"Integrated Game Design - some thoughts" Topic
179 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Game Design Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset Rating:
Featured Showcase ArticleSometimes at a convention, you can be just dead lucky and find a real bargain.
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
War Artisan | 28 Jan 2018 2:13 p.m. PST |
I've posted an outline of my recent thoughts on how the various aspects of a game's design integrate to create a compelling game experience on the Essays page of my website: PDF link |
MajorB | 28 Jan 2018 3:13 p.m. PST |
Interesting discussion. A small correction: "Professor Philip Saban, author of Simulating War: Studying Conflict Through Simulation Games." His name is Philip Sabin, not Saban. |
War Artisan | 28 Jan 2018 3:30 p.m. PST |
Sabin, not Saban Oops. Fixed. |
UshCha | 29 Jan 2018 3:42 a.m. PST |
tyo be honest it lacks direction. It clearly misses out huge tracts about basic gameing. First it needs to set out its objectives clearly, what audience is it really aimed at, least common denominator or more specialist participants. Example Cognitive integreation. 7 plus or minus 2 is ideal number. To be honest this shows evidence of lack of research. Chess proably one of the most respected games has 16 pieces each of which is an independent actor. Is this not a Game? If you which to eliminate such games you need to explain that you are going for non-specialst games. An amiral conrolling a fleet will consider which ships to group togeto meet the threat and political objectives. The second issue is without doubt personal opinion (mine). It seems obsessed with the playing material. It implies thatr the battlefield will be strewn with markers. The absolute minimum of markers need to be used and CARDS are a poor form as the destroy the immage of the battlefield. Again you failure to defone objecives show up. If you are looking at one off players this may have merit. If you are looking at playees like me who play the same game week in week out (again like chess)it is not valid. To be honest of you are not targeting serious players (simulators) you would need to put more into the art of scopeing a game to meet its objectives). In any simulation the art is to slimplify the game to only address ther key drivers for the objective eliminating unproductive detail. But also scope out the limitations to the player to stop going down rabbit holes. I would suggest most of this can be solved by you more clearly thinking about your objectives. While the paper says it is broad in scope it most clearly does not adddress the full scope. To be fair its proably too wider scope to be practical.
|
UshCha | 29 Jan 2018 4:01 a.m. PST |
tyo be honest it lacks direction. It clearly misses out huge tracts about basic gameing. First it needs to set out its objectives clearly, what audience is it really aimed at, least common denominator or more specialist participants. Example Cognitive integreation. 7 plus or minus 2 is ideal number. To be honest this shows evidence of lack of research. Chess proably one of the most respected games has 16 pieces each of which is an independent actor. Is this not a Game? If you which to eliminate such games you need to explain that you are going for non-specialst games. An amiral conrolling a fleet will consider which ships to group togeto meet the threat and political objectives. The second issue is without doubt personal opinion (mine). It seems obsessed with the playing material. It implies thatr the battlefield will be strewn with markers. The absolute minimum of markers need to be used and CARDS are a poor form as the destroy the immage of the battlefield. Again you failure to defone objecives show up. If you are looking at one off players this may have merit. If you are looking at playees like me who play the same game week in week out (again like chess)it is not valid. To be honest of you are not targeting serious players (simulators) you would need to put more into the art of scopeing a game to meet its objectives). In any simulation the art is to slimplify the game to only address ther key drivers for the objective eliminating unproductive detail. But also scope out the limitations to the player to stop going down rabbit holes. I would suggest most of this can be solved by you more clearly thinking about your objectives. While the paper says it is broad in scope it most clearly does not adddress the full scope. To be fair its proably too wider scope to be practical.
Had a coffe and thought about this a bit more. You proably do need to define for the purposes of this paer what you define as "fun" . It looks like you are not addressing well those whoes fun is to be pressed to there limits of intelectual capability. Certainly some folk would not see that as fun but it is the ultimate gameing experience for me.
My observations of even wargaming is that some Agent traits are healily into "gambling" aspects of the game which can conflict with simulation on many cases. Again as an exapmple Team Yankee is very polular as a gerat Toy fest that allows lots of models to be ontable but does so at the cost of simulation. There are few adveres comments for enthusiats of the game that it is a poor simulation. as a game it meets there requirements. "Conceptual Integration: This is pretty straightforward; if the game allows things to happen which are not consistent with what the players would expect to happen in the context of the game's theme, then the game will appear inauthentic." Fundamantaly this staement is incorrect. The players may have a missunderstanding of reality. Then there is a conflict as to what the game should present, the reality, or the gamers incorect version of reality. Hope this gives some food for thought. |
Winston Smith | 29 Jan 2018 5:56 a.m. PST |
A few of the dicta for compelling simulations employed by my group, Pennsylvania Wargamers' Militia (PaWM) are missing. The most important one is "Will all the players have a good time?" Another is "Will I have enough Highlanders finished in time for the Moore's Creek Bridge simulation? Err, game? * Will I remember to get enough Apple Cider Vinegar for the pulled pork sandwiches? *A corrolary to that applies to finishing Pulaski's Legion in time to fill in for some Federal dragoon unit in a Whiskey Rebellion Campaign. Or do I take away some primed cavalry intended for British Legion and paint them blue with red facings instead? Mounted militia are coming along nicely though. |
Decebalus | 29 Jan 2018 8:58 a.m. PST |
Thanks. I like your systematic approach and i think you have captured some important things. Maybe a stronger view on miniature gaming would be good. |
daler240D | 29 Jan 2018 5:09 p.m. PST |
very interesting. I appreciate your posting it. I have just finished reading Zones of Control: Perspectives on Wargaming so your writing was well timed for me. |
War Artisan | 30 Jan 2018 5:20 a.m. PST |
UshCha: You have apparently misunderstood so much of what I intended that I have no idea where to begin. However, this, your final point: "Conceptual Integration: This is pretty straightforward; if the game allows things to happen which are not consistent with what the players would expect to happen in the context of the game's theme, then the game will appear inauthentic."Fundamantaly this staement is incorrect. The players may have a missunderstanding of reality. Then there is a conflict as to what the game should present, the reality, or the gamers incorect version of reality. There is no conflict. It is the designer's choice whether to represent history accurately (as he sees it) or some other (perhaps more cinematic or ideologically filtered) version. It is possible that a gamer with a good grasp of the history will play a game whose historical premises are faulty. It is possible that a gamer with a faulty grasp of the history will play a game whose historical premises are accurate. Either way, the statement is true. |
War Artisan | 30 Jan 2018 6:05 a.m. PST |
Decebalus: I was trying to get a handle on some principles that are general enough to apply across genres. Perhaps later I will focus in on miniatures gaming (which is, after all, a tiny niche genre when compared to the much more popular and profitable RPG, hobby boardgame and video markets.) I did mention, as you may have noticed, that miniatures games have a tremendous advantage over any game with printed components, in that the miniatures themselves contribute greatly to the players' engrossment and sense of authenticity. The downside to this is that the designer is often tempted to rely too much on the miniatures to provide this and fails to make an adequate effort to bake these attributes into the game system itself. A good way to test if a particular design has fallen prey to this brand of laziness is to imagine it being played with just plain blocks or counters instead of miniatures. If the system evokes little or nothing of the theme in the absence of the miniatures, then the designer has failed to integrate the theme into the player experience. I should point out that many (if not most) players and designers are not at all averse to systems that depend heavily on the miniatures to provide a thematic connection. Witness the number of rules systems that are designed for one period, but then change a few numbers, alter the terminology and substitute different figures and (tada!) you're playing a different period. That may be adequate for someone else, but I find them painfully unsatisfying, both as a designer and as a player. |
Wolfhag | 30 Jan 2018 7:14 a.m. PST |
