"Wargames are NOT FUN" Topic

I was thinking about last nights game. Folk often say war games should be fun. That to me I realize is not true. What they are is EXCITING like an real description of combat. It may have a humorous, incidental interlude but it is not required to have one. We do not expect to be laughing and joking over the game, we do expect to be "on the edge of our seats" waiting to see what happens next.

So do you describe your games as requiring to be Fun or Exciting given the above. A simple example would be dramatic action movie or Comedy film. In the former you don't demand to be laughing during it, the latter you do.

This may be a key parameter in Game design, Lighthearted or serious.

Fun does not have to involve laughing. Fun is enjoyment of something. That fun something could be exciting, serious, scary, etc. I do not understand your distinction.

Interesting perspective and I get it – for me, I game because I enjoy it – which I think does meet some definitions of fun – and the way I play, there is nothing to laugh about (unless you are the other side)!

I don't know why you would play a game if it wasn't fun. Fun does not mean it is comedic, but it may be.

Would you accept 'enjoyable'? Less lighthearted connotation perhaps. Some good games are fun, some are exciting, some can even be frustrating: all are enjoyable.

We're grown adults and play games with little toy soldiers. What's not fun about that?

Fun has nothing to do with light hearted or serious. If you enjoy the game, it is fun. If you don't, it isn't. So one person's fun game might be boring, or over complex for someone else

Here are some definitions of "fun":

Cambridge Dictionary: pleasure, enjoyment, or entertainment

Meriam Webster: Noun --what provides amusement or enjoyment; a mood for finding or making amusement; Verb -- to indulge in banter or play, joke; Adjective -- providing entertainment, amusement, or enjoyment, pleasant.

I play wargames, using CRT's, with plastic Army Men. When a Bazooka rocket bounces off of a Tank's armor, I loudly declare, "PING! That tank crew is fine, but they do need to change their pants!" I laugh, a very great deal, when playing my Army Men games.

I also laugh, heartily, during my fantasy games. I actively look for opportunities to make light of the game actions, laughing as much as possible. Laughter is infectious! I am doing my very best to start a new pandemic of laughter. I try to infect everyone around me. It is… Fun.

My play is serious, my tactics are serious. People often think me a fool, until I zing their troops on the tabletop… And laugh! These are games. No one dies, gets maimed, etc. The historical periods and battles are serious, but these are simulations, ripe for cracking jokes, and making laughter from.

I do this to lighten the mood, by getting other players to join in the laughter. People seem to really enjoy my games, as they ask to be invited to the next one!

We do have serious moments in the games, no matter the genre. Even when I played WW I and WW II games, which were "serious", I cracked jokes and made the other players laugh. If I can't laugh during a game, any game, it is not worth my time.

My life is serious. My hobbies, and games, help me cope with life's challenges, which are ongoing. My philosophy, since around 1983, has been: "Life is short -- make it sweet!" Without laughter (which is an expression of joy), living is pitiful, and I hate pitiful -- it's depressing; depression leads to suicide -- I choose to laugh, loud, often, and exuberantly.

Different strokes, for different folks, but if your games are not "fun", what is the point of playing them? Cheers!

UshCha, if you enjoy it, it counts as fun. If you're not enjoying it and no one's paying you, you may want to reconsider the whole thing.

Are you possibly confusing "fun" with "funny?"

I play wargames because they are fun for me. If they were not fun, I would not do it.

I am a volunteer Firefighter and EMT in the boonies of central Colorado. At 71 I still fight wildfires and have the odd scary/messy traffic accident or meth fueled medical. They are exciting but not fun. I get all the excitement I can handle in the real world, gaming is simply fun.

Exciting can be fun

I play a lot of DBA. Every pip roll is tension. Rolling a 1 or a 6 can change the tactics. Critical combats are exciting

Well, that's my fun. Perhaps I should get out more

John

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

It's semantics. A game is fun in many ways, and not all of those ways require either humor or excitement. Chess is neither humorous or exciting, but that doesn't mean it can't be fun.

I think provide enjoyment should be the goal, not "Fun".

Our games are in many ways like movies, some are thrillers (tense and exciting), some are like comedies (silly and fun), some may even be like documentaries(revealing new insights into the matter at hand). Some might be like a sports match.

This hobby is a pretty wide, and can embrace all that and more. Would anyone say at all movies need to be "Fun"?

