Chess: Themed or Abstract?
Patrick Carroll
most cases, it's clear which category a given game falls into. Twixt and
nine men's morris are obviously abstract (well, I think it's obvious,
anyway--just because I can't think of any real-world associations to make
with those games); Monopoly and Stratego are obviously themed.
But what about chess? My first reaction is to call it abstract, yet I can't
help but see it as a stylized battle. Bell, in his famous study of board
games, calls chess a "war game." Dunnigan called it a medieval battle
simulation. The old computer game "Battle Chess" made it obviously
military, as have numerous themed chess sets. And the Harry Potter books
and movie include a version of chess that's quite battle-like.
Do you think of chess as themed, or abstract?
And what does it take for a game to be themed? Does the name "Amazons" make
that abstract game themed? How 'bout Abalone--is it associated with the
animal or its shell? Is Reversi abstract, but does it become themed when
its name changes to Othello?
Getting back to chess, I read recently that Knightmare Chess gives a theme
to a previously abstract game. Is that true? The way I see it, chess
already has enough suggestion of a theme to pretty much dictate the range of
acceptable "theme expansions" that can be convincingly tacked onto it.
Instead of being "knightmarish," this variant could have been Tolkienesque
or historical--but it almost has to be military. As Bell says, chess is
basically a war game.
Checkers, in contrast, strikes me as less of a war game, though it's often
regarded as such. It's hard for me to associate all that leaping with
combat. Similarly, go has been called a game about military grand strategy,
but I find that quite a stretch; its military theme seems far less explicit
than that of chess, if go has a military theme at all.
Anyhow, I'm curious. What do you think?
-- P. C., Minnesota
Wei-Hwa Huang
>We often draw a distinction between themed games and abstract games. In
>most cases, it's clear which category a given game falls into. Twixt and
>nine men's morris are obviously abstract (well, I think it's obvious,
>anyway--just because I can't think of any real-world associations to make
>with those games); Monopoly and Stratego are obviously themed.
>
>But what about chess? My first reaction is to call it abstract, yet I can't
>help but see it as a stylized battle. Bell, in his famous study of board
>games, calls chess a "war game." Dunnigan called it a medieval battle
>simulation. The old computer game "Battle Chess" made it obviously
>military, as have numerous themed chess sets. And the Harry Potter books
>and movie include a version of chess that's quite battle-like.
>
>Do you think of chess as themed, or abstract?
I'd like to point out that chinese chess (xiangqi) pieces are used to play
many games; one very similar to western chess, the other very similar to
Stratego.
Both Chess and Stratego are played on a grid with fixed rules for movement
and capturing. Whichever pigeonholes you create, I can't really see
the two as being in different holes.
>Checkers, in contrast, strikes me as less of a war game, though it's often
>regarded as such. It's hard for me to associate all that leaping with
>combat. Similarly, go has been called a game about military grand strategy,
>but I find that quite a stretch; its military theme seems far less explicit
>than that of chess, if go has a military theme at all.
Go's military theme is on a grander scale than Chess.
If chess is about a battle, then Go is about a war.
The location, deployment, and numerical superiority of your troops
are emphasized over their individual differences and powers.
Well, if it has a military theme at all. :)
Anyway, I don't think of "themed" vs. "abstract" as a clearly
delineated line. More like, games have a degree in which they
fit the theme that people like to tack on to them. For instance,
almost all of Reiner Knizia's games have a theme, but they all
feel more akin to abstract games to me than, say, Monopoly.
--
Wei-Hwa Huang, whu...@ugcs.net, http://www.ugcs.net/~whuang/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I don't insert any of the weird line breaks, is it a haiku?
David desJardins
> Both Chess and Stratego are played on a grid with fixed rules for
> movement and capturing. Whichever pigeonholes you create, I can't
> really see the two as being in different holes.
When you say "whichever pigeonholes you create", I wouldn't choose
"themed" vs "abstract" as a primary distinction at all.
If I only had a single criterion with which to "pigeonhole" all
two-player games, I'd divide the games in which optimal play leads to a
deterministic outcome (like Chess), from the games in which optimal play
leads to a variety of random outcomes (like Stratego).
David desJardins
Kevin J. Maroney
<de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>If I only had a single criterion with which to "pigeonhole" all
>two-player games, I'd divide the games in which optimal play leads to a
>deterministic outcome (like Chess), from the games in which optimal play
>leads to a variety of random outcomes (like Stratego).
Amplifying. The difference between games with genuine hidden
information and games with no hidden information is a very deep one.
They require significantly different forms of analysis and, as David
said, have very different types of outcomes.
Viewed from this perspective, Stratego is more similar to
Rock-Paper-Scissors and Chess is more similar to Tic-Tac-Toe than
Chess and Stratego are to each other.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Glenn Kuntz
Patrick Carroll <Patrick...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:TyUa9.66404$27.12...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> Do you think of chess as themed, or abstract?
Yes.
Larry Levy
abstract game. The fact that it bears some vague association with war
doesn't really matter to me. I'm aware of its history, but I'm
thinking of Chess as it currently exists; for all I know, Nine Man
Morris might have started out as a simulation for sheep herding, but
that doesn't make it any less abstract.
As some of the others have mentioned, the abstract vs. themed axis is
indeed a continuum. Just because you put labels on pieces and
actions, doesn't mean a game is really themed. For example, Knizia's
Revolution uses a French Revolution theme and even includes three well
known structures from that period, but this veneer is so thin that I
still consider it an abstract game.
But Chess doesn't even go this far; it makes no attempt to reflect any
real-world activity. Obviously, this is all a matter of opinion, but
there's no question in my mind that Chess is very much an abstract
game.
Larry
Kevin J. Maroney
<crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>> Do you think of chess as themed, or abstract?
>
>Yes.
No.
Patrick Carroll
> To return to Patrick's question, IMO Chess is unquestionably an
That's interesting, because I was thinking it's unquestionably a themed
game.
What I'm really trying to get at is an answer to this question: Is there
such a thing as an inherent theme--a theme that's a fundamental quality of
the game?
It's pretty clear to me that some games can be completely abstract. I can't
stretch my imagination far enough to make real-world associations with
tic-tac-toe, nine men's morris, reversi, renju, or checkers, for example.
As far as I can see, those games are themeless or abstract.
It's also clear to me that theme is something that can be tacked onto an
abstract game, the way an outfit is put onto a Barbie doll. The game
Merchant of Venus, for instance, started out as a game about the
Renaissance-era spice trade, then morphed into a humorous sci-fi game. In
the case of Amazons, it's pretty obvious that the use of chess queens
inspired the image of woman warriors, leading up to an extremely thin theme
which probably serves as just an incidental mnemonic device.
Thirdly, it's clear that one can stretch his imagination and discover or
invent a theme for a game that doesn't necessarily have one. For instance,
backgammon has been called a race game and associated with Roman chariot
races. The mancala games have been said to have the theme of a hunt. I don
't think these themes are obvious, but an imaginative person could no doubt
build a convincing case for each theme--just as music critics tell us that
Beethoven's sixth symphony is "pastoral" and ought to elicit images of
farms, cottages, and sheep, even though most of us would never discover that
just from the music.
Finally, I think it's clear that individual players will differ in how much
a game's theme means to them. An imaginative player can take a game like
Amazons and wholly immerse himself in role-playing a woman-warrior scenario.
On the other hand, a matter-of-fact player can play a heavily themed game
like AD&D without doing any role-playing at all, but just playing it the way
he'd play poker or any other game.
But what I'm *not* sure about is whether theme is *always* something "tacked
on," "invented," or "role-played," or whether it's possible for the theme to
be a fundamental, inherent quality of a game.
That's why I mention chess in particular. Evidently it was designed as a
stylized representation of land battle, and people have been seeing it that
way ever since--for centuries. In Western chess, some of the pieces have
acquired non-military names and images, and still the game is perceived as a
representation of battle. In Chinese chess (xiang-qi), other military
features are added--a river and cannon. In Japanese chess (shogi), there
are prisoners (and paratroopers, if one wants to think of them that way).
So, is the battle theme inherent to what chess is? Or is it just a
time-honored, multi-cultural aesthetic convention? Either way, it seems to
me the battle theme is so deeply ingrained that chess is virtually
synonymous with "stylized tabletop battle" or even "war game."
That's unusual, isn't it? What other game has a theme so deeply ingrained
that it seems an inherent part of what the game is?
Modern heavily-themed games like AD&D and ASL strike me as "theme first"
games--games which seem designed mainly to facilitate players' immersion in
the theme. Such games have so much elaborate detail that it'd be a
monumental task to convincingly change the game's theme (e.g., to make ASL a
fantasy-fiction game, or AD&D a WWII game). Yet with painstaking effort, it
could be done (start by making an AD&D behemoth into a Tiger tank, or an ASL
infantry squad into a party of heroic halfling adventurers). And the fact
that it can be done tells me that this sort of thematic detail is
superficial--"tacked on," as it were.
Chess, in contrast, seems different. How would you go about turning chess
into a finance game? A railroad game? An art auction game? I don't think
chess can be convincingly turned into anything, because it's inherently a
battle game. You can dress it up as a medieval battle, space battle, or a
battle between cats and dogs--or you can shrug off the details and let it be
a generic, abstract or symbolic battle--but it's always a battle. By
design, it has the general look and feel of a battle. Some might say it's
the archetypal image of a battle (and that actual real-world battles pale in
comparison).
Is that an inherent theme, or what?
> The fact that it bears some vague association with war
> doesn't really matter to me. I'm aware of its history, but I'm
> thinking of Chess as it currently exists; for all I know, Nine Man
> Morris might have started out as a simulation for sheep herding, but
> that doesn't make it any less abstract.
It's fine that it doesn't matter to you. As I said, individual players will
always vary in how much a game's theme means to them. But the fact remains,
in your own words, that chess "bears some vague association with war."
I.e., it has a military theme. Wouldn't you agree that nine men's morris is
more abstract than chess, since chess at least has that "vague association
with war," whereas you can't tell if NMM ever had any theme in particular?
> As some of the others have mentioned, the abstract vs. themed axis is
> indeed a continuum. . . .
I'd say it's a sort of two-part continuum: (1) to what degree do the game's
components (including rules, package, etc.) suggest a theme? and (2) to what
degree does a given player take that suggestion of theme into his
imagination and play with it? ASL has a ton of "suggestion of theme," but
there's at least one ASL player who couldn't care less about that and plays
ASL matter-of-factly, just as he'd play checkers or any other game. Amazons
has only the thinnest suggestion of theme, yet an imaginative player might
vividly picture armor-clad female warriors galloping about firing arrows
that interdict movement.
> But Chess doesn't even go this far; it makes no attempt to reflect any
> real-world activity.
Here I disagree. I think chess makes a pretty obvious attempt to represent
a land battle between two opposing armies. In ancient and medieval battles,
spearmen or other infantry were often arrayed like chess pawns across from a
similar line of enemy infantry. Other tactical elements of the
army--elephants, chariots, knights, cavalry, and so forth--were mixed in
with the infantry, positioned on the flanks or in the rear as a reserve.
Chariots and cavalry would likely be near the flanks, just as knights and
rooks (formerly chariots) are at the end of the back rank in chess. The
king himself (e.g., Alexander and Darius) might accompany his army, often
positioned somewhat to the rear. And each commander would carefully watch
his opponent's moves, countering each so as to gain the initiative. In
battles like Gaugamela, the defeat of the enemy king might decide the
battle--just as it does in chess.
All very stylized, yes--and rather abstract. But to say chess "makes no
attempt to reflect any real-world activity" is an overstatement IMO. In
fact, chess was apparently designed as a war game, and it's commonly
perceived as a war game even today, centuries later.
> Obviously, this is all a matter of opinion, but
> there's no question in my mind that Chess is very much an abstract
> game.
If we were to set up just two pigeonholes for all games and label one
"abstract" and the other "themed," I might also be forced--reluctantly--to
squeeze chess into the "abstract" pigeonhole. I don't know. If I did, I'd
have to consider chess the most themed game in the "abstract" category.
Otherwise, if I put it in the other pigeonhole, I'd consider it one of the
most abstract games in the "themed" category.
But my intention here was not to insist on those two pigeonholes. I'm just
inquiring into what theme really is and whether there's such a thing as
"inherent theme"--theme so deeply ingrained as to be a fundamental part of
what the game is. If there is any such thing, chess may be a prime example
of it.
--Patrick
John Cartmell
Patrick Carroll <Patrick...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
> It's also clear to me that theme is something that can be tacked onto an
> abstract game, the way an outfit is put onto a Barbie doll. The game
> Merchant of Venus, for instance, started out as a game about the
> Renaissance-era spice trade, then morphed into a humorous sci-fi game.
I do have to disagree.
I theme may be something that can be tacked on but ...
.. what about a themed game where the game mechanics mirror the style of
the theme? As I'm working on one such game at the moment I'd like to see
consensus that such a game might have more appeal than one with theme and
mechanics randomly tacked together (else why am I bothering!?) ;-)
--
John Cartmell jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk
Fleur Designs (boardgames) http://www.cartmell.demon.co.uk
Acorn Publisher magazine http://www.acornpublisher.com
Peter Clinch
> In article <77fb9.38135$Hf.10...@twister.kc.rr.com>, Patrick
> Carroll <Patrick...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> It's also clear to me that theme is something that can be tacked
>> onto an abstract game, the way an outfit is put onto a Barbie
>> doll.
> I do have to disagree. I theme may be something that can be tacked
> on but ...
Note that Patrick said "can be", there are plenty of obvious exceptions.
For example, I can't imagine John Hill came up with Squad Leader in any
way other than trying to think how he could simulate squad level combat.
> .. what about a themed game where the game mechanics mirror the
> style of the theme? As I'm working on one such game at the moment
> I'd like to see consensus that such a game might have more appeal
> than one with theme and mechanics randomly tacked together (else
> why am I bothering!?) ;-)
All other things being equal, I think you're ahead if the mechanics
reflect the theme. Case in point, Modern Art, where the auction
mechanic fits well with the theme of auctioning art, and Ra, where the
auction mechanic has absolutely nothing to do with building monuments,
advancing civilisation, irrigating crops etc.
But Ra *is* a great game, so the "all other things being equal" is a
*very* big caveat. Mechanics reflecting a theme will strengthen the
theme, but I'd think most gamers will be more interested in a game that
works but has a tenuous theme than one which is thematically well done
but just doesn't work as a game. FGU's "Chivalry and Sorcery" RPG had a
very elaborate hand to hand combat system that was such a barrier to
actually *role playing* that most people just borrowed the rather trite
setup from D&D or similar, which in spite of relying on quite ludicrous
simplification actually *worked* in the context of the game (that is,
playing the role of a character in a fantasy setting, which is (usually)
more than just whacking things in a "realistic" manner).
But *if* you can get good thematic mechanics, that's great, and worth
having.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Anthony Simons
<snip>
>
> But my intention here was not to insist on those two pigeonholes. I'm just
> inquiring into what theme really is and whether there's such a thing as
> "inherent theme"--theme so deeply ingrained as to be a fundamental part of
> what the game is. If there is any such thing, chess may be a prime example
> of it.
>
> --Patrick
An interesting discussion, Patrick; very deep (this seems to be an
inherent quality of your posts ;) ).
Chess may indeed be classed as a theme itself; and such an ancient
game which has so rich a lineage is bound to influence so many games
that follow, that despite any evidence one might have there is nothing
to point to the presence of an original theme.
