4 ms·

Thanks. That looks very interesting, as a tool to try to understand a complex issue. But it probably is a bit like reading the Economist. You have to be aware o

Thanks. That looks very interesting, as a tool to try to understand a complex issue. But it probably is a bit like reading the Economist. You have to be aware of the inherent biases, and even when you do you get influenced by them.

VLM 11y ago
"You have to be aware of the inherent biases" That is part of the victory conditions and gameplay of the COIN series. On one hand, you can't leave the fire in the lake game without understanding the ARVN point of view, at least not if you're even trying to win. On the other hand, you only get one fixed point of view WRT ARVN motivations and goals. Each faction has totally different victory conditions and rules. This is somewhat new in board gaming and I think the reason why has to do with computerized simulation in order to create something close to a balance. Where "games as a simulation" usually fail is when designers try to balance too hard. Nothing could stop the German in early WWII, thats just how the world works. And that is the appeal of "walk in hitlers shoes" appeal of playing the Germans in WWII games, you get to experience the whole spectrum from utter military superiority to utter failure by the end. It can be quite a roller coaster, which in itself is the dramatic experience of the game. The native american experience vs euros post Columbus as a theme doesn't have quite the roller coaster, so thats why it doesn't work as well as a game theme.
- smacktoward 11y ago
  This is part of what I found interesting about Ruhnke's approach: he acknowledges his own biases and provides copious designer's notes so the player can judge how they affect the game for themselves. I've long been of the opinion that every simulation game design is basically an argument -- a statement that "I think this slice of human experience worked this particular way." But usually the argument is only made implicitly; you have to tease it out via gameplay. I like when designers make it explicit instead by telling you up front why they made the decisions they did.

VLM 11y ago

"You have to be aware of the inherent biases" That is part of the victory conditions and gameplay of the COIN series. On one hand, you can't leave the fire in the lake game without understanding the ARVN point of view, at least not if you're even trying to win. On the other hand, you only get one fixed point of view WRT ARVN motivations and goals. Each faction has totally different victory conditions and rules. This is somewhat new in board gaming and I think the reason why has to do with computerized simulation in order to create something close to a balance. Where "games as a simulation" usually fail is when designers try to balance too hard. Nothing could stop the German in early WWII, thats just how the world works. And that is the appeal of "walk in hitlers shoes" appeal of playing the Germans in WWII games, you get to experience the whole spectrum from utter military superiority to utter failure by the end. It can be quite a roller coaster, which in itself is the dramatic experience of the game. The native american experience vs euros post Columbus as a theme doesn't have quite the roller coaster, so thats why it doesn't work as well as a game theme.

smacktoward 11y ago
This is part of what I found interesting about Ruhnke's approach: he acknowledges his own biases and provides copious designer's notes so the player can judge how they affect the game for themselves. I've long been of the opinion that every simulation game design is basically an argument -- a statement that "I think this slice of human experience worked this particular way." But usually the argument is only made implicitly; you have to tease it out via gameplay. I like when designers make it explicit instead by telling you up front why they made the decisions they did.