"Fundamental assumptions" Topic

Over the last few days having been chatting and considering such simple things like hedges, it occurs to me we can debate about rules benefits and failures but may not in many cases even have a common agreement on what is our fundamental minimum requirement.

Recently a friend appeared with a one hour war game, I was somewhat scathing, to me a one hour war game is just not an acceptable solution, by definition it cannot be sufficiently comprehensive to entertain me. But clearly as its successful it is a great idea to some.

Similarly we do not even share the view on whether modelling individual runs of hedges is important, some are happy to abstract the effect some of us are not.

Hiding figures is even an issues FOG of war vs visual impact.

Shape, sizes and how buildings are treated as similarly issues with differing views.

Its no wounder there are so may different view when even the vary basics of what is a war game vary before you even start to write a set of rules.

It does make rating rules impossible as there is no one standard on which to make an objective judgement.

It makes rating rules impossible if by "rating" you mean a single number, so a rule set rated 83 must be better than one rated 47. But it is possible to judge rules as rules. Are they clear, legible and not subject to varied interpretations? Can you find them all easily? Are any actually missing, or any terms undefined? These are important and objective things.

And they can be accurately and objectively reviewed otherwise. What period are they meant to cover? At what level of warfare? What are the ground and figure scales? What are the basing requirements? Which aspects of war are emphasized? Which are abstracted? What tools are needed to play?

Tastes differ, but there are plenty of facts, if I could get reviewers to focus on them.

Any rules set represents the designer's interpretation of history and interpretation of terrain effects (in this case). We all have our own preferences of what we want to see in a wargame.

Given that it is IMPOSSIBLE to replicate every factor on the battlefield, the designer has to choose what he wants to represent, just like the user will want to see what he thinks is important or wants to play.

There is no such thing as a single standard from which to judge rules -- you are correct. This is why
designer notes are important because it tells the buyer what the designer focused on. I can read it and see if I agree, or whether or not it has the factors I prefer focusing on.

Keep in mind all of us users have games we prefer to play. Keep in mind there is, and never will be, a totally realistic wargame. Any game will only be able to represent limited factors. But each of us applies our own preferences to any game we buy.

There's nothing wrong with a one-hour wargame, especially if you're limited to time. You're not going to capture as many factors as a complex and, probably, time consuming wargame, but you can still enjoy it. (Fun is a factor, too.)

There are tons of objective standards for that. They are called accreditation standards and they basically lead to what robert piepinbrink is describing, fitness for intended use.

It's fundamentally no different from saying a house or a car is "good" or "bad". The first step id figure out what you want to do with it. The granularity of that definition drives the degree to which you can apply low-level empirical measures to the evaluation.

As stated above, unless you have an obscenely simple use case, such an evaluation will not resolve into a one-dimensional qualitative or quantitative ranking system. It results in a fold of trade spaces.

robert piepenbrink you are correct some of the factors can be reviewed. But even then in some cases they cant be rated.

Your paragraphs are more just listing attributes, which is good but whether they do a "good" job is in the eye of the beholder.

It really doesn't take much thought if you have talked to more than a few wargamers and realised the vast variation in what they like/want/expect. ANY judgement concerning a wargame is subjective, no possibility of a bias-free rating whatsoever.

"ANY judgement concerning a wargame is subjective, no possibility of a bias-free rating whatsoever."

I must disagree, Gildas. "Many" or "most" perhaps. But--just thinking of a few I've run into
--the rules are not complete in themselves; you must have another set to play this one.
--the rules are 50 pages long, poorly organized and there is no index.
--key terms in the rules are not defined.
--type is small (8pt) and gray or light blue.
--parts of certain pages are missing in my copy.

These things are not matters of opinion or taste. They are either true or not true. Nor, by and large, are the things in the second paragraph of my previous post. I do not ask a reviewer to tell me whether Napoleon's Battles is better or worse than Flames of War. I do ask the reviewer to give me facts. Mostly I get "I liked it!" or "I didn't like it!" which helps no one--or manufacturer's blurbs, which may actually be worse.

Which aspects of war are emphasized? Which are abstracted?

These are both objective. They can be measured empirically.

Which aspects should be emphasized? Which aspects should be abstracted?

These are also objective. Even if your use case is "make me happy" they are not subjective. By definition, subjective means varies with respect to different observers, but MMH only has one observer. ;)

Defining a use case is arbitrary. If it is done poorly, then its criteria are also subjective.

Sgt Slag wrote: [from the twin thread]

There are a hundred shades of gray in between the opaqueness of Simulation, and the mercurial flow of a Game. Most folks are found in the midst of the gray fog between the two extremes. Cheers!

And who is the one that creates that 'hundred shades of gray and then leaves players in the midst of the gray fog?

The designer of course--the only one who has parsed out that gray in creating the wargame.

raylev3 wrote:

Any rules set represents the designer's interpretation of history and interpretation of terrain effects (in this case).

Agreed. As part of that interpretation, as etotheipi says, "These are both objective. They can be measured empirically.
Which aspects should be emphasized? Which aspects should be abstracted?"

But how much is the designer telling the gamer, and is it enough?

