Julian and Rob are wrapping up their vacation when they realize they should probably record a show. An underwhelming board game and their simmering frustration with long campaigns leads to a discussion of what they want from scenario design. They consider the tension between their desire a self-contained, quick-playing scenario and their resentment of puzzles and narrow solutions.
Three Moves Ahead Episode 184 – Best-Case Scenario
September 3rd, 2012 by Rob Zacny · Podcast, Three Moves Ahead
Comments Off on Three Moves Ahead Episode 184 – Best-Case ScenarioTags:
Book Review: Playing at the World
September 3rd, 2012 by Troy Goodfellow · Books, RPGs, Wargames
There are tours de force and there are Tours de France, and sometimes Jon Peterson’s Playing at the World: A History of Simulating Wars, People and Fantastic Adventures from Chess to Role-Playing Games is both.
His new book from Unreason Press is a landmark history of the evolution of Dungeons and Dragons, firmly rooting it as a game that drew on the experiences of the wargame community in the 1960s and 1970s and one whose earliest ancestors stretch back centuries earlier. As a book on game design and game history, Peterson’s tome is going to be an essential resource if only for his painstaking research and copious citations.
It is also a book with valleys, mountains and few stretches of really easy going. Even familiar material is presented in sometimes numbing detail, and some of the detours seem better suited to other works or articles. Just when you hit a great pace, things can bog down in a slough of pain and self-doubt. Playing at the World is encyclopedic in its reach, and that reach swallows almost everything.
PatW opens with a quick rundown of the history of Avalon Hill, and how its wargame magazine and American communities spawned partnerships, debates and game sessions that led directly to Gygax and Arneson making D&D. (Well, strictly speaking, Gygax was adapting Arneson’s Blackmoor games which were a role playing version of Gygax’s fantasy Chainmail battle rules. It’s a complicated history, but Peterson clearly, and I think correctly, implies Gygax deserves most of the credit for making Arneson’s games ‘systematic’).
From this history, Peterson moves back to examine the different characteristics of D&D and where these ideas came from. So we are treated to a discourse on the history of medieval fantasy literature and books about treasure hunts. We get thoughtful musings on how to evaluate Gygax’s debt to Tolkien. The birth of weapon systems, how to calculate certain types of odds before the arrival of mass produced polyhedric dice, the long and fascinating story of wargaming in both military and civilian settings and how this simulation vs game divide would shake out in the 50s and 60s, the role of the DM or referee or umpire or what-have-you…this is a book that leaves no stone unturned in its quest to connect all the dots and provide the ultimate genealogy of the world’s most successful pen and paper role playing game.
The research present in this book is beyond impressive. Not content with simply listing games that existed or their mechanics, Peterson digs into old gaming journals, memoirs and designer notes. He notes aggressive almost proto-Fascist boasts of gaming clubs that took out ads in early issues of The General. He quotes comments from game designers that demonstrate they were either reinventing the wheel or completely unfamiliar with other games. The history of how the War Game Digest came apart because the editorial team could not agree on whether they should argue for more “realism” or more “fun” is told. None of these things are strictly necessary for his purpose, which is to tie D&D (and consequently, almost every RPG system since) to its wargame/simulation past. Everyone knows it came out of Chainmail – Peterson wants to explain where Chainmail came from.
And that means a history of miniatures and toy soldiers, including their availability, their use in Wells’s Little Wars and so on and so on until we reach Chess. At which point you realize it is turtles all the way down.
The scope ends up being so broad that it’s almost like doing a family history and bragging that you are descended from Henry V of England – even if that is so, you probably share that with millions and millions of other people. The family tree is broad and tall and almost anything can be connected to the phenomenon that D&D became.
But even if some of the threads get lost in the history, Peterson skillfully reminds us that games happen in a cultural setting. The ones that survive are rare, but even the lost ones (like Robert Louis Stevenson’s wargame, which was never written down or described in any detail) speak to interest in the topic, the question of what these sorts of games say about their players and what the world at large thinks about (mostly) men playing at war.
And some of the connections are so obvious that I never even thought of them until they were written down. The Dungeon Master, for example, is tasked with interpreting rules and making sure all is played out properly. Refereed wargames in simulation rooms clearly predated the DM, but Peterson also connects it to the role of the referee in more chronologically contiguous play-by-mail games like Diplomacy; he/she is there to make sure that orders are correct, that everything is legal, and to play out the new situation for the players. The DM, of course, adds story telling, building the new world – something Arneson did in his Blackmoor games while Tolkien (new in paperback) was still sweeping the US.
