Piquet Flame War Commentary
Ty Beard
another of the "realism vs complexity" debates. Like most arguments
involving opinions rather than facts, it's generated far more heat than
light.
Isn't the problem the definition of "realism"? What does "realism" mean?
Does "realism" really equate to complexity? Many gamers seem to think so.
I do find it interesting that many gamers define "realism" in terms of how
complex the game mechanics are, how detailed the combat system is, and so
on. Yet, in my experience, these same gamers won't put a clock on their
turns to simulate the pressure of time. They'll play games that take forever
to play -- an armored combat game that takes an hour and a half to play a
turn for instance -- and pat themselves on the back for playing a
"realistic" game. The point is that while these mechanics may increase
"realism" in one aspect of the game, they reduce "realism" if they make the
game too slow. After all, what historical commanders had the luxury of
freezing time and studying the situation?
Is it possible that maybe some of the "realism" freaks are really just
closet rules lawyers who love a set of complicated rules because it gives
them an advantage over novices? I hope not, but some of my own personal
observation leads me to think so.
And doesn't it seem a little ridiculous to presume that a game played with
toy soldiers can be "realistic" in any meaningful sense of the word?
As for me, I don't even acknowledge the concept of "realism" in games. If
it's fun and satisfying, I like it. If not, I don't like it. It seems to me
that games should attempt to portray units in a vaguely accurate fashion.
But quibbling over some of these trivial details seems a bit thick to me.
Peace be on your heads, my brothers. Let's get back to playing with toy
soldiers.
--Tyrone Beard, Proprietor of a Fistful of Games and Attorney at Law (In
That Order of Preference)
df...@knight-hub.com
wrotd:
>As a casual observer of the PK flame war, it seems to me that this debate is
>another of the "realism vs complexity" debates. Like most arguments
>involving opinions rather than facts, it's generated far more heat than
>light.
Actually, I think it is more along the lines of "what do you abstract
in a rules set." Every rules set is highly abstract. The question
becomes whether you are choosing the level of abstraction because it
is easy or because it suits your design purposes. As an example, I
will use a Certain Unnamed Rules Set (CURS). Which set it is doesn't
matter, because this is not an attack on the rules set, byut rather an
ilustration of design decisions. In CURS the effect of all divisional
artillery is abstracted into the infantry fire system. This is a
reasonable enough design decision, if the batteries in question were
almost always left with the infantry divisions. Yet CURS alsoi
distinguished between 3# and 4# horse guns! Why? Becuase it was
easy. Yet, at the level of abstraction of the rules, it makes no
sense and complicates things unnecessarily. IMHO, this was not well
thought out.
>
>Isn't the problem the definition of "realism"? What does "realism" mean?
>Does "realism" really equate to complexity? Many gamers seem to think so.
Realism is not equated directly to complexity by anyone I know.
Realism is related by almost everyone as satisfying their own "gut
feelings" on what was important to the historical personna they are
adopting in playing miniatures. Naturally, this is going to vary by
the player. That is why different rules sets sell, and why people
defend their own favorate rules so vociforously.
>
>I do find it interesting that many gamers define "realism" in terms of how
>complex the game mechanics are, how detailed the combat system is, and so
>on. Yet, in my experience, these same gamers won't put a clock on their
>turns to simulate the pressure of time. They'll play games that take forever
>to play -- an armored combat game that takes an hour and a half to play a
>turn for instance -- and pat themselves on the back for playing a
>"realistic" game. The point is that while these mechanics may increase
>"realism" in one aspect of the game, they reduce "realism" if they make the
>game too slow. After all, what historical commanders had the luxury of
>freezing time and studying the situation?
That is true. Many players fail to understand the relationship of
decision-making time to "tabletop time." In real life, decisions have
to be made based in incomplete information, and the consequences of
those decisiuons can be huge. Even when later information becomes
available, it cannot always be used. It is the use of information in
a rules set that defines "realism" for me.
On the other hand, I also know of rules where a refight of Borodino
takes about 1 hours of game time, and yet players insist this is also
realistic!
I define "realism" in the most general sense as confroming to an
informed intuition - that is, "it feels about right" to you! By
"informed" I mean that you have done enough reading on the topic that
you have a p[retty good idea of what your historical counterpart did.
Thus, if you can do what your historical counterpart did, and the
outcome is acceptable to your understanding of what might have
happened, you call the set "realistic." If it fails the test, you
call it "unrealistic."
>
>Is it possible that maybe some of the "realism" freaks are really just
>closet rules lawyers who love a set of complicated rules because it gives
>them an advantage over novices? I hope not, but some of my own personal
>observation leads me to think so.
