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.

Big fan of Nate, he's had a hand in a lot of games I love (I even run a Podcast for the Arkham Horror LCG).

My take on his article is he's tackling the classic gaming fallacy: when I win it's because I played better, when I lose it's because I was unlucky.

By measuring your success at a game purely on whether you win, you're missing out a big element of helping yourself improve. There are rare occasions in collectable/minis games where RNG totally screws you to the point where you could have never won. But, I think these situations come up FAR more rarely than people think.

Always look at your decisions critically. If you were in the position where losing a key roll lost you the game? Well, maybe you shouldn't be in that position to begin with. And sometimes you make a call based on what you know of the game which turns out to be bad... but it was still the right call based on the information you had at the time.

I think the bottom line is that by positioning your success or mastery of a game purely on the number of games you win, you don't necessarily get BETTER at understanding the game.

Blastaar wrote:
It really is odd that players who want to tell stories and "see what happens" are drawn to games that pit two players against each other with the goal (whether the players care or not, it's in the mechanics) of defeating the other in some way. if a balanced, tactically deep game isn't interesting to someone, then perhaps they don't like war-games and would be happier with something else. Different people like different games, and that's okay.

I'm always surprised anyone can consider a wargame with dice and convoluted rules as any kind of serious contest or challenge. You describe it like chess, but it's Candyland for adults. If playing pew pews isn't interesting, there are real games of skill and cunning available. Don't be ridiculous and pretend chainsaw sword dice rolls represent the ultimate test of cerebral fitness.

It's OK to play to win, but it's not OK to be a jerk in the process. I think this is just called "Healthy Competition".

With games like CCG/LCG and minis we are testing hypothesis against hypothesis and hoping we're right. In the end, how we conduct ourselves is what defines the experience for all those involved.

We are going to run into those players who insist on being jerks during their time, just like in life. I just hope they eventually learn that they achieve nothing by being this way.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
It really is odd that players who want to tell stories and "see what happens" are drawn to games that pit two players against each other with the goal (whether the players care or not, it's in the mechanics) of defeating the other in some way. if a balanced, tactically deep game isn't interesting to someone, then perhaps they don't like war-games and would be happier with something else. Different people like different games, and that's okay.

I'm always surprised anyone can consider a wargame with dice and convoluted rules as any kind of serious contest or challenge. You describe it like chess, but it's Candyland for adults. If playing pew pews isn't interesting, there are real games of skill and cunning available. Don't be ridiculous and pretend chainsaw sword dice rolls represent the ultimate test of cerebral fitness.

You are willfully misrepresenting what I said. I said that this style of game is able to do certain thought-based elements better than other kinds of games. It's pretty reasonable that people would want elements resembling actual battles in a game like this, especially chances to move their army men around. Some people enjoy having things to think about and decisions to make. Having choices and a sense of agency can be fun. I've found that the things that take more effort yield more rewards for that investment: in the case of gaming, a richer experience.

And again my point is missed. "Playing pew pews" can easily be done without any rules structure at all, so why not just let gamers who enjoy crunchy rulesets have that? Is it an ideological issue at this point? Does the very existence of a complex ruleset offend people? And it doesn't even need to be complex, whatever that may mean to you. Gaslands is simple, but there are still things to think about and decisions to make.

I don't know what games you've had experience with, but I can say that within my own the only games I've played with convoluted rules are made by GW. The workings of others, whether MTG or Malifaux or whatever at least make sense, even if I don't necessarily like or agree with everything.

Not to be a huge jerk, however bringing back he competetiv mindset to Wargames baffles me. If I want to compete I go to the real world where the stakes are much higher! When I am not in the real world I am trying to get away from that everything is a competition mindset.

However, different strokes for different folks. I like to turn the competition off sometimes. Some people don't.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I'm always surprised anyone can consider a wargame with dice and convoluted rules as any kind of serious contest or challenge. You describe it like chess, but it's Candyland for adults. If playing pew pews isn't interesting, there are real games of skill and cunning available. Don't be ridiculous and pretend chainsaw sword dice rolls represent the ultimate test of cerebral fitness.

If 40k is "Candyland for adults" it's only because of GW's sheer incompetence at game design. There is nothing inherent about wargames that makes them poor for competitive play, no matter how much you try to dismiss the concept with ridiculous complaints about "chainsaw sword rolls".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Not to be a huge jerk, however bringing back he competetiv mindset to Wargames baffles me. If I want to compete I go to the real world where the stakes are much higher! When I am not in the real world I am trying to get away from that everything is a competition mindset.

However, different strokes for different folks. I like to turn the competition off sometimes. Some people don't.

