PenitentJake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, outright admitting you don't really enjoy the hobby of tabletop wargaming weakens any argument someone has about tabletop wargaming...

...sorry, Jake. I think you are a tabletop wargamer

Maybe.

But I see A LOT of posts on Dakka that kind of expanded and changed the way I categorize and think about games.

There was a fantastic thread on here, for example, that talked about simulation vs. game that really clarified a few details for me about what I want from a game- and this dichotomy still makes its way into other threads too. So with that in mind, allow me to clarify.

First caveat: If it can happen in the real world, I'm not interested- this applies to almost every type of game I play. I need strong sci-fi, fantasy or supernatural elements to be present in order to truly enjoy a game.

Second Caveat: I'll try any game once if friends want to play it- even overriding caveat #1.

My favourite "Type" of game is the pen and paper RPG, played campaign style. Don't get me wrong, I'll do one off sessions- my wife and I actually met at a games convention. Best war story ever: two day session of Live Action Shadowrun with 50 players at Gencon Circa 2000ish. Day one, I took first place as voted by the players; day two, she took first. Why do I love these games? They are escapist; they are immersive; they allow me to plan and create story arcs over time, and the allow me to see and express the growth of my character(s). If you offered to play any type of game, anywhere, anytime, I'm always going oldschool pen and paper RPG. I've played HUNDREDS of different RPGS in my lifetime, and I will often be the person in the group who finds and suggests new ones to play... Not always, but often.

I also really enjoy collectible card games. Something about deck building really intrigues me, and once I start playing, I'll be the last person still up for another game- I've burned hundreds of sleepless weekends in macho-nerd pissing contests to play one more game. And I've played scores of different CCGS in my lifetime. I don't seek them out these days- the metas move too fast, and they don't have the same kinds of intrinsic story rewards as RPGs- they generally don't confer the same types of character growth, narrative progression and immersion... Though there are some variations of regular play for some games that try hard to approach this.

Then there's table top miniature games. I've played a fair number- Legions of Steel, Inferno, Full Thrust, Fairy Meat, Hero Clicks, Deadlands, Mutant Chronicles, Battletech.., probably a handful of others. But I've played just about every 40k spin-off game ever. They only games that ever had me hooked enough to invest heavily are 40k, Necromunda and BSF. As you can see, far fewer games of this category under my belt, and far less interest in pursuing new systems. Again, if a friend wants to play and can supply the models, I'll try anything- even an ultra realistic WWII simulation game. But don't expect me to go looking for it, or consider it as an alternative to the GW games that I currently play and actually like.

Why do I like GW games?

Well, they certainly have the escapist sci-fi/ fantasy themes I'm looking for, and they can be immersive. Even before Crusade, there was always enough in 40k for me to see the role playing game inside the miniatures game. Mutant Chronicles, Deadlands and Battletech all have parallel RPGs, as did 40k... though that didn't come until later in the game's development. Crusade, of course, knocks all of my campaign/ story/ growth fixes that I get from RPGs, and list building has a lot in common with deck building in a game with as many factions and models as 40k has. And strats don't bother me because I like CCGs.

So I love 40k- I loved 2nd, 3rd, 8th and 9th. I liked RT, 4th and 5th enough to play them often and invest in them. If my two favourite armies (SoB and GSC) had received any respect in 6th/7th I may have liked those versions enough too. And yeah, I know GSC did actually appear at the tag end of 7th, but the announcement of 8th came so fast after the GSC dex that I just decided to wait. The GSC dex is the only 7th ed book I ever bought.

So it isn't so much that I'm not a table-top gamer; it's a case of preferring pen and paper RPGs and CCGs to all tabletop miniature games that aren't connected to 40k in some way shape or form.

Does this limit my ability to discuss and compare rule sets for table-top mini-games? Sure it does- absolutely.

But there are others who comment extensively here who have never played Rogue Trader... Or any edition prior to 5th, or whatever. Am I more or less qualified to get in the ring with them? Maybe.

I post these kinds of things to acknowledge the biases that make my points of view so radically different from those of the "Average Dakkanaut" (and to be fair, such a creature, if it exists at all, is a vast generalization, so...). From what I can see, this Average Dakkanaut plays 2k matched almost exclusively in 40k and has a fairly common knowledge of other table top miniature games that include realistic simulations of contemporary or historical warfare. I share exactly none of those characteristics.

My secondary motive for citing these declarations is to remind Dakkanauts about the diversity of 40k's audience, because it seems to me that some posters mistake the homogeneity of those who post on Dakka for homogeneity of the player base in general.

Compared to MOST of you, I am not a tabletop wargamer- I'm a regular roleplayer and an occasional CCG player who happens to like 40k and its suite of associated specialist games because they appeal deeply enough to my imagination, my story-telling and building instincts and my desire for immersion in a way that no other miniature game on the market can.

Compared to the average dude off the street, or in Karol's sports clubs, yeah sure- definitely a tabletop gamer.