Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.

From: skrenta@usl.com (Rich Skrenta)

Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1993 02:41:01 +0000

Here's a meandering response to some of this nonsense.

Carl> The rewards for players who play skillfully for a long time are
Carl> both superior positions and superior knowledge of the game.

David> It's not like a superior position is a thing to be valued in and
David> of itself.

I believe that Carl is talking about epic, open ended PBM games, where a
strong position built up over a long time _is_ valued by the player.

David, I suspect, is talking about carrying forward knowledge from one
game to another, giving one an advantage in future games.

*  *  *

Let me try to identify some factors that go into games:

Strategy
	Exploration / discovery
	Diplomacy / player interaction
	Creation / building / making things
	Roleplaying

Chess:		Strategy
	Adventure:	Discovery
	Galaxy:		Strategy, diplomacy
	FRP:		Exploration, roleplay
	MUDs:		Discovery, creation, roleplay, player interaction

Now a lot of us here are talking about what Greg Lindahl called the
"Holy Grail" of PBMing, the epic open-ended game.  Trying to be the
Ultimate Simulation with appeal for all players, these games make a
stab at synthesizing all of the above factors.

It's no surprise, with such a tall order, that many fall short.
But even flawed attempts have been very popular, so we keep trying.

My impression is that David favors strategy games where extended play
doesn't make one an expert.  Chess and Go are out because expert players
are so far above novices.  This seems like a narrow class of games,
probably including most strategic wargames.

Perhaps, if he doesn't value the other factors, or doesn't think any
open-ended games have been done well enough to be worth his time to
play, he should simply say so.  Then we can be done with all of this
comparing Chess and Tennis and ASL and Legends with one another.

*  *  *

I think the area where epic PBMs shine is building, perhaps because it's
hard to get a satisfying dose from other games.

Strategy:	Perhaps you took an unusual liking to your network of
		supply lines in Strategic Conquest.  Maybe you wished
		you could name the cities.

MUDs:	You can build stuff, but the lack of strategic backing gives
		it little meaning.  Other folks will read your descriptions,
		but you're not going to have *power* over them.

FRP's:	The GM gets to build stuff.  Players can develop their
		characters over time.

Where can you build an empire, and have it actually become important?

"What do you like best about Olympia?"

The sheer magnitude of scale; the many options and freedom of choice as
    to what path to pursue; the feeling that this not just a game, but that
    it is a whole world.

Competition.  Bloody combat.  Death and destruction.  The chance of
    being great and holding dominion over all others.  Being able to hose
    other player characters in a variety of ways.

Actually, it's the opportunity of building an empire, and exploring
    the unknown that's always attracted me to this type of game, and the
    mechanics of Olympia lend themselves well to empire-building.

The fact that you can do and make your units become almost anything.
    The players create most of the challenges.  (i.e. Dr. Pain was a pain,
    but he made the game interesting.)

I suppose that most of all, I like the breadth of skills, and the system
    for learning them.  I keep wanting to find my own area of specialty,
    some skill where I could know that I was uniquely important in the game.

I like the openendedness of trying to achieve your goals, And the
    ability to translate cryptic turn orders into something resembling an
    epic land in my imagination.  It's becoming very real.

The fact that you can do almost anything and almost anything can happen
    to you.  It's not just a kill or be killed game.

*  *  *

> I can make up my own game and make myself God.

Many MUD players do this.  :-)

> I can edit my computer game and give myself 999 in every ability.

PBM's are good at eliminating this temptation, since you can't get
at the GM's computer.  You have to work from within the game.

One final question:  Are the "question mark" and "community chest"
decks in Monopoly examples of hidden rules?  Are they an example of
discovery that is no longer fresh after you've seen all the cards?

--
Rich Skrenta <skrenta@rt.com>

References

Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 18:56:43 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Ongoing Strategy Games.
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Thu, 08 Jul 1993 18:56:43 +0000