War Artisan, Well written and excellent paper. Thanks. My opinion is you cannot fault or criticize anyone for what they like to play and how to play it. Fun is fun. Some people think playing the oboe is fun and others think watching a live video feed of a drone strike on an unsuspecting target is fun. To each his own. I playtest games to determine if they are playable and fun. I found that many (not all) people, especially the ones that are easily visually stimulated, will enjoy almost any game that has the stimulating visual effects, professionally painted models, etc. Therefore, I normally use sparse amateur prepared terrain (by me) and micro armor. I want them to like the system, not the cinema production. If someone likes a simple and unrealistic rules system that allows him to move all of his figures around the table for great photo ops so be it. The "Player and Agent/Avatar" Axis is interesting and the way you described "realism". I've seen some detailed games that basically reduce the player to following a rote game sequence and rolling the dice to determine outcomes with very little input from the player. There are very few risk-reward decisions. I feel for a game to be immersive and create a narrative you need to put the players in the decision-making capacity and take risks as their real-life counterparts did. Some systems succeed better than others. Conceptual Integration: Games that use random actions, activations and dice mechanics lose me in this regard in a 1:1 game relationship. I understand their use and needed abstraction, however, I consider the timing of events between opponents to be the key factors. That's what I can wrap my head around. I'd like a game that allows better crews and weapons platforms to get inside their opponents decision loop with randomness and luck playing only a minor part in the equation. My attempt to portray the aspects of games I like meant starting from scratch and using the real manuals as a starting point. The downside to this is that I needed to introduce concepts and nomenclature that most gamers are not familiar with. It's not a tweaked version of a previous game. I also liked the description of "Core Combat Loops" from some papers you referenced. Based on your paper I'm making some revisions to the presentation of some of the rules I've written. Thanks Wolfhag |
UshCha | 30 Jan 2018 11:24 a.m. PST |
to quote your own words:- I am approaching this subject from the point of view of a designer of historical games. The designing and playing of historical games serves as a rich, interactive means of exploring that subject. While many of my observations will, obviously, be derived from this frame of reference, I hope I can make them general enough that they will prove thought-provoking even to those who design other types of games.) Clearly from your 30 Jan post you are not going for a Historical context. Fantasy is perfectly acceptable but not in the context used here or applicable universaly. Hence as said before your scope is far too wide to have any overall use. This paper may have may be of use for fantasy games but that is its limt. Its logic to me does not align with games used to solve real world problems and scenarios. |
War Artisan | 30 Jan 2018 11:48 a.m. PST |
This paper may have may be of use for fantasy games but that is its limt. Really? I guess it's unfortunate, then, that I didn't know this before I started designing historical games with it. Its logic to me does not align with games used to solve real world problems and scenarios. Given how narrow your focus is, I'm not at all surprised. I believe that you are correct in assuming that nothing in my essay would be useful to you. |
War Artisan | 30 Jan 2018 11:55 a.m. PST |
Games that use random actions, activations and dice mechanics lose me in this regard in a 1:1 game relationship. I understand their use and needed abstraction, however, I consider the timing of events between opponents to be the key factors. Indeed, this would be a classic case of the designer choosing a mechanic that impedes conceptual integration rather than enhancing it. A die roll is useful for events that are happening completely outside a player's control (like those out of sight, or above his command level) but it is too easy for a designer to inject yet another die roll when he should be crafting a mechanic that reflects more closely the actual process taking place. |
McLaddie | 30 Jan 2018 3:42 p.m. PST |
I enjoyed reading War Artisan's article. I agree with his introduction points. Fun has a wide variety of permutations, even in miniature wargaming. It isn't a johnny-one-note experience. I also agree that any number of hobby designers remain subbornly amateurish in their approach to design… it is all raw talent and nothing more. I remember Bob Coggins dissing anyone who would read other designer's books on the subject of game design because that isn't what game design is about. And he isn't alone. I designed a couple of published board wargames in the 1980s along with several educational simulations released by a number of publishers, even did some graphics work for other wargames. I then got a position as designer and trainer in an educational training company and sort of dropped out of the wargame hobby scene…lots of traveling and a growing family. designing training and educational simulation games was a very difference experience. The game had to train skills transferable to the real world as well as any knowledge and real-world dynamics provided. There had to be a 1:1 relationship between the real world and game play. Fun was not the primary objective…yet if the game wasn't fun, no one would enjoy playing it [including immersion]--and then wouldn't engage in it, any training negated. I had the opportunity to talk with many simulation designers from a wide variety of fields including entertainment at game design, educational and simulation conferences. There was a great deal of common ground between research, training, education and entertainment designers and designs. Simply because enjoyment is the primary objective for commercial games doesn't negate any possibility of real world relationships… and 'realism' can be authentic without having to have some particular aspect of war like pain and death. For instance, I did training designs for conflict resolution. They didn't require emotional, near violent arguments to be 'realistic' or provide skills dealing with such arguments. What I see in the hobby is a rather one-note, self-defeating notion of what 'realism'. Very frustrating. Let me address some of War Artisan's points in the next post. He makes several cogent observations and has a great set of references at the end. |
McLaddie | 30 Jan 2018 4:45 p.m. PST |
The Three Personas: The diagram is a very clear and I appreciate the explanations for the three 'persons' and the corresponding elements. I don't totally agree with the player-immersion-avatar connection. While it certainly is there, immersion can also be between agent and player. The avatar aspects of chess, bridge or backgammon is pretty weak, if it exists at all, but that doesn't hinder immersion. We have to understand what it is about games that creates or better, encourages player immersion. Lots of those elements are mentioned in the article. Immersion is vital for a game to work as a simulation. It is also critical for a game to be 'fun'. Games are nothing more than an interesting series of decisions.[Sid Meier] If we are going to have the player simulate some aspect of warfare, then the player, regardless of what they are doing physically, will have to engage with the mental and emotional experience as one experience. If actual Napoleonic generals found skirmish combat frustrating, requiring constant attention, then if the game provides the need for constant attention but don't find the activity frustrating in the same way, even if in a milder, more 'entertaining' form, it isn't a simulation. The ideas presented about integration of different element is great and I like the way it is presented. I do think that the notion of 'authenticity' has some problems. War Artisan writes: The integration of the Agent and Avatar gives rise to authenticity. This is the very backbone of historical game design, but it is equally effective at generating in players the sense of acting genuinely within the context of a literary or cinematic theme as well. It is simply the result of not allowing anything to happen in the game that violates the players' sense of what should happen, given the canonical or historical realities of the theme. (Side Note: This is often referred to by players or designers as "realism", which is misleading…especially in the case of wargames since no game designer is trying to recreate the actual misery of war. First of all, while I obviously agree that the integration of WA's Agent and Avatar is essential to simulations and wargames, it doesn't create 'authenticity.' In fact, the description suggests that anything that violates the players' sense of what should happen… isn't authentic. I'm sorry, but lots of players have notions about history that lack any historical 'authenticity' and any design that attempts to portray authentic history--historical realities of the game theme--could very well violate wargame community canon. On the other hand, I couldn't, as an outsider, just tell the group[s] that their preconceptions from their experiences were wrong--not the way to win friends and influence people. There are ways to address that issue. Providing only those aspects that don't violate the players' sense of what should happen really isn't the definition of 'authenticity.' It is only supporting the majority beliefs at the moment, authentic or not. When I designed training simulations, I was obviously going to have players who knew the educational or business environment that the gamed skills would apply to… which most gamers don't. If that group had a communal 'sense' of what should happen with a set of new skills that was factually wrong, I couldn't simply cater to their beliefs to create an effective simulation. It is a real challenge, but it is necessary to find ways to deal with it if historical/reality 'authenticity' is the goal. That isn't to say that there aren't lots of wargamers that have years of knowledge about the theme of your wargame design [like the ed and business players above], but the designer can't know: 1. What individual players do or don't know about the theme of the game. 2. What historical information the players value that is contrary to the historical evidence you are using for a game templete. So, even though your game provides authentic historical experience, the players may not agree for all the wrong reasons. 