Competition is fun. And part of the appeal of competitive games is that they are a low-stakes hobby. We can compete and enjoy the challenge of winning the game, but at the end of the day nobody has lost anything. Plus, those higher-stakes competitive options are often much less interesting. Yeah, I could go play poker and risk some money, but TBH X-Wing is just a more interesting game for me.

The real question here is if you are so opposed to the idea of the competitive mindset then why are you playing a competitive game instead of a cooperative one? Or why play a game at all, instead of building cool dioramas with your models or telling stories about how great your space marine hero is? Why play a game where one player wins and the other player loses?

 Peregrine wrote:
If 40k is "Candyland for adults" it's only because of GW's sheer incompetence at game design.

GW is actually doing really well in the game design department. It may not be the game you want or it might not be as tight as you'd like in the places you'd like it to be, but for a game that is supposed to be many things to many people, it does almost all of them pretty well (even, surprisingly, competitive gaming). Since balancing a game like 40k is literally impossible, not achieving it is hardly incompetence.

There is nothing inherent about wargames that makes them poor for competitive play...

Yes there is. I mean, you could make anything competitive (like chasing a wheel of cheese as it rolls down a hill). But the things that competitive gamers say they want and the things they say they deserve praise for are not things that (most) wargames support. The one thing they have is direct conflict, but they are not fair, they are not balanced, they are not skill based, and they don't require smarts.

Competition is fun.

Competition CAN be fun. It can also be exhausting, frustrating, annoying, insulting, cruel, manipulative, deceptive, and amoral. There is a difference between healthy competition and unhealthy competition - a distinction that few competitive gamers seem to willingly make. It's obvious that competitiveness brings out a lot of bad qualities in people when left unchecked, and the sheer resistance to checking these qualities is astoundingly short sighted for the long term health and viability of a game.

The real question here is if you are so opposed to the idea of the competitive mindset then why are you playing a competitive game instead of a cooperative one?

You don't mean "competitive" game here. You mean "direct conflict" game. Competitive is the mindset of the player, not the nature of the game. You can play cooperative game competitively and you can play games of direct conflict without being competitive. The fact that you confuse these things is very telling.

..."we are only competing against ourselves."

WOW that's something to think about.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
If 40k is "Candyland for adults" it's only because of GW's sheer incompetence at game design.

GW is actually doing really well in the game design department. It may not be the game you want or it might not be as tight as you'd like in the places you'd like it to be, but for a game that is supposed to be many things to many people, it does almost all of them pretty well (even, surprisingly, competitive gaming). Since balancing a game like 40k is literally impossible, not achieving it is hardly incompetence.

GW does not produce well-designed games of high quality. And I wouldn't call 8th "many things to many people" so much as so simplistic and lacking a defining gameplay mechanic that it is relatively inoffensive to most. Their games simply don't do anything particularly well. 40k is not impossible to balance, especially when you consider that roughly half the armies in the game have the same units. GW just hasn't made much of an effort to do so. No-one expects, or wants, perfect balance, just for things to be close enough that the lowest tier army still has a decent chance.

There is nothing inherent about wargames that makes them poor for competitive play...

Yes there is. I mean, you could make anything competitive (like chasing a wheel of cheese as it rolls down a hill). But the things that competitive gamers say they want and the things they say they deserve praise for are not things that (most) wargames support. The one thing they have is direct conflict, but they are not fair, they are not balanced, they are not skill based, and they don't require smarts.

Competitive gaming is fun but in a completely different way than narrative gaming. 40k kind of tries to do both, which is likely a source of many of its problems. But that's also probably the reason why 40k is so dominant in the tabletop scene as it attracts people from both camps who then inevitably clash on internet forums as they disagree with each other's gaming preferences

Game Systems should be striving for the broadest range of gamers possible if they want to build a consumer base and survive. After all, CAAC and WAAC are only arbitrary tribes made up by gamers themselves to divide themselves into camps. Game systems (and their designers) should not care as much about WAAC vs. CAAC; they just need a game with broad appeal and let the gamers self-divide themselves.

Gamers want support (i.e. stuff handed to them because gamers are lazy), new shiny (because gamers love metal and plastic crack to buy), and good enough rules (So gamers can turn on each other on the internet and demonize their peers for fun). That way the consumers (i.e. gamer's and their money) will stay with the brand.

If a game is perceived (on the internet) to fail to deliver on any of these things.... it dies....

Blastaar wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
It really is odd that players who want to tell stories and "see what happens" are drawn to games that pit two players against each other with the goal (whether the players care or not, it's in the mechanics) of defeating the other in some way. if a balanced, tactically deep game isn't interesting to someone, then perhaps they don't like war-games and would be happier with something else. Different people like different games, and that's okay.