When I compare Play at the World to less successful gaming history texts, like Barton’s Dungeons & Desktops, it’s clear evidence that this is the sort of project that is very difficult to do and very hard to see becoming a smash hit. Peterson doesn’t ‘review’ the games he lists, but he does offer critical commentary on design choices while situating them within a game design and cultural context. Peterson doesn’t list every minor Avalon Hill game that Gygax and Arneson would have played, but he is not afraid to remind us of how small AH’s audience was when it started and how unlikely it would have been to find like minded adults in many American cities.
Because this history is not, then, a simple list of Things That Happened, its detours and digressions are more excusable, even as they frustrate a little. Is it necessary to go through the historical meanings of ‘goblin’ or have details on an obscure naval wargame that may be one of the origins of Hit Points and THAC0? Of course not – each of these are interesting on their own, but the book would lose nothing if these bits were saved for another time.
But here they are and they give amateur gaming historians like myself something to ask questions about. It’s not always possible to skip these digressions – Peterson covers ground at a courier’s pace and will leave you behind if you’re not good with names and concepts. Still, the book might be a little less compelling if it didn’t at least try to deal with these sidebars.
Playing at the World is a triumph, but not for the faint of heart. 600 pages of often heavy text, 100 page bibliography, and footnotes besides. Even if you know much of the history it covers, having this material in one place with some deft judgments about the connections and influences makes the book invaluable.
Buy it. If you dare.
(Playing at the World: A History of Simulating Wars, People and Fantastic Adventures from Chess to Role-Playing Games was provided for free by Unreason Press.)
→ 10 CommentsTags:
Getting What’s Coming To You: The Humanity of Crusader Kings II
August 28th, 2012 by Troy Goodfellow · Paradox
Shall I join with other nations in alliance?
If allies are weak, am I not best alone?
If allies are strong with power to protect me,
Might they not protect me out of all I own?
Is a danger to be trusting one another,
One will seldom want to do what other wishes;
But unless someday somebody trust somebody
There’ll be nothing left on earth excepting fishes!
—- “A Puzzlement” from The King and I
If you listen to the podcast, then you probably remember Rowan Kaiser from a couple of recent shows, including our episode on Crusader Kings II. It’s a game that he and I have talked a lot about over Twitter and I think we both agree that it is one of the more remarkable strategy titles in recent years. (Usual disclaimer that Paradox is a client of my firm apply.)
Rowan recently blogged about CK2 for Bit Creature, arguing that a) a well structured strategy game can say as much or more about the human condition than a narrative centered action game or arty platformer, and b) that CK2 is an exemplar of a meaningful (and maybe important?) strategy game. It’s a great post, because it captures how ‘human’ the game can get, even though it is really just a bunch of math.
This is where Crusader Kings II transcends its type: it models human behavior around power. First of all, it models historical behavior remarkably well—the scenario of the two ambitious brothers mirrors Richard III of England for one. Dynastic struggles of the medieval period make sense through the lens of the game. But Crusader Kings II’s game engine makes a broader claim about the nature of power and ambition.
All good empire building games are about power and ambition. Though they generally focus on how the player is going to achieve his/her goals, they require opponents with similar goals or other obstacles that impede forward progress to global domination or market supremacy or the presidency. Solo focused games like city builders and wargames generally don’t have ambition as a driver beyond self-motivation to accomplish greater achievements or unlock new maps, scenarios or powers.
Rowan is right that CK2 is a world of power and ambition, but it is also a world of laws and expectations. CK2 is about entitlement – both what a character legally knows they are owed, and what a character ‘morally’ feels they deserve.
This is why you can have one noble ready to revolt, but choose not to, and a beloved son stab his siblings in the back when daddy’s corpse is still warm. As much as ambition and the drive for power can make it hard to trust anyone in CK2, the mechanics demand it. The addition of court factions in the upcoming Legacy of Rome expansion to CK2 will even more push you to climb the slippery rope of power with other people.
