In his piece "The History in our Historical Wargames," Bill Haggart has confused the process of writing history with the process of game design. [1] While I am in no position to deny anyone the right to be a philosopher or critic, in this case I would recommend that he try his hand at implementing some of these ideas of his, and he might arrive at a greater appreciation for the decisions that go into good game design and above all, good rulebook writing. When I write history I am adhering to rules and standards of documentation that are expected in my profession. These are fairly rigorous (some might say arcane), but they exist because there is a single end product that fulfills a specific function. In the case of my professional work the products are articles and books. [2] These will be peer-reviewed in professional journals. Once published, they form part of the historical record. I take this pretty seriously, as we all take our careers seriously, I hope. My first book has over a thousand footnotes and a bibliography that runs in excess of 30 pages. [3] When I design a game, I'm designing a toy. It is a toy informed by historical knowledge, but it's still a toy. It will be used by players who will make their own modifications as they see fit. It is not supposed to be perfect or even definitive. It is comprised of hunches, best-guesses, and more compromises than the average marriage. [4] It is not designed to be an historical reference work, consulted by grad students doing research. It is designed to be a plaything, a work that encourages imagination and above all, fun. Game rules have a completely different objective from historical monographs, and thus demand a different form. Rulebooks must be as brief and concise as possible and must express in as few words as possible, how to do something. The rulebook's job is not to tell you where I learned that Austrian cuirassiers had faster horses than Prussian cuirassiers. [5] The rulebook's job is only to tell you how fast your cuirassiers can move. Game players do not pick up rulebooks in order to study history. That's what history books are for. Gainers pick up rulebooks in order to learn how to play games. They do not want dozens of footnotes referencing obscure passages in French archival sources. [6] The average gamer doesn't speak French and doesn't have the time or desire to go to Paris to check out these sources for himself; he's going to trust that the designer did his homework. But that's not the point, anyway. The point is: Is this a good game? Does it play well? Does it feel right? Futhermore, including copious historical references in rulebooks would not, as Bill claims, "avoid a lot of pointless discussions" among gamers who might not understand why a game was designed the way it was. Gamers, like all history buffs, will still argue to their hearts' content, footnotes or no footnotes, based on their opinions and interpretations. [7] I hate to be the one to confess this ugly truth, but game designers are not motivated by trying to "do a valuable service for the hobby." We are motivated by creating something that we like, and then offering it for sale. I don't mean to be crass, but I think this point gets forgotten sometimes by those who have never worked with game production: We need to make money. [8] It's that simple: No money, no games. That means every inch on every page is valuable. If I increase the number of pages by 20%, it represents that many more games I need to sell before I break even. [9] If Bill believes that game designers should begin documenting their sources, I encourage him to become the first to do so, and demonstrate how it is to be done. (He claims, after all, that it is "actually quite easy.") Surely, then, he could show us all how to do it. If he is right, then let the marketplace decide, and I wish him the best. Footnotes [1] William Haggart, "The History in Our Historical Wargames The Fun, The `Facts', and Documentation" (MWAN #126) Hal Thinglum, ed., Illinois, 2004. [2] Sam Mustafa, Merchants and Migrations: Germans and Americans in Connection, 1776-1835 (London: Ashgate, 2001). See also: Sam Mustafa, "Merchant Culture in Germany and America in the Late 18th Century." The Yearbook of German-American Studies, Volume 34 (2000). "Arnold Delius and the Hanseatic `Discovery' of America." German History, Volume 18, No. I (Winter 1999). "The Role of the Hanseatic Cities in Early US-German Relations." Maryland Historical Magazine, Fall 1998. Book review of: Hans-Jurgen Grabbe, Vor der grossen Flut: Die europaische Migration in die Vereiniglen Staaten von Amerika 1783-1820. (Stuttgart Franz Steiner Verlag, 2001) in: The American Historical Review. February, 2003. Book review of: Georg Fertig, Lokales Leben, atlantische Welt: Die Entscheidung zur Auswanderung vom Rhein nach Nordamerika im 18. Jahrhundert. (Osnabr(ick: Universitatsverlag Rasch, 2000) in: The Yearbook of German-American Studies, 2002. [3] Mustafa, Merchants and Migrations. [4] The average marriage in the US has 3,268 compromises. See: Rudolf Schlurpredorff, Compromise in Marriage: An Empirical Study (New York: C.C. Rubbish Publishers, 2002), 143-48, and 214-237. For data on compromises in marriages in Japan and China see: Wen-Xia Pao, Compromise in East-Asian Marriages (Shanghai, 1999), 211-243. [5] According to Gunther von Nerdenheimer, Austrian cuirassiers in the 1805-1815 period had smaller, lighter horses than their Prussian counterparts. (See: Nerdenheimer, Pferdemassen in den napoleonischen Kriege (Leipzig, 1909), 188.) This view is disputed, however, by Roland Outhousen, who claimed that the reforms of the Archduke Charles in 1809 resulted in fatter, better-fed Austrian horses which slowed the cuirassiers down by as much as 8%. See: Outhousen, Etwas Quaisch and Scheijle uber Pferde im Napoleonischem Kriege (Flannover, 1911). 203-216. (This book has been out of print for a century, and you can only find it on the bottom shelf of the basement at the archive of the University of Bochum.) [6] A recent study by Golo Rampolo in The Journal of Wargame Psychology, found that only 11% of American gamers wanted lots of footnotes in foreign languages in their game books, and of that 11%, most just needed to go to the bathroom. See: Golo Rampolo, "Les faits incroyable d'une dtudie des wargamers americans" Journal of Wargame Psychology, June, 2002. Vol XI, No. 3, 48. [7] See: COL John Belcher (Ret), Arguing at Wargames:.1 Comprehensive Guide (New York: Pointless Press, 2001), 128-133. [8] A comprehensive study of my finances, done by my wife Theresa, has concluded that making money is good. particularly considering the time and money I spent designing the stupid games in the first place. [9] You see how annoying this gets after a while? Do you really want this? Back to MWAN # 127 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 2004 Hal Thinglum This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com