I'm always surprised anyone can consider a wargame with dice and convoluted rules as any kind of serious contest or challenge. You describe it like chess, but it's Candyland for adults. If playing pew pews isn't interesting, there are real games of skill and cunning available. Don't be ridiculous and pretend chainsaw sword dice rolls represent the ultimate test of cerebral fitness.

You are willfully misrepresenting what I said. I said that this style of game is able to do certain thought-based elements better than other kinds of games. It's pretty reasonable that people would want elements resembling actual battles in a game like this, especially chances to move their army men around. Some people enjoy having things to think about and decisions to make. Having choices and a sense of agency can be fun. I've found that the things that take more effort yield more rewards for that investment: in the case of gaming, a richer experience.

And again my point is missed. "Playing pew pews" can easily be done without any rules structure at all, so why not just let gamers who enjoy crunchy rulesets have that? Is it an ideological issue at this point? Does the very existence of a complex ruleset offend people? And it doesn't even need to be complex, whatever that may mean to you. Gaslands is simple, but there are still things to think about and decisions to make.

I don't know what games you've had experience with, but I can say that within my own the only games I've played with convoluted rules are made by GW. The workings of others, whether MTG or Malifaux or whatever at least make sense, even if I don't necessarily like or agree with everything.

I may have exaggerated, but my point was that a Wargames like war hammer are at least as good at delivering a narrative experience as an actual competition of skill and strategy. If you care about the challenge or self improvement, pick a real game of skill. At least "Playing pew pews" depends on the dice to introduce some randomness into events as a feature and not a bug.

And you're asking why narrative players don't leave crunchy sets alone? AOS was brilliant for casual narrative players--it was the crunchies who wouldn't"t live and let live. The constant demand s for points and improved balance overwhelm all other concerns, and they never cease until the product is dead. Any rule set that comes out, no matter how fluffy, light and fun, is immediately broken by the crunchies, who then spend the rest of their time complaining about the broken rules and making the game unenjoyable for people who don't buy certain models or game a certain way. To me, it does not look like the casuals are the ones bothering the crunchies.

And every time I've played Malifaux it was a nightmare of decision paralysis.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
It really is odd that players who want to tell stories and "see what happens" are drawn to games that pit two players against each other with the goal (whether the players care or not, it's in the mechanics) of defeating the other in some way. if a balanced, tactically deep game isn't interesting to someone, then perhaps they don't like war-games and would be happier with something else. Different people like different games, and that's okay.

I'm always surprised anyone can consider a wargame with dice and convoluted rules as any kind of serious contest or challenge. You describe it like chess, but it's Candyland for adults. If playing pew pews isn't interesting, there are real games of skill and cunning available. Don't be ridiculous and pretend chainsaw sword dice rolls represent the ultimate test of cerebral fitness.

Out of curiosity is this comment against some specific game or are you on opinion that no wargame regardless of rules can be serious game of skill? And if so why? Because it uses dice? What makes dice worse than other random elements? Because there most definitely are games that have big element of luck yet is ultimately skill based where better players win in the long run over bad players.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
No one plays to lose.

No one plays to draw.

I play for fun and don't care if I win or lose. So long as everyone has a laugh with their toys.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
If 40k is "Candyland for adults" it's only because of GW's sheer incompetence at game design.

GW is actually doing really well in the game design department.

No. Not it is not. No one comptent in game design creates units (multiple units) that roll 200 dice to hit, can get rerolls of the ones that don't, only hit on 5+, then repeats that for wound rolls, and then inverts it and repeats it again for saves. And despite rolling nearly _500 dice_ for a single units activation, it only kills about 4 or 5 models. And then you repeat with the next unit.

That isn't the product of even vaguely competent game design. At best it's the work of a jerk who's having a laugh at deliberately wasting peoples time.

Do the math once and then just auto-remove 5 models from the target unit. Given the sheer quantity of dice, re-rolls and the fact that damaging another model at all is still bafflingly a three step process (for a game that can have 100+ models), you'd get much better results going back to Avalon Hill style lookup tables where you just cross reference the attacking unit and defending unit and getting X amount of damage. The sheer quantity of dice and rerolls push the game hard toward the statistical average anyway. Just remove the time wasting resolution mechanic, which is frankly too clunky for a 15 model skirmish game, let alone a game that straddles the company/battalion level.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
If 40k is "Candyland for adults" it's only because of GW's sheer incompetence at game design.