3. What the majority of gamers believe about all the aspects of a particular theme when wanting to design for that audience of gamers. Authenticity is first the history/reality identified as the model for the simulation and second, the interpretation of that history in a game system. That interpretation has to prove to be a meaningful/valid 1:1 representation of that information. That is the simulation definition of 'realism' regardless of how much or what is specifically represented or left out. It is what the simulation does representationally that counts, not what it leaves out[such as pain and misery], not whether it conforms to what players' sense of what should happen. Obviously, that means you can have an authentic historical experience with the game and players' believe that it violates what they think should happen. There are ways to deal with that issue. |
UshCha | 31 Jan 2018 1:06 a.m. PST |
McLaddie, Much better put than my attempt ;-). |
Wolfhag | 31 Jan 2018 9:07 a.m. PST |
McLaddie, Reality is what a person perceives it to be based on his knowledge and experience, which can be incorrect, as well as the game design could also be incorrect. It's up to the designer to set the players expectations and for the design to meet those expectations. The triangle is a good template to use. When a designer is trying to get that meaningful 1:1 representation he should be trying to meet the player's expectations. That's difficult because as you said the designer does not know what the player does or does not know. I think it is too easy for the designer to meet his expectations and not fully take into account the players expectations and level of reality he is expecting. If you are introducing new game mechanics or historical actions the players are not familiar with then there is a learning curve. Shortening that learning curve has been my challenge. Here is how I'm dealing with the issue of getting players to immerse themselves into the game to perceive the historical experience using the triangle: Immersion: Graphic: customized data cards using historic weapons platform performance, graphical target images, graphical gunnery results similar to a video game. The movement arrows showing speed and direction gives the player a visual indication of how the battle is unfolding and help in predicting if future actions and tactics will work. Narrative: Commanding tanks and making the same engagement and gunnery risk-reward decisions. The player can recreate a post-game narrative relating to the decisions he made and the timing of events. He can relate how his decisions helped win or lose the game. There is less reliance on chance and die rolls. Terminological: Using historical terms and nomenclature from manuals that players can relate to if they have knowledge in that area. Tanker crewman easily recognizes the terms and their use. Short in-game videos replace searching rules for clarification. Authenticity: Conceptual: the core game concept uses turns as a timing mechanism to determine what future turn the action will trigger. This replaces activation and initiative rules. All units on the playing surface are synched to the same turn. Timing determines exactly where a moving target will be when the order to shoot turn comes. Since there are many variables that affect timing your opponent never knows exactly what turns an action like shooting will trigger. This creates a fog of war and can recreate split-second timing of events without additional mechanics or rules. Each unit is always "active" and can respond to any enemy action in their LOS. Players do not have to wait for their "turn" to do something. Better weapons platforms with better crews will normally have the initiative to force their opponents to react to them. A poor crew and weapon platform can gain the initiative by maneuvering for a tactical advantage. Mechanical: uses a gunnery formula that delivers an MPI result with minimal modifiers comparing the MPI to the target size determines a hit or miss. Virtual Movement shows exactly where a moving unit will be on a turn to turn basis without actually moving the model. Movement of models is simultaneous speeding up the game. Playability: Physical: use any scale of models, distances measured in meters, movement arrows show speed and direction of movement. The engagement, gunnery, and movement loops are the three main area a player will be concentrating on. Cognitive: using turns as a timing mechanism is a natural way to approach an action, solve a problem and predict the chances of success. Using timing rather than chance activations allows players to better predict if an action or tactic will succeed or fail. Procedural: gunnery rules are taken from manuals and use a flowchart to help the player along with the procedure. The combat and movement loops are intuitive. You can translate your historical knowledge to the game mechanics. Better crews perform the same actions more quickly than poor crews allowing them to get inside their opponents decision loop to gain the initiative. No complicated opportunity fire or overwatch rules You are never going to please everyone. I think if a designer established the goals of what the game is to achieve, including its limitations and abstractions, it should be judged based on achieving those goals. The triangle diagram works for me in laying it all out but McLaddie is on a higher intellectual level than I am. Thanks again WA. Wolfhag |
Mick the Metalsmith | 31 Jan 2018 9:44 a.m. PST |
I would just like designers to provide designers notes. Too often one has to guess what aspects his view of the history he has abstracted for the sake of playability that others feel compelled to house rule on not realizing that it was already addressed. |
McLaddie | 31 Jan 2018 12:59 p.m. PST |
Reality is what a person perceives it to be based on his knowledge and experience, which can be incorrect, as well as the game design could also be incorrect. Wolfhag: Unless I have fought in a Napoleonic or WWII battle, that definition of 'reality' doesn't apply. What a person will *think* is the reality of a battle in 1815 or 1943 will be based on what they have [or have not] read. Even walking the battlefield today or talking to a veteran from WWII is not the reality of those battles…it is information about that reality. Because of that, there are things we know and things we don't know about a historical battle or war. And in most cases there is a lot of information available, a good deal can be contradictory and filtered through various opinions about said reality. Pretty much the situation in attempting to design any simulation. When you create a wargame, you are using specific information to create that game system. Like any historian, you are interpreting the facts to create a 'sense of what that reality was like.' To create a simulation of past events/environments or presenting new, current information/environmental factors-- the players have to have enough and the right information to benefit from the 'reality' provided by the simulation/game. The PLAYERS have to be able to make 1:1 connections with the game play and the specific history/reality chosen to be portrayed. If they can't do that then they will interject what they *think* is going on or what a mechanic represents based on what they know, not what the designer has chosen to represent. In any military simulation or other training efforts outside the military, you see this identifying of specifically what is being represented AND what is not included. I can give some examples if you want. |
Wolfhag | 31 Jan 2018 2:27 p.m. PST |
McLaddie, We may be talking about two different definitions of reality. What a person perceives to be real in their mind may in reality – not be real in the physical world. It depends on his prior experience and where he obtained the knowledge and facts he is basing reality on. In this respect, you cannot underestimate the visuals in a game. It is up to the designer to recreate the historical/physical reality for the player to get that 1:1 relationship so he does not need to fill in the blanks and get the wrong perception. I think we are in agreement there. PsyOps and counterintelligence work when they can get the target to perceive a reality that does not exist in the real physical world. People in North Korea have a different reality of the world than someone in the Western world (and even they can be wrong to a large degree). That's an example of "perceived reality" I'm using. I'm sure there is some professional psychological term I should be using. I agree it is the job of the designer to communicate as much as they can that 1:1 relationship in a physical reality so the player does not get it wrong. When playing miniatures my opinion is the physical reality the player experiences have much to do with the visuals as with the rules systems. I think that that is because the mind fills in the gaps (rightly or wrongly) of information needed for that 1:1 relationship that the designer could not physically recreate. I think your mind can play tricks on you to the extent if something looks real it probably is to a greater or lesser degree. When setting up a game table with terrain and models aren't we really attempting to fool the player's mind and trick it into a perceived reality that in fact does not physically exist? I'm just thinking out loud, no need to answer it. That's my experience with new players at conventions and playtesting. However, when I can refer them to the military source documents that explain the mechanics of the game I can see in their face how that 1:1 relationship is reinforced. That's something to put in the designer notes like Mick said. Some games are successful in making that 1:1 relationship using abstracted dice mechanics that have no physical reality. The player still has a great experience and fun playing the game – especially is the figures and terrain are excellent. I hope I got that right. However, I'm open to examples. Thanks, Wolfhag |