I think any system gives enormous advantages to experienced players
over novices. It took me a while to figure out the "tricks" behind
even so simple a game as DBA - far longer than it took to become
pretty good at Legacy of Glory. Why? Because LoG better met my
intuitive concepts of what Napoleonic corps commanders did than DBA
met my ideas of what an ancients general did.
>
>And doesn't it seem a little ridiculous to presume that a game played with
>toy soldiers can be "realistic" in any meaningful sense of the word?
Well, no. "Absolutely realstic" is absurd. Yet the good designers
have a model of what the key elements of realism are, and they design
their rules to meet those as best they can. They can explain the
process. Those are the rules sets that have a basis in reality.
Other rules sets are based more on gaming concepts than historical
ones - i.e. they adapt pre-determined game methodology to new periods,
without attempting to reflect the "realities" of that period a priori.
This is an equally valid method of game design (I've seen F&F adapted
as house rules in a great number of periods, and WRG has taken the
same basic rules and adapted them for just about any period you could
name.) I would wonder whether it would feel as "realistic," however.
>
>As for me, I don't even acknowledge the concept of "realism" in games. If
>it's fun and satisfying, I like it. If not, I don't like it. It seems to me
>that games should attempt to portray units in a vaguely accurate fashion.
>But quibbling over some of these trivial details seems a bit thick to me.
Well, you introduce the term "satisfying" here. What if part of
another gamer's definition of "satisfying" includesa that it replicate
at least one element of the real events or processes well? I can
understand why you may not consider "realism" important, but I hope
you understand that others do consider it an important element of
"satisfying."
>
>Peace be on your heads, my brothers. Let's get back to playing with toy
>soldiers.
While some of us are interested in playing with toy soldiers, for
others this is a more intellectual pursuit. I truly believe that we
can learn something from a good rules set - i.e. one that was designed
to illustrate a designer's viewpoint on what was historically
significant. While I DO sometimes play just for the fun of it (e.g.
Slimeys and Limeys, DBA), in the Napoleonic period this is more rare.
>--Tyrone Beard, Proprietor of a Fistful of Games and Attorney at Law (In
>That Order of Preference)
s/ Doug Ferguson, Boor and Fatuous Boor (in that order of preference)
Daniel Dionne
> As a casual observer of the PK flame war, it seems to me that this debate is
> another of the "realism vs complexity" debates. Like most arguments
> involving opinions rather than facts, it's generated far more heat than light.
> Is it possible that maybe some of the "realism" freaks are really just closet
> rules lawyers who love a set of complicated rules because it gives them an
> advantage over novices?
> And doesn't it seem a little ridiculous to presume that a game played with
> toy soldiers can be "realistic" in any meaningful sense of the word?
You can't put out a flame war by throwing gasoline on it...
<theory on> A game designer, recognizing that any event on the battlefield is
determined by a very large number of variables, has a choice with each
variable--ignore it, include it explicitly within the system, or lump it with
other variables in a randomizing system (die roll). Each choice has a price.
Ignoring variables produces ahistorical results. Including variables explicitly
imposes a high cognitive burden on players. Randomizing takes away the variable
as a decision element.<theory off>
Traditional designers therefore include important variables explicitly,
randomize the less important, and ignore the trivial. Of course, each designer
has a different notion of "important," "less important," and "trivial." So does
each player. The core of any "realism" argument is therefore someone saying
variable x is important while someone else says variable x is less important or
trivial.
The trend in wargames design over the last ten years has been to randomize or
ignore as much as possible in order to lower the cognitive burden on players,
based on two assumptions: (1) traditional wargames impose an excessive burden,
particularly in playing time and rules knowledge, and (2) battlefield commanders
make decisions based on relatively limited information (i.e. Napoleon didn't
know or care that X battalion's gunpowder was damp).
The ultra-modern trend is to randomize the most important variables, severely
limiting the players' direct control over any battlefield event. The player
must attempt to impose some sort of order on a chaotic battlefield in which
control can slip away at any moment. It's a fascinating direction for the hobby
to take.
But underneath all of this is the question of the gaming experience. Does a
game provide what I, the player, want it to provide? Does it include what I
consider important? Is the gameplay rich enough to involve whatever level of
concentration I bring to the table? Every game meets some needs and fails to
meet others. Which is NOT to say that every game is valid.
--Dan Dionne, ddi...@us.ibm.com
Marengo
flame debate, but only if one is able to step back for a moment.
Todd Fisher - Emperor's Headquarters
773-777-7307
TYGHOCK
>flame debate, but only if one is able to step back for a moment.
