"WHAT IS THE FEEL OF THE GAME?" Topic

Dear McLaddie

If you are interested here is a few points we have to start with.

1) What do we mean by feel?

1a. Do we mean "feel of the game" as for actual emotional experiences? That is do we feel like we are there?

1b. Or do we see things happening in the game, or are the critical factors in the game (that is those things we model and those things that we see happen as a consequence of the rules) occurring in the game.

2.Is this feeling an emotional phenomenon or an intellectual one.

2.a That is, does it portray a certain amount of "you are there " or

2.b "You are not there but you can see demonstrated what those who were there demonstrated.

That's more than enough for now.

1. What do we mean by "feel."

I hold that this is primarily an emotional sensation, not an intellectual one, but not that you flinch or duck when your opponent rolls the dice. The excitement that you feel is not the terror of being killed, but of the terror of losing in a broader sense. In one way a "unit" of an army is an individual and may in your mind have a personality all its own, and the sense of loss, should that unit be lost is not one of personal lost as in loss of person (ie, our own death) but loss within the agreed upon mummery of the game. I don't think its primarily intellectual for there seems far too much emotional involvement to allow the indifference of result. This is especially true of the weeping and wailing and moaning of a die roll overturning all our plans.

To put it another way the "feel" of the game reproduces a "sense and circumstance" of loss .

Such circumstance of loss clearly dissolves when the actual means of that loss are considered (a die roll) without an emotional component in ones head. However that sense of loss must be for reasons that we consider "just" in our minds. That is no matter what the result, that result seems congruent with the history we are considering. Perhaps the calculus of this is the old Fletcher Pratt rule that "Nothing may be done in the game that could not or would not be done in real war." The inns and outs of that are enough to keep someone busy for days.

To sum up. Primarily therefore the "feel" of a game must summon up some emotional happiness or loss which one can accept.

WOW!!!

Hmm. Nicely put, but I would not have said self-evident. If someone asked me without prior discussion--perhaps I missed something?--I'd have said the "feel" of the game was more about game design than about the elicited emotional response. Things like
How predictable are various events?
Which things are controlled by the players, and which are not?
What is known to the players and what is not?
Then on to game mechanics.
But from my point of view, the "feel" of the game should match the "feel" of the period and level of warfare represented. An 18th Century army commander--at least in Europe--should be playing a game of military chess, in which he is sometimes surprised by the enemy commander, but seldom by his own units. An ACW Army commander may have real trouble getting his corps commanders to move as ordered--or some of his brigade commanders to stop. An FPW volley might be much more predictable in its effect than a battalion of Napoleonic smoothbores--not just a differently centered curve of effects, but a differently shaped one.
Create the game with period feel, and let the players have what emotions they please.

But I'm like that.

Let's overthink things. STAT!

Robert, you've hit it spot on. "Feel" is more intellectual, and perhaps we could say experiential, not emotional.

Otto: the "feel" that you describe is what I think of as emotional investment in the game, and is what separates a good game from a great one. I can play a set of rules that have the right feel, and be merely satisfied with the experience. If a game has drawn me into it such that I am wincing at my opponent's successful dice rolls, or pumping my fists in the air when mine go well, I will feel that it was a fun game, but I may not think that it had the right "feel" if the rules didn't portray the period or participants correctly (imho).

Assuming good game master(s) and amiable fellow players (dangerous to assume, I know), a game with both good feel and good feelings-that emotional involvement – is likely to be a great game.

Perry

Otto:

Hmmm. I thought you weren't speaking to me… though I am glad to discuss the question.

The design term "feel" certainly can be applied to the emotional impact/involvement of play, how players feel after playing the wargame or the ability to immerse the player in the game process. Your choice.

However, when folks have used the term 'feel' here on TMP and most wargame discussions I have been a party to, it has been about how the game generates an impression of authenticity: "It feels like Napoleonic warfare" or "the feel of WWII battle" etc. Whether that is an intellectual or emotional response or both is certainly a question. Otto's 2B.

And because I am interested in designing games, I have often asked what gives them that impression of historical 'feel'. The answers tend to produce shrugs or really vague responses. Sometimes there are reference to game details, but less often specific mechanics or game processes. When those are mentioned, what specific history/reality the identified mechanics mimic or arouse in the player is rarely known… or it is an imagined event rather than anything from historical accounts.

So, from a design standpoint, finding and encouraging the link between history/reality and the player's subsequent 'feeling' through game play is very difficult to identify.

Obviously there is more to the discussion, including rules simply reinforcing any generally preconceived notions or player expectations of play, but that has been my experience.

But Mcladdie, how would you know that the "feel" of any period is right unless you actually experienced it as a participant? Or even if it was realistic in your sense how would you be able to judge it. That is, how do you know what the Napoleonic Period "was like." You would have to have a "canon" of authority once again of sources accepted to tell you, as one was not there and in some cases even the writer of a work on the period probably was not there either?

What factional basis do you trust?

But even at that I would maintain that it's a mere matter of "likes and dislikes" which is again emotional.

As our views are likely to be so divergent who better to thrash this out.

Somehow this feels like watching two pugnacious drunks shouting at each other across a seedy waterfront bar. All comments and questions are purely asked in order to precipitate a fight.

Otto

Actually, by "feel" of the period it is understood the prejudices of the gamers regarding how was was fought in a determined period. These prejudices are the by-product of reading historical narratives, novels, short stories, watching documentaries or movies. It is not particular of wargamers, though. Any person interested in history will have a set of preconceived ideas about what a period should look like or how people back then thought, act or related to each other. Historians are not different.

For instance, Robert mention the idea of war in the Eighteenth Century in Europe as a game of military chess. Therefore, if you game, say, the Seven Years War, you expect straight battlelines shooting each other until someone breaks. And yet, that was a single aspect of warfare, and not even the most important. Anyone that has read any detailed account of, say, the battle of Dresden, or Kolin, or Kunersdorf, knows how far from the mark was reality from that ideal of battle. Moreover, by choosing to represent just that type of idealized theater of war, you are leaving aside the war of patrols, foraging parties, ambushes, attacks to supply trains, posts, ecc, in other words, the kleine krieg. Yet small warfare was, possibly, an experience of war more common for XVIIIth Century soldiers than big battles. Then, for Robert a skirmish set of rules centered in Europe wouldn't have the correct "feel", but for me it would… even if it didn't differentiate that much from Napoleonic small warfare!

So, is it something emotional? Subjective? Yes and no. It is, but also it is based upon true knowledge of the particular way of warfare of a period, the one that you, as a gamer, is trying to represent. It will depend of the rules how accurately that representation is adjusted to your preconceived ideas.