UshCha | 31 Jan 2018 3:22 p.m. PST |
Mick, general folk are not interested in designers notes. Designers like me would be happy to answer questions but none have ever come. Useful notes would take a lot of time and getting to grips with them may take some time and effort on the reader part. For example even the apparently simple issues of why for instance we went for IGOUGO on an element by element basis and where we ourselves deviate from it and why, would run to a few pages as we look at its advantages and of course it's limitations and to some extent why some limitations were not circumvented. Similarly the notes on our, for want of a better term game sequence, would again run to quite a number of pages. If you ever decide you like modern combined arms games I am happy to discuss the rule ethos but it could result in long threads. I did do a thread on use of turning turrets of tanks in games and it's impact on overall game systems design but there was minimal interest. |
McLaddie | 31 Jan 2018 6:59 p.m. PST |
We may be talking about two different definitions of reality. What a person perceives to be real in their mind may in reality – not be real in the physical world. It depends on his prior experience and where he obtained the knowledge and facts he is basing reality on. In this respect, you cannot underestimate the visuals in a game. Wolfhag: I am not underestimating the impact of visuals in providing the needed information, but I am not talking about two different definitions of reality…only how it is represented in a game. Of course, if the game does a decent job of representing reality in a game… it will be an abstraction of the real thing and how it is perceived by the player will be the experience of reality. So, in a simulation a designer has to work on how to create in the player's experience something close to reality with abstract game mechanics. It is up to the designer to recreate the historical/physical reality for the player to get that 1:1 relationship so he does not need to fill in the blanks and get the wrong perception. I think we are in agreement there. |
McLaddie | 31 Jan 2018 7:00 p.m. PST |
Mick, general folk are not interested in designers notes. Well, considering how many games have designers' notes, both miniatures and board wargames, I'd have to say that isn't necessarily accurate. I will say that designers' notes often don't provide the needed information for the players, so that might be why there is less interest in them. |
War Artisan | 01 Feb 2018 3:29 a.m. PST |
McLaddie: I don't disagree with any of the points you have made. I think your objections arise from the slightly different definitions of "authenticity" you and I are using. (Perhaps I could have worded it more clearly.) You are using it to refer to the degree to which the game's underlying structures align with the facts of the history the designer has chosen to represent, while I am using it to mean that plus the qualities of the game that convince the player that the history is being represented faithfully. The historical background is encoded primarily in the mechanics the designer crafts to represent the interactions of the entities within the game (which is the purview of the Agent), but it is the integration of the Agent and Avatar that causes the player to perceive the representation of those interactions as authentic. In much the same way as a simulation, however accurate, that fails to engage its users (and thus is not played) is not very useful, a game that incorporates some kind of historical authenticity in its mechanics is not very useful if it fails to convince its players that it is conveying some kind of historical truth. As you pointed out, since a designer cannot know anything about the historical knowledge of those who will be playing the game (and the likelihood is that most of them will have a view somewhat at variance with his own) it is all that much more important that his representation of history be not only true, but convincing. These two things are different but intimately connected, and both are necessary to any game design that aspires to represent history in an authentic way. That is what I meant by "authenticity" in this context. |
McLaddie | 01 Feb 2018 5:12 p.m. PST |
You are using it to refer to the degree to which the game's underlying structures align with the facts of the history the designer has chosen to represent, while I am using it to mean that plus the qualities of the game that convince the player that the history is being represented faithfully. The historical background is encoded primarily in the mechanics the designer crafts to represent the interactions of the entities within the game (which is the purview of the Agent), but it is the integration of the Agent and Avatar that causes the player to perceive the representation of those interactions as authentic. War Artisan: Yes, we are using the the word 'authentic' differently in some respects, and I didn't make myself entirely clear. Authenticity experienced by the player and the historical authenticity the game system is designed to portray have to be basically one in the same, the same experience for the game to work as a simulation. A player's experience can feel 'authentic' when mental and emotional aspects [agent and avatar] combine, but that isn't of much use simulation-wise if that experience doesn't align with the designer's intent and content regarding historical 'authenticity'--for whatever reason. It means the design has failed as a simulation. it is all that much more important that his representation of history be not only true, but convincing. These two things are different but intimately connected, and both are necessary to any game design that aspires to represent history in an authentic way. That is what I meant by "authenticity" in this context. So the question is what makes a wargame and simulation functionally convincing? Because of the abstract nature of wargames, because of all the personal information, emotional and mental expectations gamers bring to the table, that isn't something that can be accomplished solely by playing the game. It leaves too much open to player interpretation, where they try to convince themselves of the authenticity of the game [you've seen players do that] or decide that it isn't authentic based on issues that might well be completely outside the focus and objectives of the wargame. [Like finding the game 'unauthentic' because it lacks any representation of logistics when that wasn't even part of the design--or worse, that it did take it into account, but the players don't '*see* it.] Too often how abstract rules are interpreted [meaning, what the player *thinks* they represent of history/reality] can be wrong. So many of wargame discussions are around that question, what do they, and what should they represent. Within that context, all the integration you rightly describe among the components of wargame design won't necessarily 'convince' players of the simulation/wargame's 'authenticity.' In the final analysis, regardless of all the design components, visual cues, word choices etc., authenticity of game play for the wargamer is based on what is understood of the 1:1 relationship between history, reality and the game dynamics. From my experience, I don't see a wargame,the components and play, in and of itself, able to reliably establish an authenticity match between designer intent and player experience. More is needed for the simulation aspects to work. Players simulate history when they know specifically what history they are [and are not] attempting to recreate with their play, with their decisions. What made the designer believe 'that was the way it was?' The answer provides the player with a basis for that player/designer authenticity matchup. |
Russ Lockwood | 01 Feb 2018 7:54 p.m. PST |
Enjoying the discussion. Been talking recently about much the same thing in comparing Eurogames (which I label "spreadsheet" games) with wargames. My $0.02 USD: I'm in favor of designer notes and read them when available. My $0.03 USD: Regarding the 7 + or – 2 element for cognitive overload… In GMing, I've found newbies can handle a half dozen units (+2 or -2 if you like), experienced about 12 units, and grognards about 18 units. I find it less cognitive overload and more experience with a system, or, perhaps, units on the tabletop and mechanics in the rules are each one "element." Play a set of rules long enough and all of it becomes one "element" (so to speak) -- loading into brain RAM so you can concentrate on using the tabletop units, not flicking through pages or screens. My $0.04 USD: It is up to the designer to recreate the historical/physical reality for the player to get that 1:1 relationship My personal preference is finding the story (via good or bad play, good or bad die rolls, and good or bad commentary from my fellow gamers!) within the game. I guess that's my 1:1 perception. The rules mechanics can (or maybe that is "should") guide me in advancing that narrative, with the gamers on the opposite side of the table -- and some randomness of die rolls -- generating branches for that story. |