I agree as well, except for the last line 'Which is not to say every game is
valid'. I do think it is a matter of preference, of what one gamer's (or
author's) history reading interprets as true, compared to another's.
On the broadest scale, a rule set that let the Old Guard fly over woods or
suddenly convert to cavalry would be rejected (extreme example chosen for
clarity). Once you get into the 'crossbow shot further than composite bow' type
of arguement, a more subtle brand of subjectivity is inevitably included in the
research (for every 'test' or 'source' one side can quote, the other side can
find another it considers more accurate. And so it goes). And yes, a game
designer decides not only which is 'right', but also which to include as a
variable for the general to consider.
Disagreements about the relative merits of this unit of Austrian dragoons vs.
that Prussian one, of course, are even more fraught with such peril.
So except on the broadest scale (ie, the Flying Old Guard), I think 'valid' is
a matter of learned perception. Admittedly, I may be misinterpreting Dan's use
of the word. Otherwise, I do agree with Dan's posting whole-heartedly.
- TYGHOCK
"I claim this planet in the name of Mars. Isn't that lovely? Hmmm?" - Marvin
the Martian
Ty Beard
>You can't put out a flame war by throwing gasoline on it...
Agreed and I apologize if it seems that way. I'm not generalizing that all
realism fanatics are rules lawyers. It's just that in my own limited
experience it seems awfully common.
>each player. The core of any "realism" argument is therefore someone
saying
>variable x is important while someone else says variable x is less
important or
>trivial.
Maybe, but it seems to me that many people who argue that simpler games are
less "realistic" ignore the fact that the complexity usually increases the
time required to play. This gives players time to catch their breath and
ponder the next move. I think that this is grossly unrealistic. Real
commanders are always under extreme time pressures. And I assert that it's
the "complexity = realism" crowd that is the least willing to simulate time
pressures in their games.
>The trend in wargames design over the last ten years has been to randomize
or
>ignore as much as possible in order to lower the cognitive burden on
players,
>based on two assumptions: (1) traditional wargames impose an excessive
burden,
>particularly in playing time and rules knowledge, and (2) battlefield
commanders
>make decisions based on relatively limited information (i.e. Napoleon
didn't
>know or care that X battalion's gunpowder was damp).
And (3), a lot of us haven't the time, energy or patience to hack through a
complex and tedious rules set, particularly when they aren't any fun.
>The ultra-modern trend is to randomize the most important variables,
severely
>limiting the players' direct control over any battlefield event.
Agreed. And I don't really care for the "activate one element then
alternate" rules. But you're right; it is the trend.
>But underneath all of this is the question of the gaming experience. Does
a
>game provide what I, the player, want it to provide? Does it include what
I
>consider important? Is the gameplay rich enough to involve whatever level
of
>concentration I bring to the table? Every game meets some needs and fails
to
>meet others. Which is NOT to say that every game is valid.
By all means, hallelujah! The objective of all of this is to have fun for
cripes sake. If you enjoy complex games then play them! But don't ignore the
fact that complexity itself often reduces realism.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
Not directly, true, but many players (in my experience only) implicitely
equate complexity to realism.
>>And doesn't it seem a little ridiculous to presume that a game played with
>>toy soldiers can be "realistic" in any meaningful sense of the word?
>
>Well, no. "Absolutely realstic" is absurd. Yet the good designers
>have a model of what the key elements of realism are, and they design
>their rules to meet those as best they can. They can explain the
>process. Those are the rules sets that have a basis in reality.
>Other rules sets are based more on gaming concepts than historical
>ones - i.e. they adapt pre-determined game methodology to new periods,
>without attempting to reflect the "realities" of that period a priori.
>This is an equally valid method of game design (I've seen F&F adapted
>as house rules in a great number of periods, and WRG has taken the
>same basic rules and adapted them for just about any period you could
>name.) I would wonder whether it would feel as "realistic," however.
I count several combat veterans as friends, along with an ex-F16 fighter
pilot. Their consensus is that wargames are fun, but have no similarity to
the real thing.
>>Peace be on your heads, my brothers. Let's get back to playing with toy
>>soldiers.
>While some of us are interested in playing with toy soldiers, for
>others this is a more intellectual pursuit.
At one time, I wanted to be a professor of History. I came perilously close
to earning my M.A. in History before I decided to go to law school. My
experience as a graduate student in history makes me seriously question the
professional credentials of most historical game designers (myself included)
and wargamers.
