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.

And a fair number of us don't play a game we don't like.

I did not like Warhammer 7th or 8 - switched to Kings of War.

Others in my group have switched to 9th Age.

And we can play the same armies we already have in both those games. Rank and file fantasy wargaming. (Half our group plays both - using nearly identical armies.)

I did not like Warhammer 40K 7th - and sold off my Dark Angels, because I could not use the miniatures for something I like better. (I had already skipped playing two entire editions - it took me a while to admit that I was done with the game.) Also - I am a bigger fan of rank and file fantasy wargaming than I am of science-fantasy skirmishes. It was easier to find players for 40K than for fantasy - but I did not enjoy it as much, and enjoyed it less with subsequent editions. (3rd edition 40K was my sweet spot.)

I know a lot of people that are really, really enjoying 8th edition 40K - but I am not going down that rabbit hole again. 8th may have fixed a lot of the problems that I had with the more recent 40K editions - but I am twice burned, and forever shy.

We do keep fluttering close to the new Necromunda, and it is likely that, at some point, we will take the plunge. Because we don't dislike those rules, and it may be a reasonable expense, given the scale. Plus - I have the old Necromunda rules, and, push come to shove, we can repurpose any new gangs for the old rules.

But the main reason that people play games that they do not like is because that is the game that is being played - for a lot of people, a game they don't like is better than no games at all.

I'm lucky - I can find players for the games that I do like - but not everybody has that luxury, for them it is 40K or nothing.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

But the main reason that people play games that they do not like is because that is the game that is being played - for a lot of people, a game they don't like is better than no games at all.

Unfortunately, this self-perpetuating cycle has been the case for a very long time now... people won't try new games, because nobody around them plays them... and nobody plays them because nobody is willing to try them. So they just stick with the game that everybody else is playing, because that's the best option available.

 Luciferian wrote:
I also think it's just part of the culture of Dakka Dakka in particular.

Seconded.

 insaniak wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

But the main reason that people play games that they do not like is because that is the game that is being played - for a lot of people, a game they don't like is better than no games at all.

Unfortunately, this self-perpetuating cycle has been the case for a very long time now... people won't try new games, because nobody around them plays them... and nobody plays them because nobody is willing to try them. So they just stick with the game that everybody else is playing, because that's the best option available.

I've been dramatically happier since I switched to more of a "play everything" mindset. A big part of making that work though is breaking some of my "catch 'em all" habits and trying not to over invest in things. Focus on a single faction and add to it as change demands.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In many ways, game systems are like... well, game consoles. They require a large initial investment but each game after costs less so we have a tendency to develop a loyalty to something we already invested in and for a lot of people, a need to validate their choice as the correct one. Now, obviously for table top games this kind of doubles down because you largely can't play a system without other people making the same choice (though the rise of online gaming has replicated this problem digitally).

Realistically though, I think we all have a bad habit of over investing in our choices when we start wanting something new. I vividly remember a string of mediocre games I played through on the SNES before I realized I just needed to bite the bullet and buy a Genesis and Sonic 3. I feel a similar decision when I consider the number of times I've spent a couple hundred dollars on "variety" for a game I'd played to death rather than try out a new system. I'd much rather get started in something new these days and add to games as they excite me rather than feeling like I need to be on the absolute cutting edge of one game; particularly when a faction I don't play is on top.

Because I'm British dammit and complaining about things is what we do, its what we are good at, world leaders at, hell our national exports include whining, whinging and complaining, and standing in lines but we don't talk about that.

I see little point playing previous versions, they are essentially dead, trying to adapt a current version may at least see you get a game occasionally.

I play games more as a social thing, well being British an anti social thing, the actual game matters much less than the peron or persons you are playing against and the quality of the tea consumed while gaming.