"Inherent themes" however are a different matter from themes in
general; I believe we cannot class a theme as inherent, for you can
tie a theme onto an abstract game, but you can never make it inherent.
The only inherent factors of a game are its mechanisms. Change these
and you change the game.
Capture, for example, is a fundamental part of the game of chess, but
war or battle is not. One could attach a number of themes to this;
from the ubiquitous medieval battle association, through the political
arena, to one of animal social behaviours. None of these would make
any difference to the game itself; the inherent capture of opposing
pieces remains.
To summarize, you can create a game around a theme, or you can add a
theme to the game later; but the theme cannot remain inherent; only
the mechanisms can. You can change the theme without changing the
game, but change anything else and the game changes (as chess has done
through the ages).
Larry Levy
> > To return to Patrick's question, IMO Chess is unquestionably an
> > abstract game. . . .
>
> That's interesting, because I was thinking it's unquestionably a themed
> game.
First, Patrick, let me say that I find your arguments interesting and
compelling. I don't really want to change your mind about this, but
rather I'm looking to present some additional ideas from what is
probably a different point of view. See, I play mostly German-style
board games and the issue of theme is considered an important one in
that arena. Many players greatly prefer a strongly themed game and
are disappointed when their expectations aren't met. So the concept
of what is meant by a themed game is one that seems to get some
attention.
The definition I use, which certainly isn't universal, is that in a
game with a strong theme, the mechanics match up with some real life
activity. The association doesn't have to be absolute (I'm not
talking about a simulation), but it needs to be strong enough that the
player views himself as performing those activities when he's playing
the game. If you accept this concept, then a game which has no
"story" or "setting" is by definition abstract or themeless. I'm
proposing an operational definition, while you're more concerned about
a game's history and associations.
> What I'm really trying to get at is an answer to this question: Is there
> such a thing as an inherent theme--a theme that's a fundamental quality of
> the game?
>
> It's pretty clear to me that some games can be completely abstract. I can't
> stretch my imagination far enough to make real-world associations with
> tic-tac-toe, nine men's morris, reversi, renju, or checkers, for example.
> As far as I can see, those games are themeless or abstract.
You should check out some of the German games! You'd be amazed at how
thin a theme they can get away with. They wouldn't have any problem
coming up with a theme for any of those games.
> It's also clear to me that theme is something that can be tacked onto an
> abstract game, the way an outfit is put onto a Barbie doll. The game
> Merchant of Venus, for instance, started out as a game about the
> Renaissance-era spice trade, then morphed into a humorous sci-fi game.
I'm not a big fan of Merchant of Venus, but by my definition, it has a
much, much, MUCH stronger theme than Chess.
> But what I'm *not* sure about is whether theme is *always* something "tacked
> on," "invented," or "role-played," or whether it's possible for the theme to
> be a fundamental, inherent quality of a game.
>
> That's why I mention chess in particular. Evidently it was designed as a
> stylized representation of land battle, and people have been seeing it that
> way ever since--for centuries. In Western chess, some of the pieces have
> acquired non-military names and images, and still the game is perceived as a
> representation of battle. In Chinese chess (xiang-qi), other military
> features are added--a river and cannon. In Japanese chess (shogi), there
> are prisoners (and paratroopers, if one wants to think of them that way).
> So, is the battle theme inherent to what chess is? Or is it just a
> time-honored, multi-cultural aesthetic convention? Either way, it seems to
> me the battle theme is so deeply ingrained that chess is virtually
> synonymous with "stylized tabletop battle" or even "war game."
>
> That's unusual, isn't it? What other game has a theme so deeply ingrained
> that it seems an inherent part of what the game is?
This may represent something of a Western bias (as a Westerner myself,
it's hard for me to say). A game like Go is often associated with
Eastern thinking and philosophy, even though this isn't completely
apparent to me. I think the key thing Go and Chess have in common is
that both have a very long history as well as deep exposure to their
various cultures. I think the inherent aspects of the two games come
more from the player's knowledge of the game's place in the society
than anything in the game itself.
I don't know if you'll find this at all convincing, but I'm thinking
that if I'm an alien from Alpha Centauri and I read the rules of Chess
and look at the components, I see no reason why I would feel it had
anything to do with war.
> Modern heavily-themed games like AD&D and ASL strike me as "theme first"
> games--games which seem designed mainly to facilitate players' immersion in
> the theme. Such games have so much elaborate detail that it'd be a
> monumental task to convincingly change the game's theme (e.g., to make ASL a
> fantasy-fiction game, or AD&D a WWII game). Yet with painstaking effort, it
> could be done (start by making an AD&D behemoth into a Tiger tank, or an ASL
> infantry squad into a party of heroic halfling adventurers). And the fact
> that it can be done tells me that this sort of thematic detail is
> superficial--"tacked on," as it were.
>
> Chess, in contrast, seems different. How would you go about turning chess
> into a finance game? A railroad game? An art auction game? I don't think
> chess can be convincingly turned into anything, because it's inherently a
> battle game. You can dress it up as a medieval battle, space battle, or a
> battle between cats and dogs--or you can shrug off the details and let it be
> a generic, abstract or symbolic battle--but it's always a battle. By
> design, it has the general look and feel of a battle. Some might say it's
> the archetypal image of a battle (and that actual real-world battles pale in
> comparison).
But I wouldn't have any problem turning Chess into a non-combat game,
particularly if you give me the latitude you took with D&D and ASL.
Why not a game of children playing Tag? Or a rivalry between two
religious groups to convert the most of their brethern to their cause?
Or an outer space competition between matter and anti-matter? None
of these have anything to do with battle, unless you contend that
*all* competition boils down to battle.
> > As some of the others have mentioned, the abstract vs. themed axis is
> > indeed a continuum. . . .
>
> I'd say it's a sort of two-part continuum: (1) to what degree do the game's
> components (including rules, package, etc.) suggest a theme? and (2) to what
> degree does a given player take that suggestion of theme into his
> imagination and play with it? ASL has a ton of "suggestion of theme," but
> there's at least one ASL player who couldn't care less about that and plays
> ASL matter-of-factly, just as he'd play checkers or any other game. Amazons
> has only the thinnest suggestion of theme, yet an imaginative player might
> vividly picture armor-clad female warriors galloping about firing arrows
> that interdict movement.
The second continuum is a reasonable suggestion, but it seems awfully
subjective, as your two examples show. I find it hard enough to get
people to agree how strong a game's theme is using my more objective
definition.
> > But Chess doesn't even go this far; it makes no attempt to reflect any
> > real-world activity.
>
> Here I disagree. I think chess makes a pretty obvious attempt to represent
> a land battle between two opposing armies. In ancient and medieval battles,
> spearmen or other infantry were often arrayed like chess pawns across from a
> similar line of enemy infantry. Other tactical elements of the
> army--elephants, chariots, knights, cavalry, and so forth--were mixed in
> with the infantry, positioned on the flanks or in the rear as a reserve.
> Chariots and cavalry would likely be near the flanks, just as knights and
> rooks (formerly chariots) are at the end of the back rank in chess. The
> king himself (e.g., Alexander and Darius) might accompany his army, often
> positioned somewhat to the rear. And each commander would carefully watch
> his opponent's moves, countering each so as to gain the initiative. In
> battles like Gaugamela, the defeat of the enemy king might decide the
> battle--just as it does in chess.
>
> All very stylized, yes--and rather abstract. But to say chess "makes no
> attempt to reflect any real-world activity" is an overstatement IMO. In
> fact, chess was apparently designed as a war game, and it's commonly
> perceived as a war game even today, centuries later.
But then you could say just about any abstract game has a combat
theme. Checkers, Backgammon, even Parchisi--all have movement and
capture. How far are we willing to go to insert a theme into a game?
See, I think theme has another role other than what the players
imagine and how they feel during play. If a game has a solid theme,
it is much easier to add additional rules that add complexity and
texture to the game. Without the theme in ASL, for example, it would
be impossible to remember all the arcane rules and exceptions. (Many
would say it's impossible even the way it is.) If you tried to add
supply or economic rules to chess, it would be practically
unplayable--there simply isn't any framework to hang these additional
rules on. So if you want a game with more involved or complex rules,
you should look for a themed game, as opposed to what I think of as
abstract games, which feature simpler and more elegant rule sets (but
aren't necessarily any easier to master).
> I'm inquiring into what theme really is and whether there's such a thing as
> "inherent theme"--theme so deeply ingrained as to be a fundamental part of
> what the game is. If there is any such thing, chess may be a prime example
> of it.
Well, I've played a good deal of Chess (not very well) and to me it's
just an intellectual exercise of moving pieces around. It never felt
the slightest bit like war. I know lots of games where there I'm
undecided about whether to call them "weakly themed" or abstract, but
I never had that problem with Chess--to me, it's about as pure an
abstract game as you can find. Obviously, you're approaching this
question from a completely different mind set, which is why this
difference of opinion is so interesting.
Larry
Rune Berge
I finally got Puerto Rico today, and has just finished reading the rules.
I found this problem:
The rules state that the guild hall only gives points for _production_
buildings, but the description on the guild hall tile does not limit the
scoring to specific building tiles. I assume that the rules are correct,
and that the tile is wrong, but confirmation would be nice...
Rune
Don Woods
> The rules state that the guild hall only gives points for _production_
> buildings, but the description on the guild hall tile does not limit the
> scoring to specific building tiles. I assume that the rules are correct,
> and that the tile is wrong, but confirmation would be nice...
Yes, this is an oft-reported error in the components.
The rules are correct.
-- Don.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Don Woods (don...@iCynic.com) Note: If you reply by mail, I'll get to
-- http://www.iCynic.com/~don it sooner if you remove the "hyphen n s"
Richard Hutnik
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 06:39:41 -0400, "Glenn Kuntz"
> <crok...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> >> Do you think of chess as themed, or abstract?
> >
> >Yes.
>
> No.
Maybe. I am not sure, but I think definitely maybe. IMHO of course.
But keep in mind, I could be wrong. Right?
- Richard Hutnik :-P
Next stop, run for political office. Once I am not sure what "is" means.
:-P
Richard Hutnik
when it came into being (the play mechanics LOOSELY follow patterns in
battle). As it became popular, the game became more and more divorced
from reality. The nature of battle changed, for example.
- Richard Hutnik
Below message is saved for context.
"Patrick Carroll" <Patrick...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message news:<TyUa9.66404$27.12...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
Wei-Hwa Huang
>into a finance game? A railroad game? An art auction game? I don't think
>chess can be convincingly turned into anything, because it's inherently a
>battle game. You can dress it up as a medieval battle, space battle, or a
>battle between cats and dogs--or you can shrug off the details and let it be
>a generic, abstract or symbolic battle--but it's always a battle. By
>design, it has the general look and feel of a battle. Some might say it's
>the archetypal image of a battle (and that actual real-world battles pale in
>comparison).
"Battle" seems a bit too generic though. Aren't all multi-player
games battles?
Going off on a tangent,...
If I were creating two pigeonholes for multiplayer games, I'd probably
divide them into "attrition" and "race" -- in "attrition" games, you're
trying to win by reducing your opponents to near-nothing; in "race"
game, you're trying to win by having grown faster, or reached a goal
earlier, than your opponents.
The division is probably even more murky than "themed vs. abstract"
(isn't attrition just a race to see who can kill the other guy first?)
but somehow I don't seem to have a problem categorizing most games
along these lines.
Don Woods
> Maybe. I am not sure, but I think definitely maybe. IMHO of course.
>
> But keep in mind, I could be wrong. Right?
> - Richard Hutnik :-P
If you think you're wrong, you're right!
Nathan Sanders
> If I were creating two pigeonholes for multiplayer games, I'd probably
> divide them into "attrition" and "race" -- in "attrition" games, you're
I've always had a semi-subconscious division along these lines, as well.
Something about gaining resources to increase gameplay options for
yourself versus depleteing your opponent's resources to decrease his
options.
> The division is probably even more murky than "themed vs. abstract"
> (isn't attrition just a race to see who can kill the other guy first?)
In a two player game, it wouldn't always be clear if there is a
difference. For example, in Othello, are you racing to get 50%+1 of the
board covered in your color, or are you trying to deplete your opponent's
percentage? Both interpretations seem fine.
But beyond similar two-player games, I think this division is more
clear-cut, especially in attrition games in which players below a certain
level are eliminated. In fact, elimination versus non-elimination may be
a better (or at least, more general) classification that would encompass
attrition versus racing.
Nathan
thinks that chess is either abstract or has a theme that doesn't fir the
mechanics very well (since when do castles move, queens beat up knights
on horseback, and lowly frontline footsoldiers turn into royalty?)
======================================================================
san...@ling.ucsc.edu ***** Department of Linguistics
san...@alum.mit.edu *** University of California
http://ling.ucsc.edu/~sanders * Santa Cruz, California 95064
======================================================================
Don Woods
> If I were creating two pigeonholes for multiplayer games, I'd probably
> divide them into "attrition" and "race" -- in "attrition" games, you're
> trying to win by reducing your opponents to near-nothing; in "race"
> game, you're trying to win by having grown faster, or reached a goal
> earlier, than your opponents.
>
> The division is probably even more murky than "themed vs. abstract"
> (isn't attrition just a race to see who can kill the other guy first?)
> but somehow I don't seem to have a problem categorizing most games
> along these lines.
It's not a bad division, but as you say, the concepts tend to overlap.
Not only can attrition be viewed as a race toward the goal of eliminating
everyone else, but many race games have goals of the form "be in the lead
when the game ends", and one way to attain the lead is to knock everybody
else backward.
And of course, there are games where the goal is to be in the lead among
those players who haven't been knocked out (e.g., Shanghai Trader), and
games that are explicitly a "race to eliminate the other players" (e.g.,
original Talisman using the Crown of Command), and even games where you
can win either way (e.g., Fast Food Franchise, where you win either by
driving everyone else bankrupt or by having a million dollars). But
the overall concept is still useful.
Patrick Carroll
news:Pine.SUN.3.91.102082...@ling.ucsc.edu...
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Wei-Hwa Huang wrote:
>
> > If I were creating two pigeonholes for multiplayer games, I'd probably
So, what's chess then? You can win without capturing any enemy pieces, but
it hardly seems like a race (unless you can construe it as a race to be the
first to checkmate the opponent).
Last time I contemplated and cogitated on this question, I came up with four
basic categories:
1. games of attrition (I didn't use that word, but you did, and works),
e.g., checkers--where the thrust of the game is capturing, destroying, or
immobilizing enemy pieces;
2. race games, e.g., backgammon or pachisi--where the thrust of the game is
arriving at a goal position first;
3. games of accumulation or acquisition, e.g., mancala or Monopoly--where
the thrust of the game is gathering in pebbles, dollars, or whatever;
4. games of position (not a great name, but a better one escapes me), e.g.,
chess or go-moku/renju (five-in-a-row)--where the thrust is getting your
pieces into a prescribed winning formation or position (any checkmate
position, in the case of chess).
I don't know if all games fit neatly into these categories. I didn't test
many. Go is a little problematic; I tend to put it in the
"accumulation/acquisition" class because the player is basically trying to
accumulate the lion's share of territory. (But if you stretch that too far,
any point-scored game could fall into that category, since players are
trying to accumulate points. I think a focus on mechanics of play, rather
than scoring, would avoid that, though.)
Patrick Carroll
> To summarize, you can create a game around a theme, or you can add a
> theme to the game later; but the theme cannot remain inherent; only
> the mechanisms can. You can change the theme without changing the
> game, but change anything else and the game changes (as chess has done
> through the ages).