Given that it is IMPOSSIBLE to replicate every factor on the battlefield, the designer has to choose what he wants to represent, just like the user will want to see what he thinks is important or wants to play.

Again, it is the designer's responsibility to state what the goals are for his wargame, those choices made, and how it is represented.

UshCha wrote:

Its no wonder there are so many different views when even the very basics of what is a war game vary before you even start to write a set of rules. It does make rating rules impossible as there is no one standard on which to make an objective judgement.

There is a wide range of purposes in designing a wargame. However, there is one definite set of objective standards built right into the design, and those are the standards and goals of the designer. If he creates a 'one hour game', he is responsible for delineating why and how he created it. That is the standard he and any designer should be judged on: What did he try to do and how well did he succeed in reaching his goals?

As etotheipi notes,

"These are also objective. Even if your use case is "make me happy" they are not subjective. By definition, subjective means varies with respect to different observers, but MMH only has one observer. ;)

Defining a use case is arbitrary. If it is done poorly, then its criteria are also subjective.

The designer is the ONLY one who can state the standards for their game in objective terms.

At this point, designers have little motivation to provide that. Most all designer's notes etc. fail to give enough of the right kind of information to make any judgement.

GildasFacit wrote:

It really doesn't take much thought if you have talked to more than a few wargamers and realised the vast variation in what they like/want/expect. ANY judgement concerning a wargame is subjective, no possibility of a bias-free rating whatsoever.

It is not impossible to make bias-free judgements, objective evaluations. They just aren't based on wargamers' 'likes.'
They are based on what the designer created. The game rules and designer's comments about it are objective realities.

For instance, the designer of Regimental Fire & Fury says his wargame rules "took years of refining the rules and much playtesting to find the balance between playability and historical accuracy players expect in a Fire and Fury game." [Foreword and Acknowledgements]

Now, there is nothing subjective about claiming "historical accuracy." The word accuracy is the antithesis of 'subjective.'

That is the designer's claim. So, is it historically accurate and where? For instance, the rules have infantry moving 12 inches a turn. In game scale, that is 300 yards every 10-15 minutes. [that is 20-30 yards a minute] Now, ALL the military men who created wargames Kriegsspiel-type wargames in the nineteenth century, in the U.S. and Europe, have troops move at three to four times that rate. Any number of actual combat engagements have infantry moving at 80-100 yards per minute under fire, including Pickett's Charge.

I have found NO historical references suggesting that 20-30 yards in a minute was an expected average. So, how is that historically accurate???

Now, it is quite possible that the rate was part of the playability calculations rather than history. Or perhaps there are unrelated historical evidence that play into that game design decision.

All of those issues and subsequent questions are all objective. Any determination of 'value' will be based on not only the designer's overt statement of purpose, but on specific history, either the designer's or mine. Where is the bias in that determination?

The problem is that again, the designer isn't saying which parts of his design were for playability and which were accurately representing history.

Again, the designer's lack of transparency is the fundamental problem, the one who creates the impossibility of any unbiased judgement.

"It does make rating rules impossible as there is no one standard on which to make an objective judgement."

There will be as many "standards" as there are people determining ratings. And the disagreements about them will start from there. Of course, one could start their own ratings system and hope it becomes acceptable to a wider audience… ;-)

A judgement in this context is not about deciding on whether or not a statement is true but about whether the rules do what the observer thinks that they should do – subjective because the observer cannot help but be biased. The author can attempt an explanation and/or inform the user of their intent but it is the view of whole production that is a judgement and not just the nit-picking details.

Historical accuracy IS subjective in most wargamers thinking (and most historians, come to that). It might not be so if we lived in a perfect world when absolute fact was all that history was about but it is not. Interpretation of events differs between sources so a player's concept of what is 'historical' will vary with what they have read, even leaving out their own opinions.

I agree that the metric by which we should judge a game is set by the designer's goal.

A one hour wargame can be well done if it achieves the goal of being entertaining and done in an hour. It may not be realistic but that probably wasn't the goal.

Realism is effectively subjective after being transposed to a tabletop. There are unlimited things to model and we can only model a small subset of those factors. We choose to model the ones that provide interesting choices and don't take forever to calculate.

Providing basic data from the designers standpoint would be difficult and involve a lot of written work. Even for a reviewer who may have a life outside reviewing may not have the time.

Lets take something very basic like move sequence. Our own rules is "Almost, but not quite, entirely unlike IGOUGO" Does this help? Not really, it would take the rules to show the differences. How armored vehicles are dealt with would again take a lot of description to be useful. Unlike many systems, weapons have to be brought to bare, and most (but not all systems are modeled discreetly e.g smoke discharges and Battle management systems.

That is just a tiny section of the differences from most rules. I would love to se a decent review of our rules in objective terms but I would feel a bit sorry for the reviewer as a lot is relatively novel to most contemporary rules. "Its a Bit complicated" is not an objective assessment, I have seen commercial set that make ours look simple that are not described by some as complicated. Even complicated is in the eye of the beholder.

I guess the thing is to find a reviewer that is in line with your requirements and biases, then you can probably trust the review. Otherwise Its an uphill task hence my post.
Hell you can get wars just on whether a D6 based system is better than a D20 system, regardless of the rules!