For me, I no longer play. I decided to take a break from 40k a couple months before the announcement of 8th. I followed all of the previews of the "Warhammer you wanted! TM" When the indices leaked, I didn't like what I saw and after watching games online was sure it was not a game I would enjoy playing. It has become incredibly dumbed down, many of the recent minis aren't too great IMO with their new style that lacks substance and they are as overpriced as ever, and getting more so with every release. I don't think I've really ever been satisfied with 40k's rules, but I was new and/or playing infrequently so it wasn't yet to the level of frustration that 7th caused. 7th had good ideas, but the execution was poor and the balance abysmal.

I eventually made my account here after lurking for some time to discuss the game and the many issues I had with it, to put out some good ideas for a Warhammer that I would find fun, and that I think would be the game's best self. One that is balanced, flavorful, and tactically deep. I do believe it is possible for 40k, AOS, and LOTR to be mentally engaging and tactical, while retaining all the flavor and lore we love and being accessible all at the same time. 8th by contrast is stupid-simple, with a lot of hand-holding and the same few "special" rules repeated over and over again, all focused on rolling dice not making choices during gameplay, and it baffles me that so many folks complain about the same aspects of the game and GW's business practices while running off to their LGS with fistfuls of cash every Saturday to purchase the new releases, not understanding (or ignoring) the fact that their spending encourages GW (or any company) to continue to make games they do not have fun playing. GW excels at falling short of their own potential.

I still have my minis, but the odds of playing with them again look pretty bad right now. I've since gone back to playing Magic: The Gathering and am looking to find space to get into a groove and paint my Malifaux crew, and Medge minis.

Hating the last edition is like hating Ultramarines. It's to be part of the cool group.

Unfortunately because I dont have the finances to chase the dragon on yet another 40k edition, I don't get to play as the latest and greatest is all that is cared about in my area.

40k 8th edition, and lately, Kill Team. That's it. Not AoS or Skirmish, or Gaslands, or Necromunda, or Bolt Action/ Konflict 47....nothing but 40k, forever. And Magic.

I hate Ultramarines and I'm not even slightly cool.

I play bad games or read bad things because its a lesson, its a great way to learn from something is how not to do something.

 insaniak wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

But the main reason that people play games that they do not like is because that is the game that is being played - for a lot of people, a game they don't like is better than no games at all.

Unfortunately, this self-perpetuating cycle has been the case for a very long time now... people won't try new games, because nobody around them plays them... and nobody plays them because nobody is willing to try them. So they just stick with the game that everybody else is playing, because that's the best option available.

People aren't willing to put the work in. It's that simple. No one is trapped in a game, edition, or style (ITC) unless they want to be.

The only reasons I can see for playing a game I dont like is if a friend wants to play it, or worse, I am playtesting for a friend.

Wow, hilarious. Justifying obnoxious negativity and a superiority complex by claiming it prevents an echo chamber.

I very much appreciate this thread, and I’m glad that there’s a discussion going on. Since WFB got axed, I’ve had the same thought: SURELY there must be a better way to spend one’s time than complain on the internet.

With a little thought and introspection, I’d be a hypocrite if I said I didn’t complain from time to time as well. Venting is therapeutic, and that in and of itself can be useful - to a point - but I swear to gods, some people have elevated it to an art form.

Someone once brought up to me that maybe I’m underestimating how miserable some people’s lives are. I’m not intentionally being patronizing. I said surely with all the suffering and hardships in life, there would be better options out there than raging about toy soldiers. I still believe this to be true, but different people cope in different ways, whether or not they’re “healthy” or whatever you want to say.

For me, it’s not about drinking the Kool Aid. Voicing displeasure or disagreement is part of social discourse. Everyone’s voice deserves a place, so long as they’re not ruining the environment for everyone else. We’d love for people to shut the hell up sometimes, and we can make them: thankfully we have the ignore feature. We also have the ability to hit the back button in our browser, or avoid opening the myriad of “how I’d make the game better” (but really make it way worse) threads.

I’d like just once for someone who is both constantly crapping on GW convinced of their own game designing expertise to go out and make something that can rival the success of 40k. It’s not very likely, as it took GW decades to get to this point. That’s a lot of effort, trial, and error. Much easier to run one’s mouth.

