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.

So, spinning off from the thread about the new WotR release from GW, it seems many people knock the system, but not so many play it.

Common and understandable citation is 'hardly anyone plays it'. Now I shan't insult anyones intelligence here, as we can all see the clear Catch 22 therein.

So my question is a simple one. In your area, how many players does it typically require for a game to be given a fair chance? At what point do you feel a system has had a fair crack at self-recruiting, as in the sheer fun the participants are having attracts others to try it out, and things get theoretically bigger from there?

We got 6 people to play WotR a couple weeks back.
Found out during the game that 2 guys that were playing had armies but "didn't think anyone played it".
It only took myself and one other to show up game night to get interest up.
Now most of our group (about 10), have at least a small force of something.

As soon as I finish painting, we will go down to the local GW and start playing there.
The last time we played there, we had a crowd watching with interest.

The game itself I found to have similarities to WHFB and Field of Glory.
Now that 8th ed FB is out, I can see the stuff they took from WotR in the rules.
The new Kings of War rules share a bit with them as well.

Not just WotR, but other titles.

Say a new company release a game, low key, but seriously good. How do you get enough gamers interested to make it worth investing in?

In our group it usually takes two people taking the plunge and learning the rules well.
Then building up a couple forces/armies.
One guy can build and paint at a phenominal rate, so when he dives in he will have 2 armies ready to play before anyone else has one bought.

We have a game involving 4-6 others to give them a taste. Usually we run it as a demo.

It helps that most of us have run demos at various cons in the past.
4 of the guys helped out running some of Uncle Duke's Extravaganza at Historicon this year.
(FYI, Uncle Duke is very well known among the U.S. historical gaming crowd)

It depends on the game. Many people are fine with picking up games out of curiosity if the initial investment isn't too big or if the models are great. Malifaux has done this and arguably Infinity has done this as well. There are plenty of small-scale skirmish-level games that people could just pick up. LOTR is a larger scale game.

Some people occasionally buy WHFB boxes just for the bits. Perhaps not boxes, but they do bits trades. 40k Eldar Guardians can be given WHFB High Elf legs and they look fine. I can have my Space Marines riding Dark Eldar Cold Ones. LOTR, on the other hand, is a different scale. The only thing I've ever seen cross over are the Balrog Wings on Tyranid Hive Tyrants, and that was in spite of some odd rumors saying that GW doesn't 'allow' LOTR bits on 40k/WHFB models.

LOTR also has, arguably, not the best models GW has ever producted due to the non-heroic-scale. To compare, Warmachine/Hordes also has rather lacking models, but their rules are excellent and the models are simply bigger. Why play LOTR when you can play Warmachine/Hordes? LOTR has infinitely better fluff than Warmachine/Hordes, but the difference leads to the following:

Some games ride on existent fluff. Compare TCGs such as Magic and YuGiOh and their success to TCGs based on preexistent fluff such as Pokemon, Star Wars, etc. Magic can make up anything it wants whereas Star Wars can print a Darth Vader card only so many times before it becomes stale. LOTR somewhat has this problem. The setting is set and cannot change. Any radical change would be against canon and met with unhappy fans. However, in 40k, GW can simply make up things like Blood Angels Storm Ravens or Tyranid Tervigons and we all cheer.

--

I guess to summarize:
- LOTR isn't small enough scale to just pick up and play. I played my first few games of Malifaux and Infinity with the same person and we had fun with a small investment. Investment also includes money AND time. LOTR has a lot of things to paint.
- LOTR's scale is outshined by games such as Warmachine/Hordes. If a heralded 'better' game exists, why choose the inferior?
- More people play Warmachine/Hordes or Warhammer Fantasy or Warhammer 40k. Why choose LOTR when you can choose something popular?
- LOTR is based on static, preexistent fluff that will not change. Most other games can just make up new units whenever and we'll be okay. Other games have expandability.
- LOTR's scale is not along the lines of popular games. They look skinner and the models aren't as good. This is, arguable, but no bits swaps is sadness.

I think as long as the player's investment is small they'll still want to check out new games, even if it's just something on the side. I know if I were to start a new game and I knew I'd need a 150 models for an average sized game, I'd just skip it because I know I don't have the time or cash for it. But if a game would be smaller where you need maybe 10 or 20 tops, and is easy to learn and fun to play I'll definitely give it a shot.

And the above is why you do not see much about the WotR or LotR on this site. The prejudice puts most off.
Exposure to games outside of GW and PP would do a lot of gamers good.

