What is a "German Game"?
bra...@my-deja.com
...any examples of such games?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michael T. Richter
> What is the definition of a "German Game"?
<glib>
A German game would be a game from Germany, silly. :-)
</glib>
The term "German Game" is a term to describe a certain style of family game.
They are called "German" because the most popular of them (and the ones that
put this style of game on the map) come from Germany. These games are noted
for being simple enough to be of interest to a casual gamer or even a
non-gamer, but are sufficiently "deep" in terms of tactics or strategies to
hold the interest of regular to fanatical gamers.
> ...any examples of such games?
The canonical example of this (and the one that pretty much kicked off this
sub-hobby in North America, IIRC) is "The Settlers of Catan" (in German: Die
Siedler von Catan). You can find out more about that game from Mayfair's
web site (http://www.coolgames.com). Another good game from this site (with
crappy components, sadly) is Modern Art. I'd wait until someone else
publishes it, however, before buying it.
A major co-publisher of German games (in both the literal and figurative
sense) is Rio Grande Games (http://www.riograndegames.com). Go to their web
site and you'll get a large list of German games. Many of these latter ones
are in my favourites list including: Samurai, Medieval Merchant and Kahuna.
(My favourites list consists of games that I enjoy personally *AND* which
gets replay value because the group of people I game with ask for replays.)
There are many non-German "German" games out there as well. Atlas Games
(http://www.atlas-games.com), for example, republishes a game by Bruno
Faidutti called Corruption. This game is originally from France. It is
also one of the best card games I've played in a long time.
I hope this is enough of an introduction for you.
Glenn Kuntz
term. There was (*very* recently) quite an extensive thread and accompanying
FAQ on the subject.
<bra...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8dhn0n$fsl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> What is the definition of a "German Game"?
>
> ...any examples of such games?
>
>
Geenius at Wrok
> What is the definition of a "German Game"?
>
> ...any examples of such games?
Thanks for reminding me that I've been a slacker.
THE REC.GAMES.BOARD "GERMAN" GAME FAQ v1.0
(c) 2000 by Keith Ammann
QUESTIONS
1. What are these "German" games I've been hearing about?
2. What characterizes a "German" game?
3. Which ones should I get?
3a. A friend introduced me to ___. Will I like ___?
4. Where can I find them?
5. What is the Spiel des Jahres? What is the Deutscher Spielepreis?
6. What does that name mean? How is it pronounced?
7. Why Germany, of all places?
8. Hey! I bought this game you told me to buy, and the rules are in
German!
ANSWERS
1. What are these "German" games I've been hearing about?
"German" games are a genre of board and card games that has recently
become popular in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and
elsewhere. They are commonly called "German" games because most of them
-- including the ones by which many players have been introduced to the
genre -- are designed and produced in Germany. However, some "German"
games come from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United
Kingdom or the United States. In its end-of-year roundup, Games magazine
refers to the genre as "family strategy," which neatly sums up these
games' crossover appeal.
2. What characterizes a "German" game?
"German" games are defined by what they aren't almost as much as by what
they are. They aren't simplistic, as are many games produced for the U.S.
mass market. They are not rules-heavy, as are many games produced for the
U.S. hobby market, nor do they take an inordinately long time to play.
They are not wargames, owing in part to Germany's post-World War II stigma
against militarism in popular culture, and only rarely are they designed
as simulations.
As for what they are: They are attractive, with a lot of attention paid
to quality of components (often referred to as "bits" by aficionados) and
graphic design. They are accessible, with rulebooks that top out around
six pages and typical playing times of 30 to 90 minutes. They are easily
grasped by older or smarter children. They are involving, both
strategically (there are always decisions to be made) and socially
(players are not left out of the action when it's someone else's turn).
They contain unusual and innovative play mechanisms. And they're also a
little expensive and hard to find compared with American mass-market
games, largely because they haven't been widely promoted or distributed
outside a core community of hobby gamers and the rec.games.board
newsgroup. Most who play them agree that they're worth the cost and
effort to acquire them.
Finally, they're nearly always credited. That is, the designer's name is
printed on the box and is often a selling point. This is in contrast with
most games in the U.S. market, for example, whose designers either remain
anonymous or are buried in the back of the rulebook.
3. Which ones should I get?
Depends on your tastes and your budget. Here is a selection of the most
popular family strategy games (most of which happen to come from Germany),
based on Aaron Fuegi's Internet Top 100 Games List
(scv.bu.edu/~aarondf/top100). That list is not (and is not intended as)
an objective description of the relative quality of various games, but it
is a good indicator of which games are most popular within the gaming
hobby -- that is, among the people who play these games and know them
well. Prices given are U.S. suggested retail.
* Settlers of Catan (Die Siedler von Catan). By Klaus Teuber. Mayfair
(U.S.), Kosmos (Germany). $35. If any game can claim to have
singlehandedly opened the international market to German games, it's this
one. It's simple enough to learn by watching others play, complex enough
to pump up its replay value. The object: Outpace your opponents at
settling a (formerly) uninhabited island by gathering, trading and
consuming commodities (wood, bricks, stone, grain and -- this is the
stroke of genius -- sheep!). The board is made up of illustrated
cardboard hexagons that can be rearranged for a new experience every time.
Several expansions are available, the most popular of which is Seafarers
(Seefahrer, $35), which lets you move around from island to island.
* Tigris & Euphrates (Euphrat & Tigris). By Reiner Knizia. Mayfair
(U.S.), Hans im Glück (Germany). $50. This is the upper end of the genre
with regard to complexity and length of playing time, but it's praised by
many as the most strategically sophisticated. The object: Triumph over
your neighbors as you sow the seeds of civilization in the fertile
crescent. Victory is determined by your ability to accumulate points in
four different categories at once -- whoever has the highest lowest score
wins! E&T is what's known as a "tile-laying game," meaning that one of the
elements of play is the placing of tiles on the board. Knizia is probably
the single most popular German game designer; he is certainly one of the
most prolific. His game Samurai (Rio Grande/Hans im Glück, $40), set in
feudal Japan, shares the mechanisms of tile-laying and multiple-category
scoring.
* El Grande. By Wolfgang Kramer and Richard Ulrich. Rio Grande (U.S.),
Hans im Glück (Germany). $40. This pair have put out a number of games
involving the distribution of pieces around the board for the purpose of
amassing "influence." El Grande is the earliest in this series. The
object: To curry favor with the king in medieval Spain. To gain
influence, you have to get soldiers ("caballeros") onto the board. But
the system for bidding on action cards, which allow you to pull various
stunts in the hopes of gaining the upper hand, poses a dilemma: The more
likely you are to get the action card you want, the fewer caballeros you
can raise. In addition, a movable pawn representing the king (sometimes
called "the Horgon") freezes the action wherever it's placed, because you
can't let the king see what connivers you all are! There are also several
El Grande expansions, which Rio Grande is marketing in the United States
as one $25 set.
* Modern Art. By Reiner Knizia. Mayfair (U.S.), Hans im Glück (Germany).
$30. Another of the "first wave" German games (along with Settlers),
Modern Art is built around an ingenious auction mechanism. The object:
Make a pile of dough by buying and selling works by several pretentious
painters. But you have to judge whether you'll make more money by
collecting the works of a popular artist and cashing in on them or by
being the one who sells them at outrageous speculative prices. A
fast-moving game with a lot of appeal for "non-gamers."
* Tikal. By Wolfgang Kramer and Richard Ulrich. Rio Grande (U.S.),
Ravensburger (Germany). $45. This game takes the influence-building of
El Grande, dumps the action cards and tacks on a scoring method in which
you're never 100 percent sure when you'll get to collect your points, so
you always have to be on your toes. The object: Amass prestige by
digging up Mayan relics in the Central American jungle. To get the
points, however, you'll have to have laborers keep watch on the sites
you're excavating, lest one of your rivals swoop in and grab the credit
for himself. A limited number of "action points" each round keeps your
options few and hard to choose from. More strategic and abstract in feel
than many family strategy games. The same design team is responsible for
Torres (Rio Grande/FX Schmid, $40), which combines the influence-building,
the scoring rounds, the action cards, the limited action points and the
movable king and throws in a funky scoring system based on both how broad
and how tall you can build the castles that give the game its name.
* Through the Desert (Durch die Wüste). By Reiner Knizia. Fantasy Flight
Games (U.S.), Kosmos (Germany). $38. Another tile-laying game, only in
this case you lay the tiles before the game starts. The object: To
control land in the desert by surrounding it with your caravans. The
caravans are made up of pastel plastic camels, the sort of oddball design
decision (cf. the sheep in Settlers) that makes so many German games
irresistible.
* Ursuppe. By Doris Matthäus and Frank Nestel. Doris & Frank (Germany).
Import only; no standard U.S. list price. Speaking of oddball, how about
a game in which you play amoebas eating each other's excrement? The
object: Outlive all your one-celled competitors, either through strategic
evolution or relentless multiplication. (The name of the game means
"Primordial Soup.")
* Bohnanza. By Uwe Rosenberg. Rio Grande (U.S., coming soon), Amigo
(Germany). $15. The leader of the pack among "German" card games. The
object: Make money by raising and selling different kinds of beans. This
one's perversely hard to explain but very easy to learn and play, making
it another favorite among non-hobbyists. (The name is a pun on the German
word for "bean.")
These are the "stars," but there are many, many other popular and easily
obtainable family strategy games, including Union Pacific (Alan Moon, Rio
Grande/Amigo, $40), Medici (Knizia, Rio Grande/Amigo, $30), Löwenherz
(Teuber, Rio Grande/Goldsieber, $40), Elfenland (Moon, Rio Grande [coming
soon]/Amigo, $35), Roborally (Richard Garfield, Wizards of the Coast, $40)
and Ra (Knizia, Rio Grande/Alea, $35). The majority are imported or
reprinted by three companies: Mayfair Games, Rio Grande Games and Jeux
Descartes/Eurogames (which publishes several games not listed above).
3a. A friend introduced me to ___. Will I like ___?
Family strategy game designers shamelessly pillage mechanisms from both
their own games and others'. This results in a number of games' having a
similar feel. If you like the feel of one game, you may enjoy another that
shares the same mechanisms. Here's a guide to mechanisms commonly found in
family strategy games:
"Colonizing"
Settlers of Catan, Löwenherz, Through the Desert
Tile-Laying
Tigris & Euphrates, Samurai, Rheinlander, Metro, Streetcar, Entdecker,
El Caballero, Drunter & Druber, Ta Yü
Multiple-Category Scoring
Tigris & Euphrates, Samurai
Limited Choice of Actions
Löwenherz, Tikal, Torres, Medieval Merchant, Get the Goods
Scoring Rounds
El Grande, El Caballero, Tikal, Torres, Get the Goods, Freight Train,
Modern Art
Auctions/Bidding
Modern Art, Medici, High Society, El Grande, Tikal (optional rules),
Ra, Union Pacific
Exotic Theme
Through the Desert, Samurai, El Grande/El Caballero (same theme),
Tikal, Medieval Merchant, Ra
Negotiation
Chinatown, Rette Sich Wer Kann, Bohnanza, Quo Vadis
If this approach strikes you as high-risk (and well it may, given the
price tags that these games usually carry), visit the Board Game
Recommendation System at 146.115.120.84:8000 (yes, that's a Web address).
The BGRS takes input on which games you like and dislike, matches your
tastes with those of other registered users and provides recommendations
based on those users' opinions. The results are fairly reliable.
(Mainstream games and old-school hobby games are included in the system as
well.)
4. Where can I find them?
Not at Toys 'R' Us, bro. Typically, family strategy games, especially the
imported ones, are available only through hobby stores (the ones that also
sell wargames, role-playing games and/or collectible card games) and
"specialty" game stores (the ones that also sell traditional games, such
as chess, backgammon and go, as well as more mainstream family games). If
you're looking for a particular game, check the manufacturer's Web site
for a retail store near you. (Because I'm writing this FAQ, I get to plug
my favorite: the Old Game Store, Manchester, Vt., 800-818-GAME.) If
there's nothing close by, try one of the following online retailers:
Boulder Games, www.bouldergames.com
Fair Play Games, www.fairplaygames.com
Funagain Games, www.funagain.com
Seriously Fun Games, www.seriouslyfungames.com
Sundown Games, www.sundowngames.com
Secondhand games are frequently offered for sale on
rec.games.board.marketplace.
5. What is the Spiel des Jahres? What is the Deutscher Spielepreis?
Board games are a big enough industry in Germany that awards are given
out. The Spiel des Jahres ("Game of the Year") is a juried industry
award, sorta like Cannes. The Deutscher Spielepreis ("German Game Award")
is primarily a critics' award, sorta like the Golden Globes.