Have an exalt, sir!

 Crimson Devil wrote:
People aren't willing to put the work in. It's that simple. No one is trapped in a game, edition, or style (ITC) unless they want to be.

Sure. But what it really comes down to is which one leads to a better hobby experience: sticking with a game that you're not happy with because it's what everyone else around you plays, or having to put in the work to try to establish a different game.


It's one thing when you're playing with a group of friends, and even some gaming clubs will have at least some players willing to try something new... But if you're reliant on pickup games or organised events for your gaming fix, the latter just isn't happening.

To put it simply, I don't.

Once a system gets stale to me I shelve it for the time being.
Always able to come back to it that way.

From there, I simply jump to a new one.
Titanicus was the saving grace from 30k for me.
Always been a fan of epic and titanicus, so it lets me expand my epic at the same time as getting a newer game too.

There's a handful of people who tend to have a very negative air a bout them and will focus on negative connections and conversations far more so than positive ones. It's not that they aren't gaming or that they hate the game, its that they've a very critical mindset and approach to the world and how they choose to interact online with. They can often be totally opposite in the real word - the internet world just brings out a different side of them.

Others lack the writing skills to express themselves in a critical way without sounding negative; or they believe that harsh brutal language is "honest" and that a positive angle is "sugar coating"


I'd also say Dakka has a bit of a negative culture aspect and this is promoted by a very small number of posters who are active. Of them I'd say there's perhaps one or two who appear to only ever post negative connections at all and whom might well be alts of other users or trolling the site (or jsut really miserable/critical/angry people).




Ergo its NOT the majority; but it IS the majority when a critical thread comes along and they will post repeatedly through the whole conversation. This creates an atmosphere that often promotes similar styles of reply and you fast end up with a fight or an argument where neither side is really talking about the topic; its simply a platform for either an ego fight or a fight between people with differing outlooks on life who can't accept the other viewpoint for what it is.


It's a shame because these situations are RARE, but they dominate active discussions long enough that it creates the atmosphere. In general effective reporting and moderation combined with a genuine effort to promote and discuss positive angle topics can be a big change around.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

But the main reason that people play games that they do not like is because that is the game that is being played - for a lot of people, a game they don't like is better than no games at all.

Unfortunately, this self-perpetuating cycle has been the case for a very long time now... people won't try new games, because nobody around them plays them... and nobody plays them because nobody is willing to try them. So they just stick with the game that everybody else is playing, because that's the best option available.

People aren't willing to put the work in. It's that simple. No one is trapped in a game, edition, or style (ITC) unless they want to be.

Yep. If I just turn up at my local club I can 100% get a game of 8th 40k and about 90% AoS. If I actually talk to the other players (or use social media) I can arrange a game using a previous version, or Titanicus, or DZC/DFC, or Battletech...

Generally I don't

I gave up 40k mid-7th as it just got silly, even the most enthusiastic GW acolytes would be hard pressed to defend Ynnari 1.0 or Skyhammer

I gave up X-Wing around the Force Awakens releases, the game just got too bloated rules wise and a lot of the ships were gak scraped from the dirt under the barrels bottom

I do vaguely keep up to date on both but have minimal inclination to play either, I've got a woefully out of date Eldar force in case someone at our club is short an opponent

beast_gts wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

But the main reason that people play games that they do not like is because that is the game that is being played - for a lot of people, a game they don't like is better than no games at all.

Unfortunately, this self-perpetuating cycle has been the case for a very long time now... people won't try new games, because nobody around them plays them... and nobody plays them because nobody is willing to try them. So they just stick with the game that everybody else is playing, because that's the best option available.

People aren't willing to put the work in. It's that simple. No one is trapped in a game, edition, or style (ITC) unless they want to be.

Yep. If I just turn up at my local club I can 100% get a game of 8th 40k and about 90% AoS. If I actually talk to the other players (or use social media) I can arrange a game using a previous version, or Titanicus, or DZC/DFC, or Battletech...

