The Intersection of Simulation and Beer & Pretzels

[McLaddie]

Well, clearly ‘Not Connard Sage’ was in the post directly above mine!

Well, actually he was saying that there was no magic formula, the implication being that others were looking for such a thing. I don’t think anyone would disagree with him–there is no magic formula.

But I do admit to not understanding or recognizing an absolute distinction between ‘Beer and Pretzels’ and ‘Simulation’ – I see it more as a spectrum…

Terrific, so what elements of game design separate the two ends of this spectrum and where [roughly] do you think they meet?  To have a continuum or spectrum there has to be some relative distinctions for the spectrum to exist.

 

[Sparker]

To have a continuum or spectrum there has to be some relative distinctions for the spectrum to exist.

I disagree I’m afraid! I think it is a spectrum precisely because there is no clear cut attribute or watershed you can point to and say ‘Aha! We have now crossed the line from beer and pretzels to simulation!’

Look, purely for the sake of argument, here might be my spectrum, entirely subjective and ad-hoc, from Beer and Pretzels to simulation:

B&P Pole          Black Powder          WRG 1685-1845          Gen de Bde          Lasalle          R2E          Empire V          Simulation Pole

I don’t think that any of these rulesets individually has any specificly unique attribute or distinction in terms of attributes that makes them clear members of either camp.

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[Steve Burt]

But one can have a useful discussion about the order those rule-sets you’ve listed should be in.

For instance, I’d put Lasalle to the left of WRG, Shako just to its right, and insert ‘Le Feu Sacre’ where you’ve put Lasalle.

[Bandit]

Sparker,

You’d agree that Black Powder and Empire V are very different.

Therefore, you’d necessarily have to admit that they each have characteristics that differ, either each has some characteristic that is not present in the other or perhaps is present but is less dominantly expressed. At least some of these characteristics are going to link back to being “more Simulation like” vs being “more Beer & Pretzels like”.

For instance… typically Simulations have had drastically more charts, this is not necessarily required for a game to be a Simulation but it common among those that are:

More Charts:
Bruce Quarrie’s Rules
Gen de Bde
Revolution to Empire
Empire I-V
Revolution & Empire
Legacy of Glory

Less charts:
Black Powder
Lasalle
Grande Armée
Napoleon’s Battles

This doesn’t mean that all simulation games must have a lot of charts, there are exceptions: Corps d’armée is more Simulation like than Beer & Pretzels like, but it has few charts.

Therefore, the question of being chart heavy is a common but not defining characteristic.

Beer & Pretzel games do, however, emphasize playability over historical accuracy – I don’t say this to degrade them, you can conversely say that Simulation games commonly sacrifice playability for historical accuracy which is the key gripe of so many people about them.

Sacrifice Playability:
Bruce Quarrie’s Rules
Le Feu Sacre
Empire I-V
Legacy of Glory
Revolution & Empire
Revolution to Empire
Vive l’Emperor
Gen de Bde

Emphasize Playability:
Black Powder
Grande Armée
Lasalle
Napoleon’s Battles

There is also a question of the origin of mechanics. Simulation games commonly have mechanics that are directly linked to historical outcomes vs Beer & Pretzel games which commonly have mechanics based on playability which are then tweaked to provide outcomes similar to history. This is very much about attempting to accomplish the same thing, X, but doing so in a different way and getting a different result.

When attempting to model an outcome D which occurred following a chain of events A, B & C Simulations typically seem to be designed like this:

A led to B which led to C which gave D result, therefore the Simulation mechanic will try to mimic this flow of events.

Beer & Pretzel games typically seem to be designed from the outside in:

We want to accomplish D.
X + Y = something very similar to D and is quite playable. Excellent. Done.

X & Y do not necessarily have any historical basis what-so-ever, the emphasis here is to make it very playable and to arrive at D.

The objection of the Simulation fan is that since X & Y have no historical relationship to D, this is a bad mechanic. Likewise the Beer & Pretzels guy looks at the simulation and says, geeze man, A-B-C=D is practically unplayable!

So I do not think it is entirely subjective or arbitrary. It is a matter of characteristics. Food is very subjective but I can still characterize it accurately.

[McLaddie]

B&P Pole          Black Powder          WRG 1685-1845          Gen de Bde          Lasalle          R2E          Empire V          Simulation Pole

I don’t think that any of these rulesets individually has any specificly unique attribute or distinction in terms of attributes that makes them clear members of either camp.