Our own rules is "Almost, but not quite, entirely unlike IGOUGO" Does this help?

The issue with this is that you are ignoring pretty much everything everyone has said and still focusing on an inherent "goodness" or "badness" of the rule itself.

What would help is "We're trying to create this effect …" or "We want to represent …"

INLGames publishes tons of scenarios. While we think our rules, QILS, are the best for lots of different games, we recognize that even if that were true, it doesn't mean that everyone plays them. So when the scenarios we publish move from description of the milieu into specifics of implementation, we generally (not always in the earlier products) provide the specifics of the effect we are going for first. This allows people to easily port the scenarios into whatever ruleset they play.

At Puebla, the French ran out of ammunition on their third assault up the hill, which was a significant factor in their retreat from the battle and Mexico. The commanders knew they were low on ammunition, but didn't believe that they would run out before they secured Forts Loreto and Guadalupe. As supplies diminish, artillery team leaders reduce speed in order to conserve shot.
…
The French players need to know generally the risk of running out of ammo on a turn, but should not be able to calculate exactly when this would happen. As the risk of running out of ammo increases, the overall artillery performance degrades.
…
If a French artillery unit rolls a six, that result counts, but that die is removed from the die pool until there are none left, at which point the artillery unit can no longer conduct combat.
…
So, there's a bit of milieu, effect, and rule. You can evaluate how well the rule implements the effect, and even design another or port the rule to a different system (such as one without a dice pool).

Or you could reject the effect (which doesn't affect how good the rule was in implementing it) and go for …

The French player should know exactly when each artillery unit will run out of ammo, and use that as part of their strategic and tactical planning for the assault.
…
The French players get twenty chips at the start of the game, and assign them to their artillery units. Remove one chip from an artillery unit per volley fired. When a unit runs out of chips, it can no longer fire. A logistic action may be used to transfer chips from one artillery unit to another.

Neither rule is inherently better or worse than the other. But even without a detailed technical analysis, the goodness of fit for the two different rules compared to the two different effects is obvious.

etotheipi the point is that in describing the rules for just one scenario, which by the way looks like quite a good implementation. I took you about 17 line of text to outline a novel and well thought out rule and one that is scenario based: w2ell written by the way.
However a reviewer can't go into that level of detail on all sections of a rules.
The point is, even an objective description of a set of rules is a complex job often not well done. Even that will not tell you whether its subjectively good set of rules for you.

As you note UshCha, most reviews are not well done. Most of them aren't even reviews. "It was really fun and I liked it" is not a review.

But I wasn't writing a review, I was illustrating that with the right context, you can objectively asses those things easily if you have the right context in the rules. It's not a function of biases or subjectivity.

What you get depends on what level of review you want. The rules of the game of Go probably take less than one page, but you could fill several bookshelves with analysis of the rules. The best review of the LotR trilogy I ever read was "A bunch of people walked a lot. No, really, a real lot."

So, yes by setting the limit on the size of the analysis – short, long, or in between – you constrain the degree of analysis that can be presented. You can't provide an in-depth analysis of a game in five words and you can't provide a quick blurb with 200 pages of text. But that's a function of the form you are writing to, not the ability to conduct the analysis.

With the sections I showed, you could summarize in a couple of sentences or walk through dozens of situations that may evolve in play and discuss their strategic equities for the player.

Glidas F. wrote:

Historical accuracy IS subjective in most wargamers thinking (and most historians, come to that). It might not be so if we lived in a perfect world when absolute fact was all that history was about but it is not.

Interpretation of events differs between sources so a player's concept of what is 'historical' will vary with what they have read, even leaving out their own opinions.

GF: Well, of course a player's concepts of history will vary depending on what they read, movies they've seen, friends they've talked to and day-dreams. Who knows? That does not play into this issue: the judgement about the quality and success of a historical wargame. iPhones may be popular with lots of users, but that doesn't help in determining whether the simcard works as the designer intended.

The player did not research the history supposedly used as the template for the resultant game mechanics. What the players believe, have opinions about etc. do not impact the issue at all, other than confuse it as it does on this thread. The designer did the research, designed the game and makes the claims about its historical content.

Without informing players about what particular history, what reality is specifically being represented in game-play and the designer's goals for that history, the player's guesses about it ARE totally subjective and useless in judging the game quality other than one self-explicit category: Popularity. UshCha wasn't asking about that.

"Historical accuracy IS subjective??" And Peace is War and Black is White. That is non-sense and renders both words meaningless, let alone history. And no, most all historians do not believe that, EVEN when they, like Historian Carl Becker, the founder of "the New History" writes about subjectivity in history, as he does in his The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth Century Philosophers:

All historical writing, even the most honest, is unconsciously subjective, since every age is bound, in spite of itself, to make the dead perform whatever tricks it finds necessary for its own peace of mind."

Yet, even he believed in historical facts and accuracy as the basis for that performance and its reality check.

As the ancient scholar Polybius wrote:

"If history is deprived of the truth, we are left with nothing but an idle, unprofitable tale."

