"What do you expect from your players regarding knowledge?" Topic

A number of recent posts made me think. What understanding of the real world systems and tactics do you expext/design for.

Our rules (Maneouver Group) is for combined arms operations from WW2 onwards. It assumes folk understand team, squad, platoon etc are understood. It also assumes that folk have s o me understanding of how AFV'S operate. Similarly we assume folk have a grasp even if only light, of what a formation is and why it would be adopted.

Do do more would need ten times more words to teach basic history and tactics. Before even attempting to describe how our model relates to this.
A simarly would be that we are a stress analysis model. If you don't know what stress is the model is of no use to you.

By the way we did have a modeller/wargamers whose models were stunning, who had no grasp of platoons or command structures. Clearly we were not for him.

where do you stand on this?

I always assume people have a basic knowledge of military terms, and a basic knowledge of the period the rules are supposed to be aimed at.
If people are wishing to wargame in a period, is it unreasonable to think they first have an interest in the periods warfare?

Having run games for a variety of different people over the years, I assume they know almost nothing except that bullets come out of guns. I wouldn't even assume that they know that swords are melee weapons.

Assume nothing.

I've found using military terminology and nomenclature will need an instruction period for players. The best way is to write the rules in a way that the players can be rewarded with die roll modifiers for using a tactic.

Wolfhag

I am happy if my fellow players have any idea at all, of what to do with the units they are given, from any era.
Many, if not most players, that I have seen, like to see their miniatures "dance" on the table, but do not use any strategy or tactics to attack or defend, and think that rolling high = playing well.

While I still have good conversatkons that are historical to include strategy and tactics…

Recently started adding a general discussion of tactics and history around the period before starting; either as iintroducing rules or as I set up.

As a player,unless dabbling, I always read up on period – o my fair to rest of players – unless rules are more like a che kers game.

I write rules largely aimed at the persons I'd expect to play against. This can vary tremendously though. Some were written assuming minimal knowledge of the period, others expected quite a good knowledge and background reading on the tactics employed.

I doubt that I'd play twice against the people PJ describes with though, definitely not my style.

A number of recent posts made me think. What understanding of the real world systems and tactics do you expect/design for?

Ushcha:

From the prospective audience[s]? Considering the wide variety of opinions on 'real world' systems and tactics, what different folks want from games, let alone the actual level of understanding that might be the *norm*, a designer has a limited number of options in his approach to designing a game with respect to his understanding of the wargamer in general and/or some perceived customer niche.

As I designer, I have basically three choices:
1. I can design for what I think is what the average gamer wants regardless of their understanding of 'real world' systems and combat.

2. Design for a particular level of understanding I believe exists for some population of wargamers, and/or

3. I can design from MY understanding of real world systems and combat and then explain what that is to customers, not requiring them to understand outside of my design.

As ALL wargames are designed based on the designer's understanding, then #3 is the most reasonable choice. If you don't care about whether the customer 'understands' such things, you go for #1. And if you believe you have an accurate knowledge of some portion [or all gamers as some designers and TMP posters claim], then #2 is the probably choice of approach.

I am sure most gamers can place particular wargame designers on that short list by their general approach to wargame design.

None of them are wrong, depending on what the designer actually knows of his chosen clientele and the game he creates

I did wounder, but the answers of this very small sample is a bit of a culture shock. We do lable some games perhaps not politicaly correctly as "American market" games. Though that is a bit rude as there are American games that do not fall into that catogory (Fire and Fury being but one).

That is lacking depth and substance and being highly random element dominated. This now seems to be plausible. If most of the games are against players who have minimal/no understanding (and no wish/opetunity to learn) of tactics and do not play regularly the same period thay is making the best of a bad job.

Were that the case I think I would give up. I gave up ancients which was my other love as it was competition dominated and had little to do with simulation. Changes for competition actually made it worse.

The simulation vs Game divide shows up starkley under this sort of data.

I have a friend who has read a lot about the North African campaign of 1940-43.

He can tell you how many drive sprockets are on a Cruiser mk I vs a Cruiser mk II but he couldn't tell you how many were in a troop or squadron.

My favorite gaming experiences are those where all the players have a basic command of the period – terminology, tactics, organization, historical background, etc.

