Private Zuparko walks into the regimental surgeon's office, holds out his hand, and says, "Doc, it just doesn't feel right when I do this."
So the doctor told him not to do it any more.
The private might have gotten better treatment if he had mentioned the shooting pain between his neck and shoulder when he raised his sore and bruised right arm and twisted it to the left, and that he had taken a blow to the shoulder from above and behind the day before, and was then kicked in the arm by a horse. (Of course, being the regimental surgeon, maybe it wouldn't have made any difference - but this more detailed, better defined description would have to increase his chances, don't you think?).
Like a moth to the flame, I am always attracted to discussions about definitions and clear explanations in the wargame press. I know from experience that I am guilty of being too casual in those areas. Unfortunately, when it comes to articles about wargame design, there is not much attention paid to common definitions. There are often personal reflections on categories or types of wargamer personalities. There may be musings about a common pattern the author thinks he has noticed among "types' of games - but the frame of reference used is seldom exact. This is not surprising - after all, most wargamers are there to wargame, not write articles. In a friendly, casual hobby, where individualism is a virtue, one would expect local definitions and usage regarding games to proliferate. However, while I would not support having "definition police" patrolling the media, I often wish people would just be a little more precise, so that I could better understand the ideas they are trying to get through my thick skull.
I spent many years in correspondence with my friend George Jeffrey about game design. I am embarrassed to say that my college education didn't stop me from getting frequent lessons in clear thinking and expression from the Scottish ex-sergeant-major. Still, that experience convinced me of the need for commonly shared and clear definitions when it comes to topics like designing games. We've heard the old saw about two nations separated by a common tongue. With GWJ and me, we had a lot of factors that got in the way. For example, being separated by an ocean meant we couldn't gesture or push figures around a table to illustrate a point. We had the British and American versions of the language. (In fact, we had the American, British and Scots version!). George had a military background, I did not. George contrasted his ideas with wargames he had seen in the British Isles, while I was used to the vocabulary and examples of American rules sets.
For example, take the term "command control". An oft-discussed idea twenty-five years ago was writing rules to prevent independent battalions running loose everywhere and to come up with ways where generals could control units and issue orders to them. Some people preferred written orders, while others tried various game mechanics to achieve this. These discussions included various terms (the more "military sounding" the better) like command, orders, simulation, control, etc. One phrase that bounced around was "command control".
In fact, I used it in the Foreword to my Vive L'Empereur! rules in 1981 - "...Important elements of Napoleonic warfare such as command control, the importance of morale...". Now, what did I mean by that? Well... er...uh... I just meant some rules under which generals could have the ability to give orders but would be restricted in some ways. "Command control" just seemed like a good descriptive phrase (which I had copied from someone else) that readers would understand. After all, it had the word "command" AND the word "control" in it, so it must have been twice as good as either word alone!
When George and I wrote about ideas, we spent a lot of time "talking past" each other. I'd ask him about how he handled different situations related to "command control" and he would ask me what I was talking about - he had never used the term like that. Turns out that he had some very specific definitions, upon which his concepts hinged, for the word "command" and for the word "control", each with a different function. There were other terms, too that he used in an exact dictionary sense, or words that were already defined in mathematics or military science, which I had used more loosely in a wargaming sense. Once I understood his definitions, and adopted the "specialized" definitions already established in other disciplines, we made a lot of progress - but in some cases that took a very long time. (Mea culpa!) So I became an advocate of clear and shared definitions in wargame design and writing.
Other wargaming phrases also beg for shared definitions, too. Years ago we would speak of "playability versus realism". SPI was one of the first to throw around the term "simulations" in what seemed to me at the time to be an attempt to make their games SOUND more important! Others adopted the term "simulation" and soon it became a synonym for "realistic" or "historical" often at the expense of "fun" or in opposition to a "game". (By the way, is this still the "Adventure gaming hobby"?). Now, many of these terms have actual dictionary meanings, or are in usage in a profession somewhere. Yet the way wargamers use them to advertise their games, or to recommend a set of rules to another can sometimes be less than helpful.
