, we do not specify a unit size for command; they specify sides and give different ways to break up the sides depending on how many players you have.

Which kind of proves the point that several comments here have made. There can be no definitive list of categories. Or even attributes …

a "common vocabulary" is cooperatively developed by people with shared interests and a desire to communicate effectively.

So I think wargamers qualify as a group of people with shared interests. How come we haven't developed a "common vocabulary" in over 100 years of recreational wargaming?

Which kind of proves the point that several comments here have made. There can be no definitive list of categories.

So I think wargamers qualify as a group of people with shared interests. How come we haven't developed a "common vocabulary" in over 100 years of recreational wargaming?

MajorB:

In many respects, you answered your own question. Unlike other hobbies, many gamers in our hobby actively insist that such commonalities can't be found. And common vocabulary has been found over the last 100 years, though much of it has been appropriated by board wargames and ignored or scattered by miniature gamers in the last thirty, often with views like the one you expressed.

So I ask you, what is sooo different about our hobby that we can't do what most all other hobbies seem to have done or are in the process of doing???

And we aren't looking for a 'definitive list of categories.' We are looking for a useful list of commonly understood categories which can continue to grow and evolve.

As usual, nobody answered any of the questions.

1) Since most game sales are online nowadays, how would you persuade all the online retailers to include the game description – using the Official Terminology – on their websites, which means many man-hours of input for retailers who have a large inventory, and of course it potentially clogs up their sites, if they use older designs in which multiple products are displayed on one page?

Without that, what good is it that somebody put the common vocabulary / whatever on the back cover?

2) You claimed that this common vocabulary would increase sales and make it easier for people to find games they liked. So: Let's say that I found three games that met my criteria, according to the Official Terminology: they're two-player WW2 skirmish games in which I command a platoon, move individual figures, and they don't use cards. OK: which one is best for me?

Which kind of proves the point that several comments here have made. There can be no definitive list of categories. Or even attributes …

There is a difference between "requires work" and impossible. The fact that one offered statement doesn't automatically fulfill all possible needs is different is not the same as, well … we tried … let's hang it up.

Since most game sales are online nowadays

And already have tons of information about the games on the websites online. Online retailers already do this. Standardizing terminology just means that when producers write the info, it will be more consistent.

OK: which one is best for me?

Nobody said a common vocabulary will solve all your problems for you. In your example, you were able to refine down from 1000's of WWII games to three that meet your criteria. That helps a lot.

No, I'm not listing the categories, I'm listing the attributes for a category to be assigned to each.

player commands a … with each element

Your statement, itself, defines a taxonomy. The ellipses in your statement define a categories. What goes in place (the values within the category) of the ellipses are terms.

There can be no definitive list of categories.

There is no definitive list of anything, unless that thing is defined by the list itself. Formal systems (like taxonomies over a real-world performance space) are necessarily incomplete if they are consistent.

The taxonomy of living things is incomplete. Has it had no positive impact on biology? The taxonomy of computer algorithms is incomplete. Maybe we should just chuck it? The list oc color names is not complete. Perhaps we should stop using them?

As usual, nobody answered any of the questions.

1) Since most game sales are online nowadays, how would you persuade all the online retailers to include the game description – using the Official Terminology – on their websites, which means many man-hours of input for retailers who have a large inventory, and of course it potentially clogs up their sites, if they use older designs in which multiple products are displayed on one page?

Garth:

"Official Terminology"? Many man-hours of input? Clogs up their website? Really? HiModels is a Chinese company new to RC Models. Here is a list of their links on their webpage:

Quick Links:
Multi-rotors Electronics
Multi-rotors Motors
Video TX/RX & Accy.
Gimbal/Gimbal Controller
Gimbal Brushless Motors
OSD/GPS/Auto-pilot/Stablizer
2.4G Modules & Receivers
2.4G Radio Sets
Speed Controller(ESC)
Digital Servos
Gas/Petrol Engines
Plastic Models

No one *forced* them to use those terms. They aren't using 'official terminology' in the sense you seem to mean, just terms everyone understands and obviously they are technical. [historical wargames are also technical] Far from 'clogging' the website, the categories help the company organize the site and aid hobby enthusiasts in finding what they are looking for when they come to the site.