Games are best when everyone has at least a basic command of the rules and is willing to self-educate from the rulebook or charts. I think it's okay to try out a new game for the first time without a clue how to play it, but it's annoying to play with repeat players as ignorant of the rules as if they've never played before, and exasperating when players bombard the GM with rules questions that are clearly answered by the cheat sheets in front of them. Some leniency should be allowed for poor memory or long gaps between play sessions or even badly written rules, but it's the responsibility of the players to learn how to play. Refusal to do so just drags the game down for everyone.

The most important thing is to set the expectations of the players ahead of the game. It can be tough to diplomatically exclude someone, but if casual clueless players will ruin your game, you have to find a way to filter them out.

- Ix

We do lable some games perhaps not politicaly correctly as "American market" games.

I think you meant "libel". :-)

That's not only rude, it's inscrutible. Care to elaborate? I couldn't tell you what makes a game "British" or "American". I find non-serious low-simulation games, overwrought accounting nightmares, unintelligible disasters, and elegant immersive simulations all originating from both sides of the Atlantic.

That is lacking depth and substance and being highly random element dominated.

If this is what you meant by "American market" games, I must counter with the examples of GW and the Warmaster system spin-offs. There's plenty of luck-based low-sim ooh-shiny rules publishing done in Jolly Old England. Given the variance of personal opinions about what constitutes a "realistic" gaming experience, any sweeping prejudice about rules originating from an entire country has the integrity of a banner on wet tissue paper in a wind storm.

- Ix

It would be nice to "simulate" proper spelling.
Harrrumph.

And what is a "pl a yes"?

'We do lable some games perhaps not politicaly correctly as "American market" games…That is lacking depth and substance and being highly random element dominated. This now seems to be plausible."

Damn man, you just can't help yourself, can you?

"If most of the games are against players who have minimal/no understanding (and no wish/opetunity to learn) of tactics and do not play regularly the same period thay is making the best of a bad job."

I personally have never run into an American wargamer playing historical games that wasn't familiar with the period, organization, and tactics of the era he was playing. Granted, I don't play 'the tournament scene,' which is where I assume one would run into those type of folks, and anymore I almost exclusively play solo or against my son. But in previous years I played quite a bit with other folks; almost 90% were military veterans, about 60% of them were combat veterans, and even the non-veterans were guys who had put in quite a bit of time reading/researching their chosen historical period(s). One even straightened me out on US Airborne platoon organization in WWII.

V/R,
Jack

Let the guy with the American gamers comment be. Here in the US, among board wargamers, our term for lite games is "Eurogame"…

Regarding "American style games", don't blame the poster, he is just saying that is what this type of game is called in his parts. I doubt he coined the phrase or labels all of us with the same brush.

For my part I wouldn't expect players in my group to be experts in any genre game that I played but would expect some familiarity…I am disappointing more often than not.

V/r

Dan

Assume nothing.

I have interest in gaming periods I am ignorant of. I have no idea what Winged Hussars were/are/did but I want to game them.

Eurogame and Ameritrash are commonly used in board game circles. BGG even has definitions for both

link
link

If it is true that you "have no idea what Winged Hussars were/are/did but want to game them", then it is hard for me to picture why you would want to game them. Is it just because the figures look interesting? Would substituting them for the knights on your chessboard be satisfactory, if you're not interested in having their behavior in the game resemble anything that they actually did, historically speaking?

When I design a historical wargame, I make the mechanics simple enough that they can be grasped and executed by anyone, with or without any knowledge of the historical background. I have a tendency to use period terms for things, but I define what they mean in the context of the game at the very beginning. However, the full depth of the game is only accessible to someone who has some prior knowledge of the subject; my goal as a designer is to give them a tool that will help them explore history, not to teach them the basics of the subject matter. If they come to the game with no background knowledge of the subject, it is likely that they won't play it well, but it is certain that they won't take anything away from the experience except how to manipulate the mechanics to achieve a "win" . . . in which case, I'd prefer they didn't play it at all.

If you are writing and marketing a game directed at your friends and/or gaming colleagues, then it may be all well and good to write the rules in a way to reflect their level of experience. That would be expedient to filling their need at the expense of having a product that is marketable to many other gamers and the more general public.