Outside of GW games, bits and multipart plastics are not the norm. And in some cases not preferred.
The "everything unique" mindset is very GW gamer.

"Better" games are not always the point. Some people want to play a certain setting. Or conflict. Or just a style of game that is different.
If you want a skirmish game set in Middle-Earth, you will play LotR. or WotR if you want battles.
You want WWII, there is Flames of War. Napoleonic era, play Shako. ETC.

You need at least two people with average sized armies to drum up interest. If other people in the group like it, they might buy models themselves and start their own armies after playing a game using some of yours.

Absolutionis wrote:I can have my Space Marines riding Dark Eldar Cold Ones.

I like those models, too, and will be using them as mounts for my IG Rough Riders!

My 34 year old cousin plays it with his friends (they are residents at a hospital about two hours from me). I never would have guessed. I'm probably going to try out a rohan or harad army see how it goes.

Mr Mystery wrote:Not just WotR, but other titles.

Say a new company release a game, low key, but seriously good. How do you get enough gamers interested to make it worth investing in?

Around here it is the cult of personality that makes or breaks a game.

If someone who is extremely popular doesnt approve of the game, then the game hardly stands a chance in that environment of sheeple.

I suggested about this time last year to start a WotR escalation league in the spring right after adepticon. It gave people enough time to plan for it if they were interested and they ran with it. But only because the cults of personality were present to give their seal of approval. That and because people were sick of WHFB and were it was going.

I will say though that as soon as WHFB new edition came out the sheeple jumped ship. It was an inevitable and predictable outcome really.

But the bonus is that there are a new pool of players who have WotR armies and know the rules so even if WotR isn't their game of choice there are still people who can play. Considering how reviled this game is in general by the ignorant people who refuse to acknowledge that anything other than 40K or WHFB exists, I cant say I could have expected any better. A pyrrhic victory, but a victory all the same.

This is a very interesting topic, as not everyone wants to play 40K/Fantasy/Magic. I have some good experience there, but if I was to sum it up, reaching that critical mass is definitely an up-hill battle, and don't even think about doing it on your own.

It only takes one person if they're willing to buy at least two armies and to lend one to other people to get them to play, but more usually it takes at least two people who are interested enough to learn the rules and play enough games to get past the teething period of learning any new game.

I'll say three people - that officially makes it a "group".

Nurglitch wrote:It only takes one person if they're willing to buy at least two armies and to lend one to other people to get them to play, ...

This is true, but far from enough. You'll get opponents that way obviously, but we're talking about starting and maintaining a gaming group. For that you'll need logistics (a friendly LGS is a tremendous asset there !), presence, and 2/3 players. Last but not least, you also need a game worth playing. Otherwise, you can demo as much as you want, people won't play for long.

Mr Mystery wrote:In your area, how many players does it typically require for a game to be given a fair chance?

3 or 4.

Every game I have bar two are from GW or GW-derived:

Tyranid Attack (first thing I ever bought)
Space Hulk (all three versions)
Necromunda
Warhammer Quest
40K
Dark Heresy
Rogue Trader
Deathwatch

The only non-GW games I have are the DOOM boardgame and BattleTech, and the former I bought (two sets actually) simply for the board tiles that come with it (use them in Dark Heresy along with stacks of D&D tiles, even though I don't play D&D).

For me it's not so much about trying new games, it's about being interested in the background. I spent about... I dunno... 20? 30 manhours writing up a campaign booklet for just our group to use over one weekend (next weekend). I do it because I like 40K's fluff, I like how vague it is so you can do anything with it, and I like playing within that universe. I like BattleTech for the similar reasons in that I like it's fluff, but not because of how vague and limitless it is, but because of how defined and detailed it is.

I don't have any other games because I'm just not interested in the background. AT-43 is about the only one that I have any sort of interest in outside of the ones I have now, or perhaps a Star Wars or Fallout-based RPG. That's it.

skrulnik wrote:We got 6 people to play WotR a couple weeks back.

Then get cracking boy.

HudsonD:

I'm taking it as given that the game is worth playing.

Nurglitch wrote:HudsonD:

I'm taking it as given that the game is worth playing.

Obviously, and yet, it's easier said than done. I could name Confrontation as the archetypal game that looked worth playing, and turned out to be an embarassingl dud (thanks in no small part to Rackham's "efforts", but that's for another topic), but there are plenty other examples .
My point being that, unless you can say in good faith that the new game is worth playing, you won't get people to invest time, money and efforts in it, but at the same time, should it work, you will also be largely responsible for that investment. Suffice to say, make sure you're right...