People first games! (across euro, AT divide)

I don't even know how to troll this thread

He doesn't need to fuck off, but he does need to know that this community exists as an escape for a lot of folks from the navelgazing "ludoligists" or whatever the hell the armchair philosophers at BGG call themselves these days. Anyone can and should join the site and chat away on whatever topic they want--but expect to have your bullshit called. Pulsipher still runs his little show on the blogs, and no one cares. You can do your thing if it helps you vent frustrations about BGG or whatever else. It's Friday after all. But we aren't going to sign on to some movement because you got mad at BGG. We got over that about five years ago.

What I never understand about threads like this, and we had one of these a few days or a week ago here, is that usually the games that they want, the gamers that they want, are there for the taking already. It boils down to someone not liking something's lack of popularity.

I called Bullshit on that thread about an AT rebirth and I'm calling Bullshit on this as well.
Those low over-head, gamer-first games have, are and will always be there.
It sounds more like a lamentation that they aren't as popular or as dominant as the author wants them to be.

To be clear, I don't think this is a bad conversation to have. I like this kind of egg-headed conversation a lot. I feel like a lot of times when we start having these kinds of conversations there are a lot of people who tell everyone to shut up so they don't have to think about it. I don't want that at all.

I know you don't mean for "non-alligned" to be a rallying cry, but in the thread you call for a microbadge, which is essentially a way to say "look at me, here's something I like/believe/feel." In other words, it sure sounds like you are creating another faction.

You are kind of acting here like that wasn't the intent, but it sure sounds like it was.

I need to sign onto to some silly movement to play games now? great.

I thought the broad-brush tarring was more about 'you Americans' than about the Movement. I guess I need more smileys, or to actually use the bbCode quote feature.

Euro and AT (and German, and Family, and Party and CCG and Miniature) are design approaches. If people only want to play a single type of game, there's nothing wrong with that, and if they want to find a community of like-minded gamers, that seems natural.

jeb wrote: But we aren't going to sign on to some movement because you got mad at BGG. We got over that about five years ago.

There's no movement. It's just a banner. It's pretty nice looking. Every couple of months I go there and chuckle and drink my tea. And move on.

The text is in manifesto style. Big, poetic, funny (to me anyway), loud statements. As manifestos are.

He doesn't need to fuck off, but he does need to know that this community exists as an escape for a lot of folks from the navelgazing "ludoligists" or whatever the hell the armchair philosophers at BGG call themselves these days.

Friend of mine thought I might post a link to our thread over here as these discussions about Splendour and how good old German games are is reminiscent to our discussion on that thread 18 months ago. The whole idea then was not to talk about games, but of desires - what do we want to meet on the table at our session. I said to the friend I'm sceptical about possible results posting this on F:AT, but said why not. I'm here. My avatar scares all of you. It's okay. Scares me sometimes as well.

Anyone can and should join the site and chat away on whatever topic they want--but expect to have your bullshit called.

Actually the "bullshit" is in your perception. Apparently you perceive anything outside whatever happened 5 years ago as related to something that happened 5 years ago. Not my problem. I am called for things that are not in the text, or not integral to it. I guess something really big happened 5 years ago, ha?

I have the luxury of this being a cross-posted content, so I can ignore the part which is brought in by reader bias of F:AT. Or maybe misunderstanding comes from my idea that F:AT is open to critical thought, has regular articles, reviews, that sort of thing. But apparently not on the forums? (???)

VonTush wrote: What I never understand about threads like this, and we had one of these a few days or a week ago here, is that usually the games that they want, the gamers that they want, are there for the taking already. It boils down to someone not liking something's lack of popularity.

You mean like Barnes article about Fun First games?
I am curious where the division line lies.

Manifesto has some very affirmative passages, so check does. They're happy, joyous and all that.

VonTush wrote: It sounds more like a lamentation that they aren't as popular or as dominant as the author wants them to be.

Lamentation? It was a shout. A stand on the box sort of thing and say some things that were in my mind at the time. And it's an affirmation. Totally. Of players. Of togetherness. Of haha. Of hehe. Of oh man that was good.

San Il Defanso wrote: I know you don't mean for "non-alligned" to be a rallying cry, but in the thread you call for a microbadge, which is essentially a way to say "look at me, here's something I like/believe/feel." In other words, it sure sounds like you are creating another faction.

You are kind of acting here like that wasn't the intent, but it sure sounds like it was.

Well on all fun threads people who were there want microbadges. Ain't that deep.

