Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@ the whole definition of a scrub. Here's an interesting thought; say a person wants no LoW in 40k due to seeming imbalance and only allows them with restrictions which would fit the apparent definition of a scrub (creating rules for everyone to appease their issues with competitive play). What if they then played 30k where such restrictions on LoW are part of the rules. Are they less of a scrub or more?

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
@ the whole definition of a scrub. Here's an interesting thought; say a person wants no LoW in 40k due to seeming imbalance and only allows them with restrictions which would fit the apparent definition of a scrub (creating rules for everyone to appease their issues with competitive play). What if they then played 30k where such restrictions on LoW are part of the rules. Are they less of a scrub or more?

LoW ARE part of the 40k rules though, aren't they?

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
@ the whole definition of a scrub. Here's an interesting thought; say a person wants no LoW in 40k due to seeming imbalance and only allows them with restrictions which would fit the apparent definition of a scrub (creating rules for everyone to appease their issues with competitive play). What if they then played 30k where such restrictions on LoW are part of the rules. Are they less of a scrub or more?

LoW ARE part of the 40k rules though, aren't they?

So is having to use Citadel models to play 40k .

Not sure what the question is meant to show though; is one more of a scrub for using a ruleset from gw that puts restrictions on what they dont like or less of one for following those rules in its entirety?

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
@ the whole definition of a scrub. Here's an interesting thought; say a person wants no LoW in 40k due to seeming imbalance and only allows them with restrictions which would fit the apparent definition of a scrub (creating rules for everyone to appease their issues with competitive play). What if they then played 30k where such restrictions on LoW are part of the rules. Are they less of a scrub or more?

That is not really a question is it? You don't seem to get the concept if it is.

I wasn't making any solid point, more just dwelling on the idea that following the customers does work out sometimes, but even then it might not be in my own interest. I just hope I'm not in the minority when it comes to this hobby like I was when it came to WoW...

 RatBot wrote:
Now that I am properly enlightened re what "withdrawing" means in the context of VtES, I think only one of the following conclusions can be drawn:

1.) The Hound insisted that Victim was not allowed to quit, in which case, Hound is a dick and Author and friends are idiots for not saying "Dude, stop being a dick and let her quit."

2.) Victim kept saying that she wanted to withdraw when she meant quit because she, being a new player, was possibly using the incorrect terminology, in which case, Hound, Author, or Author's friends should've chimed in "Do you mean you want to quit?"

3.)The entire story is fabricated (which to be fair I doubt is the case), or has been exaggerated to paint competitive players in a bad light.

Regardless, even if Hound was a dick, Author and friends were also complicit as accomplices to dickery.

I'll go with 3.
The story is that far fetched that it reeks of BS. Its exactly painted in making competitive players into TFG's, in general. You'd never put someone with that serious a condition/ PTSD into this sort of a situation. If they did, they did it on purpose to get this as a reaction... to write a clever anecdote about.

Dickery is a polite way to put it. Anything out of this guys hole from here on at this point is suspect BS, as a rule.

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
Not sure what the question is meant to show though; is one more of a scrub for using a ruleset from gw that puts restrictions on what they dont like or less of one for following those rules in its entirety?

That's a very good question, and I think it's important to probe the boundaries of ideas and see what they're about. Not everything is black and white.

There is nothing wrong with playing a different game that you like more. We could get into debates about which games are better, but in the end it comes down to personal preference. By the same measure, there is nothing wrong with changing the rules. Many games start life as rule variations and go on to become great games in their own right. Sometimes variations takeover and displace the original game. Sometimes games are changed during updates. Sometimes it's just fun and refreshing to try something different. None of that makes you a scrub.

What makes someone a scrub is their attitude, which is toxic, and often self defeating. There is a world of difference between saying: "I don't like LoW, I'm going to play 30k instead", and saying: "That guy only beat me at 40k because he used LoW, I never use LoW because I play fair". The first person knows what he likes, and makes a change. The second person is confusing what he "likes" with what is "fair", and he isn't changing anything, he's just bitching about other people for not seeing things his way.

Scrubs tend to get their comeuppance in more competitive environments like tournaments, where their misguided notions of what is "fair" lead to them being trounced by people who they consider "cheap". Some people think they're immune from being a scrub if they only play casually, but you can still be a scrub if you have that same toxic attitude. Scrubs are often sore losers and vice versa.

