PBM design and formulae - getting hotter From: bc@lnec.pt (Luis Miguel Sequeira) Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1993 16:56:51 +0000 Seems that the flame wars have started (BTW, what about a PBeM on that issue? Points awarded according to the level of offense used... ok, ok, this was a tasteless joke). Back to the point: rwallace@cs.tcd.ie (Russell Wallace) wrote: >>Graham Matthews: >>>I never said that knowledge of the formulas didn't give you a >>>serious advantage. Obviously it does. I just said that I think it >>>screws the game up [...] >I don't get it. You don't want the formulas published lest a smart >player might use them against you. Yet you don't mind the prospect of >an experienced player using his knowledge against you. What is the >reasoning behind this inconsistency? Let's use the word "experience" with caution. Graham referred to "experience" in the game, eg. playing it in order to know how it works, and not "experience with the source code" (I'm deliberately including formulas, algorithms, tables and other stuff in the "source code"). For instance, I'm a role-player myself. If someone asks, "But which system do you like most?" I answer: "I don't play by any system". Inconsistency? Not at all. What I like most in role-playing is the role-playing in itself, and not the rules. The most obvious reason for my "hate of rules" has to do with the fact that I couldn't bear having those nasty players with me who never spoke a single sentence in character, but knew *all* (and I really mean ALL) the rules by heart and quoted even their page number, or chapter, or whatever. Thus, I said something like "well, I move forward to meet the green dragon..." and the player would pop up and yell: "Sorry Luis, you can't do that! First of all, the dragon is further away than your current movement points allow to move this turn. Secondly, by rule #2532 in book #1376531 you are a type #64343 elf, which is terrified by type #6363 green dragons, so you can't actually ''meet'' a green dragon. Ah, GM, by the way, we're using the #75 variation on the Multiverse, aren't we? According to chapter #5677 of book #652, in this variation, green dragons don't exist. Only lavender types allowed. Just thought to point it out to you." Fun... oh lots of fun, indeed... Even worse, there was the subject of character generation. I get a magician with level 15 skill in Magic. I'm happy. I talk around, and suddenly I find out a fellow gamer with a magician just created with level 25 in Magic, and also a master swordsman, and using level 3 spells without expending energy, and so on. I ask him: "How's that possible??" And he says: "Rule #5566: half-elves from Endoria _can_ have level 25 in Magic. And see here this formula on page #45778? I can be a master swordsman, too, because this town where I was born is famous for it, thus exception #65464 to the rule #5566, and blah blah blah, etc. ad nauseam". Thus, obviously, they had lots of experience with the RULES. They all knew them much better than I did. Still, what's the point? I didn't want to study the rules (enough homework at school back then, thank you very much), what I wanted is to ROLE-PLAY!! Same thing applies to PBeMs, or, in fact, most wargames relying on player interaction (on wargames WITHOUT player interaction, I mean verbal one, you have no other choice but stick with the rules...). Let's take Russell's own Atlantis, for instance. Perhaps not the world's best PBeM ever, but - let's see what it offers! Hm, a couple of rules. Hm, no formulas - or so little that you can almost look over them on your first reading. Hm. Not much, is it? *WRONG*. _LOTS_ of player interaction needed! And I'm talking LOTS with capital L. Curiously, I started in a weak position, made many mistakes (and am still doing), and have heard of a large number of friends having been promptly wiped out of the game. All of them had made a serious mistake: having not enough contacts. Perhaps I do have not enough contacts, either; only in the future, as the game develops and friends turn suddenly in bloody enemies, I will find out. The hard way! :-) But the point is, there is a LOT more in Atlantis than just knowing the rules, and even knowing the rules _well_. And that's what I find quite encouraging in the game. This applies to almost all PB(e)Ms I've ever played or are currently playing. When the rules complexity grew, there had to be _something more_ than just knowing the rules well and exploiting bugs et cetera. Fortunately, I've sticked with those games which had that quality of great player interaction... in some games, even too much. On one medieval-style game which I have played for the last 5 years (not always with the same position, mind you), I have managed _NOT_ to move my army for 3 years, real time!! And even today I don't know the battle rules in full, know almost nothing of the naval rules, and have perhaps a passing knowledge of the game economics. Nevertheless, I'm one of the twenty oldest players in the game, and almost certainly the only one among them who DOESN'T use a spreadsheet to calculate the next turn... :-) >Yes, this is precisely what it seems to be. You seem to object to the >idea that people play games to succeed in a within-game objective, such >as the military defeat of another player. Virtually all PBM games are >designed with this as at least an element of the game. Not all. Remember the ones with an open end. And besides that, why is _winning_ the game enforced, anyway? :-) What's the problem of just