Without that, what good is it that somebody put the common vocabulary / whatever on the back cover?

Which is harder, typing in some words on a webpage or changing them on the back cover of a printed rule book?

2) You claimed that this common vocabulary would increase sales and make it easier for people to find games they liked. So: Let's say that I found three games that met my criteria, according to the Official Terminology: they're two-player WW2 skirmish games in which I command a platoon, move individual figures, and they don't use cards. OK: which one is best for me?

Garth I don't claim it will increase sales, most all business and sales people claim it will increase sales [again, see article and the Category Management Association website] Why else would they put so much energy into managing categories???

I'd say it would be far, far easier to find out which of three games are what you like than twenty or fifty, particularly when the three are all much closer to what you are looking for than all the WW2 skirmish games ever created, particularly when most will be for two players.

Which is best for you? Categories make it easier to find what you want… not what is 'best' for you. It doesn't determine which game you will "like" better… It provides a way to narrow the search and find the best possibilities. Categories are a help, a guide, a search tool. They don't make decisions for you.

No one *forced* them to use those terms. They aren't using 'official terminology' in the sense you seem to mean, just terms everyone understands and obviously they are technical.

It is much easier to describe a "thing" , such as a 4G Radio Set than a concept, such as a rule mechanism.

And then most of the "things" you have listed fit into one category. Whereas a typical set of rules combines a number of categories (if we could actually define what those categories are).

Unlike other hobbies, many gamers in our hobby actively insist that such commonalities can't be found. And common vocabulary has been found over the last 100 years, though much of it has been appropriated by board wargames and ignored or scattered by miniature gamers in the last thirty, often with views like the one you expressed.

So, tell us, what are the commonalities that have been found and have then been ignored or scattered?

It is much easier to describe a "thing" , such as a 4G Radio Set than a concept, such as a rule mechanism.

Is it? Well, wargames are far more abstract, which means that the need for categories is far greater.

Whereas a typical set of rules combines a number of categories (if we could actually define what those categories are).

Right.

So, tell us, what are the commonalities that have been found and have then been ignored or scattered?

Ever heard of 'card-driven' games? COIN? Visit the GMT website and look at all the categories they have used to describe games… and how many have been used often and on… mostly off in miniature wargaming such as 'card-driven'. Actually GMT is going to have to create sub-categories soon as well as group the ones they have.

Ever heard of 'card-driven' games? COIN?

Of course, but "card driven" games covers a multitude of sins. What is meant by "driven"? Does that include action sequence, combat resolution, morale state or somthing else or any combination of all of them?

COIN is short for counter-insurgency and I would describe that as a genre rather than a category.

Visit the GMT website and look at all the categories they have used to describe games… and how many have been used often and on… mostly off in miniature wargaming such as 'card-driven'. Actually GMT is going to have to create sub-categories soon as well as group the ones they have.

As for the GMT "categories" most of them (e.g. Command & Colors) are based on game systems rather than categories as we have been discussing above.

Of course, but "card driven" games covers a multitude of sins

It doesn't in boardgames.

COIN is short for counter-insurgency and I would describe that as a genre rather than a category.

So it is, but when used by GMT, it means a particular game system.

As for the GMT "categories" most of them (e.g. Command & Colors) are based on game systems

And why do you think that is, when GMT games cover just as wide a variety of periods and scales as anything in miniature gaming or the categories discussed here…?

Dear Major B.

Have you ever heard of the category called "Tar Baby?"

Of course, but "card driven" games covers a multitude of sins

It doesn't in boardgames.

So what does it mean in board games?

So it is, but when used by GMT, it means a particular game system.

Precisely.

And why do you think that is, when GMT games cover just as wide a variety of periods and scales as anything in miniature gaming or the categories discussed here…?

