http://fortressat.com/ Sun, 19 May 2013 07:50:29 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc10796 [quote]I would actually be up for another Board Room. I think the better forum to host it may actually be right here, instead of BGN. But I think everyone need plenty of time to digest the first one, first. smilies/tongue.gif[/quote] Isn't that what's been going on here all along, sans formality? Sag. Sagrilarus Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:14:52 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc10794 Hosting a second round table at F:AT is a great idea. Both factions should have the opportunity to play host! Perhaps we could even have one at Board Game Geek - the neutral zone (albeit one populated by partisan natives). For me, the link from F:AT to the discussion on BGN was of use because it made me go and look at BGN, a site I never visit. Always good to see that there are different styles of discussion taking place in different venues. FWIW, I would never have found F:AT if it wasn't for cross-linking on BGGeek. WarlockFiretopMountain Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:53:31 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3358 Ryan knows he is _always_ welcome here- he's genuinely a good guy. And it's not too late for him to switch sides...one of us, one of us... Michael Barnes Tue, 20 May 2008 00:01:25 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3357 Thanks for the response Ryan. I was wondering if we'd ever see you again over here. Never thought you might be out of action due to "friendly" fire. I'm on the fence about having a round-table here at F:AT since I believe we have lots of good discussions already and we generally get input from perspectives that are not strictly AT. Would we get something more than we already get? Perhaps it would work best if we rotate participants and specifically invite people who don't as a rule visit F:AT. If we built it, would they come? BillN BigLizard Mon, 19 May 2008 23:42:36 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3347 I was thinking of the same thing as far as something like this being hosted by F:AT. Clearly the better dialogue is going to take place here, where no matter what topic is being discussed, at least it's what's actually being discussed. Also, Weeks needs to have Ryan B. on his podcast. That is all. Ska_baron Mon, 19 May 2008 17:59:08 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3338 It's like COLORS...but with nerds! Michael Barnes Mon, 19 May 2008 16:35:35 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3337 [i]There is some bad blood on both sides that I think will continue to be unresolved.[/i] I might be alone, but I think that is hilarious. Crypts and Bloods...and Agricola. bill abner Mon, 19 May 2008 14:50:06 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3332 Another roundtable discussion in the forums? And why shouldn't everyone be able to contribute? Sure, I'll start one at once. Schweig! Mon, 19 May 2008 12:27:35 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3329 I'm pretty new to this whole civil war thing, but I think the idea of another roundtable hosted at F:AT is a great idea. Maybe it could eventually be a thing where each site takes turns hosting a roundtable dealie, two (out of three) guys from that side of the fence when it's over there, two from this side when it's over here. But maybe that's just me. PseudoIntellectual Mon, 19 May 2008 03:25:05 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3310 Geez, Folks. Can I at least get a little love over here? :P I didn't even see this until 1:00am on a Sunday morning over here because I was too busy getting swiss-cheesed by more than a few in the Eurogame community, who were quite indignant that I would dare supposedly desecrate BGN by having Michael Barnes participate in a discussion there. Not everyone mind you. And maybe not even the majority. But I endured more than a few personal attacks myself. Be assured of that. Nonetheless, I held my ground there and I will hold it here too. I, personally, enjoyed Michael's work in the article, thought everything flowed together fairly well and overall, thought it was a quite productive article. It definitely spurred a lot of discussion! First off, the assertion that we somehow muzzled Michael was not true. His comments post edit were virtually exactly what he said pre-edit. Weeks, you once again have made that nice huge rotund, incorrect leap of logic into the flaming tar pit. Post comment on the article is where things went south, in my opinion. I would agree with Michael's assertion that he tried to keep it "on point", post article. And Michael is right that his name alone fuels a LOT of adverse feeling about him from the Eurogame side of the fence. And he's right that everything else became more about "Michael Barnes" than about the article. I also would say that, [i]in [b]my[/b] opinion[/i], I think the BGN website is now [i]firmly[/i] in the home of the Eurogame community and they exercise a huge pull there. But that's all I'll say about that. I was so busy defending the article in other quarters, I didn't even realize the discussion was going along quite well here, as well! And it appears someone (Weeks) took my silence for something else and made some nicely aforementioned leaps of logic on the topic, that were typically off base. I luv ya for that Steve. As usual. >:( ------- I want to thank Michael publicly here for his participation and giving everyone great insights into another perspective about Gateway Games. He went into this with due diligence and excitement for the discussion. I am sorry it turned out for him the way it did. I wish it would have been about "gateway games with MB contributing to the discussion; and not just a discussion about MB. Anyway, [u]This is what [b]I[/b] have learned from all of this[/u]: 1. Michael is right that there are two distinct approaches to the hobby. To an extent [i]deeper[/i] than many realize.... if that is even at all possible? :'( 2. The Ameritrash contingent has F:AT 3. The Eurogame contingent has BGN. 4. Don't cross "turf". 5. There is some bad blood on both sides that I think will continue to be unresolved. But no one side has a monopoly on "right". I would actually be up for another Board Room. I think the better forum to host it may actually be right here, instead of BGN. But I think everyone need plenty of time to digest the first one, first. :P I'll close by reminding everyone about one comments made here about me being too "entrenched" in the hobby. (LOL) Just remember: I've already been accused of being a "lightweight" in terms of my knowledge about Eurogames. And that person was right. Peace. Ryan B. Ryan B. Sun, 18 May 2008 06:09:41 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3297 "introducing a new-gamer to a game that is easier to digest so that they can get a feel for the parameters that unfamiliar games might operate on, then I can buy that a game is a "gateway game" -- it is just that the terminology of "gateway" is a poor choice." You managed to state my 8-paragraph position in one sentance - I agree entirely. PseudoIntellectual Sat, 17 May 2008 05:33:25 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3294 I truly think that gateway games should apply to games based on Fred Pohl's Gateway Universe. --Mike L. mikelawson Sat, 17 May 2008 03:00:07 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3290 Ack! Damn, no edit button. Of course I was describing my niece's problem with boardgames in the last paragraph. My sister and brother-in-law had no problem. BillN BigLizard Sat, 17 May 2008 02:16:17 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3289 I'll agree with Barnes. This is the discussion that SHOULD have taken place over there but didn't. I already stated my simple opinion that “if gateway games exist with any reality, I believe the term applies to that game or games which spark that excitement in oneself for playing more games.” Gateway is such an awful term because it implies separation between these games over here and those games over there and that there is a small door one goes through to get from one area to the other. And there also tends to be a condescending attitude that equates gateway game with the gates of heaven and the gamer with St. Peter holding the keys to paradise. The one idea that seems to come out of this discussion of gateway games is that we want to share our passion for games with others and hope that they will develop similar enthusiasm for playing, too. The underlying problem is how best to do it. The only consensus I’m seeing so far is embodied in that familiar phrase “know your audience.” Everybody has different tastes, desires, interests, backgrounds, etc. and the hook for each isn’t going to be games with one particular set of qualities. And not everybody is going to get hooked. Or perhaps they will only like a certain subset of games and won’t be prodded into trying others. One thing I don’t think anyone has mentioned yet (I apologize if someone did) is asking people what they like to play and doing that first. Enjoy a game of cards, backgammon, Monopoly, etc. and then maybe that other person(s) will reciprocate and play your game. Dogmatix wrote: “There is, however, some merit in "gateway experience." I think that the children's games [and I would include Catan in that category] serve an incredibly valuable purpose in helping people develop a gaming "vocabulary" for lack of a better word.” That brings up something people have hinted at but not really discussed. Gaming literacy. That is teaching people basic, common ideas behind all games including gaming etiquette. I’m looking specifically at a game of Clue I played with my young niece, sister and brother-in-law last year whom I see only infrequently. Apparently, she has not been exposed to boardgames much if at all, because she had trouble understanding such basic concepts as roll-and-move and keeping your cards hidden from other players. As far fetched as it sounds, these were new concepts to her, but in an age of video games and families of predominantly single children, perhaps boardgames and board game concepts are foreign to many. Growing up with three sisters and no video games, boardgames were certainly on the playtime agenda as it was with many of my friends. Is this lack of basic boardgame skills something that others have encountered? Is it generational? Or is my niece a special case? After all, how can you get someone interested in boardgaming if they really don’t know what it is? BillN BigLizard Sat, 17 May 2008 02:10:39 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3280 [quote]3. husband/wife couples friends --Settlers, Ticket to Ride, Las Vegas, Wyatt Earp, Carcassonne, Scrabble, Blokus, Through the Desert[/quote] Settlers? Considering we way we play Settlers, you'd better have a flak jacket and a football helmet on. I've come close to sleeping on the couch way too many times due to a Settlers game that I came from behind to win; you'd better have friends with thick skin. --Mike L. mikelawson Fri, 16 May 2008 21:09:51 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3279 [i]It doesn't take an elitist to introduce a game to the masses. It takes a gamer, a passionate one, to do so and to get other non-gamers interested.