Life, Death, and MICRO GAMES

DukeofChutney wrote: To me, love letter has a similar amount of depth to something like knock out wrist.

You do circle jerks on game night?

Should have called this thread "THE COMING MICROGAME APOCALYPSE"

Seriously, the gnashing of teeth over short, simple games just cracks me up. Yeah, sure, I'd rather just have a conversation than play a crappy 15 minute game...but what I'd really rather do is to play a GREAT 15 minute game AND have a conversation.

Why does the appeal of these kinds of games have to be linked to some kind of abberant psychology or obsessiveness? I just want to play Love Letter because it's FUN, not because there's 20 extra minutes during game night. It's like there has to be some kind of explanation or rationale for these games to exist OTHER THAN "fun" or "great design".

The sad fact is that most long and complex games are a waste of fucking time- especially when you own two Expedits full of them. Don't give a royal flipping fuck about how "immersive" or "narrative" they are if we're talking about games you play once a year...or that you played once five years ago...and you're buying another five hour title on payday.

I realized not long ago that owning 20 4-5 hour games was completely senseless outside of just collecting them. Because you're never, at that stage, going to get the most out of those games. Granted, most games like TI3, Arkham Horror, etc. that have long playtimes are PROCESS or PROCEDURALLY long, not DEPTH long or NUANCED GAMEPLAY THAT IMPROVES WITH EXPERIENCE long.

If you're going to play those kinds of games, pick like, I dunno, five and DIG THE FUCK INTO THEM. Of course, the truth is that most board games like TI3, Arkham Horror, etc. really don't bear "lifestyle" play like that, very few board games actually do. People act like playing TI3 is like getting into World in Flames or something. It's a stupid DOAM game with a bunch of cards, there's a ceiling to how far you can take it.

If the current trend toward smaller/shorter games is a symptom of the Cult of the New and all of its foulness, then quit buying games. Pick your favorite five and NEVER play anything but those again. Don't worry about whether or not Love Letter is actually a game or an activity, or try to figure out why people have fun with it. Dig into Magic Realm and STFU.

I dunno guys, I just think there's some of that nerd superiority thing that comes out when people are sniffing and snuffling about microgames, minigames, whatever...I mean, when it comes down to it, who is going to cross their arms and turn their nose up when something casual and light like Love Letter or Tumblin' Dice comes out? If you're that kind of person, I don't want to play games with you anyway.

Trying to change the tone a bit with an honest question: what is the situation you generally play something really short (or casual and light, as you've said) like love letter in?

Whew! Take a few deep breaths there Barnes!
All I'm picturing is Mark E Smith with spittle flying from his lips, waving his arms, flaring nostrils all MachMan like and getting ready to order me to snap into a SlimJim.

There is no need to reduce this into a final battle between good and evil, or filler versus epic games. Death Angel is not much bigger a game than Love Letter in most respects, but seems to offer a great deal more game. Obviously a huge game like Magic Realm offers even greater depth and replay value, at the expense of almost never actually getting on the table.

Gary Sax wrote: Trying to change the tone a bit with an honest question: what is the situation you generally play something really short (or casual and light, as you've said) like love letter in?

Personally, I can still see some situations where I might get Love Letter on the table:

1. Warm-up game, while waiting for everybody to show up.
2. Filler game, while others are finishing a game that we have been eliminated from, like Jyhad.
3. End of the night, when people want to play one more game before leaving, but don't want to cope with another complex rule set or lengthy play time.

Of course, those are also situations where I could just chat with some friends. I suppose filler games make more sense if you are playing with people who aren't friends, just casual acquaintances at a game shop or convention.

I _never_ drag a 'filler' game to a game night, and loathe it when someone else drops one on the table, and I sure as hell would never schedule a game night that featured any number of these fillers. Hate the whole idea of having to fill up time. I'm there to hang out and play a real game, the game we decided on before hand. If we're waiting for others, let's just chew the fat or review some rules before we get into the real game. If a 10 minute game is required for the time to be passable with you while we wait for others...well don't play with you so this doesn't happen. Maybe I'm a bit of a choosy prick.

That said, I _love_ Lover Letter! When my parents come over to visit, after dinner is done and the kids are asleep, we'll break out something like Love Letter with some wine and play multiple rounds. It's a great time.

There are some games that just shine with non-gamers and are a joy to play, but if I'm gaming with others that are interested in some heavier games, these fillers are never considered.

The mere existence of this thread feels like concern trolling. I'll just copy/paste my comments from the other thread. tl;dr version: who cares if people like shorter games or not? Why is your capacity for understanding this wholly dependent on your ability - or lack thereof - to pigeonhole it into your own gaming habits?

--

Some of you on the last page are fashioning drastic value judgments re: shorter games. Why? I legit don't get it. Is it because you're unwilling - or unable - to ascribe any utility to these games other than their value as "fillers"? Is it because your recipe of a "game night" must be centered - without fail - around a long board game, and you can't imagine any other possible alternative? There's no way anyone could conceivably abstract or synthesize a different recipe for a game night? I mean, what is it? I'm not threatened by the notion of digging into a 4-hour long board game, so why are you guys threatened by short games? Why must their value be judged only as a condition of their relationship to longer, "meatier" games? I mean, explain it to me, I just don't get it.

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.

To extend Barnes' food analogy a little further: how is playing a series of short, social, interactive and easy-to-digest games any different than going to a tapas restaurant for dinner? Sometimes there's just something fun about ordering a series of really different small plates. You eat enough of them, you fill up - that's the whole point. You could fill up at a steakhouse, too - or play Die Macher - nothing wrong with that. Sometimes you just want to read poetry or short fiction instead of a novel, or queue up a bunch of TV episodes on Netflix instead of watch a movie - and nobody's going to make value judgments about that. So why are you making value judgments about this?

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.

Michael Barnes wrote: Why does the appeal of these kinds of games have to be linked to some kind of abberant psychology or obsessiveness? I just want to play Love Letter because it's FUN, not because there's 20 extra minutes during game night. It's like there has to be some kind of explanation or rationale for these games to exist OTHER THAN "fun" or "great design".

Nah, Barnes - you're the socially damaged one, brah, not the folks holding you to the fire for liking short games and demanding you account for yourself. That's totally rational behavior.

black inferno wrote: The mere existence of this thread feels like concern trolling. I'll just copy/paste my comments from the other thread. tl;dr version: who cares if people like shorter games or not? Why is your capacity for understanding this wholly dependent on your ability - or lack thereof - to pigeonhole it into your own gaming habits?

"Who cares?" Is that what you're asking? Why discuss any games? Why have a discussion forum at all? Because we all have different perspectives to share, and in the process of sharing those perspectives, we may all come with fresh thoughts regarding various topics or even just enjoy the social exchange of words. If you don't understand the point of discussions, you probably need to cut back on the filler games a bit and spend more time just talking to people.

You almost had me going there with the teachable moment shit until you undermined it with your douchey last sentence - which proves you were concern trolling the whole time. A++++ effort, guy.

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.

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.

stop your concern trolling.

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.

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.