Most of the games listed above are either winners or nominees of one or
both awards. You can look up past award winners and current nominees at
www.spiel-des-jahres.org (English, German) and
www.kmwsspielplatz.de/spielarchiv/indxtemp.html?/spielarchiv/dsp.htm
(German only).
6. What does that name mean? How is it pronounced?
A lot of gamers refer to German games by their German names. Here's a
handy guide for English speakers (pronunciations, especially of umlauted
vowels, are approximate; some of these games' English editions go by
different names, as noted):
(Die) Siedler (von Catan) [dee ZEED-ler fawn ka-TAHN]: (The) Settlers (of
Catan)
Seefahrer [ZAY-far-er]: Seafarers
Städte & Ritter [SHTAYT-uh oont RIT-ter]: Cities and Knights
Die Siedler Kartenspiel [dee ZEED-ler KAR-ten-shpeel]: The Settlers Card
Game
El Grande
König & Intrigant [KER-nikh oont in-tree-GAHNT]: King and Conspirator
Grossinquisitor & Kolonien [GROSS-in-KVIZ-i-tor oont ko-lo-NEE-en]:
Grand Inquisitor and Colonies
Durch die Wüste [DOORKH dee VISS-tuh] (not "Durch die Wurst"!): Through
the Desert
Ursuppe [OOR-zoop-puh]: Primordial Soup
Löwenherz [LUR-ven-hayrts]: Lionheart (absolutely not to be confused with
Hasbro's ultra-crappy Lionheart!)
Kontor [KOHN-tor]: Countinghouse
Kraut & Rüben [KROWT oont REE-ben]: Cabbage and Beets
Pfeffersäcke [FEFF-er-ZECK-uh]: Peppersacks (a.k.a. Medieval Merchant)
Giganten [gih-GAHN-ten]: Giants
Rette Sich Wer Kann [RET-tuh ZIKH ver KAHN]: Every Man for Himself
Kuhhandel [KOO-hun-del]: Horse Trading
Hol's der Geier [HOHLSS der GUY-er]: The Heck With It (a.k.a. Raj)
Dampfross [DUMPF-ross]: Iron Horse (a.k.a. Railway Rivals)
Entdecker [ent-DECK-er]: Discoverer
Verräter [fer-RAY-ter]: Traitor
Tal der Könige [TAHL der KER-ni-guh]: Valley of the Kings
Flinke Pinke [FLINK-uh PINK-uh]: Quick Cash (a.k.a. Quandary)
Putsch [rhymes with "butch"]: Uprising
Adel Verpflichtet [AH-del fer-FLIKH-tet]: Noblesse Oblige (a.k.a. By Hook
or by Crook)
Igel Ärgern [EE-gel AIR-gern]: Mad Hedgehogs
Klunker [KLOONK-er]: Jewels
Volle Hütte [FOL-luh HIT-tuh]: Full House
Wettstreit der Baumeister [VET-shtrite der BOW-mice-ter]: Contest of
Architects
Druidenwalzer [DROO-ih-den-VAHL-tser]: Druids' Waltz
Freibeuter [FRY-boy-ter]: Freebooter
Um Reifenbreite [oom RY-fen-BRY-tuh]: By a Tire Width
By the way, it's Klaus "TOY-ber," not Klaus "TOO-ber." (Schwarzenegger:
"It's not a Too-buh!") Also, Knizia is pronounced "k'NEET-see-a."
7. Why Germany, of all places?
The best anyone can surmise, Germany just happens to have a long tradition
of game-playing. Combine that with a long tradition of high-quality
design and manufacturing, and you have a market for well-designed,
well-manufactured games.
However, as a number of people have pointed out, the fact that Germany has
the most robust adult/family board game industry in the world doesn't mean
that board games are a form of mass entertainment in Germany, on par with,
say, television. It's a hobby there, just as it is in other countries.
It just happens to be a much bigger hobby.
8. Hey! I bought this game you told me to buy, and the rules are in
German!
Many imported family strategy games are available in translated editions,
but many are not. Fortunately, the board gaming community has made a
number of rulebook translations available on the Web. The Gaming Dumpster
(www.neonate.org) has a large selection of archived rule translations. In
addition, most of the companies that import and/or reprint games from
other countries have rule translations available for free.
--
"I wish EVERY day could be a shearing festival!" -- The 10 Commandments
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Live with honor, endure with grace "I notice you have a cloud of doom.
Keith Ammann is gee...@enteract.com I must admit it makes you seem
www.enteract.com/~geenius * Lun Yu 2:24 dangerous and sexy."
The Maverick
>
> only rarely are they designed as simulations.
This is news... which "German Games" are "designed as simulations"???
the Mav
--
Cliffhanger Serials, Boardgames, Videogames, and Red Baron I
http://www.volcano.net/~themaverick/index.html
The Classic Microgames Museum
http://maverick.brainiac.com/cmm/index.html
The Space and Fantasy Gamer's Guide
http://www.brainiac.com/micro/sfgg/index.html
Geenius at Wrok
> Geenius at Wrok wrote:
>
> > only rarely are they designed as simulations.
>
> This is news... which "German Games" are "designed as simulations"???
Depending on the liberality of your definition of "simulation," Formula Dé
qualifies. I'm sure there are a handful of others.
RRI1
>
>> Geenius at Wrok wrote:
>>
>> > only rarely are they designed as simulations.
>>
>> This is news... which "German Games" are "designed as simulations"???
>
>Depending on the liberality of your definition of "simulation," Formula Dé
>qualifies. I'm sure there are a handful of others.
A couple obvious examples:
- Die Macher, a rather involved simulation of German party politics.
- 1835: 18XX in Germany, even includes territory changes due to the
Franco-Prussian War.
Of course these aren't typical German games in some ways: They are longer (4-6
hours), they have more complicated rules than the average German game.
But they are simulations in that the rules are designed to simulate real
poitical system and real development of the German RR's. In fact, many players
argue that 1835 is too much of simulation and not enough of a game--actions
happen because that's the way it happened historically. In fact 1835 probably
has more of these rules to force historical accuracy than any other 18XX game:
Prussian will always formed from the "unsuccessful" minor RR's, the starting
order of the major companies is fixed, etc.
Richard Irving rr...@aol.com
Made with recycled electrons!
The Maverick
>
> A couple obvious examples:
>
> - Die Macher, a rather involved simulation of German party politics.
> - 1835: 18XX in Germany, even includes territory changes due to the
> Franco-Prussian War.
>
> Of course these aren't typical German games in some ways: They are longer (4-6
> hours), they have more complicated rules than the average German game.
Well, I guess that begs the question: are they German games. Doesn't
sound like it...
The Maverick
>
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, The Maverick wrote:
>
> >
>
> Depending on the liberality of your definition of "simulation," Formula Dé
> qualifies.
Formula De is no more a simulation than Monopoly is. If you are willing
to go that far, you could almost claim that any themed games is a
simulation!
> I'm sure there are a handful of others.
So we can only hope that the remainder of the FAQ is based on
information rather than supposition... ;-)
Mik Svellov
The Maverick wrote:
>This is news... which "German Games" are "designed as simulations"???
Die Macher is an extremely good simulation of German politics.
Mik
Mark S. Bassett
>
> This is news... which "German Games" are "designed as simulations"???
>
I would suggest "Schocko" (the game of running a chocolate factory).
Mark
--
This .sig not available at your clearance.
Mik Svellov
>> A couple obvious examples:
>> - Die Macher, a rather involved simulation of German party politics.
>> - 1835: 18XX in Germany, even includes territory changes due to the
>> Franco-Prussian War.
Mav asked:
>Well, I guess that begs the question: are they German games. Doesn't
>sound like it...
I wouldn't call 1835 a German game - after all it is based upon Tresham's
18XX-series so the game must be English.
As the FAQ describes "German Games" to be special subsort of games I would
not include games invented or published by Germans in general. The German
edition of Civilization isn't a "German Game" either - nor is "Dampf und
Stahl" - even though it is entirely German.
But die Macher is crossing the boundaries between simulations and family
games - as does other games: 1452, Svea Rike etc.
Mik
Robert Rossney
news:_KeL4.60$qb6....@news.get2net.dk...
>
> The Maverick wrote:
> >This is news... which "German Games" are "designed as simulations"???
>
I've never thought of Die Macher as a simulation. For instance, I don't
believe it's ever been the case in any German federal election that the
Greens and the Christian Democrats have, at the start of the race, had
identical resources, differing only in that that one supports the
environment and the other economic development. You might as well say that
Quo Vadis is a simulation of Roman politics.
Which is not to say that Die Macher isn't an excellent game. It is one of
the best games I know. But its intricate mechanics seem to me as if they're
designed to make a good game, not to simulate the real world.
And in fact, that (to tie this back to the ostensible subject) is why Die
Macher also strikes me as very definitely being a "German" game, despite its
complexity and playing time. Every element of the game supports the game's
mechanisms and contributes to their functioning. There's nothing in the
game that's present simply because it isomorphizes onto the real world.
(Contrast with, say, a typical historical wargame, where units are present
not because the game's mechanisms demand them, but for fidelity to the
historical order of battle.)
Its elements map onto things in the real world, but they're present because
the game's mechanics demand them, not because the game isn't an accurate
simulation without them. This seems to me to be characteristic of "German"
games.
Just to take a counterexample, let's pick an American (should I say
"American"?) game that is faster to play, less complex, and easier to learn
than the "German" Die Macher: The Creature That Ate Sheboygan. If you get
over the unfortunate organization of the rules (SPI's case system had its
merits, but applying it to every game they ever published was not the
smartest thing they ever did), you have a very quick, lightweight,
well-designed amusing strategy game.
I haven't asked Greg Costikyan about this, but it seems to me that the
design approach for this game went something like this: We want a game of
monsters ravaging a city. So we'll need the board to be a city, and we'll
need a monster, and we'll need the National Guard. And the monster will be
able to set fire to buildings -- the monster player will get points for how
much destruction he can wreak before he's stopped -- so we'll need a
mechanism for that. And the human player should be able to put the fires
out. So he'll need firemen. Every step of the way in this design process,
the game elements are being selected based on how they map onto what it is
that the game is intended to be reproducing. Once he has a good inventory
of elements, the designer then works out mechanisms for the elements that
enable them to interact smoothly in a way that is balanced and manageable --
the fire counters that turn 90 degrees every turn until the 0 comes up and
the burning building is reduced to rubble, for instance.
I suspect that when Karl-Heinz Schmiel sat down to design Die Macher, he
departed from the need to include an inventory of real-world elements much
earlier in the design process. Instead, when he found that the game needed
a mechanism, he added it to the design and then looked for a way to make it
map onto something in the real world. For instance, I don't believe that
party conferences are in the game because Schmiel wanted to make sure to
include party conferences in the interests of verisimilitude; I think party
conferences are in the game because he needed to give players a mechanism
for changing their platforms as federal opinion begins to solidify, and
they're called "party conferences" because it seems reasonable that parties
would meet in conference to change their platform. (I may here be betraying
my ignorance of the German political system, but I doubt very much that the
German system has two kinds of party conferences, one of which allows the
party to randomly select new issues to support.)
I am, of course, oversimplifying here. For instance, I'm using "American
games" to mean "games that emerged from the American tradition of conflict
simulation." But since we're already debating the question of whether a
game written in German, printed in Germany, and designed by a German is a
"German" game -- a question that I think perfectly reasonable despite its
apparent absurdity -- we've gone off the rails anyway, so we might as well
enjoy the ride.
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
The Maverick
>
> I've never thought of Die Macher as a simulation.
> You might as well say that
> Quo Vadis is a simulation of Roman politics.
Or that Diplomacy is a simulation of pre-WWI politics! ;-)
> Its elements map onto things in the real world, but they're present because
> the game's mechanics demand them, not because the game isn't an accurate
> simulation without them. This seems to me to be characteristic of "German"
> games.
That is consistent with my experience as well. As Henrik suggested, I
think it would be simpler to just say that German games "are not" or "do
not try to be" simulation games.
Rob Derrick
>
> Geenius at Wrok wrote:
> > Depending on the liberality of your definition of "simulation," Formula Dé
> > qualifies.
>
> Formula De is no more a simulation than Monopoly is. If you are willing
> to go that far, you could almost claim that any themed games is a
> simulation!
Well, I suppose we now need a distinction between a casual simulation
and a pathological simulation.
