One Game Is All I Want Hot

Very few games have ever offered me so much entertainment that I played them exclusively for an extended period of time. There needs to be a lot of variability and complexity to offer sufficient replay value. Here are the few that come to mind:

Car Wars: I grew up in Indianapolis, a city that is crazy about cars. Every May, the local media bombarded people with so much information about the drivers, the cars, the teams, the latest regulations, and so forth, all in preparation for the Indy 500. So I was primed to like this game. In all honesty, I tried to design this game more than two years before Steve Jackson published his game. My initial working title was "Car Wars" but everybody said that was too gimmicky, so I changed my game to "Freeway Melee." Anyway, I was still playtesting my rules when SJ Games published an infinitely better game, and my playtesters and I immediately dumped my game to play lots and lots of Car Wars. Sure, we did some other stuff in '80s, like play Call of Cthulhu and D&D, but we could have survived with just Car Wars. It eventually collapsed under the weight of too many ill-considered additions to the weapons list.

Vampire: the Eternal Struggle (FKA Jyhad): When I left Indy, my old gaming group chipped in to buy me a going away present, this new rpg called Vampire: the Masquerade. It took me a while to make some new friends, so I spent a lot of my free time catching up on my reading at first. This Vampire game had a lot of cool ideas, though the development seemed a little sketchy. I tried playing it a few times, but the 1st edition stuff was still fumbling around in the dark for supplements that realized the promise of the themes. Then came the CCG version, which was definitely superior in gameplay to Magic. The artwork was dark, rich and moody, and there was a distinctive set of rules that prevented all the usual multiplayer game problems except for downtime. Great game, and I still play it on a semi-regular basis.

Shadowfist: This CCG is very nearly just as good as the Vampire one, but has a very different setting centered on feng shui, kung fu, mutants, sorcerors, cyborgs, demons and more. This game also had decent ways to manage the usual multiplayer issues, and had potentially zero downtime, depending on the style of the individual players. Also a great game, but suffers from drawing upon a lot of the same player base as Vampire: the Eternal Struggle. I played a lot of Shadowfist in the '90s.

Arkham Horror: The original version came out during my peak years of playing Call of Cthulhu, so we readily embraced the board game and played it often. But the limited variety of the encounter rolls at each location made for a certain repetition from game to game, so we gradually lost interest after a couple of years. But the newer version from Fantasy Flight is just amazing. With all the expansion sets, this is truly a game that I could play over and over again. In fact, we played the base set so much that we had practically solved the game... if we couldn't flat out win by sealing six gates, we could at least stalemate long enough to get really good gear together for the final battle. But the expansions changed the odds, so we lose about 2/3 of the time now. That leaves plenty of room for improving our gameplay and also exploring all the variability offered by the cards, the characters, the monsters and the Great Old Ones. And thanks to that Strange Eons software, I have been dabbling lately in custom content, including making my own character version of myself.

Well, I find this point of view is pretty insightful. I think you are quite right -- the lighter the game, the more likely you are to chew through more games of the same ilk.

For me lately, the game that scratches the old itch has been Twilight Struggle...I try to play it every chance I get. I can't speak highly enough about the gameplay and the tension. I feel the same way about War of the Ring and Hannibal to some extent. If I could get my group to agree, I would play Arkham Horror every meeting for the forseeable future.

I feel like a kindred spirit as I like to get a good, strong game and immerse myself in it. With a meaty game, there are so many layers that you can peel back to find something appealing.

This is something I've thought about for a long time myself...I definitely came from the school of thought where we used to buy one game a year (maybe) and play the living shit out of it. I love getting new games, I love having a variety of games to choose from and I definitely want to have games for different sorts of themes, play situations, and complexity levels but sometimes I do wish that I were focused on one or two really great games than spreading game time across any number of lesser titles.

I remember when AXIS AND ALLIES came out this kid in my neighborhood got it for christmas and I swear we played it every day the following summer. So we had a neighborhood full of 10 year olds that were absolute sharks at the game by the time school started back.

Then there was MAGIC...that was the _only_ game I played for a couple of years (Unlimited through Ice Age)and that's all my friends played as well. So we mastered the damn thing, and as a result we had some really amazing games. There was so much to explore, so much to experience with all the cards and the deckbuilding element- not to mention matching up with friends' decks and their ideas.