If on the other hand you wish to make a product that would be useful to gamers that work in a different genre or the novice public, then you may want to be a little more instructive in your writing.

It is all a matter of how small or how large you want your product's market to be. That would be info you should have decided on before setting pen to paper, or fingers to keyboard.

If it is true that you "have no idea what Winged Hussars were/are/did but want to game them", […] Would substituting them for the knights on your chessboard be satisfactory, if you're not interested in having their behavior in the game resemble anything that they actually did, historically speaking?

On the opposite tack, I actually have near-zero interest in the historical behavior of winged hussars, but I just wasted 30 minutes looking at 1/72 plastic figures of them for a hand-painted 17th C. Polish themed chess set. :-) Fascination with miniatures leads to some awfully irrational outsized efforts.

- Ix

From an originally French based point of view, I am frankly shocked by this American= trash branding.
First, contrary to laws and mafias, in games YOU can chose what you want and even modify it.

Second in the past decades actually it seems to me the more historically / simulation right rules where more emanating from the US. At least for a long time. I am only in history, know zero of the rest.

On the other subject, it does seem the younger generations do search less the subjects, even do the reverse we did, play and maybe look for background/ history… Maybe , sometimes.
Old timers ( who starrted as young nekulturny) often looked to game the history stuff they liked.

In EU, the advanced "demilitarization" of society mean most youngsters have no idea of what we had as basic knowledge, having been there and done it, all knew even as kids, what are batallions, companies, platoons, squadrons, cruisers, frigates…
So now new players even have pbs with what are basic terms. It should be made easier as any one can " google it" we could not in the 80s.
But in games sessions it brings some basic blanks.

A bit like when a pure gerks explains " computer …" In depth to a guy like me.

My grandpa was in the military and couldn't tell you the difference between a Sherman and an M48, both of which he saw when he was there.
He did learn that if you take an M1 rifle and pretend to sword fight with your mates, you'll screw up the sight and if you don't want to admit to the officers what you did, you'll shoot poorly for the rest of your time in the army.
What rules cover that bit? :-)

Anyways.
I run games with a lot of people who aren't hardcore military buffs or who are board gamers and role players, so I don't expect a ton.

Usually pick out a movie that sort of kind of gets close, then work from there.
If they want to learn, they'll ask questions and we'll talk about it.
If they don't, whatever, it's just a game.

You can explain the basics of TABLETOP* small arms tactics in 5 minutes.

Detailed military tactics is pretty deep in the nerd sphere, so I wouldn't expect someone to know all the details, just like they don't expect me to know the details when we play a Star Trek game.

If you are meeting with someone who is already into the particular historical period, I'd assume they know the basics but we're here to play a game, not write an operational battle plan.
You may know what a Panzergrenadier ate for lunch, but you still have to roll a 5+ to hit the target. :-)

*As in how to play sort of realistically and do okay on a gaming tabletop.

To add, I have no issue with the hardcore simulation crowd, do what you enjoy.
My view is based on my particular circumstances.

As I wrote, that many do not know " enough" is only a pb when trying to explain things/ or assuming mutual understanding.
I have rhe same quite often with different countries / languages.
It sometimes makes thing a bit more complicated/ funny.

As one stated here, in wargames it does become a bit of a hassle when regular gamers still do not want to learn the basics. Defining the basics and we will start getting philosophical.

My son in law, who is my primary gaming partner, knows very little about pre-modern (current day) History. He will play anything I set up, but relies on me to give him some background.

I have no understanding of military terminolgoy really, and couldn't tell you what makes up a platoon or company or whatever. I'm about to start playing ACW with my dad (we bought the Perry's battle in a box as a joint (and now early!) christmas present) but I have limited knowledge of the ACW, I'm probably not going to read up on it before I play the game (I pick up a lot of knowledge from my dad luckily on historical periods) but I'll still enjoy playing it, same as when we play Napoloenics (which he really knows well) and Medievals (the Agincourt era) – I win more often than not, does that mean I am lucky, or that my tactics, despite not being based on knowledge, are pretty good anyway? You don't have to know much (if anything) about a period to enjoy gaming it – but you might then be interested enough from playing to read up more. At the end of the day, playing a wargame, is, supposed to be for FUN.