In high school, we played a "game" between several other schools
call Internation Simulation. It was no more a simulation of global
politics than A&A is a simulation of WWII. But, it was no less.
It was, as A&A is to WWII, and Formula De is to racing, and as Die
Macher is to German Politics, a casual simulation.
The vast majority of war games, ostensibly simulations, are still
a far cry from pathological simulation. It is always possible to
look down the nose at AH's Gettysburg because one is in
Civil War reenactment. Armed Forces Special Units training can
call their simulations of warfare more "real" because they
use real bullets, and pretend POW camps _real_ good.
I once used a Simulation program to simulate modular redundancy
in computer hardware. It was a grade "A" simulation. But, didn't
have a real piece of hardware, or anything that looked like it
anywhere. Just words, code, instructions, characteristics. Left
a lot of details out, and assumed a great deal too. So, was it
not a simulation because it wasn't "real" enough?
It's like Lao Tzu said -- So you are big? There is always someone
bigger. So you are small? There is always someone smaller. So why
worry about the distinctions?
Something like that. ;^)
rob d.
The Maverick
>
> It was, as A&A is to WWII, and Formula De is to racing, and as Die
> Macher is to German Politics, a casual simulation.
Check out Robert Rossney's post in this thread for a good rebuttal to
the claim that Die Macher is a simulation.
In addition, it seems your category of "casual simulation" means nothing
more than that the game has a "theme" rather than being completely
abstract (i.e. "Careers", "Life", "Monopoly", "Masterpiece", "221B Baker
Street", or just about any other non-abstract game.)
Why not just say that the games have a "theme" rather than calling them
something that they were not intended to be?
Geenius at Wrok
> Why not just say that the games have a "theme" rather than calling them
> something that they were not intended to be?
I only threw the line about simulations into the FAQ as a sop to Henrik
Johansson. This thread is all the persuasion I need to yank it back out.
The Maverick
>
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, The Maverick wrote:
> > Why not just say that the games have a "theme" rather than calling them
> > something that they were not intended to be?
>
> I only threw the line about simulations into the FAQ as a sop to Henrik
> Johansson. This thread is all the persuasion I need to yank it back out.
I agree that you should pull inaccurate statements out of the FAQ... or
you could just correct them. Why say German games are "only rarely . .
. designed as simulations" when it instead appears that none are
designed as simulations?
Ken Agress
<gee...@enteract.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, The Maverick wrote:
>
>> Why not just say that the games have a "theme" rather than calling them
>> something that they were not intended to be?
>
>I only threw the line about simulations into the FAQ as a sop to Henrik
>Johansson. This thread is all the persuasion I need to yank it back out.
Yank + Killfile=happy Geenius. :-)
Ken Agress
Kevin J. Maroney
>In addition, it seems your category of "casual simulation" means nothing
>more than that the game has a "theme" rather than being completely
>abstract (i.e. "Careers", "Life", "Monopoly", "Masterpiece", "221B Baker
>Street", or just about any other non-abstract game.)
There's obviously a wide range between "no simulation at all" (e.g.,
_Go_, _Life_) and "incredibly meticulous simulation" (war manuver
practice with live ammo, business training classes).
_Die Macher_ is closer to the "no simulation" end than _Third Reich_
is, but not by much. Lots of fiddly rules do not lead to increased
simulation value if the fundamental activity of the game bears no
relation to the thing being simulated.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life <http://www.thegamescafe.com/>
Rob Derrick
The Maverick wrote:
>
> Rob Derrick wrote:
> >
> > It was, as A&A is to WWII, and Formula De is to racing, and as Die
> > Macher is to German Politics, a casual simulation.
>
> Check out Robert Rossney's post in this thread for a good rebuttal to
> the claim that Die Macher is a simulation.
>
> In addition, it seems your category of "casual simulation" means nothing
> more than that the game has a "theme" rather than being completely
> abstract (i.e. "Careers", "Life", "Monopoly", "Masterpiece", "221B Baker
> Street", or just about any other non-abstract game.)
Sure. But what I would like to know is where exactly is the line
that a thing (game, roleplay, computer program, organizational exercise)
crosses that makes it a simulation.
I mean, I know what is not a simulation. At least I think I do:
Othello, Pente, Checkers.
I know what is a simulation:
A fluid-dynamics code that models the effects of an explosive force.
But, I do not know if A&A is a simulation of WWII. Is it? Is Shogun/
Samurai Swords a simulation of Medieval Japanese warfare/politics.
If so, what element(s) make them so, and if removed, relegates theme
to "theme" only?
If not, what element(s) would have to be added to them to make one?
Is AH's Gunslinger a simulation of "The Old West"? If not, is it a
simulation of gunfighting in the 1800's? Is it a simulation of anything?
If it is a simulation, is the basic game itself a simulation? Or does
it become a simulation only with the addition of the advanced rules?
Is Wooden Ships & Iron Men a simulation of ironclads warfare? Is the
basic game? Or does it only become a simulation with the addition of
advanced rules? Is it a simulation without rules governing flag ship
command and control, LOS, smoke, grappling and boarding, et. al?
Which are the specific ones that make it so, and which ones are
dispensable?
Is basic A Line In the Sand a simulation of the Gulf War? Is the
diplomatic game a simulation then? Is any war game, despite its
technical complexity, a simulation if it does not have a diplomatic
component? Is a purely mechanical de-humanized model of warfare
properly called a simulation?
In any "real" situation, what is necessary to model it that will
definitively categorize it as a simulation, and not just "themed"?
What elements must it have, what can be left out? Something has
to be left out, after all. A "simulation" that contains absolutely
every element of the thing it models is no longer a simulation.
It is the thing itself.
Is SimCity a simulation of city management? Is SimAnt a simulation
of ant behaviour? Is El-Fish a simulation of a fish tank? I can think
of pro's and con's for all, but I can't think of a argument that
would definitively categorize a given instance as belonging to the
set of "Simulations" or belonging to the set of "Not-Simulations".
Is chess a simulation of warfare? Is Go? Both were thought essential
at times in history for teaching just that.
In fact, when chess came to China, so the story goes, the Emporer
was impressed with the game except for one thing -- the idea that
some common person could push around and command the figure of
the Emporer. So in China, chess is not played with figures, but
rather with circular disks with writing. Seems that chess was
too close a simulation for comfort. ;^)
All I'm saying is that the criteria for "Simulation" is ill-defined
enough that I would not want to press the issue over most particular
things. If you want to call it theme, that's fine with me. If me
and my fellow games players get so involved in a theme that we
experience a suspension of disbelief, like we feel like was are
doing the real thing, in some abstracted way, then I will feel
simulated enough. If simulation means a hundred pages of detailed
rules, each page an attempt to "model" some more particular aspect
of reality in such a way as to bog down any attempt to "play" with
endless rules-lawyering and such, then I will take a game that
inspires that suspension of disbelief any day, by giving me a
simple enough "world" so that I can "play" at being that
race driver, that commander of ships, or even Buckskin Frank
Leslie gunning down that loud-mouthed Billy Claybourne.
> Why not just say that the games have a "theme" rather than calling them
> something that they were not intended to be?
Sure, why not. But why does it bother so to loosen a little and
allow some latitude in definition? Formula De contains 2-D
representations
of real places and the race tracks on them. It accounts for brakes,
engine wear, fuel consumption. It uses a graduated system to
represent gear ratios. And yes, there is abstraction throughout.
Circus Maximus has much of that, and many layers of detail more,
down to the driver of one chariot swinging a whip at his opponent.
And, there is still much abstraction. One you might likely call
a simulation, and one you might not. I can understand why, perhaps,
but I still don't see where you drew the line.
rob d.
Rick Jones
>
> > > This is news... which "German Games" are "designed as simulations"???
> >
> > qualifies.
>
> Formula De is no more a simulation than Monopoly is. If you are willing
> to go that far, you could almost claim that any themed games is a
> simulation!
And besides that, Formula De is a French game, not a German game.
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
"Milhouse, we're living in the age of cooties."
-Bart Simpson
The Maverick
>
> About as German as you can get ;-)
Yet when I say PanzerBlitz is a "German Game"... ;-)
Kevin J. Maroney
>Sure, if you use the dictionary definition (but then none of these would
>be simulations.) However, the meaning is quite clear within the context
>of 30+ years of "simulation gaming."
40 years of simulation gaming have taught a class of gamers that it
doesn't matter how far removed from an actual simulation a game is,
you can still call it a simulation if you have an accurate Order of
Battle. :-/
The Maverick
>
> 40 years of simulation gaming have taught a class of gamers that it
> doesn't matter how far removed from an actual simulation a game is,
> you can still call it a simulation if you have an accurate Order of
> Battle. :-/
Too true! "The most accurate OOB information for the battle of X yet
assembled"... at least until "next year's model." ;-) Although
mechanics haven't been completely stagnant in wargaming, a cookie cutter
approach has too often seemed to plague designers and developers over
the years. Fortunately, even after 40 years we are still seeing some
interesting new developments in board wargaming mechanics today.
The Maverick
>
> The Maverick wrote:
> >
> > Formula De is no more a simulation than Monopoly is. If you are willing
> > to go that far, you could almost claim that any themed games is a
> > simulation!
>
> And besides that, Formula De is a French game, not a German game.
Touche! But now you're nominated to write the "French Game FAQ." ;-)
Christian Killoran
The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote in message
news:38FFA5...@volcano.net...
> Rob Derrick wrote:
> >
> > All I'm saying is that the criteria for "Simulation" is ill-defined
> > enough that I would not want to press the issue over most particular
> > things.
>
> be simulations.) However, the meaning is quite clear within the context
> of 30+ years of "simulation gaming."
Well said, Mav. It never fails to amaze me how semantic nit-picking usually
clouds issues more than it clarifies them! I would guess (very
un-scientifically) that most readers of this group know exactly what a
"simulation game" is despite an inability to define them exactly.
Apologies in advance to those who maintain that nothing simulates anything!
: )
Jonathan Ferro
Honeybears.
Rob Derrick
>
> The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote in message
> news:38FFA5...@volcano.net...
> > Rob Derrick wrote:
> > >
> > > enough that I would not want to press the issue over most particular
> > > things.
> >
> > be simulations.) However, the meaning is quite clear within the context
> > of 30+ years of "simulation gaming."
>
> Well said, Mav. It never fails to amaze me how semantic nit-picking usually
> clouds issues more than it clarifies them! I would guess (very
> un-scientifically) that most readers of this group know exactly what a
> "simulation game" is despite an inability to define them exactly.
>
> Apologies in advance to those who maintain that nothing simulates anything!
> : )
I'm amazed that the number of responses are almost nil, but
more, that no one answered the question. If most readers do
know what a "simulation game", would one of them be willing
to give some examples. What is, and what isn't, and why?
What is it that makes one worthy of the sobriquet "simulation",
while a similar game is only "themed"? What distinquishes one
from the other? I'm not asking for a definition by prose, but
rather by example.
I just read a very good article by Greg Aleknevicus
http://www.pacificcoast.net/~greg/Counter7.html
titled "Simulation vs. Mechanics in Gaming".
I think he brings up some very good points, and in particular,
mirrors my own contention that there are levels of "simulation",
from none to lots, but that even in the most detailed simulation
game, there are still mechanics that remove it from reality.
OTH, this insistence that "we know what a simulation game is"
seeming to be "games that we call simulation games" reminds
me of my own definition of a "filk" song -- a definition that
often gets under the skin of many skiffies.
So, of my original questions (really, I didn't mean them
rhetorically), which are "simulation games" and which aren't,
and if possible, why?
rob d.
----
rob d's definition of:
"filk" song : a song parody that I don't like ;^)
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
> Why not just say that the games have a "theme" rather than calling them
> something that they were not intended to be?
In general, we don't know what a particular game was "intended" to be.
As for why the term "themed" isn't adequate for categorizing all these
games, compare some of the games you would have us lump together under this
category. There is a big qualitative difference between a game like Ra, in
which the central mechanism (bidding in an auction) doesn't appear to have
any real-world analog to its setting (Ancient Egypt), and games like Tikal
or Vinci, in which most of the mechanics (save for the VP-scoring rules)
and most importantly the vast majority of the "chrome" maps in an obvious
way onto elements of each game's setting.
--
Dave Kohr <dave...@bestSPAMFOILER.com> Be sure to remove the SPAMFOILER!
Visit the Silicon Valley Boardgamers at http://www.best.com/~davekohr/svb
"the skinning of momentum-maddened, greedy Dan Gillmor, Feb. 13, 2000 column
suckers is a necessary part of capitalism" in the San Jose Mercury News :-)
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
>Rob Derrick wrote:
>> All I'm saying is that the criteria for "Simulation" is ill-defined
>
>"simulation gaming."