As for playing with non-Citadel miniatures being cheap... It certainly is! Especially if you buy Mantic. But I think it only impacts your wallet, not the actual game. So it's probably okay to disregard that rule, without having to worry about being a scrub

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
@ the whole definition of a scrub. Here's an interesting thought; say a person wants no LoW in 40k due to seeming imbalance and only allows them with restrictions which would fit the apparent definition of a scrub (creating rules for everyone to appease their issues with competitive play). What if they then played 30k where such restrictions on LoW are part of the rules. Are they less of a scrub or more?

A scrub is someone who chooses on their own not to use X, and then bitches when their opponents, who are under no such obligation, use X. That's the gist of it. In Sirlin's book the scrub in one of his Street Fighter example thinks that doing combos and special moves is the pinnacle of the game and cries "That's cheap" when his opponent (Sirlin in this case) throws him five times in a row instead of doing combos.

It's hard to really match an equivalent to 40k because of 40k's nature; 40k actually encourages "scrub" play with the whole negotiating with your opponent thing, but a close analogy would be crying foul because your opponent fields all Bikes and you limited yourself to 2 squads for arbitrary reasons - there's nothing wrong with your opponent fielding all Bikes, just you (not you personally) have added additional rules that say "You can't field all Bikes" and on top of that try to claim that you're better than your "cheap" opponent who doesn't follow your rule.

That's basically what a scrub is. It's not scrub behavior to agree not to do X, because your opponent has to agree. It IS scrub behavior to have your own extra rules or ideas for conduct and then complain when other people don't follow that.

A Warmachine example to better illustrate the concept might be that you can shoot your own models, so for instance you might have a situation where you hit your own model to also hit several of your opponent's models. A scrub would call this cheap/cheesy/unfair because they added "You cannot shoot your own models" to the list of game rules even though it doesn't exist as a rule and is a perfectly valid strategy; it doesn't adhere to what the scrub feels the rules are so it's "cheap" and their opponent is being "Unfair" to use that strategy. That's basically the type of thing Sirlin is talking about - a scrub adds their own arbitrary rules to how the game plays and expects everybody else to follow them as well.

It's harder to find an example in 40k because really the scrub mentality doesn't apply that much to list building, it applies to gameplay. It's not necessarily being a scrub to not want to play LoW, but arguably it is scrublike behavior to let your opponent play a LoW and then call them cheesy for doing it.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
Heck, I sometimes see the argument that the rules should be more expensive!

No...no...no...

Where? I must see this with my own eyes.

Sorry, finally getting back to this.

I've seen a lot of defense of GW's insane rules cost with the old "I'd just take subscription so it feels like less money" routine. Then they can say how fair $15-25 a month is, because after all everybody can afford such a pittance!

In the Dakka polls, "how much should a 200-300 page rule book cost?" there are a few people who checked over $100. I'm not sure what their motivation was to pay more. Perhaps they were taking the whole "I'd be willing to pay more to have it not suck" angle. Though there were also a lot of people in that topic who didn't seem to understand how much books usually cost, and were drawing comparisons with college textbooks (which are at least triple the price of regular books). It was actually kind of sad to see that people who had failed to do even the most basic research, might be college grads. I suppose having more money than sense is probably an advantage when it comes to education these days, and is likely a great source of comfort when you're a GW apologist.

Let's see... ruinously expensive when new, used for a short time, and completely valueless when the new edition comes out....

Yeah, there are some similarities between GW games and college texts....

The Auld Grump

WayneTheGame wrote:
It's harder to find an example in 40k because really the scrub mentality doesn't apply that much to list building, it applies to gameplay. It's not necessarily being a scrub to not want to play LoW, but arguably it is scrublike behavior to let your opponent play a LoW and then call them cheesy for doing it.

That's still listbuilding though, isn't it? One guy builds his list with a LoW in it, one guy complains because he thinks building a list with a LoW is unfair.