And SETTLERS...when I got my first copy, it's all my friends wanted to do...and because the game has variety, expansions, and lots of player interaction, it has totally supported many, many plays over a decade now

There's a lot to be said for playing just one game and really getting into it, learning its subtleties, it's finer points, and its deeper strategies. But the problem is that the game has to be able to support that level of exploration either through gameplay, variability, or by offering meaningful, complex player interaction. Most Eurogames, and even many AT games, just don't support intensive, repeated play before they break down- like PUERTO RICO. Anyone who's played PUERTO RICO more than 15 times and thinks there's still more to explore in the game is kidding themselves.

So now we have these jackasses who track their "games played" on their Blackberries and engage in all sorts of sub-trainspotting behavior...we've got people who actually pride themselves on having 1000 games and only a third of them have ever been played and a smaller fraction than that played more than once. Companies crank out games virtually every day that are only worth playing once or twice and the superconsumers are more than happy to snap them up, particularly when they hit clearance or Tanga. There's fewer and fewer games "for the ages" published.

I think TI3 is a good example of a game that has infinite replayability and could be "The One". I think DESCENT may very well have that too.

Expansions go a long way, I think...it's why games used to have so many. Think about COSMIC ENCOUNTER or TALISMAN, how many people used to play those as "The One"? Expansions were a way to continue to sell the product while also developing the games further. The SETTLERS expansions work the same way.

So yeah Mal, you're on to something here...I definitely hear you on that compensation thing, I did the same thing when I started getting into Euros...buying all those early import Eurogames and I don't think I played all of them together as much as I've played A&A, SETTLERS, or MAGIC.

For me, miniatures games are usually the only style of game able to provide that kind of draw. I've spent long stretches of time sucked into GW games. Now that time tends to go towards Heroscape and Song of Blades and Heroes, the latter of which I'm currently building a massive 3D dungeon for.

I can easily see TI3 as "the one" but back in my college days it was all about Talisman. I introduced both gaming and non-gaming friends to it, and it was an instant hit. People became so obsessed with the game that it was permanently left out in my apartment, and we even began experimenting with ways to lengthen the game, just so the experience wouldn't end.

Barnes, you're hitting on a key but maybe slightly different point. What Talisman, Car Wars, Cosmic Encounter, Arkham Horror and the like offer(ed) isn't *a game*, but a system. It's that system that you buy into (or that sucks you in). I think that's probably the hook for most CCGs too [though, not my cup o' tea there. I find that they're completely akin to a mid-grade coke habit. Lots of money goes out, the gratification is instant, and then not a whole lot to show for it in the long run]. The grand-puba example of this is quite probably ASL--how many people make that system their sole gaming priority?

On the euro side, I think people buy into the game mechanic itself or the designer. So each repackaging of their approach is fairly akin to the many expansions available for some of the "for the ages" titles you cite. I think the enraging part is that I'm asked to shell out $50 for what is, content-wise, more akin to $10 expansion pack.

Dogmatix- you're right on the money, and in fact I meant to make that point somewhere in that ranting..."system" games are exactly what I'm talking about. DESCENT is a system, ARKHAM HORROR is a system, TALISMAN is a system...we're talking at this point about games that have modularity built in that expansions, add-ons, and variants can really capitalize on.

Thinking about it...if COMMANDS AND COLORS had been released in the 80s, it probably would have been a core rulebook and then you'd buy the expansion packs for the battles/eras that you wanted. That actually might have worked better.

It comes down to possibilities...if a game system offers enough possibilities, then you could play it forever. ASL is like that, without a doubt.

"immersion" are weird nowadays. Back in the 80's I had not problem getting a group of 3-4 to play D&D and other RPG's for days or months at a time. But then again, I had time to burn. When Playing ASL in the mid 90's I found a group that was totally into that genre and nothing else. It was interesting to be able to delve into those details in a gaming system. Then again, I was also still in college and time was still in abundance. Today however, finding a group of people who would dedicate their time and effort into a highly immersive environment is next to impossible. Myself included.

To quote fightclub a little. I need my gaming nights in single servings.

Those type of environments in the last decade or so have been replaced by MMO's and other online PC gaming venues. It was an easy leap as all the micromanagement is done for you, and you can now focus on gameplay over mechanics.

Systems just require to steady barrage of regularity and a group that will follow it. Just too hard to find that today at my age(without really getting into some older oddball fellows).

The downside of systems, is that they frequently make poor games.

There is this intent with C&C, Wizard Kings, and every CMG on the planet to build a system, and have all of this modularity, and replayability...but they frequently forget to get around to actually making a game.