Suppose I am reading a review of a set of rules, and the reviewer only says that he doesn't like the rules, or that in his opinion they don't "feel right". Or perhaps a writer is coining his own terms or categories to give his (usually positive) description of a "type" of person or game (who is usually like himself or the "type" of game he himself plays!), and to then contrast that with a "type" of person or game who doesn't share those qualities. (For example - I think that other people who care about definitional clarity as much as I do, are quite clever people!)
Those generalized opinions give me no real information to go on. If I see some other common phrases like, "They don't seem realistic", or "It is a game, not a simulation of Napoleonic warfare", or "It is not playable", it is still not much help to me. If I don't know what this guy's definition of "realistic", "game", "playable", or "simulation" is, I might waste my money on a poor set of rules, or I might not buy the game and end up missing what would have been a great purchase.
It is not just reviewers, but sometimes designers themselves who may have their own definitions. For example, from the Piquet website, one can find in designer notes, " I intend Piquet to be a new, fresh, and iconoclastic approach to miniature wargaming... Let Piquet introduce you to new ideas, feelings, and experiences in historical wargaming...". From "The Theoretical Basis of Piquet" by Bob Jones, we read, "...it is both a game and a simulation of various means of warfare through the ages... Let me state what I dislike in most present Wargames, and what Piquet was written to adjust or change... I believe rules that function [as many current wargames function] can only be games. Any "simulation" with pretensions to realism must address each of the following...". In the "The Dispatch" we see, "All games are artificial structures for creating competition by postulating "rules" which govern both players...", followed by the author's opinion about when a game is "simple" (eg Checkers) and when it is "complex' (eg Piquet and Chess).
From those (admittedly selective) quotations, one would say that Piquet is a game, a complex game, a wargame, a miniature wargame, an historical wargame, a simulation, and a simulation with a pretension to realism. At the same time, another respected designer like Sam Mustafa will state that wargames are not, and cannot be, simulations. What's a poor reader to think?
(I must mention this citation of a Jim Getz story on the Piquet site: "...one of his fellow gamers read of a battle event where all the drummers in an attacking French regiment were cut down by canister. After this terrible blow the officers had no effective way of communicating orders to the regiment, so the command control of the unit dissolved...". AHA! "COMMAND CONTROL"! Sorry, I couldn't help noticing.)
In the Napoleonic arena, the "Game Concepts" of NAPOLEON'S BATTLES states: "NAPOLEON'S BATTLES is the culmination of years of Napoleonic wargame rules development... Miniature wargame rules have progressed from a pure game played with toy soldiers to almost pure simulations, many so complicated as to be almost unplayable...
NAPOLEON'S BATTLES represents an attempt to strike a compromise between a game (playability), a simulation (realism and/or detail), and a visual panorama...".
In the Introduction of EMPIRE we see, "EMPIRE rules have always sought to represent real history... valuable historical insight is possible right along with the enjoyment of competition, modeling, model-making, research and all the other factors which are gaming/simulating with EMPIRE." From its Preface, "... we have always been interested in improving the `historicity' of the simulation... we are always trying to make the `feel' of the game more correct for the Napoleonic period... our perceived differences between games and simulations should be explained. A game is played to determine a winner and uses rules... Obviously War Games will fit into this category. A major characteristic of the wargame is to tie it to some period of history... history should not be separated from wargaming... we use the word `simulation' to identify our rule sets and differentiate them from other War Games of the `old school'... not to provide you with a game, but rather to give... a tool... with which you can create and accurately simulate historical conflict... you may play EMPIRE as a game... you will be more successful if you play it as history... our hope is you will want to build a simulation: a simulation being a model of the Napoleonic battle...".
In Empires, Eagles and Lions, William Keyser wrote in "The Genesis of From Valmy to Waterloo", "I was frustrated by many of the complex rules out there... to the other extreme were the dreaded "beer and pretzel" rules... the result is From Valmy to Waterloo, a set of rules that is not another version of older wargame rules but rather a completely new look at the period. I did not want a rehashing of the myths presented in previous rules...".
