Gamers sometimes puzzle me quite a bit. They come to me looking for dramatic innovation that will make their day, but in the same breath will state that they don't want anything too different. I've seen design ideas come forward that were lorded over as the best thing since sliced bread, but which seemed to me to be not much of anything new ('ZOC bonds' being the all-time award winner in this category!).

Thinking about this led me to the idea of stable vs unstable game design. This is something I want to present to you for consideration as I think it deserves some thought. As I have stated in the past, there is no comprehensive theoretical basis to wargames to help future wargame designers when tackling new projects, rather a set of artisan guidelines learned by trail and error.

First off, Stable and Unstable are not terms of judgment here. They were picked to describe the processes involved, not to say (or imply) that one is better than the other.

I'm defining a 'stable' design mechanic as something that is not very sensitive to input changes (change something a little and very little if any effect will result). Stable systems model attritional effects very well. Examples being the fire combat system in the CWB, or anything else that deals with raw, linear loss increments in large numbers. In a stable system, you fire at a unit and it degrades a little. Noticeable effects won't come about until you have worn the unit down in repeated exchanges-with the side with the larger units coming out on top (usually). Wild results are probably nonexistent and the player is rarely surprised by the outcome of each local situation (it is predictable). Many (if not most) games are deeply embedded in stable systems. Many do not venture into any unstable ones, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

An 'unstable' design mechanic is one that gives a wide range of potential outcomes for even minor changes in input. Certainly the OCS is loaded with these things (while at the same time retaining some stable systems, such as Barrage). This leads to a degree of unpredictability which rewards the player whose troop handling is the most ready for the most different possibilities. Surprise and the potential flip-flop of turn order are both dramatically unstable mechanics, and intentionally so. This basic level of unpredictability rapidly rewards the player who is most prepared for different eventualities, punishes those who throw caution to the wind, and require the player to balance self-preservation against the desire to advance on his objectives.

Stable mechanics work best in slugging, grinding affairs that actually are attritional in nature. Unstable mechanics are required to show the physical and psychological effects of maneuver warfare and anything else that shows extensive volatility in real life. Obviously, unstable mechanics do a better job of showing the sensitivity of initial conditions found in chaos theory.

That brings up one final theoretical point. While unstable mechanics and chaos do very well at lower levels, unstable systems (and chaos) lead to predictable effects at much larger scales. For example, at the tactical level, German units in WW2 might have been more efficient than American ones, at the strategic level the end result was all-but certain: German defeat. In effect, it seems that the most unstable layers are at smaller numbers and scales, while the stability increases (along with predictability) as the scale increases. In effect, much of the instability cancels out as the scale changes, allowing one to get more mileage out of stable modeling.

So, what does this ivory tower analysis of game systems mean to Joe Gamer? I can say that many gamers are much more comfortable with stable mechanics. They tend to feel more friendly, predictable, and -gentle' than unstable mechanics. It is experience with stable systems that allows gamers to throw up their hands feeling -they can't win' after a turn or two of play in some games. It also accounts for the numerous attempts I've seen of guys with house rules who have attempted to -stabilize' the unstable mechanical effects in things like the OCS (attempts to water-down surprise effects, or remove the potential of a flip-flop). Other game systems have gone so far as to be designed to give players that level of comfort the OCS was designed not to give them (such as GMT's EFS games).

I think these attempts to rule out unstable effects at levels that should be ruled by them (we aren't talking about WIF here...) are wrongheaded. They generate models which are too worried about being 'kinder and gentler' to model the volatile nature of real life at the level they intend to show. Why do they do this? Simply, they pander to the gamer's desire to -not have anything bad happen to them' and to seek the comfort zone created by past experience with games that were limited to stable mechanics. Unfortunately, they paint an entirely false image of real life to the players who play (and enjoy, mind you) them.

Unstable games, in my opinion, not only model real life better at certain levels of warfare, they also lead to more enjoyable games. The player does not enter into a contest of might which inexorably grinds toward an expected conclusion. Rather, play shifts rapidly from player to player causing each in turn to look at the brink of disaster and fight to turn it around--back and forth--for the entire game. That leads to moments of despair followed by moments of heady confidence making for a great gaming experience. It isn't for everyone, but I'll take that over 'the grind' any day.