Let's Talk AH Fantasy Wargames

Subscribe for possible Friday freak-out?

WTF Wolvie, when did I say that those games were dumb and pointless? I like two out of the three, but I'm being realistic not only knowing Jeff's tastes but also what usually happens when someone seeks these kinds of games out. I didn't say it was "pointless gaming", so unless you're trying to be a dick then don't misquote, mischaracterize, or misrepresent what I said.

Oh but wait, _you're_ pulling the hipster "I still play long, old games so I'm above it all" routine. I see now. Gee whiz, you must be a better gamer than me. I mean, I just like ephemeral games with no substance any more. Can somebody give this guy some of my gamer cred points?

You're right though, I shouldn't be in these internet forums providing opinions when asked for them. I take back everything I said. Jeff, these are wonderful amazing games that TRUE gamers love and play all the time so go blow your money on them.

What's the deal, I don't see where anything I said warranted such an asshole response. And Jeff thanked me for the post, so piss off with the bitchy attitude.

That suit you, Joel?

What are the 2 out of 3 that you like?

I've not played Elric, but I did like Dragon Pass (the one and likely only time I played it) and Wizard's Quest. I played Wizard's Quest several times in the 80s and early 90s, the last time I tried it was five or six years ago and I didn't think it held up very well.

More to Jeff's concern, I just don't think that these games are going to give him what he's looking for. Even though I'm not a huge Titan fan, it's the kind of design that has weathered time even though it runs long and I think there's more to do with figuring out muster routes than there is to do with any kind of setting or theme. Jeff is doing that thing we ALL do when you start asking "what else is there?"

And from my experience with older games like this, it's almost always a disappointment if you've not already played these games. You're not going to happen on a revelation that- holy shit! Elric is like the best game ever! And then your group plays nothing but it for a year. I guess that could happen, but I've seen folks over and over again seek out games like this and I've seen these kinds of games wind up sitting un played over and over again.

Which isn't to say that they're "pointless" at all. Jeff needs to do his due dilligence and figure out if he likes them for himself. Dragon Pass may wind up being his favorite game of all time. But there again, he's going to need other folks that also want to invest in it. That's why I suggested some of the more recent fantasy wargames, because those are games that are MUCH easier to get folks on board for.

Eh, I'm with Barnes on this one, mostly.

I've you've got a group that's down to play Dragon Pass whenever, good for you. Most of us are not going to be in that same boat. I wish to fuck it were otherwise, but as a guy who genuinely likes "retro" board games, I've just got to deal with the fact that some old titles can hack it with other players these days, and some can't. These ones probably can't.

That's not to say the games he suggests instead are any better, really. WotR tends to outstay its welcome, and it's quite scripted. Lineage II isn't at all the same kind of game. CoN is anti-climactic, and doesn't have even the slightest whiff of originality in it. Runewars has that awful deck of cards that's used for every random determinant in the game, which just plain sucks. Then again, they're all prettier than Elric and WQ, they have faster endgame triggers, and they don't have rules written in that turgid old AH legalese which makes everything sound way more fucking complicated than it is.

If you can get your group to look passed the ugly purple chits and the overly long playtimes, these games are worth playing. I'd say moreso than something like Nerath, as they have some unique gameplay elements and a weird vibe you just won't get playing more modern games that are designed specifically to play "just like X, but shorter."

But, good luck getting your group on board. If you can great. Otherwise, you're wasting your money. And no, none of 'em are any Titan.

Elric sucks balls. Dragon Pass is fun (haven't played in a couple of years tho). If you end up trying and liking Dragon Pass you should track down the French re-print of Nomad Gods (personally, I think I like it a hair better than DP).

No love for Swords & Sorcery?

I've been offered two of the three AH titles in an estate sale and having fallen in love with Titan thought I'd ask about the others here to see if I should be interested.

The offer is too good to pass up so I'll likely pick them up for trading with later.

Yeah, not being as good as Titan is a mark against them (why not just play Titan?) and the fact that they'd only see a play or two is very valid. Still, it'd be good to have the experience, but like in my 'I don't even know these assholes sale' I don't need to keep games that I can't pull off the shelf and play. So, again, sounds like they'd be good for trades.

Thanks, all!

Michael Barnes wrote: WTF Wolvie, when did I say that those games were dumb and pointless? I like two out of the three, but I'm being realistic not only knowing Jeff's tastes but also what usually happens when someone seeks these kinds of games out. I didn't say it was "pointless gaming", so unless you're trying to be a dick then don't misquote, mischaracterize, or misrepresent what I said.