Writing about Legacy of Glory in the Sept-Oct 1994 issue of Empires, Eagles, and Lions,, Matt DeLaMater tells us, "Legacy of Glory (LoG) represents an honest effort to make a breakthrough Napoleonic simulation... Finally, because LoG is so different, we want to present here [in this article] the dispute we have with "old model" miniatures rules systems... We should be promoting respect for history, and playable simulations can do that far better than simple `beer and pretzels' games can... a good playable simulation is... infinitely more rewarding and stimulating than a game. Games don't encourage you to read history, because, unfortunately, a player who masters old model rules can usually beat the player who knows his history. A good simulation, on the other hand, fosters a productive and even symbiotic relationship between the wargamer and his study of history...".
I applaud the efforts of the designers cited above to give thoughtful explanations. However, when I read them, can I be sure that there is a match between my interpretation and their interpretations of "wargame rules", "Miniature wargame rules", "pure game", "pure simulations", "game(playability)", "simulation (realism and/or detail)", "gaming/simulating", "complex rules", "beer and pretzel rules", "Napoleonic simulation", and " `old model' miniatures rules systems"?
I do want to take a moment and point out that I have no problem, when reviewing someone else's work, of criticizing it if the claims made by the author are not fulfilled, or if the expectations created by the designer cannot be realized. On the other hand, if a game has clear objectives and self-defined limitations within which it works, then I believe it would be unfair to criticize that game for not accomplishing some other goals. For example, if a designer claims to have the best "division-level" game out there, and it doesn't work, it is fair to say so. On the other hand, if a player took that same game and tried unsuccessfully to play an "army-level" game with it, it would not be an appropriate criticism to say it failed at that level, since it was not intended to work at that level.
While I find it acceptable to use a designer's claims and assertions in a review of his work, and even hold him accountable for them, one must first know how that designer defines his terms and claims. Without some definitional clarity, such examination becomes hard to perform and harder to justify.
If we had a sort of "Lingua Franca", where some shared definitions and categories for describing games and game design appeared useful enough to enough people so that writers used those terms consistently, then;
- a) readers would be able to better understand them, which focuses and progresses discussion
b) separating subjective taste and opinion from fact becomes easier
c) perceived problems in games would be easier to identify, and perhaps solve d) comparisons of different games or design ideas would be facilitated.
One could also imagine tools built around a Lingua Franca with which;
- a) designers could use as a checklist to help stay on track and avoid dead-ends while
designing
b) designers could "proofread" their games upon completion to see if their objectives were met
c) one could refine an existing design
d) playtesters could use as a guide for comments
e) one could define one's goals and claims for one's own game design
f) one could compare the goals and claims of another design against its content g) a reviewer could evaluate a game design.
I would assert that whether or not a person likes a game is a subjective decision. However, I think that there are many definable, objective points within wargame design, that make it possible for someone to identify the parts of that game that he does or not "like", with a list of reasons, which then makes it easier for someone else to know if he will like or dislike the game or the idea himself. They could also (after all, we are speaking of wargamers here) identify areas where might be able to be modify to one's own taste, and thus change a negative opinion into a positive one.
A group of six people deciding to refight the battle of Waterloo might have a half a dozen "Napoleonic" rules to choose from, each supposedly able to portray the same battle with the same armies and the same commanders. If each player brings his own "favorite" set, on what basis will the group decide which game to play? It would be pretty silly if each guy could only say, "I like this one, but not the others. I don't know why, I just do." By the time they finally agreed to play "rock, paper, and scissors" to decide the matter, it would be time to go home. If we don't want to engage in some serious mind-reading, shouldn't we expect a player to be able to explain the advantages of his game, so that every player could at least form a reasonable opinion as to which game has the most features acceptable to the most people?
Now, I believe in a market economy. If something useful is provided, I believe there will be a market for it, and vice versa. I don't think there is a "King of Wargames" (well, other than Duke Seifried, maybe...) who can impose an "Official Wargames Style and Definition Code" by fiat. On the other hand, if, when writing about game design or game descriptions, authors would use existing definitions accurately and consistently, I would guess that those that lend the most clarity to the discussions have a good chance of being copied by others and perhaps becoming a "standard". (Just look at how a word like "simulation" gained currency through wargame rules and journals. I think it is still a misunderstood and misused term, even after all these years.)