Okay, so what criteria did you use to put them in that order?  What makes the B&P pole any different than the Simulation Pole?   The spectrum implies some unique distinctions to put them at the opposite ends and then actually rank the other sets in between.   We are going for the different qualities here, and as the Soviet Military has noted, quantity certainly can have its own quality.  What qualities separate B&P games from Simulation games?

[Bandit]

[Referring to VLB]: Bandit, you’ve probably hears this before, but try Crossfire for WWII.

I have and I’m keeping my eyes pealed for for a new WW2 set so I’m thinking I’ll need to check it out.

[McLaddie]

 

Bandit:

Piquet’ Napoleonic Grand Piquet is also a variable bound design. The second edition just came out.

[McLaddie]

Bandit:

Your lists seem to be grouped by the physical components of the games and then by the designer’s intent or goals for the game.–less or more emphasis on playability.   Unfortunately most designers claim to have both playability and historical accuracy in equal parts. For instance, you place Napoleon’s Battles in the more emphasis on playability but the designers state that it is a simulation.  [That claim of balance is found in designs from Fire & Fury to Bolt Action, Black Powder, Hail Caeasar and the most recent rules sets like John Hill’s new ACW rules.]

Which means the second list of more or less emphasis on playability is difficult to assess by the designer goals other than establishing what the designer claims is that balance or your own personal assessment of the finished product. What types of design elements identifies it as having more or less emphasis on playability?

I find it surprising that in such a technical hobby [history, combat and game mechanics and even simulation design] that establishing categories for the types of games created is so absent. Most all hobbies create categories for the central focus/product of the hobby. We have categorized the subject, period and scale, but not the categories of purpose behind the designs. For instance, the Remote Control Airplane hobby has categorized designs as free flight [non-real designs meant solely for flying] semi-scale [not to scale but is a recognizable shape and paint job], scale [the outside is to scale, but not the interior] and true scale [as detailed as can be, right down to the rivets and cockpit seatbelts] with technical descriptions for each. The same is true of card making, stamp collecting and golf, each category based on the purpose of the activity or design.  Imagine a wargame designer putting “Beer & Pretzel” game design on his rule book cover…

When my Dad and I got into RC planes, we started with Free Flight.  I never was interested in building the planes or their look so I stayed with that. My dad, being an architect built and flew planes from free flight to true scale, judged meets and worked part time for a model kit maker.  I never heard anyone suggest I wasn’t really part of the hobby because I only flew Free Flight, or that the real hobby was only competitive True Scale builders–or had a scale plane called a Free Flight design as a derogatory label… or even a labeling mistake.

That’s not to say there were controversies and issues in the RC plane hobby… but the categories themselves weren’t either.

 

 

[Not Connard Sage]

McLaddie wrote:

For instance, the Remote Control Airplane hobby has categorized designs as free flight [non-real designs meant solely for flying] semi-scale [not to scale but is a recognizable shape and paint job], scale [the outside is to scale, but not the interior] and true scale [as detailed as can be, right down to the rivets and cockpit seatbelts] with technical descriptions for each. .

That’s not what free flight means. Free flight aircraft are gliders and self powered models with no external control. You’re arguing a false premise.

 

My RC plane flying mate would probably contest your other descriptions too.

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Sparker]

So I do not think it is entirely subjective or arbitrary. It is a matter of characteristics. Food is very subjective but I can still characterize it accurately.

Perhaps not entirely. And of course charts are a good example of a ‘simulation’ characteristic as at first glance they can appear to offer complexity, and therefore, it is often supposed, authenticity. But, whilst I can’t think of one off the top of my head, its entirely possible there is a B&p ruleset, written on two sides of A4, that has about half a dozen charts!

Okay, so what criteria did you use to put them in that order?  What makes the B&P pole any different than the Simulation Pole?

No criteria, entirely based on my subjective notion of relative complexity. I concede that the number of charts, and the word count, weighs heavier at the ‘simulation’ end, but, as a ‘bear of very little brain’, I guess I decided whether or not the rules were for me after 1 or 2 tries, or, foolishly in the case of R2E, after weighing them and glancing through the seemingly imprenetrable QRS!

For instance, I’d put Lasalle to the left of WRG, Shako just to its right, and insert ‘Le Feu Sacre’ where you’ve put Lasalle.