Cambridge Dictionary: pleasure, enjoyment, or entertainment

I would not want to play games that are not pleasurable, not enjoyable or not entertaining.

Those seem to be reserved for conventions

I'm with Sarge on this one.

Interesting that few say exciting/"Edge of your seat" stuff.
Perhaps that's just not your thing, no matter each to our own.

If you watch a Shakespeare Play like Julius Ceaser, one of my favorites, it is exciting but there are few parts to laugh at. You would quite rightly be thrown out the theater for cracking jokes about it in general. Enjoyable may be a better, bland way to describe it, but it has no meat as to why it is enjoyable. Exciting says little but far more than enjoyable. My opinion only of course.

Try these:

Interesting
Engaging
Challenging
Intriguing
Intellectually stimulating
Engrossing
Captivating

Parsival, not sure I would call my war games Intriguing.

Engaging -pleasant, attractive, and charming: Not sure my games are Charming and perhaps attractive is a bit of an overstatement of my enthusiasm for painting and terrain manufacture.

captivating
capable of attracting and holding interest; charming.
"a captivating smile" Hardley seems appropriate for my game, me of course it is appropriate ;-).

Perhaps your thesaurus need a bit more AI.

You could equally have put nice, a word hated by my English teachers as the ultimate bland complement.

My thesaurus is my own head.

Language is all about context, and even synonyms take on different meanings in different contexts.

If I say "That game was a captivating experience," I am clearly not describing it as "charming." I am saying it engaged my interest to a high degree. And the same goes for inserting words like "engaging," "intriguing" or any others on my list.

Words take on meanings and connotations based on the words around them and the ideas being expressed. In that sense, the definitions of words can be somewhat fluid, taking on more precise nuances of meaning depending on when and how they are used.

Don't try for precision of meaning in a single word. You won't find it.

I know John Wayne didn't really blow up the powder, but it is part of the legend. So I was doing a game of the Alamo with four boys running the Mex, and two younger girls playing the Texians. And I had explained to them that the final option was to blow up the magazine. So the Mex got over the wall in two places and most of the garrison was down, and Molly looked at Abby and nodded and then they both looked at me and announced, "We are going to the powder room now."

The older I get, I find gaming more fun then serious. A good example is Wings of War. Getting shot down is more fun then shooting someone down.

I was thinking about last nights game. Folk often say war games should be fun. That to me I realize is not true. What they are is EXCITING like an real description of combat.

Obviously, exciting is enjoyable, or you and others wouldn't return to it. The games that don't get played are those which are

boring
repetitive
lack challenge
easily figured out
tedious
complicated to the point of doing nothing but re-reading rules.
etc.

None of which are why people play games. There is a wide spectrum of what is fun for people in one activity/pastime. There is no reason that 'fun' can't be the term to encompass all those types of entertainment. The problems arise when someone insists that there is only one type of fun all games have to be.

WOW…Just WOW! What's there to analyze about playing a wargame?

It all stems from misunderstanding how words have meaning.
Words do not derive their meaning from dictionaries— they derive their meaning from common usage and context. Words existed and had meaning for hundreds of thousands of years before dictionaries were ever even conceived.
Even the English language as we know it essentially predates dictionaries by several centuries.
Dictionaries are merely an attempt to express what common understanding has assigned as the meaning of a word. But they do not give the word its meaning. People do, and we do so through frequent use of a word and a general consensus and acceptance of what that word "means" by continuing to use that word in contexts which essentially reaffirm that meaning. But in reality, each of us interprets words with some level of uniqueness. It is entirely possible that John Doe has a different understanding and interpretation of the word "fun" than Jim Doe has, even though they both use the word in similar contexts and conditions.

It really is quite fascinating how words and language manage to spread not only in usage but as having shared, agreed upon meaning— especially when that meaning is vague. We accept a great deal of imprecision in the meaning of words— for example, "table." A table can be a thing with a flat surface and three legs… or four legs… or one leg… with a square top… a rectangular top… a circular top… and oval top… a top in various geometric shapes… a top with no definable geometric shape at all… made of wood… metal… glass… stone… marble… cardboard …about a foot on all sides …several feet on all sides… wide… narrow… but no, it's an array of words… numbers… symbols… but no it's a verb meaning to introduce a new idea for consideration… or to stop considering an idea…
And yet somehow we all manage to agree that's what "table" can mean and understand any and all of these meanings and even which meaning applies in whatever circumstance we use the word!
The following passage is perfectly valid and even understandable: "At the meeting he sat at the table and tabled the latest data table until everyone voted to table that table. And then they all got up and left the table."