Perhaps in your experience, but I think that's highly subjective. In my experience, asking if anyone plays a previous version of the game, or DZC/DFC, or Frostgrave, or Battletech, or Infinity, or various historical games get silence as nobody does, nobody wants to, and nobody wants to put into another game because they already are invested in 40k and sometimes AOS. Once in a blue moon you might find someone who wants to explore different systems and genres but in my area, if it's not Warhammer and maybe occasionally Warmahordes (which has mostly died out) there's barely anyone who plays the games or who cares about anything that isn't Warhammer. Mostly I think this is due to "game store mentality" which is vastly prevalent in the USA; if the local game stores don't carry product for a game, people don't want to bother with it since they can't just go down and pick something up, and I suspect many of them somehow feel it's "wrong" to order all your stuff online for a game that isn't "supported" in your area and then go to a game store that doesn't support it to use their tables.

It's different all over, but my experience seems to be what a lot of the US is. Games need traction here and, more importantly, they need support from a game store or they'll never get off the ground becaue people don't want to put in the effort into buying into something that they may find just sits on their shelf unused.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

People aren't willing to put the work in. It's that simple. No one is trapped in a game, edition, or style (ITC) unless they want to be.

No, its not that simple.

Game systems cost money and learning rulesets takes time. There is a risk to reward ratio that many people consciously or subconsciously calculate to determine if their financial, time and effort contribution in a new games system will result in enough reward (games played) to even bother trying.

Once you get bitten by unplayed ruleset after unplayed ruleset that risk to reward bar just gets higher and higher.

Wayniac wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

But the main reason that people play games that they do not like is because that is the game that is being played - for a lot of people, a game they don't like is better than no games at all.

Unfortunately, this self-perpetuating cycle has been the case for a very long time now... people won't try new games, because nobody around them plays them... and nobody plays them because nobody is willing to try them. So they just stick with the game that everybody else is playing, because that's the best option available.

People aren't willing to put the work in. It's that simple. No one is trapped in a game, edition, or style (ITC) unless they want to be.

Yep. If I just turn up at my local club I can 100% get a game of 8th 40k and about 90% AoS. If I actually talk to the other players (or use social media) I can arrange a game using a previous version, or Titanicus, or DZC/DFC, or Battletech...

Perhaps in your experience, but I think that's highly subjective. In my experience, asking if anyone plays a previous version of the game, or DZC/DFC, or Frostgrave, or Battletech, or Infinity, or various historical games get silence as nobody does, nobody wants to, and nobody wants to put into another game because they already are invested in 40k and sometimes AOS. Once in a blue moon you might find someone who wants to explore different systems and genres but in my area, if it's not Warhammer and maybe occasionally Warmahordes (which has mostly died out) there's barely anyone who plays the games or who cares about anything that isn't Warhammer. Mostly I think this is due to "game store mentality" which is vastly prevalent in the USA; if the local game stores don't carry product for a game, people don't want to bother with it since they can't just go down and pick something up, and I suspect many of them somehow feel it's "wrong" to order all your stuff online for a game that isn't "supported" in your area and then go to a game store that doesn't support it to use their tables.

It's different all over, but my experience seems to be what a lot of the US is. Games need traction here and, more importantly, they need support from a game store or they'll never get off the ground becaue people don't want to put in the effort into buying into something that they may find just sits on their shelf unused.

So much this. To paraphrase the owner of my local FLGS- "Gamers are the flakiest bunch of people I've ever met."