Idle, unprofitable tale? Sounds like so much of debates over game quality and the history supposedly represented. This covering history with a blanket of subjectivity is not new. George Clerk, in the Introduction to The New Cambridge Modern History. wrote:

"Some impatient scholars take refuge in skepticism, or at least in the doctrine that, since all historical judgements involve persons and points of view, one is as good as another and there is no ‘objective, historical Truth."

So, what is the historian's approach to accuracy and historical ‘truth' if there is subjectivity involved? Here is what historian Barbara Tuchman, author of a Distant Mirror and The Guns of August wrote addressing the issue of subjectivity and accuracy in her Practicing History p. 18

We can never be certain that we have recaptured it [history] as it really was. But the least we can do is to stay within the evidence.

I do not invent anything, even the weather. One of my readers told me he particularly liked a passage in The Guns which tells how the British Army landed in France and how on that afternoon there was a sound of summer thunder in the air and the sun went down in a blood-red glow. He thought it an artistic touch of doom, but the fact is it was true. I found it in the memoirs of a British officer who landed on that day and heard the thunder and saw the blood-red sunset. The art, if any, consisted only in selecting it and ultimately using it in the right place.

Barbara's relating the officer's memoir of thunder and blood-red sunset was objective, factual, and accurate. Her choice of subject and how she used that memoir is artistic, subjective.

I don't think it is too much for a designer of a historical wargame, after much research and claiming ‘historical accuracy' and the like to "not to invent anything" they claim is historical, and to "stay within the evidence." They can interpret the evidence and artistically use them in personally subject ways as did Tuchman, BUT it is all based on evidence, not some subjective daydream.

IF their game design is representative of some history, some evidence, then to be ‘accurate', we need to know what target--the evidence--was hit, included in the game.

A wargame player, to appreciate and truly experience that history needs to know the designer's history, not his. The game asks the player to experience the designer's take on history after all. The least he can do is tell you what that is.

The player needs to know the one-to-one relationship between history and how it is portrayed with game mechanics to truly appreciate what is being recreated with game play.

There is no other way to confidently recognize and experience the historical content.

FYI, I wad making a general comment about reviews -- I was not referring to anything or anyone in this thread.

A wargame player, to appreciate and truly experience that history needs to know the designer's history, not his. The game asks the player to experience the designer's take on history after all. The least he can do is tell you what that is.

The player needs to know the one-to-one relationship between history and how it is portrayed with game mechanics to truly appreciate what is being recreated with game play.

I'd be loath to impose a general obligation on other game designers, but I do feel a PERSONAL obligation as a game designer to identify the historical sources and evidence I used in developing my rules and scenarios. I would feel this personal obligation for any historically derived game I designed, but I feel it especially strongly because of the specific nature of my projects.

As you aptly point out McLaddie, in general players have not researched the history that designers use as the basis for their game mechanics. In my specific case as a game designer, there is an additional issue regarding the availability of sources in English.

My friend Eric Alvarado and I co-wrote a rules and scenarios book on the Herero War of 1904, which was fought in what is now the independent nation of Namibia, but in 1904 was a German colony: Deutsch-Südwestafrika, i.e., German South-West Africa. The rules and scenarios are historically derived, from the original German sources: official histories, first-person accounts, and original maps.

Therefore, players who do not read German are putting their trust in me to be as honest and accurate as I can in my translations, my interpretations and even in the basic historical data that I report (dates, places, orders of battle, etc.). Because of this, I feel the need to be as transparent as possible regarding the historical basis for the rules and scenarios.

Thus, each rules chapter contains not only the game mechanics for a rule on a specific topic but also the historical evidence from which that rule was derived. These quotes from the German sources (including official histories and first-person accounts from battles) show the historical basis and motivation for the rule, demonstrate the rule in action in the actual historical battle(s), and try to give the reader a "you were there" snapshot view of the fighting.

UshCha wrote:

Providing basic data from the designer's standpoint would be difficult and involve a lot of written work. Even for a reviewer who may have a life outside reviewing may not have the time.

UshCha: The issue isn't covering the data from the designer's standpoint. The question is what the player needs to know to experience the history built into the game system. If they don't know the connections, they can't experience them in play. The rules will be the same, but all they can do is 'play the game' and imagine whatever they want to.

Historians, scientists, even politicians have this issue: What does the audience need to know to provide for understanding? It isn't a matter of how much, but of what. What history do players need to know to understand the one-to-one relationships between history/reality and the rules.
That doesn't mean the players need to know everything, but just those major points the designer has as his goals for the game. Considering that the designer has to choose what to represent among the infinite possibilities found in history and reality, and the same is true for the major goals in representation, a designer can identify those points of intersection for the players.

Now, supposedly, the designer has done a lot of research, knows a lot about the history represented in the rules. So, it isn't something they have to 'go find' once the game is designed--based on that information. The reviewer doesn't need to go find the information either, IF it is provided by the designer with the game.

There are a lot of methods for providing players with those links between history and the game.

1. One method I thought was genius, but never saw in print was a beta version of ancient rules by Frank Chadwick. At the beginning of each section of the rules, he quoted a primary source [with the reference] in a small paragraph. The quote was a specific example or description of what the subsequent rules represented.