I hope to demonstrate the utility of using existing definitions and terms from other fields to facilitate understanding in our discussions. (If I can't, I can always crawl back into my dictionary, grumbling as I go.) Since I brought up "simulation", that is probably a good place to start. Simulation and gaming was once fairly theoretical, but now has a large base of practical application. The administrative professions, behavioral sciences, and education, are just a few examples of areas which have benefited from this. Though present-day simulators have streamlined the jargon, the basic concepts have remained the same for many years, and were accessible to wargamers had we chosen to use them instead of making up our own definitions of the word.
For example, in the introduction to Richard F. Barton's 1970 "A Primer on Simulation and Gaming", he states, "War games are simulations because the sides are not real enemies and because casualties and destruction are only symbolically represented... Simulation is simply the dynamic execution or manipulation of a model ... for some purpose... What ... will be simulated depends on the specific purposes of the builder... Purposes can be as varied and diverse as human activity."
In other words, if you are not doing "the real thing" yourself, but only representing it in some symbolic way, or with a similarity of ideas, you are simulating it. The subject and purpose for the simulation is up to the designer and is practically unlimited. There is no requirement for "detail", simplicity or complexity, playability, or "pretension to realism", to be a "simulation". Those considerations are more properly considered when examining the "model" being used.
"A model is a representation of something else... in order to construct a model, we need to know something about the object system [ the term for "the real life subject", often called "environment system" or "target dynamic" today - NZ] we are interested in... [I]n the absence of. .. well-founded knowledge, we may make tentative assertions about the object system and then proceed to build a model that reflects these hypothesized characteristics. Usually we try to make the structure of the model correspond in some degree to the structure of the object system... [w]e may model only part of the object system, or we may model it all... [w]e may use any convenient and useful device to construct our model... [such as] ... combinations of actual parts and hypothesized behavior, as in the case of war games..."
So, is a "game", such as a card game like poker or bridge a simulation? No. Poker and bridge were not designed to represent something else. Are wargames simulations? They certainly are. They are models of warfare or some facet of military behavior, being used for a specific purpose. The model might be based upon well-founded knowledge, tentative assertions, hypothesized behavior, and part or all of "real life". Their purpose, being "as varied and diverse as human activity", is not precluded from being for "fun", "entertainment", or "being interesting".
The purposes of simulations in professional use, according to Barton, is usually classified as aiding understanding, aiding decision makers, or training people. The United States Army would probably have a different use for a "war game" than would people pushing lead figures around on the tabletop - but it isn't the purpose that defines a simulation. By the same token, there is nothing to stop a "wargamer" from having additional purposes besides "entertainment" in a simulation game - he could use it as a learning or teaching experience, an historical investigative tool, or anything else he can think of.
Nothing here mandates how much detail a model must represent. It can focus on a narrow section, or on a few generalized areas that the designer wants to explore or play with. Being a "simulation game" is not related to "fun vs. realism" or "serious vs. relaxed players" or "historical geeks vs. well-rounded sophisticates" arguments - if it is modeling some aspect of warfare, it is a simulation game.
The next question is, "So what?" Even if we agree that our wargames are "simulations", how does that make it any easier for someone to better understand how someone else "feels" about the game?
I submit that when one knows what the game represents and is aware of what is being simulated in specific terms that are shared, it is easier to "feel better" about the game and the gaming experience. By understanding the definition, we can examine the different parts of a simulation, and players will have some common references to discuss and compare. When they give their subjective opinions or describe their emotional reactions to those common reference points it would be easier for a third person to understand what they are talking about. Now, there is nothing to stop anyone from saying, "I don't care how you (or your stupid book) defines simulation - I'll call it what I want!", but if it is a reasonable definition that is rational and useful, then he who ignores it increases the risk of misunderstanding (and of being misunderstood by) others. That doesn't help anyone.
For example, simulations deal with "real life subjects", "models" and "purposes". The model is used in some way. If wargamers wish to comment on any of these elements, there is plenty of room for subjective opinions about whether or not the subject being looked at is clear or vague, too broad or too narrow, well-known or too ill-defined, a proper topic for an interesting game, or of little use. Wargamers can debate whether or not the model is too simple or too complex for their tastes, accurate or a poor interpretation according to their own research or opinions, too coarse or too fine for a tabletop game, or if it is useful or confusing. A discussion about the model could be broken into a couple of areas, such as a designer's historical interpretation and, as a separate discussion, his game mechanics. Writers in the hobby would still be free to compare the stated purposes for a game to their own experience with the game.