Very succinct--and convincing. I suppose you're right (though there's a
part of me that wants it to be otherwise).
--Patrick
Patrick Carroll
> The definition I use, which certainly isn't universal, is that in a
> game with a strong theme, the mechanics match up with some real life
> activity. The association doesn't have to be absolute (I'm not
> talking about a simulation), but it needs to be strong enough that the
> player views himself as performing those activities when he's playing
> the game. If you accept this concept, then a game which has no
> "story" or "setting" is by definition abstract or themeless. I'm
> proposing an operational definition, while you're more concerned about
> a game's history and associations.
Actually I'm concerned about the meaning of "theme" period. And despite
your parenthetical note above, I think we really *are* talking about
simulation.
The root question is: How can a game be "about" something? Or can it be?
In Peter Perla's book on wargaming, I saw a photo of a 1920s "wargame" which
was nothing more than a Nine Men's Morris game with an illustration of WWI
trench warfare superimposed on the board. There's no doubt in my mind that
the illustration did make it somehow seem like a wargame to some players.
But as you say, the mechanics of the game can't be easily associated with
war; it'd take a strong imagination and a good stretch to accomplish that.
Nevertheless, I'd have to say NMM with the illustration is more "themed"
than NMM without the illustration.
When you get right down to the nitty-gritty, what is it that associates any
game mechanic with the real-life activity that supposedly corresponds to it?
In Settlers of Catan, I might turn in card depicting brick and wood, then
set a long, thin block of wood between two tiles and call it a road. How
are those actions similar to actual road building? Arguably, the names and
pictures are the only associations: the words "brick," "wood," and "road."
That's not much different than the WWI illustration on the NMM board. In
truth, there is no actual road building in Settlers, nor anything that feels
like it; there's only a game mechanic called "road building"--and the player
is free to make anything he likes of that.
Even in a simulation game--say ASL--what does pointing to a little cardboard
unit-counter with "4-8 MG" printed on it, pointing to another stack of
unit-counters, rolling dice, and checking a chart have to do with firing an
actual machine gun? I've fired actual machine guns; it doesn't feel
anything like the game mechanic of "firing a machine gun" in ASL. Believe
me; they're quite different experiences. ASL is chock full of pictures and
words which generate vivid, detailed images of tactical WWII combat (just
like the WWI illustration on the NMM board). But how ASL comprises a
simulation of WWII battle is still a mystery to me. It looks and feels and
seems like a game *about* WWII combat, and everybody can agree that that's
what it is. But I defy anyone to explain exactly what it means for a game
to be "about" something. The connection between a game event and a
corresponding real-life event always remains intangible and elusive.
Sometimes we *think* it's obvious how the two correspond--yet we can't fully
explain how or prove that they do.
> I don't know if you'll find this at all convincing, but I'm thinking
> that if I'm an alien from Alpha Centauri and I read the rules of Chess
> and look at the components, I see no reason why I would feel it had
> anything to do with war.
Sure, I find that convincing. After reading a few posts this evening, I've
just about decided there's no such thing as "inherent theme" after all (as
much as I'd like to believe there is). The deeply ingrained sense that
chess is about battle probably just comes from the abundant history and
literature of the game.
Since I question whether it's even possible for a game to be "about"
anything, why should I believe chess is "inherently" about battle? Guess I
was just remarking on how deeply ingrained the association of chess with
battle seems to be. But you're right--that probably just means chess has a
long, rich history which includes lots of associations with war.
> See, I think theme has another role other than what the players
> imagine and how they feel during play. If a game has a solid theme,
> it is much easier to add additional rules that add complexity and
> texture to the game. Without the theme in ASL, for example, it would
> be impossible to remember all the arcane rules and exceptions. (Many
> would say it's impossible even the way it is.) If you tried to add
> supply or economic rules to chess, it would be practically
> unplayable--there simply isn't any framework to hang these additional
> rules on. So if you want a game with more involved or complex rules,
> you should look for a themed game, as opposed to what I think of as
> abstract games, which feature simpler and more elegant rule sets (but
> aren't necessarily any easier to master).
Hmmm. . . . That's an interesting notion. In past discussions I've often
come across the belief that theme is really just a mnemonic device--a way to
help players remember the rules and game mechanics. But you've added
something here: you're saying that the richer and more coherent the theme
is, the more complex the game can be and still be playable.
Does that mean you wouldn't care if Elfenlands was a fantasy-fiction game or
a sci-fi or historical game, as long as its theme were rich and coherent
enough to support the rules and game-system and keep it playable? Or that
it wouldn't matter to you if ASL was a WWII game, a Renaissance game, or a
game about gardening, as long as the theme was coherent enough to support
all the rules and mechanisms?
To me that's a very strange way of looking at theme--but maybe it's fitting
for German-style games. I'm more familiar with wargames; and in that field
it seems theme almost always comes first and remains the primary thing for
many players. Not because of its function as a mnemonic device, but because
the players are really interested in the battle or campaign they're
"simulating." People who painstakingly collect and paint Napoleonic
miniatures, then get together to play elaborate games using some thick
rulebook (like the old Empire rules) are seriously interested in Napoleonic
warfare and want to understand it--and they feel their wargaming might
somehow support that understanding. Many Napoleonics enthusiasts would balk
at a WWII game and reject a fantasy-fiction game entirely, just because of
the difference in theme--even if the game mechanics were exactly what they
were used to in their own favorite game.
I loved Battle of the Bulge largely because my dad fought in that battle and
used to tell me stories about his experiences in it. I was bored by the
game Caporetto because I had never heard any more than a passing reference
to that battle and wasn't interested in WWI. The mechanics of these games
had little to do with my opinion of them; theme was more important.
But in family-style games like Merchant of Venus or History of the World,
theme doesn't really seem to matter much. The theme of MoV seems silly to
me, but it doesn't matter when I'm with a group of people playing it.
Monopoly has a terribly boring theme IMO--but again it doesn't really matter
if you're playing the game with a fun group of people. Same with Settlers
of Catan. In those games, maybe theme is mainly just a mnemonic device. If
so, that would seem to bypass the whole question of simulation (i..e, How
can a game be "about" something?), because even if the game isn't really
about what it purports to be about, the theme still helps hold the complex
rules and mechanics together in a playable form.
Interesting viewpoint, that. Thanks for sharing it.
--Patrick
Andrew Petrarca
> ASL is chock full of pictures and words which generate vivid, detailed images
> of tactical WWII combat (just like the WWI illustration on the NMM board).
> But how ASL comprises a simulation of WWII battle is still a mystery to me.
> It looks and feels and seems like a game *about* WWII combat, and everybody
> can agree that that's what it is. But I defy anyone to explain exactly what
> it means for a game to be "about" something. The connection between a game
> event and a corresponding real-life event always remains intangible and
> elusive. Sometimes we *think* it's obvious how the two correspond--yet we
> can't fully explain how or prove that they do.
I think you just *did* explain it. The extent to which a game is "about"
something is equal to the extent to which it generates vivid, detailed images
of that thing in the minds of the players of the game, helping them to imagine
the events the game is "about". This is going to vary not just from game to
game but also from one player to another of the same game, and even individual
players may get more involved in the theme of a game at some times than at
others.
Obviously you're looking for a more concrete explanation, but without a
reductionistic description of human consciousness I don't think that's going to
happen. Ultimately, the connection of a game event to the event which it
represents thematically is subjective. In many cases the game event is
completely dissimilar in substance to the real-life event it represents. It's
only by analogy that any similarity can be found.
Placing a strip of wood between two hexes on a game map is analogous to
building a road on a countryside, even though the two actions bear no physical
resemblance to one another. The strength of the theme of _The Settlers of
Catan_ rests in large part on the strength of that analogy.
--
Bitwise, Andrew. &
RRI1
You are correct. The Guild Hall only applies to Production (i.e. non-Purple
buildings.)
The original German edition apparently has the same text and Jay simply
translated it as is.
Richard Irving rr...@aol.com
Made with recycled electrons!
Richard Hutnik
> richar...@hotmail.com (Richard Hutnik) writes:
> > Maybe. I am not sure, but I think definitely maybe. IMHO of course.
> >
> > But keep in mind, I could be wrong. Right?
> > - Richard Hutnik :-P
>
> If you think you're wrong, you're right!
>
> -- Don.
Maybe, I don't know.
- Richard Hutnik :-P
Josh Adelson
news:459c967c.02082...@posting.google.com...
> I don't know if you'll find this at all convincing, but I'm thinking
> that if I'm an alien from Alpha Centauri and I read the rules of Chess
> and look at the components, I see no reason why I would feel it had
> anything to do with war.
Hi Larry,
If you were an alien from Alpha Centauri, maybe you'd like Merchant of
Venus better.
Incidentally, all competitive games are metaphors for war, and games like
chess, where the "territory" of the board is hotly contested by opposing
teams are even more visible as such metaphors. Chess is mechanically about
territorial control, and that's what most wars seem to be about, as well.
In this instance, the theme of war is inherent to the mechanics that say "if
you step on MY square, I will kill you and all your friends who come to
avenge you". The last man standing on the square is usually the color of
the team who really did have control of the square. Emphasis on "usually".
I'm not entirely certain about the promotion mechanic though. Maybe pawns
just like to dress in drag. The best games, as everybody knows, end with a
pawn promoting to a knight and causing a checkmate on the spot.
Josh
Josh
Larry Levy
enough, I have yet more comments! 8=)
"Patrick Carroll" <Patrick...@mn.rr.com> wrote :
> "Larry Levy" <larry...@dyncorp.com> wrote :
> > The definition I use, which certainly isn't universal, is that in a
> > game with a strong theme, the mechanics match up with some real life
> > activity. The association doesn't have to be absolute (I'm not
> > talking about a simulation), but it needs to be strong enough that the
> > player views himself as performing those activities when he's playing
> > the game. If you accept this concept, then a game which has no
> > "story" or "setting" is by definition abstract or themeless. I'm
> > proposing an operational definition, while you're more concerned about
> > a game's history and associations.
>
> Actually I'm concerned about the meaning of "theme" period. And despite
> your parenthetical note above, I think we really *are* talking about
> simulation.
Well, I guess we again differ on our definitions. To me, a simulation
is an attempt to duplicate a real-world experience *as closely* as
possible. Accuracy is far more important than such normally essential
gaming concepts as playability and balance. A pure simulation would
probably make a terrible game and I doubt any of them are publicly
available, but some wargames seem to come close. On the other hand,
themed games may use the theme as inspiration or as a framework, but
accuracy is far less important an issue. From my earlier comments you
will not be surprised to learn that I dislike simulations.
> In Peter Perla's book on wargaming, I saw a photo of a 1920s "wargame" which
> was nothing more than a Nine Men's Morris game with an illustration of WWI
> trench warfare superimposed on the board. There's no doubt in my mind that
> the illustration did make it somehow seem like a wargame to some players.
> But as you say, the mechanics of the game can't be easily associated with
> war; it'd take a strong imagination and a good stretch to accomplish that.
> Nevertheless, I'd have to say NMM with the illustration is more "themed"
> than NMM without the illustration.
I would agree. It makes little or no difference to the game, but the
former case is more themed and would probably be more palatable to
certain gamers as a result.
I would respond to these two paragraphs, but I don't think I could do
so as well or as elegantly as Andrew Petrarca did in his recent reply
to you. I am in complete agreement with what Andrew says.
> > See, I think theme has another role other than what the players
> > imagine and how they feel during play. If a game has a solid theme,
> > it is much easier to add additional rules that add complexity and
> > texture to the game. Without the theme in ASL, for example, it would
> > be impossible to remember all the arcane rules and exceptions. (Many
> > would say it's impossible even the way it is.) If you tried to add
> > supply or economic rules to chess, it would be practically
> > unplayable--there simply isn't any framework to hang these additional
> > rules on. So if you want a game with more involved or complex rules,
> > you should look for a themed game, as opposed to what I think of as
> > abstract games, which feature simpler and more elegant rule sets (but
> > aren't necessarily any easier to master).
>
> Hmmm. . . . That's an interesting notion. In past discussions I've often
> come across the belief that theme is really just a mnemonic device--a way to
> help players remember the rules and game mechanics. But you've added
> something here: you're saying that the richer and more coherent the theme
> is, the more complex the game can be and still be playable.
>
> Does that mean you wouldn't care if Elfenlands was a fantasy-fiction game or
> a sci-fi or historical game, as long as its theme were rich and coherent
> enough to support the rules and game-system and keep it playable? Or that
> it wouldn't matter to you if ASL was a WWII game, a Renaissance game, or a
> game about gardening, as long as the theme was coherent enough to support
> all the rules and mechanisms?
That's mostly correct. Elfenlands as a sci-fi game would work fine
for me. And I might prefer ASL as a Renaissance game, rather than as
a wargame (although its complexity would still keep me from playing
it). I should say, however, that theme matters much less to me than
most other gamers. I'm a "mechanics first" kind of gamer; theme is
definitely a secondary consideration. That said, there are themes
that resonate more strongly with me than others. And there are a few
games whose themes are such a turnoff that I would refuse to play them
(Lunch Money, for example, which is based on elementary school kids
beating each other up). But for the most part, if a game is good,
I'll play it regardless of its theme and if a game doesn't work, no
theme is the world will convince me to play it.
This attitude probably isn't typical of most players of themed games.
Many players adore rail games or racing games or exploration games.
Quite a few wouldn't be caught dead playing Elfenlands because of its
association with fantasy (I believe the standard quote is "No bleedin'
hobbits!"), but would probably embrace it enthusiastically as a sci-fi
design. So theme is more important than just as a framework to hang
complex rules on. But it also doesn't have to go as far as being a
simulation.
> To me that's a very strange way of looking at theme--but maybe it's fitting
> for German-style games. I'm more familiar with wargames; and in that field
> it seems theme almost always comes first and remains the primary thing for
> many players. Not because of its function as a mnemonic device, but because
> the players are really interested in the battle or campaign they're
> "simulating." People who painstakingly collect and paint Napoleonic
> miniatures, then get together to play elaborate games using some thick
> rulebook (like the old Empire rules) are seriously interested in Napoleonic
> warfare and want to understand it--and they feel their wargaming might
> somehow support that understanding. Many Napoleonics enthusiasts would balk
> at a WWII game and reject a fantasy-fiction game entirely, just because of
> the difference in theme--even if the game mechanics were exactly what they
> were used to in their own favorite game.
You're pointing out the principal difference between many American
gamers and European gamers, as well as the games produced in those two
communities. American games are known for their strong theming, but
their tendancy towards simulation often means they're less playable
and overly complex. European games feature great playability and
innovative mechanics, but the themes are very often paper thin. We're
starting to see a melding of these two extremes, in both European and
American designs, which makes this a very exciting time to be a gamer.
As for me, I'm much more interested in the gaming experience than the
subject matter. If I can learn something of value from a game, great.
But I'd just as soon read a good book on the Spanish conquest of the
New World and then follow it up with a totally unilluminating but
fascinating game of Puerto Rico.
Larry
Larry Levy
> divide them into "attrition" and "race" -- in "attrition" games, you're
> trying to win by reducing your opponents to near-nothing; in "race"
> game, you're trying to win by having grown faster, or reached a goal
> earlier, than your opponents.
>
> The division is probably even more murky than "themed vs. abstract"
> (isn't attrition just a race to see who can kill the other guy first?)
