PBEM v93 n02 (15Mar93)

======================================================================
Exploring the Nature of the Simulation Game              Mel Nicholson
======================================================================

In previous issues of PBEM I've stuck to the pragmatic aspects of game
administration, design, and implementation, all of which are safe
topics because they have a readily available criterion of measure: the
ease of use or amount of effort expended to execute.  This issue,
however, I'm going to go far beyond those cozy confines and dive into
the deep end and talk about games in their most oozing, globular
state.  There are no methods or right answers to fall back on here, so
those who expect some responsible journalism can stop reading now, as
I'm going to have some fun with this.

I'll start by dividing games with a few roughly hewn chops into
categories and ignore the overlap.  There are games which require
physical coordination, strength, and/or stamina like rugby,
tiddlywinks, and bunjee jumping, then there are games which rely
solely manipulating pawns on a board with an extreme level of
abstraction like abalone, solitaire, or checkers.  Aside from that are
the parlor games which rely on memory, double entendre, or
communication like charades, trivia, and the entire range of RPG's.
Finally, we have the semi-abstract simulations like Risk, 1830, and
Galaxy.

I'll dispense with the physical and parlor games soon, but first I
want to take a note of the two things that all of these games have in
common.  The first is conflict.  This does not mean, as some others as
proposed, that all games revolve around a struggle to win, but only
that they revolve around a struggle.  To illustrate the distinction,
consider the children's game dodge ball.  One or more players stand in
the center of a ring, surrounded by lots of other players on the ring.
The players on the outside throw a ball back and forth, trying to hit
the players on the inside.  If one of the players on the inside is hit,
then they switch places with the player on the outside, and the game
continues indefinitely.  The conflict, trying to hit/not be hit, is
there, but no one ever wins (or loses).  This is a universal feature
of games as even in the most mechanical of solitaire games where the
outcome is determined only by the shuffle of the deck, the dynamic
aspect of revealing and manipulating still provides the perception of
conflict to the player.  Even in an RPG where the players cooperate
and do not struggle with each other, this dynamic unfolding still
persists, as the players come to terms with their environment and
their roles, however peaceful the setting or like themselves the role.

The second commonality is so painstakingly obvious that people hardly
recognize how important it is.  The games have a nonzero duration, which
is to say they pass time (thus the word "passtime").  Let us never forget
that the first and most important function of the game is to stave off
boredom, or to use a less negative expression, to have fun (though some
games are admittedly more effective at this than others).

Now that with a broad look at the whole of gaming we have divined the
purpose of games, to remove boredom through conflict, we can narrow our
focus to include only the abstract games and the simulations games while
keeping that purpose in mind to provide perspective.

The highly abstract games make an exceptionally good outside point to
view the simulating games (which are the primary focus of this magazine)
from because the two are incredibly similar.  Mechanically, the two are
identical.  Both move tokens around and possibly roll dice for random
effect, or make whatever other equivalent state tracking mechanisms and
random determinations.  If the game is good, whichever category, it
will have a theme to its rules which determines the flavor of play.

While some theoretician might argue that abstract and simulating games
are equivalent for the reasons outlined above, this is wrong and the
reason for that error goes back to the purpose of gaming.  If one game
involves moving a bunch of pawn on a board and removing those pawns
which are landed on by other pawns, and yet another game has the same
movement rules except it represent tanks/amoebas/whatever with the pawns
and represents destruction/absorption/whatever with the capture, then a
player might be bored by the former and excited by the latter.  This
means that game is subjectively better because it allows the player to
have fun, and objectively different as it elicits a different reaction.

The representation of the game as what it simulates for the player is
not the only difference.  The genesis of the game can also draw from the
domain of that which is simulated.  When making a game about tank
warfare, the real world of tanks can provide insight and suggestions as
to what sort or rules are appropriate to the game.  Perhaps make a rule
that each piece has a facing, and can only move directly toward or away
from that facing (just as real tanks do not move sideways).  Perhaps
this in turn suggests rules for turning, changing from forward to
reverse, or rules for artillery fire and turret facing.  The important
point is that the simulated thing provides not only interest to the
player, but also inspiration for the designer.

One last contrast which will provide insight on the simulation game goes
outside the realm of games into pure simulation.  In a pure simulation,
the goal is to model reality.  The benefit of a feature in the simulation
is in how that feature affects the accuracy and efficiency of the
simulation.  Some have mistakenly taken this idea into the realm of
simulation games as well, and in the design and play work for realism as
a primary goal, sometimes changing a game to be more realistic and as a
result take the fun out of the game, become bored, then wander off in
search of greener pastures.  The mistake to avoid is letting secondary
considerations like realism supersede the primary goal of fun.

As we conclude this foray into the less pragmatic aspects of our
hobby, we should remember three basic lessons.  First, the things we
imagine through our games are a source of entertainment.  Second, we can
draw inspiration from any facet of real life to provide inspiration for
our games.  Most of all, games are for fun, first and last.