None of these things restrict the scope or subjectivity of expression of opinion people use, but at least those opinions could relate to some objective categories. It would certainly be more informative than just stating that a game "doesn't feel right". (Of course, a contributor could enumerate the different sections of a simulation and just state that he doesn't know why, but that each one "just doesn't feel right" - but that style might diminish if enough people provided an example that might act as a model for others to copy in future discussions.)
As we focus in, we see that the area most likely to cause differences in opinion is the "model" and how it is built and used. I alluded earlier in this article to several well-known rules sets and how they labeled themselves or their purposes. Some of them may go into some detail about their modeling, which enables a reader to be more specific about their likes or dislikes, or to agree or disagree with an interpretation, about part of that model. Here are some samples (by no means complete for each set - these selections are for illustration only - you should read the rules yourself for more details).
From Piquet: "In many current Wargames, all players have total knowledge as to the forces arrayed, their combat values and exact movement capabilities, and these "generals" are guaranteed an immediate, unvarying, and predictable, response by their troops. They are in total control... Piquet masks combat and morale values by providing variability within type that is not totally a function of numbers mustered... it could be argued that the placement of blocks, or marked maps, would totally eliminate the helicopter view, but... Piquet accomplishes this masking by rating prior to play, and without a roster that must be marked for losses ... by using a combination of Sequence Deck Cards and initiative pips ... Each gamer is taking a limited and finite supply of time (impetus pips) and trying to use it to execute a plan ...Piquet's "turns" ... are of an undetermined and variable length... the Sequence deck is at the core of Piquet's design. Each Army has its own separate deck. It is as if a normal turn sequence has been cut up and each step has been placed on a separate card. After the cards have been shuffled the exact order of events is created... in Piquet we are more concerned with a general's view of battle... Since the time of a turn is up to a half hour ... we are interested in the general's view of success or failure ... the gamer... can create, and... [modify]... the core rules to fit a particular battle or campaign ... Most rule complexity is prior to the game; Only 3-4 tables are used during play...".
EMPIRE: "Two of the most important things a game designer must do ... are control the infliction of damage, or casualties... and control the flow time... we have opted for castings to be removed, morale to be lost, and fatigue points to be awarded to represent losses of troops, spirit, and energy and organization... the maximum design attention in EMPIRE is the control of time... In a simulation, the flow of time is `seen' by the movement of troops across the table... each of the opportunities to move brings... an opportunity to decide to move... referred to as "the turn"... these decision points were really critical events... commanders made decisions at two points - when they wanted to initiate action and when action dictated that they must make a decision ... the solution was the Telescoping Time Concept... accomplished through a combination of simultaneous movement, alternating (mover-counter-move) movement, and randomized movement..."
NAPOLEON'S BATTLES: "Skirmish-level combats are not the topic addressed by these rules, which cover the topic of large actions... The object... is to provide the average miniature wargamer with the ability to recreate the grand sweep of entire battlefields on a table which can fit into a typical basement or den, within a reasonable amount of time, and using an affordable number of figures. What we aimed for was a way to simulate the era's battles without having the mechanics get in the way of the player's decisions."