Edit: Gah, Basileus pre-empted my post.
Also,

Don't skip the fact that our sensory inputs also result in the "feel" of something. This is not emotional or intellectual but is obviously tied to the sense of touch. The outcome is an abstract concept based on tangible evidence. For example, "this sandpaper feels rough," or "this silk sheet is smooth."

One's description of touch is limited to the input relative to experience, which is a factor of environmental conditioning, i.e. you were taught and experienced what "rough" felt like, thus your experience of rough coincided with touching the sandpaper. If you had been taught that this was in fact "smooth," you would declare sandpaper to be smooth.

Why this bears on your conversation here, is that we often use words that do not convey our exact meaning, but which we think are useful in getting our ideas across to the other party.

Like Ottoathome said, we cannot know what a Napoleonic battle "feels" like at all, because of our experiences, even in modern combat, are unlike what occurred slightly over 200 years ago.

We can, depending upon experience, understand what confusion and anxiety, as the result of being in combat, feels like, but this is not the same experience a fusilier of the period would have felt. They are similar or can be similar, but they cannot be the same.

Instead, getting at what McLaddie wrote, we can only attempt to come to a conceptual understanding based on the information we gain and synthesize through reading historical works, both primary and secondary, and playing games, or by filtering personal combat experience through the twin lenses of same.

If your experience of wargaming has been solely based on playing the most historically inaccurate and awful rules, but you had a lot of fun with it, you would think differently from someone whose experience was centered on a different set of rules.

Think of playing checkers vs someone playing chess. Your concept of tactical considerations based on unit capabilties limited by the enemy commander's options would be entirely different from your opponent, when playing either chess or checkers. Which of you is right about the proper "feel" of the game?

The emotional connection within the context of this discussion, which is the unfortunate consequence of being human (I state this as a Vulcan <grin>), is being used as a substitute for combat experience within the given period.

If a designer wants to create an emotional element to a player's game experience, this must fall somewhere along the lines of creating an atmosphere of pressure and anxiety, achieving a visceral state within the player, that attempts to be "something like" the stresses a commander might face in the course of a battle in the past.

Otherwise, the players are in control of their emotional connection to the events, units, personalities, etc., associated with the game.

A designer cannot force me to feel connected, I have to make that choice for myself, based on what "buttons" the designer is able to "push" that fit with my intellectual and gaming experiences.

This brings me back to a conversation I had at KublaCon this past May. Some friends were talking about an TYW game, using Black Powder (and its TYW supplement), having the "right feel." How the heck would they have any capacity to know that? BP doesn't even properly model, based on my own experience and understanding of the period (see my point), the interaction between elements of pike and shot, but the result was that we players had fun playing the game.

And isn't having fun the point of playing games?

When I read about a battle and then play it on the table, if there is any similarity to what I read, I would get the feel of the battle.

Dear Basileus and Justin Penwith.

What you say is all true, and highlights a large part of the discussion. Instead of saying "know" let us use a term that is more immediate to personal feel-- We cannot "experience" Napoleonic Warfare (or for that matter even any warfare right up to today unless we are in it). We can "know" it, or more pertinently "know of it" through sources, and again as both you gentlemen say it now becomes a battle of the sources. This "knowning" is more akin to "being aware of" and is a less immediate event.

Basileus pointed out one problem with the sources quite correctly using Robert's example of the 18th Century as a period of "military chess." How then does one account for the bloodbaths of Malplaquet and Kundersdorf which were not chess-like at all? Indeed, as this is my primary period I would posit that ALL of them except perhaps Rossbach and maybe Leuthen were all bloodbaths, little distinguished except for the forensics of time, from one another baths. Certainly we can see in the maneuvers and stratagems before battle some chess-like qualities, but most will account that the generalization of the 18th Century as a time of "military chess" is gained more with comparison to the Thirty Years war and Napoleonic period that came before and after. Again though we see it's a mere generalization.

The problem with these generalizations is how far you "codify" them into the rules. What are the features of ancients rules? Swords, spears, chariots and elephants? What's the feature of modern rules, machine guns, airplanes, and tanks? Ok as far as it goes.

The problem comes about not only from the sources, but in the implementation. That is what mechanics or bit of mumbo-jumbo do we include in the game to represent these things. As Justin note one example, the interaction of pike and shot, but how exactly is that to be modeled? To use an easier but just as valid example in say the Musket period- what rules or mechanisms do we use to model the firing of a 12 pounder. What represents the actions and procedures of firing that and how do we model them in the rules. At every step of the way we cannot use ANY of the actions and considerations of actually firing a 12 pounder, but must rely on abstract criteria to represent it. What does that have to do with the feel of the game under any definition?

That is what I meant when I said that "knowning" had to take place over "experience" because experience is pretty much not possible.

It is a double edged problem. "Knowing" what are the essential elements of the game, and how those elements are implemented. That is what I meant when I said that essential to any element was a sense of "justness" or "propriety" that such an element be considered.

But I maintain that even without experience, there is an engagement of the player with the game that is self evident and emotional. It is not mere "intellectualism." One can clearly see this in the physical and verbal and emotional reactions of the players to a die roll where all they have to do is roll higher than a 1 on a 20 sided die, and they roll a 1. This is where sense of loss and sense of success, if you will are evident. Further you have all seen games where one side can overcome the other by an adroit bit of gamesmanship or rules lawyering which evokes likewise an emotional response-- a response that is clearly the result of being treated unfairly and this is often manifested by the plaint "THAT'S NOT REALISTIC!" This obviously is not possible without some degree of emotional investment by the players in the game.

Let me extend this a bit. Let's take that roll of a 1 when a 2 to 20 will succeed. Assume it is a bare fact of the game. One could in ones minds eye explain all sorts of reasons in the imaginary world of the game why that one was rolled and what it represented. A lazy private did not distribute ammo to the troops, a subaltern bungled the protection of a flank, the troops were of poor morale because they were not fed today. The perfectly human desire is then not to simply assume it as the inexplicable dictates of fate, but to make rules for them so as to prevent them. That is, rather than leave them in the area out of a players control- to control them. This I believe is the root cause of over complication of games. But it involves the personal to the extent that one wishes to distance himself from a mistake. That is personal responsibility in the failure. Again, this is an emotional response.