[/i] One of the best comments ever made on F:AT. Michael Barnes Fri, 16 May 2008 21:06:09 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3275 A couple of thoughts on the issue: (a) if people really think that "playing game A" leads to "wanting to play game B" for specific situations, which is what a gateway game would have to be, then that is a bunch of shit; however, if (b) introducing a new-gamer to a game that easier to digest so that they can get a feel for the parameters that unfamiliar games might operate on, then I can buy that a game is a "gateway game" -- it is just that the terminology of "gateway" is a poor choice. Some games are easier to teach than others. I agree that it is highly condescending to teach someone to play a game that you are only half-heartedly interested in just to hopefully get them to play another game you are more interested in at a later time point. Just ask them if they want to play the game you want to play -- pretty fucking simple. Now, on the other hand, if you are generally trying to introduce people to different possibilities and different styles of games so they can find what they prefer, then all the better. I do some pretty diverse gaming, here are some of the breakdowns of games played on a regular basis: 1. grandmother, mother, aunts/uncles: --Apples to Apples, Wise and Otherwise, Ticket to Ride, Aggravation, Dark Shadows, Risk, Wizard's Quest, Times Up!, Rummy, Euchre, Touring All of these games are well-suited for a large group of people, that play quickly, and allow a fair degree of socialization -- perfect for a family gathering. 2. wife --Lost Cities, Mr. Jack, Ticket to Ride (Switzerland), Corsari, Blood Bowl, Pandemic, Lord of the Ring: Confrontation, Farming Game Nice to player games that are easy to fit into an evening. 3. husband/wife couples friends --Settlers, Ticket to Ride, Las Vegas, Wyatt Earp, Carcassonne, Scrabble, Blokus, Through the Desert 4. Best friend, Cousins (2x a week) -- Starcraft, Arkham Horror, Nexus Ops, Talisman, Prophecy, War of the Ring, Twilight Struggle, Hannibal, LotR, Fury of Dracula, Drakon, Star Wars: Risk, Epic Duels, Magic the Gathering, Bootleggers, Shadows over Camelot The key is not to pick games to force people to play, but to not be a dumbshit and pick games that are appropriate for the situation and the interests of the people playing the games. Often times, people in group 4 will play any of the games mentioned -- and most people will try any of the games. Choose the games such that everyone will have the most fun possible and realize it is not a static state. People who are so rigid that they have mapped out the progression of gameplaying will often be disappointed -- usually because they are an egotistical ass. Space Ghost Fri, 16 May 2008 20:42:25 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3274 The idea of "mainstream" gamers, as if they are a mirror-image of hobby-gamers, only they play dumb games instead of Agricola and Puerto Rico, is really a stupid one. Do you know anyone who absolutely lives for monopoly or risk and drives for 15-30 minutes to go play risk or monopoly with other fans of the games once a week? Anybody who primarily plays, what I prefer to call "Toys R Us" games (and I don't consider that derogatory), doesn't play them in as religious a manner as "Boardgamers" do. PseudoIntellectual Fri, 16 May 2008 20:37:46 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3272 [i]The rules to traditional and mainstream games are as complex, if not more complex, than the majority of hobby games. Anyone who can remember what beats what in Poker, or can calculate 10% of their net worth in Monopoly, or can remember bidding conventins in Bridge, or can score a Mah Jong hand can learn Railroad Tycoon, or Caylus, or Arkham Horror. [/i] THIS, THIS, SO MUCH THIS! That is what truly hacked me off about the article. The section where Ryan started blathering about, "Here are MY THOUGHTS on what MAINSTREAM GAMERS really want" I threw up in my mouth a little. Elitist? Nooooooooooooooooo, Heaven forbid! :P That's NOT what I want, but thanks for playing. TTR is RUMMY with a train theme. I've had friends whose only prior experience with boardgames was CCGs and WH40k absolutely FLIP their shit when I brought my Mah Johng set in I got in Hong Kong and taught them how to play. It was like throwing crack on the table and asking them to take a hit. Once they did, they were hooked and ended getting their own sets. It doesn't take an elitist to introduce a game to the masses. It takes a gamer, a passionate one, to do so and to get other non-gamers interested. The faux ivory tower attitude in that "discussion", along with the whiny users, makes me wonder why ANYONE goes to that site at all. I'd rather go through chemotherapy than visit that place again. Rliyen Fri, 16 May 2008 20:26:35 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3271 Notes in lieu of editing: When I put "FGG" I meant "FFG", and the six items I list(Civ, Dune, GMT, Starcraft, Arkham Horror, Dust) are examples of the kind of games that affected me, not the specific games that did. PseudoIntellectual Fri, 16 May 2008 20:14:01 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3270 "I disagree that "gateway" games convince people who are uninterested in boardgames to become interested. I also disagree that complex rules will drive people away." "Uninterested" was probably a poor choice of words. "People who are unintroduced to boardgames as one of us might view them" would have been a clearer way to put it. Someone who is blatantly uninterested, i.e. someone who has decided boardgames are not for them, is probably not going to be won over. Most people here probably have several friends or relations that fit into that category. But introducing someone into a game that is "Like Axis and Allies, only cooler" can set them on a road to more advanced boardgames later on. I started off buying boardgames in Toys R us because they looked cool, and then buying Eagle Games BGs because they looked cool, and then I wandered into Barnes' store and was introduced to FGG, GMT, the concept of Eurogames, and old-school games I'd never even heard of like Dune. Since I see a progression in my own tastes, it leads me to believe the same situation is possible in others. The Mario Golf vs Total War example is a good one, but even Mario Golf sets you apart from people who won't touch video games at all. To be absolutely fair, I cannot recall ever introducing people to boardgames through any sort of "gateway game", I don't know what I would even consider a "gateway game", I just know that if I were trying to introduce someone to "Hobby" boardgaming, I wouldn't pick anything I thought was too long or complicated, because if I was starting out I wouldn't want anything too long and complicated either. I wouldn't pick a toddler game either, which is what many people seem to equate with "Gateway" or "Introductory" games. What I would pick is something that looks cool, plays quickly (meaning fast-paced, even if it takes several hours), is fairly popular, that I and a majority of people i play it with have found fun. What is coming to mind as I list these articles are mostly FFG games, but I can think of a few others that might fit the bill. Once more, personally, when I became more used to the slick, high production value "Hobby" boardgames I describe(Starcraft, Arkham Horror, Dust etc), I was capable of moving on to less slick, lower production value boardgames with longer and more complicated rules (civilization, Dune any GMT game), and actually enjoy them which I don't think I would've if I hadn't slowly introduced myself to them in this way. So far the only person I have actually introduced to boardgames is a friend of my kid-brothers, and that wasn't even intentional. I convinced a few non-gamers to try out a boardgame prototype of my own design, and another one to play Settlers of Catan (her favourite part was when you say "I have wood!"), but I doubt I converted any of the three of them. PseudoIntellectual Fri, 16 May 2008 20:09:51 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3267 ANYTHING BUT MUSING!!! I'LL DRINK YOUR BLOOD!!! Michael Barnes Fri, 16 May 2008 20:02:01 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3266 [quote]Well, I thought that thread could be salvaged if Micheal ignored some of the ad hominem stuff, Why? And let comments that represent the kinds of attitudes and passive-aggressive self-righteousness that I despise go unchecked? And not stand up for myself? No way, if they want to bring it, I'll stand my ground. Some of those people just wanted to talk about Michael Barnes, so hell, why not engage them? It's apparently the only topic they gets them fired up and passionate about something... [/quote] Calm down. I wasn't actually telling you to do anything, just sort of musing. Steve Bernhardt Fri, 16 May 2008 19:50:00 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3256 I haven't really commented here on some of the statements you guys have made on the "Gateway Games" issue, but I've been reading them and I'm seeing a lot of good thought and interesting perspectives- and this is why I love F:AT and I'm really damn proud of what we're doing here. You guys have said a lot of the kinds of things that I wanted to see discussed at BGN, and I think it really says a lot that they're here and not there. Van- I know you're one of the good guys, buddy. You've been hanging out with us from the beginning. You know it's more about how you game than what you game. Michael Barnes Fri, 16 May 2008 18:32:08 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3253 Standing by your opinions doesn't mean you have to do it on the opposition's terms, Van. And there is a authorial concern here too- I'm neither paid there nor do I have an interest in promoting the viewpoint and agenda of BGN, which I feel is ultimately exclusionary and cliquish and non-representative of the AT style of gaming that I have advocated for quite a while now. I think your feelings came shining through Michael. Thas is what I reacted to - with your line on the the games the Eurogame crowd spit on. I am a card carrying "Eurogame crowd" member, but *I* don't do that shit. So I guess I see your point - it was a mistake in the first place. Point conceded. vandemonium Fri, 16 May 2008 18:26:03 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3252 You should just take a poll to see if people agree with your ideas, and if they don't, change 'em. That's hot. Ken B. Fri, 16 May 2008 18:23:55 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3251 It think gateway games are a total fraud. This because the games now classified as "gateway games" arent a gateway at all. Most gateway games are just family games, and usually they're the last stop for people playing family games. People who like to play family games like monopoly may get up to settlers and stop there. So I would call all family games "gateway" games. But apperently only the family games condoned by the eurocrowd are true gateway games. I know many people that like to play (board & card) games as long as it doesn't require an investment in learning rules and if it's a quick game. These games will not fascinate them or make them play deeper or more complex games. It's just a nice way of killing time while being social. That's why I think Ameritrash shines in gateway games. There are many awesome themes, and if you like a theme enough you WILL want to play it. So this will be different for everyone of course. And that's why no boardgame can be called a gateway game. For example my girlfriend won't play rather simple games with me like Condotierre. Nor will she want to play Doom: tbg. She does want to play games like Descent, Return of the Heroes and 7 Ages tho. Cos she likes fantasy settings and civ games. The eurogamer gateway games are usually classified by having easy rules as not to overwhelm people. I don't think there is such a thing as being overwhelmed by the complexity of game. I think that is total BS. I think that all boardgames can be learned by firsttimers. Just the people wanting to learn it must like the game enough to learn the rules. And this is why Eurogames need so called "low complexity" games. Cos most eurogames are blend and dry and not very appealing. So people that aren't into eurogames will actually play them. So my true definition of gateway games is this formula: fascination for the game / time needed to invest = I wanna play this as firsttimer! No games can be automaticly be put in this category but ofc if invesment in time gets lower while fascination remains the same this will mean this game will hit the gaming tables earlier than the other game. But this doesn't mean games need to be games 5 year olds can play, it just means that games need to be more awesome if you gonna ask a bigger investment. LilRed Fri, 16 May 2008 18:23:20 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3248 [i]So how is this any different than some of the people you chastise not standing by their opinions? [/i] Not participating _is_ standing by my opinion. Why would I do another "Board Room" only to wind up sparring with BGN folks about my supposedly bad behavior and feelings that were hurt years ago? Why would I provide content to a website that I don't feel represents the full gaming hobby but rather operates as an extension of the attitudes and mores of another, larger boardgaming site? My gut feeling, even though I was enthusiastic about it, was that this was a bad idea because I don't feel like I belong over there- it's not the appropriate forum for my writing style, opinions, or ideas. Ryan asked me, and I of course accepted and was very positive about it...but I knew it would go badly. When he told me that it was there had to be "conversations" and some kind of backroom-negotations to get the OK to invite me, I should have known that it wasn't a good thing to do. And really, agreeing to do it in the end made me feel like I had compromised my position more than walking away from it does. Standing by your opinions doesn't mean you have to do it on the opposition's terms, Van. And there is a authorial concern here too- I'm neither paid there nor do I have an interest in promoting the viewpoint and agenda of BGN, which I feel is ultimately exclusionary and cliquish and non-representative of the AT style of gaming that I have advocated for quite a while now. If the article had generated a lot of conversation about the subject and lead to a greater understanding of the hobby as a whole- beyond genre or "skill level" stratifications- then it would have been great. But it didn't, and it became about Michael Barnes. Michael Barnes Fri, 16 May 2008 18:18:28 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3246 written by Michael Barnes, May 16, 2008 Well hey, Ryan and Eric may very well do more...but I won't participate. Maybe they can get Mr. Skeletor instead. So how is this any different than some of the people you chastise not standing by their opinions? So people didn't react the way you wanted. So what? If they ask you to participate again you should do so. Not doing it puts you firmly in the same group of people you rag on. vandemonium Fri, 16 May 2008 17:47:09 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3244 [quote]I find there is a substantial difference between "driven away by" and "overwhelmed by" complex rules.[/quote] That's something I do agree with you 100%. The difference between your experience with Kay, and what I see going on in the interation between many gamers trying to introduce games to people, is that you respected Kat's intellegence. There are times when I'm overwelmed by the complex rules of a new game, and just say, no thanks, not today. I also want to add, that whether or not someone is overwelmed by complex rules is often a function of the learner's learning style and the teacher's teaching style. I think I've been successful teaching complex games to newbies because I don't hand over the rule book to them. I don't even teach them all the rules. I simply coach them through a "learning" game. I find it is far easier to coach a newbie through a complex game than it is teach a complex game to a gamer. Gamers want to know ALL the rules up front. I think that is the big dividing line between newbies and gamers. Someone has become a gamer when they want to know all the rules upfront so that they can deconstruct them to figure out their strategy, and play to win the first time they try a new game. Gamers also want to facilitate games, and make sure no one is "cheating" or making mistakes. Game newbies initially just want to participate without a lot of pressure. It takes me at least half an hour to teach the rules of Arkham Horror to gamers, and they always call me on something I missed. I can get a coached game of Arkham Horror started with total game newbies in about 5 minutes - "You move. You pick cards. Shit happens. Don't die. Ready, let's go." ubarose Fri, 16 May 2008 16:15:23 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3243 That would be awesome. WEM:"So, there's a place for boardgaming -and- a place for Philistines, never the twain shall meet. FLT: "WHY ARE YOU MADE OF SHIT?" WEM: "That is the sort of comment I would expect from a Phili--" FLT: "IT SMELLS IN HERE. YOU ARE SHITTY AND YOU SMELL. EL GRANDE SUCKS." God, I would pin that on my wall. jeb Fri, 16 May 2008 16:13:11 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3242 Well hey, Ryan and Eric may very well do more...but I won't participate. Maybe they can get Mr. Skeletor instead. Michael Barnes Fri, 16 May 2008 16:09:13 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3241 [i]Yes, after thinking it over some more I am officially declaring the BGN thing a debacle and there won't be another one.[/i] That's sad. I really enjoyed reading it. I'm sure it would be better if you were able to do a conference call or meet up at a convention somewhere and record it. 433 Fri, 16 May 2008 15:54:58 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3240 The term "gateway" makes sense in specific situations, like "X was my gateway to Y". A gateway game is a game that leads you from A to B, with the understanding that B is better than A. B can only be "better" in a specific context, involving specific individuals with particular preferences. To use "gateway" to denote a whole class of games, you have to believe that there's a class of B games "better" than A games in some objective sense, and that's just preposterous. When someone says "X is a good gateway game", devoid of context, ask yourself: Gateway from what? to what? The answer will always be some variation on going from vulgar games to Real Gaming, which is nothing less than intellectual tastemaking. vialiy Fri, 16 May 2008 15:52:50 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3239 I was tempted yesterday to post some juicy response to the giant basket of fail that was the BGN "conversation." Instead I'll respond to the actual topic. Like others, I find the term "gateway game" as used most frequently on other sites to be desultory and patronizing. Unpack some of the meaning and attendant notions that get stuffed into it. It's pretty self-serving when you think about it. [Discerning gamer mode: ON] Hey, here are some folks that aren't really gamers. I have all these complex, meaty games I want to play but can't get on the table. I'll try and hook them with some simple games that otherwise wouldn't be worth my time, but stand the chance of getting them interested. Clearly they aren't capable of grasping *my* preferred games right off the bat. If I string them along enough, they'll get the bug and start chomping at the bit to play games that my crowd approves of. [Discerning gamer mode: OFF] If somebody tried that with me, it would be obvious that they think I'm a simpleton and have to start me out on games with training wheels. Hence, I would that person is a dick. The whole concept ignores what was mentioned earlier--you're either predisposed to liking games, or you aren't. If someone is a gamer, don't try and impose your agenda on them, let them come at it at their own pace and on their own terms. Gary Sax said something to this effect much better than I can in some other thread around here that I can't be arsed to find at the moment. JoelCFC25 Fri, 16 May 2008 15:46:47 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3236 I guess I am in the minority in my experience on this one, but the "children's games" have served a valuable purpose for me if only because I find there is a substantial difference between "driven away by" and "overwhelmed by" complex rules. Dogmatix Fri, 16 May 2008 15:18:34 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3235 [i]I got bored after the first few paragraphs of that article so only skimmed most of it. Not exactly a new topic, or even close, and really it could have been ANY two eurogamers and an ameritrasher talking with the same results. [/i] Because there wasn't any actual dialog. It was literally two rounds of an email discussion edited together. Which seems OK if you're a participant, but if you're an outsider it's boring and dull. And you're right, it could have been anyone in that discussion. [i]What's the next topic, theme versus mechanics? [/i] Ryan proposed a really good topic, actually- can original games be designed by designers working strictly within the hobby? Does homogenity in design concepts limit creativity and innovation? I think that's a great topic that's not been really addressed elsewhere, and I would have loved to debate it because there's a lot of interesting viewpoints that could come out of it. But if it's talked about at BGN, it will invariably be about Michael Barnes. I just sent Ryan and Eric a nice letter excusing myself from any further involvement with BGN. Consider it a failed experiment. [i]Seriously without the perspective of a casual gamer and/or someone new to the hobby that was a fucking pointless discussion.