> but somehow I don't seem to have a problem categorizing most games
> along these lines.
Two reasonable categories. I think I would add "accumulation" games,
in which the object is to obtain the most of something (money, points,
colored wooden cubes). By the definition you gave above, you might
consider this a "race" game, but I would argue that you could consider
an "attrition" game a "race" game as well. But I think these three
categories--in which you try to whittle down or eliminate your
opponents, try to achieve an objective first, or try to get the most
of something--are fairly exclusive and cover a wide spectrum of games.
Probably not all of them, however.
Larry
Matthew Hubbard
>
> Incidentally, all competitive games are metaphors for war, and games
> like chess, where the "territory" of the board is hotly contested by
> opposing teams are even more visible as such metaphors.
Backgammon is a competitive game that is a metaphor for a race
or evacuation. There are many other games that also have metaphors that
are closer to explaining the mechanic other than "some people fight and
somebody wins and somebody loses".
MattH
Frisco Del Rosario
onigam...@ugcs.net wrote:
> Go's military theme is on a grander scale than Chess.
> If chess is about a battle, then Go is about a war.
> The location, deployment, and numerical superiority of your troops
> are emphasized over their individual differences and powers.
You evidently don't know enough about chess to say that. The secret of
winning chess is also numerical superiority, but the number only has to be
two -- since the only thing that never, ever changes about a game of chess
is that the players move alternately, then the key is to cause one's
opponent to want to make two moves in a row; that is, if you make a double
threat, your opponent is not entitled to make two moves to meet both
threats.
And sometimes it is simply a case of coordinating more force against a
square than the other player, and then the "individual differences and
powers" of the pieces don't matter, either.
--
Frisco Del Rosario
Editor
California Chess Journal, Scholastic Chess USA
Patrick Carroll
> I think you just *did* explain it. The extent to which a game is "about"
> something is equal to the extent to which it generates vivid, detailed
images
> of that thing in the minds of the players of the game, helping them to
imagine
So you're saying "theme" is the product of an interaction between certain
game features (pictures, names, rules descriptions, and so forth) and the
players' imagination. And ultimately the "theme" of a game resides in an
individual player's imagination. Therefore, it can't possibly be an
inherent part of any game (only the features designed to "generate vivid,
detailed images" can be an inherent part of the game--but they won't work
unless a player cooperates).
> Obviously you're looking for a more concrete explanation, but without a
> reductionistic description of human consciousness I don't think that's
going to
> happen. Ultimately, the connection of a game event to the event which it
> represents thematically is subjective. In many cases the game event is
> completely dissimilar in substance to the real-life event it represents.
It's
> only by analogy that any similarity can be found.
As to "a more concrete explanation," I guess I was just recalling a famous
philosphical debate between Russell and Frege (the "king of France is bald"
arguments). It's been too long, and it was too complicated to go into
here--but the gist of it was that Frege wanted to prove that a name is
clearly connected to its referent (e.g., if I say, "moon," the word clearly
and irrefutably points to that natural sattelite of the earth); and Russell
argued that names are *not* connected to their referents. The problem
introduced was: if Russell is right, then how does human language work?
Are there such things as synonyms? Is it really possible to translate
anything from one language to another, and if so, how?
I see a similarity between that and the theory behind simulation. How
simulation works is, to me, a mystery. I'm not sure there's any Frege
around who could prove a connection between a game feature and its
corresponding real-life feature. So, like Russell, I question it and find
the whole thing mysterious.
That said, however, I agree that we don't have to go that far. We can say
simulation or "theme" works by analogy, and leave it at that.
> Placing a strip of wood between two hexes on a game map is analogous to
> building a road on a countryside, even though the two actions bear no
physical
> resemblance to one another. The strength of the theme of _The Settlers of
> Catan_ rests in large part on the strength of that analogy.
And as you say, the strength will vary from one player to the next, from
time to time, and so forth. I suspect we'd all agree that that Settlers
game mechanic is *supposed* to be analogous to actual road building (whether
or not we know or care about how it happens).
So, would you say chess is analogous to battle? How strong is that analogy
in your mind? Is chess themed or abstract?
--Patrick
Patrick Carroll
> Well, I guess we again differ on our definitions. To me, a simulation
> is an attempt to duplicate a real-world experience *as closely* as
> possible. Accuracy is far more important than such normally essential
> gaming concepts as playability and balance. A pure simulation would
I agree. But do you think there's really an essential difference between
the game "simulating" WWII tactical warfare in North Africa and Settlers of
Catan having as a "theme" the colonization of an imaginary island? Granted
there's a lot more detail in Tobruk, as well as a lot more attention to
accuracy. But I would contend that "simulation" works in exactly the same
way "theme" works. In both cases, the game has features (pictures, names,
etc.) which suggest real-world correspondences; and when the player takes
those suggestive game features into his imagination and plays with them, he
ends up making associations between the game and real life.
I'd say the difference between simulation and theme is just a matter of
degree.
> I'm a "mechanics first" kind of gamer; theme is
> definitely a secondary consideration. That said, there are themes
> that resonate more strongly with me than others. And there are a few
> games whose themes are such a turnoff that I would refuse to play them
> (Lunch Money, for example, which is based on elementary school kids
> beating each other up). But for the most part, if a game is good,
> I'll play it regardless of its theme and if a game doesn't work, no
> theme is the world will convince me to play it.
>
> This attitude probably isn't typical of most players of themed games.
> Many players adore rail games or racing games or exploration games.
> Quite a few wouldn't be caught dead playing Elfenlands because of its
> association with fantasy (I believe the standard quote is "No bleedin'
> hobbits!"), but would probably embrace it enthusiastically as a sci-fi
> design. So theme is more important than just as a framework to hang
> complex rules on. But it also doesn't have to go as far as being a
> simulation.
OK. So theme is more than just a mnemonic device (a framework to hang
complex rules on); it's also inspirational or motivational--more so for some
players than for others.
The "framework to hang complex rules on" part is more or less objective.
But the other part is clearly subjective: as you say, some players respond
to theme more than others.
So, just for the sake of argument: Don't you think chess has at least a few
features that suggest theme so as to hang rules on? For instance, the king
is "royal" (can't be captured but must be cornered). The horse-looking
knight can jump over other pieces (just as horses jump hurdles). The queen
is next-most-important after the king (has the greatest mobility and thus
the highest point value). Whether the game was designed this way or not,
it's possible to use this sort of imagery to remember the rules. I've
half-consciously used the "jumping horse" image for some 35 years now to
remind me that only the knight can jump over other pieces.
Then there's the other part of "theme"--the part that some players respond
to more than others. I've always thought of chess as a stylized medieval
battle, and that's one of the things that makes chess appeal to me. If I
somehow managed to erase the battle theme from my mind, I'd see chess the
same way I see checkers or five-in-a-row (renju, go-moku, or Pente)--as a
sterile, abstract, unappealing game. As it is, though, I see a difference
between chess and these other games; and the difference is that, to me,
chess is lightly themed.
> You're pointing out the principal difference between many American
> gamers and European gamers, as well as the games produced in those two
> communities. American games are known for their strong theming, but
> their tendancy towards simulation often means they're less playable
> and overly complex. European games feature great playability and
> innovative mechanics, but the themes are very often paper thin. We're
> starting to see a melding of these two extremes, in both European and
> American designs, which makes this a very exciting time to be a gamer.
That does sound like a positive trend. Years ago, when I was big into
wargaming, I found it curious that Brits could so easily be content with
what I considered simplistic, ludicrous miniatures rules. Don Featherstone
published some classic books on games like these (though I guess H. G. Wells
published the first, in his "Little Wars"--where toy cannons were used to
shoot down toy soldiers).
Yet, when I set out to research and write my own set of miniatures rules, I
soon got bogged down. Over the years I made several abortive attempts to
create some kind of military simulation that would satisfy me. I never even
came close. Finally I decided I couldn't do it--and if I did manage it, the
resultant game would be terrible and I'd never play it.
My reaction was to get out of wargaming altogether. If a game has to be
ludicrous and unrealistic in order to be fun and playable, I'm not
interested. And if a game has to be oppressively intellectual, rules-heavy,
and unplayable in order to simulate a real-life event, I'm not interested in
that either.
Nor am I interested in purely abstract games like Othello; they're too dry
and sterile and "mathematical" for my taste. So, that leaves only one kind
of game: a "stylized" game--one that doesn't attempt to simulate anything
but doesn't come across as a parody or caricature either. To me, chess is
such a game. It embodies useful principles of strategy and
tactics--principles which can be, and are, applied to real military
engagements (as well as other endeavors in life); yet chess does not
*simulate* battle, and it doesn't parody battle either. Chess is just a
game, not a simulation; but an attentive chess player can learn useful
principles and develop a mode and clarity of thinking which can be applied
to good effect in many real-life endeavors--including real-life warfare.
I suppose some players could do the same with checkers (draughts). I once
heard second-hand that General U. S. Grant claimed to have applied checkers
principles to his Vicksburg campaign. But I, for one, find checkers less
explicit than chess. Or to put it another way, I find chess more "themed"
than checkers.
> As for me, I'm much more interested in the gaming experience than the
> subject matter. If I can learn something of value from a game, great.
> But I'd just as soon read a good book on the Spanish conquest of the
> New World and then follow it up with a totally unilluminating but
> fascinating game of Puerto Rico.
I agree that it's probably best to keep the two separate. Back in the 70s,
I thought it was a great idea for S&T magazine to publish a wargame in every
issue. One could read a feature article on the Revolutionary War (American
War of Independence), then unfold the mapsheet, punch out the unit-counters,
and play a game on the same subject to gain a deeper, hands-on
understanding. After subscribing for a while, though, I finally concluded
it was a terrible idea. The game always seemed bizarre to me after reading
the article. I could always see glaring shortcomings in the game, and it
left me disappointed. If I played the game first, I sometimes liked it; but
then when I read the article, the game was spoiled. The more I know about a
subject, the more disappointing are games on that subject. Fantasy and
sci-fi games work better for me because I'm not a fantasy or sci-fi reader;
and since I don't know anything about those genres, I don't recognize
shortcomings in the game.
Still, I do look for more than just amusement in a game. I no longer look
for historical accuracy, but I'd like to believe the game I'm playing is
training me in how to survive and succeed in real-life situations--or how to
understand success in real-life situations I see or read about. For
instance, one of Napoleon's maxims was concentration of force; and I think
this is reflected in chess by the desirability of developing one's pieces
early and well, toward the center. The book "Samurai Chess" links seven key
principles with the game of chess and includes illustrative games. That
sort of thing appeals to me.
I suppose the same principles could be demonstrated in Euphrat & Tigris or
most any other game. But chess already has a long tradition of such
associations. When I play chess, I feel I'm participating in that
tradition--a tradition which includes regarding chess as a stylized battle.
Sorry for rambling. Our computer just came back on-line after a couple days
down, and I'm hurriedly catching up on things.
--Patrick
Larry Levy
> Do you think there's really an essential difference between
> the game "simulating" WWII tactical warfare in North Africa and Settlers of
> Catan having as a "theme" the colonization of an imaginary island?
I feel very strongly that there is a difference. I think the big
distinction is the objectives of the two game designs. Almost
certainly the objective in designing the wargame was to simulate the
actual event as closely as possible while still leaving a playable
game. On the other hand, Teuber's principal goal when designing
Settlers had to center around the game's mechanics. I'm sure that the
theme modified or inspired certain mechanics, just as I'm sure that
the existing mechanics modified the theme. But there is no real life
event to try to mirror and no need to be "accurate". Teuber's
overriding goal had to be to come up with a playable and entertaining
game. The fact that the game is also well themed is a testimount to
his skill as a designer, but fidelity to an imaginary and self-created
theme is a far cry from attempting to accurately reflect an actual
event.
> I'd say the difference between simulation and theme is just a matter of
> degree.
I agree there is a continuum (I think we touched on this earlier) and
there are games in which the distinction between heavily themed game
and simulation becomes fuzzy. But the difference between a typical
themed game and a true simulation are much greater than a matter of
degree, just like (to me, at least) there is a huge difference between
a well-themed game like Settlers and a pure abstract like Checkers.
(I would also say the difference exists for Settlers and Chess as
well, but your feelings clearly are not the same.)
> So, just for the sake of argument: Don't you think chess has at least a few
> features that suggest theme so as to hang rules on? For instance, the king
> is "royal" (can't be captured but must be cornered). The horse-looking
> knight can jump over other pieces (just as horses jump hurdles). The queen
> is next-most-important after the king (has the greatest mobility and thus
> the highest point value). Whether the game was designed this way or not,
> it's possible to use this sort of imagery to remember the rules. I've
> half-consciously used the "jumping horse" image for some 35 years now to
> remind me that only the knight can jump over other pieces.
I see where you're coming from, but it really doesn't feel like a very
strong relationship to me. Moreover, I can think of just as many
aspects of the game that are totally unrelated. But this is what
makes the discussion of themes so interesting (and probably to many,
so pointless). It is very much a subjective thing. Some people
consider Euphrat & Tigris to be stongly themed; hell, some people
think Ra is strongly themed! I view E&T as having a much stronger
theme than Ra, but I don't really think either game has a strong
theme. But that's just my opinion and it may not be that of the
majority. To me, Chess is a pure abstract--you consider it themed. I
think more people would agree with my view than yours, but I can't be
sure of this and might be completely wrong. More significantly, it
doesn't really affect the discussion. You see things in the rules of
Chess which reflect reality and it enhances your enjoyment of the
game. That's really the only opinion that matters.
Larry
William Adderholdt
Patrick Carroll <Patrick...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
> We often draw a distinction between themed games and abstract games. In
> most cases, it's clear which category a given game falls into. Twixt and
> nine men's morris are obviously abstract (well, I think it's obvious,
> anyway--just because I can't think of any real-world associations to make
> with those games); Monopoly and Stratego are obviously themed.
I've always imagined that it's possible to tack a theme on any game, no
matter how abstract. Here's a suggestion for a themed version version
of Nine Mens' Morris.
Druid Confrontation
It is Celtic Britain, and your group of Druids, the Deasil[1] Order
of Druids, is just arriving at Stonehenge, ready to perform the yearly
observance of the Winter Solstice.[2] A rival group, from the Widdershins
Order of Druids, has arrived at the same time, intent on performing their
observance as well. It is impossible for both of you to perform the rites
together, as you are both convinced that the opposing order performs
them in the wrong direction. Therefore, you decide to battle it out.
You both know one ceremonial attack spell, the Lightning spell, which
requires that three Druids link hands in a line and say the incantation,
which causes lightning to strike a specified member of the opposing order.
The three Druids then have to break the link and cool down before casting
the spell again. As it requires at least three Druids to perform the
observance of the Winter Solstice, the first order to be reduced to less
than three has to concede the contest, hoping to go on to recruit more
Druids to their particular style of ceremonial magic, performing the
rites in the correct direction another day.
[1] "Deasil" and "widdershins," as it seems odd to talk about
"clockwise" and "counterclockwise" in a time when there are no
clocks.
[2] I know that historically the Druids had nothing to do with
the stone circles in Britain, but the board of Nine Mens' Morris
seems to superimpose very nicely on Stonehenge, in my opinion.
Any sticklers for historical accuracy can change the setting from
Stonehenge to a grove of trees, with an ancient and sacred oak right
in the middle of the board.
Josh Adelson
"Matthew Hubbard" <mhub...@csuhayward.edu> wrote in message
news:3D70EE24...@csuhayward.edu...