They/we are amateurs. Wargames seldom (if ever) offer footnotes for their
propositions. You don't see many "Works Cited" lists in wargame rules, or
reviews of wargames in scholarly journals. This is not intended to cast
aspersions on historical game designers or wargamers. It's just to point out
that this "intellectual pursuit" is created (by and large) by amateurs for
amateurs.
>I truly believe that we can learn something from a good rules set - i.e.
one that
>was designed to illustrate a designer's viewpoint on what was historically
>significant.
This is true. Wargames are very useful in illustrating military history in
ways that books can't.
>>--Tyrone Beard, Proprietor of a Fistful of Games and Attorney at Law (In
>>That Order of Preference)
>
>
>s/ Doug Ferguson, Boor and Fatuous Boor (in that order of preference)
Oh, are you an attorney too? ;)
--Ty Beard
Minadmiral
opinions,prejudices,and research (if any).
Chuck
Daniel Dionne
TYGHOCK wrote:
> So except on the broadest scale (ie, the Flying Old Guard), I think 'valid' is
> a matter of learned perception. Admittedly, I may be misinterpreting Dan's use
> of the word. Otherwise, I do agree with Dan's posting whole-heartedly.
I get nervous when people agree with me...
When I say that "not every game is valid," I mean "true to known fact." A system
doesn't have to have a Flying Old Guard rule to disqualify itself on grounds of
validity. TYGHOCK is correct that many, many battlefield variables are subject to
question; for something like bow range, a variety of interpretations are perfectly
legitimate within the bounds of what we actually "know." As long as the game
reflects a plausible interpretation, it's "valid" in my terms, even if I disagree.
However, a designer could conceivably adopt an implausible interpretation. If, for
instance, the game design allows a T34/76C's main gun a 50% chance of penetrating a
Panther's front armor at 1500 meters, the design is flat-out invalid (no, I don't
know of such a design). Wide-period games are very vulnerable to what I might
call "accidental invalidity"--that is, the system produces implausible results for
scenarios that weren't considered during development, usually because some
important variable was ignored. Another major (and, to my way of thinking,
inexcusable) source of invalidity is "play balance"
Of course, every game has points at which it is invalid. A few such don't
invalidate a game (although they do promote house rules). But if a game produces
consistently implausible events that create consistently implausible results, it's
time to toss it in the trash heap (once again, I'm not pointing at any particular
design).
I suppose that's the nice thing about designing fantasy games--no validity
concerns.
--Dan Dionne, ddi...@us.ibm.com
df...@knight-hub.com.nospam
discourse....
On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 18:04:51 -0500, "Ty Beard" <tbe...@e-tex.com>
wrotd:
>>Realism is not equated directly to complexity by anyone I know.
>
>Not directly, true, but many players (in my experience only) implicitely
>equate complexity to realism.
There is a (small, IMHO) group that does equate complexity to realism,
perhaps, but I have never seen a group of wargamers say "Dog, this is
impossible to play! It must be super-realistic." I do remember
Panzer Wars and Chef de Battalion, however. We were convinced we were
just doing it wrong (crew casualties by position in Panzer Wars, for
crissake!)
>
>
>>>And doesn't it seem a little ridiculous to presume that a game played with
>>>toy soldiers can be "realistic" in any meaningful sense of the word?
>>
>>Well, no. "Absolutely realstic" is absurd. Yet the good designers
>>have a model of what the key elements of realism are, and they design
>>their rules to meet those as best they can. They can explain the
>>process. Those are the rules sets that have a basis in reality.
>>Other rules sets are based more on gaming concepts than historical
>>ones - i.e. they adapt pre-determined game methodology to new periods,
>>without attempting to reflect the "realities" of that period a priori.
>>This is an equally valid method of game design (I've seen F&F adapted
>>as house rules in a great number of periods, and WRG has taken the
>>same basic rules and adapted them for just about any period you could
>>name.) I would wonder whether it would feel as "realistic," however.
>
>I count several combat veterans as friends, along with an ex-F16 fighter
>pilot. Their consensus is that wargames are fun, but have no similarity to
>the real thing.
Yep, spent 25 years in the US military. Never saw combat (most of my
time in the reserves, saw some Pentagon duty that SEEMED like combat),
but the things combat vets talk about as their rememberance of combat
are never seen in most miniatures games. Many of the elements were
actually captured in a 14 hour LoG game back at Cold Wars 96. We were
playing a campaign game, and the real-time battle lasted as long as
the game-time battle - 14 hours. THAT was an endurance contest, and
the little toy troops were as exhausted as the big boy players. It
was as close to my real-world experiences in RIMPAC '80 as I have run
across in miniatures. The 1998 Waterloo game was a piker by
comparison.
