"Discussion with designers from SPI" Topic

Ghosts of SPI John Butterfield, Frank Davis, Mark Herman, Danny Parker & Eric Lee Smith discuss the early days of wargaming trials and tribulations and the personalities involved.

YouTube link

Enjoy,
Wolfhag

The conversations do take me back to all the old discussions on wargame design.

Are these the same guys that closed shop after taking money from subscriptions, knowing they were going under? I was a college student at the time drove a taxi to make ends meet. Thanks for the memories of being ripped off. I would like to put a hex on all of them.

Please ignore my previous posting.

SPI did a lot to increase the wargame hobby, board games at least. Such innovations in numerical listing [e.g.3.22] in rules writing is still used today as well as 'Designer's Notes.' SPI generated a number of wargame designers who later did great things.

They are also the ones who inserted the term "Simulations" into wargame design, which is still with us. They went on to legitimatized the wargame design craft by being engaged by the Military. However,

They also did a number on the hobby, issues we are still struggling with by badly defining [or failing to define] simulations and how to design them.

They determined that simulations are realistic, but never, ever defined what that means in design terms. James Dunnigan wrote Wargames Handbook link and after several editions has NEVER defined what realism is in a wargame, let alone how to achieve it. Yet, he speaks in numerous places of 'realistic' games and 'very realistic' games in the military as though there is some definitive meaning.

SPI, through their magazines dodged these issues, covering it with 'designer interpretation,' still with us today. What was implied is the third problem SPI left with the hobby, still so damaging:

The idea that more detail is more realism. They did some really stupid statistical analysis like determining that 1 million crossbow bolts fired would do the same damage as a 1 kiloton atomic bomb and other stupid comparisons to design games.

This more detail equals more realism led to huge games like Pacific War with nine maps and Terrible Swift Sword among many others. 'Terrible Slow Slog' to some gamers. I have yet to meet anyone who got beyond the first turn of PW or finished more than one day of TSS. These unplayable games, buried in detail then became in SPI vernacular, "Dynamic History Books." Unplayable, but chock full of history. Of course, the miniature wargame hobby rode that coattail. After all, SPI and other board game designers 1. were employed by the military and , like Frank Chadwick and John Hill who 2. strayed into miniature rules writing. You wonder what inspired Empire I-V, blame SPI.

The board game wargame hobby still uses the word 'simulation' all the time to describe their games while STILL not defining the term or how to create them. They just recognize them when they see them. The miniature wargame hobby has gone the opposite direction: Hating even the mention of the term.

Such is the legacy of SPI.

The original business that was SPI has been defunct for 40 years or so, and the 23rd Street site of their NYC offices is now a luxury apartment tower. Those of us who awaited the mail to see Dunnigan and Simonsen's latest, now are almost all retired, playing over ye 'net with gamers far away.

Still their legacy is remembered, and their influence a topic of impassioned debate.

Few of us will have such a memorial.

Simulations have the stigma that the rivet counters must be pleased!. No necessarily so! Simulations can be based upon factors that (say) battalions are forced to deal with in order to accomplish their assigned missions. In the peacekeeping world, training how to use military units to assist the local police maintain stability; assist in providing transportation security for Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), assisting local governments to provide necessary infrastructure for the civilian communities (water, power, hospitals, schools, roads, fire protection- stuff we take for granted. You cannot have peace without first having stability. To achieve these goals, simulations are a good way to present situations with all the encompassing power of the military used to good effect. With exercise injects such as surpressing bandits, assisting local police with communications and intel and even food, water and medical supplies, military leaders can exercise contingency plans and make mistakes without actual people getting hurt or property damaged. So simulations can be more than what a 75mm/L40 can do against a Matilda, front shot at 1500 yards…..

This more detail equals more realism led to huge games like Pacific War with nine maps and Terrible Swift Sword among many others. 'Terrible Slow Slog' to some gamers.

I suspect they were simply meeting their audiences demands, even if those demands made no sense. I have so many unplayable monster games it astounds me today. It was a phase many gamers went through, but SPI also gave us a lot of simple and playable games as well.

I enjoyed that video. I had a huge collection of SPI games. I recently sold off quite a few but kept my favorites. They talked about "Wellington's Victory" being such a great game. They didn't mention the most controversial part of that game. The yellow map. I have the game but I just can't get over those very loud yellow hexes. I have thought about seeing if a print shop can print me a new map that is not so garish.