FROM VALMY TO WATERLOO: "...a major part of the rules are dedicated to command and control. This is dealt with on the Army, Corps and Divisional levels. At Brigade and lower the command and control is more abstract ... and ... is enforced by a strict adherence to the chain of command. This is accomplished by having a menu of orders which Corps Commanders may issue to their Divisions. The more flexible the army the more choices the Corps commander has. This also reflects the inherent difference in the "impulse system" and the "linear system"... the Prussian Wing operating under a linear system may have any order the French Corps may have available, but the Divisions of that Wing will have less choices than their French counterparts... The abilities of all of the Armies from 1792-1815 changed... this is represented by the fact that the "menu" that Corps may choose orders from for their Divisions, also changes... In addition, each Corps and Division has strict guidelines which are meant to make the gamer follow orders... there is also a restriction as to when the gamer may issue orders... This allows the French player to issue orders more frequently than most other nations... Once the order is sent, the commander... must activate the order... [which]... is dependent upon the commander's abilities, the abilities of his staff, and a number of other modifiers... the restrictions will compensate some for the ability of the gamer to see more of the battlefield than an actual commander... on the tactical level the gamer is left to his own devices and may do just about anything he desires so long as it is within the orders of the Division... you are playing two roles: the first as Army and/or Corps.. second, on the tactical level you must move the Brigades and Battalions... targeting enemy units... is done with... an artillery template... the effect of casualties and disorganization is more of a detriment than the massing of troops is a benefit... Skirmishers... are important in towns and woods and to a lesser extent in the open field... there are special rules to catch the essence of some armies, an example is ... Russian artillery... [to]... have it playable in an acceptable time... a rules outline book... is set up that each page or spread covers one of the phases of the turn sequence ... with players who have played two or three games and are commanding a Division to a Corps the time for each turn is... 15 to 20 minutes... one game turn represents 15 minutes of real time.".
LEGACY OF GLORY: "We had a number of specific goals: ... playability while retaining the scale of ... [1-60]... Using battalions, regiments and batteries as basic maneuver elements, we wanted to refight the large battles of history in the same amount of time the historical tactical events actually took (or less)... The dramatic ebb and flow of the period should be reflected and explained through our model... provide players with the experience and accurate challenges of Napoleonic corps and army command... to build an unparalleled model of Napoleonic command... and avoid ... the pitfalls... [of] Old Models.... [whose]... shortcoming most often stems from an initial design failure to adequately consider and represent time... we decided to make our model using the perspective of command from the top down... what is generally more important on battlefields is not the precise minute of an event, but rather it sequence relative to other events... Time, distance, and line-of-sight... became key variables in our commandcontrol ["COMMAND-CONTROL"!There it is again! Well, it does have a hyphen this time - NZ] and order sequencing charts... we created ... the `Grand Battle Turn', which represents two hours of real time, and a `cycle' of grand-tactical combat... we divide this Grand Battle Turn into six 20-minute tactical bounds.. Orders take time to implement... the better the commander and his staff... the more command points you get... a dice roll involved, with modifiers ... players use their command points to write orders, or...commander figures to intervene tactically... at the beginning of the Grand Battle Turn. Command points are restored after orders are written... LoG employs... the action/reaction move (ARM) system.... An assault keeps moving until it is defeated, or until it runs out of `impetus'... Defending units are permitted a wide range of ctions ... and... can wrest the initiative away from the attacker by launching a successful counter-assault or by committing some cavalry ... Many rule sets ignore historical deployments. Legacy of Glory was built upon them... does take more effort to learn than old model games...".
With all of this in mind, let's look at a sort of "wargame template" of some possible definitions and categories within which we can discuss game design. This could heighten precision without losing subjectivity. Under each, I will give suggest some of the possible topics, in the form of questions, one might deal with in relation to that area. These are not the only questions that could be asked. I'm sure someone could improve upon these by deleting, moving, or adding questions. They are here as examples.
You'll notice that this in no way limits the reasonable (or unreasonable!) opinions someone may wish to express - it merely organizes them for easier analysis. It also offers a structure for those who may not "feel right" about something but aren't sure how to classify that reaction, or where to begin. It also allows a reader to examine a designer's claims to see if he agrees that the game model's scope, interpretation, presentation, and implementation, were, in his opinion, successful or not.
I thought this suggestion for a definitional template would benefit if I could refer to it by a short, snappy, acronym. Something that would shine, attract attention, indicate the value of the idea, and that one could pick in a crowd. So I will call it ZIT (for the Zuparko Information Template).
Is the ZIT concept, whether it is my own particular example, or someone else's improvement, worth exploring further? Should it be accepted based upon the "yeses" of some people, or rejected as a ZIT on somebody else's "noes"? You'll have to make up your own mind about that one. If the idea of a "lingua franca" template still seems obscure, the following example should clear up the ZIT for you.
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