Wolfhag | 01 Feb 2018 9:07 p.m. PST |
Here is a story I'd like to relate that I think is pertinent: Years ago I was at a game convention in SF and signed up for this huge beach landing game of Peleliu in 28mm with 10 players. The terrain, vehicles, and figures were among the best I've ever seen. Beautiful! The rules were a version of a choice of move/move, move/shoot, shoot/move or shoot/shoot each turn. It was so simple we had a 10-year-old kid playing with little help. People were having fun, the game moved along considering 10 players. After I landed my Marine Squad of 13 figures on my Amtrack I moved inland. There were very few flat spots on the playing surface so I moved my Amtrack on top of a small bunker. A couple of minutes later one of the GM's was looking through his book on the battle of Peleliu and started getting REAL excited. He called his buddy over and showed him a picture in the book of an Amtrack parked on top of a bunker. Then they walked over to my side and compared the picture in the book and my Amtrack on the bunker. They showed me the picture in the book and how it looked almost exactly like on the board and it really did. They both started gushing about how "realistic" the game was. I was shocked! How could two adult gamers, both with 20+ years gaming experience, think that visual recreation made the game real. Just so you know, the rules they were using they also used for a Lawrence of Arabia desert game, Alamo, and a few other games. They did take the "realism" to another level by making mouth noise sound effects for dive bombers and the bomb explosion, flamethrowers, and rounds ricocheting off tanks. Yes, battle mouth noises like I made when I was 8 years old playing with plastic army men. I just sat back and thought "this is something you don't see every day". To be fair, everyone had a great time, no complaints and I kept my mouth shut and did not burst out laughing. The production was excellent and the best set up for the three-day convention. I guess not everyone process information the same way, I'm not a shrink. I did end up partnering with them at 5-6 more conventions using my system and their terrain. Between their visuals and my system (as I described above) that was more interactive than their system, we put on some great games. Wolfhag |
McLaddie | 01 Feb 2018 10:43 p.m. PST |
My personal preference is finding the story (via good or bad play, good or bad die rolls, and good or bad commentary from my fellow gamers!) within the game. I guess that's my 1:1 perception. The rules mechanics can (or maybe that is "should") guide me in advancing that narrative, with the gamers on the opposite side of the table -- and some randomness of die rolls -- generating branches for that story. Russ: The game system and mechanics guide the players to advance one narrative, what is being designed regardless. The result can be solid or non-existant authenticity. A participatory simulation provides an environment within which the players make decisions which create the events and thus the narrative. Either the simulation/wargame guides the players within a constructed narrative of historical dimensions or it doesn't. It is 'guided pretending', engineered experience. Done well and you have a functional simulation game, done poorly and you don't have anything 'authentic' whether the players enjoy the experience or not. Obviously, it must be enjoyable, but different players enjoy wargames for overlapping and distinctly different reasons. All are good, but no wargame is going to meet everyone's idea of an enjoyable historical wargame. That is a different issue from creating an authentic experience, though obviously a good portion of wargamers want both. |
McLaddie | 01 Feb 2018 10:58 p.m. PST |
They showed me the picture in the book and how it looked almost exactly like on the board and it really did. They both started gushing about how "realistic" the game was. I was shocked! How could two adult gamers, both with 20+ years gaming experience, think that visual recreation made the game real. Just so you know, the rules they were using they also used for a Lawrence of Arabia desert game, Alamo, and a few other games. Wolfhag: There you have it. First of all the 'realism' they saw was visual and it was an authentic 1:1 comparison between the game and history. The problem was that particular 'authenticity' had no relationship to how the game played or the decisions the players could make, outcomes etc. The visual is easy to 'authenticate' compared to the abstract rules and game dynamics. Anyone can identify a 28mm scale T-34 or Tiger tank model if they have seen a historical photo of one. Regardless of whether it is visual or game decisions or game dynamics, authenticity is that recognition by the players of that 1:1 representation. A participatory simulation is a dynamic process, not some static visual. A simulation doesn't work if the player can't make that 1:1 comparison between the reality the designer chose to represent and the game play. Once the players do see the connection, they can recreate an 'authentic' experience--they recognize it when they experience it. Providing the information, the reality chosen by the designer to mimic, recreate, represent, to simulate is necessary for the players to establish that 1:1 relationship. Designers' Notes could do that, most don't. |
UshCha | 02 Feb 2018 3:00 a.m. PST |
It is an interesting view of what you call authentocity and on what basis you atribute the analysis to the gamer. Perhaps being a UK gamer where wargames by many of us is played most weeks we appear to have a diffrent view in some cases. Many of us have read the appropiate contemporary accounts, drill manuals and eyewitness accounts. It becomes very apparent very quickly whem the sysem departs, often very rapidly from reality, which for some of us renders the game unplayable after one game. However for some reality is not what is required and here I think you approch is more valid. For instance some folk will not want to hide their models in defence, they have speen too long aquireing them and painting to do so. Thus they are requireing reality to be circumvented for other key parameters. This to be fair is very inline with your original version of words. Weapon ranges based on exponetial scaleing system. This is a massive error in suimulation. However it is used to allow weapon systems on table that most definitly could not be on table in the real world. However players desire for a "Model fest" (i.e a chance to roll out lots of beutifully painted modes in a scenic enviroment) makes this more than acceptable. In you parlence the Agent does not want reality, a puzzle yes, reality no! Certainly a game designer aiming for a commecial market needs to understand what is required by the mode players to maximise commercial success. Certainly at the moment reality and sucessfull sucessful games are a long way appart for commercial success. As an aside convention games in the UK are considered just that and have different objectives to those of the "weekly game" so comments on convention games as yoy play them is outside my experience. Hence a good convention game may have different design requirements to our "weekly game". |
Wolfhag | 02 Feb 2018 4:32 a.m. PST |
So taking the viewpoint of attempting to establish that 1:1 relationship the game designer must not leave out the impact of visuals, whether it is color pictures in the rule book or figures on the table. I underestimated that as it's secondary to how I want to experience that 1:1 relationship. The models are secondary because I do not buy and paint them. But that's just me, I can't judge for others. It appears to me, to a great extent, that the games experiencing the most commercial success right now have a good balance between the rules and the playing pieces. Using 20%-30% of the rulebook for eye candy only serves to enhance that 1:1 relationship. The pictures are as important as the rules in order to hook the player into that 1:1 connection. Making models and terrain serves to enhance that 1:1 relationship for the player doing the work. Now I get it. At conventions, it was the miniatures and terrain that we set up that attracted the people to play the game, not the rules. I think it goes something like this: Wow – look at those pretty pictures, with these rules and the companies figures maybe I too can recreate that cool 1:1 relationship for "realism". Here is my charge card. I think some of the more commercially successful games give just enough 1:1 relationship in their rules to make it simple enough for the players to move their models around for photo ops. Of course, that's a generalized statement but I see it a lot. I was surprised when I would read some of the AAR's and see mostly close-ups of the models and terrain and comments about the physical components and hardly any narrative about the battle. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, it's just my observation. My AAR's have hardly any pictures and no close-ups but do give a running account of the battle. My 1:1 relationship is different. Neither are wrong. Whatever reason you want to play a game and the enjoyment you want to derive is personal. No one can tell you what should please you. I think as a game designer you need to identify your target audience and get the right balance of visuals and rules so they can experience that 1:1 relationship that they want. It's going to be hard to force your version of reality onto someone else. I've heard comments like this: "You don't need that level of detail" "I like more abstraction in my game" "I only want to use six-sided dice" then add to that the reasoning and justifications for hubcap-to-hubcap tank parks, exponential range scaling, dice mechanics that could be used for any period from 2000bc to Sci-Fi and things like that shows to me that the player is already satisfied with the 1:1 relationship. For some of us we just stare and think . Wolfhag |