Because a game system defines a set of what you want to call categories.

Of course, but "card driven" games covers a multitude of sins

It doesn't in boardgames.

Yes it does. That's why card-driven is not the only descriptor people use for board games that use cards.

The fact that there are many types of card-drive mechanic makes the descriptor about as useless as the word "red". Red alone is not sufficient to describe color, but it still seems to get a lot of use.

It is much easier to describe a "thing" , such as a 4G Radio Set than a concept, such as a rule mechanism.

Thanks for picking 4G as your example!

I can get you in to an ITU-R standards meeting if you want to find out how "simple" it is to categorize such things.

And, ultimately, what constitutes 4G has nothing to do with the "things" that are 4G, but with the concepts of the mechanics of how 4G works. There used to be a big debate as to whether LTE was 4G or not. (It isn't but, conceptually, it's 4G-adjacent).

But the whole purpose of hundreds of people spending hundreds (thousands, sometimes) of hours figuring things like this out is to make it easier on consumers to understand what they are getting (even if they don't understand the gory details of putting it together) and on other developers for leveraging standards and categorizing their stuff.

This is a great discussion with many knowledgable people. However, it reminds me of the building of the Tower of Babel. It would be great if we could build a tower to heaven. It would be great if we could get miniatures players to agree on anything too. Same chance of either happening.

Wolfhag

It would be great if we could get miniatures players to agree on anything too. Same chance of either happening.

Welcome back. It doesn't require a tower and it does require miniatures gamers to agree on everything or even most things.

Look at a recent request on the WWII discussion board and the responses:

Question: I know Command Decision is at this level where each stand represents a platoon and I think Blitzkrieg Commander too. I'm sure there are others, but can't think of them off hand. Any ideas?

A: Fistful of TOWs does this as well.

A: Spearhead, TAC:WW2. I'm sure there are others including plenty of free ones (Pz8, Tactical Command, Battlegroup, Fiire & Movement).
Well, those are all ones I've played anyway (along with BKC and CD).
You can of course play Rapid Fire at 1 stand = 1 platoon too by tracking hits on the infantry bases.

A: Ostfront uses infantry in stands, although its 2 stands to a platoon. Its a pretty fast and deadly system. We just released printed books on wargame vault, and have a free PDF version of the rules available with some army lists included:
Free rules + lists:
link

A: NUTS Big Battles will work as well. Instead of a sqaud per stand , make it a platoon.
link
Here's a step by step explanation.
link

A: Combat Command – of course!

A: Ambush – Blitz
It had been designed as 1 squad per stand but it is definitely 1 stand = 1 platoon
A 3 stand basic unit represents a Coy in all games now

A: Look, Sarge, No Charts: WWII.

Now it is great that we can come to TMP and get responses like this. Note though that a good number of them provide answers for games that weren't 'designed' to have platoon stands, including a board game I *think*: Combat Command. That's Okay, but the one asking the questions doesn't know how many such rules are out there or why these particular games were mentioned. Is that all of them, popular or just happened to be mentioned?

So, let's go to the WargameVault, which not only has a lot of rules listed but DOES categorize them with their search engine… they have to do something because they have so many items to sell.

WargameVault, Tactical/Skirmish WWII rules etc. Now I can type in either 'Wargames' or 'Miniatures' or by publisher.

link

You have a lot of choices all mixed in with paper buildings and/or board games, etc., but do the descriptions tell you much about the game play or what that gamer asked?

Here is what it says with the first suggestion above: A Fistfull of TOWS:

Like tanks?
Enjoy fighting mechanized battles in miniature? How about a game that's fun, fast playing, easy to learn, and still gives historical results? A Fistful of TOWs 3 is all that, and more. Oh, and did we mention the largest set of vehicle and gun data ever published in an individual rule set? Or the largest set of army lists ever printed in a single volume?

