:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:
:   Earth's Dreamlands    :  Info on: RPG's,  :(313)558-5024 : area code    :
:RPGNet World HQ & Archive: Drugs, Industrial :(313)558-5517 : changes to   :
:  1000's of text files   :  music, Fiction,  :InterNet      : (810) after  :
:   No Elite / No porn    :   HomeBrew Beer.  :rpgnet@aol.com: Dec 1,1993   :
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:

REALISM VERSUS PLAYABILITY IN SIMULATION GAME DESIGN

An address by Steve Jackson
Presented to the "Joks i Tecnojocs" Conference, Barcelona, Spain
June 19, 1991
Copyright 1991 by Steve Jackson, all rights reserved

	The "realism vs. playability" argument is probably the oldest question 
in simulation gaming. Most games stress one at the expense of the other. Which 
is more important? Do they have to be mutually exclusive?


DEFINING THE TERMS
	We must start by defining these two terms. This is made more complex 
by the fact that a game designer means one thing when he talks about "realism" 
and "playability," while a player may mean something entirely different. 
First, we shall look at the question from the viewpoint of the game designer.

	A designer says that a game is "realistic" when:

	First, when it is real. These are the games in which people simulate 
battle by actually shooting at each other with non-lethal weapons. Examples 
include the Survival Game, played with guns which fire paint balls; Photon, 
which uses sophisticated optical technology; and my own Killer, in which 
players use water-guns, dart guns, and similar toys. The military's 
sophisticated "war games," which use real tanks and guns but substitute laser 
sights for explosives, fit the same category.

	Second, a game designer might call a game "realistic" because it 
presents a provably accurate analog of reality. For example, if infantry can 
march 50 miles in a day over good roads, a game that depicts this is 
"realistic." We use the term "reality checks" to indicate the process of 
testing this in a game. It becomes hard to reality-check those aspects of a 
game which cannot conveniently be quantified, such as physical injury. In a 
game we might say that a man can take ``ten hits'' of damage. But you cannot 
point to a real injury and say ``There is five hits of damage. This man can 
take another five hits before he dies.''

	Third, a designer might call a game "realistic" if he feels that it 
gives an overall effect of reality, even though its subsystems may not be very 
realistic. An example is the game Axis & Allies, originally created by Nova 
but published in the mass market by Milton Bradley. This game has been hugely 
successful because it gives a good "feel," or overall impression, of the 
strategic truths of World War II, even though its movement and combat are both 
highly abstract. So in that sense it is realistic.

	And finally, a game designer might call a game "realistic" if it gives 
an overall effect which matches an appropriate sort of fiction. What he is 
saying is that it is true to its sources. In that sense, my game Toon is 
realistic with respect to cartoons, and Dungeons & Dragons is realistic with 
respect to thud-and-blunder fantasy fiction. So if you like those genres, you 
will consider those games to be realistic.

	Now, as to playability. A game designer will say that a game is 
"playable" under one of three circumstances.


	First, a game may be termed "playable" if it can be learned quickly 
and correctly. Obviously, the simpler the rules are, the easier it will be to 
learn. But it is even more important that the rules be well-explained, and 
that insofar as possible they be intuitive in nature. It might be more 
accurate to use the term "learnable" or "learner-friendly" for this type of 
playability. Some designers are now including "jump-start rules," or simple 
beginner versions, both with boardgames and with computer games.

	Second, a game may most accurately be called "playable" if it can be 
played quickly and easily, once learned, with minimum reference to the rules. 
Some rather complex games are playable in this sense, because the rules make 
so much sense that when you learn them you know them. The classic Monopoly is 
a good example here. Very few people learn Monopoly from the written rules. 
Instead, Monopoly is passed down as an oral tradition, from parents to 
children or from older brothers to younger ones. One of my own games fits this 
pattern in an embarrassing way. I have never succeeded in writing down the 
rules to Illuminati in a way that makes them easy to read. But a new player, 
sitting down with a group, will learn the game quickly. I wish I could capture 
that and put it in a box!
	Many games are like that. They are learned by oral tradition, and 
passed on almost like folklore. And this is a true meaning of the word 
"playable."