2. Provide a bibliography of the sources used. Now, generally these are short and labeled 'suggested reading' in most rule books. A pretty useless inclusion because players don't know where in which books a particular bit of history rules was used as the model for some subsystem or mechanic.
All that would be necessary would be a note [1:25] which means first book listed in the references, page 25. Not a whole lot of ink, not intrusive, but allows those players who are interested to 'look it up' to find out where the designer got his history.

3. Some games have extensive notes in scenario books and the like. Unfortunately, they are just a general history of the period more often than not. Napoleon's Battles had an extensive, detailed look at Napoleonic warfare, but not once did they show which history was used for specific mechanics and systems. A designer could march through the sections of the rules in a separate section, designer's notes or booklet, providing the specific history incorporated in each, either source or historic example.

4. Historians have struggled with this issue for quite a while, what to footnote, how much. The Barbara Tuchman use of an unsourced account about the weather when the British landed in France is a good example. There will always be that issue of history not made explicit, but it is a minor issue. We are talking the major points in a game design.

What are the major historical models in the game, usually around the designer's goals for the game? Where did they come from. There is no reason that those major points can be supported by evidence in the rules, by sort quotes, footnotes, in the designer's notes, in a separate booklet.

Other communicators, in representing their efforts, have found the most efficient ways to provide information. Historical wargame designers can too. The question remains:
What to players need to know to appreciate and experience the history built into the game. Everyone talks about how a game is a narrative story. Well, narrations are built on information. A historical narration is built on evidence.

I can provide more methods for communicating the historical links, but this post is long enough as it is. You have the 'needed' information.

If you don't tell them the history, players will just guess based on their history, and with nothing particularly specific to work with in judging rules that are abstractions, they will conclude what they can, along with reviewers: They either like the game or they don't. End of story.

IF you want a different story as a designer and player, then you have to provide more and better information.

I'd be loath to impose a general obligation on other game designers, but I do feel a PERSONAL obligation as a game designer to identify the historical sources and evidence

rjones69:

It isn't a matter of 'obligation' any more than writing coherent rules are an obligation. It's done so the player can play the game effectively, benefiting from all that the game is meant to deliver. Providing that information is no different and just as necessary for a historical wargame. Unfortunately, we have decades of that lack and have learned to 'live with it', not realizing what is missing while constantly debating what history is or isn't portrayed in our games--and how to judge their quality.

Thus, each rules chapter contains not only the game mechanics for a rule on a specific topic but also the historical evidence from which that rule was derived.

I would think that would do the trick. That is certainly what I've been talking about. I am sure reviewers will appreciate it and provide a better foundation for any reviews.

One question though:
Have you play tested whether those inclusions appear to satisfy players or address any major issues they have with the rules? That would tell you whether your inclusions have done what you want them too. [playtest questions with and without those rules inclusions]

Have you play tested whether those inclusions appear to satisfy players or address any major issues they have with the rules? That would tell you whether your inclusions have done what you want them too. [playtest questions with and without those rules inclusions]

The games were thoroughly playtested before running them at conventions. I've been running the games every year at the three HMGS conventions – Cold Wars, Historicon, and Fall In – since July 2006. I also run the games at Barrage and at the local Northern Virginia Gamers (NOVAG) conventions.

In 2014 the book "The Herero War" was released and it is still selling (most recently at Barrage 2022 a few weeks ago in September).

So, I've had feedback from players on the games from 2006 to the present, and on the published book from 2014 to the present.

The players find the historical quotes are great for introducing them to this particular conflict (the strategy, the tactics, the weapons, the terrain, the troop types, the leaders) and for resolving issues of interpretation and initial disbelieve: That rule is not realistic! The Germans (or Hereros) would/could never do that! Oh wait, they did do that. In multiple battles. And that's the basis of the rule. Wow, that's cool!

And the players then adapt their tactics and decision making to that historical rule, rather than trying to change the rule to adapt to their previous experiences. The historical quotes explaining the basis for a rule are especially useful in cases where the Herero War is different from players' previous experiences with other colonial wars.

And of course, there's no conflict between the game designer doing historical research and citing one's historical sources and the players having fun. My games are well attended, people enjoy them and laugh (and despair, when things go awry), and they learn some history too. And people buy the book. I've also won several HMGS awards for my games, and the judges always mention how much fun the players are having.

So, citing the historical basis for one's rules and the players having fun are not in conflict; in fact, they are complementary. As you aptly put it, McLaddie, it allows the players to "[benefit] from all that the game is meant to deliver".

The players find the historical quotes are great for introducing them to this particular conflict (the strategy, the tactics, the weapons, the terrain, the troop types, the leaders) and for resolving issues of interpretation and initial disbelieve: That rule is not realistic! The Germans (or Hereros) would/could never do that! Oh wait, they did do that. In multiple battles. And that's the basis of the rule. Wow, that's cool!