> Backgammon is a competitive game that is a metaphor for a race
> or evacuation. There are many other games that also have metaphors that
> are closer to explaining the mechanic other than "some people fight and
> somebody wins and somebody loses".
>
> MattH
I don't dispute anything you say, Matt, but I will point out that a race is
a game, and a game remains, by MY definition, a metaphor for war. War is
THE ultimate expression of competition that mankind inflicts upon itself
(imltho).
It's all just psycho-babble and claptrap, but it's always fun to say "prove
me wrong" about something this vague. It is, in fact, one of my favorite
games....
Josh Adelson
go with standard literary terminology and recognize that what we really mean
in this discussion is plot vs. abstract. The use of 'theme' as it exists in
this discussion is presumably MORE than just a party theme. Ra, for
example, has an Egyptian 'party' theme. It has, however, almost ZERO plot,
and thus appears to many to have an artificial "theme". This is why I wish
we'd knock off the annoying use of the word theme--Ra both IS and IS NOT
strongly Egyptian in theme. Since there's no actual "story" in Ra, it's
pretty damned abstract, and becomes a fabulous bidding game, yadda yadda
yadda, or a soggy boring pain in the ass (take a stance anywhere you like on
or off that spectrum, it's irrelevant, let's move on.)
E&T (or T&E) has a VERY visible storyline, if you are even the least bit
imaginative, which fits believably with the Mesopotamian setting. A game
like Panzer Leader has a story that requires even LESS imagination to
perceive, as do most "wargames" and simulations. I don't necessarily
advocate having a WWII theme party, but hey, knock yourselves out.
What this winds up doing is asking the question, "does Chess have a plot?"
If it does, how much imagination is required to perceive it, and will the
story I see be the same story that the majority of people see? Games that
leave NO room for variation in perception of the plot do so with a
combination of rules, component selection, nomenclature, and any other
technique necessary for the conveyance of the designers' intended plot.
Honestly, I can't make up a "story" for Nine Men's Morris that I can be
reasonably sure anybody else here would reproduce. (I believe the Morris
was a dance, but I don't like the imagery of nine men prancing around trying
to get into threesomes.) I can be sure that at least a few people think
that Chess is a battle for territory by two opposing factions, each of whom
needs clear lines of force established in order to entrap their opposition's
leader. Anthropomorphicizing a chess piece is certainly simpler for me, in
order to imagine a story, than a similar task would be for a Reversi piece.
What is it about Puerto Rico that people have found so fascinating? I think
it's the easily recognizable plot combined with the extremely enjoyable
optimization of utilizing the different "role" mechanics.
Chess pieces have various abilities, or roles, and are distinguished by name
to indicate same. Optimizing the sequence of selecting these roles each
turn is one of the inherent challenges of the game, and the differentiation
amongst them is part of what makes the storytelling process within the game
so much simpler than attempting similar with, for example, a game of Zertz.
Since getting people to drop the term "theme" in favor of "plot" seems
absolutely impossible, I'll just tack on my vote: Chess is a "themed" game
in the sense that its current incarnation, ineluctably cemented in Medieval
imagery, continues to represent to me a simple story of human aggression and
domination. Sid Sackson's Domination, on the other hand, is completely
abstract, tells no story whatsoever, and furthermore doesn't have any female
characters, thereby losing points for sex appeal.
Josh Adelson
"William Adderholdt" <wil...@atlas.localdomain> wrote in message
news:bv41la...@news.verizon.net...
> [1] "Deasil" and "widdershins," as it seems odd to talk about
> "clockwise" and "counterclockwise" in a time when there are no
> clocks.
> [2] I know that historically the Druids had nothing to do with
> the stone circles in Britain, but the board of Nine Mens' Morris
> seems to superimpose very nicely on Stonehenge, in my opinion.
> Any sticklers for historical accuracy can change the setting from
> Stonehenge to a grove of trees, with an ancient and sacred oak right
> in the middle of the board.
I enjoyed your "theme" immensely, but as noted elsewhere, I'd call this a
"plot".
John Cartmell
<jade...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> First off, stop calling it "theme." That works great for a party, but
> let's go with standard literary terminology and recognize that what we
> really mean in this discussion is plot vs. abstract. The use of 'theme'
> as it exists in this discussion is presumably MORE than just a party
> theme.
What is you really mean theme? ;-)
I'm working on a set of Alice games. To get the flavour of the story the
game will be episodic and each episode will have its own problem. In one
the problem will be to get to the 'right' size to get the key to go to the
next episode.
In my terminology the game will follow the 'theme' of Alice. And of course
in the first book/game playing cards will be used as a link throughout the
episodes.
In this case theme is more than story - or would you give it another name?
--
John Cartmell jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk
Fleur Designs (boardgames) http://www.cartmell.demon.co.uk
Acorn Publisher magazine http://www.acornpublisher.com
Josh Adelson
news:4b6ffbd...@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
> What is you really mean theme? ;-)
>
> I'm working on a set of Alice games. To get the flavour of the story the
> game will be episodic and each episode will have its own problem. In one
> the problem will be to get to the 'right' size to get the key to go to the
> next episode.
> In my terminology the game will follow the 'theme' of Alice. And of course
> in the first book/game playing cards will be used as a link throughout the
> episodes.
>
> In this case theme is more than story - or would you give it another name?
Hi John, in my terminology (which I borrowed from those annoying pesky
teachers who sought all my educable life ((it's true, I'm now mostly beyond
the ability to learn)) to imprint my brain with THEIR terminologies) you are
borrowing plot elements, setting, and characters from my good friend
Charles' work. I would like to, at this juncture, trot out that old
quotable quote from the estimable Mr. Dodgson, to wit:
"When I choose a word, I choose it to mean what I choose it to mean."
(Okay, that's probably another of my many misquotes, but you get the drift.)
So, you can call "theme" whatever you like, and I'll respect your wishes.
For myself, a thing's thematic elements go beyond the observable surface,
and I dislike using the word 'theme' for such things as can be readily seen.
For me, the "theme" of your games and their problems might be "logical
inference prevails over button mashing" (I'd have to play some to have an
idea) or a fun theme might be "man's inhumanity toward man" (which seems to
be a recurring theme in the real world, for example.)
Regardless of what designations I choose for things, I have no
expectations of modifying anybody else's choices. Also, I wish you much
success with the games, and the Wonderland motif (haha, just a synonym for
theme!) is one of my favorites.
Anthony Simons
<snip>
>
> I see a similarity between that and the theory behind simulation. How
> simulation works is, to me, a mystery. I'm not sure there's any Frege
> around who could prove a connection between a game feature and its
> corresponding real-life feature. So, like Russell, I question it and find
> the whole thing mysterious.
<snip>
All this information about Frege and Russell is very interesting and
very philosophical. I thought about this for a while, and I can think
of at least one connection. Wargames often simulate the movement of
troops by utilizing scale models, and moving them a scale distance.
The effectiveness of any simulation depends on the accuracy of the
model used; scale movement is an easy one. However, the model becomes
complicated when we try to improve the accuracy of the model. We
cannot, for example, measure fatigue with any accuracy in the real
world (only by seeing someone reach the state of fatigue, or
experiencing it ourselves); how can we possibly do so in a game? In
cases like this, simulations start to become more like themes, and the
argument (from what I can make of your philosophical example - I hope
I'm reading this correctly) falls in Russell's favour.
Anthony Simons
<snip>
> I'd say the difference between simulation and theme is just a matter of
> degree.
<snip>
I'd say in many cases it is a matter of direction; the simulation is
intended to model, to some degree, something in real life; the theme
is intended as the background to a game. Not exactly poles apart, but
one tends to travel into the game, the other out of the game.
Kevin J. Maroney
Adderholdt) wrote:
>[1] "Deasil" and "widdershins," as it seems odd to talk about
> "clockwise" and "counterclockwise" in a time when there are no
> clocks.
Even back then, there were sundials. In the northern hemisphere, they
track time "clockwise". In fact, that's why mechanical clocks move
"clockwise".
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
William Adderholdt
Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 02:05:41 GMT, wil...@atlas.localdomain (William
> Adderholdt) wrote:
> >[1] "Deasil" and "widdershins," as it seems odd to talk about
> > "clockwise" and "counterclockwise" in a time when there are no
> > clocks.
>
> Even back then, there were sundials. In the northern hemisphere, they
> track time "clockwise". In fact, that's why mechanical clocks move
> "clockwise".
I didn't know that. Thanks for the info!
Still, I really like the word "widdershins," as it has a folksy sort of
sound to it, and sounds much better than "counterclockwise." "Deasil,"
on the other hand, is too similar to "diesel."
Getting back to the subject of games, I remember that there was a card in
Steve Jackson's Illuminati: New World Order called the "Deasil Engine."
It had the effect of making other devices run in the wrong direction,
destroying them. I remember reading that Steve Jackson Games kept
getting mail saying that they had misspelled "Diesel Engine."
Warren J. Dew
If I were creating two pigeonholes for multiplayer games, I'd
probably divide them into "attrition" and "race" -- in
"attrition" games, you're trying to win by reducing your
opponents to near-nothing; in "race" game, you're trying to
win by having grown faster, or reached a goal earlier, than
your opponents.
So Go is a 'race' game, more like backgammon than chess?
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Warren J. Dew
The root question is: How can a game be "about" something?
Or can it be?
Having read much of this interesting thread, I think a game can be about
something in two ways.
The first way is the addition of a 'theme'. As you and others note, the theme
may or may not be connected to the mechanics; often, it's just a bit of window
dressing to attract players, and perhaps to act as a mnemonic for some of the
rules.
The second way is as an actual simulation.
How can you identify a simulation? Not, I think, by superficial similarity; a
game with an off center spinner that sounds a bit like the rat-tat-tat of a
machine gun is not a better simulation of WWII combat than Squad Leader.
Rather, it's by whether, in mathematical terms, a mapping can be identified
between possible events in the game - such as moves and outcomes - and events
in what's being simulated. The better the mapping, the better the simulation.
Can I mapping be 'good' or 'bad'? I think it can, and I'll provide an example.
Suppose we are looking at two situations. One is a battle between two ant
colonies for a suburban lawn. The other is a battle between two bacterial
colonies for a petri dish.
Now take two games, neither of which has either and ant battle or a bacterial
battle theme: chess and go. If there are 'better' and 'worse' simulations, we
should be able to identify which game is better or worse at simulating an ant
battle, and similarly for the bacterial battle.
My contention is that we can. Chess is better at simulating the ant battle.
Ants in battle move around, and they are destroyed individually, just like
chess pieces. There are multiple types of ants in an ant colony, just as there
are multiple types of chess pieces. One ant - the queen - is indispensible,
just as the king is in chess. In contrast, the pieces in Go don't move once
placed, and no one piece is indispensible. A lightning strike by a force of
soldiers into the heart of enemy territory works for ants and in chess; it
doesn't work in Go. I think you can objectively say that chess is a better
simulation of ant warfare than is Go.
If on the other hand, you look at the bacterial battle, chess doesn't fare as
well. Bacterial on a petri dish don't move that much - certainly not instantly
from one side of the playing field to the other, as chess pieces can do. In
addition, two bacterial colonies in a petri dish will both start out by
growing, while in chess, the number of pieces tends to be reduced, and not
increased. Go does a much better job of simulating a bacterial battle - even
while maintaining elegant rules, without the overhead of chess' multiple unit
types that don't seem to correspond to anything on the petri dish.
Now, neither of these is a perfect simulation; ants have fewer castes than
chess has piece types, for example. Given that such a thing as simulation does
exist, though, I think a good case can be made that chess is, indeed, a
simulation of combat - and in particular, combat in the battles of the ancient
world.
So, my answer to the question, "is chess themed or abstract?", is: no, it's a
simulation.
Fleur Designs
David Parlett's:
race
space
chase
displace
theme (most 'new' games)
seems to cover most options.
Others, historically used alignment for space, hunt for chase and war for
displace.
Mancala games often cause problems though (Parlett puts them into
displace)!
--
John Cartmell ~
Fleur Designs - Manchester UK http://www.cartmell.demon.co.uk
~ Original (and unique) Board Games designed using RISC OS computers ~
~ Games in Schools Initiative ~ - e-mail gi...@cartmell.demon.co.uk
Patrick Carroll
> First off, stop calling it "theme." . . . let's
> go with standard literary terminology and recognize that what we really
mean
"story" in Ra, it's
> E&T (or T&E) has a VERY visible storyline, if you are even the least bit
> imaginative, which fits believably with the Mesopotamian setting. A game
> like Panzer Leader has a story that requires even LESS imagination to
>
> What this winds up doing is asking the question, "does Chess have a plot?"
> in the sense that its current incarnation, ineluctably cemented in
Medieval
> imagery, continues to represent to me a simple story of human aggression
and
I agree that a game is essentially a story. It has a beginning, middle, and
end; and the progression through those phases is the plot. Unlike the kind
of story that's written and then read, or told and heard, a game is
participatory and interactive: it's a create-it-yourself story with a
strictly prescribed structure, where competition between players determines
how the story goes and how it ends.
I'm not sure "plot" is the best name for what we're discussing here under
the name "theme," though. I think every game has a plot--even the most
abstract game. What abstract games *don't* have is explicit sense or
meaning. You can trace the plot of a game of tic-tac-toe, but you'd have to
be more imaginative than me to find any sense or meaning in it.
E&T (which I've never played) apparently has something of an explicit sense
or meaning: it's about developing kingdoms in ancient Mesopotamia. During
the game, players not only create a plot (i.e., cause the game to progress
from beginning to middle to end along a unique path), but they're also aware
that the plot constitutes a story about ancient kingdom building.
Each Panzer Leader scenario has a very explicit sense or meaning: it's
about what the historical background notes say it's about. It's the story
of a particular American attack on a particular German position in France on
July 14, 1944. So, as players play that game, they're creating a plot and
also imagining (if they choose to) that the plot is the story of a tactical
WWII military engagement.
So, I'd say even the most abstract game has a plot: it progresses from
beginning to middle to end along a unique path of moves. But only what
we've been calling "themed games" or "simulations" have a plot that traces
out a story which people can easily make sense of and find meaning in.
However, though it may be *easier* to make sense of a game like Panzer
Leader--to see what it tells the story of--I wouldn't say it's impossible to
make sense of a game of Nine Men's Morris or find meaning in that. In
another post, someone did just that in an explicit way, with "Druid
Confrontation." But even without going that far, I think it's possible to
just have a hunch that somehow the game means something or represents
something or connects to life somehow in a sort of metaphorical way. In
fact, there's even a book, titled "Games of the Gods," which investigates
the supposed ancient mystical symbology of Nine Men's Morris and its
relatives.
The more abstract a game is, the freer a player is to interpret its "story"
as he sees fit--to find various kinds of meaning in it. The more explicit a
game is, the more a player is channeled into interpreting its "story" in a
certain way. Nine Men's Morris can be about any number of different things;
Panzer Leader is pretty much just about WWII tactical combat in Europe.
Patrick Carroll
> I feel very strongly that there is a difference. I think the big
> distinction is the objectives of the two game designs. Almost
> certainly the objective in designing the wargame was to simulate the
> actual event as closely as possible while still leaving a playable
> game. On the other hand, Teuber's principal goal when designing
> Settlers had to center around the game's mechanics. I'm sure that the
> theme modified or inspired certain mechanics, just as I'm sure that
> the existing mechanics modified the theme. But there is no real life
> event to try to mirror and no need to be "accurate". Teuber's
> overriding goal had to be to come up with a playable and entertaining
> game. The fact that the game is also well themed is a testimount to
> his skill as a designer, but fidelity to an imaginary and self-created
> theme is a far cry from attempting to accurately reflect an actual
> event.
