Chiteng -> (5/30/2003 7:06:08 AM)
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski [B]Well, Nancy, there they go again. Fellas, now we have three concepts going at the same time where we used to have only two. Let's ruminate a little (and pardon my digression, if you can). History is staisfactorily presented by a wargame when the conditions that faced the commanders are either what actually existed or that, within reason, could actually have existed. This, since the inception of simulation gaming, has been the lodestar of design. This has nothing to do with either play balance or playability. Most historical situations that can be "wargamed" are unbalanced from a "can I win?" point of view. Germany could have blasted through the Western Allies' lines at the end of 1944 and captured Antwerp, cutting off almost half of Eisenhower's forces in a "new Dunkirk" pocket and forced peace on the Western front. Not likely, but possible. The annals of history are filled with such tantalizing possibilities. What if Alexander had caught the odd arrow in the noggin before crossing the Hellespont? If Jesus had been bitten on the foot by some deadly vermin or other, where the he11 (so to speak) would Christianity be now? We play these games because we enjoy being able to influence, through our own brilliance (or dullness) the outcome of historical events (or the events of "future history," as Robert Heinlein might express it). We are participating voyeurs. We want to see what happened and exert our power over it in order to change that historical outcome. If the outcome were always the same, if the conditions always the same, we would not play (and designers would not design). So, in order to have fun, we need balance. I remember the old Avalon Hill game "France 1940." What worse subject for a wargame could there be? Ah, but it was the "historical possibilities" that the designers built in that made it a game, along with victory conditions that allowed you to measure your performance by comparison to what the historical command figures were able to accomplish. Yes, the Dyle Plan was rubbish. But, in this game, you could put yourself into an impossible strategic situation and measure your worth by what you could accomplish given the sh1t sandwich you were handed. Think of Leonidas at Thermopylae. If you caved in on the first day because of the odds you faced, how great were you? If, on the other hand, you could hold out and discover the traitor before he was able to lead the Persians through the mountain passes to cut you off, think of how long and sweetly your name might have been sung. How do you balance a game? You impose intelligently crafted victory conditions against which the commanders can measure themselves. But, more importantly, you present those commanders with a situation steeped in its own history. That does not mean, of course, that every element has to be exactly as it was on the day the battle, campaign, or war commenced. What it means is that the designer (and it is the designer who must, ultimately, make this decision) has intelligently evaluated the history, come to conclusions about what was within the bounds of reason, and presented alternative scenarios and conditions that challenge the players within the historical frame of reference. It is at this point that I have my greatest disagreement with those who want to incorporate wildly speculative elements into game design. I don't want a WITP that reaches back to 1899 and alters the fabric of history so that Pacific war in 1941 can be fought with oddball equipment under fantasy world political conditions. Yes, that would be a great game, and I would love to play it, but that is not what WITP is. WITP from its inception has been a game that seeks to recreate the strategic (and often operational) challenges facing Japanese and Allied high command as they coped with the world situation of the late 30s and early 40s. That's the game I want to buy. I do agree that a freewheeling editor might be a fun thing to include, but, if the game as a historical simulation suffers because this has to be available, I say, "Forget it." Playability is nothing to the point here. Playability addresses game mechanics and the facility with which they allow the players to accomplish the various tasks they must accomplish in order to play the game. A game that fails to allow the players to understand how to play it is just that - a failure. Whew. Certainly got my money's worth out of this post, didn't I? [/B][/QUOTE] Sounds to me like that is Pasternaski's definition of what a wargame is. Now, tell me why anyone is supposed to share it? I certainly dont =) Words like 'wildly speculative' are highly subjective. There is no convincing evidence that 'his' version of alternative reality is correct. What he is willing to buy, is moot. what matters is what SELLS.
|
|
|
|