McLaddie | 02 Feb 2018 9:01 a.m. PST |
Perhaps being a UK gamer where wargames by many of us is played most weeks we appear to have a diffrent view in some cases. Many of us have read the appropiate contemporary accounts, drill manuals and eyewitness accounts. It becomes very apparent very quickly when the sysem departs, often very rapidly from reality, which for some of us renders the game unplayable after one game. UshCha: I'd like to challenge that view for the following reasons, all of which I have seen done by very knowledgeable gamers: 1. You assume that you know what the mechanics are designed to do---and not do. I have seen lots of mistaken assumptions about what the designer was trying to represent with game mechanics. 2. You assume the mechanic is representative when it might simply be an effort at simplification with no effort to model history/reality. We usually don't know what a particular subsystem or mechanic is supposed to do. In Fire & Fury, what is the generic artillery ranges and effects supposed to represent as a collective. an equal number of smooth bore and rifled guns or something else when a good number of batteries were all one or the other? OR was it simply an effort to simplify the game with no real effort at realism? No, the designer states that the game is "Historically Accurate" even though I know. acknowledged by the designer, of several places were the mechanics were simplified with no effort to make it 'historically accurate.' So where are the rules 'accurate' and just simplified? Folks are still guessing with the new versions. 3. You assume the designer is using the same information you are when designing the game, or they haven't--a yes or no equation when there is a lot of history available and a some contradictory. So which did the designer use? So when Fire & Fury has a brigade changing formation require half of a 30 minute turn, what is that based on? What activities is the designer including in that interpretation of formation change? I can provide primary sources that says it requires a lot less time than 15 minutes, but is that all the designer is including in his estimate of time required? For Shako, the designer's/developer's notes state that the rules were designed to illustrate the difficulties of command. What those difficulties are or where they got their ideas for them are not mentioned. So players are left to guess with their knowledge, never knowing if their guesses are right or not. Designers say what they are doing, like Shako's designer, but they never say WHY they believe those conclusions to be representative of history, of where they got their ideas. As an analogy using Wolfhag's story, the designer has that Amtrac sitting on the Bunker and declares it to be 'realistic' without ever showing the players the photo that conclusion was based on. Players might or might not have ever seen that picture… and are left to guess why the designer thought it was realistic. As we love to pretend, 'act as if' something is real, wargamers have gotten to be very good at imagining what might be realistic about a set of wargame rules. Imagination and guessing love any information vacuum. |
Wolfhag | 02 Feb 2018 12:57 p.m. PST |
McLaddie, Imagination and guessing love any information vacuum. I see that a lot in games. I think our mind works in ways to fill in information as logically as it can. You've seen how Hollywood comes out with a movie with a historical title only to be followed by "based on a true story"? I think our games should have that disclaimer too. I don't use the words "realistic" or "authentic" for my design. I'll tell the player the source for my info, how I use it and any abstractions. Based on that and the gameplay he'll determine in his own mind the level of realism and authenticity. If it is a fairly high level and he can relate to that 1:1 relationship the design is a success to that level for that player. You can't please everyone. Wolfhag |
UshCha | 02 Feb 2018 3:45 p.m. PST |
Mc Laddie, Perhaps in your periods there is less data available. Most Countries Military manuals have frontages of companies and formations to show how firepower is distributed. If you see a system where the firepower is not in accordance with the manuals then it is likely the game is in default. Again with ranges it is easy to see where a weapon range is a long way in error and where its abilities and use are not co-incident with the standard texts. I suspect if you were interested most designers would be happy to discuss the fundamentals of the model. Certainly I am happy to do so. Whether a player is happy with a game may be entirely outside the need for realism. I should be careful here as any simulation will only cover limited parameters. When an army runs a simulation it does not kill the participants it is unnecessary and counter productive. At best a war game is a simulation it is not nor would we want full realism. I usually use the term credible simulation. |
McLaddie | 02 Feb 2018 9:37 p.m. PST |
I don't use the words "realistic" or "authentic" for my design. Wolfhag: Call it whatever you want, it is just a label for what you describe below:
I'll tell the player the source for my info, how I use it and any abstractions. Based on that and the gameplay he'll determine in his own mind the level of realism and authenticity. Please note that you have given them information they MUST HAVE [the source for my info, how I use it and any abstractions…]if they can "Based on that and the gameplay he'll determine in his own mind the level of realism and authenticity." If they don't have that information you provide, the odds of them coming to anything close to the realism and authenticity you have built into the game is much, much lower. Without that information, that vaccuum, they fill it with their own ideas, not your design "source for my info, how I use it and any abstractions." That is my only point: What the player needs to recognize what the designer has done. If they don't like it, at least you know they don't like what you actually have done, rather than what they *think* you've done. If it is a fairly high level and he can relate to that 1:1 relationship the design is a success to that level for that player. That "IT" is the information they have been provided, what the player relates to successfully in play. [Successfully means relates to what the designer intended rather than whatever the player imagines on his own.] McLaddie |
McLaddie | 02 Feb 2018 9:47 p.m. PST |
Mc Laddie, Perhaps in your periods there is less data available. Most Countries Military manuals have frontages of companies and formations to show how firepower is distributed. If you see a system where the firepower is not in accordance with the manuals then it is likely the game is in default. Again with ranges it is easy to see where a weapon range is a long way in error and where its abilities and use are not co-incident with the standard texts. UshCha: The 19th Century is my interest, particularly the Napoleonic Wars. Give me an example of what you are thinking of as a set of game rules or mechanics you feel are obviously at fault and why. Then, I can better show you want I mean. It may be obvious, it may not, but as the rules are always abstractions, without enough information, it is very easy to misinterpret what the abstraction represents. When an army runs a simulation it does not kill the participants it is unnecessary and counter productive. At best a war game is a simulation it is not nor would we want full realism. I usually use the term credible simulation. Of course. That is the whole point of all simulations: you can experiment with aspects of reality without the attendant costs involved in bad decisions. Simulations that are "fully realistic" following your definitions what have to be a real war, in which case it has stopped being a simulation at all. So, we don't need to go there again. Simulations are and will always represent a PART of reality and are 'credible', 'authentic' and 'realistic' when they effectively model the part of reality the designer has chosen to recreate. That's it, no matter whether that is a research, training, military, educational, business, engineering or entertainment etc. etc. simulation. |
Wolfhag | 02 Feb 2018 10:04 p.m. PST |
McLaddie, I understand the label and that's why I try to keep away from using it. The reason being is that it is too subjective to the player and I myself know it's not "real". One of the features I'm implementing into my rulebook is excerpts from manuals and AAR's to show the concepts.
The different fire control methods used are going to be new to players so I try to show some graphics on how it works and when to use the risk-reward tactics crews used in WWII. This should help give them a clear visual as to what is going on. In game videos that players can pull up mid-game can help too. Sorry about the focus. YouTube link I think in the business world it's the creative marketing people that are responsible for creating that "hook" to get the player to identify in that 1:1 relationship with the game.