	Finally, a game designer may call a game "playable" in a very 
technical sense if its various subsystems mesh together smoothly, and its 
components are "friendly" and easy to use. Too often, we see the opposite of 
this, which I term "hostile" design. When a game has complex pieces that are 
easy to knock over, or that can be blown away by the wind, that is an example 
of hostile components. If oft-used charts are separated and buried in the 
rules, that is hostile rulebook design..

	Now we must consider the definitions which are used by the players. 
After all, they're the ones the game is meant for.

	When a player calls a game realistic, he usually means one of two 
things.

	"When I read the rules, they looked really complicated." This player 
doesn't know whether the game is actually realistic or not, but he is 
impressed (or intimidated, or both) by thick rulebooks with lots of charts. 
Note that this is a great fallacy. Many realistic games are complex, but not 
all complex games are realistic. Complexity in itself is almost never 
desirable!

	The other thing that a player may mean by "realistic" is that "While I 
was playing, nothing seemed really stupid." He is not about to carry out 
complicated tests of reality, but the game presented nothing that insulted his 
intelligence. Returning to our example of the infantry which could march 50 
miles a day along good roads: The player may not know much history. He may 
never have been in the army. So he will read that and think "That sounds about 
right." If the game said 30 miles, or 60 miles, he might still accept that. 
But if the rules said "Infantry can march only 10 miles per day along good 
roads," the player would seize on that as foolish. He would then tend to lose 
faith in the other representations made in the game.

	It is very important to note here that a player will judge realism by 
his own experience and expectations. If the player is not sophisticated or 
experienced, he may have some strange ideas about "reality," but they will be 
sincerely held. For instance, I was at a gaming convention once, and overheard 
a young player saying: "This game isn't realistic at all. My character was hit 
by just two arrows, and he almost died."

	Now, that may seem a ridiculous thing to say, but consider the source. 
That player clearly had no personal experience of battle. He had seen Western 
movies, where the hero is shot more times than St. Stephen, and keeps on 
fighting. And he had been playing fantasy games that you or I would call 
"unrealistic," in which a hero can jump off tall buildings, or be hit 
repeatedly with a battle-ax, and take only trivial harm. That player honestly 
believed that the human body is indestructible, and he was very critical of a 
game that didn't reflect his belief!


	Now, as to playability. When a player calls a game playable, he means: 
"I had fun."

	"I had fun." That's all that "playable" means to a player.

	Let's take an example of a game that most professionals would call 
"unplayable." The original edition of Dungeons & Dragons was poorly written, 
badly organized, with almost no cross-references, with contradictions and 
omissions. Nevertheless, for a lot of people, Dungeons & Dragons was playable! 
They thought they understand the rules, and they had fun.

	Second . . . There is no second meaning to a player, and this is an 
important point. "Playable" really means fun, and NOTHING BUT FUN, in the 
players' minds. If they enjoy the game, they will call it playable.

	As we see, "realism" and "playability" are highly subjective terms, 
and may mean different things to different people. It is important that the 
professional creator or critic of games understand the technical meanings 
which can be applied to these terms. But in order to create an effective 
simulation game, and to do so on purpose rather than by lucky accident, it is 
necessary to know the different and simpler interpretations that the average 
player puts on the terms.


SETTING THE BALANCE
	It should be clear that, whatever we mean by "realism" and whatever we 
mean by "playability," both are important, and both are desirable. You can't 
have too much of either.

	However, it is generally accepted that some tradeoff will be required 
. . . that if a game is extremely realistic, its playability will suffer, and 
that if a game is very playable, there will be some loss of realism. 
Empirically, this is often true. Although there is no absolute law that says 
that realism and playability must be in conflict, the designer usually finds 
himself choosing between the two at some point. For the most effective 
presentation, the particular balance that should be chosen depends largely on 
the game's desired audience.

	Realism is more important for the older or hobbyist market. These 
customers tend toward a scholarly attitude. 

	Playability is more important for the younger players, or for the mass 
market. Here, we are dealing with a shorter attention span, and often a lower 
educational level. It is wrong to say that this is a less demanding audience. 
They may not require scholarship, but they insist on being entertained. 
Indeed, they want to be entertained right now. 