Oh but wait, _you're_ pulling the hipster "I still play long, old games so I'm above it all" routine. I see now. Gee whiz, you must be a better gamer than me.

Michael, stop being silly. If you didn't invent the 'better boardgamer than thou' routine, you did popularize it - that's, in part, how this website got started. I'm not pulling any sort of routine, I assure you (Can you 'pull' a routine? I think that metaphor's a bit mixed. Regardless.). My tastes run very strongly to the long and complex; as others have noted before, there's a knee-jerk defensiveness, a kind of rabid anti-intellectualism inherent in the modern AT scene. A blatant hostility toward the notion that nuance, thoughtfulness, complexity, and length have gifts of their own to give those who want to take the time to play long, intricate games. And you've been pushing the anti-intellectual stuff pretty hard lately.

Michael Barnes wrote: We play them with friends and family to have a good time, to enjoy ourselves, to laugh, and to interact using the game as a social centerpiece. If you’re playing games for any other reason, as I’ve always said, then you’re doing it wrong.

I mean, really man, 'fun-first design'? Don't you understand how brain-dead that category is, how noisome? You are demarcating a section of Barnes-approved games and saying, 'These games, THESE, are worthwhile, because they are fun. Oh yeah, I've played around with those other games, but they aren't authentic. Those others games? They hate fun. Also, freedom.'

Dude. Dude. Newsflash: I play PoG for fun. I play Burma for fun. I play Mage Knight TBG for fun. I have fun thinking, and planning, and creating deep strategies, and watching my opponent wreck them mercilessly. Fun is why everyone plays games, but fun is an effect. It is product - the difference in games, and people, lie in what creates that fun. For me, fun lies in the historicity, the challenge, the strategizing, the brain-burn, the immersion, everything else that a good consim or deep AT game gives the player. And, to me, games like, say, Ascension, are so bloody fucking mindless that they are very much the opposite of fun; I'd rather do any number of things, including placing my right foot in my doorway and slamming my front door over and over, than play them. And here's the thing: I'm not alone. A lot of people feel the same way.

At best, 'fun first gaming' is you taking your own personal gaming experiences...

Michael Barnes wrote: We may talk a lot about wanting to play Here I Stand, but what we really want to play is more Cosmic Encounter and King of Tokyo...As much as I love Mage Knight, Labyrinth, Starcraft, Magic Realm, and other often terrifyingly complicated games, invariably the ones that my games gang always go back to are the ones that are the fun-first designs.

...and naively projecting them to the universal. If so, stop that. The people I game with? We want to play Here I Stand. It's very important that you realize this as a potentiality.

At worst, the 'fun first' schtick is a kind of rhetorical power-play, with you suddenly and capriciously arbitrating what is real, fun, true, and authentic...

Michael Barnes wrote: But in playing a game like Abaddon or other games that focus more on that notoriously subjective and to some indefinable quality of fun, I wonder if we’re actually getting closer to a state of pure intent and the essential purpose of the games medium.

.

Stop that, too. And we won't even delve into the fact that, in your latest column, you are using faux-critical language to almost-analyze something while simultaneously decrying criticality and placing yourself as an outsider. Make no sense whatsoever? Exactly.

I know you probably feel attacked personally. That's not my intention. I don't have any hostility toward you personally; I have a lot of fucking hostility toward the anti-intellectual bullshit rife within the AT scene and crappy faux-critical internet columns that encourage that crap, and again, whether you are aware of it or not, you've been doing a lot of proclaiming by fiat lately. "Magic Realm is great, but unless you play it exactly how I think it should be played, you shouldn't bother." or "Those old games are great, but you'll never get people to play them, and you'll never like them as much as the classics such as Talisman." Talisman? Fucking Talisman? Jesus, for me that's a low bar, and again, that's the point.

The above is not exactly giving your opinion. It certainly doesn't invite discussion and debate; the only responses available are 'yeah!' and 'wtf?', of which you may consider this entire long diatribe a lengthy 'wtf?'

Blah blah blah, you got me pal. I lose because i quit. Cant't be bothered with heel-nippers anymore. I'm sure Jeff appreciates your input on helping him make a decision.

Michael Barnes wrote: Blah blah blah, you got me pal. I lose because i quit. Cant't be bothered with heel-nippers anymore. I'm sure Jeff appreciates your input on helping him make a decision.

Congratulations: you managed to be passive-aggressive, self-victimizing, and swollen-headed in a single short paragraph, all while addressing not a single point I raised.