Let me give you another example. One of the very important considerations for "the feel" of the game is how the game appears on the table top to our "eye." That is, does it LOOK like a battlefield in the time under question. Let's take the 18th century. Many rules will impose on the gamers all sorts of strictures on formation, as far as lines, and keeping troops close up and well formed, with command in front and quite detailed at that. On the other hand, if that is important to you, as it very much is to me, why not forget the whole folderol and simply mount them on one big whopping base- Thus my 30mm infantry regiments are mounted on a four by eight inch stand with 1 colonel, 2 NCO, 2 Musicians, 2 color and 29 privates in three ranks. "But, But But!!! you may sputter, what about formation changes? What about Column, line, and square???" I would answer that at the level my game is pitched (army where a player commands the left, right, or center) such formation changes are completely irrelevant. I am prepared to accept the fact that private Beitz who was sluggardly in bringing up the men's rations or Leutnant Bloez did not post a proper flank guard in that situation. It prevents the players from making all sorts of disorderly formations, protects the paint, and helps keep the muskets and colors from getting knocked out of players hands. As a commanding general I only need to know if a specific unit is able to take part in my plan and be an asset, or is it now a weakness and must itself be rescued or protected.

This is what I mean when I say that "the feel" is very elusive and that in the end it is up to personal perception, likes and dislikes. But I also would maintain that in the welter of cases, regulations and mechanisms that crowd our rules, there is a heavy component of emotion that arises from within us that clouds whatever intellectual component we would like to think is the motivator.

"Feel" in this therefore amounts to nothing more than "what's your favorite color."

I think that to most gamers a rule set or game "feels right" if it conforms to or re-affirms their existing prejudices or opinions.

Well, I've never agreed with the opinions of StoneMtnMinis before, but I do in this case.

The feel of my games is …

… fine Corinthian leather.

Basileus, I did write "period and level," and specified the experience of an army commander. Certainly the feel of convoy raids and outpost skirmishes would be quite different. And certainly even Fredrician Prussian regiments had their limits. But I'll stand by my point that they were more predictable than their ACW counterparts.

Stone Mountain is certainly correct--but pointless. How else can it be? No one's ever going to say "these new rules go against everything I've ever read about Napoleonic warfare: they feel about right." And if they did, you'd think they were crazy. Everyone outside of fantasy and science fiction--and maybe even some of them--bases his assessment of rules based on his knowledge of warfare in the period. If you want to change how someone understands a period, you need to write a well-documented book rather than a set of rules.

Otto, please don't shout…

But why Robert is that even necessary? Why do you have to have ANY knowledge of history to play a game? It is after all a game? Do you need a knowledge of real-estate to play Monopoly? Do you need a knowledge of Harry Potter to play a Harry Potter Game? Do you need a knowledge of Barbie to play "The Barbie Game?"

WHY must there be a "feels like" dimension to the game?

I have on my desk here a game "Love Letters" by AEG which is about smuggling love letters to a princess in a court in a mythical land. It is a card game where the cards are named "King, Countess, Baron, Guard, Prince" and so forth. Each card has its own special powers all of which have nothing to do with love letters, nor for that matter are the players required to have any real intimacy or be able to actually write a love letter. It is simply powers ascribed arbitrarily to the cards which govern discarding cards or looking at other players hands, and so forth. The powers are interchangeable with the names, so what is "the feel" Does the game have "the feel" of smuggling such letters to the Princess simply by the difficulty of getting them through the powers of pick and discard? OK, but if the powers and the names of the characters on the cards are interchangeable, and so by the way is the game! One could very well design the game "Project Manager" or "Down at the Shop" where you are trying to finish off the building of the living room set on an assembly line.

Indeed part of this question might be "the null result" that "feel" is completely irrelevant tot he game. I don't really think so, but the logical possibility is there.

I had a very interesting conversation with Bob Liebl at the 2017 Weekend Convention in Lancaster. Bob is a big 19th century Colonial gamer. I asked him why his passionate interest in it. Significantly he never ONCE mentioned the rules (Sword and Flame) but went on and on about size, diversity of troops and situations lore, and the unique and interesting, nay fascinating history of the period. It was obvious he knew all about the period and had studied the wars intently and probably had more figures in the period than the actual participants had soldiers. It was obvious his passion and emotion was key, and yes, there were intellectual factors, but primarily he LOVED the period.

But as for "feel" being a component of being a function of realism, not a bit. Oh to be sure there was the nodding acquaintance to realism that all rules have, but it was clear he was besotted with the period and not the rules.

What was obvious was that Bob loved the period, the lore, the drama, all of which was at an emotional level and none on an intellectual level. He has several advanced degrees in history, he was a teacher so no one can doubt he doesn't know the period. Oh to be sure he enjoyed the "puzzle" of threading through the rules and the game, but that was distinctly separate from his great love and great knowledge of the history.

emphasizing is not shouting

Well, if you're playing a battle with a Napoleonic rules set and you realize that you might as well have a bunch of WW2 miniatures on the table, then that rules set is not conveying the feel of the period.

I am a simulator, I have no interest in playing a 'game'. As such the feel good bit is about can I make the troops do what was typical of the period based on the sources I chose to use. Does it highlight the potential issues if you do not follow the "manuals". Does it play at least in part similar to the accounts you have read. Are the deviations reasonable and plausible. That is the start for me. If all that comes together the emotional side is about trying to define and execute a plausible plan to meet my objectives. If it's an emotional roller coaster going from triumph to despair and back again even better if it's several times win or lose.

But overriding if it does not appear to reflect plausibly the expected behaviour of the weapons and command system it's a dud and of no interest.

Otto, I am only responsible for the words I write, not one ones you place in my mouth. I never said there must be a "feels like" dimension to a game. I'm reasonably sure neither baseball not soduku have one, and I have my doubts about bridge. I was talking about historical miniatures gaming, and I was fairly careful to specify that I wasn't sure how "period feel" might apply to fantasy and science fiction.

Yes, of course Bob loves the period, and didn't spend a lot of time on his favorite rules. But I'm pretty confident if TSATF were so written that the Zulu commander's best option was a cavalry charge mounted on cattle, or Boers had little firepower and were best advised to close to melee it wouldn't be his or much of anyone else's favorite set of colonial rules.

I love color and drama as much as anyone. But if that were all I loved, I'd probably have done the sensible thing and not gamed or bought castings before 1755 or after 1815. It's the tactical puzzle that keeps me picking up early-mid WWII armies and the forces and opponents of the Second Empire. Was the Austrian Army hopelessly overmatched in 1866? Could better French generalship have won them tactical victories early in WWII? A variety of armies which were historical opponents gives you a lot of interesting games--but only so long as each army has its own weapons and tactics and behaves as
I understand the historical forces to have behaved.

You could, of course, invent five armies as distinct in weapons, organization, training and tactics as France, Germany, Italy, Britain and the United States in 1940-42, or France, Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Hanover and Saxony in 1859-1871, inventing flags, vehicles, weapons and uniforms as you go. The GW people do, actually. But as with Bob Liebl, I mostly prefer the real thing.