Ah, English. What a language!

WOW…Just WOW!What's there to analyze about playing a wargame?

Doug: Uh, this list is about Wargame Design, so there is lots of things to analyze about playing a wargame.

If you are just interested in playing a wargame, there are other lists addressing that.

People play war-games for three basic reasons;
- Bling – they like to see their figures laid out in all their glory
- Socialising – they wish to socialise with other likeminded people
- Problem Solving – they wish to solve a problem, which is how to win.
IN most cases it's a combination of all three. As long as any or all these objectives are met, you have achieved the state known as fun. Of course sitting in a hot tub with the Sportklub Sturm Graz women football club players may be classed as having a higher fun value?

Like many things, ir depends on what we mean. When we say fun or exciting.

They aren't exclusive. Anything fun I going to have some excitement in it.. but just because its exciting doesn't of itself mean its fun.

Also what someone finds exciting or fun is personally subjective.

People play war-games for three basic reasons;
Bling – they like to see their figures laid out in all their glory
- Socialising – they wish to socialise with other likeminded people
- Problem Solving

All true, but isn't one of the reasons exploring/experiencing history? Generally, it is after all historical wargaming.

All true, but isn't one of the reasons exploring/experiencing history? Generally, it is after all historical wargaming.

Valid point.

Even with only 2 convention wins to my credit I still have fun every game.

UshCha,
How can people have fun playing your game when you flog and exile players who ask stupid questions or do not know how to apply correct tactics? <big grin>

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,
If you play any sport at the top level it has to be between players of the top caliber. That's why there are training sessions. We run training sessions, just like other sports. If you want to play with the pros you have to earn your place. It would appear that some war gamer's are happy to always play with beginners, but in such games you are never going to get the real challenge to see how good you are. Not by winning but keeping it together when the pressure is on, by getting into positions that are new novel and test your understanding of how you fight wars, deciding where and when to use limited resources like artillery, not some pathetic die rolling exercise that lets you off serious decision making.

To explore history in detail you need to know a lot about it before you start a simulation, that takes tudy. Pilots use simulators but it still needs basic lectures and study to make the best use of a simulator.

14Bore if you did not enjoy your games, you will not stick at it for the next 15 years while you really develop your taste for the history, tactics and how to apply them.

in such games you are never going to get the real challenge

There are military schools of thought positing that an idiot with a gun is more dangerous and a bigger challenge than a rational man with a gun. These schools of thought are based on numerous examples throughout history.

Pretty much universally, military leadership training and education says that the hardest thing to do as a leader is to help someone with less experience and skill than you without taking over. If you're not up for that level of challenge, there are numerous poor behaviours you can adopt … kicking them out, name calling, etc.

WRT the professional sport team analogy, how much do your side's players get paid to qualify for and win a game? Do you get a cut of the gross or net attendance revenues?

Usually there is just me and the opposition a real test of will and ability. Seems like you are not really up for that level of demand from a game. Still each to their own, we have different opinions on what makes a great game.

Personally never been one for multi players games usually takes too long trying to get the weaker players up with what they need to do in a complex environment.

That why Russian special forces are called "not so special forces", they have conscripts, they have not had the time to develop their skills fully.

Elite forces have a savage evaluation to select the best, not everybody can be the best. So comments like yours do not hold any logic to them. You really have no appreciation of what it takes to even try to be the best you can.

Usually there is just me and the opposition a real test of will and ability.

Absolutely to each his own. If that's the limit of the challenge you can take, have fun with it.

One person versus one person is great for board games, but I find them too "gamey" for a wargame. Maybe because of the unrealistic span of control each player has. Maybe because of the unrealistic decision space and action space each player has. That said, fantasy and sci-fi scenarios lend themselves pretty well to that type of unrealistic set up.

One person versus one person is great for board games, but I find them too "gamey" for a wargame. Maybe because of the unrealistic span of control each player has.

etotheipi:

Two player games are unrealistic because of the span of control each player has?

