The Language of Games

“Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”

— Genesis 11:9

Language is a very dodgy code, even among those who purportedly understand the same one. Each word is paired with a corresponding meaning...often more than one nuanced meaning, depending on context. Humans “fluent” in a particular language don’t always have the same or a very precise sense of meaning for some words; dialects further confuse our understanding of the language code. I love hearing British slang terms, variations on the English language that only prove the adage “Two peoples separated by a common language.” We constantly use words that don’t mean what we think they mean. We garble our communications using words that impart imprecise concepts and attitude, whether on the phone, in texts and e-mails, even in person. The speaker and recipient frequently have different concepts of how words carry meaning and tone, especially in rushed, spontaneous conversations we fire off in our impatient, relentlessly rapid-paced society. Specialized fields often create and use their own jargon within the common language, further complicating communication, especially with outsiders. This frequently leads to a great deal of misunderstanding and emotional friction. I can only speak for those “fluent” in English, but the way we talk about the myriad diversions under the heading of “games” leads us to struggle as we constantly adapt to new perspectives and developments in the vast, ever-expanding universe of adventure gaming.

Rigid or Free?

 “A key issue from the outset was whether it was better to codify the game system within comprehensive rules and charts or to base the modelling of movement and combat on the wisdom and experience of an umpire.”

— Philip Sabin, Simulating War

Early wargame rules established two acceptable play formats: rigid and free. When military personnel started creating wargames in the early 19th century, an umpire or even a team of referees adjudicated wargame conflicts. Those in the “rigid” style adhered to carefully crafted rules governing many, if not all, possible actions and contests within a game scenario. The referee served as a knowledgeable intermediary, someone so immersed in the rules as to function as a reference when applying them consistently during play. This allowed players to focus on the action depicted on the wargaming table from the perspective of officers commanding troops in the field, much as they’d been trained. Those in the “free” style relied on their own military expertise and judgment to interpret the situations on the board, possibly also with some institutional doctrine and perhaps loose guidelines regarding conflicts on the battlefield. Free kriegspiel relied on an expert’s informed yet subjective opinion rather than established, comprehensive rules. As wargames evolved they branched in several directions, including professional and hobby as well as rigid and free. Free games continued to exist — especially in the military sphere or exercises like matrix games — but most games, especially in the growing hobby, skewed toward rigid. We can look at games in our own time through the lens of rigid and free play...but they primarily sustain the trend toward the rigid end of the spectrum.