>
>>>Peace be on your heads, my brothers. Let's get back to playing with toy
>>>soldiers.
>
>>While some of us are interested in playing with toy soldiers, for
>>others this is a more intellectual pursuit.
>
>At one time, I wanted to be a professor of History. I came perilously close
>to earning my M.A. in History before I decided to go to law school. My
>experience as a graduate student in history makes me seriously question the
>professional credentials of most historical game designers (myself included)
>and wargamers.
Yeah, I know just how you feel. I quit my "real job" to teach history
in a middle school, and to take college courses in history on the
side. Still dream of that PhD. But I DO know some game designers,
and their credentials ain't all that bad. Unlike most academics, they
have had to actually quantify their historical knowledge, and that
makes them REALLY THINK about the subject. Any discussion, e.g. with
Ed Wimble on the Watrerloo campaign will yield tons of insights. I
don't happen to agree with Bill Keyser on some design philosophies,
but he DOES have insights into the Napoleonic Wars that you would not
consider if you just read Chandler. Again, I can only say what rocks
my boat. The guys who can logicallty defend their positions do that.
Those who hide behind generalities do not. Personal preference, if
you like. Yet, the former pretend to teach, and the latter tend to
preach.
>
>They/we are amateurs. Wargames seldom (if ever) offer footnotes for their
>propositions. You don't see many "Works Cited" lists in wargame rules, or
>reviews of wargames in scholarly journals. This is not intended to cast
>aspersions on historical game designers or wargamers. It's just to point out
>that this "intellectual pursuit" is created (by and large) by amateurs for
>amateurs.
True, but some of the designers (Ed Wimble, e.g.) are taken very
seriously by the academics in the field. And even designs I do not
much like DO tend to state what their sources are (even if a perusal
of the sources tends to contradict the design philosophy). I think
that the level of scholorship involved in rules making is probably
equivalent to that in article-making. "Napoleon Magazine" seems to be
accepted as a scholerly work, and yet is edited by a Napoleonics rules
designer (Matt DeLa Mater) and published by a maven of, of all things,
(shudder) Empire V/VI, Todd Fischer!
>
>>I truly believe that we can learn something from a good rules set - i.e.
>one that
>>was designed to illustrate a designer's viewpoint on what was historically
>>significant.
>
>This is true. Wargames are very useful in illustrating military history in
>ways that books can't.
It is this point ALONE that draws me to miniature gaming. Playing
with "toy soldiers" per se has little or no draw. And yet... I would
love to play in a campaign of "Space 1889" which meets the criteria of
historical spirit, without any historical basis whatever!
>
>>>--Tyrone Beard, Proprietor of a Fistful of Games and Attorney at Law (In
>>>That Order of Preference)
>>
>>
>>s/ Doug Ferguson, Boor and Fatuous Boor (in that order of preference)
>
>Oh, are you an attorney too? ;)
No, but I can see how the confusion might arise!
Doug, Fatuous Boor by Acclamation :-{
Michael Hayman
>
> >Realism is not equated directly to complexity by anyone I know.
>
> equate complexity to realism.
>
> >>toy soldiers can be "realistic" in any meaningful sense of the word?
> >
> >Well, no. "Absolutely realstic" is absurd. Yet the good designers
> >have a model of what the key elements of realism are, and they design
> >their rules to meet those as best they can. They can explain the
> >process. Those are the rules sets that have a basis in reality.
> >Other rules sets are based more on gaming concepts than historical
> >ones - i.e. they adapt pre-determined game methodology to new periods,
> >without attempting to reflect the "realities" of that period a priori.
> >This is an equally valid method of game design (I've seen F&F adapted
> >as house rules in a great number of periods, and WRG has taken the
> >same basic rules and adapted them for just about any period you could
> >name.) I would wonder whether it would feel as "realistic," however.
>
> pilot. Their consensus is that wargames are fun, but have no similarity to
> the real thing.
>
> >>soldiers.
>
> >While some of us are interested in playing with toy soldiers, for
> >others this is a more intellectual pursuit.
>
> to earning my M.A. in History before I decided to go to law school. My
> experience as a graduate student in history makes me seriously question the
> professional credentials of most historical game designers (myself included)
> and wargamers.
>
> propositions. You don't see many "Works Cited" lists in wargame rules, or
> reviews of wargames in scholarly journals. This is not intended to cast
> aspersions on historical game designers or wargamers. It's just to point out
> that this "intellectual pursuit" is created (by and large) by amateurs for
> amateurs.
