I found an interesting idea in the academic game stuff I read recently that might stir up a little thought. The idea is that "Information" is a thing, as real as "energy" or "time." Huh? So what? My feelings exactly, but then I started thinking ... What would "Information" look like? Thoughts of reams of paper covered with arcane numbers come to mind. Rule books do too. Then unit rosters, character sheets, maps, counters ... miniatures, the way the miniatures are mounted! God, it's all around us, Hordes of Information, pressing in on our senses, conveniently screened out and ignored for the most part. But vital for our understanding of way is happening in front of US. All this newly realized Information is a little overwhelming for me, so I naturally do what most of us do when confronted with TOO MUCH, I shut down. Too much Information gives me a headache. It is like listening to 5 different pop songs at once, they cancel one another out. Writing this article is one way I am trying to get out of this mess. In fact, I am applying the idea that "Information" is a thing by doing this. Because, I am not creating any new "information" except that I am re-arranging the stuff I already have. What Is the difference between the following ... Jack ran up the hill. The hill ran up Jack. It uses the same words, and the same sentence structure. It even gives roughly the same message (except that one is stupid). I think we may be doing this in some of our wargames. That is, putting good INFORMATION together in "stupid" ways. What do you think of this Idea, "Information is a thing, as real as energy or time." or this Idea, "If you put the same bits of Information together in different patterns, it makes different Information."? Confusing? You bet, so look back up at Jack and the hill. The words are the same, as is the sentence structure, but the MEAN two different things. I guess it really is important how an Idea is presented (A smell by any other rose would name as sweet.). So what has all this got to do with games? Well, actually a lot. I am going to run through a few game genres and briefly look at the Information they use and how It Is organized. Look at their differences. Miniatures: Figures, mounted in different ways, playing board, covered with terrain, unit rosters, movement procedures, combat procedures, turn sequences (quite rigid), morale proceedures, and more. I started this article by saying we sometimes use information in stupid ways. I have a clear example of this in mind. It is a game I made in 1980 called "Military Diplomacy" and never a greater turkey was there made. I was trying to combine the exactness of hex games with the fluid nature of diplomacy games. The result was a slow (no a SLOW) convoluted, game that not only gave me a headache but which earned me years of ridicule from those few who played it. My purpose was unclear, and the design was a hodgepodge of neat ideas and tables all tacked together. (Rule of thumb - if the turn sequence goes on for more than a page stop reading the rule.) I am certain we have all had similar experiences. So in closing I guess I want this article to say that - more is not always better, and - it's how you put it together that makes it good or bad (work/not work) not the quality of the Information you put in it. I stand open to be shot down for these horribly value-laden statements. Back to Experimental Games Group # 4 Table of Contents Back to Experimental Games Group List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1989 by Chris Engle This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com