[/i] I think the idea was that Ryan was the "casual gamer". But he's still too entrenched in the hobby to really meet the parameters for what that perspective really entails. [i]I hope you at least got paid for it Michael. Especially considering the whole thing is clearly based on you being a participant.[/i] I feel dirty and exploited. No, they didn't pay me. Michael Barnes Fri, 16 May 2008 15:15:18 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3234 Darn it, we need editing. That was supposed to be computer gaming world. --Mike L. mikelawson Fri, 16 May 2008 15:04:36 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3233 Bill-- To use a comparison with the boardgaming world, there's Mario Golf and there's Rome: Total War. Never the twain shall meet. --Mike L. mikelawson Fri, 16 May 2008 15:03:14 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3232 [i]The person who is driven away by complex rules from the get go, simply isn't interested and never will be.[/i] I have learned this to be undeniably true. Great, great point. I have went back and forth about the gateway game thing and I think some people are looking at it the wrong way as if Ticket to Ride was marijuana and Advanced Squad Leader was Meth. The TTR and RRT examples played out in my house, actually. I fell for the gateway trap and first showed my wife and our neighbors TTR, which went over...ok. (My 7 year old loves that game, though) but when we tried RRT the light came on. I don't think playing TTR first had anything at all to do with that. bill abner Fri, 16 May 2008 14:43:35 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3230 I got bored after the first few paragraphs of that article so only skimmed most of it. Not exactly a new topic, or even close, and really it could have been ANY two eurogamers and an ameritrasher talking with the same results. Because the subject has as much depth as a Faidutti game. What's the next topic, theme versus mechanics? I can predict the results of that one pretty easily too. Seriously without the perspective of a casual gamer and/or someone new to the hobby that was a fucking pointless discussion. I hope you at least got paid for it Michael. Especially considering the whole thing is clearly based on you being a participant. Mad Dog Fri, 16 May 2008 14:36:50 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3229 Uba: I disagree with "you screwed up by teaching them a children's game first." I despise the concept of "gateway game"-it's as empty a term as "metagaming" [which is just pseudointellectual handjob-speak for "socializing"]. There is, however, some merit in "gateway experience." I think that the children's games [and I would include Catan in that category] serve an incredibly valuable purpose in helping people develop a gaming "vocabulary" for lack of a better word. Regardless of whether the game is Carcassonne, Arkham Horror, or Dune, folks with the alleged "gamer's gene" can understand them at a basic level right out of the box. however, if you're hoping to turn someone on who has had no exposure to any of it, something like Arkham Horror can seem daunting simply because it's an awful lot of information to synthesize right away. In my own case, Kat [the next-wife] hadn't played a non-card game since playing Sorry against her younger brother in 1983. I hadn't played a non-wargame (and, even then, only solo) since the mid-1990s. A couple of years ago, though, I got the hankering to return to the hobby in some fashion other than hex-n-chits and perhaps try to introduce her to a game--so I picked up Arkham Horror [knew nothing about it other than a recommendation from a game shop clerk who had never led me astray previously]. She took 1 read through the rules and felt more than a bit overwhelmed by what she *perceived* as an overwhelming amount of shit to remember as well as having nothing in her experience to match this game against. I picked up a couple of Carc titles and she took to them immediately. Is it an analogous experience to Arkham Horror? Not at all, but they helped her feel comfortable with playing games that required a different play experience than your classic family games. After a year of dicking around with "children's games" she really wants to revisit Arkham Horror and even asked about playing Revolution: The Dutch Revolt, which is a classic 19-steps per turn Tresham game [man, I hope it plays remotely OK with 2 because I can't get anyone else to play the damn thing]. Yet, I don't think she actually *has* that full-fledged "gamer gene" but, now that she's at least learned a bit of the internal logic/vocabulary of these newer style of games and is willing to try other things. So, yea, the so-called "children's games" can serve a valuable purpose over just pushing someone new to the hobby into the deep end of the pool right off the bat. [As a bonus, I've also learned what I can and can't bring to the table. I have a very strong memory and basically count cards very quickly--any game that rewards that sort of skill [Battle Line being a good example] over a more process-oriented thinker will earn me a metaphorical night on the couch. That's a handy thing to know.] Dogmatix Fri, 16 May 2008 14:35:25 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3227 [quote]"The way people talk you would think they were describing people who live in a group home and work as baggers at the Goodwill, or illiterates who spend all day watching TV and scratching their asses, or drummers." Uba, that's just ridiculous. You could NEVER teach a drummer the rules to Settlers of Catan. [/quote] You got me there. However, you can teach a drummer to play [i]TransAmerica[/i]. If anyone needs it, we also have a special drummer variant for [i]Grass[/i]. ubarose Fri, 16 May 2008 14:03:12 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3226 [quote]Boy, that was a long article. I think we should all take a deep breath, and imagine we were people who had never played a boardgame beyond Risk or Monopoly, and then read that article. I kind of like the idea of a "gateway" game, because I like the idea of convincing people who are uninterested in boardgames to become interested in them, but to take the term or notion seriously is not a good idea. My definition of a "gateway" or Introductory game is just a game that is simple, but still fun. I know first-hand that complex rules will drive people away, but so will dumb themes (i.e. most eurogames). [/quote] I disagree that "gateway" games convince people who are uninterested in boardgames to become interested. I also disagree that complex rules will drive people away. The rules to traditional and mainstream games are as complex, if not more complex, than the majority of hobby games. Anyone who can remember what beats what in [i]Poker[/i], or can calculate 10% of their net worth in [i]Monopoly[/i], or can remember bidding conventins in [i]Bridge[/i], or can score a [i]Mah Jong[/i] hand can learn [i]Railroad Tycoon[/i], or [i]Caylus[/i], or [i]Arkham Horror[/i]. The person who is driven away by complex rules from the get go, simply isn't interested and never will be. These people are willing to learn a simple game and play it with you to pass the time, to socialize, or sometimes just to get you off their back. They are like the people who read the old magazines in Doctor's offices. They aren't particularly interested in reading magazines. They are just doing it to pass the time. It's not like after reading a magazine article on trains they are going to decide to run out and pick up [i]Atlas Shrugged[/i]. If you teach someone [i]Ticket to Ride[/i], and they think it is interesting, and want to see what else you have, so you pull out [i]Railroad Tycoon[/i] and teach them that and they enjoy it - well, you could have taught that person [i]Railroad Tycoon[/i] from the start. [i]Ticket to Ride[/i] wasn't some great gateway to more complex games. You just screwed up by teaching them a children's game first. In fact, you are fortunate that you didn't turn them off games all together by teaching them something that wasn't particularly interesting or challenging to begin with. ubarose Fri, 16 May 2008 13:58:15 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3224 Yes, after thinking it over some more I am officially declaring the BGN thing a debacle and there won't be another one. The article really didn't work, it was basically an edited-together email conversation. Ryan tried, but it just didn't work- for one thing, there really wasn't enough actual back and forth discussion, it was more "Here are my statements about this issue", and then somebody else's statements about the issue. But either way, I'm not doing another one under any circumstances. It's pointless, and if Larry Levy wants to politely argue about me, then he can come over here. [i]Well, I thought that thread could be salvaged if Micheal ignored some of the ad hominem stuff,[/i] Why? And let comments that represent the kinds of attitudes and passive-aggressive self-righteousness that I despise go unchecked? And not stand up for myself? No way, if they want to bring it, I'll stand my ground. Some of those people just wanted to talk about Michael Barnes, so hell, why not engage them? It's apparently the only topic they gets them fired up and passionate about something... But anyway guys- Dogmatix, Morpheous, Uba, PI- good comments, better than anything I read over there. And they weren't about Michael Barnes, which is come to find out a pretty boring topic. Michael Barnes Fri, 16 May 2008 13:49:34 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3223 [i]"The way people talk you would think they were describing people who live in a group home and work as baggers at the Goodwill, or illiterates who spend all day watching TV and scratching their asses, or drummers." [/i] Uba, that's just ridiculous. You could NEVER teach a drummer the rules to Settlers of Catan. Ken B. Fri, 16 May 2008 12:33:56 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3221 Boy, that was a long article. I think we should all take a deep breath, and imagine we were people who had never played a boardgame beyond Risk or Monopoly, and then read that article. I kind of like the [i]idea[/i] of a "gateway" game, because I like the idea of convincing people who are uninterested in boardgames to become interested in them, but to take the term or notion seriously is not a good idea. My definition of a "gateway" or Introductory game is just a game that is simple, but still fun. I know first-hand that complex rules will drive people away, but so will dumb themes (i.e. most eurogames). A friend of mine and I (and some girls... True story!) played this pirate card-game he