>
> one that
> >was designed to illustrate a designer's viewpoint on what was historically
> >significant.
>
> ways that books can't.
>
> --Ty Beard
I guess James Dunnagin doesn't count.
Michael Hayman
>
> I suppose that's the nice thing about designing fantasy games--no validity
> concerns.
>
> --Dan Dionne, ddi...@us.ibm.com
The difference between playing Battletech or Striker is not historical
validity but plausibility. Battletech is less plausible because it
ignores valid historical trends that show that the more visible a unit
is in face of increasing weapons strength the greater its likelyhood of
being destroyed. Striker follows through on these trends, but the kids
wanna play with big robots...
The issue still surfaces in fantasy games, at least for me. I can't
stand seeing those games where a single figure can take on whole armies
singlehandedly because itseems so damn absurd, it stretchs what is
believable to the point that it breaks the bubble...but that's just me.
In a film I can see the plausibility of a BladeRunner, Aliens or Willow
far better than i could for a film like Dune, Delta Force, Krull or even
Starwars. Other production factors have to enter into whether its worth
pursuing it further, but these have to be much stronger to overcome the
flaw in plausibility. Its like those damn M-48's with Iron crosses or
whether a single squad of Rangers would have to go look for just one
soldier in a completely different division. Good games overcome it but
a game that allows me to suspend my disbelief and is also a good game
will be my choice hands down, otherwise I might as well be playing chess
or go.
Ty Beard
df...@knight-hub.com.nospam wrote in message
<35dcd767...@news.cais.com>...
>Thanx for a non-flaming response. I have looked for some intellectual
>discourse....
>There is a (small, IMHO) group that does equate complexity to realism,
>perhaps, but I have never seen a group of wargamers say "Dog, this is
>impossible to play! It must be super-realistic." I do remember
>Panzer Wars and Chef de Battalion, however. We were convinced we were
>just doing it wrong (crew casualties by position in Panzer Wars, for
>crissake!)
I dunno, Doug, I remember playing games in The Good Olde Days and we
revelled in complexity. Air War, NATO Division Commander and Tractics come
to mind.
>Yeah, I know just how you feel. I quit my "real job" to teach history
>in a middle school, and to take college courses in history on the
>side. Still dream of that PhD.
Me too, I must confess.
>But I DO know some game designers,
>and their credentials ain't all that bad. Unlike most academics, they
>have had to actually quantify their historical knowledge, and that
>makes them REALLY THINK about the subject.
I didn't mean to demean game designers. My only point was that we're
amateurs because we don't make our living by doing historical research, nor
are our conclusions (the game rules) subject to vigorous peer review. That
being said, there are some very useful and unique perspectives that
wargaming gives you.
But I still think that the primary purpose of wargaming is *gaming*, not
historical analysis. I take it as axiomatic that you'll learn far more about
Napoleonic history by reading Chandler than by playing Empire for the same
amount of time. But you won't have as much fun.
>True, but some of the designers (Ed Wimble, e.g.) are taken very
>seriously by the academics in the field. And even designs I do not
>much like DO tend to state what their sources are (even if a perusal
>of the sources tends to contradict the design philosophy). I think
>that the level of scholorship involved in rules making is probably
>equivalent to that in article-making.
"Glossy" magazines are not usually considered "scholarly". Which is okay
because scholarly history journals are usually tedious to read. But the
difference is like the one between Men's Health and The Journal of the AMA
(or a hypothetical Journal of Kinesiology). A professional historian will
try to publish most of his stuff in a scholarly journal where others in the
field can critique his works. That's a different experience than game
designers.
>It is this point ALONE that draws me to miniature gaming. Playing
>with "toy soldiers" per se has little or no draw. And yet... I would
>love to play in a campaign of "Space 1889" which meets the criteria of
>historical spirit, without any historical basis whatever!
Methinks thou protest too much. Toy soldiers are COOL!
--Tyrone Beard, Proprietor of a Fistful of Games and Esquire (In That Order
of Preference)
Jay
>They/we are amateurs. Wargames seldom (if ever) offer footnotes for their
>propositions. You don't see many "Works Cited" lists in wargame rules, or
>reviews of wargames in scholarly journals. This is not intended to cast
>aspersions on historical game designers or wargamers. It's just to point out
>that this "intellectual pursuit" is created (by and large) by amateurs for
>amateurs.
Now there is an astute observation. In fact I know of at least one
case of a game designer that attempted to pass off as an historian (he
still does, but that's nother topic). However, I have seen games where
designer's notes clearly explained the reasons for certain
abstractions or methods, as well as including a bibliography. Not that
having a bibliography is a sign of good scolarship (how many can
absolutely deny that then _never_ padded a bibliography even a little
bit?)
