Re: PBM design and formulae - a fresh start

From: bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III)

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1993 18:07:07 +0000

From article <srt.741631139@aerospace.aero.org>, by srt@aero.org (Scott 'Dr. Pain' Turner):
] [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.

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.

]
] 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.
]
] 				--------

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.

]
] 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.

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.

]
] 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.

I agree that odd spikes in otherwise continuous functions is normally going
to be a bad feature of a game. If the formulae are presented at the start
I will see that the game is screwed up before playing. This allows me to not
waste my time playing the game and to suggest to the author that a rule
change will improve the game.

]
] 					-- Scott T.

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