Or at least a good scenario that is worth replaying....

We are definitely in the midst of an era of disposable games. Games that are interesting to play once or twice, and then move onto the next. And while it is easy to level the charge at Euros, you can also say the same about Ameritrash games. (Count the number of cute fantasy card games where you play wacky action cards on people.

I realized that during the week of February 3, 2008 I thought about something more than Sex for the first time since I was 12 years old and I wasn't even thinking about the Super Bowl. I was thinking about Ti3. During that week there was a lot going on in the Newbie online game and then there was the Wednesday night 3 1/2 hour real-time speed Ti3 game with Malloc. Curse you Malloc and Curse you Haacan!!! I'm sending shock troopers to burn your Ti3 games so then I can start thinking about sex again.

I don't think it's so much that systems lead to bad games, as bad games lead to bad systems. I gleefully purchased Wizard Kings upon its release as well as a host of expansions, only to discover they had forgotten to add the fun part in. It doesn't matter how open or modular a system is, if its core mechanics are less fun than watching someone drink a bottle of floor cleaner.

That's an awesome sentiment. I think I'm still working on my first such week. There was one in 1997 when I was pretty fucking wired on chemical kinetics for grad school. That might have been a solid week there. hasn't happened for a game yet though. Maybe MtG back in 2001? Nah, probably not.

See Chapel, I think the "not enough time" argument is bullshit.

I see people all the time saying how they don't have time for longer, more immersive games. Yet I still see people getting together once a week to spend the exact same amount of time on a pile of 60-90 minute games. Not to mention that exponentially more time is spent, speaking generally, in the hobby these days on:

- Reading internet forum sites
- Posting to internet forum sites
- Participating in the online boardgaming community in other ways
- Reading rules, reviews, news, and so forth
- Researching games
- Browsing online retailers
- Listening to podcasts

And so on. Now, I do realize that a lot of these things can be done like, say, at work so there's definitely some compounding of time. But everyone that says that they don't have time to play anything longer than 2 hours is full of crap. If you're meeting a game group once a week for 4-6 hours then you've got time to play any game ever published- even if you had (horror!) to break it up over a couple of sessions. If you don't get to game that often and you find that you've literally got 2 hours or so every so often to play a single game, then I can see it...but I'd bet that almost none of us involved in the hobby enough to be visiting or contributing to this website are in that situation.

I think it has more to do with feigned sense of maturity, much like the old "games aren't toys" trope...some folks don't want to feel like they're committed to the hobby to the degree that they are, and splitting that commitment up over a bunch of games versus just one perhaps makes them feel less, well, obsessed. Witness how even "hardcore" boardgamers shun the committed ASL or 18xx players, let alone miniatures gamers or CCGers who stick to "their" games.

When Darkness Comes is proof that your argument has no basis in reality.

Michael

it is not so much that there is no time for games, but it's getting quite difficult (for me) to get a few people together for a whole day due to everybody's busy schedule. Look at Italia, which I played again last Sunday. That took us 8 hours and we were glad we did it. But the hockey season is starting again, so I'll be without free Sundays for some time. Evenings is easier, but an evening is not enough for a real slogging match. True, most games games will fit in the 6 hour slot (but that´s pushing some people´s diaries).

Your 'maturity' argument is preudopsychological crap. Few people care about being obsessed. And if they spend hours a day on online games, CCGs etc they are already obsessed.

I feel that many people feel that long games are also more complex, so they shy away from that. Rather two games that they can handle than one that stretches their strategic capabilities and complexity allowance. But that´s not based on fact either.

No, it's true man. Who has the TIME to play Settlers these days? These "system games" just overtake your life. That's why we stick to "Reiner Knizia's Flea Circus".

Seconded on that sentiment. Love that system to death.

I strongly agree with your observations regarding time. It's rare that I can find players who are willing to play anything except maybe Arkham Horror for more than two hours at a time, and yet they come over for 6-10 hours of boardgames in a day. And my best friend has definitely morphed into one of those people who starts to panic if we aren't starting a new game every 90 minutes or so. This trend is keeping some of my favorite games from getting on the table, or at least staying there.

However, I think that the underlying problem is diminishing attention spans. We live in a fast-paced world these days, with constant distractions from cell phone ringtones and text messages, and this urgent need for speed. Fast food, or even faster food from the microwave, high-speed internet, instant gratification on the internet, next-day shipping, new, now, new, now.