having fun? :-) >You have >objected to the formulas being made available, and to the possibility of >the best strategies not being obvious from the rules. What you're >looking for is a game that resembles a 60s love-in session rather than a >military/economic strategy game, and where it doesn't matter that you >haven't a clue how to run a military campaign because strategic >competence confers no advantage. Of course, tastes differ. I would >find such a game mindbogglingly boring, but if you want to write one, >feel free. You're being a little harsh on poor Graham. After all, you _don't_ need to be a militar expert to "win" (deliberately quoted) a military/economic strategy game. What I mean is, the game is as good and as fun as its players are. Diplomacy is important. Double-crossing (and the ability to do it) is vital. Being able to convince your friends/enemies without needing brutal force is interesting. Look at your own games, they offer all that, and much more... :-) If they didn't, how could I, who am _no_ expert in strategy and have no clue on how economics work, have fun with such a game? It isn't enough just to supply rules for economy & strategy. You have actually to understand them. I don't. I don't have the foggiest idea about on how to conduct a battle. But say to me, one full-armored knight is one hundred times better than a peasant with no weapons (that's what the rules in Atlantis say, more or the less), and I understand. Quite well, in fact. I learn very, very quickly to respect my neighbour, the full-armored knight. >>Chess - simple!?!?! It may have a small set of rules but that does >>not mean it is a simple game. Don't confuse simplicity of rules with >>simplicity of games. Take a game like FlatTop. The rules are fairly >>simple and obvious but the game is by no means simple as a result! >>(take tennis as another example). > >My point is that you were talking about people using spreadsheets to >calculate the "optimum strategy". This is nonsense; the number of >possible moves in Galaxy for example is much greater than in chess, and >chess still has so many that plain number-crunching analysis won't get >you an optimum answer within the age of the universe. This demolishes >your argument that victory in war games goes to he who can use a >spreadsheet, rather than he who is a good strategist. At least, I agree with you on that. Pure mathematics is no substitute for strategy. But it's obviously a handy weapon to have for the ECONOMICS of a game. And that's what war means, isn't it? Get more economic power... You can argue that a strategist will always beat an economicist with a spreadsheet. It's true, in fact. I also believe it. But what about a strategist who also knows his way with a spreadsheet...? :-) What chance do we poor, peaceful, double-crossing diplomats have? :-) Either learn the rules and grab a spreadsheet, or forget it. You see, the point I'm trying to make is that not everyone actually _likes_ to use a spreadsheet in order to play a game. I very strongly believe that there are _lots_ of people who, in fact, *like* using one, and feel naked without it. That's what my experience tells me. I played a game where a group of PhDs in Mathematical Physics and Pure Mathematics joined forces just to discover the best ship and the best troop type under diverse circunstances. Even the GM of the game never suspected about those "optimal" troops (ever since, he had changed the rules a lot... :-) ), and this piece of information was a crucial secret weapon of a large alliance to which those group of players belonged. They actually _enjoyed_ themselves a lot discovering that kind of stuff. Not all of them were good strategists, by the way. They had another group of friends who were, in fact, quite good strategists, and they lead the armies - recruited with the best troops, of course. This alliance was almost invencible. Want to know how they were finally defeated (well, let's say: how they were severely restricted in their all-expanding domain...)? You got it: a group of "role-players" seceded from their nation... :-) They fought badly, but there were more of them... :-) That is, victory in a wargame WITH DIPLOMACY does not go necessarily to the "spreadsheet master", and even the strategist can have some difficulty... beware of the double-crosser! :-) ... I won't discuss the rest of Russell's message. Fundamentally, I agree with him; ie. if you can't win a battle due to being unable to figure out a "best" strategy, there is no point in having battles at all. The same applies to economy, of course; if the market works just by randomness, there is no point in using something like that in a game (BTW, I _have_ played a game where the market had NOTHING to do with the so-called "normal" behaviour of demand-vs.-supply. The formulas weren't ever published, but there was a "pattern", quite a stupid one in fact, but a pattern nevertheless... and people made money using a spreadsheet to discover the pattern, of course). However, it is my opinion that there are other ways of figuring out strategies, _without_ using precise formulas. That's, after all, the stuff of the "real world". What Russell points out - and I tend to agree with him in that - is that formulas are _the_ abstraction provided to simulate the knowledge of a good strategist on the battlefield. Personally, I don't like it (I'd prefer something else), but Russell is undoubtly right on this. Even so, nothing like your average, double-crossing diplomat! :-) - Luis Sequeira Referenced By Up