Sorry Wayne, but I think most of 40K's scrub problems do come down to listbuilding. It's the kind of example I see most often - competitive players take a list with optimised, powerful unit choices, and casual players complain about how well it does against their fluffy, weaker list. Add on the fact that gameplay actions are rather limited: Stand, stand-and-shoot, move, move-and-shoot, move-closer-and-hit-them-with-your-sword. (not counting the magi... I mean psychic phase. Also, I haven't been au fait with 40K's latest edition - did they add overwatch and little stuff like that?) Most of it comes down to just what you shoot or hit swords with, or at.
Compare to Street Fighter or most other fighting games: for a single game 'listbuilding' boils down to choosing one (1) character. Some may be more powerful than others but that's easily affected by just how you use their repertoire of basic and unique moves, including throwing five times in a row if that's the tactic the situation calls for. (TBH I never played Street Fighter myself, but if it's different versions are anything like ye olde Virtua Fighter, and the terrifyingly huge lists of moves in the manual...)

 Vermis wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
It's harder to find an example in 40k because really the scrub mentality doesn't apply that much to list building, it applies to gameplay. It's not necessarily being a scrub to not want to play LoW, but arguably it is scrublike behavior to let your opponent play a LoW and then call them cheesy for doing it.

That's still listbuilding though, isn't it? One guy builds his list with a LoW in it, one guy complains because he thinks building a list with a LoW is unfair.

Sorry Wayne, but I think most of 40K's scrub problems do come down to listbuilding. It's the kind of example I see most often - competitive players take a list with optimised, powerful unit choices, and casual players complain about how well it does against their fluffy, weaker list. Add on the fact that gameplay actions are rather limited: Stand, stand-and-shoot, move, move-and-shoot, move-closer-and-hit-them-with-your-sword. (not counting the magi... I mean psychic phase. Also, I haven't been au fait with 40K's latest edition - did they add overwatch and little stuff like that?) Most of it comes down to just what you shoot or hit swords with, or at.
Compare to Street Fighter or most other fighting games: for a single game 'listbuilding' boils down to choosing one (1) character. Some may be more powerful than others but that's easily affected by just how you use their repertoire of basic and unique moves, including throwing five times in a row if that's the tactic the situation calls for. (TBH I never played Street Fighter myself, but if it's different versions are anything like ye olde Virtua Fighter, and the terrifyingly huge lists of moves in the manual...)

40k's scrub problems DO boil down to listbuilding, which is why I don't think the scrub concept can be 100% applied to 40k, because it only IMHO becomes a scrub thing if you allow free reign, hamper yourself and then your opponent is somehow the jerk for building a list with options allowed. That's not the same thing as deciding beforehand that LoW aren't allowed, because then your opponent knows your stance.

I find the list building and rules all combine together on what are your "optimal" choices on how to win a game.

The last two editions have a heavy emphasis on random "choice" rather than an actual choice.
So the opportunity to get the more powerful "guaranteed" psychic power is a strong consideration for instance.
More powerful units that have greater utility against a large variety of tactics or unit types (horde, armor, aircraft, skimmers) are looked for.
Anything that has a high probability of success or manages to ignore many of these random results and has a more certain outcome is the way to go.
Choosing your army list is one of the few things not left to chance.

On the topic of Stockholm syndrome:
I feel no compulsion to identify with or suck-up to my "abuser" to avoid further punishment.
My only "Cognitive Dissonance" is the models being worth the money.
" In long-term relationships, the victims have invested everything and placed “all their eggs in one basket”. The relationship now decides their level of self-esteem, self-worth, and emotional health."http://counsellingresource.com/lib/therapy/self-help/stockholm/3/
I have invested in games outside of GW... all is well.

WayneTheGame wrote:
40k's scrub problems DO boil down to listbuilding, which is why I don't think the scrub concept can be 100% applied to 40k, because it only IMHO becomes a scrub thing if you allow free reign, hamper yourself and then your opponent is somehow the jerk for building a list with options allowed. That's not the same thing as deciding beforehand that LoW aren't allowed, because then your opponent knows your stance.

One of the major differences between a game like Street Fighter and 40k, is that in Street Fighter, when you get your ass handed to you, it's very easy to just change character and try something new. In 40k you have to spend quite a lot of time and money on your army, it's not really practical to just "switch" to Eldar because they're currently top of the pile. So when someone turns up to a PUG with their Black Templars they've been running since 3rd edition, and their opponent pulls out a bunch of strength D weapons and Jetbikes... I understand why people feel exasperated, and want to start crying "cheap". I think that's what happens, but it's still GW's fault really, not the player's.