To my mind it's not.
Most board wargames are horrible simulations, with little or no predictive
value, because they contain all sorts of simplifying assumptions and
abstractions. Yet they've traditionally been called "simulations".
The simulations that are used by the military for training and planning are
vastly more complex, so much so that they have to be automated by
computers. And their predictive value must be good enough that the military
sees fit to keep using and extending them. These are also called
"simulations".
The difference in simulation quality between many of the German games and
most board wargames is IMHO much smaller than the difference between most
board wargames and professional military simulations. To the extent that
German games and board wargames simulate anything, they both deserve to be
called "simulations". But that extent is pretty limited.
Ichabod
> I'm amazed that the number of responses are almost nil, but
> more, that no one answered the question. If most readers do
> know what a "simulation game", would one of them be willing
> to give some examples. What is, and what isn't, and why?
>
> What is it that makes one worthy of the sobriquet "simulation",
> while a similar game is only "themed"? What distinquishes one
> from the other? I'm not asking for a definition by prose, but
> rather by example.
To me it seems to be a scale. On the one end you have totally
abstract games like Othello, which simulate nothing. On the
other end you have detailed computer or live simulations,
many of which aren't even games. Games that try to simulate,
but don't try very hard, are called themed by some. Or you
might say that vaguer simulations (that don't take in a lot
of details) are themed. Where the switch for some from game
to simulation is a vague point, and will vary from person
to person.
Note that I also think that just because it isn't a good
simulation, doesn't mean it isn't a simulation. Chess is
a simulation of medieval warfare. It's an extremely vague
and probably extremely bad simulation of medieval warfare,
but that doesn't mean it isn't a simulation. A yugo is
still a car.
--
Craig "Ichabod" O'Brien
The Maverick
>
> I'm amazed that the number of responses are almost nil, but
> more, that no one answered the question. If most readers do
> know what a "simulation game", would one of them be willing
> to give some examples. What is, and what isn't, and why?
Chess isn't. The Longest Day is.
Chess is an abstract representation of conflict. Pieces move one at a
time in limited patterns on a grid of squares that does not particularly
reflect any terrain or actual piece of land.
The Longest Day is one designer's perspective of the Normandy Invasion
in World War II. The units reflect the actual units present at the
engagement, are rated for their historical movement and combat
capabilities, and the game is played on a map representing the
cartography and terrain of the actual battle area.
The Maverick
>
> In article <38FE59...@volcano.net>,
> The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
> > Why not just say that the games have a "theme" rather than calling them
> > something that they were not intended to be?
>
> In general, we don't know what a particular game was "intended" to be.
In general, even just a look at the description on the box will do.
Christian Killoran
Rob Derrick <ro...@lanl.gov> wrote in message
news:39086AD9...@lanl.gov...
> I'm amazed that the number of responses are almost nil, but
> more, that no one answered the question.
Well, it's a tough question to answer! It's sort of like asking "what is
art?" in an art newsgroup. No one definition satisfies everybody, but that
doesn't change the fact that most people will generally agree that something
is art, or it isn't.
If most readers do
> know what a "simulation game", would one of them be willing
> to give some examples. What is, and what isn't, and why?
In the broadest sense, a simulation game is any game where the intent of the
designer is to give players an opportunity to better understand a real-life
event through manipulation of game components. In a more narrow sense,
"simulation game" is a more politically correct term for "wargame" since
publishers in the 70's suspected that the earlier term might alienate some
potential customers.
Since Greg Aleknevicus' article referred to Squad Leader, I'll go ahead and
cite this as an example of a simulation game. This game was clearly
designed to provide players with some insight into the dynamics of infantry
combat on the Russion Front during WWII. After playing a couple of games, a
player should understand the importance of terrain as it relates to
deployment and movement of squad-level units, the dangers of cross-fire, the
relative strengths and weaknesses of Russian and German ordinance, etc.,
etc.
A game with a related topic that would not qualify as a simulation game (to
most gamers I associate with) is Axis & Allies. Despite the WWII topic, a
player with a basic high-school education will learn almost nothing about
that war through playing this game. Strategies and tactics that bring
success in A&A would certainly have failed in the actual war, even when
considered at a very basic level. The converse is also true...try adopting
the historically successful "Germany first" strategy while playing A&A and
see what happens! All of this does not mean that A&A is a bad game, just
that it does not meet the test of "simulation game" in the common parlance
of most gamers.
> What is it that makes one worthy of the sobriquet "simulation",
> while a similar game is only "themed"? What distinquishes one
> from the other? I'm not asking for a definition by prose, but
> rather by example.
This is almost impossible to answer to everyone's satisfaction because this
difference is a matter of degree. My own take on it is that a simulation
game makes a genuine effort to re-create history or alternative history to
the extent permitted by the medium. A theme is a logical construct intended
to tie together otherwise abstract game mechanics. IMO, Axis & Allies is a
theme game because, despite having very little simulation value, the topic
and components provide the player a fun and logical excuse for rolling dice
at one another all night! And please don't take this to mean that A&A is a
waste of time...to win, a player still has to employ some thinking and
strategy - just not anything resembling historical reality.
>
> I just read a very good article by Greg Aleknevicus
>
> http://www.pacificcoast.net/~greg/Counter7.html
>
> titled "Simulation vs. Mechanics in Gaming".
>
> I think he brings up some very good points, and in particular,
> mirrors my own contention that there are levels of "simulation",
> from none to lots, but that even in the most detailed simulation
> game, there are still mechanics that remove it from reality.
Both of these points are undoubtedly true. But the fact that a game can't
simulate historical reality perfectly doesn't mean it can't simulate some
important elements of history. Those who contend that a simulation game is
worthless because it can't provoke fear of death, etc. remind me of my
teenaged students who decline participation on the school basketball team
because they don't have the physical attributes necessary to go on to the
NBA. They fail to see the other values that such participation offers.
>
> OTH, this insistence that "we know what a simulation game is"
> seeming to be "games that we call simulation games" reminds
> me of my own definition of a "filk" song -- a definition that
> often gets under the skin of many skiffies.
This insistence is probably a defense mechanism from those who have had past
experiences with being nit-picked to death on this topic. It certainly is
in my case! : ) But since you posted this question a second time, I figured
you were genuinely curious and looking for an answer (however imperfect)
instead of an argument. The fact remains that, like art, I don't know
exactly WHAT a simulation game is, but I know one when I see it!
The Maverick
>
> In article <3908DE...@volcano.net>,
> The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
> >dave...@bestSPAMFOILER.com wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <38FE59...@volcano.net>,
> >> The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
> >> > Why not just say that the games have a "theme" rather than calling them
> >> > something that they were not intended to be?
> >>
> >> In general, we don't know what a particular game was "intended" to be.
> >
> >In general, even just a look at the description on the box will do.
>
> to which it was "intended" to simulate that thing.
Most gamers can read between the lines. Since this is a "no brainer",
why don't you just come right out with whatever point you are trying to
make?
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
>dave...@bestSPAMFOILER.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <38FE59...@volcano.net>,
>> The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
>> > Why not just say that the games have a "theme" rather than calling them
>> > something that they were not intended to be?
>>
>> In general, we don't know what a particular game was "intended" to be.
>
>In general, even just a look at the description on the box will do.
In general, the box says that a game is "about" something, not the degree
to which it was "intended" to simulate that thing.
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
>dave...@bestSPAMFOILER.com wrote:
>> In article <3908DE...@volcano.net>,
>> The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
>> >dave...@bestSPAMFOILER.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <38FE59...@volcano.net>,
>> >> The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
>> >> > Why not just say that the games have a "theme" rather than calling them
>> >> > something that they were not intended to be?
>> >>
>> >> In general, we don't know what a particular game was "intended" to be.
>> >
>> >In general, even just a look at the description on the box will do.
>>
>> In general, the box says that a game is "about" something, not the degree
>> to which it was "intended" to simulate that thing.
>
It's not a no brainer by any means. This is why there are so many threads
on CONSIM-L and ConsimWorld asking how realistic new games' mechanics are.
Designers very frequently use abstractions to make games shorter or
simpler, or make scenarios more balanced by arbitrarily changing, say,
units' numerical strength ratings from what's dictated by a rigorous
application of whatever historical model they're following (assuming
they're following any at all).
>why don't you just come right out with whatever point you are trying to
>make?
I did. I'll say it again: most board waragmes are poor simulations, and in
many cases simulation was never the intent of the designer anyway.
I'm still waiting for you to get the point.
The Maverick
>
> >> >dave...@bestSPAMFOILER.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
> >> >> > Why not just say that the games have a "theme" rather than calling them
> >> >> > something that they were not intended to be?
> >> >>
> >> >> In general, we don't know what a particular game was "intended" to be.
> >> >
> >> >In general, even just a look at the description on the box will do.
> >>
> >> In general, the box says that a game is "about" something, not the degree
> >> to which it was "intended" to simulate that thing.
> >
> >Most gamers can read between the lines. Since this is a "no brainer"
>
> It's not a no brainer by any means. This is why there are so many threads
> on CONSIM-L and ConsimWorld asking how realistic new games' mechanics are.
Yet this has nothing to do with what a game is "intended" to be.
Anyway, it is clear that for many games you can tell what they are
"intended" to be from a look at the box text, and if that doesn't clear
things up a look at the rules and components surely will.
spam...@phantaci.retlif.maps.com
>I'm amazed that the number of responses are almost nil, but
>more, that no one answered the question. If most readers do
>know what a "simulation game", would one of them be willing
>to give some examples. What is, and what isn't, and why?
I guess I can answer this question for me. When the words
"themed", "simulation", "abstract" and "light" are tossed around
it implys to me the feeling that I get from *playing* the game.
As such, my definition is subjective. The only time I feel that
this conversation is *not* subjective is when the game in question
doesnt even purport to have a theme or topic. (Othello, TriOminoes,
Boggle).
For me, the usual factor that decides this is if the rules that
are used in the game make sense for an abstraction for what they
are supposed to simulate then it makes it feel more like a simulation
game. I would like games for you, but it would just make the argument
longer. Besides I know I am right :)
-Jim Shumaker
--
Jim Shumaker |
ja...@phantaci.com |
Mountain View, CA |
Kevin J. Maroney
>The Longest Day is [a simulation].
>The Longest Day is one designer's perspective of the Normandy Invasion
>in World War II. The units reflect the actual units present at the
>engagement, are rated for their historical movement and combat
>capabilities, and the game is played on a map representing the
>cartography and terrain of the actual battle area.
And yet, strangely, the game _The Longest Day_ is filled with
completely non-historical elements, such as a hexagonal gridwork which
precisely defines movement; numerical ratings on all of the
"historical" units which define their capabilites perfectly and with
total foreknowledge; perfect information; and on and on. No one could
possibly mistake playing _The Longest Day_ for the experience of being
involved in the D-Day invasion at any level. In these ways (and many
others), it fails as a simulation.
Does this (gasp!) mean that the line between "simulation" and "not
simulation" might be wiggly and poorly defined?
The Maverick
>
> The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
> >The Longest Day is [a simulation].
>
> completely non-historical elements, such as a hexagonal gridwork which
> precisely defines movement;
Generally regarded as necessary in a board game. Sure, for absolute
realism, the box could expand into the actual territory of Normandy and
you could move full size soldiers and vehicles around in the very
cramped confines of your living room... ;-)
In the context of "simulation games", a hex grid is hardly unusual and
is often a characteristic element.
> numerical ratings on all of the
> "historical" units which define their capabilites perfectly and with
> total foreknowledge
A design decision. Some simulation games have experimented with untried
units. Both are two different means of reflecting units strengths and
reflect different design goals. As for giving total foreknowledge, this
is limited by other factors such as the use of a CRT to resolve combat,
etc.
In any case, assigning ratings to units has nearly always been an
element of "simulation games."
> perfect information
Unless you can read your opponent's mind or divine the next roll of the
dice, no wargame presents 100% "perfect information." On the other
hand, your observation is correct to the extent it reflects a player
having greater knowledge than a historical commander at the same level
might. This characteristic is an often lamented but acknowledged aspect
of "simulation games."
> and on and on. No one could
> possibly mistake playing _The Longest Day_ for the experience of being
> involved in the D-Day invasion at any level. In these ways (and many
> others), it fails as a simulation.
I was certainly not claiming that The Longest Day fulfilled the
scientific definition of a simulation. I was discussing the field of
"simulation games."