had bought as a drinking game (needless to say, I was the only one aware of the rules at any time, and had to come up with how it was a drinking game), I walk into a bookstore a few weeks later and see it on a shelf, and notice that it was designed by Reiner Knizia! Somehow, I doubt it acted as a "gateway game"... PseudoIntellectual Fri, 16 May 2008 05:55:46 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3220 "as well as joining the Sci Fi Channel's production of DAY OF THE KILLER SS NANOTECH KOMODO DRAGON." That's just a poor man's DINO-CROC. PseudoIntellectual Fri, 16 May 2008 05:35:13 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3218 Well, I thought that thread could be salvaged if Micheal ignored some of the ad hominem stuff, but maybe I'm a dreamer. L. Levy's attacks are pretty lame and hard to ignore (ratings comments that "go too far"..WTF??) Too bad, until all that stuff, it was good reading. Ubarose is right on the money. We have new players show up at the gamestore all the time and we just throw them in with whatever we are playing. We have a good, friendly group that has fun and seem to integrate folks in with no problems. I've only had one incident with someone so stupid that they were utterly lost; a stoner chick who couldn't handle Pandemic. Other than that, we get newbies in on Arkham Horror or similar games without a hitch. No need to reset and get out a dumbed down game. Steve Bernhardt Fri, 16 May 2008 04:51:13 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3217 I had to stop reading the comments on BGN because they made me feel like I was going to vomit. I'm not talking about the attacks on Michael. That behavior takes twisted to a whole new level, and I don't even want to go there. I'm talking about the attitude towards people who haven't played "hobby" games: The rules have to be simple, and take no more than 3 minutes to explain, and the mechanics have to be familiar, and people don't want to use their minds, they just want to sit and watch TV, and you have to start people on the easy games so that they can slowly work their way up to more complex games, blah, blah, blah. The way people talk you would think they were describing people who live in a group home and work as baggers at the Goodwill, or illiterates who spend all day watching TV and scratching their asses, or drummers. For heaven's sake we are talking about adults who are your friends and relatives. Your grandma's not an idiot. If your wife is that stupid, why the hell did you marry her? How can you say these people are friends and then characterize them as intellectually lazy. If a friend who had never read a fantasy or Science Fiction book, asked you to recommend one, would you give them Harry Potter so they could work their way up to LotR, or whatever your favorite was. No, you would hand them an adult book that you liked and that you thought they would enjoy. If someone expresses an interest in learning a game, teach them something challenging, interesting and fun that you enjoy. Save the so called "gateway" games for what they were designed for - families with children. ubarose Fri, 16 May 2008 04:16:44 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3213 You know, this whole thing reminds me of how some divorced people act towards their ex-spouse. It's all under the veneer of "being polite", but you could see quite clearly that it's about as polite as branding someone with a poker. --Mike L. mikelawson Fri, 16 May 2008 02:28:17 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3212 This was only the second or third time I had visited BGN so I didn't know what to expect. When I started reading the comments yesterday I really didn't have much of a reaction other than to mull over the discussion a little in my mind. [i](Side thought: If gateway games exist with any reality, I believe the term applies to that game or games which spark that excitement in oneself for playing more games. And that could be any of a wide variety of games like what previous posters have noted, not just some small set of hobby games that some gamesnoots decree are gateway games.)[/i] Boy was I surprised when I went back today. Those people really have as much a stick up their ass as the BGG crowd. For all their talk about being partial to being polite, I can say that they were very much NOT polite but rather rude themselves. Being polite doesn't just mean refraining from using bad words or avoiding direct conflict but also involves being nice to the other person and making them feel welcome. At best I would say they tried to be restrained but the iciness and hard feelings were certainly on display. That's not being polite. Welcoming Barnes, listening to what he has to say, and thanking him for participating would be the polite thing to do. Shunning and avoiding discussion (actually loudly announcing ones intention to do so) is NOT polite. I thought the whole discussion about Michael and his "faults" to be very hypocritical. Like I said, sticks up their ass, but just too impolite and timid(?) to show it out front like many at BGG do. I'll take the Barnes pledge and never go back. BillN BigLizard Fri, 16 May 2008 02:07:50 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3209 I have been gaming since the late 70's.... I have thought about what is or is there such a thing as a "gateway game". My conclusion is both "yes" and "no". First "yes" thoughts; for me, a "gateway game" was a game that was going to suck people into playing (late 70's-early 80's thoughts) WARGAMES (muhaaahaa) I find a gateway game needs to tailored to the audience. A young 10-14 year old male, I would say back in the day, Risk was such a game. It was easy to find in stores and had multi-player ability, most importantly, you beat on your pals. Stratego, was a an important two player "gateway game", heck even Battleship to some degree. IF my audience liked these introductory games, I would try Wooden Ships Iron Men, or Kingmaker. I would say for the next generation of wargamers the "gateway game" to wargaming had to be Axis and Allies. A great game for non gamers or mixed company, was Cosmic Encounters... people just loved playing it. My reaction to all this was now we are going to breed new gamers, who will be excited about games! But alas, that seem not to be the case... yes there were successes, but I came to this conclusion over the years.... which leads me to the "no" portion, is there such a thing as "gateway games" I truly believe you got to have the GG (Game Gene) If you don't have a predominent GG then you will never be a hardcore gamer. I also beleive the GG can mean a MGG (minor game gene) which allows you to play various card, dice and basic mass market games. Usually someone with the MGG may "seem" like they have the GG, but time will tell, and that time is usually the fact that MG'ers don't have the attention span or the RE (Rump Endurance) to play more involved games. I believe most GG people can then be divided between those who like direct confrontation (ATer's, Wargamer's) and non direct, don't hurt too many feeling gamers (Euro gamers) Both camps agree on many aspects of what makes a good game, but sharply divide on mechanism. I chuckle reading many posts across the net, with the two camps throwing stones, because I really think that there is a difference in the GG in these two camps... More research into these two groups could possibly yield some startling results. Some areas to explore could be: Political party affiliations, gender, region of country raised in, hobby reading background, TV & Movies they like, music, the list could be endless... but what if there were correlation? In conclusion, your gaming proclivities, may be a product of forces working on your personality from the time you were born. This means we cannot "make gamers" we can only probe for the GG, and rejoice when we find it, and lead another soul towards the true light. ( I of course think the true light is AT and wargames, that eurogamers have the GG, but has been somehow twisted, perhaps by some malevolant force, yet unknown or unnamed!) Morpheous Thu, 15 May 2008 23:11:07 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3206 And, as i read back through some half-finished thoughts in that screed, I'd just like to say that I *really* despise the lack of an edit feature in the commentary sections. Argh. Dogmatix Thu, 15 May 2008 21:56:36 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3205 Barnes, I'm not so sure it's a matter of "our" hobby versus "their's" so much as "our" expectations versus their's. While there absolutely are some boisterous Euro players out there (such as a number who self-identified as such in the BGN cascade), it really does come down to what different folks come to expect. Leaving aside the Carcassonne couple for a moment, I think the M:TG, minis, and AT freaks--as well as the boisterous Euro players--actually expect *disappointment* in their gaming. Not disappointment in "inelegant" design or "suboptimal" play but the disappointment that comes from a bad card draw, outright hate from the Dice Gods, or, even in games that have *nothing random* about them other than the players themeselves--going for the all-or-nothing play and coming up short [and then being totally fucked from there on out]. From that *disappointment*, "we" expect a player can learn more about how to play [such as my latest Duel of Ages "well, that's the last time I'll move any unit across THAT mutherfucker's line of sight" experience], or simply have a great "fish story" to tell ["I'll tell ya, I had that Vindicator positioned *perfectly* to wipe out the 2 Defilers and sew up the game when I rolled 5 "1s" in a row, and the bastard assaulted me, ripped me up and overran right into my HQ unit, which broke--and that cost me the game man. I had it totally won before that though!" Yea...and those 67 Space Marines of yours who got chewed up in the first turn had nothing to do with your loss. ;) ] On the other side, I think other folks expect nothing more than the game itself to have *no impact whatsoever* on their experience. I know you harp on the difference between "socializing through" and "socializing around," but in a lot of ways, it strikes me as backwards. The folks who expect the game to be perfectly balanced and thus unobtrusive expect their discourse around the game to be the same. I, on the other hand socialize *through* the game in some way because the game itself becomes part of the larger social experience. Like a poker player grousing about that bad beat for the rest of his days, we remember that spectacular move that won or lost the game. Unlike poker players, though, we also remember other people's bad beats--and have no problem using it as a counter-example when we're eating shit about our play ;). Christ, I have friends I talk to about every 4 months [and haven't gamed with in nearly 15 years] who, after a few beers, will still mention now and again the absurd luck I rode as "the Bootleg Reverse King" in our highschool Car Wars tourneys. The game certainly isn't "who we are" but in that case, the in-game experience has become a bit of a metaphor for "charmed life" moments even though none of us have busted out those little plastic pocket-boxes for a decade and a half. On the issue of women and gaming--my experience is more sports related but analogous--I've dated (and married now twice) many women who were horrified to find out I was a hockey fan. All I ever heard was "How can you watch that violent sport! It's like football but more brutal!!"