Life, Death, and MICRO GAMES

black inferno wrote: A recent "game night" (we didn't call it that) with myself, my girlfriend and some of her friends: For Sale (x2), Dragon's Gold, Bohnanza, Love Letter, Liar's Dice, Can't Stop. It was straight up fun as hell. We had a fucking blast. Wish y'all could've been there. And let me tell you: it didn't feel any less substantial than if we'd dragged out a "legitimate" board game.

Despite all the trolling that preceded and followed it in this post, this is interesting to me. You're right, this isn't the way I game at all which is maybe why I'm not excited about a purported microgame wave. I've never had that kind of a game night. We'd just drink and bullshit or go out to a bar. Nor do I go to public game nights, so filler isn't an issue. Attitudes may just be reflecting gaming types/habits.

iguanaDitty wrote:

black inferno wrote: That's totally rational behavior.

So suddenly I think the real difference between Ameritrash gamers and Euro gamers is that Ameritrash gamers like to inject emotions into their games. At the extreme they live and die with every die roll. Even in discussions of the ERP and these micro games, the positives people are extolling is how the games enable connection with their fellow players despite (or maybe because of) such minimalistic rulesets.

Fair enough.

If we're going to operate in a dichotomy, then let me describe another real difference between Ameritrash gamers and Euro gamers that I've noticed since signing up here: Ameritrash gamers get absolutely, incredibly bent out of shape when they encounter viewpoints different than their own.

It's absolutely ridiculous that Barnes' ERP thing - which solely began as just one guy's personal decision to revisit older Euros/German games, for his own interest - became some kind of threatening clarion call to a large swath of the people here. They politicized it, raged about it, made multiple threads mocking it - all because one guy decided that, hey, maybe some of those older pre-PoF Euros are worth another look, I had fun playing those the first time around. I mean, some of you probably didn't take it too seriously (I didn't - hence the entirely lighthearted motto under my userpic) - but a lot of y'all got super butthurt.

And, hey, here you are, confronted again with another viewpoint - that short games don't have to be "fillers" - that they have value on their own merit outside how they do or don't relate to "meatier" games - and it's quickly becoming A Thing.

Let me flip this around. I've pretty clearly demonstrated that I'm not a fan of FFG's mainline releases (I still love a lot of their reprints, and much of their early output). I articulated my reasons.

But let's say I started doing the concern trolly thing: "b-but...I just can't conceive of a situation in which someone would want to play an FFG game...help me understand this", or did the scissors thing of making multiple joke threads mocking people who played FFG games, or made statements like "you're just embarrassing yourself" a la what was said to Barnes after he literally did nothing more than politely talk about an Euro, or, hell, let's say I tried to Balkanize - even in jest - the boards into some kind of anti-FFG faction vs. everyone else.

Doing any of that would rightly be viewed as, y'know, sociopathic. And I don't see any of the Euro fans on here doing that kind of thing. It's always the Ameritrash folks.

Bull Nakano wrote:

ldsdbomber wrote:

Bull Nakano wrote:

ldsdbomber wrote: It becomes a "game" when it's worth playing on its own merit and not to "pass the time" while Pete turns up late because he's been beating off sniffing his dice cup collection kitted out in his Stone Age furry underpant range

Love Letter, One Night Ultimate Werewolf, and Lost Legacy are totally worth playing on their own merits, but we still mostly play Love Letter and Lost Legacy when waiting for someone to show up/waiting for a game to end.

If we were playing a game no one enjoyed/wanted to play, your argument would be valid, but really if you're playing a game that's enjoyed by the group, who cares what the reason they're playing it is?

exactly, it's cool if you like Love Letter. I don't, so am not sure how my argument isnt valid, it was more an opinion, man

But how many other people organize a game night specifically to play Love Letter? I'd struggle to believe it was many.

What I was picking up from your posts was that 'gamers play short games just for the sake of playing a game', and I just don't think that's common. I didn't think it had anything to do with your opinion of Love Letter.

Ah OK, no that was more a general point of the term "filler", I mean, that term is pretty ubiquitous and it's hard to see any other way that term came about than it being about filling up a bit of space*, and I've mainly seen them discussed as stuff to do while everyone turns up, which to me always sounds a bit sad. I'm not sure that anyone is really decrying shorter or simpler games, I've got some, but the concept of "filler", I mean the very fucking word implies it, is what I've always found a bit naff. It's not anything I lose sleep over and I don't worry any more or less what other people like or don't like, regardless of game length. I would never set up a session to play Love Letter though, whereas I would (and do) specifically invite people over to play Brass or El Grande. That's fuck all to do with a judgement on what anyone else does, that's just me. Gaming time is a bit of a luxury for me anyway, so I try to make the most of a reasonable length of time with the missus, so I'm sorry, 9 games of Love Letter is not going to replace 1 game of Agricola or something. I'm trying to think of a literally 5 or 10 minute game I can think of worth playing but I can't right now. But plenty of half hour ones for example.