> Does this (gasp!) mean that the line between "simulation" and "not
> simulation" might be wiggly and poorly defined?
Not at all. It means you are nit-picking. ;-)
ideefixe
>>>> Why not just say that the games have a "theme" rather than calling them
>>>> something that they were not intended to be?
>>>
>>> In general, we don't know what a particular game was "intended" to be.
>>
>> In general, even just a look at the description on the box will do.
>
> In general, the box says that a game is "about" something, not the degree
> to which it was "intended" to simulate that thing.
All too often, the box tells you little or nothing about the kind of game
you will get, or is grossly misleading!
Here are three examples:
"In Reinaissance Italy, armies of mercenaries fought to conquer fragmented
city states for the highest bidder. Elite mercenary leaders... led these
armies to victory under such fabled banners as Medici, Sforza and Colleoni.
Recreate this era as you... strive to carve out your own Renaissance
kingdom!"
"The game spans 1500 years of Egyptian history. You seek to expand your
power and fame. There are many ways of accomplishing this: Influencing
Pharaohs. Building monuments. Farming on the Nile. Paying homage to the
Gods. Advancing the technology and culture of the people."
"The players are Charlemagne's heirs -- hence in conflict with each other.
Here he has asked them to build castles in some of his favourite
territories. But to do this they must seek and then maintain for as long as
possible the support of five powerful clans of nobles... who administer the
Emperor's lands...."
None of the games inside these boxes has much to do with what the
description suggests, now does it?
Henrik Johansson
>
> In article <38FFA5...@volcano.net>,
> The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
> >Rob Derrick wrote:
> >> All I'm saying is that the criteria for "Simulation" is ill-defined
> >
> >"simulation gaming."
>
> To my mind it's not.
>
> Most board wargames are horrible simulations, with little or no predictive
> value, because they contain all sorts of simplifying assumptions and
> abstractions. Yet they've traditionally been called "simulations".
>
> The simulations that are used by the military for training and planning are
> vastly more complex, so much so that they have to be automated by
> computers. And their predictive value must be good enough that the military
> sees fit to keep using and extending them. These are also called
> "simulations".
Not all military models are that complex. Maybe you are referring
to a few rare US army models on the edge of current technology. In my
experience some hobby board wargames exist with internal models that
are equal in complexity to military counterparts: "Leopard II" is one,
ASL of course another.
>
> The difference in simulation quality between many of the German games and
> most board wargames is IMHO much smaller than the difference between most
> board wargames and professional military simulations. To the extent that
> German games and board wargames simulate anything, they both deserve to be
> called "simulations". But that extent is pretty limited.
No they don't. German games are often totally void of any internal
models.
They can't be used for any simulation at all. Board wargames often have
complex internal models. Compared to military models used in
simulations,
board wargames resemble military wargames, not German games.
Dave Boyd
@volcano.net>:
>I was certainly not claiming that The Longest Day fulfilled the
>scientific definition of a simulation. I was discussing the field of
>"simulation games."
Let's see. OK, we have a spectrum of abstraction, with "simulate each
quantum of energy obeying all natural laws" being at one end and "resolve
game by flipping coin" at the other. All interesting and playable games
fall somewhere in the middle. Games with "sim value" are further toward
the sim end than games lacking sim value. There are other axes by which
games can be measured as well. People who like sim value... like sim
value. Calling a game a simulation means, that it is sufficiently toward
the simulation end of the scale as to satify people who want "sim value".
So: "simulation games" are the games that "simulation gamers" have by
consensus decreed to be "simulations".
Duh. I can live with that.
--
Dave Boyd
Last "Simulation" played: Ogre
The Maverick
>
> So: "simulation games" are the games that "simulation gamers" have by
> consensus decreed to be "simulations".
>
> Duh. I can live with that.
Well the term certainly didn't originate with Bridge players. ;-) Nor
would it advances the discussion in a meaningful way to ask what the
term "simulation game" means to someone who only plays Life, Monopoly,
etc. and has never seen a wargame. So is there really anything odd
about the term being defined by the population that uses it as a term of
art???
Ichabod
<thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
> Dave Boyd wrote:
> >
> > So: "simulation games" are the games that "simulation gamers" have by
> > consensus decreed to be "simulations".
> >
> > Duh. I can live with that.
>
> Well the term certainly didn't originate with Bridge players. ;-) Nor
> would it advances the discussion in a meaningful way to ask what the
> term "simulation game" means to someone who only plays Life, Monopoly,
> etc. and has never seen a wargame. So is there really anything odd
> about the term being defined by the population that uses it as a term of
> art???
Yes, because Boyd's definition is circular. "Simulation gamers"
would have to be defined as "people who play simulation games."
So you get: simulation games are the games the people who play
simulation games have by consensus decreed to be simulations.
Not very useful.
Dave Boyd
216.174.13.181>:
>Yes, because Boyd's definition is circular. "Simulation gamers"
>would have to be defined as "people who play simulation games."
>So you get: simulation games are the games the people who play
>simulation games have by consensus decreed to be simulations.
Exactly correct. It is indeed circular, which causes arguments on Usenet,
not in "real life".
>Not very useful.
In debate, it isn't, I agree; but in actual practice, it is. If I wanted
to know whether Totaler Krieg was a good simulation, I'd ask Mav (or more
likely some person of my personal acquiantance who plays wargames, probably
Gary Stagliano, who (a) owns a game shop and (b) plays a lot of wargames
and (c) is enough of a history buff as to have actually designed a wargame:
GRD's _A_Winter_War_).
This works not because it's logical, but rather because "simulation
gamers" is a self-selected group. Of which I am not a member.
--
Dave Boyd
Cosmic Encounter: the best game ever
Kevin J. Maroney
[The Maverick described _The Longest Day_ as "a simulation". I
responded by listing elements of _The Longest Day_ which make _TLD_
not an effective simulation of the reality of the D-Day invasion.]
[First was the hex-grid.]
>Generally regarded as necessary in a board game. Sure, for absolute
>realism, the box could expand into the actual territory of Normandy and
>you could move full size soldiers and vehicles around in the very
>cramped confines of your living room... ;-)
It's quite possible to have a "simulation game"--even a board
game--which does not have precise point-to-point movement of the type
present in a hexgrid game. Units move distances at speed, rather than
hexes for points.
>In the context of "simulation games", a hex grid is hardly unusual and
>is often a characteristic element.
It's often characteristic. That doesn't mean that it's a good
representation. It is, in fact, an unrealistic simplification.
>> numerical ratings on all of the
>> "historical" units which define their capabilites perfectly and with
>> total foreknowledge
>
>Some simulation games have experimented with untried
>units. Both are two different means of reflecting units strengths and
>reflect different design goals. As for giving total foreknowledge, this
>is limited by other factors such as the use of a CRT to resolve combat,
>etc.
You seem to miss the point that if a unit has, say, 10 movement
points, the owner of the unit knows *exactly* how many hexes the unit
can move under every possible circumstance. That's tremendously
unrealistic. (I've never seen a hex-based wargame which didn't have
this unrealistic element. That doesn't mean that this element is
miraculously realistic.)
>> perfect information
>
>Unless you can read your opponent's mind or divine the next roll of the
>dice, no wargame presents 100% "perfect information."
_Backgammon_ is a perfect information game, even though it has random
elements and an opponent. _EastFront_, on the other hand, is not.
>> Does this (gasp!) mean that the line between "simulation" and "not
>> simulation" might be wiggly and poorly defined?
>
>Not at all. It means you are nit-picking. ;-)
Not at all. Saying that _The Longest Day_ "is" a simulation is to say
that there is a line at which an accumulation of simulationist
elements makes something into a simulation despite the presence of
incredibly unrealistic elements such as a hex grid, perfect
information, combat resolution breakpoints, and a you-go-I-go turn
structure.
Much more correct would be to say, "_The Longest Day_ has more
simulation elements than _Die Macher_ but less than war exercises do."
Simulation is an element, not an essence.
Ichabod
(Dave Boyd) wrote:
Sure, it's useful in some cases. But it's only useful if
you already have a referent for one of the terms. Otherwise
it's useless. Also, it's sometimes useful for determining if
something is a simulation game, but it's not useful for having
much of a discussion on simulation games.
Patrick Carroll
>> not in "real life".
>> This works not because it's logical, but rather because "simulation
>> gamers" is a self-selected group.
It works if all you're trying to do is find out where the good simulation games
are, and play them. But if you make a hobby of surveying the gaming world and
evaluating its many treasures, you may need a clear definition of what a
simulation game is--what it *really* is, not just what its fans think it is.
One could take an anthropologist's approach, and just visit the simulation
gamers' groups and observe what games they play. But some of us have a more
philosophical interest in games: we're less interested in what happens on the
surface than on what's beneath the surface.
We may, for instance, wonder "How, exactly, does a game simulate real-life
events?" Or "What measurements could we use to determine a simulation game's
accuracy?" Or "Where do we draw the line between a richly themed game and a
bona fide simulation?" Or even "What's the motivation for preferring
simulation games over abstract games?"
Such questions are addressed more by contemplating on them than by
investigating facts & figures. And discussion, or brainstorming, may be a good
supplement to contemplation. It can introduce viewpoints that one might
otherwise overlook.
Circular arguments don't help with this process, though, because they have the
effect of keeping the discussion on the surface.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Rob Derrick
> Simulation is an element, not an essence.
Wish I'd said it, but, there it is.
I will grant that amongst certain groups, the term
"simulation game" has a particular if not precise
meaning, and that they know what they are talking
about when they say "simulation game", and I'd know
too that it was euphemistically referring to mechanics
laden wargames. Even they though will typically draw
a line before they reach a level of simulation that
can be said to be a useful model of reality. But they
can certainly feel close in certain aspects and
mechanics, and I do not argue or begrudge them that.
That being said, Kevin's averral that "Simulation is
an element" is the best way to describe what we are
talking about when we ever so lightly refer to "Die
Macher" or "Formula De" or such as a simulation of.
We tend to mean less than that the games contain the
essences of their real world counterparts such that
playing the game models and what-if's on events of
reality, but rather than that the game provides for
us a verisimilitude, a suspension of disbelief, or
at the least, an immersal into the theme enough to
allow us to escape into that essence of reality,
ever so slightly, using the elements of simulation
provided by the game designer.
And in truth, many of us prefer our escapism quite
far from reality, reality itself being too close for
comfort in day to day life.
rob d.
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
>> consensus decreed to be "simulations".
>
>that uses it as a term of art???
That's really not the issue.
The question is whether it's reasonable to decree that German-style games
are never "simulations". Since I've pointed out some counter-examples of
German-style games that have "internal models" that do in fact mimic
reality--however imprecisely--I think it's not reasonable to make this
claim.
Oh, and let me add Settlers and Verrater to the list of games that possess
an "internal model".
--
Dave Kohr <dave...@bestSPAMFOILER.com> Be sure to remove the SPAMFOILER!
Visit the Silicon Valley Boardgamers at http://www.best.com/~davekohr/svb
"Cleave the beast Micro$oft of Redmond in twain!"
The Maverick
> >is often a characteristic element.
>
> It's often characteristic. That doesn't mean that it's a good
> representation. It is, in fact, an unrealistic simplification.
I'm sure that when someone comes up with a better "realistic
simplification", it will overwhelm the board wargaming hobby. But for
nearly 50 years the "unrealistic" hex grid has seemed to do the trick in
the vast number of wargames.
So, as I stated before, a hex grid is characteristic of "simulation
games." The fact that it is not 100% realistic doesn't change that.
> You seem to miss the point that if a unit has, say, 10 movement
> points, the owner of the unit knows *exactly* how many hexes the unit
> can move under every possible circumstance. That's tremendously
> unrealistic. (I've never seen a hex-based wargame which didn't have
> this unrealistic element.
You didn't look too far... How about games with "forced march"
mechanics? You also overlooked opportunity fire, hidden units, plotted
minefields, etc. And, to the chagrin of the more traditional grognards,
there are even a few games that require die rolls to determine movement
factors!
Again, while a "simulation game" player typically possesses more
information about the capabilities of friendly and opposing forces than
a historical commander, such unit ratings are still characteristic of
"simulation games."
> >> perfect information
> >
> >Unless you can read your opponent's mind or divine the next roll of the
> >dice, no wargame presents 100% "perfect information."
>
> _Backgammon_ is a perfect information game, even though it has random
> elements and an opponent. _EastFront_, on the other hand, is not.