I agree with alien – fun. Winning with lucky die rolls is fun. Using real tactics should be even more fun and eliminate the need (to an extent) to rely on lucky die rolls.

I think the hardest part of designing a game is how do you reward and get the players to use real tactics if they are unfamiliar with them.

FOW uses a lot of special rules. Other games like BA use die roll modifiers.

In a squad level infantry game Fire & Maneuver is the main tactic to advance. In reality one team lays down suppressive fire while another maneuvers but does not fire. I use a rule that any infantry unit attempting to move under fire must pass an Aggressiveness Check.

To reward the player for using the "Fire & Maneuver Tactic" if one team lays down suppressive fire while the other (maneuver element) is in full cover (not firing or exposed to direct fire) the next turn the maneuver element can move under enemy fire without an Aggressiveness Check and lower chance of causalities. Now they alternate, the maneuver element hits the deck and lays down suppressive fire while the other team goes into full cover. Having a sustained fire MG on the target really helps too.

I think you need some type of rule structure to reward the player. Just telling a player with no military experience or detailed knowledge of WWII tactics to use WWII tactics is going to be pretty tough.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag is on to the key part of the question I think.

If the game mechanics do the job right, you can get players who are keen on winning the game and it'll funnel them the right direction without them even knowing it :-)

Because I design my games for what is going on around the table, not what is going on, ON the table, (I design them for the players) I assume no foreknowledge whatsoever and the "function" of what they did, were for, or were about, is expressed in the rules and the values of the unit. If a unit has a high melee value and a low fire value for example, I assume that in the common comprehension of game, they will use the one in melee and not in fire.

I have long held that there are "True Games" and "Real Games." Chess is a "true game" in that you could drop a set and board with anagrammatic instructions onto Tau Ceti 4 and the intelligent bees on that planet could play it without having to know what bishops, horses, castles or pawns were or represented in real life. On the other hand "real games" are Games which require a knowledge "reality' and rely on the correspondence of piece in the game to real life prototype to make the game work. If the game piece does (by the pure unadulterated mummery of the game) what its real counterpart does then it does not violate reality. Thus you need the correspondence and he "real" as in "reality" to have a link to the game.

People want to play the game and be entertained, and don't care abut pre knowledge. You can know the lore and the lexicon without having a game and for many people that is that they want. A lot of people play chess and know nothing about knights, bishops, and castles either.

I only wrote one board wargame, never published. Only thing I expected was an eighth grade reading level.

I think there some points to break out:

Yatzee is fun, Monopoly is fun, Chess is fun. However, they each ask different things from the players in both commitment and thinking. Different goals in gaming, even though 'fun' and entertainment is an expectation. Otto's "true games" and "real games" speak to this, though I think the monikers 'true and real' are a little misleading. Chess started out as a 'real' game and could have been dropped on Tau Ceti 4 during the Middle Ages and still had the bees playing it regardless of its European purposes back on earth.

Which is to say, a game can be designed to do X, but that doesn't mean someone will have it function as Y. Kriegsspiel was designed as a realistic training platform for middle grade Prussian officers. von Reisswitz related how surprised he was when those officers began playing it as 'entertainment.' Both X and Y functions.

Knowledge of a period and its tactics can be useful in a game ,but if you are marketing to the gaming public shouldn't be needed. If you try for to much needed info you will find there are players who know more than you (the writer)
Using the Op rules set as an example – I am sure that the rules are written from the tactical view point of it's original country (not sure which -guessing not UK /or US based on spelling, sentence structure , etc, in the postings) But what happens in that game when you run across a player who has a much better knowledge of squad actions and tactics from his country and your game doesn't do a good job of duplicating them ?
Then add in the way that tactics and capabilities are constantly changing and evolving .

I do find it funny that the OP says that he finds Fire & Fury an example of a game that doesn't lack depth and substance – it is the exact opposite . I quite enjoy playing it ,BUT it has almost no depth at all.

Games fall into 2 Categories
a) Those you would play again
b) Those you wouldn't
Anything beyond that and you are on a self-guided ego trip .