We still don't have it though as we couldn't articulate what it would be. And that's probably representing what this thread was - a pretty diverse bunch of people. We recognised a common desire, but even the games we were talking about are different and I doubt we could't agree with them. There was no unity, yet there was understanding of a need that got articulated - and it makes sense (people first, not games first)

So uhm, did I want a faction and a movement? Sure, for some 5 seconds. Maybe 120. Maybe it was a phantasm that fueled some of the thread. But I am people first, so I rolled with the people and the thread became something.

At that's why I posted it here: in this time it became some kind of reference point or compass that articulated certain desires. Pretty much this. Usually it's referenced if somebody finds euros too solitarish, ameritrash rules too long, if people tell a person he ain't a proper gamer, but a family gamer (yup) or a social gamer.

So why here?

Well we were:
talking about games with low overhead
talking about games which aren't designer controlled, but player controlled - put some frame, give players tools and they can be creative and/or nasty.
talking about games with are accessible.

and some of these points are similar to ones raised about Splendour.
So, hey, uhm, guys, here's a similar topic from 18 months ago.

I like the style game you're talking about...And a lot of what I've bought recently and have been playing recently would fit into that genre/style/classification you're describing.

That said, I'm past the point of being interested in deep discussions about game analysis, theory...fluff pieces to make this hobby seem more important than it is. That used to, but is no longer part of my hobby. Meaning I didn't read Barnes' Fun First piece. Nor will I get caught up, more than I have at least, in this attempt to redefine "Theme" from its current usage. Nor will I read your piece any deeper than what I've skimmed.

If the discussion branches into games that fit your definition and desires, then I'll throw in my two cents. As I do like the style of game you're talking about, it's the game that I'm interested in. Does that style of game need a name? Fuck if I care.

So what'd be your top games in this...People First genre?

If you're curious though, the type of game that I gather you're describing, the term I've used is Pull-And-Play games...Meaning you can pull it off the shelf and get everyone up an running quickly even after years of absence from the table. Not that it means much to anyone outside of my head.

And if you want to pull the whole 18 months ago thing...I've seen F:AT from it's birth and conception as a blog into what it is now.

The formation of the site is because of the arguable persecution of games like Thunder Road, Broadsides and Boarding Parties, Escape from Colditz to name a few which I feel would fit into your People First definition.

So I'd argue that this conversation has been had and predates your post by three or four years. Meaning the games have, are and will always be around.

What a waste of time. As much as I dislike the term AT revolution that was at least something real and it changed things a lot. AT games weren't talked about then, barely published, at were shunned on one website in favour if stuff like medieval merchant and caylus which were the bomb. What is it that you exactly you are doing?

Putting people first?

Having a funny discussion?

looking for support from like-minded people who agree that some games are better than others?

Ameritrash of old was complicated, obscure and pretty much bad all over, but it came back, it learned from euros and some of the lessons were good, some weren't. Euro simplification won't help if you're still doing games with kitchen sink approach - so there's euro mechanics in your pile of trash

I am kind of puzzled what games you're talking about here. "Ameritrash of old" was Monopoly, Heroquest, Talisman, broadsides and Boarding Parties, Risk,...

None of these are obscure, and while I get that it's opinion, bad all over doesn't describe many of these games very well. ehat games were you thinking about?

What I do find interesting is what the term AmeriTrash means to different people. I know I have my definition, and others have their definition. One of the main factors I think that goes into a person's definition of the term is when they got into the hobby. My theory is that the more recent that a person is in the hobby the more they tie it to the FFG style of design. The longer they've been in the hobby the more they tie it to the mass market style games from a few decades back.

scissors wrote: I need to sign onto to some silly movement to play games now? great.

I just kindnof get a little turned off by categorization. Most of the problms in the world stem from this fucked up categorization/caste system, so when I see people categorizing other people I immediately assume it's meant to revile others in some way.

I think when you categzorize games, or movies, or anything, its helpful to allow them to become a corss-section that's easily searchable and indexable, but when you apply it to people, it becomes inherently twisted and serves only as a stump from which to malign others in an attempt to appear superior; the irony is that it almost universally ends up alienating the person on the stump, casting them as the villain.

Ha, yeah. well this manifesto came off as a little ridiculous for sure: from my perspective I have other concerns in life than whether there is an AT or euro game divide and what to do about it!

If it was tongue in cheek, ok, but really even the AT thing should be passé by now and TOS should by now have let back Barnes - not that'd he would come back or even remotely give a fuck.