I would first like to thank Otto for his words of praise. It is always pleasant to hear praise of oneself. However, as for Mr. Piepenbrink, I also agree with some of his arguments.
The first time I play a game, I don't read the rules, but I play the period as the period went historically. Then, if there is something terrible about the results, I examine the rules to see why, and if the rules have an ahistorical view of the world, I ditch them. If it plays well with an historical feel, I let the rules be. I have seen simple rules play well, and other simple rules be simple minded. I have also learned that complex rules do not necessarily mean good rules. Well, so much for my two cents.

Etotheipi, I love fine Corinthian leather, hard to top that.

The "feel" I look for in games is, are players limited to doing what is reasonable for the period. Do you get a range of believable results from actions players take. Are there subtleties to the actions troops and players can do. Does the game give concrete examples of what can and cannot be done and explain in detail what each game function does or how each action is properly done within the rules. Can it be played in a reasonable period of time? The rules need to be well written and comprehensible. Does the game punish extremely rash decisions but rewards well thought out bold actions. It cannot be 300 pages long. Most importantly is it fun.

Bob, I playtest as you do, but there is a better way if one is willing. A good friend runs the whole tactical gamut--not just what was good tactics in the period, but anything the rules permit, to see whether they are sound tactics under those rules. If something works which shouldn't, he'd rather find and fix it now than have it come up in a serious game.

Time-consuming, though. There are a lot of things which shouldn't work.

Why don't Otto and UshCha get together on a game design.
Let Otto handle the simulation and UshCha do the whimsy.

I think "feel" extends beyond how faithfully tactics and troop qualities are modeled. Fear, uncertainty and stress are also important components of "feel" in any era of combat. The following case does not relate to a specific rule set, but does relate to "feel" for command.

I once took part in an 1864 Wilderness map campaign, playing the role of Lee. I started with a basic order of battle and an 8.5 x 11 inch map showing the starting locations of my units. Each real day was a campaign day; there was no distinction between workdays and weekend days. If I wanted any of those units to move or take any action, I had to contact "God" and issue an order through him. Knowledge of the Union's situation and movements could only be gained by ordering reconnaissance and scouting or accidentally blundering into contact. This grinding daily regimen went on for the better part of three month, with the only respite coming when "God" declared that a battle situation needed to be taken to the tabletop for resolution. We had three such major battles. I gladly welcomed each one because "God" would temporarily "stop the clock" until everyone could gather to fight the battle out. The inexorable daily grind of planning, decision-making, assessing the personalities of my sub-commanders, anticipating enemy intentions, dealing with a slowly withering infantry strength (no Confederate reinforcement) consumed my waking hours. It ultimately burnt me out over time – to the point that I finally placed myself on "convalescent leave".

That was the most profound example of experiencing a "feel" for combat command I ever had through a wargame. I highly recommend it as a life experience.

B

Dear Blutarski

That is an interesting experience. I rather honor you for your stamina.

More than that I honor your dedication. Most gamers in a campaign drop out at the first sign of difficulty.

"Feel" is something I have been passionately interested in all my life, but at the same time I recognize it is a game. Games have to be fun. I don't believe in simulations. All of them are frauds. That includes the simulations I was in in government and industry and those in wargames.

Your example highlights what I think is the essence of the question. You only can get "the feel" of the period in the game by intense dedication and mental involvement. That is, what you put into the game in your minds eye. Other than that the game is just a bunch of abstract, arbitrary, and largely unconnected to real life rules and tests. It's all personal opinion and largely is post-hoc justifications of individual likes and dislikes.

I've had players who put the depth of intensity into their Imagi-Nations in campaigns by prolific writing of back-stories, histories, regulations and materials and works of description, none of which had the slightest effect on the rules of the game but was pleasurable to them.

Everyone has their own idea of fun. We are free to pursue it as we wish. If there is any "feel" in the hobby, that is were it is. Besides, I've studied history enough to know that using good tactics and strategy is no guarantee of success.

I'm not sure what I ply is best described as fun. An absorbing, enjoyable intellectual challenge would be my definition. Lack of simulation would spoil the game. Even in simulations plans fail for an infinite set of reasons but the underlying principals need to hold true to make a game feel correct and hence enjoyable. To me there is no thrill of a dice roll it's just another variable to be contended with.

The die roll is merely a device to make a decision between two competing versions of future history. At the highest level both sides have a version of how the story of the game will go. You can boil it down to "I win" for both sides. The die roll simply decides which it is. At each sub-step along the way of that story a decision is made. It can be a roll of the die, a draw of a card, a guess of a range, or stone/scissors/paper. It's irrelevant, it's all the decision of which version applies at this point. You can multiply to infinity the number of decisions but it will not change the basic structure.

Thus if you are playing a game of "The Battle of Austerlitz" there is no difference between rolling a single die for the whole shebang and saying which side wins, and he then gets to make up the entire narrative, and subdividing the movements of each side into 10,000 points of detail and rolling for each one, where you make up the narrative one itsy bitsy piece at a time. Just as the means of making these decisions are merely arbitrary and artificial (dice, card, range, scissors/paper/stone) so to are the points at which they are rolled or enacted. You can call them "intellectual challenges" but if they are to be settled by dice, card, range, scissors/paper/stone, then any intellectual component goes right out the window as you are subjecting them to mere chance. All you are left with is the ego stroking that you are meeting an intellectual challenge by the excellence of your own person, rather than just rolling a die. If you were REALLY meeting it as an intellectual challenge, then rather than rolling a die you would be presenting a paper or a reasoned dialogue and exposition of real military science or history extemporaneously at table side.

Even then your opponent would have to present a counter argument and there would have to be an umpire to decide which had presented his defense better.

Quite reasoned, quite intellectual, quite boring, and quite unplayable.

It goes back exactly to what Stone Mountain and others have said. "the underlying principles" whatever that is, simply are the same as or close to the players which makes it correct.

I find if after the game I have in my mind a narrative that aligns with what I know of the period and was a gripping story, then the rules worked.

Hmph, saw this "party" too late to join in at the start. Lots of verbiage already. I am not listening to all of it.

"Feel" is for fun. If the "feel" does not produce fun, then you have no connection to the period, the topic, the game. I am not a masochist.

he die roll is merely a device to make a decision between two competing versions of future history. At the highest level both sides have a version of how the story of the game will go….

Thus if you are playing a game of "The Battle of Austerlitz" there is no difference between rolling a single die for the whole shebang and saying which side wins, and he then gets to make up the entire narrative, and subdividing the movements of each side into 10,000 points of detail and rolling for each one, where you make up the narrative one itsy bitsy piece at a time. Just as the means of making these decisions are merely arbitrary and artificial (dice, card, range, scissors/paper/stone) so to are the points at which they are rolled or enacted.