My impression of wargames in general, and even of some historical
publications that are offshoots of the gaming community, is that they
are often poorly written (from a literary standpoint) or poorly
edited. Still, due to the needs of a wargame, they are forced to deal
with factors that would likely never appear in an historical work,
requiring extensive research in primary sources to give any
credibility.
Maybe it's best for us to just live and let live in this regard, and
enjoy the games we choose to enjoy. In my case VtW gives me the "feel"
that I've come to expect from Napoleonic warfare (despite the
complexity). Maybe that makes me some sort of anal type in the minds
of some, but screw them.
Jay
Ottawa, Ontario
Remove the wildcard when replying by email.
Nathan Johnson
going into law?
Chris Johnson
Ty Beard wrote:
> As a casual observer of the PK flame war, it seems to me that this debate is
> another of the "realism vs complexity" debates. Like most arguments
> involving opinions rather than facts, it's generated far more heat than
> light.
> <snip>
> Peace be on your heads, my brothers. Let's get back to playing with toy
> soldiers.
>
> --Tyrone Beard, Proprietor of a Fistful of Games and Attorney at Law (In
> That Order of Preference)
Gprokopo
<tbe...@e-tex.com> quotes somebody else:
>>But I DO know some game designers,
>>and their credentials ain't all that bad. Unlike most academics, they
>>have had to actually quantify their historical knowledge, and that
>>makes them REALLY THINK about the subject.
One of the things about history and historians that mystifies and disheartens
me is the gulf between professionally-trained (i.e. academic) historians and
history enthusiasts, like wargamers. I have seen this gulf from both sides
(started with SPI, 1971, eventually quit my law practice to get a Ph.D., 1994),
and it's not pretty.
The comment quoted above suggests that hobbyists "REALLY THINK about the
subject," while professional historians who do nothing but study history (in
theory at least) somehow don't have to. For those of us who started as
wargamers, the implication is that we used to REALLY THINK about history, until
we began spending twelve-hour days studying, preparing courses, reading
journals, etc., at which point we somehow became less perceptive than those who
merely dabble.
>>"Glossy" magazines are not usually considered "scholarly". <<
On the other hand, nothing in the entire hobby is considered "scholarly," or
anything short of lunatic fringe, by most professionals. Twenty years ago, in
an undergraduate military history course at U. of Michigan, I introduced myself
to my professor as a wargame player. "There's always one of you in each
class," he said dismissively. And this was a military historian who conducted
a weekly military history study group; it was not miltiary history per se, but
the idea of war games, for which he had no use. I found a few wargamers among
my fellow graduate history students at Harvard, but none among the faculty.
Both attitudes are counterproductive. Games can be excellent teaching tools,
and wargamers and war buffs in general are an eager, well-read, and
comparatively affluent audience. Professionals should take advantage of this,
and write for such an audience instead of dismissing it. And people who spend
all their working time practicing a craft, whether heart surgery, car repair,
golf, or history, tend to be better at it than those who do it in their spare
time. Those historical gamers who spend the time and effort to supplement
their diet of Ospreys and English glossies with works of professionally-trained
historians already know this. Those on either side of the gulf who do nothing
but call names are missing an opportunity.
Gerald J. Prokopowicz, Ph.D.
The Lincoln Museum
Ft. Wayne, Indiana
at...@nerc.com
gpro...@aol.com (Gprokopo) wrote:
>
> One of the things about history and historians that mystifies and disheartens
> me is the gulf between professionally-trained (i.e. academic) historians and
> history enthusiasts, like wargamers. I have seen this gulf from both sides
> (started with SPI, 1971, eventually quit my law practice to get a Ph.D.,
1994),
> and it's not pretty.
You're not the only one who feels that way. There was an article in a recent
ed. of Princeton Alumni Weekly that echoes your sentiment. (Sorry, don't
have the exact reference.) The author -- a professor of history -- was
musing over the differences in how hobbyists/amateurs and professional
historians view events, and lamenting how each group was underutilizing the
other as a resource.
Annie
A.T.A.K. Miniatures * 38 Shady Lane * Mercerville NJ 08619
(609)890-2550 * at...@nerc.com * http://www.nerc.com/~atak
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
MHannam
>musing over the differences in how hobbyists/amateurs and professional
>historians view events, and lamenting how each group was underutilizing the
>other as a resource.
Does anyone else feel like I do - that re-enactors under utilise themselves as
a source of research.
