Just finished my listen. Nice show as ever guys, even though I don't play Descent or the
40k RPGs, and never likely will, it is still interesting to hear the discussions. Much like Craig likes watching over the shoulders of games he's not playing in, I like listening on stuff about games I'm never going to experience, just out of interest.
I was however, particularly inspired by a couple of comments in the "Acheivements" section:
Firstly Russ' observation about "Rules Transparency", which was echoed somewhat in amongst Craig's comments in "DYEN?" at the end. That is there is a fine line where a set of rules risks passing from being "interesting" to being "over complex" and thereby ruining the feel and fun of the game. I heartily echo that concept. For me I like to get the rules down for a game and then start playing by instinct. The more I have to stop and consult a book/cards/goats intestines, the more I am dragged out of "the moment" and the fun is ruined for me. For me thoough it isn't just about complexity, it is also about intuitiveness and abstractness. In my mind I want to do this and this and that with my pieces because it seems an obvious thing to be able to do, but the more the rules say "well you can't do this you have to do that first and only if you roll a 4+ on a d7...yadda yadda yadda" and the less those rules seem to bear to the genre of the game then the less I am likely to enjoy and return to a game.
I am pleased by Russ' comment that
WM MkII improves this aspect of the game, as to date I have had little desire to relearn the rules of the game and fork out for new books and cards and gak, and so my Khador army has lain mouldering in a corner.
WM has definitely been "dead" (by the Gallant definition) in my group. The death of MkI killed our desire to play, even though there was no logical reason for that to happen. Maybe this will give us the spur to get into MkII? Maybe? Depends if I can find the £30 to fork out on new stuff I suppose.
Secondly regarding the "death" of
FA in your group. Didn't surprise me, and I totally understand Craig's point and support it, even if the face of the insistance to the contrary by the ever-persuasive Giant Head! My comments on
WM MkI above show how the same thing happens in our small group of 3 fogie gamers. Some games we play for a while, some come back and back. Others, for sometimes no readily apparent reason just moulder through and undefineable lack of pazzazz, sparkle (no too.. Twilighty), erm... "certain something". Whatever. And for me
FA has also joined that group after one solitary game. Don't know why really, can't quite put my finger on it. But having really anticipated the game and eagerly devoured it when it was released, and having (and still) thoroughly enjoyed US, and loving other space games like
BFG and Full Thrust, our first game, for me was a real let down and I find myself siding with Raef in my opinion of the game. Maybe too abstract, maybe too many fiddly (ugh how fiddly) tokens littering the table, maybe too generic fluff, maybe the fact I wasn't blown away by the designs of the space ships.... I dunno. But after one game I'm filled with the desire not to bother having a second. It is dead to me!
In the most internet-drama-queenesque way, of course.
Which sparks in me a point of thought regarding the function of
40k and once people abandon it whether it will be replaced by some universally accepted game ever again. The
40k game became so monolithic and all-encompassing and dominant that for a while there was no other game (apart from a few
GW-related side-shows like WFB, Gorkamorka and such) in the universe. Everyone played it, and only it, and Big Brother was your friend. But those times are long gone and the gaming world is much more fragmented now. Now there ARE alternatives to
40k, and lots of them. Once the
40k shackles are broken from your gaming group is it ever likely taht some all-pervading universally accepted game will come to take their place? I suspect not. Its not just that your group (or my group are magpies) its simply the fact that playing the same game week after week, for most of us is more boring than trying something else, now we can. Personally I find campaigns boring and always did, but when there was only one game to play it was a way of sustaining interest. Now its just easier to flip onto something else. I'm truly sorry for the Gallants of this world who enjoy campaigns. Sadly though, I feel unless you are still involved in a mono-gaming culture somewhere, the days of campaigns are numbered for many groups.
And that brings me to Malifaux. Interesting to hear your take on the game and how and why you haven't played it yet. It's going to be my first game tonight. I suspect like you it has taken so long because having first skim-read the rules/fluff and gone "wow, this is amazing", the second time I went through them to read them in detail I spent a lot of time going "
WTF?" and being totally confused. I loved painting the figures, but I really struggled with the rules. Will 1 game kill off the "hotness" for me? Will there be too much complexity and lack of rules transparency? We'll see. I look forward to hearing when and if you find time to get into Malifaux.
And finally. Another development. I know you are, like me, fluff-gamers and not matrix-gamers. So what does the announcement of the creation of
RankingsHQ say to you? I know there are a lot of competitive folks out there who don't find fun in any activity unless they are doing it faster, longer, deeper, higher or whatever than someone else. Never understood those folks, but I know they exist. But seriously, competing to be the "best Warhammer gamer"? Seriously? Isn't that just like setting up a competition for the winner to run down the street in a giant chicken suit shouting "Hey guys, look at me, I'm the biggest dork in the universe!" Really? Guys, c'mon. Seriously? You sad sacks!
No hate, just massive, massive amusement at people who take such pride in beating someone in a game involving dice and little plastic toys!
There may be life after death after all!