 Smacks wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
40k's scrub problems DO boil down to listbuilding, which is why I don't think the scrub concept can be 100% applied to 40k, because it only IMHO becomes a scrub thing if you allow free reign, hamper yourself and then your opponent is somehow the jerk for building a list with options allowed. That's not the same thing as deciding beforehand that LoW aren't allowed, because then your opponent knows your stance.

One of the major differences between a game like Street Fighter and 40k, is that in Street Fighter, when you get your ass handed to you, it's very easy to just change character and try something new. In 40k you have to spend quite a lot of time and money on your army, it's not really practical to just "switch" to Eldar because they're currently top of the pile. So when someone turns up to a PUG with their Black Templars they've been running since 3rd edition, and their opponent pulls out a bunch of strength D weapons and Jetbikes... I understand why people feel exasperated, and want to start crying "cheap". I think that's what happens, but it's still GW's fault really, not the player's.

Exactly. Most of 40k's problems aren't limited to scrub mentality, although it does exist, it's just general lack of balance in the game itself. In order to have the concept of scrubs you kinda need to have a real game in the first place. In Street Fighter for example barring probably/possibly Akuma, the fighters are fairly well balanced.

WayneTheGame wrote:

They want to pass 40k off as catering to everybody, when it clearly doesn't.

It isn't really much simpler than this for ANY game.

And clearly some games are aimed at trying to please a broader spectrum of players than are others, by doing things like including rules for building your own vehicles and weapons, or even your own alien races.

To say nothing of allowing an expansive difference in technologies that actually makes a difference, rather than everything being basically photocopies of each other wearing different hats (TV Tropes, which is the definitive guide to tropes found in TV, Film, and other fiction - Manga, novels, etc - defines this as the "Planet of the Hats" syndrome).

Some rules really try to please more people than do others. But even they cannot please everyone (for instance those who wish rules written specifically for a particular piece of fiction, or specific time and place, or genre)



MB

IMO, if GW actually wanted to appeal to a wider range of customers.
They should publish books aimed specifically at each sector of their customer base.

Collectors.
Codex Librarium.(Big book of fluff and conversion painting guides.)
Full colour art, with extensive background, With a complimentary sections on craft hobby tips for each race/All the inspirational stuff to get people to collect and enjoy the collecting / craft side of the hobby.

Competitive gamers .
Codex Militarum..
A set of codex books to cover all factions with focus on enough balance for random pick up games and tournament play.
These cover all the core units that reflect the play styles of each faction.

Narrative gamers.
Codex Tempestus.
These are faction specific campaign books , with sample linked scenarios and all the helpful hints players need to play narrative games free from point values and F.O.C restrictions.

(I am sure there are better 'cod-latin' names but you get the idea.)

This way collectors can just buy the inspirational reference they may want , without the need to be lumbered with boring rules they may not want.
Gamers can just buy the rules they need to play they game they way they want to.

And everyone would not be lumped together in a big confused mess, trying to tell everyone else they are doing it 'wrong'.

Speaking of stockholm syndrome I was basically kicked out of a facebook group for "miniature gaming" in the area because while it said that it really meant 40k only because that's all everyone talked about, and an "admin" basically told me to keep my anti-GW talk out of the group. Nope, nothing wrong here only good stuff about Our Saviour GW. So I basically said feth them, they only talk about 40k despite it being for miniatures gaming in general, and left the group.

Still amazes me there are people who are so brainwashed by GW and 40k that they think it's the only game out there.

My older brother suffers from GW Stockholm syndrome. I try and try to talk him into playing other games but he does not want to hear about it. It's like he is a member of some cult that has taken over his mind. I even went out of my way and painted up around 50 pts of Menoth for him. Hoping some Friday night he would go to the FLGS and play them. He is even friends with the local Pressganger at the store so Iam not sure what's stoping him. He even commented to me the other day he would rather quit before he took up another game. It's like he is a battered wife that keeps going back to her abusive husband, I just don't get it. I think it has a lot to do with his group he plays with who won't look at any other game besides GW. Oh well could be worse I guess

Some people don't like change, and rather than simply feel they can admit it, will produce all sorts of tenuous and outlandish statements/reasons to justify it. It's like admitting "I like what I have and have no desire to change it" is not sufficient in their mind.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Speaking of stockholm syndrome I was basically kicked out of a facebook group for "miniature gaming" in the area because while it said that it really meant 40k only because that's all everyone talked about, and an "admin" basically told me to keep my anti-GW talk out of the group. Nope, nothing wrong here only good stuff about Our Saviour GW. So I basically said feth them, they only talk about 40k despite it being for miniatures gaming in general, and left the group.