I catch the gist, and I'm sure you're right about what you're saying. But
just for the sake of argument, there are some points above that I think are
worth looking more closely at.
First off, I question whether the game designer's objective really matters
at all. In literary criticism (I was an English major), T. S. Eliot
exploded the sanctity of "author's intent" back in the 50s in a famous essay
("The Intentional Fallacy," IIRC). Basically, he said it's absolutely
irrelevant (and unknowable) what an author "meant" when he wrote something;
all that counts is what was written and what's there in black & white. I
think the same holds true for game design: what counts is what's there in
the box and what happens when people play the game.
That said, I also think it's important to realize that wargames (aside from
those used for serious military purposes) do not simulate actual events.
They simulate a pair of armies and a set of conditions. Beyond that
simulational feature, there's the whole framework of a game--which is no
different than any other game (and at best only somewhat analogous to the
game's real-life subject). And players just take turns playing with their
simulated armies, manipulating them in an effort to achieve the game's
object. What the players do is usually quite different from what
battlefield commanders did; the victory conditions of the game vaguely
approximate (at best) the goals of the rival armies; and once the players'
decisions take the situation away from its historical starting point, all
bets are off--there's no way to know for sure if what happens in the game
could really have happened historically. If a wargame truly simulated an
event, it wouldn't be a game: things would have to happen just as they did,
and players wouldn't be able to change anything.
A wargame, because it has simulational aspects, can provide players with
something of a vicarious hands-on sense of what the historical battle (or
whatever) might have been like. And that's no doubt important for many
wargamers. But the game is never a simulation of an actual event; it's just
a pair of simulated armies, along with a whole packet of presumptions about
what the "historical possibilities" were. All of that structured within the
format of a game, where everything is far more orderly and quantifiable than
it ever is in real life.
You said Teuber's "principal goal when designing Settlers had to center
around the game's mechanics" and "Teuber's overriding goal had to be to come
up with a playable and entertaining game." Setting aside the fallacy of
"designer's intent," these remarks raise two questions for me: (1) How can
a game's mechanics alone produce a 'playable and entertaining game'? and (2)
How does a wargame designer's goal differ, really, since ultimately a
wargame must also be a 'playable and entertaining game'? Part of the way a
wargame entertains is by giving players a sort of vicarious hands-on sense
of what a real-life battle might have been like; but it's still
entertainment. When I play a WWI flight sim on my computer, I'm having fun
trading shots with the Red Baron and enjoying the feel of those old
airplanes; any educational value is way in the back of my mind Same thing
when I'm conducting an invasion of the Pas de Calais in "D-Day."
If a military simulation gets so "accurate" that it's unplayable and
unenjoyable, it's not going to be out in the world being played anyway.
That kind of simulation ends up in the Pentagon, where people get paid to
play it. I don't think it's a game at all--not the kind of game we're
talking about anyway.
Getting back to Teuber's design centering around the game's mechanics, that
still makes me wonder. Do you suppose he said to himself, "I'll bet people
would really enjoy shuffling and laying out hex tiles, so I want to be sure
to incorporate that."? Or "I just know people would love moving this black
piece into an opponent's territory every time a 7 is rolled, then taking one
of the opponent's cards"? As you said, there must have been some interplay
between mechanics and theme.
Yet some completely abstract games like reversi (Othello) are playable,
challenging, entertaining, sociable--everything gamers look for in a good
game. What accounts for that? Can game mechanics alone be so appealing and
satisfying? These aren't rhetorical questions; I really wonder. I suspect
there's an aesthetic value that we can't put our finger on which accounts
for the popularity and gaming satisfaction of classics like
checkers/draughts, chess, nine men's morris, backgammon, etc. Not just the
mechanics per se, but the "feel" of the game--the synergy that somehow makes
it something special.
The same goes for simulational games. In 1979 I had over a hundred wargames
in my closet, and one day I realized most of them sucked. I couldn't
explain how or why; I just knew that of all the games I had at that time,
just one--Wooden Ships & Iron Men--stood out head & shoulders above the
rest. WS&IM has a certain magic about it--a synergetic something that just
makes it a great game. I never had any interest in the Age of Sail; I
loathed naval warfare in general; yet WS&IM struck a chord with me. I ended
up selling all the other games. Then I went out and bought Squad Leader and
Richthofen's War. After just one playing, I was wowed by SL and knew it had
that "synergetic something" in spades. After just one playing, I knew RW
lacked that special something.
So, I don't know what it is that makes a game great. But whatever it is,
I've encountered it in abstract games, themed games, and simulational
games--games of all kinds.
Rambling again, ain't I? Well, it's late. Better quit before I become
totally incoherent.
--Patrick
Patrick Carroll
> I'd say in many cases it is a matter of direction; the simulation is
> intended to model, to some degree, something in real life; the theme
> is intended as the background to a game. Not exactly poles apart, but
> one tends to travel into the game, the other out of the game.
Interesting viewpoint. Yes, I can see that. In a game like Settlers of
Catan, the theme and mechanics play off each other, producing a
self-contained whole--the game itself. But in Squad Leader, I suspect the
typical player will enjoy the vicarious hands-on experience of WWII tactical
battle. SL thus transports a player imaginatively out to a WWII
battlefield, whereas Settlers transports a player into the mythical island
setting of the game itself.
Patrick Carroll
<snipped most of a great post--so go back & read it if you haven't yet>
> So, my answer to the question, "is chess themed or abstract?", is: no,
it's a
> simulation.
I like that answer. (Larry Levy probably won't, though, given that he has a
much more rigorous definition of what a simulation is.)
What you call mathematical mapping, I might call anthropomorphizing (at
least until I can find a word that really fits what I mean). I've noticed
that anytime there's a game--no matter how abstract--some people will find a
way to connect it to the human experience. I think it's a step toward
finding meaning in it--and by extension, finding meaning and value in life.
For instance, there's the fellow in this thread who just created a beautiful
"Druid Confrontation" theme for Nine Men's Morris. It takes a seemingly
abstract game and interprets it in a way that will make sense to most
people. And once it makes sense, some folks will start finding meaning in
it. Then the game goes beyond mere entertainment and takes on a greater
value.
In the summer of 1975 I bought a go set in the PX at Fort Knox, KY, and got
someone in my platoon to play it with me. Almost immediately one of the
onlookers dubbed it "the airborne ranger game" because of the paratroop-like
moves.
Somewhere on-line I saw a checkers (draughts) set advertised which appeared
to be themed as a frog battle in a lily pond--the first time I ever saw
anything that explained all the jumping in that game.
I don't know if game designs (even the most abstract ones) come from life,
or if people just superimpose human experiences on abstract games. Maybe
both, and maybe it often happens subconsciously. Be that as it may, people
do seem intent on connecting art (including games) with life and life with
art, and thereby finding some kind of meaning.
One nice thing about "simulations" like chess is that they leave the player
free to decide what it's simulating. If not the ant battle, maybe ancient
warfare; if not that, warfare in any period of history; and if not that,
maybe a football game or something else. In contrast, a very explicit
simulation like ASL leaves the player with little room for interpretation:
it's about tactical WWII combat, period.
Time for me to quit rambling and get some sleep.
--Patrick
Josh Adelson
>
> Interesting viewpoint. Yes, I can see that. In a game like Settlers of
> Catan, the theme and mechanics play off each other, producing a
> self-contained whole--the game itself. But in Squad Leader, I suspect the
> typical player will enjoy the vicarious hands-on experience of WWII
tactical
> battle. SL thus transports a player imaginatively out to a WWII
> battlefield, whereas Settlers transports a player into the mythical island
> setting of the game itself.
>
here! If you preclude intent, and I preclude affect, there will be nothing
left but the games themselves!!
Josh Adelson
> Rambling again, ain't I? Well, it's late. Better quit before I become
> totally incoherent.
Hey Patrick, your rambling is cool. I immediately thought of the
intentional fallacy and of course the affective fallacy right after it, upon
reading LL's post about designer intent, etc. I do want to compare two
paragraphs from recent posts though--one of yours, one of mine. Yours:
>The more abstract a game is, the freer a player is to interpret its "story"
>as he sees fit--to find various kinds of meaning in it. The more explicit
a
>game is, the more a player is channeled into interpreting its "story" in a
>certain way. Nine Men's Morris can be about any number of different
things;
>Panzer Leader is pretty much just about WWII tactical combat in Europe.
Mine:
>What this winds up doing is asking the question, "does Chess have a plot?"
>If it does, how much imagination is required to perceive it, and will the
>story I see be the same story that the majority of people see? Games that
>leave NO room for variation in perception of the plot do so with a
>combination of rules, component selection, nomenclature, and any other
>technique necessary for the conveyance of the designers' intended plot.
>Honestly, I can't make up a "story" for Nine Men's Morris that I can be
>reasonably sure anybody else here would reproduce. (I believe the Morris
>was a dance, but I don't like the imagery of nine men prancing around
trying
>to get into threesomes.) I can be sure that at least a few people think
>that Chess is a battle for territory by two opposing factions, each of whom
>needs clear lines of force established in order to entrap their
opposition's
>leader. Anthropomorphicizing a chess piece is certainly simpler for me, in
>order to imagine a story, than a similar task would be for a Reversi piece.
(I should point out that 'anthropomorphicizing' is separate and distinct
from
'anthropomorphizing', the latter activity being available to the layman,
while
the former remains the exclusive domain of the expert.)
Your post was in response to mine, and mine was in response to somebody
else, and though mine came first, I don't for a minute claim that you were
influenced by my words at all in response to me. It is just amusing to me
that the above two excerpts are not substantively (I won't pretend to any
sort of coherence in mine) different.
I really don't care if we call plot theme, theme motif, motif pretentious,
or aquamarine blue! Chess is themed, pure and simple, just as much as 9MM
is, and possibly moreso. If the intentional fallacy is eliminated as
irrelevant to the question (you can toss out the affective fallacy too, no
prob) then we have only the idea that we are SO far removed from
understanding what the guy was thinking who first put together a 9MM game,
we may never be able to relate the mechanics to HIS theme. If we were all
druids in the land of Adderholdt, and we all bought this game when our Uncle
Rastus invented it, I'm sure the theme would be readily apparent.
Similarly, when Farouk the Naughty invented Chess, or whatever the hell he
called it, if he'd explained it to us, we'd have NO trouble seeing the
theme. (Unless we were Spielfrieks with attitude.) By the year 30000 P.H.,
when the arabic numerals on the chits are invisible because the chits and
the boards have ossified and turned brown, I'll enjoy seeing the
Skezzomorphs who populate Earth try to make heads or tails (whoops, is
cointossing abstract?) out of Panzer Leader.
Larry Levy
> First off, I question whether the game designer's objective really matters
> at all. In literary criticism (I was an English major), T. S. Eliot
> exploded the sanctity of "author's intent" back in the 50s in a famous essay
> ("The Intentional Fallacy," IIRC). Basically, he said it's absolutely
> irrelevant (and unknowable) what an author "meant" when he wrote something;
> all that counts is what was written and what's there in black & white. I
> think the same holds true for game design: what counts is what's there in
> the box and what happens when people play the game.
A fair criticism. I probably leaned too hard on designer intentions,
but it was easier to talk about that than specific aspects of the
games. But I feel that Settlers is markedly different than your
average wargame because the focus in the former is on the mechanics
and playability and the focus in the latter is on reflecting reality.
Note I said "reflecting"; I understand that these are not true
simulations, but there is much more emphasis on recreating actual
conditions and events than there is in a game like Settlers.
> You said Teuber's "principal goal when designing Settlers had to center
> around the game's mechanics" and "Teuber's overriding goal had to be to come
> up with a playable and entertaining game." Setting aside the fallacy of
> "designer's intent," these remarks raise two questions for me: (1) How can
> a game's mechanics alone produce a 'playable and entertaining game'?
Well, you're obviously asking the wrong person (remember, I'm a
"mechanics first" gamer!). Although a good theme does add to my
enjoyment of a game, to me, the mechanics ARE the game. Or, more to
the point, the way the players react when confronted with those
mechanics. For example, one of the consequences of the mechanics of
Settlers is that players tend to have too much of some resources and
not enough of others. That, in and of itself, does not make for an
entertaining game. However, combine that fact with the trading
mechanic and the fact that players need a variety of resources in
order to build useful things, and you have a very lively and
entertaining trading game.
> How does a wargame designer's goal differ, really, since ultimately a
> wargame must also be a 'playable and entertaining game'? Part of the way a
> wargame entertains is by giving players a sort of vicarious hands-on sense
> of what a real-life battle might have been like; but it's still
> entertainment.
I think you've kind of answered your own question, Patrick. Yes, a
wargame's goals are to be playable and to entertain, just like any
other kind of game. But because so many wargamers are entertained by
the "You Are There" aspect (to quote the old AH slogan), playability
often takes a back seat to accuracy. This is neither good nor bad; it
is simply an aspect that many of these games share.
> Getting back to Teuber's design centering around the game's mechanics, that
> still makes me wonder. Do you suppose he said to himself, "I'll bet people
> would really enjoy shuffling and laying out hex tiles, so I want to be sure
> to incorporate that."? Or "I just know people would love moving this black
> piece into an opponent's territory every time a 7 is rolled, then taking one
> of the opponent's cards"? As you said, there must have been some interplay
> between mechanics and theme.
As a game designer myself, I can tell you that theme is very
important, because it not only lets you hang rules onto a game, it
often suggests rules that can be added. But if a theme strongly
suggests a rule and that rule seems to hurt the game, I drop it. Or
maybe I change the theme. I'm sure that's true of Teuber and every
other creator of designer games. Does he think people will enjoy
shuffling and laying out tiles? No; but it's necessary to give the
game a random layout, which people definitely WILL enjoy. Will people
enjoy moving a black piece when a 7 is rolled and taking one of their
cards? Or course they will--it's called screwing your opponents!
It's a little nicer that you can call the black piece a robber, but
really, that's a paper-thin aspect of the theme and scarcely has
anything to do with the game. He could have called the black piece
any one of a dozen things. I could just as easily ask you if you
enjoy moving one of your taller Chess pieces several spaces in a line,
removing your opponent's piece on that space, and having your opponent
knock over his tall piece with the cross on top, signifying that you
have won. Of course you do--or rather, you enjoy the thought process
that was necessary in order to achieve that position.
> Yet some completely abstract games like reversi (Othello) are playable,
> challenging, entertaining, sociable--everything gamers look for in a good
> game. What accounts for that? Can game mechanics alone be so appealing and
> satisfying? These aren't rhetorical questions; I really wonder.
This is such an interesting discussion. See, I wouldn't dream of
asking these questions, because the answer is so obviously "Yes" to
me. And yet, I might well ask what the appeal is to recreating
historical events or vicariously placing oneself in some role. To
you, the answer to those questions must seem just as obvious. I guess
we just come from two different gaming worlds.