My point stands. While I agree that Backgammon gives "perfect"
information as to an opponent's position, you still do not know the
actual movement capability of the opposing pieces until the dice are
rolled. Therefore, you will *not* have perfect information regarding
your opponent's forces when you make your own move...
Now if you had said Chess or Checkers...
> >> Does this (gasp!) mean that the line between "simulation" and "not
> >> simulation" might be wiggly and poorly defined?
> >
> >Not at all. It means you are nit-picking. ;-)
>
> Not at all.
Really? You seem to be arguing that "simulation games" *aren't* because
they utilize factors which aren't 100% realistic.
So what? Nobody claimed "simulation games are 100% realistic." I
described elements typically found in simulation games. The fact that
you have pointed out acknowledged "realism" problems doesn't change the
fact that the enumerated characteristics are typical of "simulation
games."
> Saying that _The Longest Day_ "is" a simulation is to say
Yes, but as I stated in the last message, I am not saying that it is a
simulation.
> Much more correct would be to say, "_The Longest Day_ has more
> simulation elements than _Die Macher_ but less than war exercises do."
So it is incorrect to say "The Longest Day" is a "simulation game"? I
sure won't lose any sleep over it... but the guy who says wargames
aren't board games might be interested in an extended discussion of the
question. ;-)
> Simulation is an element, not an essence.
True simulation is (virtually?) non-existent in board games. But as I
stated in the previous post, I was talking about "simulation games."
Not "games that simulate things really well", not "laboratory
simulations", and not "this is real life in cardboard and paper"; just
Simulation Games, a gaming term of art which is being misconstrued by
your literal reading of the phrase.
Next we'll be discussing why "fire escapes" should be banned because
they let the fire get out... ;-)
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
>Kevin J. Maroney wrote:
>> It's often characteristic. That doesn't mean that it's a good
>> representation. It is, in fact, an unrealistic simplification.
>
>I'm sure that when someone comes up with a better "realistic
>simplification", it will overwhelm the board wargaming hobby.
As you must know, that's irrelevant.
The point that Kevin and I have been making is that it is silly to draw an
arbitrary dividing line between one set of games and another based on
whether or not they are good "simulations" when in fact there exist games
in each set that have some elements of simulation, and the vast majority of
games in both sets are lousy simulations.
>> _Backgammon_ is a perfect information game, even though it has random
>> elements and an opponent. _EastFront_, on the other hand, is not.
>
>My point stands. While I agree that Backgammon gives "perfect"
>information as to an opponent's position, you still do not know the
>actual movement capability of the opposing pieces until the dice are
>rolled.
"Perfect information game" is a technical term from game theory. AFAIK it
does apply to backgammon, but not to EastFront, because in backgammon you
have all the information necessary to formulate an optimal strategy,
whereas in EastFront you don't. The key difference is that in backgammon,
you know precisely the probability of each random event, and can form your
strategy based on the current game state, knowledge of the probabilities,
and the assumption that your opponent will also follow an optimal strategy.
(It's not rational for them to follow anything but the optimal strategy,
since it reduces their chances of winning.) In EastFront, some information
is known only by one side, which makes it impossible to formulate an
optimal strategy.
I'm sure I've mis-stated some details here, so hopefully Kevin or David
desJardins will correct me.
>> >> Does this (gasp!) mean that the line between "simulation" and "not
>> >> simulation" might be wiggly and poorly defined?
>> >
>> >Not at all. It means you are nit-picking. ;-)
>>
>> Not at all.
>
>Really? You seem to be arguing that "simulation games" *aren't* because
>they utilize factors which aren't 100% realistic.
That's not the argument at all. See above.
>True simulation is (virtually?) non-existent in board games. But as I
>stated in the previous post, I was talking about "simulation games."
>Not "games that simulate things really well", not "laboratory
>simulations", and not "this is real life in cardboard and paper"; just
>Simulation Games, a gaming term of art which is being misconstrued by
>your literal reading of the phrase.
Or maybe it's not an instance of misconstrual, it's an objection that the
term is now regarded as misleading so few people use it anymore. I rarely
do, like many others I prefer to call these kinds of games "board
wargames". This neatly captures almost all the games that have
traditionally been called "simulation games", and has the great virtue that
it doesn't imply anything about the quality of simulation provided by those
games. Its only drawback is that it doesn't catch a few oddball cases such
as economic and political games (After the Holocaust and Republic of Rome
spring to mind) and things like American Megafauna, because of the emphasis
on military conflict implied by the term "wargame".
Patrick Carroll
I made a brief sortie into rec.games.abstract--where "perfect information"
games are the topic of choice--and was quickly assured that backgammon is *not*
such a game. To that group, only "all skill" games such as checkers and go
count as "perfect information, abstract games."
> it's an objection that the
>term is now regarded as misleading so few people use it anymore. I rarely
>do, like many others I prefer to call these kinds of games "board
>wargames".
I tend to agree with that. The word "simulation" harks back to SPI and the
days when the company philosophy was to produce military-history or
military-science lessons in the form of simulations--which "just happened" to
be playable as games. At the time, I bought into that notion and liked it.
But after a couple decades' experience with this type of game, "wargame" seems
more fitting to me than "simulation."
OTOH, wargames do simulate war to some extent or other. So I can't object too
strongly if someone wants to call wargames simulation games.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
Kevin J. Maroney
<...>
[I said:]
>> Saying that _The Longest Day_ "is" a simulation is to say
>
>Yes, but as I stated in the last message, I am not saying that it is a
>simulation.
>
>sure won't lose any sleep over it... but the guy who says wargames
>aren't board games might be interested in an extended discussion of the
>question. ;-)
Let's see. You want to call _The Longest Day_ a simulation game. But
"I am not saying that it is a simulation".
Now who's splitting hairs?
Yes, "simulation game" is a term of art. It's also to some degree a
misnomer, since you yourself say that a game that you've held up as an
exemplar of "simulation game" is not a simulation.
Now, it's possible that you are correct that there is a cluster of
games which are called "simulation games". Don't you think it's
amazing that the people who refer to wargames as "simulation games"
use the term "simulation value" as a stick to beat on games which take
different approaches to simulation (e.g., the significant hobbyist
hostility to Tom Dagliesh's _Napoleon_ as "unrealistic" because it
approaches simulation from a different angle than Charles Roberts's
progeny) or games which eshew simulation entirely?
And on another point:
>You seem to be arguing that "simulation games" *aren't* because
>they utilize factors which aren't 100% realistic.
I'm arguing that the line *you* draw between _The Longest Day_ ("a
simulation game") and _Formule De'_ ("not a simulation game") is not a
sharp one because each of them has some elements which are obviously
there as simulations and elements which are there which are obviously
not--which are, in fact, simplifications designed to make the game
easier to produce and easier to play despite the fact that they
undercut the simulation value.
And I'm also arguing that implicitly or explicitly, the rhetoric of
the people who play board wargames is strongly prejudiced towards
games with more simulationist trappings, even if the actual simulation
value is low. One needs look no further than Mr. Johannsen for a
particularly noxious example of that.
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
why it doesn't apply to games with random elements, or to backgammon anyway?
Thanks in advance.
In article <20000502084212...@ng-ca1.aol.com>,
Patrick Carroll <p55ca...@aol.compliant> wrote:
>>"Perfect information game" is a technical term from game theory. AFAIK it
>>does apply to backgammon . . .
>
>I made a brief sortie into rec.games.abstract--where "perfect information"
>games are the topic of choice--and was quickly assured that backgammon is *not*
>such a game. To that group, only "all skill" games such as checkers and go
>count as "perfect information, abstract games."
Bruno Wolff III
<dave...@bestSPAMFOILER.com> wrote:
>Can somebody in the group give a better definition of the term, and explain
>why it doesn't apply to games with random elements, or to backgammon anyway?
My guess would be that since you don't know the outcome of the random
events, you don't have perfect information.
There are still some similarities in analysing both types of games.
Optimal strategies will not have mixed components except where they
are degenerate (several optimal pure strategies are just as good as
each other).
However, other things won't work as well. For example the analysis used
in Winning Ways for evaluting games by adding the evaluations of subgames
won't work.
spam...@phantaci.retlif.maps.com
>>is there really anything odd about the term being defined by the population
>>that uses it as a term of art???
>That's really not the issue.
>The question is whether it's reasonable to decree that German-style games
>are never "simulations". Since I've pointed out some counter-examples of
>German-style games that have "internal models" that do in fact mimic
>reality--however imprecisely--I think it's not reasonable to make this
>claim.
>Oh, and let me add Settlers and Verrater to the list of games that possess
>an "internal model".
Alright,
Enough of the stupidity. "German games" arent sim games. For me. If I
play a game that I feel is a sim game, well then it isnt a German game.
Again, for me.
Why? Well what the hell defines a "German game?" Arbitrary choice?
Well guess what...thats what we are doing for sim games. You got a
problem with that, then any game made in Germany is a "German game."
If it isnt made there, then it isnt a German game. What makes
Robo Rally a "German game" when "Knightmare Chess" isnt? Both have
boards, pieces and cards. Must be some arbitrary choice.
So as far as I am concerned, Settlers, Vinci, El Grande *are* *not*
*simulation* games. They dont cut it. Doesnt make them bad games
but they aren't simulation games.
If any one, I mean any one, is going to argue with me that calling
a game a "German game" is not arbitrary (and not mean "German games
are made in Germany") then you better be able to defend why the games
you choose as German are "german" and why those you didnt, arent.
Otherwise, those of us that claim that "German games aren't simulation
games" have every bloody right to say that as much as you have to
say they can be.
Robert Rossney
news:slrn8gugtm...@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu...
> On 02 May 2000 20:16:27 GMT, dave...@bestSPAMFOILER.com
> <dave...@bestSPAMFOILER.com> wrote:
> >Can somebody in the group give a better definition of the term, and
explain
> >why it doesn't apply to games with random elements, or to backgammon
anyway?
>
> My guess would be that since you don't know the outcome of the random
> events, you don't have perfect information.
"Perfect information means that at each time only one of the players moves,
that the game depends only on their choices, they remember the past, and in
principle they know all possible futures of the game." From Jan Mycielski's
_Handbook of Game Theory_. See
http://www.elsevier.nl/hes/books/11/01/003/1101003.htm.
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
Christian Killoran
Kevin J. Maroney <kmar...@crossover.com> wrote in message
news:ddutgs0mu7qdm6m2a...@4ax.com...
> Now who's splitting hairs?
>
> Yes, "simulation game" is a term of art. It's also to some degree a
> misnomer, since you yourself say that a game that you've held up as an
> exemplar of "simulation game" is not a simulation.
I'm not following your point here. I don't think Mav ever claimed
responsibility for coining the term "simulation game." If I've followed
this discussion accurately, the original post asked for a definition for
"simulation game." You chimed in saying such games were not simulations. I
understand that Usenet communication sometimes leaves incorrect impressions,
but to me it looks like Mav tried honestly to answer the original question,
and you responded by bringing up a different (though arguably related)
issue.
>
> Now, it's possible that you are correct that there is a cluster of
> games which are called "simulation games". Don't you think it's
> amazing that the people who refer to wargames as "simulation games"
> use the term "simulation value" as a stick to beat on games which take
> different approaches to simulation (e.g., the significant hobbyist
> hostility to Tom Dagliesh's _Napoleon_ as "unrealistic" because it
> approaches simulation from a different angle than Charles Roberts's
> progeny) or games which eshew simulation entirely?
I don't think it's so amazing. I suspect that many folks who got into
wargaming back in the Charles Roberts days did so because these games
represented a HUGE departure from the Candyland type fare they had grown up
with. In the early days of the hobby it's pretty clear that such gamers
were interested in increasing "simulation value" and each new generation of
games reflected that. Any game that looked to the untrained eye like a step
backward in that regard suffered some of the attacks you mention.
It shouldn't be surprising that any hobby contains conservative elements who
reject any substantial change from a traditional, popular, and successful
format. But it is wrong to say that all (even most) wargamers hold the view
that you accuse them of. The success of the block games, Up Front, Storm
Over Arnhem, etc. illustrates that even wargamers will embrace a different
approach to simulation values. (BTW, that's why I reject "components-based"
definitions of simulation games. So many converts to the German genre
dismiss them as incomprehensible collections of rules tomes, cardboard chits
and tables. Not much of a definition in my book.)
>
> And on another point:
>
> >You seem to be arguing that "simulation games" *aren't* because
> >they utilize factors which aren't 100% realistic.
