History and Game Design in 1830: Railways and Robber Barons

When implementing historical representations into games there is a constant tension between fidelity and decision. Sid Meier has famously described games as "a series of interesting choices" (Rollings and Morris 2000, 38; cited in Juul 2005, 19). Simply allowing players to recreate a historical event precludes such choices. As Uricchio notes, much of the fun of historical games is the 'what if?' component: "Play emerges in the space between the constraint of detail and the exhilaration of improvisation" (2005, 330). In other words, a lack of detail is necessary for the game to be enjoyable. As the games I have discussed here--indeed the great majority of games--were created to be commercial products, the fun of the game is a greater design concern than historical accuracy. Of course, this is not to say that the latter is unimportant. Bruce Shelley's development notes for 1830, published in The Avalon Hill General magazine, highlight this tension between historical representation and game design.

A board game developer is typically a person employed by a game publisher tasked with working with game designers (typically not employed by the publisher) to help them prepare their game design for publication. This can involve playtesting, providing feedback to the designer, working with artists, and so on. In his article "A Very Good Year: Development Notes for 1830," Bruce Shelley recounts the salient points of his experience working at Avalon Hill as the developer for 1830: Railways and Robber Barons. Shelley began work with the designer, Francis Tresham (whose impact on board game and video game design can hardly be overstated), in late 1982. Seperated by the Atlantic, with Tresham in the UK and Shelley in Baltimore, Maryland, Shelley notes that "The help we could give in this stage was mostly research on aspects of North American railroads and general encouragement" (1987, 5). From early in the game's development both Tresham and Shelley were concerned about the historical aspects of the game.

Later, after Tresham had delivered a prototype of the game to Avalon Hill, the company became concerned with the fact that game discouraged historically accurate play: 

"In our opinion after several playtests, incentives built into the game resulted  in rail  nets and operations that  often bore little resemblance to historical  fact. [...] Also, the Baltimore & Ohio had access to such lucrative routes in its immediate vicinity that there was little incentive to build west. Historically, of course, the B&O was  founded  to connect  Baltimore with  the Ohio River Valley and siphon off some of the trade traveling to New York via the Erie Canal. The B&O never built past Washington, but in the game the first tile usually played by the B&O connected it to Richmond through Washington. Of all the rivers included on the map, the Ohio River was absent. We thought this was an error as the PRR, B&O, and C&O were all trying to reach this river and the important trade this would open up" (6).

Interestingly, these elements of the game board were never changed, and the problems described by Shelley are similar to those I describe in my analysis of the game board. However, in 1830 landscape features increase the cost of bulding track. Note how on the board the mountainous hexes near Baltimore, representing the Appalachians, have a cost of $120 printed at the bottom. This cost must be paid by the building railroad when tracks are constructed through them. If the Ohio river were part of the game board, it would increase construction costs in the East and thus make the railroads operating in that area less effective in the game. Shelley notes adding the Ohio river to an early prototype, but that the change did not last (6). Ultimately, the first version of 1830 was rejected by Avalon Hill, and one of the reasons Shelley gives is the "geographic incentives for unhistorical development of the railroads" (6), a criticism that applied to other companies besides the Baltimore & Ohio. This was not the only objection, as Shelley and Avalon Hill were unsatisifed with several of the game's rules and mechanics, the details of which will be spared here.

In 1985 Tresham delivered a new version to Shelley, and he found the game much improved. Tellingly, the relevant improvements did not concern historical accuracy much at all (8), but centered on the game design. Shelley elaborates:

"Our geographic and historic objections lost their importance once the game was found to work to our satisfaction. As long as the previous versions were not successful, we pressed  for having  these historical and geographical changes incorporated as well. Now there was no need for change, and we compromised our objections" (8).

As a commercial product the design of the game simply took precedence over historical representation. I emphasize this point not as a criticism of Avalon Hill's or Tresham's design methods, but rather as a reminder that critical analyses of games, such as I have presented throughout this site, must be mindful of the constraints placed on creative endeavors meant for commercial purposes. To return to Uricchio's point, the pleasure of the game lies somewhere between historical fact and the freedom of a game. If 1830 was designed just to simulate the founding and operating of railroad corporations, it would hardly be a game as there would be no "interesting choices" to make.