This is where games like DZC and especially Frostgrave can suffer- they need dedicated commitment from the community and there will be a bit of a burst of activity and people giving empty promises they'll start then nothing. Nada. Zip. Radio silence all round. I went through this myself with WMH with the novelty concept of being able to actually play a non-GW game in a gaming store (this was the city's first FLGS, they ain't too common here in Blighty) bringing loads of people in.
Except they just walked away when they realised they actually had to buy stuff. Christmas was coming up so I suggested they ask for one of the starters for Christmas. £25-£30 is frankly nothing in this hobby and it wasn't their money. No biters.
So we had our small group of players that has now dwindled to nothing. The store appears to be going through the same crisis with 40k (I won't go down unless I've got a prearranged game, mainly as I don't live on it's doorstep anymore, but time was you could walk in and have like a 90% change of getting a PUG of 40k no problem). How long can someone be "Building their army" for? This edition has been out near 18 months or so and I know you have pre-existing minis. This is why I can count my games of 8th in single figures...

Got to agree with Mango and Wayne. Getting games aren't that easy, and time and money prevents the endless cycle of other games (let alone painting stuff for other games).


As to the thread itself, it's interesting to see who turns up for a rousing round of dumping on people who don't like the things they like. And especially with several people commenting on 'the small minority,' they obviously have specific targets in mind.

One other thing to add on why old editions or rarer systems don't get played as often is that from my experience, people in rarely make actual friends within the hobby. Instead, what can be said about most "hobby friendships" is that they are at most "hobby acquaintances", that is relationships which rarely exceed the boundaries of the hobby and "spill out" to actually knowing each other lives, needs, limitations and actually caring about mutual well being. Entry cost to something like Wolsung (a steampunk skirmish) if your friend is already playing it and has suitable terrain for it is as low as a single box of tacticals and painting 5-6 models is hardly a time consuming challenge. Necromunda is hardly more expensive to join in if your friend already has all the rulebooks to share. And yet because friendships are rare, and "mutual fun" can apparently be only be orchestrated by an external provider of tightly balanced and bulletproof system with interchangeable opponents in the eyes of the vast majority of people in this hobby, there is little to no place for "side systems" or even more elaborate narrative games within 40K.

This is really saddening to see Wayniac here struggle for years to find a single person to play something other than Matched Play 40K with - I invoke you personally, because I remember few of our narrative conversations from couple of years ago and your enthusiasm to the idea back then and a shift in tone in your most recent posts on the topic.

nou wrote:
One other thing to add on why old editions or rarer systems don't get played as often is that from my experience, people in rarely make actual friends within the hobby. Instead, what can be said about most "hobby friendships" is that they are at most "hobby acquaintances", that is relationships which rarely exceed the boundaries of the hobby and "spill out" to actually knowing each other lives, needs, limitations and actually caring about mutual well being. Entry cost to something like Wolsung (a steampunk skirmish) if your friend is already playing it and has suitable terrain for it is as low as a single box of tacticals and painting 5-6 models is hardly a time consuming challenge. Necromunda is hardly more expensive to join in if your friend already has all the rulebooks to share. And yet because friendships are rare, and "mutual fun" can apparently be only be orchestrated by an external provider of tightly balanced and bulletproof system with interchangeable opponents in the eyes of the vast majority of people in this hobby, there is little to no place for "side systems" or even more elaborate narrative games within 40K.

This is really saddening to see Wayniac here struggle for years to find a single person to play something other than Matched Play 40K with - I invoke you personally, because I remember few of our narrative conversations from couple of years ago and your enthusiasm to the idea back then and a shift in tone in your most recent posts on the topic.

Indeed. My dream has long been to have a GAMING community, not a Warhammer community. And it's never manifested since the vast majority of people don't care. I think you are rather spot on about "hobby acquaintances". Very few of the people I see frequently at the gaming stores seem to be actual friends; they'll talk at the store, maybe in the Facebook group. Maybe they are Facebook friends. But it's really more like a co-worker situation than actual friends. And, as a result, you rarely see anything that doesn't already have traction.