And the players then adapt their tactics and decision making to that historical rule, rather than trying to change the rule to adapt to their previous experiences. The historical quotes explaining the basis for a rule are especially useful in cases where the Herero War is different from players' previous experiences with other colonial wars.

rjones69: That is a spot-on example of why it is important for designers need to include pertinent, specific historical information for the players to experience the history in play. If you hadn't included that information, the players:
1. Would not have enjoyed the game as much as they could with it.
2. Given them reasons to doubt the history dynamically portrayed, which could have led them to:
3. Panning the game or changing the rules to what they thought they 'should be.'
4. Lost participants/customers because of it.

I was only sort of being sardonic in my question about playtesting the history information included. Just as playtesting the game allows you to fine-tune the mechanics, playtesting the information allows a designer to fine-tune the critical information players want and need to understand the history being portrayed.

I hope you'll continue adding that history to your next designs. That is the kind of specific information gamers and the hobby need--desperately.

Here is my attempt at giving the players a historical context to give them an idea of how and why to use the tactics and rules in the game:

US Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication 1, Tactical Decision Making: "Whoever can make and implement his decisions consistently faster gains a tremendous, often decisive advantage. Decision-making thus becomes a time-competitive process and timeliness of decisions (OODA Loop) becomes essential to generating tempo."

Quote from German Tank Commander Otto Carius's book "Tigers in the Mud": The tank commander's attention will immediately be directed toward the new direction and the target will usually be identified in time. Everything depends on the prompt identification of a dangerous target. Usually, seconds decide.

Snap Shot (Battlesight Aiming): After the Gunner traversed the gun on the target for a Ranging or Halt Fire shot (the first shot at the target) he normally needed additional time to make fine elevation adjustments to Estimate the Range & Aim. In combat, crews were often faced with the "Accuracy versus Speed Dilemma." In an emergency or an intense engagement and at ranges inside one second Time of Flight, the Gunner could do this very quickly but with an accuracy penalty. This is known as a Snap Shot or Battlesight Aiming as taken from the tank training manual. You can be fast or accurate, not both. This is what makes combat "Time Competitive."

Description: A Snap Shot is a player Risk-Reward Tactical Decision that simulates less time spent "Estimating the Range and Aiming" for a Ranging or Halt Fire shot (not Bracketing or Ranged In). This allows him to trade decreased accuracy for increased speed to seize the initiative and shoot first (get inside his opponent's OODA Loop). This gives a timing advantage to guns with a higher muzzle velocity that can use a Snap Shot at longer rangers. Since Ace crews are quicker and have a -100m Accuracy Bonus they can use a Snap Shot with less of an Accuracy Penalty. Using a Snap Shot the player may reduce his Ranging or Halt Fire Estimate Range & Aim Action Timing amount to 0 but not less than 0 with a +100m Accuracy Penalty for each second shooting sooner. Snap Shots can result in a shot missing at point-blank range as they sometimes did in real combat. Players should secretly record Accuracy Bonus and Penalties and Act Time to shoot.

Snap Shot example: After his Situational Awareness Check and engaging the target, at a Game Time of 1:27 a player is firing a Ranging shot at a target that is at 600m with a gun that has a muzzle velocity of 800m/second so is less than one second Time of Flight. Using his vehicle Data Card, he rolls a D6 with 0-3 modifiers (crew type, moving, Rangefinder, Snap Shot) with a result needing 7 seconds of Action Timing to fire with his best accuracy shooting at a Game Time of 1:34. The players Snap Shot "Risk-Reward" options are to subtract from 1 to 7 seconds of Action Timing with a +100m Accuracy Penalty for each second shooting sooner. He could shoot at 1:27 subtracting 7 seconds but with the Accuracy Penalty of +700m, he will use the 1300m range column on the Gun Chart. Subtracting 6 seconds he fires at 1:28 on the 1200m column, etc. There are no die roll modifiers for accuracy as in other games. The true Target Range is modified in +/-100m increments to determine the Accuracy Range.

Snap Shot Limitations: There is a maximum range of one second Time of Flight. You cannot use a Snap Shot with a Bracketing shot, Ranged In shot, Rangefinder, or Precision Aim.

Cancel Snap Shot option: If you are in a shootout using the Snap Shot tactic and your opponent shoots first and misses, you can eliminate the Snap Shot Accuracy Penalty and increase your chances of a hit. Since he missed and it will take him at least 5 seconds to reload and shoot again. Now the player can take additional time to aim for a better shot. If he has an Act Time to shoot at a Game Time of 1:32 the player had a 3-second Snap Shot with a +300m Accuracy Penalty he can choose to shoot at 1:35 with no Accuracy Penalty while his opponent is busy reloading.

Tank Video Games: Most tank video games show a small circle above the target as soon as the gun is pointed at it. This determines the potential accuracy of the shot. The larger the circle the less chance of hitting the target. The longer the player holds his gun on the target the circle decreases in diameter for a number of seconds giving better accuracy until it stops. Players normally wait until the circle stops shrinking before shooting which is their maximum aim time for the best chance to hit. However, they can choose to fire at any time once the circle appears trading decreased accuracy for a quicker shot. It basically works the same way in the game and in real combat.