Well, let me take a shot at it. I find games enjoyable because I like
the thought processes they inspire, along with the interplay and
interaction with my fellow players. Competition is essential, because
that makes the goal worthwhile, but I'd much rather be involved in a
well-played, closely fought loss than in a lacklustre game which I
happened to win. The game mechanics are like a puzzle that needs to
be solved, but the efforts of my opponents make this a much more
challenging puzzle than I can hope to encounter in a book or on a
computer. I want there to be some kind of theme, because otherwise
the game is too dry; a game with a closely correlated theme is even
better. But in the end, it's the mechanics and the gameplay that rule
out. There are lots of games with very thin themes that I enjoy
immensely and many games which are dripping in theme that I avoid like
the plague.
Larry
Patrick Carroll
> This is such an interesting discussion. See, I wouldn't dream of
> asking these questions, because the answer is so obviously "Yes" to
> me. And yet, I might well ask what the appeal is to recreating
> historical events or vicariously placing oneself in some role. To
> you, the answer to those questions must seem just as obvious. I guess
> we just come from two different gaming worlds.
>
Yes, gamers come in all different varieties, don't they? Maybe that's why
there are so many different kinds of games around--so there will be
something for everyone.
Since you've described some of your preferences, I'll stop arguing and try
to describe some of mine. It'll no doubt take us way off topic, but what
the heck.
One of the most curious things about me is that I've been fascinated with
games all my life, nearly to the point of obsession (no, wait--scratch the
"nearly"), yet I rarely play games with other people--and don't necessarily
want to. Part of it, I guess, is a fear of competition--and that cuts two
ways: I don't like the "agony of defeat" (as the old TV show "Wide World of
Sports" used to put it), and I don't like seeing that agony on my opponent's
face either. I'm just too sensitive (or too egotistical--take your pick) to
enjoy competition.
So, the "contest" aspect of games isn't what appeals to me. Once I'm
involved in a game, I'm as determined to win as anyone; I generally play to
the hilt. But while I'm doing that, I'm also frustrated by the tension. I
feel the game would be much more enjoyable without all the conflict,
tension, suspense--i.e., competition. When the balance shifts decisively in
my favor, and I can pretty well rest assured I'm going to go on to win, that
's when I can finally relax and truly enjoy the game. But only if I'm
playing a solitaire game or playing against a computer AI. Otherwise, when
the balance shifts in my favor, it has shifted away from my opponent; and
when I see the look of dismay on his face, I end up feeling bad too.
Another reason I don't often play games with other people is just reserve
and a love of solitude. As my wife put it when I caught her playing
solitaire on the computer one evening and asked why she didn't play an
on-line game with others instead, "Hey--I've been extraverting all day at
work. The last thing I want when I'm relaxing with a game at home is to
have to interact with other people!" That pretty well sums up how I feel
too. I love people, but games are a hobby I like to fool around with in my
down time.
I guess the main appeal of games to me is as art. Art has an appeal on many
levels. Physically, I love the look and feel of a fine chess set, for
example. Emotionally I like the satisfaction of seeing an elegant winning
combination of moves. Mentally I like the way a game rewards clarity,
persistence, adherence to principles of sound play, and creative pursuit of
strategy. Beyond that, I especially love the way a game seems to somehow
mirror life and the player's own consciousness--just as any art-form
reflects some aspect of life, while also contributing its own unique beauty
to life.
Puzzles, however, strike me as a poor art-form, if they're a form of art at
all. Many years ago I got a Rubik's Cube as a present; and it wasn't long
before I threw the thing away in frustration. I hated it. I've never liked
jigsaw puzzles or puzzles of any kind. I love chess enough to patiently
work through the puzzles in chess books, but I tolerate them only because I
see them as exercises for better understanding chess.
Because of my attitude toward puzzles, I've never been able to understand
how some people can enjoy taking a "mathematical" approach to games. There
are people who use computers to "solve" classic games like Nine Men's
Morris. Why?! To me, NMM is not a puzzle to be solved; it's a form of art.
Players aren't just supposed to work at it; they're supposed to also
appreciate its elegance and beauty and try to fathom its symbolism. If I
saw chess or NMM as essentially just a mathematical puzzle to solve, I'd
detest it.
Theme (or "plot" or "simulation" or whatever we're calling it today) is
something I have mixed feelings about. All my life I've been a war buff.
My dad was a paratrooper in WWII, so I grew up hearing war stories, seeing
war on TV, and playing army with my friends in neighborhood fields. And
when I got old enough, I discovered wargames, which led to a lifelong
interest in reading military history. So, anytime I come across a game
about war, its theme does grab me. Other themes, however, usually repulse
me. I don't understand why anyone would want to play a finance game, a rail
game, a political game, or a game about camels crossing a desert. (Well, I
can see that someone else might be as attracted to trains and railroads as I
am to war; but I can't imagine being the least bit interested in trains
myself.)
Anytime a game has an explicit theme, I resent its channeling my imagination
in that particular direction. The cover of Mayfair's "Settlers of Catan"
box, for instance, shows a 17th-century scene that reminds me of the
American Thanksgiving holiday, with pilgrims and all that. So, when I play
Settlers and see that box every time, I can't help but think of Plymouth
Rock, Roanoke Island, and the colonization of America in the 1600s. It's
one of my least favorite periods of history, so that box-art theme dampens
my enthusiasm for the game. I might've been happier with the abstract
German box art, because then I'd feel free to let my imagination wander over
a wide range of history, fiction, or fantasy.
I was devoted to SL/ASL for ten or fifteen years--but WWII was never my
favorite period of history; it's a little boring to me (probably because I
got my fill of it in childhood and my teens). Though it was the most
exciting wargame I ever played, I really wasn't interested in imaginatively
traveling to WWII battlefields and vicariously experiencing that kind of
combat action. I really wished it had been some kind of universal,
multi-period, multi-genre game that covered tactical warfare in general. Or
better yet, that it had not had an explicit theme at all--because then I'd
be free to imagine whatever I liked.
My wife had an insight that ties in here. I was playing Age of Wonders 2 (a
fantasy-fiction strategy game) on the computer last week, when she came by
and watched. She's a big fantasy-fiction fan (I'm not at all), but she
immediately scowled at the images on the screen. The game has wonderful
artwork and animations, but that was precisely her complaint: the explicit
images clashed with what she had always imagined. "Leprechauns don't look
or act like that," she said with a self-assured frown.
That happens to me too. Sometimes I'm an American Civil War buff (it comes
and goes), but because I've read so much about the ACW I can't play an ACW
game without complaining about its shortcomings. Battle Cry is absolutely
ridiculous, for instance. But so are simulations like advanced Gettysburg '
77 or Terrible Swift Sword. I know enough that I can see gaps and
distortions in all ACW games, and it irritates me. If Battle Cry were a
Tolkienesque fantasy game, maybe I could relax and take it at face value
without judging its accuracy.
But on the whole, I guess I resent theme more than I appreciate it. If the
theme is one that I'm greatly interested in, it'll appeal to me--but in the
long run it'll probably disappoint me. In any case, I'll object to having
my imagination channeled along particular lines when I'd prefer to let it
roam free.
So, if we look at a spectrum of "theme," with Abstract at one end and
Simulation at the other, the closer to the Abstract end a game falls, the
more imaginative freedom I feel I have--and that pleases me. But if the
game is completely abstract--like reversi/Othello--then I perceive it as
some kind of mathematical puzzle, and I absolutely reject that!
In short, it's imperative that a game *engage* my imagination, but I resent
it when a game attempts to *control* my imagination. If the game doesn't
engage my imagination (at least by appearing to me to be an art-form worthy
of contemplating as some kind of symbolic representation of life), I reject
it as merely a dry mathematical puzzle. But if the game tries to control my
imagination, channeling it along the lines of some explicit theme, I end up
feeling sort of strait-jacketed.
Chess works well for me because it's easily recognizable as an art-form.
Even if you don't see the battle theme, you can appreciate the sculptural
beauty of the Staunton pieces; the long, rich tradition of the game; the
vast body of literature the game has generated; and the aesthetics of move
combinations. Although I don't play very well and many of the subtleties of
chess no doubt elude me, I still greatly admire the game as what I'd call a
"metaphor of life." I won't try to explain *how* it's a metaphor of life;
but if I did, I'd have to resort to the lofty language of an art or literary
critic.
But when I hear of people analyzing the intricacies of the Deep Blue
computer software, or pitting their computer program against a rival
chess-playing computer program, or trying to "solve" chess once and for all,
I don't get it. Nor do I see the joy in creating or solving chess
conundrums. To me, those approaches reduce chess to the status of a mere
puzzle, whereupon I immediately lose all interest in it.
It's not much easier for me to understand people who are into chess for
serious competition--those who treat chess as a sport. They tell me that
kind of play opens up a whole new dimension by introducing psychological
interaction into chess--and I can see how that would be true. It doesn't
interest me, though; not enough to get me to play competitive chess. For me
there's too big a downside to it (as I explained above). Furthermore, this
sort of competitive play seems to me to cheapen chess: it reduces it from
an art-form to a contest, a "mind sport." The beauty of the game as an
"objet d'art" is subsumed in base competition--and it's hard for me to see
much essential difference between that kind of competition and a street
brawl.
It's a bit easier for me to understand people who just play chess
socially--not for serious competition, but just for fun. Some of these
folks enjoy chess variants, others play the standard game in a casual
"coffeehouse" way, just to pass the time. It's something for two people to
do while sitting across the table from each other sipping cappuccinos. But
anytime I try this, I automatically get self-conscious and slip into
competitive mode--and start worrying about losing or hurting my opponent's
feelings. So what should be a social occasion often ends up being pretty
tense and uncomfortable for me.
What does work for me is just playing chess (and other games) on the
computer. That way I can play at my own pace, make mistakes and learn from
them, back up and explore anything that catches my interest, run through
famous games and learn to appreciate them, and so forth. When I'm not at my
best, I still feel the tension, get frustrated, and experience the "thrill
of victory" or the "agony of defeat." But when I am at my best, I get all
the positive benefits of enjoying a game and interacting with a work of art.
It's a process of exploration and self-discovery. For instance, I may have
read about the different playing styles of champion chess players--the
attacking genius of Morphy or defensive style of Tal (I'm probably confusing
Tal with someone else)--and wonder what my style is as I play. Really I'm
just a patzer--but at least I'm becoming a cultured, educated patzer.
For me, the choice between chess, Settlers of Catan, Euphrat & Tigris, and
ASL is sort of like a choice between Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Monet, and
Picasso. It's just a question of what kind of art strikes a chord with me.
A lot of modern art is a turn-off for me, as are many innovative games.
Then again, there are some older styles of art that I dislike--baroque, for
instance; and the same is true of some classic games. One thing I generally
like about modern art is that it often steers clear of an explicit subject,
leaving me free to interpret the work in many ways; and that's also what I
like about abstract games. But I dislike modern art when it's too sterile
or starkly geometric and seems divorced from life; and that's also how I
feel about extremely abstract games like five-in-a-row.
Speaking of art, I guess by now I've painted a more-than-sufficient picture
of my taste in games. I just hope it inspires some reflection and
self-discovery in a reader or two, and wasn't just a vain exercise for me
alone. Anyhow, I'll quit now. :-)
--Patrick
Dweeb
Have you ever thought of playing games for fun?
Please don't take this as an insult - but you give just about every
reason for playing except for fun. I find it really hard to believe that
you cannot enjoy a game of Settlers, for instance, because you would be
either winning and feeling guilty about it or losing and not liking it
or thinking about the 1600s or whatever. It's just a game.
Patrick Carroll
down off & on for several days now).
"Josh Adelson" <jade...@columbus.rr.com> wrote :
> Your post was in response to mine, and mine was in response to somebody
> else, and though mine came first, I don't for a minute claim that you were
> influenced by my words at all in response to me. It is just amusing to me
> that the above two excerpts are not substantively (I won't pretend to any
> sort of coherence in mine) different.
Go ahead--claim it. I probably was influenced. I read your post, replied
to another, then couldn't get on the Net for a while--and when I came back I
replied to somebody else's post and remembered yours, and even borrowed
"anthropomorphized" (without the "ic" since I'm only a layman).
I've been influenced by many posts in this thread alone, and by lots of
other stuff as well. I'm way past claiming originality for anything I say
or write. I just hope those who influence me the most will take my
imitation as a sincere form of flattery, rather than plagiary. 'Cause I
sometimes lose track of who said what.
> I really don't care if we call plot theme, theme motif, motif pretentious,
> or aquamarine blue! Chess is themed, pure and simple, just as much as 9MM
> is, and possibly moreso. If the intentional fallacy is eliminated as
> irrelevant to the question (you can toss out the affective fallacy too, no
> prob) then we have only the idea that we are SO far removed from
> understanding what the guy was thinking who first put together a 9MM game,
> we may never be able to relate the mechanics to HIS theme. If we were all
> druids in the land of Adderholdt, and we all bought this game when our
Uncle
> Rastus invented it, I'm sure the theme would be readily apparent.
> Similarly, when Farouk the Naughty invented Chess, or whatever the hell he
> called it, if he'd explained it to us, we'd have NO trouble seeing the
> theme. (Unless we were Spielfrieks with attitude.) By the year 30000
P.H.,
> when the arabic numerals on the chits are invisible because the chits and
> the boards have ossified and turned brown, I'll enjoy seeing the
> Skezzomorphs who populate Earth try to make heads or tails (whoops, is
> cointossing abstract?) out of Panzer Leader.
Well said, Josh! (Don't be too surprised if you see something that in one
of my posts tomorrow.) ;-)
--Patrick
Patrick Carroll
> Have you ever thought of playing games for fun?
>
> Please don't take this as an insult - but you give just about every
> reason for playing except for fun.
I think that's what I was talking about when I wrote:
<<It's a bit easier for me to understand people who just play chess
socially--not for serious competition, but just for fun. Some of these
folks enjoy chess variants, others play the standard game in a casual
"coffeehouse" way, just to pass the time. It's something for two people to
do while sitting across the table from each other sipping cappuccinos. But
anytime I try this, I automatically get self-conscious and slip into
competitive mode--and start worrying about losing or hurting my opponent's
feelings. So what should be a social occasion often ends up being pretty
tense and uncomfortable for me.>>
> I find it really hard to believe that
> you cannot enjoy a game of Settlers, for instance, because you would be
> either winning and feeling guilty about it or losing and not liking it
> or thinking about the 1600s or whatever. It's just a game.
That's what Josh Waitzkin's father said to him in the movie "Searching for
Bobby Fischer." Josh looked up and glared at him, then said, "No, it's not.
It's not just a game." (Or something close to that.) Josh went on to
become a chessmaster, and he probably knows chess better than you or I will
ever know Settlers.
It *can* be "just a game"--for those who like light social play (i.e., those
people I briefly described in my quoted paragraph above). And if we took a
poll, I'd guess about 70 percent of r.g.b.ers do usually play games that
way. But that's not the only way to approach or enjoy games. Nor is it the
"right way" or the "best way" or the way "everybody" does it.
Have I ever done it? Sure. Last time was about a week ago when I played a
few games of Yahtzee with my wife. For her it's an old family favorite she
hadn't played in a long time; for me it was just a silly way to pass a
little time. I guess it was fun; we laughed, teased, rolled dice, felt
lucky sometimes and unlucky other times. But it wasn't satisfying. And I'm
the kind of person who always looks for satisfaction, not just fun.
Last time I played a themed game for fun, it was Adv. Civilization. A
longtime coworker was moving back home to Louisiana to care for his aging
parents, so we had a farewell game for him. He used to like playing Crete,
and we kind of arranged it so he'd get a chance to play Crete again. We all
had fun all day long. Some played a little more seriously than others.