If anybody thinks that the real problem is a shortage of time and not a shortage of attention spans, ask yourself this: would your usual gaming group be willing to meet for just two hours to play a single game?

Another thing about the shortness of attention spans... it seems like players today are quicker to quit if they are losing the game. That was an advantage with old-school elimination games, you could completely wipe out the weaker players, and were sometimes even required to do so in order to win.

Hmm...Jur, I can see where you're coming from in terms of getting people together, but that's a different argument than someone saying that they don't have time to play certain types of games. When somebody says "I can't find anyone to play REVOLUTION: THE DUTCH REVOLT with me", that I can understand and it's a valid reason to not play the game. When someone says "I don't have time to play REVOLUTION: THE DUTCH REVOLT" then it's bullshit. Two games of EL GRANDE and you're using the same amount of time on a vastly superior game.

As for the maturity argument- how can you say that there aren't people in this hobby who don't feel that there are things that somehow make them more mature than others? We've dealt with those sorts of people all along since this AT thing got rolling. The idea that some games are somehow more mature or sophisticated because they don't have dice or plastic soldiers, the idea that we're somehow immature because we don't give a flying fuck if someone's feelings or sensibilities are hurt by a bad review or a honest comment...I've seen many board gamers come down on people into RPGs or "system" games, scoffing at the time requirements and level of commitment involved...like it's somehow not proper to blow time and money on a CCG obsession. Yet they'll spend just as much (or more) money and time on board games. Some hobbyists have elevated board gaming to this supposedly sophisticated, "elegant" pursuit that would never brook such things, and part of the elitist attitude in any hobby or interest is a "cool" detachment from things, an aloof sense of obsession that's above commonality. So I don't think it's psuedopsychological crap at all. Pseudopsychological, maybe...but crap, no.

I think Shell's right about the attention span thing...I've been watching a lot of 1960s-1970s Hollywood films lately and I find myself wondering if today's audiences would think a movie like POINT BLANK or THE FRENCH CONNECTION any less thrilling just because they don't have that god damned cut-every-second MTV style editing that strips any image from lasting significance. Games have been affected too, the short Eurogames definitely speak to that sensibility. And likewise, depth, complexity, and narrative have suffered.

I can't believe WHEN DARKNESS COMES is being discussed. That game makes me want to go back in time and erase the concept of gaming from ever having been created.

I'm sorry, that just sounds like a cry from a Pokemon.

NEWNOW, I CHOOSE YOU!

NEWNOW, HYPE BLASTER ATTACK!

I was hoping someone would make the attention span point. That's the part that makes me a bit nuts. I recently hooked up with a game group for the first time down here and the "OK, who brought what and how many can we get in tonight" element of it makes me a touch nuts. I'd much rather drop myself into 1 game for 6 hours than 6 games for an hour each. But I guess that's me. I'm also just starting to learn the arcane arts associated with VASSAL and Cyberboard, which certainly eliminates that whole "I can't find anyone who wants to look at the same playfield for more than 62 minutes" excuse.

(And player elimination games are the reason there's always a deck of cards handy. ;) )

Look, those people exist, and they are quite well represented on another site, but (and this is something you have said yourself) they are only a minority of all gamers. Therefore I don't think it helps to transpose their anal fixations and complexes on the gaming population at large.

In a general sense I think social explanations fit better than psychological. And the increasingly timetabled life in (western) society looks a winner to me, coupled with the fact that many game groups are based around one person that introduces and explains new games and that choice is limited by the lowest common denominator: games of short length and limited complexity.

Fair enough- but when these people tend to be vocal and highly involved in boardgaming discourse, it does create a level of expectation among people and it does influence others to think the same way. _Fortunately_, most folks aren't like that. But then there's the assumption that the vast majority of the mainstream population thinks that adults spending any time or commitment at all on gaming is an immature waste of time with no value whatsoever.

That's a good point about gaming groups basing around one person and how that can limit choices...which really isn't an excuse, with the availability of rules online anyone can read the rules before a session and arrive ready to play even the more complex games. I understand that's not always what everyone wants to do, or that sometimes it's not the best environment for that, but still...there's no reason that game groups should be limited to short, simple games _unless that's just what they like to play_. I'm going after the folks who claim that there are games that somehow "can't" be played any more due to time or whatever.