Why is it for instance that they insist on putting on 'battles' where each
regiment has 20-30 men. They are not so much re-enacting history as re-enacting
a wargame of said historical event.
For instance wouldn`t it be useful to all sorts of people if these regiments
ACW / ECW / whatever, got together to recreate a real regiment of 200-400
souls - after a few hours drill, put it through it`s historical formations and
move it over different kinds of terrain.
No disrespect to the individual re-enactors - we have learnt a lot about how
they make their buttons out of burdoc leaves, or the motions involved in
firing a cap and ball musket. All this is very personal. I for instance know
what it`s like to wear later C15th armour because I`ve done that BUT I don`t
know what it`s like to be in a scrum of 300 men. The noise, the shoving the
confusion . . .
I for one would pay to see photos - better still a video of the results of such
an event, wouldn`t you ? it would increase all of our understanding
enormously.
Cheers
Mark Hannam
Lance & Longbow Society bod.
David G. Bell
mha...@aol.com "MHannam" writes:
It's something which would be well worth doing.
I remember, a few years ago, a Miniature Wargames cover which tried to
show an infantry battalion in line, 1 figure to 1 man. Not a great
photo, but you got some idea of the sheer awkwardness of the formation.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
nuk...@worldnet.nospam.att.net
>
> In article <199808222041...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> gpro...@aol.com (Gprokopo) wrote:
> >
> > One of the things about history and historians that mystifies and disheartens
> > me is the gulf between professionally-trained (i.e. academic) historians and
> > history enthusiasts, like wargamers. I have seen this gulf from both sides
> > (started with SPI, 1971, eventually quit my law practice to get a Ph.D.,
> 1994),
> > and it's not pretty.
>
> You're not the only one who feels that way. There was an article in a recent
> ed. of Princeton Alumni Weekly that echoes your sentiment. (Sorry, don't
> musing over the differences in how hobbyists/amateurs and professional
> historians view events, and lamenting how each group was underutilizing the
> other as a resource.
>
>
> A.T.A.K. Miniatures * 38 Shady Lane * Mercerville NJ 08619
> (609)890-2550 * at...@nerc.com * http://www.nerc.com/~atak
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
In the discipline of Astronomy the professionals are often [thought not
always] dependent upon the amateurs to perform meteor counts and comet
discovery. The body of amateurs are integrated into the entire
discipline.
On the otherhand, many professional historians covering military
operations likewise ignor the military professionals. The academics
have often shown a lack of the grasp of capability and limitations of
command & control [C2], troop behavior and motivation, and logistics.
DAW
Steve H.
...some snippage but couldn't resist the following...
> I for instance know
> what it`s like to wear later C15th armour because I`ve done that BUT I don`t
> know what it`s like to be in a scrum of 300 men. The noise, the shoving the
> confusion . . .
>
You've obviously never been to the Essex stand at Salute then...! :o)))
Steve H.
PS. Your comment is extremely valid, just couldn't resist a cheap
joke.... !
--
(spam proofing: remove the *'s in the id. above when replying by email)
Daniel Dionne
have to say that the differences between professionals and amateurs are non-trivial:
1. The two are looking for different things. Generally, a professional military
historian is looking to determine a series of interdependent events and figure out
what the interdependencies are--i.e. what did a commander know that led him to such
and such a decision? An amateur is focused on the events, not the relationships
between them--i.e. how many troops were involved, how were they equipped, and what
happened? Professional historians see the amateurs' questions as naive.
2. The professional cites the sources for every assumption, being careful to
establish himself as operating within the bounds of current research. Amateurs often
document profusely, but they don't document their theoretical foundations (usually
because they don't have such). They are also very undiscriminating in their
sources. The professional sees this as sloppiness.
3. The professional always couches conclusions in tentative language--"There is a
good likelihood that..." no matter how compelling the evidence. The amateur uses
definite language--"Horse archers are worthless against formed infantry"--no matter
how slight the evidence. The professional regards such brash claims with distaste.
To this point, it sounds as though I'm bashing amateurs, which is not at all the
case. Amateurs do good, necessary work for the hobby--work which professionals will
never take an interest in. At the very least, professionals can benefit from the
amateur focus on "what really happened." But (2) and (3) above show how hard it is
for amateurs to get respect from professional military historians.
--Dan Dionne, ddi...@us.ibm.com
MHannam
>> know what it`s like to be in a scrum of 300 men. The noise, the shoving the
>> confusion . . .
>You've obviously never been to the Essex stand at Salute then...! :o)))
>
>Steve H.
In that case ". . . .or the smell !"
Mark