SPI was very innovative in how they used customer feedback. They used an early computer program utilizing punch cards. Every issue of S&T had the results of the previous feedback. They used the feedback to define their customers, age, gender, etc., and to gauge their customers interest concerning new game releases. Sounds simple to us now but back in the early 70s it was very novel and I don't know of any company or industry that was doing that at the time.

Another one was their rules question hotline. I can remember calling them in New York in the middle of the night with a rules question and there were always people there working or just playing games. It didn't even matter if it was one of their games or some other company's game. I can still remember playing a Diplomacy game and coming to an impasse over some rule.

We just called them up and some guy answered the phone and the guy shouted out the question and boom, we had our answer. I have no idea if the answer was right or not but it got us over the impasse. Now we would just go on line or use email. Not as much fun though.

YouTube link

I have thought about seeing if a print shop can print me a new map that is not so garish.

Contact Blue Panther games: bluepantherllc.com

Monster Games are alive and well every year in Phoenix during ConSimWorld. Frank Chadwick and John Butterfield attend every year. In some games, a team of players plays all week long and into the night.

It's been said game designers are terrible businessmen.

Wolfhag

I have thought about seeing if a print shop can print me a new map that is not so garish.

You are correct, it was not a very attractive map. Perhaps that is the colour of the grass in that part of the world. I have played around with recreating old maps using a colour printer, thick paper and clear plastic contact to cover it all. I made an attempt with the old SPI WWII and Global War, which I posted here:
link
You will have to join it to download the maps. Another idea I had was to scan the maps and print them in a larger format, that way it would be easier to play a game – especially if you created larger counters for it. I find the old counters rather small, poor eye sight and poor reflexes as I grow older.

I've used Postrazor. It takes an image that you can enlarge and divides it up into several 8.5 x 11-inch sheets which you print off and assemble, it's free.

posterazor.sourceforge.io

I make my own counters.

Wolfhag

I know a guy who designs maps for the monster board games. One day I was in his basement looking at his new D-Day setup with 8 maps at Company level. I remarked about how long it would take to play the game. He laughed and said, "Are you kidding, most people never even play the game, they just buy it because they like it."

Wolfhag

SPI also got in the sci-fi and fantasy games. I loved their Ares magazine. Some excellent games in there. Articles could be excellent as well. Dense "walls of text" compared to the last 25 years, but back then we actually used to read instead of skim.

I liked their RPGs. DragonQuest was boss, especially the schools of magic and miniature based combat. That was Gerry Klug and Eric Goldberg. Universe suffered from too much rules bloat carried from their wargames. Awesome world generation, which I used in Traveller campaigns. Gerry

There is a difference between a game being unplayable and just too big (time, space, people) to be practical for you to play. "Too difficult" goes in there, but that is really "not interested".

"Unplayable" should be reserved for ambiguously worded (as opposed to deliberate room for interpretation) or inconsistently structured games.

That said, the more rules, command segments, and parameters you have in the game, the greater the odds that you will miss something that makes it unplayable.

Unplayable: Never or rarely played as a game, and never to conclusion.

There can be many reasons for this outcome. Gamers are the ones who determine this.

"Wellington's Victory" being such a great game.

Old Contemptible:

It was a great game, particularly how cavalry was handled. But it was a big and very yellow game. Probably a Pantone intensity mistake. Easy to do before computers and digital graphics.

I started to read McLaddie's post, but I didn't like it, so I stopped. His post is unreadable.

Yes, it is a great game, but that game map is hard to take. I am thinking that perhaps I can commission Cigar Box or one of the mat makers to take that map and make a game mat of it.

It looks like ConSimWorld overlaps Historicon. That is unfortunate. But ConSimWorld is way closer to where I live.

I started to read McLaddie's post, but I didn't like it, so I stopped. His post is unreadable.

Well, I never claimed to have a complete grasp of English. However, you did the reasonable thing when you didn't like it.

I suspect they were simply meeting their audiences demands, even if those demands made no sense. I have so many unplayable monster games it astounds me today. It was a phase many gamers went through, but SPI also gave us a lot of simple and playable games as well.

pfmodel:
I agree. They did create any number of good games, even larger games like Wellington's Victory. And they were innovative and creative having a positive impact on the growing hobby. In many ways they took Avalon Hill to the next level in game design.