--right up until I took them to a game. At that point, they're screaming for the fights far more than I personally would ever dream of doing. Both my ex-wife and my soon to be next-wife absolutely marvelled at the fact that "blood bounces on ice." Yet, folks seem to think that all they want are games of Flowerpower because everything else is "much too violent." Give 'em the dice and let 'em fly, you'd be amazed at the bloodlust that rises to the surface. Dogmatix Thu, 15 May 2008 21:51:40 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3204 An actual discussion would have been nice because it is an interesting and valid topic. What is a "gateway" game? I agree with Barnes that the term is meaningless. Wouldn't Tick-Tac-Toe be the ultimate gatway game or War or Go Fish? I recall playing those before Monopoly, but if those aren't games then perhaps Monopoly was the game because it got me into the mainstream games which introduced me to Risk and Clue. But again I suppose Monopoly isn't a game so I'd have to credit Risk because that introduced me to Axis and Allies and through A&A I found Hero Quest, Fortress America, Shogun. That group lead me to Mightly Empires from GW. Which brought me to Space Marine/Titan Legions. After six or seven years of GW did I start to look at these "other" games like Zombies, Carc, TtR, Settlers. So I suppose after a decade or so of doing an activity that I thought was gaming was I shown the errors of my ways. So if I step through the gateway and decide that it sucks and not for me and go back am I no longer a gamer because I shunned the gateway and the treasures promised? That is what bugs me with "gateway", it implies that whatever was happening before hand wasn't gaming. What is being bridged...From gaming...to...gaming? Huh? LordVonTush Thu, 15 May 2008 21:32:26 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3200 The funniest thing is that in those Boulder Games reviews I was actually trying to be the good guy and write in their style- I hadn't really found my voice in terms of game reviews at that point, plus I was still into the Euro thing back then. I think I even called HANSA "breezy"! But what the hell, I was doing it all for Boulder credit...but yeah, all those "insulting reviews"? Where the hell are they Larry? "Well, I haven't read them". No more posts over there. It's a waste of time because it's always going to be about Michael Barnes and not about games or gaming. I won't even give that place the dignity of a "Screw you guys, I'm going home." I belong here, not there. Michael Barnes Thu, 15 May 2008 21:10:50 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3199 The fact that Larry Levy has to mention some old reviews on Boulder Games (WTF?) and [i]personal[/i] comments on BGG shows the length some will go to perpetuate the myth of the bombastic, insulting reviewer. Embarrassing? In the real world, yes. But in a place where he will be warmly hugged and his back patted for passive-aggressively "dismissing" Barnes he's the fucking Beowulf. Yeah, I think it's a lost cause now. For what it's worth, I'd like to see more talk about the "gamer gene" over here. There were some good ideas taking shape. Johnnyrobo Thu, 15 May 2008 21:07:39 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3195 I'm telling you, this all just puts into relief the fact that their hobby is not our hobby- that's becoming really clear to me. It's not the hobby of the kid who buys the WORLD OF WARCRAFT board game because he loves the video game, it's not the hobby of the couple who plays CARCASSONNE online and decides to try the board game, and it's not the hobby of RPG'ers getting into DESCENT, and it's not the hobby of somebody who owns and plays the entire FFG catalog with their friends every saturday (Will Kenyon, that's for you buddy). Their hobby is something else, with different expectations and attitudes than the larger hobby world. They wanted it to be this intimate, friendly thing sequestered from the main body of the hobby gaming world, what with its wicked CCGs and miniatures games, and that's exactly what they've got at this point. It's why I have no business writing over there, because that website is really for a different hobby than what F:AT and the AT style of gaming represents. And I say let 'em fucking have their protective bubble if that's what they want. I really did hope that there would be some real dialog there, that folks would want to seriously discuss the article and that we'd bring some real topics and ideas to bear over there but clearly it's not the right place to do that...it doesn't matter if 1 person or 100 bring up Greg Schloesser's hurt feelings- the fact that they can't get over it just shows how fragile and vulnerable that part of the hobby or whatever really is and how all it takes is one person to be honest, upfront, and opinionated to upset the whole balance of things, apparently irreversibly. Michael Barnes Thu, 15 May 2008 20:39:33 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3194 "I would just like to say that coming from 15 years in the videogame industry --boardgamers, as a general rule, have proven to have FAR thinner skins when it comes to game criticism." Nah. There are sites worse (just slightly so). Check out www.rpg.net for example. Guillermo Thu, 15 May 2008 20:38:12 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3193 [quote] It's like the fucking Stepford Wives or something over there. Let's be fair. Out of the hundreds of people that have read the article, only three have started lecturing you on your manners. Make it four if you want to count Octavian's comment on this site.[/quote] Yes, it may have been a small fraction of people--but their self-righteous attitude in responding to Barnes' comments is what's infuriating. I've never met Barnes-but Avery's depiction of his character and style is right on. He IS entertaining (and biting) but his criticism is also tinged with humor and a "trash-talking" tone. Many of the anti-Barnes' comments are even more problematic....it reminds me of much of academia where passive-aggressive comments are fine, but advocating (and engaging in) direct debate can turn you into a monster! There is a fine line between biting/trash-talking and truly rude. I've not seen Barnes go across that line. Maybe all the talk about the anti-Barnes' statements should be making them re-think THEIR comments. Merkles Thu, 15 May 2008 20:21:46 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3192 Matt/Oct.: I have no doubt that a whole lot people are hung-up on Barnes' tone. I think that actually highlights a serious problem that plagues the "boardgamers on the web" community writ large--a horribly conflict-averse approach to communication. Terry Sr.'s post sort of captures it in a nutshell. He was too scared to engage on the issues or the topic and instead responded in about the most passive-aggressive means possible. He wasn't even mad about what Barnes said in the article--he was mad that someone who didn't say nice things about 2 of his friends was given a venue to express an opinion about...well...anything at all other than apologizing to his 2 friends. He then looked directly past Barnes to "the powers that be" at BGN to say he was taking his bat and his ball and going home because BGN affronted his sensibilities. Folks like that should be even more easily ignored than Barnes' bluster since they contribute absolutely nothing at all and, in fact, are trying to shut down a discussion that they opted to not even involve themselves in in any meaningful fashion, yet somehow that's seen as the better approach. Now, my whole response is very much a product of the fact that I firmly believe that real change comes through *rupture* not a glad-handing *consensus.* I also don't have much of a problem with Barnes' tone, but then I'm also the guy who, as a freelance concert critic, wrote in print in Milwaukee's AM newspaper in Milwaukee (then, the Milwaukee Sentinel) that "[after noting Nancy Wilson being horribly off on a couple of their greatest hits and Ann Wilson's voice being totally shot]...is that the only thing notable about Heart anymore is that Ann Wilson bears a striking resemblance to Meat Loaf in drag." While over the last 15 years I've come to regret a bit the rude tone, that single line generated more reader response [not to mention a full two days' worth of play on the local rock radio]--both enraged and amused--than any other review during the 6 years I wrote for the paper. Poking someone with a stick will often get a more honest approach than trying not to hurt anyone's feelings. Dogmatix Thu, 15 May 2008 20:20:03 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3191 Well, that's true...but I feel pretty confident in saying that those comments are likely symptomatic. If anyone feels differently, they need to speak up. The whole attitude of the discourse over there is just like the end of STEPFORD WIVES...people politely "How do you do"-ing each other ad infinitum with a smile and a gentle nod. Don't want to upset the bubble that protects us from the real world where our feelings are vulnerable. Of course, getting anyone to post anything there other than something about the GoF, a correction, or "Nice review!" is a feat in itself. [i]this hobby is king of Broken Heart Hill.[/i] My god, that's brilliant. Michael Barnes Thu, 15 May 2008 20:09:47 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3190 [quote]It's like the fucking Stepford Wives or something over there.