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