I did actually play Empires in Arms for some time in weekly sessions in bar. I know of people who played a Europa Universalis campaign. It is all possible, especially if you are single or in school or both. Note that the middle aged gamer (ie over 30) is overrepresented both on this site and others. Their/our perception of available time is heavily influence by adjusting to work, relationships and kids. I bet the group of gamers who are nearing retirement have no such problem and are enjoying the time at their hands.

And TWO people actually claimed that it is fun. Oh, wait, one of the was Rob Martin.

A horror version of Heroquest with understandable rules, and character progression. Good idea. Someone should do that.

As to my original comment about systems: At some point, we went from games with scenarios to systems. Space Hulk is a game with a lot of scenarios. Axis and Allies Miniatures is a system. Space Hulk is good. Axis and Allies Miniatures is a rather nice system. Sucks as a game.

When Darkness Comes actually might not really be a system. A large part of the game is the scenario book, and the idea is that the rules are the gateway to the scenarios. It is just that the game doesn't hold together all that well.

For my money, those two Space Hulk descended games: Dracula's Revenge, and Frankenstein's children, are much better games.

I can't tell you how much credibility I lost as a game selector _in my own store_ when I made some of the AGF inner circle sit through WHEN DARKNESS COMES _twice_, trying to convince myself that maybe Robert Martin had the line on some neglected masterpiece. Good god, what an awful, awful game. Seriously, I'd consider TICKET TO RIDE: RETURN TO BOBO JUNCTION or whatever over that atrocity. Any game where I know there's a wrench in a room because the token is there but I have to roll Yahtzee hands to see if I can actually pick it up is not high on my list.

I've been curious about those Gothica games for a long time...they look so...crude.

SPACE HULK...I haven't played it in a while but thanks to that awesome freeware thing that just came out I'm loving it all over again. I've always loved it, but I forgot what an awesome, awesome game that is...and it's really a different kind of game than DOOM, DESCENT, MUTANT CHRONICLES, and the like.

HEROCARD was kind of a recent attempt to do a "system" game...but so far, only ORC WARS has been worth playing more than once and even then it feels wrong somehow...the cardplay seems really screwed up to me.

The Gothica games are...ugly.

The basic systems, though, are very Space Hulk-y. The big differences are that activation order is programmed--kind of like Heroscape, and weapons.

Gothika is still mostly a skirmish game.

A couple weekends ago, a friend and I played a 10 hour game of 2nd Fleet. WE didn't even realize how long we had been playing, we were that immersed in the game. About a month before that, we played another all day session of 2nd Fleet. In both cases we had fun.

2 weeks ago, I played Axis and Allies with a friend and he thought his position was hopeless by the 2nd turn, so we packed it in. Sadly, I didn't think his position was that bad.

I think the bigger problem is that there are alot more choices.

Ahh, you were just playing it wrong. That's what happens when you rush through the rules.

Steve Avery was teaching them?

Some games are just better with drinking rules, I guess.

Absolutely, this is a game to immerse yourself in - I have played it since it was released in 1994, have played at all levels, from international to local demos, have written multiple clan newsletters, and have still yet to come anywhere near to finding a game to compete against it.

I think that the preference for shorter games also comes from the fact that you can play it multiple times in the same time slot as a larger one, and hopefully get to grips with it, know the rules, and try to work out some strategies.

Sam

I find myself missing the hell out of Bloodbowl lately. It is , without any doubt, one of the greatest games ever published (3rd Ed, Living Rule book 3.0).

Nothing beats the immersion involved in setting up and running a league of several teams, complete with rules for a draft, retiring players etc. If your lucky enough to have the league run for more than a year, you start to appreciate the intense rivalries that form between teams. "Yeah, I may have lost the game--- but I just gimped your star blitzer asshole..." is a perfect example of the type of sentiment that ran rampant in my last league.

Ahhh Bloodbowl.

I'm surprised it doesn't have a larger fanbase here considering that fielding chainsaw wielding maniac or a steamroller not unheard of.

The fanbase might be more drawn to GW forums.

Those GW forums were once so bad they made that other site look open and welcoming by comparison. But that's a story for another thread. I've pretty much stopped ANY kind of support for current GW products since then.

I would suggest that Blood Bowl's fan base is pretty huge! I would also point to the LRB 5 (headed to 6), the re-release of the game itself, MBBL (and MBBL 2 for the even crazier!), the huge amounts of NON-GW minis available for the game (impact, ShadowForge), fumbbl.com, the NAF official coach registration and the amount of tournaments around the globe (the "World Cup" was just won by France in late 07!) as testament.
This is a "for life" game for sure! Esp if you can get in leagues...or at least tournaments!