Different goals in gaming, even though 'fun' and entertainment is an expectation

Not for the OP I suspect.

I designed my (in the final statges of pre-publishing) starship rules on the understanding that it is only going to appeal to the sort of players that are going to want to sink time into playing. If Full Thrust is by its own admission, a "six pack and boldy go" Accelerate & Attack is… not that. If you only play it once or twice a year, as opposed to nearly every week, it's probably not going to be the sort of game that will appeal, because it'll take several games to master the subtleties (even if the mechanics come mostly a bit quicker.)

(It's not, granted, a Star Fleet Battles level of complex – on the very first playtest, by the end of the day, the players were playing themselves), but what is does produce is a lot of hard decision making (in that there is rarely a "good" answer, only a trade off) for which there is no substitute for getting better at but for playing.)

I view it in the same sort of way as I view playing D&D or Rolemaster as my systems of choice: at some point, SOMEONE in the group has had to/is going to have to read them cover-to-cover, and then the other folk in the group can learn from them.

(Or to something, in the compter games end, like a Paradox Grand Strategy game like Europa Univeralis IV, which you will still be learning (even with the wiki and the forums) new things after a couple of hundred hours of play.)

I recognise that this puts it in a niche-of-a-niche; but I didn't, in the end write the rules to sell millions, I wrote them essentially because it was the set of rules I wanted to play.

(The bit of fame and glory (sic) from being able to sya "I gots my rules piblished" is merely a bit of an ego-trip on top.)

It is also something I look for in a set of rules; essentially, anything that isn't going to provide enough mechanical or tactical complexity and/or variety is likel to never get my interest. Basically, I am only likely to play a game I will play for hundreds of hours. I'm not, unlike many folk, interested in games for the sake of games, I'm only interested as them as a vehicle for the story (or a battle, for wargames) that I want to tell. So once I find a set of rules that works for me (as D&D 3.5 and Rolemaster did), I won't get new rules for the sake of new rules unless I determine they do the job I want them to do much better.

@grtbrt

To clarify, UshCha is, in fact English, but I'm afraid his approach to punctuation is often… A bit like Nanny Ogg's, let us politely say, unless he's actually doing work and such (and/or has an editor, as he does with Maneouvre Group releases).

(While once reading something he had written, I observed to him that, to paraphase Blackadder, punctuation was something that happened to other people…)

I really dont see, what simulation has to do with the knowledge of the players. It is about the similarity between that what really happens and what happens in the game.

Russian attacks on German HMG really happened. Players with no knowledge about WW2 will do it. Playing that in Crossfire will have the same result than the real thing. That is a simulation! (With very simple rules BTW)

I really dont see, what simulation has to do with the knowledge of the players. It is about the similarity between that what really happens and what happens in the game.

Russian attacks on German HMG really happened. Players with no knowledge about WW2 will do it. Playing that in Crossfire will have the same result than the real thing. That is a simulation! (With very simple rules BTW)

Decebalus:

Yeah. That's what simulations do: Lead players to experience the decision parameters of the real world… some learn from it and see the connections to actual combat, some don't.

I expect players to have general ideas of what military terms (period specific if there are good reasons to not use modern vernacular) mean.

I expect my players to expect me to explain precisely how the general concept of a company (or whatever) is implemented for the specific game I am describing to them.

That's what simulations do: Lead players to experience the decision parameters of the real world.

Simulations allow players to participate in the performance space their component models describe, which is hopefully a coherent view of the referent. That doesn't necessarily align player decisions with those of the real world participants in the referent.

Sure, but then, in real life, people did all manner of strange things that weren't "correct".

Occasionally they even got away with it :)

Could Auddie Murphy happen in our games?
What about "Mad Jack" Churchill?

I use a gaming system few people are familiar with so at the start I set expectations for players by telling them what they will need to do and how to think about approaching a turn.

Since the game revolves around responding to enemy activity they need to be aware of every enemy action and not wait to be told to move or shoot. After they perform an action they need to select the next action they will perform and how far into the future it will be performed. This goes against the though process of most players that have played any type of IGOUGO or random activation system.

I try to impress on them that if they think and react like a tank commander or squad leader they'll be able to make the right decisions.