Still amazes me there are people who are so brainwashed by GW and 40k that they think it's the only game out there.

Something similar happened to me a couple of years back with the only gaming group (at the time) in town. The difference was I left because I felt my opinions where unwelcome there rather than being kicked out. I found it less of a battered wife syndrome issue and more of a kool aid one. The guy running it referred to the club constantly as 'his' club and everything was run the way he wanted because of that. The first tourney they ran for fantasy was 1850 points because, despite it being a points level never used in fantasy and us telling him so, that was the points level of the army he went out and bought the week before.

 jonolikespie wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Speaking of stockholm syndrome I was basically kicked out of a facebook group for "miniature gaming" in the area because while it said that it really meant 40k only because that's all everyone talked about, and an "admin" basically told me to keep my anti-GW talk out of the group. Nope, nothing wrong here only good stuff about Our Saviour GW. So I basically said feth them, they only talk about 40k despite it being for miniatures gaming in general, and left the group.

Still amazes me there are people who are so brainwashed by GW and 40k that they think it's the only game out there.

Something similar happened to me a couple of years back with the only gaming group (at the time) in town. The difference was I left because I felt my opinions where unwelcome there rather than being kicked out. I found it less of a battered wife syndrome issue and more of a kool aid one. The guy running it referred to the club constantly as 'his' club and everything was run the way he wanted because of that. The first tourney they ran for fantasy was 1850 points because, despite it being a points level never used in fantasy and us telling him so, that was the points level of the army he went out and bought the week before.

It just bugs me. This group plays at a Hobbytown USA so you'd think they'd be more open, but nope I specifically asked and it's like mostly 40k and nothing else. Just so ignorant of alternatives.

Do you find its mostly down to a few strong personalaties and a case of group think for the rest or are they all aggressivly opposed to the idea of other games?

 jonolikespie wrote:
Do you find its mostly down to a few strong personalaties and a case of group think for the rest or are they all aggressivly opposed to the idea of other games?

Honestly I think it's just a matter of "good enough" (which is a problem in more than just the wargaming community in my opinion). I feel that a lot of people picked up 40k when it was still the only game in town really, spent a lot on it and then feel they NEED to stick with it so they don't feel stupid for spending hundreds of dollars on a subpar game. They need to make it work to justify to themselves that they aren't dumbasses for doing it. That and it's usually that you get people that don't want to look elsewhere for the usual reasons (e.g. no other game has "large" armies, or big figures, or the quality of the figures or the aesthetics, all the common "Why I play 40k and not X" reasons you see).

I really don't know why that doesn't sit well with me (after all it's not my money). I think maybe because I feel that it's silly to have a "Warhammer Club", you should instead strive to have a "Wargame Club" and encourage different games so there's cross-pollination and the community as a whole grows instead of focusing on just one game and push that to the exclusion of everything else, which I also find has a lot to do with the idea that it's the gamer's job to support the store and not vice versa; I've seen some stores that won't let you play anything there that they don't sell, which I find silly because it's very limiting. That idea is not limited to Warhammer of course, I see it even with Warmachine sometimes where it's more popular, but I find the idea that Warhammer/GW is the center of the universe that everything revolves around is much more prevalent in 40k-centric communities than others. You still have people that might not want to invest in multiple games (which is understandable), but often they aren't adamantly against the idea and immediately retort with reasons why X game sucks when it's even brought up.

