Definition are not the Primary Issue
[Documents/02.3-NoDefinitions.txt]
Dustin L. Laurence, 28 Sep 93

Hmm, I find myself in my usual role of skeptic.  :)

I don't think that wargames are likely to be zero-sum in a meaningful
sense, though the matter depends to a rather large degree on how you
score the game.  However, I submit that war itself is never zero-sum,
and therefore to the extent that a wargame is zero-sum it fails to
model that aspect of war.

I think that the intent of the zero-sum idea could be contained in some
phrase like "wargames are games in which the player's have opposing
objectives."  In other words, if I tend to gain some of my objectives
then my opponent tends to be denied some of his, though the amount he
loses may not be the same as the amount I gain.

However, I think that this is really an overly-formal way to say that
wargames involve conflict, which as Ernie mentioned is part of the
definition in SJG's little book on wargame design.

Finally, the skeptic in me asks why we need to define what a wargame is
in the first place?  Will it really make the kit a better one, or will
it tend to make us force all wargames into whatever tidy pigeonhole we
decide on?  I submit that a wargame is the type of game that AH, SPI,
GDW, GMT, 3W, Clash of Arms, The Gamers, Victory, and host of other
tiny companies publish.  If the package allows their games to be
implemented in a fairly natural fashion, then it is a success no matter
how crude our definition is (and will almost certainly be general enough
to handle most other games as well).  If not, it is a failure no matter
how elegant be our pigeonhole.

Dustin