>
> I'm arguing that the line *you* draw between _The Longest Day_ ("a
> simulation game") and _Formule De'_ ("not a simulation game") is not a
> sharp one because each of them has some elements which are obviously
> there as simulations and elements which are there which are obviously
> not--which are, in fact, simplifications designed to make the game
> easier to produce and easier to play despite the fact that they
> undercut the simulation value.
True, true. And I for one classify Formula De as a light simulation game.
But the fact that there is a gray area here is understandable and not really
important. That the evolution of popular games makes perfect classification
impossible does not mean that a good general answer to the original question
does not exist.
>
> And I'm also arguing that implicitly or explicitly, the rhetoric of
> the people who play board wargames is strongly prejudiced towards
> games with more simulationist trappings, even if the actual simulation
> value is low. One needs look no further than Mr. Johannsen for a
> particularly noxious example of that.
I'd only comment that "the people who play board wargames" is a different
set of folks than "the people who choose to publicly discuss board
wargames.": )
The Maverick
>
> Let's see. You want to call _The Longest Day_ a simulation game. But
> "I am not saying that it is a simulation".
>
>
> Yes, "simulation game" is a term of art. It's also to some degree a
> misnomer, since you yourself say that a game that you've held up as an
> exemplar of "simulation game" is not a simulation.
Let's see where this analysis takes us...
A housefly is not a house.
A cathouse is not a cat.
And the cat's meow is generally neither.
A red herring... well, you get the picture.
So why is it so hard to deal with the concept that games referred to as
"simulation games" are not simulations? Maybe you ought to take on the
"computer flight sim" industry while you are at it for false
advertising.
Bottom line, by attacking this term of art on a literal basis, you are
simply tilting at windmills.
The Maverick
>
> BTW, that's why I reject "components-based"
> definitions of simulation games. So many converts to the German genre
> dismiss them as incomprehensible collections of rules tomes, cardboard chits
> and tables. Not much of a definition in my book.
Not to mention seeing die-cut counters more often described as "cheap"
components... ;-)
Bob Scherer-Hoock
> In article <38FFA5...@volcano.net>,
> The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
> >Rob Derrick wrote:
> >> All I'm saying is that the criteria for "Simulation" is ill-defined
> >
> >However, the meaning is quite clear within the context of 30+ years of
> >"simulation gaming."
>
Last night this discussion came up across the game board, and someone ventured the
opinion that "simulation," as a noun in the context of board games, is a game
that's had all the fun taken out of it. No one argued.
Bob Scherer-Hoock
The Maverick
>
>
> Last night this discussion came up across the game board, and someone ventured the
> opinion that "simulation," as a noun in the context of board games, is a game
> that's had all the fun taken out of it. No one argued.
Well under that definition, I'd have to agree that Formula De is a
simulation. ;-)
Kevin J. Maroney
>So as far as I am concerned, Settlers, Vinci, El Grande *are* *not*
>*simulation* games. They dont cut it. Doesnt make them bad games
>but they aren't simulation games.
Hmm. That straw man doesn't even *look* like me.
Rob Derrick
>
> Kevin J. Maroney <kmar...@crossover.com> wrote in message
> news:ddutgs0mu7qdm6m2a...@4ax.com...
> >
> > Yes, "simulation game" is a term of art. It's also to some degree a
> > misnomer, since you yourself say that a game that you've held up as an
> > exemplar of "simulation game" is not a simulation.
> True, true. And I for one classify Formula De as a light simulation game.
> But the fact that there is a gray area here is understandable and not really
> important. That the evolution of popular games makes perfect classification
> impossible does not mean that a good general answer to the original question
> does not exist.
That is it. There is no definitive line which a
game crosses to become a simulation, but rather a
game may incorporate elements that give it a
degree of simulation value.
Towards a definition of simulation in a game:
The early definition seems to have been applied
to the class of wargames that broke out of the
mold of the classes of games that existed at the
time: two-player abstract strategy games from
ancient (Go, Chess, etc.) to modern, and strictly
children's games -- what many people to this day
see as the definition of board game, and the
party games, typically word based, and a
smattering of family games, such as Monopoly,
surely a classic, but now a relic of what has
evolved into the so-called standard of lighter
strategic games, the "German" game. So many of
these early games involved the "roll-the-dice,
move-the-dobber" paradigm that it must have
seemed to some that it was the way it must be.
Out of this malestrom of blandness, abstraction,
and light fun, a new paradigm emerged, the
formulae generally taking the structure of
warfare -- a particular scenario from history, or
from a possible history, details of technology
based on reality reduced to numbers, construction
of tables and cross-references to correlate those
numbers to effects, a board displaying a map
based on actual geography, and usually divided
into hexes for the same simple reason the bees do
it that way. Some games opted for free measured
movement, and still do, but the hex method freed
up so much mechanics that it became a de-facto
standard for most games. And finally, numerous
counters, die-cut coardboard squares for
simplicity, to represent as fine a reduction of
reality as practical. And much of military
history was mined for these games, and often, the
more accurate the history, the more praised the
game for its simulation value. And for whatever
reason, the name "simulation game" became
synonmous for these warfare representations.
So, that's where we enter here. We come in
throwing the term simulation around to refer to
fluffy themed games whose scale of reality is
quite telescoped, and folks who have been playing
"simulation games" for years are quite offended
because our use of the term coopts theirs, and at
the same time, seems to minimize and trivialize
it.
I think though that we can refer to a game as
having simulation value, but not refer to it as a
"simulation game", at least primarily.
Roger Penrose, a theoretical physicist, found the
same disparity when trying to discuss scientific
theories, and so created a taxonmy of theories to
describe the different levels of theory, and how
to apply those levels to existing theories. I
think something like that feels right to me here,
although I don't know if I have found the right
words yet.
His taxonomy, from highest to lowest, was SUPERB,
USEFUL, TENTATIVE, and MISGUIDED.
I think it is possible that a game could be a
SUPERB simulation, but it may contain so much
fine granularity of detail and function, and thus
so weighted with complexity as to make it
unplayable, except by a rather large group of
people with non-gaming referees or such. And even
then, the thing simulated would likely be a
rather small scale event, and nothing as large as
an entire war, or even an event as large a the
battle of Gettysburg.
However, many current wargames, the "simulation
games", are, I believe, USEFUL simulations. Sure,
there are many elements of reality that have been
coopted by elements of convenience, but still
there is much of the elements of history of the
given event that allow the playing of the game to
provide some useful insight into the actual
events. One could see why certain events happened
as they did, or see how some small change in
conditions could have radically altered
outcomes. The purpose of the design is often to
provide as much reality as possible to push the
element of playabiltiy to its limit. This is
USEFUL simulation. I do not like the idea of
saying all games, including "simulation games"
are not simulations simply because they are not
SUPERB simulations. There is lots of room for
descriptive variation.
For the next level, I'm don't think TENTATIVE
works. Perhaps THEMATIC, since that is likely the
intent of the designer, and is in fact the word
that we find ourselves using. The purpose is not
so much to model reality, but rather to emulate
enough elements of reality to provide a strong
thematic feel of reality, that is,
verisimilitude, while still emphasizing
playability over reality. Many elements of
reality are oversimplified, or combined (in much
the same way that characters are combined in
film, which is often a thematic simulation of
reality), or simply ignored. In USEFUL simulation
games, elements that are ignored are often done
so painfully by the designer, who is pushing the
limits. In THEMATIC simulations, elements are
dispensed of easily, as any simulation value they
add is often overshadowed by an unacceptable
increase in complexity.
And last, I think perhaps FANCIFUL might work. A
FANCIFUL simulation is one where the elements of
the game and the reality imposed on it are at
best distantly related. The simulation is nothing
more than the broad idea of some aspect of
reality.
I don't think there are any SUPERB wargames,
although perhaps some miniature rules could
approach it.
I think that many wargames are USEFUL
simulations, and truly worthy of the term
"simulation game". Perhaps the 18xx games
approach USEFUL, at least in looking at the
effects of some broad influences in the histories
of railroading. C&O/B&O is close to a useful
simulation of rail dispatching problems, but has
several ad hoc elements provided to give it more
game at the expense of less reality.
I think that many boardgames are THEMATIC
simulations. I would put Formula De, Europa
1945-2030, Missisippi Queen, Hunt For Red
October, and A Line In The Sand (basic game). I
think that the advanced rules for A Line In The
Sand, the Diplomatic Game, push it towards the
USEFUL category. The Crayon Rails games are more
THEMATIC, but have USEFUL elements, as rail
networks that develop often mirror the real lines
that were built, based on need and geography.
History of the World, Civilization, and Age of
Renaissance are all THEMATIC, but with USEFUL
elements, perhaps deserving a USEFUL- or a
THEMATIC+ rating.
And I would put into the FANCIFUL category such
games as El Grande, Taj Mahal, El Caballero,
Union Pacific, with El Grande at the top of the
scale, and UP at the bottom. In fact, I think it
is clear that most German games, if they have any
simulation value at all, are FANCIFUL
simulations. The mechanics bear only the
slightest relation to reality, the elements,
while often based on real entities, are
manipulated in a very abstract way. These games
provide at best a flavor. It is artificial, but
still we are able to recognize the taste.
And a few of the German games are up in the
THEMATIC category -- Mississippi Queen, Schoko &
Co., and Die Macher. None of them describe their
theme accurately enough to be useful to
understanding steam boat racing, chocolate
manufacture, or German politics, but they each
provide a great deal of THEMATIC reality, where
physical and practical rules mirror at least
slightly some of the essences of the real thing.
Lastly, there are games which have so little
simulation value, or simply none at all, that
they truly don't merit even the FANCIFUL
categorization. However, I don't want to start
drawing lines now. Let's just say that I think
Lost Cities has none, Caesar&Cleo some, and Durch
die Wueste maybe.
One of the keys of such a taxonomy is that there
is no definitive class for every game. Some we
might universally agree upon, on others we may
strongly disagree. But, I believe that our
disagreements will likely be between adjacent
levels, and if so, then the categorization of
games into taxonomic levels still works, since
our disagreements are no longer over broad
definitions, but simply over details of
classification.
However, I don't expect anyone to actually adopt
this method of classification, in any serious
sense. But I hope that we can come to an
understanding that we can use the word simulation
to describe a very wide range of things, and that
it is possible to focus the definition by
applying a gradiation of classification, without
simply throwing it out altogether.
rob derrick
ideefixe
scale of simulation each game lies (and I think a better term than
"thematic" should be developed for your third category), but the important
point is that you've expressed clearly that such a scale exists and why
war-gamers might have a sentimental attachment to "simulation" for their
games.
The superb - useful - tentative - misguided scale for theories will give my
occasional discussions in the scientific realm more clarity, too!
-- Stven
Kevin J. Maroney
>So why is it so hard to deal with the concept that games referred to as
>"simulation games" are not simulations?
Because people who play "simulation games" have taken to beating on
other games for not being simulations.
>Maybe you ought to take on the
>"computer flight sim" industry while you are at it for false
>advertising.
Actually, most modern computer flight sim software is significantly
better at simulating flight than the flight sims upon which my father
trained in the 1960s. Or so he says.
>Bottom line, by attacking this term of art on a literal basis, you are
>simply tilting at windmills.
Is that "windmill tilts", or "tilted windmills"?
Kevin J. Maroney
>"Perfect information means that at each time only one of the players moves,
>that the game depends only on their choices, they remember the past, and in
>principle they know all possible futures of the game." From Jan Mycielski's
>_Handbook of Game Theory_. See
>http://www.elsevier.nl/hes/books/11/01/003/1101003.htm.
Ah. I'd missed the "the game depends only on their choices" portion of
this term of art when I referred to _The Longest Day_ having "perfect
information". What I was trying to say was that both players have at
all times complete access to the locations and values of all of their
opponent's forces, which is of course completely unrealistic.
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
Kevin J. Maroney <kmar...@crossover.com> wrote:
>spam...@phantaci.RETLIF.MAPS.com wrote:
>>So as far as I am concerned, Settlers, Vinci, El Grande *are* *not*
>>*simulation* games. They dont cut it. Doesnt make them bad games
>>but they aren't simulation games.
>
>Hmm. That straw man doesn't even *look* like me.
It was built to resemble me, but it's a poor facsimile.
My claim was simply that many German-style games (particularly the ones
listed here) are closer in simulation value to most board wargames--e.g.
both are lousy simulations--than most board wargames are to professional
simulations.
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
<spam...@phantaci.RETLIF.MAPS.com> wrote:
>dave...@bestspamfoiler.com explained in message
>>are never "simulations". Since I've pointed out some counter-examples of
>>German-style games that have "internal models" that do in fact mimic
>>reality--however imprecisely--I think it's not reasonable to make this
>>claim.