Gamers tend to identify with something – anything – that is given human characteristics in a game. We don’t identify with falling blocks or musical notes on a screen, but we do ‘become’ Napoleon or Max Payne or China. In a game like CK2, that human tendency is accelerated by creating a family to care about. You invest time in making laws that will strengthen the future of your dynasty, and though you are technically just a family head at all times, after a few decades it is impossible to not think of your dynasty as synonymous with your nation.
This is where human perception starts to mess with your brain. Your family can be large and expansive, but when my new dynastic leader is the lawful and legitimate son of a beloved king, I won’t bow down and surrender to a stronger uncle – even though this would not end the game and which would be better in the long run for the nation. It’s not just a matter of the game’s ambition being made manifest in my reactions, it is a matter of pride, stubbornness and “that’s not the way I have things planned, so sit down and shut up, Uncle Dagomar.”
At the same time, as a monarch that sees trouble down the line, I have sometimes hidden, murdered, exiled or altered laws to prevent an idiot from succeeding. You could argue that this is enlightened empire management, and it sometimes is. It is also driven by the prideful demand that what I built not be undone by a Cathar half-wit. And none of the actions I can take to remove the problem are easy, sure-fire or cost free. Still, this is my duchy/kingdom/empire – why should I pass it on to someone I don’t want to?
Why your ‘allies’ want what you want is as important as the fact that they will help you. If you lead the French nobles in a civil war to claim the throne, you need to know which of you battlefield companions are doing because they think that THEY should be king. Failure to account to the expectations of your advisors, family member and allies can easily turn a successful campaign in a cascading series of failures and new weaknesses. Remember that a successful civil war reduces the authority of the new king – so even that plum prize you gain will be a little more sour than it would have been had you taken the safer, longer route of marriage and undetected murders. But then the claim could expire, or the new king might be tougher, or…well, what the hell. You would be a better king anyway.
You could argue that ambition is merely the burning desire to get what you feel is owed, but I think that ambition has a more grasping nature. In Civ terms, ambition is what makes you conquer smaller empires because they are there and entitlement is what makes you attack Montezuma because he settled a rich plot of land that you were counting on to keep your empire happy. (Also, Montezuma. Screw that guy.)
I will be blogging replies to a lot of strategy game I writing I have been reading over the last month – and maybe that will get me writing more in general.
→ 2 CommentsTags:
Three Moves Ahead Episode 183 – Taking Command for Bull Run 2: Run Harder
August 27th, 2012 by Rob Zacny · Podcast, Three Moves Ahead
Bruce, Troy, and Rob discuss Take Command: 2nd Manassas and why it is one of the best tactical Civil War games ever made. Along the way they discuss what they want from wargames, mission structure, and how few games really address the real challenges of battlefield command. The group lapse into a Tim Stone-induced reverie as they discuss games that have dealt with command and control from the perspective of a Napoleon or Lee. Apologies for sound quality issues: Rob’s microphone was having a disastrous day.
Tim Stone on Waterloo
Comments Off on Three Moves Ahead Episode 183 – Taking Command for Bull Run 2: Run HarderTags:
Three Moves Ahead Episode 182 – Three’s a Crowdsourcing
August 20th, 2012 by Rob Zacny · Podcast, Three Moves Ahead, Uncategorized
Bruce, Troy, and Rob discuss the changing landscape of game financing, or at least they try to. The end up discussing Kickstarter almost exclusively, the return of Tom vs. Bruce, and their feelings of optimism about what crowd-funding can mean. Troy douses them with the cold water of reality. They also contemplate the strange meta-game of Kickstarters, and Ian Bogost’s skepticism. Nobody can pronounce OUYA.
Rob’s Planetary Annihilation preview
Comments Off on Three Moves Ahead Episode 182 – Three’s a CrowdsourcingTags:
Three Moves Ahead Episode 181 – Blendo Games
August 13th, 2012 by Rob Zacny · Podcast, Three Moves Ahead
Blendo Games‘ Brendon Chung joins Rob and Julian to talk about Flotilla, Atom Zombie Smasher, Gravity Bone, and his approach to design. Rob and Julian are fascinated by his willingness to conclude a game when it is at its best, and Brendon explains why that is and the things from his own games that he wants to revisit. Rob is crushed to hear of the lost, X-COM style metagame for Atom Zombie Smasher.
Comments Off on Three Moves Ahead Episode 181 – Blendo GamesTags: