Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start

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

Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1993 16:43:57 +0000

Scott:
> ] 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.
bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III) writes:
> Even if players are not playing to win the game in the same sense that other
> players are, they are still probably trying to achieve some objectives in the
> game. This is a lot less frustrating if you can predict the results of your
> actions.

Agreed you want predictability. BUT how many times does it have to be said
that you don't need exact equations to get predictability, all you need is
a clear sense of the relationships between things. For example you might be
told (to use Scotts example) that the price of a good is inversely proportional
to its supply. Now from this things should be predictable without knowing
exactly what the formulas are - the values of all the constants, the randomness
factors, ...

This notion that not knowing exact formulas means that a game is unpredictable
or random is just rubbish. Try hitting some tennis balls

bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III) writes:
> First of all, they can always not look at the formulae if they don't want to.
> However the impression I have been getting is that the people advocating
> hiding the rules are just poor game players who want to handicap better
> players so they don't get eliminated from a game. In the short run hiding
> the rules will do this, but in the long run it will make things worse.

Ah I was waiting for this too. Now I don't want to boast but this demands a
reply. I and many of the people I play with consider me to be an excellent
game player and I never look at equations. I always play by feel. I can give
you email addresses of people who will attest to my ability in a number of
games and to my playing style. So please the above paragraph is just nonsense.

Scott:
> ] 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.
bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III) writes:
> False. It is possible for both groups to enjoy both types of games. However
> I feel that revealing the formulae at the start will make good games more
> enjoyable and allow players to avoid wasting time playing bad games.

This brings out another philosophical problem. The people in Camp II have no
notion of a "bad" game. No game is a bad game as each game is played to learn,
to have fun, etc. If one performs badly then thats life.

graham

References

Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
srt@aero.org (Scott 'Dr. Pain' Turner)
Fri, 02 Jul 1993 16:38:59 +0000
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III)
Fri, 02 Jul 1993 18:07:07 +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
Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start
bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III)
Fri, 02 Jul 1993 18:07:07 +0000