I've come to accept Matched Play (and really, Matched isn't bad at all), but it does make me sad sometimes to constantly see insular communities that don't have any desire to see outside their own bubble and see the wider things available. I've had too often the mention of a lesser known game is met with that "deer in the headlights" look because nobody knows what it is, can't be bothered to look at it, and just seem to be like "Eh, it's not Warhammer. Not interested." I've pretty much come to the conclusion that it'll be rare or non-existent to see real narrative 40k. I have maybe a person or two I could get interested, but I question if they would really approach it in the same way that I would. I certainly doubt I could get the community interested in it. I blame the "pick up game" mindset that became prevalent years ago and has only grown; it fosters treating everyone as random strangers who you might play against, rather than actually building a community around something other than "All of us go to the same game store to play". That doesn't make you a community.

Simple answer? I don't.


As soon as I realized 40K was heading in a direction I didn't like, I stopped playing the current editions. I have a large enough group of friends that play that I can continue to get games of older editions in, and I'm REALLY lucky that it's 3rd Edition. Same goes for WFB. I won't play AOS because I don't like it, and I will continue to play 6th as long as I have opponents.

I can concur that most people are just passive acquaintances at least where I see it.

The culture is being able to show up at a shop and just play. If you can't do that, then the incentive to play a game that you may like more but has no visibility dwindles to almost nil.

Wayne's community, as he and I have discussed, is almost a mirror of my community. And I know people all over the country from the large US cities that have said the same to me, that my community is a mirror of their community, enough where I believe that it is the norm and not the exception.

In my community it really comes down to spendiing a ton of money and only wanting to do that if I can guarantee I can get games.

That means... 40k. And sometimes AOS. The others get played in spurts but not enough or regularly to encourage others to want to buy in and participate.

And more specifically the 40k or sometimes AOS will usually also have to be following tournament standard. Makes narrative a lot more difficult to run in public. In private, you'll have more luck, but in private people are often loathe to forge the relationships required to invite people iinto their homes to play and at the store it can be a struggle or challenge to get narrative events going publicly.

Events drive sales. At least in my experience. One offs do not. People want to see a bunch of people playing regularly before they invest hundreds of dollars and their time in learning a new ruleset.

Which again takes us back to... 40k. Despite iits rules failings. 40k is universal.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Hating the last edition is like hating Ultramarines. It's to be part of the cool group.

Generalizations are worthless. I hate Ultramarines because of their face time as THE non-deviant chapter. My hatred started with the 2nd Ed. Codex which was called Codex: Ultramarines. Crimson Fists player? Nah, you play Ultramarines. People would tell you as much. Doesn't matter how prominent the CF were in the previous edition, or that they were a founding Chapter before the Heresy rewrite. One of the things I loved about 3rd was not only recognizing that vanilla Marines are more than just Ultramarines, but that they actually put the Fists on the cover AND displayed several chapters prominently in the book.

Now, care to have another attempt at trying to cheapen, invalidate, or pervert my opinion?

I find one of the biggest issues with pick up games to be larger scale games like 40k, Sigmar and Warmachine. It takes some real effort to bring those games to the shop and you can't really bring more than one of them along. I have much better luck with other games. I have a bag half the size of the one I use for those other games that currently contains Guild Ball, Infinity, Malifaux and Batman. It's very easy for me to show up and ask "what do you want to play?" rather than need to set up a dedicated game. The effort required to transport larger games really seems to demand more scheduling or single game dedication that creates a lot of these problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
There's a handful of people who tend to have a very negative air a bout them and will focus on negative connections and conversations far more so than positive ones. It's not that they aren't gaming or that they hate the game, its that they've a very critical mindset and approach to the world and how they choose to interact online with. They can often be totally opposite in the real word - the internet world just brings out a different side of them.

Others lack the writing skills to express themselves in a critical way without sounding negative; or they believe that harsh brutal language is "honest" and that a positive angle is "sugar coating"


I'd also say Dakka has a bit of a negative culture aspect and this is promoted by a very small number of posters who are active. Of them I'd say there's perhaps one or two who appear to only ever post negative connections at all and whom might well be alts of other users or trolling the site (or jsut really miserable/critical/angry people).