Any historical knowledge about weapons and tactics will definitely help.

Wolfhag

Oh… I also expect them to bathe :D

Now ,that is expecting too much . You elitist !! imposing artificial constraints on players.

A few years ago, playing Brian Stokes' HouseRules Napoleonics, as the Austrians vs the French, across from Brian himself, I came up against the problem of Which Reality, What Validity. I attacked, in column, a French unit, which was in Line, and was repulsed.
Brian followed on with the comment that I should have known better than to attack a Line with a Column. As I recall, at the time, some of the Napoleonic gamers were debating Oman's Maida stuff regarding columns and lines. I was a curious remark.
We still have this kind of debate, not only about columns and lines but about the effects f artillery, Napoleonic or more recent, firepower and morale effects, terrain effects, even minefields. So what do I expect from the gamers? Not much as each will bring along his own perceptions and opinions as to what the real is.
I at least expect, though always disappointed, that the rues will not lecture me about the so called history, eating up space and time that could be devoted to more rules examples , discussion or more unit types. Instead we usually get justifications for the rules, bad playing tips, few clues from bad designer notes regarding the designer intentions and method.
It really doesn't matter if the player is a holder of the Combat Infantryman's Badge when playing an obviously fun yet simplified skirmish game. The veteran may announce his ideas on the not so real aspects of the game, but if he is having fun, so what? And if he is in it for the miniatures, to show off his own art work aka his figures, then who cares about he realism lost? This also applies to the gamer who is a world class diplomat, a Henry Kissinger, playing a fun game, such as Nuclear War, which has little real world validity {and no lectures on the game's realism or so called reality checks on the missile systems or other)
In a word, I do not care what the payer knows, as long as he can play the game without having to take a Masters in
History or be a West Point or SandHurst graduate. Just a set f rules that doesn't include fifty charts and twenty charts--oh for the simplicity of Nuclear War's very scientific Spinner.
But if the market place supports games of fifty charts, in 6 point font of course, and twenty dice, some of them read as they roll on the floor, then I guess that is a kind of fun, just not mine
Realism is in the eye of the beholder, and a read of the 10th Federalist is in order where Madison says much of the same. I am just a faction with Spinner.

Simulations allow players to participate in the performance space their component models describe, which is hopefully a coherent view of the referent. That doesn't necessarily align player decisions with those of the real world participants in the referent.

etotheipi:

Yes, hopefully. As someone who has designed training simulations/games, I agree: there is no guarantee that players will 'align' their decisions to that of real world participants.

However, generally speaking, players:
1. Will earn the options and consequences of those real world decisions… which players often comment on in playing different wargames. "Oh, that's why…"

2. Will, like the real participants, see the benefits and risks of different choices and quite often make the same decisions because the game environment has provided the same benefits and risks.

3. Can, in the simulated environment, experiment safely with options that weren't chosen by the real world participants. Participatory and research simulations are often designed specifically to explore 'the road not taken' or to experiment with different options.

In other words, simulations are often specifically designed to have players NOT align their decisions with the real participants. That is often why gamers play: To find out what could have happened… they already know the choices made in the past by the real participants.

Realism is in the eye of the beholder, and a read of the 10th Federalist is in order where Madison says much of the same. I am just a faction with Spinner.

Rick:

Well, Madison was speaking of politics and government… whole different context.

As long as realism isn't defined or identified, then it will remain anyone's guess, but it isn't that vague or individual.

Tell me, which picture of Napoleon achieves more 'realism':

Now, only one achieves 'realism' when it comes to portraying Napoleon Bonaparte. The others? One simply isn't him and the cartoon, for all the possible ethereal relevance someone might attach to the 'meaning' behind the image, isn't attempting 'realism' at all.

'Realism' isn't simply a personal opinion. And the only reason you and I can recognize one as the real Napoleon is because we have all seen many different pictures of him--sources--and can thus recognize him. History--and wargames of history--are like that too.

There are many definitions of realism. My leedle ole' handbook of philosophy here which weighs in under the featherweight class of such items at 320 pages (as opposed to something that begins with "The Oxford" or "The Cambridge" which comes in at thousands) lists eight, realism, Aristotelian Realism, common sense realism, epistemological realism, naïve realims, personal realism and \ Platonic Realism, and for good measure a listing under "reality" and "realims, objective and formal. Once you toss in solipsism, which can be epistemological solipsism, or metaphysical solipsism the number of definitions of realism increases exponentially by the power of infinity.