See Accuracy Penalty, Battlesight Aiming, Estimate Range and Aim, Halt Fire, Precision Aim, Rangefinder, Ranging Fire Control, Risk Reward Tactical Decision, and Time of Flight.

The above gives a historical perspective to the rule they'll be reading and a few quotes. Then there is a description of the rule and how it is used in the game, an example, limitations, and options. It also references other rules.

I try to write the rules with the assumption the player has little previous knowledge so it is quite a wordy explanation. In the game, all the player does is roll a D6 with 0-3 modifiers to determine how long it will take to shoot and add it to the current game time.

There are no IGUG move/shoot sequences, rolling for initiative, activating units, use of command points, orders phase, plotting movement, or turn interrupts as in other games. Players perform the same actions in pretty much the same way as real crews do using the "Time competitive" approach rather than rule abstractions.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag:

I guess the question would be: Do the players have to know all of that to see the one-to-one historical connections? From my experience, I'd say now, though it is all good background information on the game system.

Because of the scale and mechanics themselves, a great deal of the game is 'self-evident'. Players can see the specific one-to-one relationships simply by playing the game.

So, I would ask, how much of that information you posted do you feel, from your experience in putting on games, is really necessary for players to 'get it?' That is a more 'strategic view' of information presentation: no more than needed.

UshCha wrote -
"Over the last few days having been chatting and considering such simple things like hedges, .."

"Hedge" is an interesting example of a terrain feature requiring a precise definition. There's the decorative sort bordering your neighbor's yard ….. then there is a rural Norman hedgerow.

B

McLaddie,
I guess the question would be: Do the players have to know all of that to see the one-to-one historical connections? From my experience, I'd say now, though it is all good background information on the game system.

To see the historical connection, players need to understand the terminology and nomenclature which not everyone can agree on so I explain how it is used in the game. All players really need to know is to think like a real Tank Commander and use the vehicle data card and roll a D6 to determine how quickly they can spot and react (Situational Awareness), how long it takes to shoot (Action Timing), and what Risk-Reward tactics you can use to trade accuracy for speed or speed for accuracy to beat your opponent to the punch. The quickest units seize the initiative to shoot first. Actions are not based on a chance of success or failure.

What's different: A player says, "I failed my initiative and activation roll because (use your imagination and fill in the blank for a historic or likely reason)." In a Time Competitive game players will see exactly why they didn't shoot or react first and if the decision and tactic they used were right or wrong. It's measurable in seconds and normally you lose because you were out of position and surprised, your crew and/or weapons platform was too slow or you made the wrong Risk-Reward Decision. Just one second can make a difference. It also creates a realistic FoW because no one knows for sure who will shoot next and there are minimal info markers on the table. Using the player's natural OODA Loop (which does not need to be taught) makes the game easier to play, more intuitive, and with fewer rules.

The game is at least as intuitive as any other game but it never fails where a first-time player used to traditional rules will shoot and miss and then sit there doing nothing waiting to be told what to do next. I'll remind him that he needs to always have his unit under a move or shoot order, just like a real unit, and I'll ask him what he wants to do. He'll ask me what he can do and I tell him anything he wants. Then he'll get a confused look on his face. Then I'll tell him, "Ok, forget this is a game. You are in a real battle and you just shot at a target and missed. In a real battle if you were the tank commander what would you do next?" Then he'll reply, "Well if I missed I'd want to shoot again, right." Then I'd say, "Great, so how realistically would you do that?" Then he'll say, "Well I guess I'd reload and shoot again." Then I'd say, "Excellent, now look on your data card under "Reload and Shoot" and roll the D6 to tell you how many seconds it will take to do that and add that to the current game time, secretly record it, and hope you are quick enough to still alive when the time comes to shoot. This is a data-driven game and the data cards take some getting used to.

Because of the scale and mechanics themselves, a great deal of the game is 'self-evident'. Players can see the specific one-to-one relationships simply by playing the game.

The thing that should be self-evident is that as soon as you execute an order IMMEDIATELY issue a new one but the player IGYG and unit activation mindset take a while to break out of. I've been told that their first impression of the game is that it's overly complicated but is really simple once you get the hang of it just like any other game. You don't have to teach players how to use the OODA Loop. The game allows players to make historic "Risk-Reward Tactical Decisions" with the dice playing a minor role and it's not just a die roll modifier to increase your chances of success. Just like the image from the tank manual shows.

In most game rules the concept is that players will have a percentage chance of completing or executing an action like activating, initiative, or spotting. If he fails it's generally blamed on a bad die roll and you can fail a roll a number of times in a row with no historic explanation. A game design can use design for cause or design for effect.

In a Time Competitive game, just like in real combat, players can attempt to do anything real crews did. The D6 die roll will tell them how long it will take based on historical research. Now the player can decide to take less time (in seconds) and be less effective or take a little longer and get better results. There is no guarantee you be alive to execute your order when the time comes.

So, I would ask, how much of that information you posted do you feel, from your experience in putting on games, is really necessary for players to 'get it?' That is a more 'strategic view' of information presentation: no more than needed.