Still, I just really do not like the term "filler" and what it implies. It's irrational, but fuck it, we all have our shit don't we.

I'd be all ears for lists of games of 10 minutes or less you could convince me is worth playing in isolation (like, I wouldn't count something like Werewolf because as I understand it, you'd play that for much longer than the length of just one time, right). Not to convince me, more just cos I'd be interested to hear what other people think, cuz, you know, different strokes and all that - BUT, the difference in what a 10 minute game can provide to what a 30 minute game can provide, even if both are great designed fun games, is (IMO) so immense I can't think why I'd ever pull one out. I think Love Letter is rubbish and am 50/50 on whether everyone saying they like it is just winding me up


*they're not called quick games, or short games for example and microgames (at least originally) were nothing to do with a quick 5-10 minute playing time. And I've only ever seen discussions of fillers in context of filling in between games, or waiting for someone to arrive etc.

I'm definitely in agreement; the term "Filler" absolutely carries a whole abundance of bullshit implications and built-in value judgments.

Solid point. I can often tell the difference between an Ameritrash game and a Eurogame from a distance, based on the behavior of the players. If people are laughing out loud (or bitching) and looking at each other, it's more likely to be an Ameritrash game. If everybody at the table is quiet and concentrating, it's more likely to be a Eurogame. And that emotional difference definitely matters to me. I want to feel like I am doing something fun with my friends and not just silently competing on an efficiency exercise.

All of the above has more to do with the people than it does with any kind of game design. That said, it really shows who is more worried about what game is on the table over who it's being played with. And what some people expect a design to provide versus what players bring to it.

I could not possibly care less what the game on the table is. I like some better than others. But if everyone is having a good time I don't care if we're playing Candyland. I couldn't give less of a shit about immersion, emotion, storytelling etc. if nobody is enjoying themselves. Or if I'm not enjoying myself.

So much of what people think they see in games is an illusion. They get tricked into thinking a game has a theme because there are pictures and word that tell them there is. They may even cool themselves into thinking that there's a story created by the game. The truth is, all of that comes from the players or the shared experience. Doesn't matter if it's Here I Stand or Love Letter. You create the story, atmosphere, narrative and so forth, not the rules or pictures. It doesn't matter if the game is 15 minutes or 15 hours. It is what you make of it.

Since we're WAY down that path, my way of playing games > your way of playing games.

maybe, but you're lucky enough to have an abundance of it (gaming time - historically speaking). For me, gaming is a luxury, even in house with the wife these days. And multiplayer gaming is like a once in a blue moon occasion requiring 93 weeks pre planning. So the truth is, the times I do get a few people over, I want to play the games I never get to play with the wife (non 2P), and the great games that you got the chance to play hundredsof times already but I fucking didnt yet, so excuse me if I WONT be enjoying the company of the nerds I finally dragged round to play El Grande JUST ONE FUCKING TIME FOR REAL ON A TABLE by plopping out Candy fucking land on the table, finishing with a Love Letter filler. Thats just fucking nonsense. Not all of us have been aware of the explosion of games in the last 20 years, and sadly only got in on it when the time bank well and truly dried up. If that makes me some kind of doofus living some kind of illusion then so be it, but fucking god damn it I WILL PLAY FUCKING EL GRANDE if it fucking kills me and no I do not want to hang out with those fuckers playing Love Letter. I don't know how anyone can objectively argue that Love Letter is better than El Grande, I don't see where theme, narrative or illusions comes into it. So either you pick the thing thats better, that you enjoy most, or if its irrelevant than just play Candyland every time. But I'd rather just drink beer and have a laugh than do that, oh wait, I already do that with all my other friends who hate boardgames! I'm staggered that you might be implying the choice of game is largely irrelevant in a games session, but I can tell you I am nowhere near "satiated" enough with real live F2F gaming with good games to be taking that kind of attitude!

Is it friday yet

I can't even bring myself to read this thread. They're all just fucking board games.

I think I'm done with this hobby. Goodbye.

strictly speaking Love Letter is a card game

Mad Dog wrote: I can't even bring myself to read this thread. They're all just fucking board games.

I think I'm done with this hobby. Goodbye.

Send me your copy of Thunder Road before you leave. Please?

But are card games actually "games"? Why would anyone play a card game when you can play a game with a board? WHAT IF MY GAMING BUDDIES SEE ME PLAYING LOVE LETTER?!?!?!

Lee, I don't think anyone is arguing that Love Letter is "better" than El Grande...arguments like that go nowhere. That's like arguing that a Warhol piece is "better" than a Rockwell. Entirely different agendas, goals, techniques. Both can be great.

Mad Dog- if you're still here, this is an example of what Obamacare has done to this nation.

I just don't get all the WORRY over what games other folks are playing...I mean come the fuck on, this much "concern" over LOVE LETTER? FFS, the rules are shorter than some of you guys' posts!

So much overthinking about games goes on...talk about trainspotting. Just play games you like and have fun. If you're not having fun change the games. If you're still not having fun, change the people. Beyond that, take up crochet.