Isn't that span of control [whatever that means] a matter of what the game system does as designed rather than whether there are two players or six in any wargame?

etotheipi well I guess with only beginners to play and lets face it if that all what do you train the begginers to do, play begiiners: all you cam do if that is all you do, never playing a difficult game. Well that your choice but it would be utterly boring for me. As to the obverview, you have spent too long with beginners, with decent rules, map moves and the likes trust me, as one who had done it (lets face it by your owen admission don't do it) it is by no means predicatable, but you sit where you are happy and let the pro's do there thing.

Multiplexer games create the friction in a more natural way.
It's not always possible but then as a designer I try to find ways to replicate the fiction and the fog… in fun/exciting way

UshCha I hope you realize how truly fortunate you are to be in a situation where you are reliably able to play against only the most seasoned and skilled of opponents. Most of us are not so fortunate. I am lucky just to find someone to sit across the table from me.

I am also sorry that your hobby is not fun for you.

Multiplexer games create the friction in a more natural way. It's not always possible but then as a designer I try to find ways to replicate the fiction and the fog… in fun/exciting way.

Yes, multiplayer games can provide a natural/realistic friction, depending on the game design/scenario design. Then again, too many cooks…

Either way, that doesn't make two-player wargames inherently unrealistic because they are two-player games.

Daventry Cromwell I do enjoy my games but the term fun is not a relevant term as far as I am concerned. Challenging and exciting like a good drama, perhaps with a touch but only occasional Shakespearian bit of humor.

Clearly you have it tough, not having a good set of experienced players on tap. I would miss our guys a lot if they left.

Both, fun and exciting. They are not mutually exclusive.

One man's 'fun' is another man's 'torture'.

I, for example, find cricket and football extremely boring, but others – I believe – derive great pleasure from these activities.

Each to his own, 'nuff said.

Words do not mean what you want them to mean, especially if the consensus of common usage obviously conflicts with your narrow definition. So wargames are fun because we say they are. There is no objective definition of "fun" in wargaming. It is entirely subjective, based on the opinion of the individual. Trying to define "fun" as only applying to a narrow scale of behavior, or replacing it with "exciting" is to misunderstand how language works. It's also a folly, like trying to say that squares are not rectangles because rectangles are not squares. You're using a broad category— that which is "fun"— which includes many subcategories, and trying to say that because one of these categories is distinct and different from another category that the broad category thus is wrong for your preferred subcategory. It is as if you had decided that cats and dogs, being so different from each other, could not possibly both be mammals.

But really, you're trying to redefine "wargame" into one of its singular subcategories, and declare that anybody who doesn't agree with you is wrong, or worse, inferior to you.
And again, language doesn't work that way. Like "fun," or "exciting,""wargame" is a very broad category, which runs the gamut in all directions as to size, scale, form of conflict, genre, historical era, fantastical setting to realistic setting, level of detail, level of complexity, use of miniatures or not, use of other accessories (dice, cards, charts, pencils, pens, markers, computing devices, rulers, grids, etc., etc..), playing area, number of players, requirement for a referee, and so forth. There is no singular, objective status for what constitutes a "wargame" and what does not. Like "fun," it's too broad a category.

Now, one may prefer a certain combination of these, and even think they are superior to others and that one is superior to others for playing them. But that is a subjective state of affairs on all fronts; it is opinion, not fact, and it does not apply to everyone, least of all even everyone here on TMP.

Game design, since this is the board for that, is not relegated to anyone's preferred definition of "wargame," nor prohibited from including anyone's rejected categories of "fun." Indeed, game design is subjective in nature, and can include many objectives, one of which may or may not be "fun."

I design to create an experience I want in a game, and work to also make the game accessible to others who might want to share that same experience, or at least one similar to it. I have no illusions that my efforts are the "right" way to do anything— they are "right" to me, for the "feel" and experience I want. They may be "right" for others, subjectively, if they share a similar desire in a game. For others they may not be so. "One man's junk…"

Isn't that span of control [whatever that means] a matter of what the game system does as designed rather than whether there are two players or six in any wargame?

Span of control is a military term describing how much ability an individual issuing orders has to the exact outcome.