>
>>Oh, and let me add Settlers and Verrater to the list of games that possess
>>an "internal model".
>
>Alright,
>
>Enough of the stupidity. "German games" arent sim games. For me. If I
>play a game that I feel is a sim game, well then it isnt a German game.
>Again, for me.
What's really truly stupid is attempting to impose your opinion on others
by calling theirs stupid.
>Why? Well what the hell defines a "German game?"
That it's made in Germany. But that's irrelevant, because I was careful to
refer to German-style games
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
Christian Killoran <xm...@pcisys.net> wrote:
> It shouldn't be surprising that any hobby contains conservative elements
> who reject any substantial change from a traditional, popular, and
> successful format.
But it is amusing when these reactionaries use misleading online handles
such as "The Maverick". :-)
Sorry, couldn't help myself....
>I for one classify Formula De as a light simulation game.
>But the fact that there is a gray area here is understandable and not really
>important.
I think that's a quite reasonable position, and wish certain others on the
newsgroup would adopt it.
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
>Kevin J. Maroney wrote:
>> Let's see. You want to call _The Longest Day_ a simulation game. But
>> "I am not saying that it is a simulation".
>>
>>
>> Yes, "simulation game" is a term of art. It's also to some degree a
>> misnomer, since you yourself say that a game that you've held up as an
>> exemplar of "simulation game" is not a simulation.
>
>
>A housefly is not a house.
>A cathouse is not a cat.
>And the cat's meow is generally neither.
It's clear that Mav's linguistic analysis is seriously lacking.
To whit:
A housefly is in fact a fly that lives in your house.
A cathouse is in fact a house for "cats", a.k.a. prostitutes.
and
The term "simulation game" was in fact originally coined to refer to
games that purport to be simulations. And it's often still used
that way.
No doubt Mav may have heard of a little game company called "Simulations
Publications Inc.".
>A red herring... well, you get the picture.
Yes, you did present a nice example of a red herring.
Once again, a weak attempt at sarcasm is substituted where a substantive
argument belongs.
The Maverick
>
> Sorry, couldn't help myself....
And how is this different than the average Kohr post?
The Maverick
>
> Once again, a weak attempt at sarcasm is substituted where a substantive
> argument belongs.
Indeed, I agree... but it is nice to see you engaging in a process of
self-criticism.
The Maverick
>
> The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
>
> >So why is it so hard to deal with the concept that games referred to as
> >"simulation games" are not simulations?
>
> Because people who play "simulation games" have taken to beating on
> other games for not being simulations.
I see... so you've decided to remedy this by beating on posts which
accurately describe the term "simulation game"?
The Maverick
>
> In article <3910D3...@volcano.net>,> Say Mav, remember when your mom told you about people who live in glass
> houses?
Dave, that was your mom. And you still aren't listening you fruitcake.
The Maverick
>
> What I was trying to say was that both players have at
> all times complete access to the locations and values of all of their
> opponent's forces, which is of course completely unrealistic.
Actually, it is only *partially* unrealistic...
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
The Mav <thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
> how is this different than the average Kohr post?
Say Mav, remember when your mom told you about people who live in glass
houses?
Kevin J. Maroney
>I see... so you've decided to remedy this by beating on posts which
>accurately describe the term "simulation game"?
Gosh, yes. What could be more fun?
dave...@bestspamfoiler.com
Well that example perfectly illustrates Mav's notion of intelligent
discussion.
The Maverick
>
> In article <391113...@volcano.net>,
> The Maverick <thema...@volcano.net> wrote:
> > you still aren't listening you fruitcake.
>
> Well that example perfectly illustrates Mav's notion of intelligent
> discussion.
Just trying to keep it at your level Dave...
RRI1
>why it doesn't apply to games with random elements, or to backgammon anyway?
>
A "perfect information game" is a game where all players have all the
information about the game state at all times--no hidden elements, no
simultaneous or hidden moves, no random elements. Basically it is completely
deterministic.
The reason the term "perfect information" does not apply to backgammon (or
other games with random elements) is simply is the random element precludes you
having perfect information.
If I leave a blot where it is POSSIBLE my opponent can hit it (if he rolls the
right number), nevertheless, I don't know if in fact he will be able to hit it
until he rolls the dice. Since you don't know a fact about the state of the
game (in this case whether or not blot can be hit), you do not have perfect
information about it.
In most wargames, you cannot say for certain whether an attack will succeed or
fail or some other neutral result--until you roll the dice to resolve it. In
card games, you don't know what the other players hold in their hand. In a
game like Diplomacy, as soon as an opponent puts his orders in the box, that
information is known only to that opponent--I have to make my decisions without
the knowledge of those orders.
Richard Irving rr...@aol.com
Made with recycled electrons!
Darr...@aol.com
the 3 blind men and the elephant.
It seems some are intent on holding a given game up to a ruler, to see
whether it's the required eight inches necessary to be a simulation,
while others get even more metaphysical.
Frankly, I've always considered the definition of a "simulation" is by
intent. If the designer intended the game to be a simulation, then it
is a simulation - good or bad is really immaterial. Of course, this
definition probably annoys a lot of people, particularly if the
designer of a specific game is dead, and can't be asked this question.
However, there are indications of intent in any game design.
"Ra", for example, demonstrates no intent to "simulate" ancient Egypt.
Rather, it demonstrates a desire by the designer to challenge the
players with the tried-and-true auction mechanism. It is
certainly "themed" Egyptian, but makes no effort to lead the players
into believing they are re-creating history.
"The Creature that Ate Sheboygan" has multiple indications that the
designer's (Greg Costikyan) intent was to "simulate" the ludicrous
fantasy of a giant monster ravaging a city. It isn't historical, and
it isn't even predictive (such as the NATO-Warsaw games which came out
in the '70s and '80s). It's quite silly, but the mechanisms within the
game clearly demonstrate a desire for the game to be considered
a "simulation" (albeit a light-hearted one).
"Mississippi Queen" uses a gradual speed increase/decrease mechanism
which clearly earmarks the game as something of a simulation. If the
designer had instead used, say, cards for movement (which might lead
one to look on the box for Knizia's name), the initial reaction would
have to be that simulation was not the intent.
Darrell Hanning
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Patrick Carroll
>Frankly, I've always considered the definition of a "simulation" is by
>intent. If the designer intended the game to be a simulation, then it
I tend to agree with this--despite the philosophical difficulties it raises
(IIRC, it was T. S. Eliot who wrote a famous essay called "The Fallacy of
Intent"--which pooh-poohs the notion that intent has anything to do with it, in
literature or--by extension--in games). That's why I'm confused by those who
play obviously simulational games (e.g., ASL) while ignoring all the simulation
value. Treating ASL like an elaborate form of chess with dice is, to me,
contrary to the designer's intent and therefore contrary to the spirit of the
game.
Players are welcome to treat a game that way, of course. But it strikes me as
odd.
--P. C.,
Minnesota
darr...@my-deja.com
I'm not sure an essay by T.S. Eliot necessarily invalidates much of
anything, any more than a work by Hemingway is the final definition of
a man. What I have trouble with is the using of calipers and chemicals
(figuratively) to call a box in question an attempt at simulation. The
attempt was by a designer, and as such, his intent has everything to do
with the nature of the beast. If his (or her) intent is to "simulate",
and the execution is found lacking, then it is likely less of a
simulation, but still a simulation nevertheless. Everything else is
just a matter of degree.
David desJardins
> Treating ASL like an elaborate form of chess with dice is, to me,
> contrary to the designer's intent and therefore contrary to the spirit
> of the game.
If you wanted to get a clue, you might ask the designer before you
proclaim his intent. Or at least read some of his writings on the
subject. I don't know Don Greenwood very well, but well enough to know
that his idea of his intent is a whole lot different than your idea of
his intent.
David desJardins
Christian Killoran
<Darr...@aol.com> wrote in message news:8f6jg7$7no$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I didn't read every message in this thread, yet it still reminds me of
> the 3 blind men and the elephant.
>
> It seems some are intent on holding a given game up to a ruler, to see
> whether it's the required eight inches necessary to be a simulation,
> while others get even more metaphysical.
Somebody who didn't know what a simulation game was asked for a definition
and some examples to help him figure it out. Most of the posts in this
thread began as an attemt to answer this honest and understandable question.
>
> Frankly, I've always considered the definition of a "simulation" is by
> intent. If the designer intended the game to be a simulation, then it
> is a simulation - good or bad is really immaterial. Of course, this
> definition probably annoys a lot of people, particularly if the
> designer of a specific game is dead, and can't be asked this question.
> However, there are indications of intent in any game design.
>
> "Ra", for example, demonstrates no intent to "simulate" ancient Egypt.
> Rather, it demonstrates a desire by the designer to challenge the
> players with the tried-and-true auction mechanism. It is
> certainly "themed" Egyptian, but makes no effort to lead the players
> into believing they are re-creating history.
>
> "The Creature that Ate Sheboygan" has multiple indications that the
> designer's (Greg Costikyan) intent was to "simulate" the ludicrous
> fantasy of a giant monster ravaging a city. It isn't historical, and
> it isn't even predictive (such as the NATO-Warsaw games which came out
> in the '70s and '80s). It's quite silly, but the mechanisms within the
> game clearly demonstrate a desire for the game to be considered
> a "simulation" (albeit a light-hearted one).
>
> "Mississippi Queen" uses a gradual speed increase/decrease mechanism
> which clearly earmarks the game as something of a simulation. If the
> designer had instead used, say, cards for movement (which might lead
> one to look on the box for Knizia's name), the initial reaction would
> have to be that simulation was not the intent.
I tend to agree with your intent argument. It seems like a good way to
refine the genre's definition to those who are already somewhat familiar
with it. But it strikes me as a particularly bad way to describe simulation
games to somebody who has never seen one before.
P.S. Note to our original poster...see why nobody wanted to answer your
question the first time? : )
Patrick Carroll
>I'm not sure an essay by T.S. Eliot necessarily invalidates much of
It doesn't. But Eliot does call some assumptions into question. And our
notions about the importance of "intent" rest on those assumptions. (For a
"f'rinstance," see below.)
>What I have trouble with is the using of calipers and chemicals
>(figuratively) to call a box in question an attempt at simulation.
Ah, but that's what Eliot (IIRC--it's been several years) said we *should* do.
If we don't, we're relying on dubious assumptions about the author/designer's
intent. Eliot's essay is a manifesto of the "New Criticism" movement of the
50s, which basically said that it makes absolutely no difference what, if
anything, Keats *intended*; all that matters is what's there in black & white
in his "Ode to Melancholy."
>The
>attempt was by a designer, and as such, his intent has everything to do
>with the nature of the beast. . . .
As I said before, I tend to agree. But. . . .
David says:
>If you wanted to get a clue, you might ask the designer before you
proclaim his intent. Or at least read some of his writings on the
subject. I don't know Don Greenwood very well, but well enough to know
that his idea of his intent [on the design of ASL] is a whole lot different
than your idea of
his intent.<
And that is just about what T. S. Eliot would've said. In the first place, we
often have no way of knowing what the author/designer's intent is. In the
second place, the author/designer himself may have been only partly conscious
of his own intent. And furthermore, once a work gets published, and people
begin to read/play it, it takes on a life of its own, so to speak. The
original intent--if there ever was one (and we can't be sure, since we can't
possibly ever pin it down)--soon gets mixed up with what the work means to all
who become involved with it.
Therefore, according to Eliot, the way to properly evaluate a work is to forget
all about the author--and forget about the reader/player too--and just focus on
*the work itself.* Analyze its parts, and take a good, close look at what it
actually is.
Then again, the New Criticism of the 50s has since given way to many other
schools of thought. Lots of people disagree with Eliot; and some agree with
the older school of thought--which is that the author's intent most certainly
does matter.
As an aside, we could go to another extreme, based on literary criticism. We
could explore the Reader Response theory of Stanley Fish, et al. Fish said,
basically, that a given work can mean anything at all; it depends entirely on
how the reader reads it. With this approach, we could say that ASL really is a
simulation when I play it, but really is not a simulation when David plays
it--just because he chooses to see the simulational aspects of it as
incidental. Either way, the intent of designers John Hill and Don Greenwood
are irrelevant, according to Fish's way of thinking. But Fish would also say
that *the game itself* (i.e., its components & rules) is irrelevant, because it
means nothing until players start experiencing and interpreting it.
OK, I'll stop here, before I stray into discussing Derrida and
Deconstructionism.
--P. C.,
Minnesota