Above is an example of the "eye candy" I'm using I'm using as a way to get the players to better relate to their vehicle and shows the nuances of its armor layout and protection. I have a few different versions but the one above allows a player to select and aim point and roll 4x D10 to determine the direction and MPI of the shot. So far some people like and some people say "too much information". This is a good discussion that has helped me figure out a better way to present the game. Wolfhag |
UshCha | 03 Feb 2018 4:04 a.m. PST |
Mc Laddie, I cant make sensible judgements on Napolionics it well beyond my range of interest and hence can only comment on my period crebibly. |
Andy ONeill | 03 Feb 2018 4:28 a.m. PST |
Maybe the bloke with the Amtrak picture wasn't talking about game mechanics at all. Maybe he just meant something like… "Hey we're playing our game and it looks like this real picture. Way cool dude!" Maybe he just spent 200 hours making and painting the terrain. I dunno, wasn't there. Isn't the objective of a game usually for the players to enjoy themselves? Somewhat trivial rules plus great looking table plus players = fun. Objective achieved. I feel make be explaining my game design process is relevent. It's based on how I design and build software. When developing I use repeated iterations. Red, green, refactor. Essentially, this is work out what you want to do, decide how you will test your result. Write something achieves that. Prove it works using your test. Improve your code. Improving is a bit tricky to define. One principle is minimalism. Whatever you do should be as simple as it can be in order to achieve the result. If 20 lines of code are easier to understand then they are better than 10 lines of complicated code. In gaming terms. If there are several procedures used then are they harder to understand or slower than the equivalent result from dice rolls. If you have "props" like cards or charts then do they add enough to justify themselves? If you have seemingly unique aspects to get budgets then are those differences really significant and can you instead inject variable attributes to one generic. Another aspect is defining your algorithm. Are the factors one perceives the most significant factors? Eg many games focus on penetration stats and forget crew quality. Simulating Sherman's Vs panthers but the panthers always win in their games whilst often losing in nwe 1944. On a recent thread there were many posters happy to do bolt action down. This game is not to my taste. Not to almost all posters tastes neither. The thing is though, this is a popular game. Rapid fire. Also not for me. Popular game. Clearly, many players aren't so bothered about realism. My realism anyhow. |
McLaddie | 03 Feb 2018 7:45 a.m. PST |
Mc Laddie, I cant make sensible judgements on Napolionics it well beyond my range of interest and hence can only comment on my period crebibly. UshCha; I assumed, but that's okay. Whatever example[s] you want to use. Maybe the bloke with the Amtrak picture wasn't talking about game mechanics at all. Maybe he just meant something like… "Hey we're playing our game and it looks like this real picture. Way cool dude!" Maybe he just spent 200 hours making and painting the terrain. I dunno, wasn't there. Andy ONeill: Of course, he wasn't talking about game mechanics…he couldn't address that with a photo and a Amtrak on a bunker. I was pointing out why he thought it was 'realistic': Game visual matched the photo. Clearly, many players aren't so bothered about realism. My realism anyhow. well, do players of Bolt Action know that designer's 'realism'? i.e. Game dynamics match some aspect of history? I know they don't because that isn't something that the designer/publisher has provided, so the player's 'realism' is whatever they feel it is… not whether it actually matches some specific historical evidence, particularly the history the designer used to create Bold Action. For a wargame or simulation to work as a recreation of history or reality, the play has to be guided within very specific parameters, not whatever individual players think 'feels' realistic or not at the moment. The player is free to agree or disagree with what the designer has concluded is 'realism', when and if they ever know that. But as that is the ONLY realism contained in the game, what the designer has created it to provide. |
Wolfhag | 03 Feb 2018 8:38 a.m. PST |
Isn't the objective of a game usually for the players to enjoy themselves? Somewhat trivial rules plus great looking table plus players = fun. Objective achieved. I think that nails the current state of game publishing for dollars/pounds. From what I can see all of the more "detailed" and "realistc" games are niche players. I think you'd have to analyze why people enjoy and play games like Bolt Action. My opinion is that it hits that sweet spot of the Agent, Avatar, and Player. Players experience the anticipation of who will go next in the dice pull (FoW). It guides them within specific parameters. They get to control each figure. They issue orders. The 28mm figures have a lot of eye appeal. I've played BA a few times and players said it gave them the right "feel" and was interactive and not IGOUGO. So it appears to me the right "feel" can trump historical accuracy for many people. So I guess it can come down to someones motivation to play the game and what type of pleasure they want to derive. Wolfhag |
McLaddie | 03 Feb 2018 10:25 a.m. PST |
Isn't the objective of a game usually for the players to enjoy themselves? Duh! Of course. Who suggested it wasnt'??? Somewhat trivial rules plus great looking table plus players = fun. Objective achieved. So that is The Definition of wargaming Fun in every case? Nothing wrong with that, if that is what gamers want. Fun for different players have different objectives. Not sure what constitutes a trivial set of rules, but is that what all gamers look for? Don't think so. No one will convince me that every wargamer who plays historical wargames wants trivial history in play. |
Andy ONeill | 03 Feb 2018 11:51 a.m. PST |
Ha. My tablet's auto correct decided when I typed "results" I wanted "budgets". I don't think every player wants trivial games. I do think anything that looks complicated is going to have a harder time selling. Arguably quite rightly if it's mechanics offer no advantage over simpler ones. |
McLaddie | 03 Feb 2018 1:56 p.m. PST |
I've played BA a few times and players said it gave them the right "feel" and was interactive and not IGOUGO. So it appears to me the right "feel" can trump historical accuracy for many people. Wolfhag: What do you think that 'feel' is based on? The players' sense of historical accuracy. It's called feel because they [and more importantly, the designer] can't articulate specifically where that 1:1 relationship is. They have some general memories of a particular book, article or something a friend related that floats around in their head… or it could be just the beer. The visuals, bang-bang, gotcha elements and fun mechanics overshadow what all the processes are designed to actually represents… which is not surprising when nobody knows what it actually is--and is not--supposed to represent, what the designer intentionally tried to recreate of history. So, we all imagine 'my authenticity' and fill in the informational vaccuum with whatever 'feels' good… or not depending on what we imagine the design is trying to do. There is nothing wrong with preferring Bolt Action, people like what they like. The problem is what the designer claims he is representing, what is 'realistic', but never, ever points to where he got his ideas or why he thinks his mechanics actually model that historical evidence. Andy: I agree:
I don't think every player wants trivial games. I do think anything that looks complicated is going to have a harder time selling. Arguably quite rightly if it's mechanics offer no advantage over simpler ones. And how does one find out what history/reality the design offers if the designer doesn't tell you how to establish that 1:1 relationship between history/reality and game play. 'feelings.' |
Wolfhag | 03 Feb 2018 3:39 p.m. PST |
McLaddie, In BA I have seen players get that sense of "historical accuracy" by the differences in the factors assigned to weapons platforms. If a Panther's frontal armor is a 9 and a Sherman is an 8 it can give the player the right "feel" because there is some historical authenticity to that although very abstracted and tweaked to the 2D6 dice mechanics. If the players' knowledge of WWII combat details is fairly low the game seems to do a good enough job to get the right "feel" for them to enjoy it. They already knew a Panther was better and the game reinforces their knowledge. I've seen players come to these conclusions many times. I think BA generates that "feel" by arbitrarily assigning comparative values that can reflect strengths or weaknesses and some modifiers for particular vehicles in a way players can relate to realism or authenticity in their mind – and that's really all that counts for that player. I've read the rules over a few times and the way the game was designed around D6's and the way the values are assigned, combat and the modifiers. It does bring out differences between armor and guns without attaching any historical significance to it. In the BA introduction, it makes no claims about realism or authenticity. I watched a video of the game where the designer, Alessio Cavatore, claimed to have had no real knowledge of WWII combat! Somehow he made it work. Wolfhag |