Take the order "Occupy Hill34 and provide suppressive fire for Company B." Certainly the wargame design does influence how many different ways you can occupy the hill. Unless you are playing a very low granularity, abstract game. The person issuing the order does not (and by military best practice should not want to) precisely position each person in the unit in a specific spot on the hill. Beyond that, in interpreting commander's intent, the lower level decision makers might move off the hill in order to sustain suppressive fire. And, again the strategist would hopefully not need to explicitly tell them to move or which specific units should or should not move to a different location.

Players have different spans of control than commanders.

In a wargame, it is extremely difficult to design it so that every player has something very close to the actual span of control of different decision makers. With a 1 v 1 set up, you're talking about a very limited span of control. To play the game moving figures around, the players pretty much have to reach outside a commander's span of control.

In our TMP link OXI Day game, three players collaborating on the disposition of forces is not very close to realistic. But it is closer to realistic. As people described above, friction of war is an essential part for a military commander. And it is a part I like to have in wargames.

(lets face it by your owen admission don't do it

Perhaps you should sharpen your reading skills. Please point to the place where I said I don't play 1v1 games.

I did say I prefer multi player games because of the added realism and added challenge over 1v1 games.

You could work on actually addressing the points someone else is bringing up after you learn to read whet they actually wrote.

link

McLaddie
No they aren't as I said it then becomes about tbe rules designer to make something that allows the player to have something that replicates the experience… that's what I try to do. Friction and FoW… BUt in a way that allows tbe the players some agency… but not full agency… so they are not just being them at different levels of the CoC… but are affected by the "personality" of the sub commander… while still being enjoyable (fun)

Though they also are unrealistic… in anything beyond a 1v1 duel we are factoring in others in to tbe rules… that's hnrealsitic.. as all rules are..

Though I'm mindful in that case, of something Jim Webster wrote about rules design. He wasn't interested in tbe mechanical process beyond its ability to provide a satisfactory result… saying if flipping a coin provided the results then flip a coin.

I would consider a game "unrealistic" if all the players were experienced with the rules.

I feel being experienced with the rules is not the main issue, its experienced with the situation or scenario which is the big issue. This is the biggest issue with scenarios, you can normally get half a dozen games out of them before it becomes too predicable. But i must admit as you are mastering the situation they can be fun.

etotheipi as usual you miss the point, yes you can get some differences in approach with real folk. However a complete beginner will in no way act like a professional, like say a platoon commander in the Modern British Army, they are far better than me. So you cannot get then to usefully act as proper subordinates in a game, you have to over supervise them, no fun for either party or leave them to make an utter hash of it ruining the game for everybody.
You can write simple scenarios they can cope with, but those are not eternally satisfying, you need some games that push your own limits as a player not as a coach.

Perhaps you are happier as an eternal coach, but it's not for me.

pfmodel mostly we do not replay a scenario if it works, yes there may be other solutions to it but there are are infinite numbers of possibilities, in general repeating them seems to offer little. We may repeat a scenario if play reveals an obvious flaw that prevented it from working correctly, i.e. the issues we wanted to project were not raised due to some failure in specification of the the boundary conditions. In that case repetition is useful if only to provide experience on how to avoid the problem in future scenarios.

I do admit however that I do have a problem writing simple scenarios, for beginners. I have to think very hard to make sure the scenario does not have so many possible variations in solution that they get analysis paralysis so cannot make any decision.

Now if you could get several players who were competent at the level they need to be, then a complex multi player game would be practical, you could give them a SIT REP they would understand, clear intent what is required from them and timescales that are achievable and that they are capable of meeting, iterating those on the basis of there own credible input. Unfortunately we do not have such a pool of expertise, in a single period, so its not possible to implement. Equally some wargamers don't want to be involved in such games, preferring a light hearted, throw some die and kill stuff, while admiring their figures on the table. Hence complex multi player games are really generally not feasible.

So you cannot get then to usefully act as proper subordinates in a game, you have to over supervise them, no fun for either party or leave them to make an utter hash of it ruining the game for everybody.

This attitude is what military leadership courses call failure.

You're also inconsistent in your argument by adding "complete beginners". You started your response to me with "weaker players" as the object of the argument and "conscripts" as an example. Neither of which are "complete beginners". If this is your same level of coherence at the table, I would love to watch a game.

I clearly understand that you are not capable enough to work with other people. You have made that clear. Why you continue to denigrate the idea of working with others, which is universally recognized as the more complex part of warfighting, I cannot fathom.