	Now, having chosen our desired balance how can we achieve it? There 
are any number of choices you can make when balancing realism with 
playability. Some classic ones include:

	Charts and tables of specific effects, vs. "generic" effects. A game 
may ignore the weather. Or it may have two kinds of weather: clear and cloudy. 
Or it may have a complex table of a dozen different kinds of weather, with 
modifiers to be applied depending on the season!

	Hit locations and effects. The result of damage, whether to an 
individual, a ship or tank, or a whole military organization, may be as simple 
as "dead or alive." Or they may be very complex, with degrees of injury and 
various methods for repair or recovery.

	In a military simulation, there may be complex supply rules, or the 
game may take supply for granted, assuming that no one ever runs out of 
ammunition.

	Likewise, in a military simulation, units on the map may have a ``zone 
of control'' affecting the travel of hostile units in adjacent map areas. 
These rules can be simplified or omitted entirely . . . or they can be quite 
complex. In its most developed form, a Zone of Control rule can require a 
detailed consultation with the rulebook every time a unit moves near the 
enemy, just to see whether it is allowed to proceed.

	Even the turn sequence may be simple or complex. In a simple game, one 
player takes a turn, then the other one takes a turn. So, in a military game, 
a tank could move from one protected point to another, crossing the open space 
in between, but ending the turn in a safe place. In a complex game, there may 
be layers of partial or conditional response within each turn. In such a game, 
while that tank is moving, the opponent might say "Hold on! I'm going to fire 
at you while you're in the open!"


ACHIEVING REALISM
	The classic way to achieve realism is through research. It is easy to 
check the weight of a sword or composition of battalion. Some facts are harder 
to check. But the harder it is to be sure you're right, the less it really 
matters - if your guess is good! How do you guess right? That's a good 
question.

	Game mechanics must also echo reality. If, in real life, a certain 
cause produces a certain effect, the game mechanics should copy this as 
closely as possible.

	It is also very important to playtest for unexpected synergies. Two 
individually reasonable rules can produce a silly result when they interact.

	Finally, don't shoot too high. The more you try to simulate, the more 
you have lose if you fail. The first game I ever created, Ogre, is often seen 
as realistic because it is limited in what it tries to portray. Nobody expects 
too much of a simple system if, as simple systems go, it produces good-seeming 
results.


ACHIEVING PLAYABILITY
	First, to make a game playable, make it friendly. The rules and 
components should be attractive, easy to read, and easy to use.

	Second, make it easy and attractive to learn the game. This has to be 
gauged by your audience; a simple hobby game will be very hard for a rank 
beginner to learn, and a simple beginner game would be scorned by the 
hobbyist. Don't worry about it - just know your market before you start, and 
don't worry if someone outside the market criticizes it. It wasn't meant for 
them.

	Finally, use logic and mnemonics. This helps makes it easy to learn, 
easy to remember, and easy to play. It will also be seen as aiding realism, 
whether it actually makes the game more "real" or not. For example, in a 
roleplaying game, it is often necessary to determine whether a character has 
successfully used a skill. Rolling directly against that skill is simpler and 
better than looking up the skill number on a chart and then rolling against 
some arbitrary odds number.


CONCLUSION
	Now, what can we conclude from all this? Both realism and playability 
are important, but playability is more so.

	If a game is insufficiently realistic, it can still be fun. In the 
marketplace, "unrealistic" is often no more than a slap on the wrist. Dungeons 
& Dragons is terribly unrealistic, but TSR cries all the way to the bank, 
while more realistic systems languish. Some best-sellers, such as Cosmic 
Encounter and Illuminati, make no attempt whatsoever to portray real life.

	But insufficient playability is usually fatal, right from the start. 
"Unplayable" is the nastiest word a reviewer has - it's even worse than 
"overpriced." As an example, I would offer SPI's Campaign for North Africa, 
admired for its research, but probably never played. Among roleplaying games, 
there is FGU's Chivalry & Sorcery, chock full of good ideas and bad rules. 
Most copies are probably used as sourcebooks.

	So, designers: Make your games as playable as you can, and then make 
them as realistic as you can without sacrificing playability. You may be 
surprised how much realism you can still achieve, if you keep trying. And your 
game will be better for it.