For instance, if I started talking about Infinity to my Warmachine group, I'd probably have some people who looked at it or knew about it, and there would be a slim chance there might be some interest in getting it in the shop and playing. If I said the same thing to the 40k crowd I'd probably be shouted down and told to stop pushing "[my] pet game" on everybody else (I actually had this happen; someone cussed me out for saying that I'd play Kings of War before I'd touch Fantasy, and suggested that the rules be looked at for a viable alternative) or have people immediately jumping on why Infinity sucks compared to 40k. At least that's how I typically find 40k players to be; they are just out and out ignorant of alternatives and tend to feel that any suggestion for something other than 40k is a slight, which is why I suspect it's related to not wanting to look stupid for spending so much on such a poor game. Similar to how in business companies will spend hundreds of thousands on a terrible solution and then still see it through and use it so they don't have to admit that they goofed.

In my case, I got into dropzone commander but it never really took off locally so I'm likely to sell it to recoup some of the cost. A lot of 40k seems like sunk cost fallacy 101

Slightly related to this topic, I found a great quote from Jay Larsen (a well-known Warmachine player, also the Season 1 World Champion) in an article talking about David Sirlin's book and the application of the theories therein to Warmachine.

I thought this quote in particular is pretty apt for Warhammer, although the context is in regards to "self-limiting players" (he chooses not to use the word "scrub" as in Sirlin's book) who feel that the game (Warmachine in this case) isn't properly balanced:

Many self restricted players believe that it is the duty of the players to create social contracts that discourage certain play styles or models for the fun or health of the game. They are wrong, these players are assuming the responsibility of a game designer rather than that of a player. If the game designer is not able to create a well balanced and fun game, then the player should find a better game instead of trying to apply band-aids to a broken product.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Slightly related to this topic, I found a great quote from Jay Larsen (a well-known Warmachine player, also the Season 1 World Champion) in an article talking about David Sirlin's book and the application of the theories therein to Warmachine.

I thought this quote in particular is pretty apt for Warhammer, although the context is in regards to "self-limiting players" (he chooses not to use the word "scrub" as in Sirlin's book) who feel that the game (Warmachine in this case) isn't properly balanced:

Many self restricted players believe that it is the duty of the players to create social contracts that discourage certain play styles or models for the fun or health of the game. They are wrong, these players are assuming the responsibility of a game designer rather than that of a player. If the game designer is not able to create a well balanced and fun game, then the player should find a better game instead of trying to apply band-aids to a broken product.

Sorry but I feel characterizing 40k in its current form as one game is simplistic, it's many things to many people and that's at the core of its problem (and also an aspect some celebrate). Apoc and 40k used to be separate games, now they've been badly stitched together and we're all supposed to nod and agree that we've always been at war with eastasia. Only scrubs have memories I guess.

Just saying "go along with it, don't limit yourself or quit" isn't being realistic. (it also ignoes the hundreds of fournament formats) Sunk cost fallacy or not, people have spent decades and invested countless hours into their armies. If they choose to weather the storm in hopes the game will right itself because of said investment rather than sell it all off for pennies on the dollar, I can't blame them. This is no different to me than someone with 5 knights trying to infer a prospective opponent is "afraid" of facing his army in a vain attempt to get a game in. I'm only afraid of wasting my time playing a game with little entertainment to be found. Which is why I don't think it's a good use of my time to play an opponent I won't enjoy playing just for the chance to be passive agressive towards his preference in gaming, I'll simply choose another opponent who wants to play 40k instead of apoc rather than "man up" or start calling others waac, scrub or fluff bunny.

I actually quite enjoy a challenging opponent, but I think noting the difference between challenging oneself and making a hobby out of becoming a masochist is an important distinction. Or maybe anyone who doesn't want to play against my 3 transcendent c'tan list is just a scrub... or maybe name dropping scrub and waac, like playing against 5 knights, isn't a very useful application of my free time.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Slightly related to this topic, I found a great quote from Jay Larsen (a well-known Warmachine player, also the Season 1 World Champion) in an article talking about David Sirlin's book and the application of the theories therein to Warmachine.

I thought this quote in particular is pretty apt for Warhammer, although the context is in regards to "self-limiting players" (he chooses not to use the word "scrub" as in Sirlin's book) who feel that the game (Warmachine in this case) isn't properly balanced:

Many self restricted players believe that it is the duty of the players to create social contracts that discourage certain play styles or models for the fun or health of the game. They are wrong, these players are assuming the responsibility of a game designer rather than that of a player. If the game designer is not able to create a well balanced and fun game, then the player should find a better game instead of trying to apply band-aids to a broken product.