Absolutely, WRG is only relatively ‘B&P’ to me know after having played it for years so that I now only need the QRS. Not read or played Shako or LFS. The point is my spectrum is entirely subjective, base on my biased and unfair assessment of the complexity of these rules. I didn’t conduct a word count, count charts, calculate how many separate dice rolls were required to adjudicate the effect of one volley…

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[Sparker]

The other thought that occurs is that the rules themselves aren’t the only factor in the representation of a Horse and Musket simulation. IMHO, a massive game, using Beer and Pretzels rules, but with lots of players and a real, actual command structure within two teams of players, and the noise and other social pressures that come with that, can deliver a much better ‘historical simulation’ experience of what it was to command, say, a corps operating within an army, that a small, one on one game using the most complex and convoluted ‘Simulation’ type rules imaginable in the monastic quiet of an isolated study….

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[Bandit]

McLaddie wrote:

Bandit:
Your lists seem to be grouped by the physical components of the games and then by the designer’s intent or goals for the game.–less or more emphasis on playability. …
Which means the second list of more or less emphasis on playability is difficult to assess by the designer goals other than establishing what the designer claims is that balance or your own personal assessment of the finished product. What types of design elements identifies it as having more or less emphasis on playability?

You’ve always been very focused on the designer’s intent, which is something I am very sympathetic to because in literature I am very focused on the author’s intent and this is the corollary. However, as you point out, designers of wargamers tend to either be silent or seeming contradictory of themselves, so I figure all we have are external characteristics to judge by. Many wargamers consider ‘simulations’ to be bad because they are too complex and not playable enough. Whatever those games were meant to be, that is what they are now known as…

Sparker wrote:

And of course charts are a good example of a ‘simulation’ characteristic as at first glance they can appear to offer complexity, and therefore, it is often supposed, authenticity.

Indeed, there was a camp that believed more detail demonstrated in more complex mechanics and a greater number of longer charts equal higher authenticity. I do not know that they are wrong but I am critical of the believe that such is *required* to achieve higher authenticity.

Sparker wrote:

No criteria, entirely based on my subjective notion of relative complexity. I concede that the number of charts, and the word count, weighs heavier at the ‘simulation’ end, but, as a ‘bear of very little brain’, I guess I decided whether or not the rules were for me after 1 or 2 tries, or, foolishly in the case of R2E, after weighing them and glancing through the seemingly imprenetrable QRS!

But that is criteria. “I find X more complex than Y therefore I believe X is ‘more simulation’ in its style than Y” is criteria. The next question would be, “What caused you to feel X was complex?”

[McLaddie]

That’s not what free flight means. Free flight aircraft are gliders and self powered models with no external control. You’re arguing a false premise.

NC:

I will admit that it has been many decades since I was in the hobby, but the categories were used for contests and judging.   However, I think that you make my point for me, even if what you say is true.  Types of planes in the hobby have specific definitions relating to purpose and design, so it isn’t a false premise at all, just the details.

 

[McLaddie]

No criteria, entirely based on my subjective notion of relative complexity.

Sparker, that ‘relative complexity’ is a criteria, subjective or not.   However, it is limited to you alone as I can’t have the same subjectivity that you do… by definition.

 

The other thought that occurs is that the rules themselves aren’t the only factor in the representation of a Horse and Musket simulation. IMHO, a massive game, using Beer and Pretzels rules, but with lots of players and a real, actual command structure within two teams of players, and the noise and other social pressures that come with that, can deliver a much better ‘historical simulation’ experience of what it was to command, say, a corps operating within an army, that a small, one on one game using the most complex and convoluted ‘Simulation’ type rules imaginable in the monastic quiet of an isolated study….

Another subjective conclusion?  It might be very true or it might not, but the question was about the game design.  The game above would still be a Beer & Pretzels set of rules, depending on who was making that judgement.  Of course, the same can be said of the belief that the above would be a ‘better’  historical simulation experience.  A subjective conclusion based on ?  There’s nothing wrong with that except any conversation of wargame/simulation/beer & Pretzel design never gets past  it’s yours, my or their  subjective notion.  It just ends up with us sharing “I like this” and “you  like that”  and every design  is a Beer & Pretzel and/or  a simulation to someone.  Kind of a formless gray of what is a fairly technical endeavor considering the history, combat and prescriptive game mechanics involved.

Or to put it another way, the intersection of Simulation and B&P game rules is as subjective and nebulous as the determination of what constitutes simulation and B&P games.  So when the designers of say Black Powder say ” Naturally, we want our to be a tolerably convincing representation of real battle…”  that is a subjective conclusion you will agree with if you like the game and won’t if you don’t like it….  It’s all subjective, the beginning and end of the conversation about what a game must do to be a tolerably convincing representation of real battle… or a Beer & Pretzel game.

I’ve always found that frustrating as the bottom line to any  intellectual or practical analysis of wargame design from simulations games to B&P rules, though the same issues continually re-occur on the lists without any help from me.