GW is actually doing really well in the game design department. It may not be the game you want or it might not be as tight as you'd like in the places you'd like it to be, but for a game that is supposed to be many things to many people, it does almost all of them pretty well (even, surprisingly, competitive gaming). Since balancing a game like 40k is literally impossible, not achieving it is hardly incompetence.

Perfect balance is impossible but if perfect balance is 100% GW is hovering around single digits. That is NOT good game design.

GW doesn't even try to get balance. They don't WANT balance. What they want is constantly shifting balance where units are periodically made sucky and good so that people rush in to buy new models. Getting to 70% balance would be horrible for GW's strategy as people might, shock horror, not rush constantly to buy new models to create that tournament dominating broken army as they could fight more or less evenly with their current army.

If you want to see GOOD game designers you need to look elsewhere. GW's advantages is PR and ready opponents. Inertia is strong one. It's hard to play better games when nobody around you plays it so far easier to just play 40k which has opponents readily available even if rules are worse.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

No one plays to draw.

This is laughably false, even if we only consider competitive gaming.

Playing with the intent of drawing can be the difference between a draw, which gets you some points and denies some points to your opponent which keeps the difference between you the same, and a loss, which gains you nothing and your opponent pulls ahead with more points..

If you are against a superior team in football, you do not launch an all out attack to try and win because you are probably going to get clobbered on the counter. In a knock out tournament you're better off stacking your defence, playing defensively and trying to pull more of the opposing team out to help the attack in case you can make a hail-mary counter attack with their defence out of position. Or you try and play out until penalties, which is a much more even playing field between teams of different ability.

In a league, it is much better to get some points, even if the other team also gets some points. You getting points keeps your total increasing, so the teams below you either aren't catching up, or are catching up slower. It also means you are at least maintaining the difference between yourself and the teams ahead of you or they are pulling away slower.

tneva82 wrote:
GW doesn't even try to get balance. They don't WANT balance. What they want is constantly shifting balance where units are periodically made sucky and good so that people rush in to buy new models. Getting to 70% balance would be horrible for GW's strategy as people might, shock horror, not rush constantly to buy new models to create that tournament dominating broken army as they could fight more or less evenly with their current army.

Ah, the conspiracy theory again.

The 'tournament scene' of people who really will rush out and buy a new army because the stats change make no dent in GW's sales. There is no way their business strategy is centred around those people, when they are so massively and heavily outnumbered by all the people who buy models because they think it's cool, or get starter kits and big models for their birthdays and Christmases because THEY ARE CHILDREN.

tneva82 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
It really is odd that players who want to tell stories and "see what happens" are drawn to games that pit two players against each other with the goal (whether the players care or not, it's in the mechanics) of defeating the other in some way. if a balanced, tactically deep game isn't interesting to someone, then perhaps they don't like war-games and would be happier with something else. Different people like different games, and that's okay.

I'm always surprised anyone can consider a wargame with dice and convoluted rules as any kind of serious contest or challenge. You describe it like chess, but it's Candyland for adults. If playing pew pews isn't interesting, there are real games of skill and cunning available. Don't be ridiculous and pretend chainsaw sword dice rolls represent the ultimate test of cerebral fitness.

Out of curiosity is this comment against some specific game or are you on opinion that no wargame regardless of rules can be serious game of skill? And if so why? Because it uses dice? What makes dice worse than other random elements? Because there most definitely are games that have big element of luck yet is ultimately skill based where better players win in the long run over bad players.

I'm sure some can be decided by skill. GW games are not and are not designed to be. They are built to capture a feeling and inspire a sense of cohesion between the minis, the fluff, the novels, the iconography, and maybe somewhere near the bottom of the list, the thrill of competition. The game is one part of a holistic sales strategy, selling the hobby rather than, say, the rules. Most of the wargames I've played are like that, but I avoid games like Infinity and Warmachine because I do not enjoy the way those fandom a engage with their games.

I also believe that a game of skill will minimize randomness and tend to focus on on or two key elements of strategy or tactics, whereas GW-like games have too many variables baked in at every level, from list building to terrain to deployment to movement to minimizing or maximizing odds of success with dice modifiers, whatever. Games like Poker involve randomness, but the skill in poker rests in reducing your own "tells" while reading others; the randomness serves that competition rather than reducing the role of skill.

ValentineGames wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
No one plays to lose.

No one plays to draw.

I play for fun and don't care if I win or lose. So long as everyone has a laugh with their toys.

The two things aren't mutually exclusive. Trying to win and not caring if you lose probably sums up most people most of the time. Trying to lose is aberrant or corner case behaviour and not something that typically occurs when people are playing games to determine a winner and a loser.