Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start

From: crip@Micor.OCUnix.on.ca (Garth Werner)

Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1993 10:54:23 +0000

srt@aero.org (Scott 'Dr. Pain' Turner) writes:

> (2) Other people play Simulation Game X as a simulation of X,
> suspending their disbelief, and getting their enjoyment out of the
> ersatz X experience.  That's what the majority of the Oly players
> wanted, and if they were disappointed with Oly it was because Oly
> didn't have enough *fidelity* in simulating X.
>
> Now one camp maintains that (2) is impossible, because after all the
> computer isn't real life, and will never have the fidelity to support
> workable intuition and experience.  It will always be simple and
> susceptible to analysis in ways that the real world is not.  Hence the
> math weenie players will discover the formulas anyway, so you might as
> well hand them out at the beginning.  Besides, this camp argues, it's
> a better game that doesn't rely on hiding the rules.  The fun should
> come from playing within the rules and interacting with your fellow
> players.
>
> The other camp maintains that (2) is possible, because after all the
> computer is the most amazing tool ever invented, and already can model
> some things with such fidelity that scientists study the models rather
> than reality.  So why not X?  This camp doesn't want the formulas -
> the behind-the-curtains mechanisms - of X revealed, not because they
> think that they gain an advantage by keeping the formula hidden, but
> because revealing the formula destroys any sense of wonder.  And that,
> after all, is the reason to play a game that simulations a medieval
> world of magic rather than chess.
>
> 				--------

Excellent summaries, one of the most enjoyable part of the
simulation games, like life itself, is discovering how something works.
You do it repeated times either way, you develop a better understanding
of the workings, and bang you begin to understand the relationship.  If
you want to do mathematical relationships, by all means go ahead, and you
may learn things a little quicker, but I know myself I would be bored to
death if a game came out and told me what all the formula's were
(Simulation Game complex enough that it requires computer moderation)

>
> The important point to me is that both camps can enjoy a game with the
> formula hidden, while only camp (1) can enjoy a game with the formula
> revealed.
>
> It's true that the math weenies will no doubt enjoy an advantage in
> the hidden formula game.  They will analyze what is known about the
> game and refine their formula.  But is this really a problem?
>
> Using math to analyze reality and help predict and improve your
> performance is a hallowed human tradition.  If a player can study a
> part of Simulation Game X to the point where he can (to some level of
> accuracy) predict the effects of his actions, then more power to him.
>
> But in a well-designed game there will be a proper diminishing return
> to be had from mathematical analysis.  Figuring out that the selling
> price of goods is inversely porportional to the supply of goods should
> give a player 90% of the advantage of understanding the market
> economy.  The further analysis that a math weenie might do to
> understand the shape of the curve should benefit him - but not
> greatly.  So the math weenie won't gain an *undue* advantage from his
> talents.
>
> If this law of diminishing returns doesn't hold, then I consider the
> game poorly designed.  If it turns out that selling exactly 47 gurtzim
> causes the price to suddenly spike 200%, that's not an argument for
> publishing that fact in the rules, it's an argument for fixing a
> flawed game system.
>
> 					-- Scott T.

Bravo Scott, I don't think it can be said better than this.

- Garth Werner                crip@micor.ocunix.on.ca

References

Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
srt@aero.org (Scott 'Dr. Pain' Turner)
Fri, 02 Jul 1993 16:38:59 +0000