Otto:
I've italicized the points I am commenting on.

First, I agree that the 'highest level' of a die roll in most all games is simply a way to randomize a game outcome.

However, in a wargame designed to represent a historical event or dynamic, the crucial level for the die roll is to represent the probability of actual events occurring based on past events…which are being recreated. If one was going to represent the chance a panicked crowd will take a particular route in an Arena with a die roll, you would look at what has happened in the past and create a probability curve, which the designer would have the die roll or card draw then mimic that set of probabilities.

In a wargame or participatory simulation, it will destroy the designers' efforts if the players "get to make up the entire narrative."

Why? Because the whole point of a wargame is to provide a very specific, historical narrative grounded in very real military operations, and only those chosen by the designer. And of course, the designer has to make those choices, as to which elements to model and which to ignore because a game system can't do it all.

Wargames are 'guided pretending'--the game mechanics and environment is that guide. A wargame where the gamer is 'free' to make up the entire narrative may be okay or not for the player, but to the degree the player wanders from the designer's intended narrative, the designer has failed to provide what he meant to provide. Worse, the player has not experienced the history or military actions the designer wanted to provide--which is the unique content of a wargame.

Much of the dissatisfaction expressed by wargamers revolve around not knowing what history and military arts the designer was attempting to provide, or believing that whatever the designer did spoiled their efforts to create a satisfactory narrative.

That narrative is part-and-parcel with the 'feel' of the wargame.

Dear Mcladdie

I can agree with most of what you said.

"However, in a wargame designed to represent a historical event or dynamic, the crucial level for the die roll is to represent the probability of actual events occurring based on past events…which are being recreated. If one was going to represent the chance a panicked crowd will take a particular route in an Arena with a die roll, you would look at what has happened in the past and create a probability curve, which the designer would have the die roll or card draw then mimic that set of probabilities.

I can grant that.

In a wargame or participatory simulation, it will destroy the designers' efforts if the players "get to make up the entire narrative."
Why? Because the whole point of a wargame is to provide a very specific, historical narrative grounded in very real military operations, and only those chosen by the designer. And of course, the designer has to make those choices, as to which elements to model and which to ignore because a game system can't do it all. "

Here I am a little less certain. The situation is not one in which the game designer is the only factor. When the game is played 99 times out of 100 he is not there and it is on the players to provide the wishes, and the designers wishes are pretty irrelevant. If the players do not want to be bound by the strictures of the GM, they won't. At that point the designers carefully structured game simply falls apart. If the designer puts in a rule about the immediate presence of Napoleon to a unit of troops, and the players don't believe it or don't want it, it's out. They will provide the narrative they wish, or rules that support the narrative they wish and the desires of the designer be damned. To castigate them for violating the design principles of the game is right, fair, and correct, but irrelevant. The "Feel" of the game as the designer made it is wrong to them and they will substitute their own "Feel" no matter how unrealistic it might be. Clubs have been broken on this and personal friendships ruined.

Gamers want the fantasy they want. That may be why there are so many rule systems made and so many abandoned as quickly as they are made.

"Wargames are 'guided pretending'--the game mechanics and environment is that guide. A wargame where the gamer is 'free' to make up the entire narrative may be okay or not for the player, but to the degree the player wanders from the designer's intended narrative, the designer has failed to provide what he meant to provide.

NO! I disagree! for all my castigation of desigers, this is not the designers fault! It is the player who buys the rules but does not like their process. The player has in fact bought a car he did not want, ordered a dish in a restaurant he did not like, bought a record of industrial Rock when he wanted Mozart, or whatever. I say the designer is not an idiot. He has provided what he meant to provide, but Worse, the player has not experienced the history or military actions the designer wanted to provide--

Much of the dissatisfaction expressed by war gamers revolve around not knowing what history and military arts the designer was attempting to provide, or believing that whatever the designer did spoiled their efforts to create a satisfactory narrative.

This of course is true. Few war gamers have studied history, at least not in the way you are taught in Academia where it is taught as a craft. But we all can't be degreed historians with letters attached to the end of our names. Nor do many want to be. NOR, I would argue do most gamers really want to understand and be conversant with history. But that's something we have to live with and it does no good to blame the gamer either.

That narrative is part-and-parcel with the 'feel' of the wargame.

The situation is not one in which the game designer is the only factor. When the game is played 99 times out of 100 he is not there and it is on the players to provide the wishes, and the designers wishes are pretty irrelevant.

Otto:

I agree that the designer isn't the only factor, and the game is usually played without the designer present. That means, whatever experience the designer wanted the players to have, is in the rules and dynamics of play. If the players find the designer's goals for the game system 'irrelevant', I have to wonder what in the rules description prompted them to buy and play the rules.

If the players do not want to be bound by the strictures of the GM, they won't. At that point the designers carefully structured game simply falls apart.

I certainly agree with that. That is what you see much of the time because gamers don't really know the designer's goals behind this mechanism or that subsystem. That is the designer's fault… it leads to lots of rules being rejected and changed without knowing either what they were supposed to represent or how.

If the designer puts in a rule about the immediate presence of Napoleon to a unit of troops, and the players don't believe it or don't want it, it's out.

True, and 'not believing it' is very common because they are working without knowing what the designer 'believed' or what the rule was representing. They assume and if it doesn't match what they *think* the rule represents then it is out.

"Wargames are 'guided pretending'--the game mechanics and environment is that guide. A wargame where the gamer is 'free' to make up the entire narrative may be okay or not for the player, but to the degree the player wanders from the designer's intended narrative, the designer has failed to provide what he meant to provide.

NO! I disagree! for all my castigation of desigers, this is not the designers fault! It is the player who buys the rules but does not like their process. The player has in fact bought a car he did not want, ordered a dish in a restaurant he did not like, bought a record of industrial Rock when he wanted Mozart, or whatever.

And why do you think that happens, buying something they do not want? No pertinent information. At least a restaurant menu has descriptions a customer can understand and if they try something new, it is a half an hour commitment. Not so with miniature wargame rules, even the simplest… though the are so much easier to understand, yes? And I said 'wanders' because there insufficient guide posts, not gamers purposely ignoring or changing the rules.

They will provide the narrative they wish, or rules that support the narrative they wish and the desires of the designer be damned. To castigate them for violating the design principles of the game is right, fair, and correct, but irrelevant.

I don't remember castigating players for anything.