Nobody analyzed the game to death, competed for blood, or revered the game
as an "objet d'art"; it was just a fun time.
So yes--I do sometimes play games just for fun. I know what that's about.
However, it doesn't account for my lifelong fascination with games. If
games were just for fun, to my mind they'd be trivial, and I wouldn't waste
this many words on them. I wouldn't see any reason to play games, much less
discuss them with other game enthusiasts. If I did still play them, it'd be
a spontaneous thing, soon forgotten.
--Patrick
Patrick Carroll
> Careful, Patrick! You are venturing rather close to the Affective Fallacy
> here! If you preclude intent, and I preclude affect, there will be
nothing
> left but the games themselves!!
Well, then we can always meander toward Deconstructionism, can't we? (I'll
hafta brush up on my Derrida for that. Hope I'm up to the challenge.) ;-)
--Patrick
Josh Adelson
> So yes--I do sometimes play games just for fun. I know what that's about.
> However, it doesn't account for my lifelong fascination with games. If
> games were just for fun, to my mind they'd be trivial, and I wouldn't
waste
> this many words on them. I wouldn't see any reason to play games, much
less
> discuss them with other game enthusiasts. If I did still play them, it'd
be
> a spontaneous thing, soon forgotten.
>
> --Patrick
I think the best part about this newsgroup for me is I get to make
absolutely useless value judgements about those posters whom I'd find
enjoyable as opponents. You, Mr. Carroll, would be a fun person with whom
to play some games. Of course, I say that about anybody who throws A. Civ
parties for migratory friends....
Robert Rossney
news:LOUd9.104130$mj7.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> waste this many words on them. I wouldn't see any reason to play games,
much
> less discuss them with other game enthusiasts.
To anyone who is having difficulty with the notion that "just for fun" does
not, in any way, mean "trivial" -- and, really, to anyone else who is
interested in thinking about play -- I strongly recommend Clifford Geertz's
essay "Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight." It can be found in
_The Intepretation of Cultures_, or, if you can bear to read it online, at
http://webhome.idirect.com/~boweevil/BaliCockGeertz.html, among others.
This essay is, in addition to being some of the best writing ever produced
for academic publication, an exploration of the actual depths that are
present in activities that many would dismiss as "trivial." The insights
(and techniques) that Geertz brought to looking at the folkways of remote
Balinese hill-villagers 45 years ago can usefully be employed in examining
what's right in front of your nose.
Also the story that begins the essay is a riot.
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
Josh Adelson
The part about "detachable, self-operating penises" and "ambulant genitals"
reminds me a lot of Crokinole. But seriously...that's some excellent stuff.
Thanks for that link. (It was a tad less dry than my former colleague Cliff
Behren's monograph on life among the Shipibo, which is about eight pages
long, and in the past 16 years or so I've still never made it off page
2....)
Andrew Petrarca
> "Andrew Petrarca" <and...@hotblack.3d.gweep.net> wrote:
> > I think you just *did* explain it. The extent to which a game is "about"
> > something is equal to the extent to which it generates vivid, detailed
> > images of that thing in the minds of the players of the game, helping them
> > to imagine the events the game is "about. . . .
>
> So you're saying "theme" is the product of an interaction between certain
> game features (pictures, names, rules descriptions, and so forth) and the
> players' imagination. And ultimately the "theme" of a game resides in an
> individual player's imagination. Therefore, it can't possibly be an inherent
> part of any game (only the features designed to "generate vivid, detailed
> images" can be an inherent part of the game--but they won't work unless a
> player cooperates).
One thing I think we ought to do is refine our terminology to avoid confusion.
One possible meaning for "game" is a certain type of activity (which I know
better than to try to define precisely) that a person or group of people engage
in. Another meaning is a set of rules and equipment used by the people taking
part in that activity. These two things are different.
In the case of game as activity, it is clear how my description of theme is
applicable - the players are either imagining the theme as they play or they're
not to the extent that the game is themed or not, and in this sense of the word
there's no such thing as a game in the absence of players.
In the case of game as rules and equipment, my description is useless because
there are no players. I suspect that this is what you're asking about when you
ask about theme being inherent to a game. You're looking for a way to talk
about a game being themed or not while it's still sitting in a box on a shelf.
The trouble with this is that it's similar to the "tree falling in the forest"
mystery. If a Monopoly set sits forgotten in the closet, is it still about
real estate rental? :)
For the game in the box, I'd be tempted to suggest using a statistical method.
If you got a bunch of people together and got them to open the box and play the
game, how likely would they be to involve themselves in the theme? In other
words, on average how effective are the contents of the box in conveying the
theme to players? The answer you get will depend on the group of players you
select from, but it doesn't depend *entirely* on them. The contents of the box
matter too. If the box contains a chess set you're going to get consistently
different results than if it contains a Monopoly set.
> I see a similarity between that and the theory behind simulation. How
> simulation works is, to me, a mystery. I'm not sure there's any Frege
> around who could prove a connection between a game feature and its
> corresponding real-life feature. So, like Russell, I question it and find
> the whole thing mysterious.
>
> That said, however, I agree that we don't have to go that far. We can say
> simulation or "theme" works by analogy, and leave it at that.
For now I think that's best. Otherwise we'll end up trying to puzzle out the
same issues that Frege and Russell struggled with. When it comes right down to
it, asking how a game can be about something is pretty much identical to asking
how a word or a book can be about something.
I must admit that I find these ideas intriguing though. I wonder if I could
make myself sit still long enough to read Russell et al.
> So, would you say chess is analogous to battle? How strong is that analogy
> in your mind? Is chess themed or abstract?
The analogies that are usually drawn between chess and battle are on a higher,
more abstract level than is typical with most games. It's not usually a matter
of simply drawing connections between the pieces on the board and the soldiers
on a field. The connection usually touted between chess and battle has to do
with the fact that good chess play requires tactical thinking which in some
ways is similar to the tactical thinking a general uses to direct a battle.
I'm not qualified to judge how similar the two modes of thought really are, but
I've heard it said that such things as maintaining initiative and concentration
of force are important in both. Regardless, tactics does not constitute a
theme to my way of thinking.
I would say that chess is very weakly themed. The pieces have names that are
reminiscent of medieval warfare, but most of the actual rules are arbitrary and
unconnected with the theme. The game is often treated as a pure abstract. For
example, chess columns in newspapers seem to treat it as a purely abstract
game. As I see it the "figure out how to manipulate the pieces to win" aspect
of chess is very strong, and the "let's pretend we're directing a war" aspect
is weak. It's this "let's pretend" aspect of games that I'm calling "theme."
Of course chess is an anomaly. The game is so famous and has so great a
reputation that it almost seems disrespectful to try to pigeonhole it except to
hold it up as a paragon. Perhaps the reason that it's hard for us to classify
it is that it's so well known that we automatically use it as a landmark,
saying that games are abstract if they have a weaker theme than chess and
themed if they have a stronger theme than chess.
--
Bitwise, Andrew. &
Patrick Carroll
> One thing I think we ought to do is refine our terminology to avoid
confusion.
>
> One possible meaning for "game" is a certain type of activity (which I
know
> better than to try to define precisely) that a person or group of people
engage
> in. Another meaning is a set of rules and equipment used by the people
taking
> part in that activity. These two things are different.
Different, yes, but they converge in time & space anytime a game is being
played. So I'm reluctant to completely separate them and consider them
independently of one another.
Avoiding confusion is usually a good idea, but it's easier said than done.
> In the case of game as activity, it is clear how my description of theme
is
> applicable - the players are either imagining the theme as they play or
they're
> not to the extent that the game is themed or not, and in this sense of the
word
> there's no such thing as a game in the absence of players.
>
> In the case of game as rules and equipment, my description is useless
because
> there are no players. I suspect that this is what you're asking about
when you
> ask about theme being inherent to a game. You're looking for a way to
talk
> about a game being themed or not while it's still sitting in a box on a
shelf.
> The trouble with this is that it's similar to the "tree falling in the
forest"
> mystery. If a Monopoly set sits forgotten in the closet, is it still
about
> real estate rental? :)
Yes, I see your point. But what I'm really asking about is what happens
when someone takes the game (rules & equipment) off the shelf and out of the
box. When play begins, the rules & equipment don't cease to exist. They're
still very much present, influencing the players while the players
simultaneously employ the rules & equipment.
Since I tend to exalt the "art" aspect of games above all its other aspects
(see my long post from yesterday), I do tend to downplay competition,
analysis, and fun--the things that players could do even without any
equipment (and perhaps with only extemporaneous rules). So yes, I am
thinking of a game as something that comes in a box. But I'm not thinking
of it as an artifact completely divorced from the human consciousness.
Rather, it's the product of human creativity; and anytime anyone sees it or
opens the box and interacts with it in any way, it's like hearing a piece of
music, seeing a painting, or touching a sculpture.
But unlike music, painting, or sculpture, a game is not designed just to be
heard, seen, or touched; it's designed to be played according to a set of
rules. So that's the focus of what I think we're discussing.
Whether we approach that point of focus from the starting point of a game as
"activity" or from the starting point of a game as "rules & equipment," we
have to get to the convergent focus point before it becomes meaningful. The
main difference I see in the two approaches is that the former leads to
discussions of social meaning, while the latter leads to discussions of
psychological meaning.
I've always been far more interested in psychology than sociology.
> For the game in the box, I'd be tempted to suggest using a statistical
method.
> If you got a bunch of people together and got them to open the box and
play the
> game, how likely would they be to involve themselves in the theme? In
other
> words, on average how effective are the contents of the box in conveying
the
> theme to players? The answer you get will depend on the group of players
you
> select from, but it doesn't depend *entirely* on them. The contents of
the box
> matter too. If the box contains a chess set you're going to get
consistently
> different results than if it contains a Monopoly set.
That sounds about right. I guess that's why I started this thread--as a
sort of informal poll about that aspect of chess.
> > So, would you say chess is analogous to battle? How strong is that
analogy
> > in your mind? Is chess themed or abstract?
>
> The analogies that are usually drawn between chess and battle are on a
higher,
> more abstract level than is typical with most games. It's not usually a
matter
> of simply drawing connections between the pieces on the board and the
soldiers
> on a field. The connection usually touted between chess and battle has to
do
> with the fact that good chess play requires tactical thinking which in
some
> ways is similar to the tactical thinking a general uses to direct a
battle. . . .
>
> I would say that chess is very weakly themed. . . . The game is often
treated as a pure abstract. For
> example, chess columns in newspapers seem to treat it as a purely abstract
> game. As I see it the "figure out how to manipulate the pieces to win"
aspect
> of chess is very strong, and the "let's pretend we're directing a war"
aspect
> is weak. It's this "let's pretend" aspect of games that I'm calling
"theme."
OK. But I wouldn't go quite so far. Newspaper chess columns have to be
short & sweet, so they're probably not as good an example as chess books.
There's a chess book I'm working through right now ("Tactics," by Yasser
Seirawan) which is chock full of military metaphors. One section is called
"Building a Fortress," and one type of "fortress" is designed for "keeping
out the enemy army." Typically, the author of a chess book doesn't have to
explain terms like "enemy army"; it's clear to the reader that it refers to
the opponent's pawns and pieces. Similarly, I've come across descriptions
of the bishop as "a long-range shooter," while the knight is "a superb
infighter."
I agree that there's very little "let's pretend" in most chess games. There
are themed chess sets, where the pieces look like Civil War soldiers and
there's a map of Gettysburg printed on the board; but they're not that
popular among people who actually play chess, and they don't necessarily
generate much "let's pretend" anyhow. But people don't see anything
surprising about such themed chess sets--and I think that's because most
people think of chess as a stylized battle anyway, and the themed set merely
adds some explicit detail.
Now, even though I do perceive chess as a stylized battle when I'm just
sitting here writing about it, when I'm actually playing chess I rarely, if
ever, think of war or battle. If I do, it's just a stray image wafting
through the back of my mind. There's too much logic to concentrate on to be
able to enjoy the luxury of fantasizing or role-playing while you're engaged
in an actual game of chess. But that's true of games like ASL too. Though
it's obviously a game about WWII tactical combat, there was many a time when
I was so involved in calculating odds, checking rules, and working out game
tactics that I was practically oblivious to any "let's pretend" thoughts.
For that matter, I would guess that there are times in real war when a
commander gets so absorbed in working things out on a map that he
temporarily blanks the front-line combat action out of his mind. When one
concentrates hard enough on logical steps to winning, circumstantial
phenomena tends to blur.
I'm not sure any adult-level game is a true "let's pretend" type of game.
The "let's pretend" aspect will always be subsumed by attention to careful
play and working to win.
So, maybe I'm speaking of the moment before game play actually begins. The
game (rules & equipment) is off the shelf and the box is open, and players
are beholding the game and preparing to play it. But they haven't yet
immersed themselves in the game (activity) and gotten lost in the work of
figuring out optimal moves to make.
> Of course chess is an anomaly. The game is so famous and has so great a
> reputation that it almost seems disrespectful to try to pigeonhole it
except to
> hold it up as a paragon. Perhaps the reason that it's hard for us to
classify
> it is that it's so well known that we automatically use it as a landmark,
> saying that games are abstract if they have a weaker theme than chess and
> themed if they have a stronger theme than chess.
Maybe so.
--Patrick
Chris Lemon
news:LOUd9.104130$mj7.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> become a chessmaster, and he probably knows chess better than you or I
will
> ever know Settlers.
And I'm guessing he doesn't get laid much.
Robert Rossney
news:albeus$1pa0ht$1...@ID-127786.news.dfncis.de...
You never know. See Julian Barnes's essay "Trap. Dominate. Fuck."
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
Josh Adelson
"Chris Lemon" <clemon7...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:albeus$1pa0ht$1...@ID-127786.news.dfncis.de...
> > Josh went on to
> > become a chessmaster, and he probably knows chess better than you or I
> will
> > ever know Settlers.
>
> And I'm guessing he doesn't get laid much.
>
So what I'm hoping to get from this is: The better you know Settlers, the
more you get laid?? Geez, I may have to start playing it again.
Patrick Carroll
> To anyone who is having difficulty with the notion that "just for fun"
does
>
> This essay is . . . an exploration of the actual depths that are
> present in activities that many would dismiss as "trivial." The insights
> what's right in front of your nose.
I read part of the essay, skimmed, read some more. As you say, it is very
good--for those who are interested in that sort of thing.
In my case, I found that my preferences (or opinions, interests, prejudices,
leanings, or whatever you want to call 'em) got in the way of my
appreciating that sort of "deep play." For one thing, I've always disliked
sports to about the same degree I've always liked parlor games. For another
thing, I have such a distaste for sociology that I failed it in high school
(then aced psychology next semester) and steered clear of it ever since then
(the closest I came was a required course in cultural anthropology).
That said, however, you have made a good point: depth can be found in any
of the four main types of (or approaches to) gaming I mentioned in my
earlier post--even the ones I said I have a hard time understanding or
relating to. Art is not the only "deep" approach; the sport, analysis, and
social angles can be equally deep. They're not necessarily trivial.
But I don't remember saying they were. What I recall saying is that if
games were "just for fun," they'd be trivial to me. To me, "just for fun"
means (1) played mainly just for social interaction and (2) played in a
casual, lighthearted, superficial, or frivolous way. When both of those
conditions are in effect (as they were evidently *not* in 1958 Bali), I'd
call the game trivial. I might have fun playing a game that way, but I
wouldn't waste five minutes writing a Usenet post about it.
--Patrick