[McLaddie]

You’ve always been very focused on the designer’s intent, which is something I am very sympathetic to because in literature I am very focused on the author’s intent and this is the corollary.

If we are interested in how games are made, are successful and why, I can’t see how you can avoid being focused on the designer’s goals for his design.  If you say a game is a Beer & Pretzel game, and the designer’s goals for the design were anything but that, his design failed, regardless of someone else finds the game subjectively wonderful.  It didn’t perform as intended.  A wargame is like a machine in design as much or more than a novel or history.   The game dictates specific activities and results at specific times in a system of mechanics, all put together to create a specific set of outcomes for the players.   How can you avoid asking ‘what’s the purpose of this rule?;  what is it supposed to do for the players?  Or why does the designer think he has produced both a playable and historically accurate wargame?  If you are designing games, creating scenarios for a set of rules,  those are questions you ask.

Whatever those games were meant to be, that is what they are now known as…

I haven’t seen that to be true in any consistent manner, even when it is clear what the games were meant to be.

[Not Connard Sage]

McLaddie wrote:

That’s not what free flight means. Free flight aircraft are gliders and self powered models with no external control. You’re arguing a false premise. NC: I will admit that it has been many decades since I was in the hobby, but the categories were used for contests and judging. However, I think that you make my point for me, even if what you say is true. Types of planes in the hobby have specific definitions relating to purpose and design, so it isn’t a false premise at all, just the details.

 

Did you just insinuate I was a liar? I take offence at that.

 

Check your facts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_flight_%28model_aircraft%29

 

I await your apology

The rest is just wriggling on your part. I leave others to draw their own conclusions.

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Bandit]

Not Connard Sage wrote:

Did you just insinuate I was a liar? I take offence at that.

Nope, don’t think he did. He said that he wasn’t certain if you were right / correct / etc… but if you were he believed the point he was making stood even if his example was incorrect in its specifics.

Not Connard Sage wrote:

The rest is just wriggling on your part.

It isn’t.

You told him that he got all his categories wrong. He responded with something akin to: ‘OK, well, even if I got all my categories wrong, my point was simply that there *are* categories which you agree there are.”

That isn’t wriggling, that is staying focused on-topic.

Not Connard Sage wrote:

I await your apology

Not Connard Sage wrote:

I leave others to draw their own conclusions.

I would ask that we don’t do this sort of thing, it would drag our conversation towards the divisive, off-topic bickering that charactered… another place we all visited once upon a time. We have a nice fresh start here, let’s presume positive rather than negative intent.

[Bandit]

McLaddie wrote:

If you say a game is a Beer & Pretzel game, and the designer’s goals for the design were anything but that, his design failed, regardless of someone else finds the game subjectively wonderful.

Sure, but what I’m asking in part is what made it a Beer & Pretzels game. Why did the market consider it to be that when the designer did not intend it? That has more to do with what the designer output than what the designer intended doesn’t it?

[McLaddie]

That has more to do with what the designer output than what the designer intended doesn’t it?

You’d like to think so, but whose idea of ‘beer and pretzels’ is it? Or is it just a dismissal of the game rather than a meaningful label.  Design success is when the designer’s output matches the designer’s goals [intentions] for his design. If it is appreciated for things that the designer didn’t intend, that is just the vagaries of the market place rather than purposeful game design.

And that comes back to what the market place considers “Beer & Pretzels.”   What do you think are the characteristics identified for B&P rules for the general wargame community, if there are some?

[McLaddie]

Did you just insinuate I was a liar? I take offence at that.

NC:

Really, that’s the take away from what I wrote?

Email messages have no tone, so it is easy to read things into them. However, I can assure you, Not Conrad, I don’t insinuate in my communication. If I really thought you were lying about something, I’d say so up front or not  bother to respond at all.  As it is, I remember the categories for RC models I gave [not for uncontrolled or wire-controlled planes]. I certainly could be wrong about current categories. It has been a long time since I was in the hobby–as I said.  Bandit got the gist of my message.

 

[Sparker]

Bandit wrote:

I would ask that we don’t do this sort of thing, it would drag our conversation towards the divisive, off-topic bickering that charactered… another place we all visited once upon a time. We have a nice fresh start here, let’s presume positive rather than negative intent.

Absolutely! And I’m sure no disrespect was intended, as McLaddie has confirmed.

http://sparkerswargames.blogspot.com.au/
'Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall need to be well 'ard'
Matthew 5:9

[Author]

Posts