There really isn't "one game" for me. There are games for groups and time frames and genres.

One of my all-time favorite games, Struggle of Empires, actually isn't that fun after the first few plays if the other players are new. If they are new then there isn't really any Struggle. I lose the immersion, and then it is just pushing cardboard around the board without opposition (an efficiency exercise).

I think you guys are mostly getting what I was talking about.

Chapel was somewhat correct about the time, however its is not game length that is limiting, it is the repeated plays and, for lack of a better word, homework required, that I find hardest to get others to overcome. This is why the wiki and things like Vassal are so great. They allow people to slow down and learn a game. then the ever valuable face to face sessions are not wasted on learning the game, but are enjoyed by playing the game at a very competent level.

Blood blow is a game that I am tempted by often. I can see it being a ton of fun if a few regulars would play it often, but I know that there is no way anyone in my regular group would take the time to learn the system to that level. I would have to find someone who was established already and then use that group to get into the game.

-M

I absolutly love immersive games. I am also one of the few who really does not have the time to play them (three pre-schoolers). TI3 is the first game that I bought as soon as it came out, regardless of the unflattering reviews at the time. I always thought that I could get it to work somehow, the expansion did that for me. I have found all these wonderful games, but am in the stage of life where I can pretty much just collect them for now and look at them while pulling out Go Away Monster or Hi Ho Cherry-o. Right now, my focus is on imprinting that games all the time is good.

I actually wish I could behave more like this - immerse myself into a single game and play it over and over until I've squeezed every ounce of strategic depth and entertainment out of it. Ever since having kids of my own though, I've been accumulating games at a faster rate than I can play them, and I don't have the willpower not to bring out some shiny new toy or other when I do get the chance to trek out for a night of gaming. So more often than not the new game gets played, just the once, and is then put aside in favour of another new acquisition. This is bad, and I really ought to stop buying games. I keep hoping that buying them will somehow make up for not getting to play them, but it never works that way :)

I'm sustaining myself through the promise of all the months I can spend revisiting those games and immersing myself in their glories once I've got some more free time :)

I think I feel the same way about some games. I'll play euros with people who get scarred of big games, mostly for the social experience and the joy of just playing a game. But nothing beats the awesome experience I get from War of the Ring or TI3. Combat Commander, Starcraft, and a few other games come close for me, but TI3 and WotR are the current Kings (for 3+ players and 2 players, respectively). It's been a while before I played either of them, but I'm working on getting my wife to the point where we can have a good game of WotR.

I have a similar pattern to my gaming. For the past 4-5 years I have played Magic the gathering almost exclusively, I live in a little college town and I got together with a class of guys who happened to be amazing at vintage and legacy magic, we played constantly going to tournaments and conventions with some of our members winning vintage and legacy championships.

Recently I have found myself in a situation where my magic group have all graduated and moved on while I still live and work in the college town, I have established a different group of gamers who concentrate on strategy board games. We play once a week and more often then not play twilight or axis and allies with the occasional new game in the mix like starcraft.

it's fantastic and I hope we can keep in going for a very long time. For the first time I think I'm not going to spend all of gencon playing magic this year.

One thing I do miss desperately about magic is the competitive outlet, I really thrive on winning and while the guys in my group are decent players I still end up winning a majority of our games. With the smaller market and the long length of strategy board games I can see myself getting bored with them on a local level and simply having no other outlet.

I know the PBEM system exists by I've tried it with other games like diplomacy and I find that I simply can't stay interested in a game when it lasts months.

I think FFG should use their relationship with blizzard to get some of their board games published as video games so players across the world can play without the glacial PBEM systems. It could even come full circle when blizzard publishes a video game version of starcraft the board game :)

I have to second (third? fourth?) Blood Bowl as a game that, at least in its fumbbl incarnation, has provided me with an excellent immersive experience. I've found that even just naming the individual team players adds an enormous amount of loyalty and attachment to the team, and to the game, as the triumphs and defeats, the injuries and deaths of the countless different players you've created forges a narrative. And as your team develops, you end up with an even more interesting game, since skill choices and options increase as your players get better at the game.

I would definitely recommend most of the crowd here to check out fumbbl, at least. It has provided me and my friends with tons of enjoyment, and you can even save a game at the half to replay it later, so there's not even any dubious time commitment excuses.

I would be interested in playing on Fumbbl.... Anyone want to walk a newbie through a few games? PM me.

-M