Ergo its NOT the majority; but it IS the majority when a critical thread comes along and they will post repeatedly through the whole conversation. This creates an atmosphere that often promotes similar styles of reply and you fast end up with a fight or an argument where neither side is really talking about the topic; its simply a platform for either an ego fight or a fight between people with differing outlooks on life who can't accept the other viewpoint for what it is.


It's a shame because these situations are RARE, but they dominate active discussions long enough that it creates the atmosphere. In general effective reporting and moderation combined with a genuine effort to promote and discuss positive angle topics can be a big change around.

The internet has an ongoing issue separating criticism and overall quality. It's becoming extremely problematic in film where "tropes and sins" are becoming something of a numerical indicator of quality (or lack there of) out of the context of a film's ability to pull you in and entertain. Gaming discussions often suffer the same problem. There are lots of valid reasons to be super critical of GW and 40k but the internet doesn't let us voice those complaints and be done with them. They become permanent and fester until the digital record of the game becomes an amalgamation of "criticism".

What the internet largely lacks is the ability to let things go. You see it all the time in YouTube battle reports, where a rules mistakes gets called out and rather than learn and move on, the mistake hangs over that video forever. Sometimes it hangs over the players forever. The worst part is, in that game, between those two players, there was probably a lot of fun had. In any other scenario if it was called out they would probably be grateful to have learned something, but the mistake probably didn't change the enjoyment of the 2 hours they spent together. It's not that calling out the mistake is the problem, its that the internet doesn't let it heal in a positive way.

Some of it is just the age old problem of extreme behavior getting rewarded with attention, but overall we just need a way to communicate in a way that properly expresses the reality that this complaint I have about something I spend dozens of hours a week on can't be so bad if I'm still spending dozens of hours a week on it.

Well I think part of it is that Warhammer and, to a lesser extent, Warmahordes, has had years of traction. Warhammer has been a staple in game stores across the country for about 20 years (When I started in 1996 the game store was well stocked with Warhammer Fantasy and 40k product), even if the store stopped stocking it during the Kirby era, they had plenty of time for people to have gotten into it. I know my FLGS went fully back into stocking 40k after 8th edition because it became popular again; previously they stocked bits and pieces because they had stocked it back in the 5th edition era.

Warmahordes generally got traction during the period when GW declined as the hot new kid on the block, with a lot of stores who felt "betrayed" by GW jumping on that bandwagon. You don't get that sort of traction with something like Frostgrave or historical gaming; there isn't the market for it. A store is unlikely to stock, for instance, Bolt Action unless there's a large enough community to warrant it, but often the community won't get involved unless the store stocks the product, so you have this ouroboros type of situation. As far as I can tell it seems to be the desire to have one place to buy and play. So you have communities that revolve entirely around game stores, like gangs around turf (which is another strangely apt comparison as the "communities" around different game stores seem to have or even encourage store rivalries rather than foster a large and diverse gaming community in the town)

I know that personally there are perhaps a dozen or so games I want to try, and even more I'd be willing to give a shot to see if it appealed to me. But if none of those games are played, and asking on a Facebook group "Hey would anyone be interested in trying out Frostgrave?" would result in silence, flat "no" or immediate comparison/disparaging the product compared to GW (I have seen this. Mentioned a different game and immediately there was "These models are gak compared to GW" as a comparison) means there aren't many willing to try unless you're lucky enough to have a close-knit gaming club (which are rather rare in the US) rather than the typical "group of people who go to the same store".

I certainly understand. I've got the "gaming community" dream myself and I've had a little luck, but I'm not sure it'll stick by any means. I think the core of any gaming community is just 2 people showing up consistently to play. Some of my personally progress has been a willingness to try anything as much as I try to introduce things. Over time I've found whenever someone in the 40k crowd is curious about a new game, they come to me and ask if I'll try because they know I'm open to new games. I got into a state where I'd play Infinity with this guy and Malifaux with that guy and so on and that's started to grow into a little more cross pollination and a larger group of general game gamers. I'm not sure if I'll ever build anything resembling a large meta, but I can play different things with friends and that's kind of the whole point.