[/quote] Let's be fair. Out of the hundreds of people that have read the article, only three have started lecturing you on your manners. Make it four if you want to count Octavian's comment on this site. Juniper Thu, 15 May 2008 20:02:46 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3189 I ranted to Mike about this today and I have since regained my composure. I would just like to say that coming from 15 years in the videogame industry --boardgamers, as a general rule, have proven to have FAR thinner skins when it comes to game criticism. I have really found that fascinating. I don't mean just Euro fans or AT fans or anywhere in between or even just being limited ti faceless Internet boards but pretty much across the board, it's really a helluva culture. I used to think that videogamers reacted poorly when "their" game or genre was ‘attacked’ but man oh man...this hobby is king of Broken Heart Hill. And I can't say enough how shocked I am by that. That little chat session and the posts that follow is a frustrating and I think very revealing little ditty about various game cultures and staggeringly shallow stereotypes of the people that make up this hobby. bill abner Thu, 15 May 2008 19:57:00 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3188 The whole thing over at BGN is bordering dangerously close to being declared a fiasco as far as I'm concerned and it's just adding more and more material to my argument that the hobby that those people are involved in is not the same thing that many of us over here are involved in. I know that I'm not writing for them and I'm not tailoring my style, approach, or opinions to suit their "let's be friends" mentalitiy. I'm not writing or commenting to appease their sensibilities because that wouldn't be honest to who I am as a writer or as a person- I'm writing and commenting to _challenge_ them. When they come back with "oh, we can't understand your message because you hurt Greg's feelings or you say bad words" or whatever then they're taking the coward's way out as far as I'm concerned and not confronting either the challenge or the issue being discussed. It is possible to debate, exchange strong words, and have bold opinions _and_ be friends, you know. It's like the fucking Stepford Wives or something over there. Michael Barnes Thu, 15 May 2008 19:41:19 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3186 [quote]... it suggests that people can't get to the message due to the way you tend to present it. I suppose you can blame the readers, but traditionally the success or failure of being able to get through to an audience is shouldered by the author. [/quote] What tradition is that? Let me know when your local university stops teaching James Joyce's ULYSSES because it's so widely misunderstood. I guess Joyce wasn't as good a writer as Dan Brown. THE DA VINCI CODE is thought to be the 19th best-selling book of all time; talk about reaching an audience! [quote] You might say you don't care, but then the whole exercise of participating in the first place would seem rather masturbatory. [/quote] When did you start moderating over here at F:AT? Juniper Thu, 15 May 2008 19:06:23 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3185 [quote]I doubt I'll do another one, I don't want them to lose the contributions of Terry Bailey, Sr. Besides, it really turned out to be a waste of time. Another one, no matter what the topic, would likely devolve along the same lines and probably wouldn't result in enough actual discussion to warrant taking the time to do it. I'd rather spend the time writing for somewhere like F:AT where we actually talk about games and have a good time rather than pat each other on the back and scorn those who don't engage in such glad-handing.[/quote] Once Terry Baily Sr chimed in and said he wasn't going to subscribe anymore I knew the party was over. Too bad, for some reason I thought you guys had a few more of these in the can. Steve Bernhardt Thu, 15 May 2008 19:00:42 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3183 Nah, give it at least one more shot, Michael: it was the first entertaining article in the history of the site. I gave up quite a while ago on every one of their columnists, who somehow think the gaming world is fascinated by their personal lives and their secret handshakes at the Gathering of Snobs. BGN does the [i]news[/i] part of its name very well, and Gone Cardboard is pretty neat (other than having a completely stupid name), but anything there that's not straight news is pretty much a waste of time. I think you were also hindered by a questionable topic. C'mon, "gateway games"? A term invented at BGG to help the colon-clenchers over there in their quest to label every single facet of a hobby they claim to actually enjoy. Gateway to [i]what[/i], exactly? (And, sadly, the answer for many of the BGG elitists would be "gateway to BGG"). You guys -- all three of you -- can put your heads together and come up with better topics than that. I can't blame you for being a bit frustrated; it does seem like just typing in the name "Barnes" at any of the self-proclaimed Leading Boardgame Sites just results in the same old haters doing the same old bashing without even bothering to read the text. I'm sure that gets pretty old pretty quickly. But, for the sake of those of us who enjoy entertaining writing and honest, uncensored commentary, please give it at least one more shot. TheDukester Thu, 15 May 2008 18:00:21 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3179 Why should I play by their rules? They wanted Michael Barnes and they got Michael Barnes. I'm not going to be anything I'm not for them, and I'm going to continue to defend myself and my viewpoints and take a stand. I doubt I'll do another one, I don't want them to lose the contributions of Terry Bailey, Sr. Besides, it really turned out to be a waste of time. Another one, no matter what the topic, would likely devolve along the same lines and probably wouldn't result in enough actual discussion to warrant taking the time to do it. I'd rather spend the time writing for somewhere like F:AT where we actually talk about games and have a good time rather than pat each other on the back and scorn those who don't engage in such glad-handing. Michael Barnes Thu, 15 May 2008 16:42:40 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3178 I was a paid member of BGN back when you had to pay to post, but I got alienated real fast and pretty much didn't return. The place has the feel of a big group of people who know each other personally and swap GOF stories. Gone Cardboard is cool though. Because I want to see the other installments, offering to be their satan and doing 2 page replies in the following thread doesn't bode well for the future. Lay off the defensiveness and let some of their dumb comments slide please :) Steve Bernhardt Thu, 15 May 2008 16:35:44 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3177 I found the whole thing rather troubling. bill abner Thu, 15 May 2008 16:34:10 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3176 I hereby elect Johnny Robo President of Boardgaming. Well done, sir. Michael Barnes Thu, 15 May 2008 16:19:48 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3175 It was a great topic for an article and the discussion that followed was starting to take off until all the "hurt feelings" comments started to show. But that was predictable. Although you never attacked Greg or Rick personally, the tea-party sensibilities over there can't handle [i]any[/i] sort direct criticism. For them "the hobby" is little more than TGOF attendees. Criticize one and you've attacked all of gaming. Honestly, I think this is less about "Euros" versus "Ameritrash" games, but more about [u]attitude[/u]. The is an uptight, snobbish sensibility that some gamers cotton too. These are the same ones who want game stores to be church-like, devoid of "comic-book" imagery, with little table-talk and elected officers. And only "these games of ours" on the shelves of course. No wonder they bristle and tighten their ascots at the thought of [i]Caylus[/i] being seen as [i]Candyland[/i] by the general public. They are trying to make this hobby the equivalent of a wine club. Without the alcohol. I play every kind of game, and the group I play with is fun, laid back and there for a good time. The heaviest Euro will get the same level of trash-talk as the most conflict-intensive Ameritrash title. But every once in a while we'll get some uptight gamer stop by to play and you can feel the life drain out of the room. As for the article, I hope that this series will continue. Because what that insular little group over there needs is honest, direct discourse and less circle-jerk commentary. Johnnyrobo Thu, 15 May 2008 16:17:43 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3174 Reguarding the tone of the discussion... Just for the record MB writes just like he talks: equal parts snake oil salesman, bullshit, scholar, and rebellious punk. His off the cuff, opinionated dialogue most is one of his most entertaining traits and you're never quite certain if he is brilliant or completely full of crap. The only way he'd be able to change the tone of his discussion is to not be himself which I'm quite certain he wouldn't be capable of even if he tried. Even if he did he's only end up being Rob Martin, which though more palatable is even more acrid with sarcasm. Poor Ol' Steve Avery Stephen Avery Thu, 15 May 2008 15:56:58 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3172 The ultimate gateway game? Axis & Allies dan daly Thu, 15 May 2008 15:00:10 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3170 [i]So Barnes...the discussion on the actual article has been...restrained, which I'd expected. However privately most of the discussion from people I've talked to that read it had more to say about your tone rather than your message. Any concerns about that?[/i] Yes. I just posted something to that effect, actually. The people there don't want to talk about the article, they want to get in a tizzy over Michael Barnes. And that does bug me a lot. I want to talk about games, not Michael Barnes. I want to share opinions, butt heads over perspective, and engage in actual discussion. They want to get in a huff and threaten to cancel their BGN subscriptions. If you look at most of the posts at BGN, there's almost never any discussion or actually commentary on the items. On this one, there's 40 posts, probably half of which are mine responding to other respondents. Those people need a fire lit under their asses. If they want to babble about me, that's fine, and I won't pass up a chance to fight with them but it is disappointing that they're still worried about Greg and Rick's hurt feelings from 2 years ago and not the article at hand. [i]I'm no Barnes-ite, but congrats man. For a guy who loves games, you gotta be happy with all you're doing.