The "Feel" of the game as the designer made it is wrong to them and they will substitute their own "Feel" no matter how unrealistic it might be. Clubs have been broken on this and personal friendships ruined.

Yes, an a great many of those 'feelings' and arguments are built entirely on misunderstandings about what the rules where designed to provide. I have given the 'command radius' rule from Fire & Fury as a prime example of this several times. I know arguments raged about the fact the the rule did not penalize units that were out of command but gave a +1 to those that were. The problem is that the players assumed the rules represented the basic command structure, which it was not designed to represent because the designer said the game was historically accurate but never explained how. SO, the rules were changed, disagreements ensued etc. etc. And that is just one rule in that one rule set. How about what the generic artillery range and firepower represent, or the infantry movement of 400 yards in scale turns of twenty minute or…. you get the idea. The designer's attempt at history with the command radius rules was a failure, failed to give the right 'feel' for completely erroneous conclusions and gamers responded by changing the rules for the wrong reasons.

Gamers want the fantasy they want. That may be why there are so many rule systems made and so many abandoned as quickly as they are made.

I agree with the first part, but so many rules systems are abandoned because 1. the gamers don't know what they are buying because 2. No one seems to be able to describe 'the feel' of a wargame where the players can make INFORMED decisions--even though 'the feel' of game play seems to be a very important part of any game design.

Then again, maybe the problem is that gamers think the way designer's game system has been designed is 'irrelevant' and are surprised when it does get in the way of their feelings.

Customers will continue to buy things they don't want for all the wrong reasons, but the numbers are significantly reduced when there is a way to coherently describe the different purposes, kinds and styles of cars… It could also be true regarding the feel and historical content of wargames.

Much of the dissatisfaction expressed by war gamers revolve around not knowing what history and military arts the designer was attempting to provide, or believing that whatever the designer did spoiled their efforts to create a satisfactory narrative.

This of course is true. Few war gamers have studied history, at least not in the way you are taught in Academia where it is taught as a craft. But we all can't be degreed historians with letters attached to the end of our names. Nor do many want to be. NOR, I would argue do most gamers really want to understand and be conversant with history. But that's something we have to live with and it does no good to blame the gamer either.

Again, whose blaming the gamer? I would think it is obvious from all the posts that:

1. The historical content and dynamics of a wargame is important to some degree and is linked to the "Feel" it engenders.

2. Regardless of how much history the gamer has or hasn't studied, the question is what history is included in the wargame. That is a designer decision and unless that is shared with the gamer, he is simply going to be guessing about what the game is SUPPOSED to feel like… what it was bought for.

There is no rule or requirement for a wargamer to know X amount of history, but I would think most are at least interested in it to be playing "historical wargames."
A RC flyer playing with an off-the-shelf model is going to know less about aerodynamics and model construction than a True Scale modeler who applies every rivet from period design drawings. They each know what kind of depth they want and RC model designers know their audience. It isn't a one-size fits all proposition. Neither is wargame design.

Are you guys getting paid by the word?

Are you guys getting paid by the word?

Winston:

Yes, we are. Didn't you know? Not a lot, but I did vacation in Oregon to see the eclipse on the proceedings.

IF I didn't quote the sections I am responding to, my word count would be half of what it is.

However, it is a disservice to provide one sentence explanations to complex issues, particularly ones that have as much baggage as this one does.

Well Winston, even though McLaddie and I are inveterate opponents on almost every issue, both McLaddie and I understand the forensics of debate and discussion which requires careful distinctions to avoid slovenly thinking. Thus quotes are necessary. When one is only interested in slagging the discussion, as you are, then mere one-offs are the stock in trade.

To return to Mc Laddie.

You said-- " Much of the dissatisfaction expressed by wargamers revolve around not knowing what history and military arts the designer was attempting to provide, or believing that whatever the designer did spoiled their efforts to create a satisfactory narrative."

Isn't that the same as not knowing enough about history?

And besides, if you wanted to know what the designer thought about history you would have to publish the Game Designer notes OUTSIDE the rule book as a pre-purchase brochure for the player to read, which I do not believe he would. Far more do players buy a set of rules on snazzy cover art, a snappy conjoined title XXXX and YYYY, and what their friends are playing than any rational exposition.

Besides, What are they going to read? It's all to nebulous.

I also agree that it is a disservice to provide one sentence explanations to complex issues.

Another dimension McLaddie is the designer notes. this is where designers pretty much should say "This is why I did it this way." But to do that you would almost rather than notes, have to make a bibliography of the works where the cardinal elements or ideas were drawn from. Does the gamer than have to read those to understand the rules?

I think that most gamers wouldn't care. I think most gamers simply go along with whatever someone else in the club is doing and let them carry all the work and do the heavy lifting, then sit back and carp like Winston Smith about the work of others.

I've seen this dozens of times in clubs One guy does all the work, gets the minis, reads the rules, teaches everyone else, and plays the game and everyone else is quite willing to let them do that, then turn around and complain because the game is not what they want, and doesn't represent reality. Questions of "feel" to them aren't even relevant, its ego stroking.

On the other hand, for example, if a designer makes a game which he thinks embodies "the feel" of the period, as defined by realism, it is only the realism he perceives. For example, I am writing my own Renaissance Campaign Rules (not tactical rules, those are done and written and playtested and work fine). The campaign game which is also in some sense a game of Renaissance personalities, I am WRITING ONLY FOR MYSELF. The reason is that if you wanted to understand the dynamic of the game, and prepare for it. You have to read Burckhardt's "The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy", Huizinga's "The Waning of the Middle Ages," J.R. Hale's "The civilization of the Renaissance in Europe," and probably Guiccardini's History of Florence.

Yah… sure… they'll do that.

That's why it's only for me. I don't expect anyone else to use them.

I understand your desire to embrace inductions into the rules to get players to play in a realistic and historical manner. I however doubt this can be done. I don't think its possible to get players to make the historical judgements. In the end it comes down to "I didn't win therefore the rules are incorrect."

Otto –
Re the Wilderness Campaign I described, perhaps my description strayed a bit too far from the mark. It was by no means any sort of exercise in intellectual self-flagellation. Overall, it was a grand time – thoroughly thought provoking, educational, satisfying and exciting. It's just that the extended stress levels (to a degree self-imposed) ultimately levied a price. I would gladly do it again.

One thought – perhaps the level of "Feel" also relies upon the degree to which a gamer chooses to immerse oneself.

BTW, you've personally met the fellow who devised the campaign.

B

Isn't that the same as not knowing enough about history?

Not necessarily. Considering the amount of history out there, it could be that the designer is working from history the informed gamer simply hasn't seen.