War Artisan | 03 Feb 2018 4:47 p.m. PST |
Since much of the conversation thus far has focused on historical fidelity (which is only one small part of the ground covered by the essay, but is obviously of much greater significance in the design of a historical game, to the point where it sometimes looms much larger than other issues), let me throw out another idea for consideration. In a discussion on the History Extra podcast between producers of historical dramas for television, a couple of the panelists made the point that it is sometimes necessary to embrace an historical inaccuracy in order to convey an historical truth. This sounds contradictory, but let me explain: because modern viewers (or modern wargame players) are not a part of the historical milieu in which the action takes place but are viewing it from a place which is distant temporally and culturally, there are situations where portraying something with complete historical accuracy will make it difficult or impossible for the audience to grasp fully. For example, in order to be completely accurate, a drama which is set in ancient Rome should have its characters speaking Latin. However, if that was done, modern viewers that don't understand Latin (which would be most of them, I'm guessing) wouldn't get much out of the program. The producers or directors of such a drama might have the actors deliver their lines in a stilted, formal style in order to create the impression that the characters are actually speaking in some foreign way, but that is no less incorrect . . . merely somewhat more evocative. While the viewers might be able to guess the emotive states of the Latin-speaking actors, most of the subtlety of the plot would be completely lost, thus such a drama would actually convey less information about history than one that was "inaccurately" presented in English. That's a very crude example, but there are others more subtle. For example: standards of beauty have varied greatly over the centuries. Sometimes those considered quite attractive in their own time are quite plain or even repulsive by modern standards. If a drama that depicts a very powerful and charismatic character uses a modern actor that is attractive by the standards of that character's time (which would be historically accurate) but less so to modern viewers, it will be more difficult for those viewers to find that character and their relationships to the other characters convincing. In that case, selecting an actor that exudes power and charisma to a modern audience better conveys the place and meaning of that character's part in the narrative of historical events, even though it is technically less accurate. This is a principle that has been employed by painters of historical events for centuries. Benjamin West's painting of "The Death of General Wolfe" includes persons and the uniforms of units that were not present, but it still conveys the gravitas of that moment. Lady Butler's "Charge of the Scots Greys" probably doesn't represent what the charge actually looked like, but it evokes the atmosphere of what it must have felt like to be attacked by heavy cavalry quite impressively. Nautical artists of the Age of Sail routinely depict neat lines of sailing ships, bow to stern, that were very likely quite disordered and spread out on the day of battle, and they also commonly show simultaneous events that actually happened over a period of hours or days. None of this "inaccuracy" in any way diminishes their power to leave a meaningful impression of those events on those who were not there to witness them. I'm convinced that a similar principle applies to historical wargames, given that they are really little historical dramas. I'm not in favor of using this idea to excuse the shoddy or nonexistent research or lazy design practices I so often see in published game designs, but I can envision situations in which a designer might deliberately represent a historical interaction in a way that makes sense to his modern audience, rather than in a strictly accurate way, in order to make a point. |
UshCha | 04 Feb 2018 2:49 a.m. PST |
Interesting Comments. The extent of the changes (inaccuracies), which are for the reasons given perfectly acceptable (I don't write the rules in German for the German side using metric), it will depend on the audiance. The audience will "qualify" itself dependent on its knowledge of a subject. An expert may want to see less distortion than a general viewer. Again in waqrgames terms a player unfamilar with the tactics and behavious may accept inaccuracies that a serious student of the period would not. Again much dependes on the target audiance. Is it the "general player with little inererest in the detail or a serious student of the tactics. To be fair you have (perhaps not idealy) have respondents in the "student" vein rather than the general gamer. This is why your facet called Agent is most under discussion. |
McLaddie | 04 Feb 2018 10:31 a.m. PST |
Wolfhag: So a designer who knows little about WWII designs rules for players who know little about WWII, but it 'works' because "If the players' knowledge of WWII combat details is fairly low the game seems to do a good enough job to get the right "feel" for them to enjoy it." I have no doubt that they enjoy it. I have no doubt that they believe that it 'feels' right to them. More power to them. I have no problem with that. However, in discussing wargame DESIGN, BA only 'works' if what you describe was the goal of the designer. What does that 'feel' of history have to do with actual history considering how little the designer says he knows about WWII combat? Who knows? Who cares? even if it isn't actually history and does history some serious injustice? Well, somebody does: If you read and watch the promotional descriptions of and articles about Bolt Action, that isn't what is claimed in regards of historical presentation for the rules set. No, far more than that low-level 'feel' is claimed. Considering how little of actual platoon and company tactics are possible with BA, it isn't clear at all what the goals where for the design visa vie history and WWII combat. And THAT is what I see as the problem, not what you describe as what the game provides in the way of 'feel.' |
McLaddie | 04 Feb 2018 10:58 a.m. PST |
Since much of the conversation thus far has focused on historical fidelity (which is only one small part of the ground covered by the essay, but is obviously of much greater significance in the design of a historical game, to the point where it sometimes looms much larger than other issues), let me throw out another idea for consideration. War Artisan: Well, I can't speak for others, but I wasn't talking about historical fidelity. I was talking about how wargames recreate/simulate whatever history is the goal for the design. That includes most all of what you described in your article. Participatory simulations work as simulations for the participants only IF the emotional and mental experiences are cohesive [your Agent and Avatar] One or the other doesn't work as a simulation. Effective player Immersion in the simulation is essential for the simulation to work, regardless of what and how much history is being portrayed. What you see too often is what Wolfhag describes as 'feel', pure avatar with little or no grounding in the agent aspects of the wargame. The agent elements are grounded in knowledge, information. Both emotions and information are essential if there is going to be a coherent 1:1 relationship between the history in the design and the player experience. simulations are 'guided experience, guided immersion' to produce a specific decision-making environment for the players to 'act as if' it is real. That means that any game that depends on player 'feelings' without regard to the Agent aspects [communicating what is and is not being represented in the game dynamics--the intended historical content] fails as a model, recreation, simulation, experience of history. It doesn't do the job. It simply doesn't work regardless of the amount or accuracy of the historical content. In a discussion on the History Extra podcast between producers of historical dramas for television, a couple of the panelists made the point that it is sometimes necessary to embrace an historical inaccuracy in order to convey an historical truth. That can be an element in game design and you have described some. However, to make that judgement, one has to know what makes some aspects "inaccurate" [they need to know what is accurate] and what makes their greater historical truth True. Right? All that artistic compromise for something historically true… That is mostly wasted if the players aren't made aware of those distinctions and the historical truth the design is meant to present. Worse, and you know this happens in our hobby: That historical necessary historical inaccuracy left unidentified, is taken by players as historical truth and the damage is done. Again, there has to be some 1:1 relationship between that truth and actual history regardless of the inaccuracies deemed necessary to achieve it. I have been talking about how to achieve design goals with game mechanics [Which includes a historical experience] and all the attendant supporting elements you have identified. |
Pages: 1 2 3 4
|