[/i] Well, thanks. And yes, I am happy with what I'm doing. I love this hobby, for better or worse. I love to talk about it, argue about it, and advocate it. I want it to be the best it can possibly be and I think that there are things that keep its potential and appeal limited and those are the things I choose to speak out against. I've never posted or written anything that was intended to harm the hobby or even persons in the hobby- it's always about taking a stand on my opinions and ideas and trying to figure out things that could make this hobby better than it is. I'm not satisfied with where it is today, but I do think it's better than it was two years ago when the only discussions going on were over trainspotter shit like the tightness of box lids. Michael Barnes Thu, 15 May 2008 14:19:43 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3169 Just throwin my opinion in with the mix: I've not really commented much on the whole AT v. Euro stuff from way back, but really I find it *amazing* that one guy gets banned from THE LEADING BOARD GAME SITE and then goes on to land a paid gig spreading boardgaming info to the masses, becomes a regular contributer to FAT, and is *sought after* to be featured in the most (only?) interesting thing on BGN. I'm no Barnes-ite, but congrats man. For a guy who loves games, you gotta be happy with all you're doing. Ska_baron Thu, 15 May 2008 13:29:35 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3168 Matt-- Not everybody likes The McLaughlin Group or Hardball, either. If it had been Ryan or Chapel instead of Eric Martin, would people be griping about them too? --Mike L. mikelawson Thu, 15 May 2008 12:07:19 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3167 Steve-- Just because you run a site called Boardgame News doesn't mean that you should play every single game in existence. If the guy doesn't want to play Heroscape, that's fine. I don't expect to see people lining up to play Ambush! or Squad Leader. --Mike L. mikelawson Thu, 15 May 2008 12:04:04 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3166 So Barnes...the discussion on the actual article has been...restrained, which I'd expected. However privately most of the discussion from people I've talked to that read it had more to say about your tone rather than your message. Any concerns about that? If that sentiment is larger than just the circles in which I correspond it suggests that people can't get to the message due to the way you tend to present it. I suppose you can blame the readers, but traditionally the success or failure of being able to get through to an audience is shouldered by the author. You might say you don't care, but then the whole exercise of participating in the first place would seem rather masturbatory. Just sayin'. -MMM Octavian Thu, 15 May 2008 08:17:26 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3164 In my opinion, Bridge is fucking superb. That game takes a lifetime to master and it is highly interactive and quite tense. In general, I will play an AT or wargame over about anything else. However, one can be critical of [i]Ticket to Ride[/i] while still giving it its due. TtR is a good game for people who don't play games frequently or maybe are not too fond of games. Some anecdotal evidence-- 1. My Grandma (85) likes to play these games: Ticket to Ride, Apples to Apples, Times Up!, Wise and Otherwise, Aggravation*, Euchre, Dominoes, Touring, Scrabble, and Dark Shadows. *As an aside, as I typed this, I realized that Aggravation the way my Grandma plays it may be the rawest AT game on the market. She will destroy every fucking marble she sees on the board. She could give two shits about a bad die roll...she'll just come after you with the next marble. I have been playing this since I was 7 and I think it made me the lover of AT that I am today. 2. We have successfully gotten about 8 people who claim "We hate boardgames" to begin to request Ticket to Ride. 4 of these people have purchased the game for themselves. 2 of the 4 have gone down the more AT path, while the other 2 have moved-on to Thurn and Taxis --- which made me want to shoot myself in the face when I played it, what a god awful game (a negative review on BGG is coming soon from me). The reason it is successful, in my opinion, is because it allows high degrees of social interaction while keeping the cognitive lode of the rules to a minimum. There is a degree of screwage that can take place, the board looks nice, and the components are good (especially with the 1910 expansion). To say that it is not more accessible than many of the other games we promote is somewhat dishonest. Space Ghost Thu, 15 May 2008 07:27:40 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3163 Sorry to chime in so late, but that was the best thing on BGN since...ever. benny lava Thu, 15 May 2008 01:52:20 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3161 They don't call it Bored Lame Snooze for nothing! moss_icon Wed, 14 May 2008 23:29:12 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3160 At lunchtime I play Magic (mostly), Hecatomb, Last Night on Earth, Bang, Kutschfahrt (The Adlung Devil Carriage game), Masquerade, Fairy Tale, Fluxx (in Soviet Russia, Fluxx plays you!), Munchkin, others. But then I work with geeks, so hey. The other end of the table is obsessed with Bridge. If I had to play Phase 10 or nothing I'd play nothing. I've heard of a group that plays nothing but Fluxx, over and over. The mind boggles. iguanaDitty Wed, 14 May 2008 22:48:11 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3159 I don't get the lunchtime gaming thing. For one thing, I work from home so lunchtime gaming for me is going out in the yard and throwing pine cones for my dogs to chase. For another, there's a billion other things I'd rather do than try to squeeze in a lame 30 minute game just to be gaming during lunch anyway. Including sit quietly with my head down. [i]That said, W. Eric martin's comment that Bohnanza and TTR are better than Monopoly and Risk because they don't have player elimination is INSANE.[/i] It is insane. Worse, it's just a dumb statement that presumes that all players don't want player elimination because those oh-so-superior Eurogames have shown us that we don't have to be openly and directly competitive. But like you say, gambling games are the most popular games in the world because they have such high stakes. Michael Barnes Wed, 14 May 2008 22:05:17 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3158 Continued from above post... That said, W. Eric martin's comment that Bohnanza and TTR are better than Monopoly and Risk because they don't have player elimination is INSANE. We talk about games a lot--this article is meta-metagaming for crying out loud--by why didn't anyone mention the most popular gaming on the planet: GAMBLING. This is the ultimate in player elimination--the [i]stakes[/i] are precisely what makes gambling interesting to people. If nothing is on the line, then gaming could be replaced by any other passive entertainment--reading is nice. I hear some folks watch TV. Even then--what's the most popular game show? American Idol--fucking player elimination is the whole fucking point! Anyone that ever got burned out by MtG should come to my house and play for ante. It changes everything. jeb Wed, 14 May 2008 21:41:07 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3157 I, like Ken B., have confronted the gaming at lunch hour problems of finding games for six people that can be played in an hour--its totally sucks. We've played Win, Place & Show (1 race), Ticket to Ride, BOGGLE (the worst--Jesus, everyone was quiet for three minutes followed by ten minutes of trying to determine if DURG is a word), Settlers of Catan, and perhaps the best one yet, Pandemic. Players 5 and 6--they have to go play something else--I bring a bunch of two-player games for them. I'm also having to fend off the people that just want to play Boggle, Uno or something CRAZY like Phase10. I've decided to just let this go where it will and spin-off the folks that actually like games into a monthly AT game night at my place. It's nice to play at work and all, but I can't play Phase fucking 10. jeb Wed, 14 May 2008 21:24:01 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3154 Hey now, I'm a gamer and I've never played Heroscape. I'm just not that much interested in it; if someone brought it over to play, that's one thing. But me shelling out the bucks to buy it? Nah. --Mike L. mikelawson Wed, 14 May 2008 20:50:40 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3153 Wait wait wait... did that dude say that grooming dogs is a nerdy theme? Refer to Drake's review of Darjeeling for what type of theme grooming dogs is TheYeti Wed, 14 May 2008 20:39:29 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3152 Fine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yf4A0dGyAE This one is actually better, as it features Risk, Sessions reports, and the line "shut the smeg up!" moofrank Wed, 14 May 2008 19:44:10 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3151 Part of the problem in all of hobby gaming is that too many people don't understand that gaming is a thing you do, but it should never be who you are. Michael Barnes Wed, 14 May 2008 18:38:09 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3149 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521044027821122670 Society has always scorned the truly unique... Steve"TrulyUnique"Avery Stephen Avery Wed, 14 May 2008 18:10:40 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3146 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1wGlOwn1pM moofrank Wed, 14 May 2008 17:32:20 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3144 Reading that I imagined three mustachioed anthropologists in pith helmets at the Oxford Club wondering how the uneducated entertain themselves. vialiy Wed, 14 May 2008 17:06:27 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3143 As an aside: Eric Martin posted an AMAZING BGN post here: [url=http://www.boardgamenews.com/index.php/boardgamenews/comments/w_eric_martin_forty_thoughts_on_gamers_and_gaming/] BGN POST[/url] And while Eric's taste is...fluffy, he really has no problem in savaging things he doesn't like. He does make it a point of reviewing submitted games, but his stlye is vastly different from Vasel's, as depicted below from the 4th Corner review: “Leaves room for improvement” – that was the diplomatic response of my playing partner, quoting a teaching colleague of his that knows how to deliver bad news to inept students. My more unvarnished response? “Hell to the no.” moofrank Wed, 14 May 2008 17:00:45 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3142 I think what's really funny is that there's already a couple of respondents over there who want to go back into the Euro vs. AT argument that most folks gave up 2 years ago rather than really talk about the "Gateway Games" issue. I'll still do it if that's what they want...I mean hell, anything's better than another "Board 2 Pieces"... Michael Barnes Wed, 14 May 2008 16:57:07 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3141 It is two completely different hobbies at this point. I'm coalescing an article about that very topic. Watch this space. Michael Barnes Wed, 14 May 2008 16:55:17 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3140 So Mike gets in both the first and last word? Why am I not surprised :P:P:P Good read though. It amazes me how different perspectives are. Its like two completely different hobbies. Steve"tanktop"Avery Stephen Avery Wed, 14 May 2008 16:32:51 +0100 http://fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=291#josc3139 "I'll also be going into the studio next week to record a solo Black Metal album called "Denizen" that will contain coded messages that will subliminally teach the listener to play MAGIC REALM." I'm not really into black metal, but I'll seriously be all over that. Without someone around to show me how to play, sounds like that'll be the next best thing. Aarontu Wed, 14 May 2008 15:54:40 +0100