I Don't necessarily disagree with jay, but I dont think what he says is right either. I think this handwaving away of responsibility is a very selfish and lazy attitude to take, and one that ultimately can be as self defeating and self destructive as any kind of Waac attitude. I think it's wrong to out of hand dismiss player responsibility and player input.

Ultimately, there are three paths to take. Accept it for what it is, and plod along. Walk away. Reshape the game so that it works for you. Ge wrongly dismisses the last option. Social contracts are not ideal, but they're not bad either. There's nothing wrong with 'we don't use flyers of super heavies.' Etc. now obviously, this goes with the caveat that this only really works amongst close friends and groups of like minded individuals. It's not something that works well for tourneys or pugs, but I also don't see either of these types as defining of all table top gaming can be.

Thryre not 'wrong' for assuming the responsibility of the game. They're simply making it theirs. They're empowering themselves to tweak the game into something that works for them. And fair play. Why the distinction between player and designer? Why can't I be both? Why can't we treat the rules as a giant sandbox? Some people actively enjoy all that tinkering and tweaking, and playing around with different mechanics. We do it all the time in our flames of war games. Why should I, or anyone else be pigeonholed into playing someone else's game? 40k is a mess, but actively trying to make it work amongst your own group is not necessarily a bad thing.

Thry should find a better game? Well, fine. It's an option, and a very valid option. I did. And I don't regret it, But I'm also not adverse to having a deadnighthammer 40k as a side project. I think if I had the right group with the right mindset, I could still be playing 40k and having a blast.

our only true responsibility as gamers is to try to enjoy the games we play. Whether it's a new game, or a band-aid to an existing game, or a home brew, who cares? If you're having fun, essentially you're doing it right.

Deadnight wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Slightly related to this topic, I found a great quote from Jay Larsen (a well-known Warmachine player, also the Season 1 World Champion) in an article talking about David Sirlin's book and the application of the theories therein to Warmachine.

I thought this quote in particular is pretty apt for Warhammer, although the context is in regards to "self-limiting players" (he chooses not to use the word "scrub" as in Sirlin's book) who feel that the game (Warmachine in this case) isn't properly balanced:

Many self restricted players believe that it is the duty of the players to create social contracts that discourage certain play styles or models for the fun or health of the game. They are wrong, these players are assuming the responsibility of a game designer rather than that of a player. If the game designer is not able to create a well balanced and fun game, then the player should find a better game instead of trying to apply band-aids to a broken product.

I Don't necessarily disagree with jay, but I dont think what he says is right either. I think this handwaving away of responsibility is a very selfish and lazy attitude to take, and one that ultimately can be as self defeating and self destructive as any kind of Waac attitude. I think it's wrong to out of hand dismiss player responsibility and player input.

Ultimately, there are three paths to take. Accept it for what it is, and plod along. Walk away. Reshape the game so that it works for you. Ge wrongly dismisses the last option. Social contracts are not ideal, but they're not bad either. There's nothing wrong with 'we don't use flyers of super heavies.' Etc. now obviously, this goes with the caveat that this only really works amongst close friends and groups of like minded individuals. It's not something that works well for tourneys or pugs, but I also don't see either of these types as defining of all table top gaming can be.

Thryre not 'wrong' for assuming the responsibility of the game. They're simply making it theirs. They're empowering themselves to tweak the game into something that works for them. And fair play. Why the distinction between player and designer? Why can't I be both? Why can't we treat the rules as a giant sandbox? Some people actively enjoy all that tinkering and tweaking, and playing around with different mechanics. We do it all the time in our flames of war games. Why should I, or anyone else be pigeonholed into playing someone else's game? 40k is a mess, but actively trying to make it work amongst your own group is not necessarily a bad thing.

Thry should find a better game? Well, fine. It's an option, and a very valid option. I did. And I don't regret it, But I'm also not adverse to having a deadnighthammer 40k as a side project. I think if I had the right group with the right mindset, I could still be playing 40k and having a blast.

our only true responsibility as gamers is to try to enjoy the games we play. Whether it's a new game, or a band-aid to an existing game, or a home brew, who cares? If you're having fun, essentially you're doing it right.

Are people changing the game because they enjoy changing things, or because they feel they need to in order to make the game work properly/fun?