The Essence of a Good Wargame

Lewis Pulsipher

If you’ve read many wargames magazines you’ve probably encountered some aspects of the "realism" vs. "playability" debate. Role-playing games have not escaped; for example, Gary Gygax has discussed the subject in Advanced D&D and in The Dragon. Beginning with the premise that "realism" or "accurate simulation" does not of itself make a game good, I will discuss in this article what makes a game worth playing again and again; and this will indicate how a designer or role-playing DM can damage a game by deviating too much from this ideal or "essence".

A game is a conflict between two or more interests, conducted according to a set of restrictions and definitions (the rules). The players choose from among several possible courses of action. Events beyond the players’ control may affect play, but in some cases they can predict the probability that such uncontrolled events will occur. The most important difference between a good game and an average or poor one is in the nature of these choices. In a good game the player is able to perceive several courses of action which may plausibly lead to his success. In some cases it is even difficult to see what choices are available, but they are there. In any case, it is not immediately clear which choice is best; in fact, there should be several choices which seem, to the inattentive, inexperienced, or incompetent player, to be equally good. Only the most skillful player can recognize which choice is the optimum. When he plays a less skillful player, he should win the game most of the time because he makes better choices.

Luck, however, the uncontrollable element, can thwart the more skillful player. There is a significant difference in the kinds of chance which may affect the game. Dice rolling against an odds table or with a fixed hit probability Is, to some extent, predictable especially over a large number of trials. The skillful player can try to take into account the possible outcomes before the dice are rolled. On the other hand, in a campaign the type of role-playing where "anything goes" the player cannot predict what might happen well enough to help him plan his moves. Lacking sufficient information, he is as much at the mercy of "fate" as the poor player.

To summarize, the good wargame offers the player a range of plausible choices, without an easily discerned best choice, and sufficient information about elements not controlled by the players to allow him to take such variables into account when he plays. It becomes easy to see why many "conflict simulations", however admirable they may be as reflections of history, are often poor games. At one point a few years ago virtually all simulations Publications games, for example, put the players in an historical straitjacket. In order to ensure that the game result resembled the past each player was offered only one good course of action. He had to follow that strategy or lose the game. with both players similarly restricted, the game turned out the way the designers desired. There was no point in playing the game more than a few times because not only was there just one good strategy, anyone able to fully understand the rules could quickly discover that strategy. A superior game player might gain an advantage in details, but chance could easily wipe out that advantage.

One of the attractions of D&D compared with other role- playing games is the number of plausible choices open to adventurers in many situations. True, at first level the choices are limited, and the "sleep them or die" dilemma requires no deliberation at all. At about third to sixth levels the players are strong enough to accept battle without fear of immediate collapse or death, and they have enough spells to be able to use them in other than life—and-death situations. But at high levels-—say, double figures—-the game becomes less effective. There are so many ways to accomplish most objectives that any halfway decent player can get out of a jam or devise a usable plan. This is fine for the players but as a wargame it is not satisfactory. Sometimes the DM is driven to compensate for the overly easy choice of strategies by increasing the uncertainty. With anything goes" in force bad luck may thwart the players when bad choices are unlikely to do so.

A good reason for the DM to create a complete world rather than only a dungeon is to reduce uncertainty to a level both believable and conducive to good play. A player in a world he understands can sometimes anticipate uncontrolled influences. If players know nothing about the culture, population, economics, and so on of the world they are more vulnerable to random forces. Obviously, some uncertainty must remain or soon the fantasy atmosphere will be lost. But complete uncertainty results in lottery, not mystery. If you DM for wargames players you should provide a good game as well as an exciting mystery, or you have failed to exploit the potential of D&D.

"Always do right--this will gratify some and astonish the rest." Mark Twain

Send mail to webmaster (at) pulsipher (dot) net with comments about this web site.   Last modified: 12/14/10.  Copyright 2009 Lewis Pulsipher