I wasn't suggesting they weren't. But some of their 'ideas' created problems which remain today like this idea that more detail equals more realism, which meant more complexity and bigger games. Because of their profile in the late 1970s and 1980s, it was an 'attitude'/belief that permeated the hobby. The backlash was a demand for 'simpler' games and games with '2 pages', even though that isn't seen in games very often.

This idea that SPI simply met gamers demands is only 50% true. Like any growing business, new to the market, they create demand. Which came first, iPhones or customer need? The suggestion that gamers wanted huge games before any existed doesn't track and certainly doesn't match a good deal of marketing and business. It is the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, Demand or introduce a new product. A successful business will target one or the other when starting out. "New" and "innovative are two of the five power words in selling. "Easy" is another.

This a history of the wargaming hobby.

I played many SPI games back in the 1970s and had a great time. I set up the Eastern side maps of Peoples Wargames "Korsun Pocket" in my basement in Chicago and we had two players a side and met 1-2 times a week. We had a great time and you really got the feeling of being a Corps Commander assigning different high-level assets to your rifle companies and breaking battalions down into companies as needed. I even liked the supply rules. I enjoyed having the time to look over the map and analyze my next move. The unit density was not too bad and most stackes were 2-3 units.

At CSW I see some of these guys playing out the entire Europe in WWII needing tweezers to examine stacks with 5-6 counters. Sorry, I'll pass.

At CSW some of the presidents of publishing companies talked about the "old days" and the pitfalls they ran into and friends who had companies that failed. But CSW is not just monster games anymore.

They all agreed game designers are terrible businessmen. It seems like the miniatures and board gaming companies are in better shape now that the sales and marketing people are to a great degree running the show.

Wolfhag

I set up the Eastern side maps of Peoples Wargames "Korsun Pocket"

That brings back memories, i really liked Korsun pocket. I think i never had more than a few game turns before i had to pack up however, but i did like seeing it all setup.

This idea that SPI simply met gamers demands is only 50% true.

You could be correct, i purchased the large games because i liked the idea of them, but if they did not exist and SDPI only came out with simple games, i would of purchased those instead. I still play many of those simple games and have converted PRERSTAGS, Napoleon at war, Modern Battles into a figure game format. My next project is the old Blue and Grey quadri-games. They are simple, but they work and give me a quick game.

That brings back memories, i really liked Korsun pocket. I think i never had more than a few game turns before i had to pack up however, but i did like seeing it all setup.

We actually played it until the point where I was not going to get over the river to Lysanka. Fond memories.

Wolfhag

When SPI was out it was the newest and only thing so we had nothing to compare it to. There wasn't much to choose from.

Kind of like being at a bar hooking up with a homely chick at 2 am closing time because she's the only one left. Not that that's ever happened to me of course, OK, well, oh, never mind. Hey, the pickings were slim outside Camp Geiger that night (as always) and I was lonely and drunk at the time. Please don't judge me. She did have a great personality and was a woman of many talents. What else can you ask for?

Wolfhag

When SPI was out it was the newest and only thing so we had nothing to compare it to. There wasn't much to choose from.

Kind of like being at a bar hooking up with a homely chick at 2 am closing time because she's the only one left.

Wolfhag:

Not quite true. There was Avalon Hill and some other efforts out there creating a market. Yet, SPI could have just entered the market with AH.2, but they didn't and created a far larger demand for what SPI did with Innovation and the New. [e.g. Simulation in the company name.]

Then again, when you go into a bar and there is just one homely chick, and another walks in, the new girl can create a bigger demand than there was without her. Kind of like the gold rush when the second woman came to the camps.

I recall some of the old SPI monster games. Our locals once played War in Europe…….ugh.

However I beg to differ about no one finishing Terrible Swift Sword. We played it twice. First game ended with a rebel victory Day 2. Second game about a year later a third day Union victory.

Would I play it now though? Nope.

I found a website that seems to have all their games as free pdf files.

Friends of mine played drag Nach Osten which seemed bonkers to me. (GDW)
The more detail = better thing wasn't just SPI. Eg ASL had more and more rules bolted on.