Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start From: bc@lnec.pt (Luis Miguel Sequeira) Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1993 09:06:56 +0000 desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) wrote: >Luis Miguel Sequeira <bc@lnec.pt> writes: >> Well, I'm lazy. I HATE to read the rules. I even HATE MORE to read >> COMPLEX rules. So what do you do, if I want to have fun? > >> a) I skip 90% of the rules, and try to live with the rest (works 90% >> of the time); > >> b) I don't play. This guarantees that I won't feel unhappy when I'm >> destroyed, et cetera, et cetera. > >To be honest, it seems to me that it should not make the least bit of >difference to you whether the formulas are published or not. Suppose we >consider the identical game, with the formulas published or not >published. You aren't going to read and use the formulas even if they >are printed, so it doesn't matter at all. Of course you're right - I'm not really bothered by a game having published formulas or not. In fact, almost every game I ever played had published formulas, in a way or another, and, nevertheless, I have sticked with the gaming practice (as yet, I've not encountered any game WITHOUT a single formula). Thus, as I'm not willing to read 90% of them anyway, you can even publish the source code in COBOL that I'll most certainly ignore it. However, this doesn't mean that I'm not aware that this isn't the correct attitude. If I'm ignoring those formulas, I _may_ be missing something. I always assume that if something gets into the rules, it's just because the author of the game (or of the rules, at least) thought that this kind of information is useful for a player to play. Thus, if it's the intention of the game designer to make the formulas known to the players, I'll assume that he had something in mind like this: "look here, you crazed player! If I actually got the trouble to publish the formula, THEN MAKE SURE YOU DO USE IT!!!" Thus, a good player will be one that uses _that particular published formula_ (by "using" I mean: load it in the spreadsheet, get data in, and get your minimax theory working miracles overnight); I will almost certainly be a lousy player in that game. This is specially true for games which discourage player interaction, and are more for the strategist type (ie. a narrow-minded chess player with another name, of course - mind you, some of my best friends were ex-junior masters once, I haven't really anything against them - but they are narrow-minded nevertheless, the poor guys! :-) ). For me, if I see a few pretty formulas lying around a rulebook, it's like it has written on the cover: "Stop! This is for a professional strategist! If you try it, be prepared; you'll need to take your time to use your spreadsheet and mathematical analysis tools, which you'll use more often than it's good for you." Still, I've tried some PBMs on that basis. I'm quite an open-minded type of guy, and have very, very few prejudices against anything at all - so, just because the game was not the type I liked, still I could enjoy it, and at least, I most certainly would give it a try instead of just "throwing it away". On one particular PBM, I quit after a few turns, because I took too much time making calculations, and too few to actually PLAY it. But I admit there are many other games, with published formulas, which are nevertheless playable; even if they take more time than other games WITHOUT formulas (thank goodness!), they can still reward me by being fun. So, I definitely favor a game WITHOUT published formulas. I don't know if I made this clear, but if the formula is published, I will - subconsciously, if you want - give it too much attention. I'll think that mastering minimax algorithms and the simplex method will be crucial to have fun in that partcular game. If it weren't so, the game wouldn't have any formulas featured on the rulebook. Or so I think. Thus, as what I really want is to avoid spending my time playing with formulas, I favor a game which has a "formula-free" rulebook. Obviously, I hope there is no misunderstanding between "rules" and "formulas". Some people seem to confuse them. I'm not AGAINST rules (even if I don't read them all...); in fact, if you ever played a game without rules, you'll see how difficult it is (at least, at the start - I've done it, and it's no piece of cake). I also don't mind a few simple tables (eg. take a simple table like terrain type charted against resource production), they certainly are better than a few paragraphs of text. Even a "formula" like "skill is proportional to the success of hitting an enemy in battle" is easier to understand (mathematical notation being almost unambiguous to express ideas) than "if you're a master swordsman, you'll certainly be better than any newcomer to the art of swordsplaying", which has an information value of 0. What I'm basically against is a game based solely on formulas and more formulas. And mind you, I have played a few games which were like that; almost all I dropped after a while, but even so, I've tried them to see what they offer. And, unlike myself, there are lots of other people who love formulas & spreadsheets & mathematical analysis (and many of them haven't finished high school yet), and they enjoy themselves like hell. And why shouldn't they? Each one with his own kind of game... - Luis _________________________________________________________________________ / / 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@lnec.pt Luis Miguel Sequeira 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 / _________________________________________________________________________/ Referenced By Up