The game's players (Was: Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start)

From: bc@fccn01.fccn.pt (Luis Miguel Sequeira/Beatriz Carmo)

Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1993 08:57:29 +0000

I'm currently using another account, as  the mail service on the other
machine seems to be down, but still I got a few messages on my mailbox
to reply :-)

markiel@callisto.pas.rochester.edu (Andrew Markiel) wrote:
>This is a critical point: different people like different things. Some
>people like really complex, mathematical games that require writing
>computer programs to analyze their turnsheets, while other people
>much prefer games with simple rules. Some people like role-playing
>games, and some like raw analytical games.
>
>The simple answer is, if you don't like the game system, then don't
>play the game: because obviously the game was not designed for your
>tastes. There's plenty of room in the world for all of us, and
>enough games that we can all find something we like. As long as
>the designer is kind enough to point out what he expects from his
>players, then everyone will be happy.

Exactly what I was after.

I'm now seriously thinking that it's quite IMPOSSIBLE  to design a PBM
to make EVERYONE happy.  But mind you,  before having read all of this
thread, I was quite convinced that  ALL people would  actually enjoy a
simulation without formulas. Now, strangely enough, the major argument
against this type  of simulation is that's  ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE to write
(ie.  too expensive,  too  many  bugs...).    Well  folks,  I hope  to
disappoint  you in   a  few years.   Until  then, I'll  live with  the
conviction that a LOT of people - and judging by  the messages I read,
a   LOT  really    means the   large    majority -   actually   prefer
number-crunching  than playing.  Fine.  I'll remember   that when I've
completed my   simulation.   Obviously, I'll   add   a  chapter on the
implementation (something which abhorred me until now),  just  to keep
the number-crunchers happy. Who knows? Perhaps they'll play it, too...

>The point that I want to make is related to the quoted line, "If
>the game is for..." This is a question of design, not of presentation.
>If the game is designed for people with average IQ over 150, then
>you can't just sweep that under the rug by not telling people
>certain things. The assumptions the designer makes about his
>players are built into the design, and if the design is any good
>then people who satify those assumptions will enjoy the game, and
>people who don't satify those assumptions won't. However, you
>can't change a game into something it is not merely by presenting
>the game in a different way.

I agree that,  after this  discussion, it's  now almost obligatory  of
every PBM to include a short notice in its rulebook about what type of
gamers are expected, eg.  their average IQ, their mathematical skills,
their degrees in strategy, the expected time to make one turn (ie. the
calculations done by an average supercomputer to arrive at an estimate
of how you ought to play the next turn), and so on. It  really doesn't
hurt. And, on some rulebooks, I've  already read something  like this:
"This is a very SIMPLE game", or "You're expected to take some time to
read the starship construction rules, because there are different ways
to construct  the  _best_  type of  dhip", or even "Staying in contact
with older, veteran players is crucial to learn the rules" (all quotes
are inexact, as they are  remembered by me  - different wording is not
only possible, but almost certain).

I think  this  would be a  step  towards the  selection of players  to
different types  of PBMs,  allowing them to  have an idea  of what the
game expects from them (rather  than the contrary), before they become
frustrated and simply drop the game.

>If you
>want to avoid mathematical calculations, the proper thing to do
>is not hide the formulas, but design the game so that knowing the
>formulas and doing the calculations gives no significant advantage.

I also agree with that!

This,  obviously, implies a good design  of the game.   I think it's a
non-trivial problem, creting a formula set for the game that you can't
minimax to your advantage (independently of the fact that this formula
set is or not hidden, or the difficulties in getting  an approximation
to those formulas).  However,  _if_  a  game  could  combine this  two
features - having a set of known (or extrapolable) formulas, _and_ the
fact that knowing them  wouldn't give an advantage,  I agree that this
would be the perfect game for me (and players like me).

As I see it, a game designed under this principles must be :-

a) very, very simple (say, like Chess, Go, Checkers, Tic-Tac-Toe...);

b) tremendously complex, so that analysing _all_ the formulas with the
single purpose of finding out the _best_ move for  the next turn takes
too much  time (eg.  on a one-week   turnaround  game, calculating the
_best_ move takes one month of 24-hour computational time... :-) ).

Luis Sequeira (presently suffering from mail service degradation)

PS:   BTW,   John,   paragraph   justification  is just another  Emacs
feature... :-)

_________________________________________________________________________
 /
/				Computer scientists do it byte by byte.
    _/     _/     _/  _/_/_/
   _/     _/_/ _/_/ _/		We don't ask for miracles to get the job
  _/     _/ _/  _/  _/_/_/	done, we RELY upon them!
 _/     _/     _/       _/	If the job still isn't done, we'll stick
_/_/_/ _/     _/  _/_/_/	with Emacs instead...

bc@fccn01.fccn.pt                  Luis Miguel Sequeira/Beatriz Carmo
                                  Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil
  Phone 351-1-8482131 Ext. 2752   Centro Informatica/Grupo Sistemas Centrais
  "Don't call me, I'll call you"  Av. Brasil, 101 - 1700 Lisboa, Portugal
                                                                          /
_________________________________________________________________________/