And besides, if you wanted to know what the designer thought about history you would have to publish the Game Designer notes OUTSIDE the rule book as a pre-purchase brochure for the player to read, which I do not believe he would. Far more do players buy a set of rules on snazzy cover art, a snappy conjoined title XXXX and YYYY, and what their friends are playing than any rational exposition.

Most designer's notes are nebulous [Ever read the "Hail Caesar DNs?] which leaves snazzy covers and snappy titles and what their friends are playing to be the only known quantities. Designer's Notes don't HAVE TO BE nebulous. It's just that most designers what to appeal to as many gamers as possible, so being less than specific helps. The old Scottish saying:"IF they don't know where you are and where your bound, they can't say your lost.

If no one knows what the rules are supposed to do, then gamers are free to make it up and the designer is off the hook, saying that it's the gamers rules now.

Another dimension McLaddie is the designer notes. this is where designers pretty much should say "This is why I did it this way." But to do that you would almost rather than notes, have to make a bibliography of the works where the cardinal elements or ideas were drawn from. Does the gamer than have to read those to understand the rules?

Ever seen Bruce Weigle's 1870 rules [or 1859, 1866,1871]? He does just that, and has very, very few gamers questioning why he did something or changing the rules--and if they do, they can state why with confidence.

I guess my question is "what is necessary for the gamer to 'understand' the rules?"

He doesn't have to know what the game mechanics are meant to illustrate/mimic/recreate/represent/simulate to play the game. All he has to do is understand how the game is played, like any game of Querkle or checkers. IF he is going to see and experience the connections between the designer's history and play, he will need to know what specifically is being represented. Understanding can also come from playing the game once he knows what it is supposed to do. OR he call the designer irrelevant and simply imagine whatever he wants to regardless of what the design does or does not do. Many gamers have a vivid imagination and in our hobby with such a dearth of pertinent information from designers, lots of practice in filling the void imaginatively or/and substituting there own rules, knowing exactly what they represent.

One thought – perhaps the level of "Feel" also relies upon the degree to which a gamer chooses to immerse oneself.

Blutarski:

I think that is quite true, though some games make it easy and some make it hard. Many gamers talk about how some game event or process 'popped them out' of that immersion, the magic circle, the 'acting as if', the flow of the experience.

I think that most gamers wouldn't care. I think most gamers simply go along with whatever someone else in the club is doing and let them carry all the work and do the heavy lifting, then sit back and carp like Winston Smith about the work of others…Questions of "feel" to them aren't even relevant, its ego stroking.

Otto:
Perhaps most gamers don't care and many are simply 'going along' etc. Is that the audience you or I am designing for, let alone care about?

On the other hand, for example, if a designer makes a game which he thinks embodies "the feel" of the period, as defined by realism, it is only the realism he perceives.

Of course. That is true of most every experience. However, in the case of wargame design, that perception is an interpretation of something, based in and about specific history… so knowing what history is being interpreted with the rules is required to appreciate and understand that perception.

For example, I am writing my own Renaissance Campaign Rules (not tactical rules, those are done and written and playtested and work fine). The campaign game which is also in some sense a game of Renaissance personalities, I am WRITING ONLY FOR MYSELF.

Okay. Then you certainly don't have to explain it to anyone else.

The reason is that if you wanted to understand the dynamic of the game, and prepare for it. You have to read Burckhardt's "The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy", Huizinga's "The Waning of the Middle Ages," J.R. Hale's "The civilization of the Renaissance in Europe," and probably Guiccardini's History of Florence.

I have read each of those books and I am quite sure your campaign system doesn't cover all the subject matter in all of those books. [Probably more of BUrckhardt than Huizinga if I had to guess] In fact, your mechanics could only express a fairly small portion of all that content. I am almost certain that if I played you campaign game and understood your goals for it that I could find one of those authors disagreeing with one of your interpretations… which doesn't make it wrong, but it sure wasn't that part of the book you used… so simply reading the same books doesn't clear up what YOU chose to use from each study.

OTTO said : "But why Robert is that even necessary? Why do you have to have ANY knowledge of history to play a game? It is after all a game? Do you need a knowledge of real-estate to play Monopoly? Do you need a knowledge of Harry Potter to play a Harry Potter Game? Do you need a knowledge of Barbie to play "The Barbie Game?"

Sorry but this time i really cannot agree with you…not only general knowledge of history must be known by players but also specific knowledge about the particular period or campaign which have to be gamed…my personal experience: I love above all history periods and war theatres in which a French Army is involved..particularly Colonial and French Revolution..well the very fact that my opponent, not only would not come with his own bought, researched and painted minis to fight VS my French is, for me, smething that disturb the game…and IF he doens't know the history and even do not speak French…OK we will play the game..but everything will not be enjoying as i hoped…on the other hand i frequently play with a guy who is French mother tongue , had lived in Morocco, even spoke a little arab and it is an expert on both native anf French menthality.plus a ery good knowledge of history….so our Colonial games involving Foreign Legion are the top one i can dream about…and to allow him to play and even touch my lovely painted Legionaires and Berbers is not a pain for me…

"Why do you have to have ANY knowledge of history to play a game? It is after all a game? Do you need a knowledge of real-estate to play Monopoly? Do you need a knowledge of Harry Potter to play a Harry Potter Game? Do you need a knowledge of Barbie to play "The Barbie Game?"

Otto:
You are quite right. A player doesn't have to have any knowledge of history to play a wargame. None at all. All he or she needs are the rules, just like any game.

However, for the player to experience the connection between the historical wargame and history, he has to have *some* idea of what that connection is. Isn't that part of the feel?

I designed simulation games for training and education. I had to create games that:
1. Simulated real events and behaviors which had connections to the players experience outside of the game
2. Provided Knowledge and skills practiced which were applicable in the real world. The whole point of a training game.
3. Were enjoyable enough for the players to want to play long enough to gain the skills and knowledge targeted.
4. Had to be fairly simple, not requiring long periods of time, equipment or space to work.

One of the things that I found was absolutely necessary for a participatory simulation to work was that the players had to know the connections built into the game before or after participating. THEY had to see and experience the connections.

Any training or learning exercise does this. IF anyone has ever gone through military Urban Tactical Exercises with laser guns, concrete buildings with concrete furniture and umpires, you will have heard the instructor give very specific instructions about what is going to be learned, the 'simulation' parts and what is not part of the targeted learning--and some of it seems rather obvious, yet they say it anyway. [No, you won't have umpires on the battlefield or laser-tag weapons.]

There is a great deal of what is artificial and unreal in that exercise, particularly when it is dealing with life and death activities. No doubt about it. But troops in Afghanistan and Iraq were glad for the training all the same…even though they had much more to learn once they were there.