A Fistful of TOWs 3
A fast-playing, hard hitting set of miniatures rules for mechanized warfare. The rules are comprehensive, yet playable. And fast. Real fast. A typical game turn should average no more than 15 minutes. And it's designed to let you play big battles if you want, and use all those miniatures you have!

Game Features
Troop Quality Matters A Whole Lot. Troop quality affects every system in the game. Just like in the Real World.
Elegant Artillery Rules. Fast to resolve and no pre-plotting required. And you'll actually use artillery.
Simple Command Rules. Clean and simple, the command system accurately models mechanized command and control, without a bunch of leader stands cluttering up the playing surface.

Virtually Every Major Weapon System from the 1930s to present is covered, along with data for different time periods and conflicts.

Full Campaign and Scenario Generation System. Plus advice and guidance for do-it-yourself scenario designers. And a point system to help balance scenarios.

Rules to Determine Your Own Equipment Ratings. If you think the Merkava III's ratings aren't right, we give you the rules to fix them.

Flexibility. Designed for play with miniatures from 2mm up to 15mm in scale with no modifications. Comfortably handles battles from company/battalion-sized to brigade/regiment-sized and larger. And no specific basing requirements!

Unprecedented Historical Coverage. With a single game system and data set, you can fight engagements from diverse times and conflicts of your choosing--such as Poland in 1939, France in 1940, Kiev in 1941, Tunisia in 1942, Kursk in 1943, Bastogne in 1944, the Ruhr in 1945, the Tet Offensive in 1968, the Golan Heights in 1973, the Fulda Gap in 1984, Iraq in 1991 and 2003, and many, many more.

For a more comprehensive preview of the game, please see the free 32-page preview also here on Wargame Vault, named "A Fistful of TOWs 3 – Free Preview. There are print editions now available as well (hardcover & coilbound)--come see us at fft3.com or at the Fistful-of-TOWs Yahoo e-mail group for details.

That is a lot of information, but it never mentions base size other than under 'flexibility': "handles battles from company/battalion-sized to brigade/regiment-sized and larger. And no specific basing requirements!"

So, the information about base representation is there, sort of, but he has to read down to 'flexibility' for find it. Go find any of the rules on WargameVault mentioned above and some won't mention base size at all, and none of them are mentioned under the same headings as any other game.

That is a lot of work to sort through and find out what your choices are, let alone what qualities each rules set offers, when the descriptions are specific, which is why the gamer came to TMP to ask his question. And of course, in the case of WargameVault and each rules set any categories are theirs particularly. Is a battalion to brigade-level WWII set of rules a 'skirmish game?' When it is that difficult simply to find the games that might fit your needs, it isn't surprising that gamers stick with one game or design their own, let alone find it even more difficult to discuss game design.

When folks talk about the miniatures hobby not growing, this can be one of the reasons: it is too much work for vague or incomplete information about our games.

That is a lot of information, but it never mentions base size other than under 'flexibility': "handles battles from company/battalion-sized to brigade/regiment-sized and larger. And no specific basing requirements!"

OK. So if YOU were going to describe the Fistful of TOWs game, how would you do it?

McLaddie,
Glad to be back after 10 days in the DH.

Some people are really sensitive out there. I complemented and came to the defense of a TMP member who people were ganging up on, made a reference to a mollusk (whose Latin name may even be offensive to some so I won't mentioned it) and I recommended a course of chiropractic treatment for a perceived problem the TMP member had. Maybe I gave the wrong diagnosis or got DH'd for practicing medicine without a license? There was no name calling or offensive language was used. I'll try to be a goodie-two-shoes from now on out.

When I look at a game description right away I zero in on the ground and time scale. If it is something I can relate to I'll check further. If there is no real scale or if it is heavily abstracted (like a single game turn being from 15 seconds to 15 minutes) I move on.

I've found heavily abstracted ground and time scales generally end up being games revolving around dice mechanics and some type of artificial "activation" with very little real period flavor other than some eye candy. However, they can be fun and entertaining for the masses.

Wolfhag