I think you need to write the rules for the lowest common denominator and assume players know nothing because everyone's experience, knowledge, and level of play are different. That's why "no more than needed" is difficult to quantify so I try to make it complete. If they have the mindset of being a Tank Commander and can do whatever a real commander did in battle choose what they want to do (generally react, move, or shoot) and roll a D6 to determine how long it will take as opposed to a "chance" of it happening in a particular turn.

For more info here is a link to my designer notes: link

Wolfhag

To see the historical connection, players need to understand the terminology and nomenclature which not everyone can agree on so I explain how it is used in the game. All players really need to know is to think like a real Tank Commander and use the vehicle data card and roll a D6 to determine how quickly they can spot and react (Situational Awareness), how long it takes to shoot (Action Timing), and what Risk-Reward tactics you can use to trade accuracy for speed or speed for accuracy to beat your opponent to the punch. The quickest units seize the initiative to shoot first. Actions are not based on a chance of success or failure.

Wolfhag: I wasn't suggesting that you shouldn't explain such things. My question was how much do they need to know to be efficient in that education before they start to play the game?

I don't remember a whole lot of terminology and nomenclature being explained, though it is my memory here or my pre-existing knowledge ignoring some instruction.

As you say, "Because of the scale and mechanics themselves, a great deal of the game is 'self-evident'. Players can see the specific one-to-one relationships simply by playing the game."

I know I learned at least some of the terminology and nomenclature by simply playing the game where the terms and names were part of the player's aids in simply playing the game.

The question then is how much the players NEED to know to start playing the game compared to how much YOU think they need to know--or you want them to know, considering how much research you have built the game system around.

You use that 'self-evident' portion of the game so you don't have to tell them everything… or that they will learn what is self-evident as they play the game.

Playing a game is a learning experience itself that can be used to 'educate' the players. It's all about efficiently giving the players the historical connections and game play processes necessary to start enjoying what you've created, saving time by not having to explain what is 'self-evident.' That goes for Designer's Notes and other kinds of instructions and explanations.

To find that sweet spot requires some testing. It does have a positive impact in how the players experience the pre-game
explanations and the game itself.

McLaddie,
The question then is how much the players NEED to know to start playing the game compared to how much YOU think they need to know--or you want them to know, considering how much research you have built the game system around.

They NEED to know:
Every unit is always active and observing and can react immediately to enemy action and new LOS (subject to Blind Spots or Suppression Delays) from movement the second/turn it occurs (no activation rules or command dice), just like on a real battlefield. A player's real Situational Awareness and judgment are being tested. He has to pay attention to the game at all times, not walking away because it's not his turn.

They NEED to know how the game flows since it is not IGYG. The Game Clock parses the action like a stop-action video or movie (no activation, command dice, or initiative rules) based on how quickly units perform their actions (OODA Loop).

Each one-second turn is a timing mechanism and nothing like a traditional IGYG move/shoot turn. As the Game Clock ticks off the seconds, all units are one second closer to the Act Time to shoot.

Orders are not executed immediately, it takes time. When each game second is announced all players with a unit scheduled to Act/execute an order or shoot for the current turn/time pause the clock to shoot, decide their next move or shoot order, and the future Act Time the order will execute (no orders phase). We call this "Playing the Loop" because when you Act you "loop back" to Observe the results and issue your next shoot or move order and the future time it will execute. Enemy units can then react and/or change order. After all actions and reactions, the game clock starts ticking off the seconds and action again.

When a game time/second is announced and no units are reacting or executing an order the next game second/turn is IMMEDIATELY announced and all units are one second closer to executing. The game is always moving to the next unit to act/execute an order or shoot without needing initiative, orders phase, IGYG shoot/move, unit activation, or opportunity fire rules.

Each second simultaneous "Virtual Movement" takes place with a potential new Mutual LOS that can be reacted to or targets are leaving their shooters LOS. This eliminates the need for Opportunity Fire rules and exceptions because movement and shooting rates are synchronized.

Think of it like a tank video game where any player can pause the action whenever a player wants to react, move, engage or shoot rather than being played in real-time which is impossible.

They also need to know there are no unit activation, orders phase, movement plotting, opportunity fire, IGYG shoot/move, initiative, command points, turn interrupts or card rules. The game revolves around players "Playing the Loop" for each unit making sure they have a move or shoot order.

I tell players to think and act like Tank Commanders and their crews. That's easier said than done because real crews go through extensive training, but players don't. That presents a problem. Most players know how to use traditional rules like unit activations, initiative, command points, etc. but very few are familiar with the real tactics and how they are used because traditional games are not Time Competitive with split-second results. Many players have a hard time thinking of what to do next but it normally is just to decide to shoot or move.

Some of the rules and Risk-Reward tactics are Target Engagement Options, Snap Shot, Rangefinder, Hold Fire & Track, Moving Fire, Known Range, Range Marker, Fire Control types (Ranging, Bracketing, Ranged In), Armor Modifiers, Ricochets and Shot Traps, Shoot & Scoot, Reverse Slope Defense, Decelerate/Halt, Halt Fire, Jink, and Angle Armor. Players can learn about these by reading the same manuals as the real crews use. The data cards and play aids will tell you how to use them and the timing values for actions.

Wolfhag