Like any simulation exercise or game, it can only be as effective in the 'guided pretending' [yes, even the UTE] if the participants know specifically what is linked to real world dynamics and what isn't.

Wargamers look for those connections. The problem is the designers are very sloppy in providing them, if they do at all. It leaves the players in limbo where they 'make up their own connections' which often can have nothing to do with the game content or intended experiences. In other words, the simulations don't work very well at all as simulations… and that has been going on for a long time. That leaves gamers with the 'feeling' that any simulation is BS.

Dear McLaddie

You say "However, for the player to experience the connection between the historical war game and history, he has to have *some* idea of what that connection is. Isn't that part of the feel?

Yes of course, that is true and I cannot argue with it. I would submit that both you and I are examples of that and therefore to deny it would be to deny our own selves.

However your statement assumes " experience the connection" assumes that the player wishes to have that experience, and that it is important to him. I know many and have seen many more players to whom the rolling of the die, the tension of win or loss is everything and the "experience" of verisimilitude to history is absolutely irrelevant.

It is precisely the difference between a person who enjoys savoring and drinking fine wine and simply getting drunk, where in the latter case even sterno or aftershave will do!

Not all wargamers look for these connections and some of them even when they say they do give little evidence they care.

As I said I enjoy these connections. As I told Bob Liebl when he asked me why I was in war games, and especially the Renaissance to the 18th century, I responded "To reify the passions."

But again, this goes back to a basic difference in philosophy between us, and I refer to my distinction between a "true game" and a "real game." True games are games like chess which require absolutely no experience with reality to play. you could drop a chess board and pieces and several pages of anagrammatic instructions and the intelligent bees of Tau Ceti 4 could play it. War games requires a knowledge of reality and a reference to it to work.

Again to yank us back to the track of "the feel" of the game, there must be this reference to reality. But What that is and in what vein or characteristic it takes is anyone's guess.

Again I maintain that in that environment any "feel" of the game has to be entirely subjective and in the mind of the individual gamer, and it can only be put there by himself and not inculcated through the rules.

However your statement assumes " experience the connection" assumes that the player wishes to have that experience, and that it is important to him. I know many and have seen many more players to whom the rolling of the die, the tension of win or loss is everything and the "experience" of verisimilitude to history is absolutely irrelevant.

Otto: Yes, I've seen that too. So?

It is precisely the difference between a person who enjoys savoring and drinking fine wine and simply getting drunk, where in the latter case even sterno or aftershave will do!

So, as a designer, are you creating fine wine or a can of sterno?

The goals of the gamers playing is another issue altogether. I am not surprised that gamers aren't interested in the history when so little of the connections are provided in the first place. They have to to play many of our wargames without any connections to history. They have to guess, their conclusions in the information void, necessarily remaining subjective.

War games requires a knowledge of reality and a reference to it to work.

I agree with that… however, the question is who is providing the references and which are purposely included in a wargame.
In issue 34 of Battlegames, Ross Macfarlane wrote a cogent article entitled "Whose History?" regarding what history is in the games we play. And I responded with an article in issue #36. The answer is obviously, the designer's history.

Again to yank us back to the track of "the feel" of the game, there must be this reference to reality. But What that is and in what vein or characteristic it takes is anyone's guess.

Again I maintain that in that environment any "feel" of the game has to be entirely subjective and in the mind of the individual gamer, and it can only be put there by himself and not inculcated through the rule.

Then if it is entirely subjective and can't be provided by game rules/play, then there is no way to design for it and every player's experience [i.e. feel] is his alone regardless of what the designer does.

IF that was the case, I would have been out of business very quickly in trying to design training simulation games. I had to provide very specific 'feel' to generate some common experiences between participants so they all learned the same things…. given that at least part of their experience remained subjective and entirely their own.

Otto said:
Again I maintain that in that environment any "feel" of the game has to be entirely subjective and in the mind of the individual gamer, and it can only be put there by himself and not inculcated through the rules.

Most of this discussion is over my head but I have to agree with Otto on the above. From watching players the "feel" is mostly generated by the visuals. That's the miniatures, terrain, and painting (plus any special effects).

Historically correct and well-written rules can put the player into the mind of the commander making the decisions in the real battle. However, from my observation, subjective game mechanics like random activations can also give a good "feel" because of the uncertainty of the action and the surprise it generates.

If you have a Ph.D. in a period of history and your rules reflect that particular period and color it's all for nothing if the player does not have the same level of knowledge and appreciation as the Ph.D.

So from my perspective visuals trump rules for generating the "feel" and it is mostly (but not entirely)subjective to the individual and their level of knowledge and expectations. May times those expectations are based on inaccurate knowledge too. Good rules will reinforce the realism and the feel.

One more variable. You'll get players who will try different games just for the experience, social interaction and the chance to blow things up. They just want a new experience and have fun. Cool models, fast paced game, player interaction and blowing things up are what they are looking for. If the game accomplished that they'll "feel" they had a good time.

Wolfhag

Dear Wolfhag

Can't disagree on any point. You pretty well explain the "subjectivity of the angle. Your last paragraph is a very good summation, and that a game often must be many things to everyone at the same time, but again, whether they had fun is another matter. I ONCE a long time ago was a Napoleonic Gamer. We used Frappe. The group was an entirely toxic one where the other eight people in the group were so unpleasant, so awful, so ego driven that I quit wargames for a year and gave away over 1,000 Scruby Napoleonics, all my terrain, books, buildings etc. The experience of a game with this group was literally painful. The game would start at 8 am in the morning and go to 8 pm at night where we would get maybe ONE and one half turns done, the rest of the time spent in arguing and screaming and bickering about the rules. The "Feel" of those games was not I think the fault of the game designer, but the group.

Even God couldn't have designed a set of rules for that group.

You are right, players will try different things for the experience, social interaction and the chance to blow things up, and they want a new experience and have fun. The feel of the game is heavily dependent on the visuals.

the "feel" of ancients has to have elephants. The feel of modern has to have tanks.

McLaddie

You say.
"Then if it is entirely subjective and can't be provided by game rules/play, then there is no way to design for it and every player's experience [i.e. feel] is his alone regardless of what the designer does"

That is precisely the point.

You being out of business is not at all pertinent. You are not designing these simulations for the participants alone, as games are. I will credit your assertion you are designing simulations for OTHERS and these simulations have nothing to do with games. They are for training purposes or for instruction and which players engage in because they must and have a guided purpose to lead them to a conclusion that is pre-ordained, not open to their own whim. But in this context of recreational games where people can play or not according to their own whim, the feel becomes entirely subjective.

They participate in the game because they want to not because they have to.