I have found that in war games unless you are of the opinion that war games are nothing but mere games, with the pieces as tokens and the mathematical values purely ascribed and in essence arbitrary (that is when war games comes closest to being a "true game") and with nothing at all to do with real war in any way, shape, form, or idea, that is, that the game is pure mummery like kids playing in a sand box, then realism to the wargamer is any set of rules that allows him to think that he is a nascent Napoleon, a real military genius, a Sergeant Rock, or Steiner, or Petrov who can take down a JSIII or Tiger with a pea-shooter.

I witnessed a perfect simulacarum of this in mid November. A whole gaggle of young people who were over for a party at a friends house were going to see the new Harry Potter Movie on opening night. They were all mid to late twenty-somethings. EACH of them was brining their "magical wands" that they had bought with them to the theater. Each of them for a few moments could indulge their fantasies that they were something more than simple human beings in a humdrum workaday world. Question them on the silliness of this brought storms of contempt and protest-- just like when you question that someone's rules aren't realistic, or that it is a game, just a game, nothing but a game.

For me McLaddie, the realism of Napoleon is the cartoon. the real person is the person with his "innards" displayed as well. The realism is the person as we see and the Dorian Grey Picture in his closet.

There are many definitions of realism.

Otto:

There is only a few definitions, if that many, when the goal is life-like realism, life-like representation--recognizable realism, not some philosophical or psychological interpretation in some medium like a cartoon or abstract art. Even the emotional content of past events are part of the record… and thus if you attempt to recreate them, it isn't any different than any other efforts to represent history with game mechanics in producing whatever effects are desired.

For me McLaddie, the realism of Napoleon is the cartoon. the real person is the person with his "innards" displayed as well. The realism is the person as we see and the Dorian Grey Picture in his closet.

Uh-huh. I was only targeting the person we have seen and know from his actions, not his unseen innards, which remain unreferenced in historical accounts, as are Dorian Gray's, unless you want to represent that fictional character and how he was described in the novel… then you are using an objective reference.

So realism in wargames is a goal. Whatever you think realism is will be pointless unless 1. it is recognizable without any explanation on your part or 2. you provide a definition so others can see the connection between the representation and what is being represented. Even Picasso did this when unveiling his abstract painting Guernica.

Of course "historical" realism in war games is a goal. Why do you think people spend hundreds and thousands of their currency to purchase, paint and make figures, terrain and vehicles? Why not just use different sized and colored blocks of wood?

Why do you think someone will point out to you that your Winter 1944 12th SS Gefreiter has the wrong camo pattern painted on his figure and the shading of his rank insignia is wrong too. It's about objective and verifiable historical realism.

You could have an abstracted dice game similar to Chutes & Ladders where units advance and withdraw because units do advance and withdraw in real life but the degree of realism to historical battles would be pretty hard to figure.

Of course you could come up with all types of explanations and rules to justify the realism of a game with a Chutes & Ladders model but in the end how historically recognizable will it be to people with knowledge of the era.

Wolfhag

That should be "ARE only a few definitions of 'realism' that work when attempting something representational." in my last post above.

Realism isn't some 'whatever feels good' opinion. It has to be representative of reality… because that is the template that circumscribes the target of the creation.

Design what is supposed to be a model of a T34 tank and create this:

And it is simply wrong. The designer failed to create a 'realistic' model of a T-34 tank, period.

One can rattle on about personal interpretations, deeper meanings or the 'guts' of the thing, but that model does not represent a T34 tank--because the intent was to model a T34 tank.

Of course, the first, most important thing is to identify what real things, event or person are going to be represented. That means identifying what constitutes 'realism' for the designer. You don't have to agree with it, but if the designer is going to claim his design is realistic… he had to state what real things he was attempting to capture with his design. Most designers don't do that… they claim the'realism', but never say what that is in specifics--or they claim that realism is in the eye of the beholder… so it can be anything you want and the designer is off the hook.