Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start

From: gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Matthews)

Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1993 16:35:55 +0000

[sorry tp quote so much ... advanced warning]

[Russell...]
> >BUT: Because a game is not reality, you can't use judgement and
> >intuition from the real world, in the game.  The information is
> >coming in through different channels, its volume is much less, its
> >format is different than real world information, and most important,
> >*the thing at the other end is not the real world*, it's only a
> >computer applying some formulas.  Suspension of disbelief is all very
> >well, but in my opinion it is pointless to carry the pretense that
> >one has when playing the game (that one is dealing with real things,
> >not just some computer code), into game design.
> >
> >(What if you could write a game that was based on the computer having a
> >genuine understanding of the world?  Unfortunately this seems to be an
> >AI-complete problem.  :-( )
>
srt@aero.org (Scott 'Dr. Pain' Turner) writes:
> A good distinction.
>
> (1) Some people play Simulation Game X treating it as an abstract game,
> not suspending their disbelief, and getting their enjoyment out of
> winning the game by analyzing it better than the other players.  From
> what I've seen on the net, most Galaxy players are this way.  They
> aren't simulating some kind of galactic warfare; they're pushing
> abstract pieces around an abstract board trying to maximize a very
> complicated function.
>
> (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.

This about sums up the philosophical problem at the heart of this discussion.
Thanks.

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

Again I couldn't agree more. This is what I have been trying to say about
relationships between things being clear without knowing exact formulas.
In this case knowing that the price of a good is inversely proportional
to the supply of that good is a relationship that is obvious and clear,
and no exact formula is needed.

graham

--
Graham Matthews                   Go west, go west
Dept Comp Sci, Univ Edinburgh     Where there's work so I'm told
gym@dcs.ed.ac.uk                  California's never cold

References

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

Referenced By

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