By Podsy McPod
Why do you game?
Sorry I am jumping ahead. Perhaps you don't game, you just like to
collect and paint models. That is fine,
glad to have you on board as part of the hobby but you are not who this article
is aimed at. My target audience is people
who actually use their model collections to play games.
About a year ago and about thirty five years
since I started gaming I was struggling to find enjoyment in my gaming. This
culminated in a sci fi game against a dear friend where I was beaten without
being able to offer any real opposition and I threw a strop. Yes a full on five year olds strop. I apologise again to my opponent who luckily
is still a good friend. I was playing
with beautiful models using a rule set I liked.
Afterwards for the first time in years I sat down and seriously asked
myself why did I game. I even
contemplated giving up gaming.
The first thing I realised was I certainly
did not game just for the sake of winning.
Sometimes when demoing a game to a new player I have wanted to crawl
under the table as sheer good fortune meant I thrashed my opponent. If you counted all my wins and losses over
the thirty five years I am sure the losses would exceed the wins, so it could
not be that.
I used to play in the local competition
circuit for ancient and medieval wargaming, travelling quite a bit to
play. I enjoyed it for many years but
towards the end I began to realise there seemed to be competitors who just
wanted to show how smart they were rather than being interested in the
game. I got the feeling they would have
been equally happy to compare educational qualifications or bank balances to
decide who won. I saw some crazy
things. One novice competitor was
playing in a game with two classical period pike armies. His pike were better quality than his
opponents so he rushed them to engage the enemy pike. His experienced opponent tilted a unit at a
bizarre angle and said this prevented the two lines engaging. The referee confirmed this ruling. Of course this was absolute historical
nonsense. Two lines of pike would not
fail to engage because someone was not standing absolutely straight. This was an example of how the leading
players won not by using better tactics but by exploiting their superior
knowledge of the foibles in the rules.
Eventually I decided this scene was no longer for me. If your reason for gaming is solely to win,
good luck maintaining a supply of opponents.
So if winning was not my reason for gaming,
what was? Very quickly I realised there
was only one possible answer, fun! So
the real question became what made gaming fun for me. There are different answers for different
people. As already discussed some people
find fun in winning by doing whatever it takes.
Some people just like to throw figures on the table and see what
happens. I remember playing in one large
fantasy game where people just opened their carry cases and threw out what they
liked on table. I nearly fainted on the
spot, no army lists, what the heck was going on! If your fun is found in games like that
great, I wish I could, but for me things have to be a little more
organised. So what does make a game fun
for me?
Playing opponents you like beyond the gaming
table. It may sound harsh but I have
realised people whose company I enjoy or would enjoy on a social level make the
best gaming opponents. Life is too short
to play against people you have a personality clash with, even for the sake of
getting a game. For years I struggled to
find opponents but the advent of gaming communities on the internet means I now
have to limit the amount of potential games I could play so that I still have
some time for other things.
Games should have an element of luck. Chess is not for me. I love it when lady luck smiles on me and I
am able to win a game that looked lost.
It also means I have something to blame for defeats when things do not
go to plan. Skill should outweigh
luck. Snakes and ladders is not my game
of choice either. In general the player
using the better tactics should have the highest chance of winning.
Games should make sense within their own
lore. If I am playing a fantasy game a
dragon should have more chance of destroying a mob of pitch fork armed peasants
than the other way around. It can be
problematic for games without historical evidence to back up how things work
but I think we all know pretty quickly if something feels right or not.
Having deeper pockets to buy more stuff should
not give a better chance of winning. I
deliberately avoid games with their own dedicated model lines. I have seen a lot of games that launch with
balanced factions only for the balance to be lost when new models are
released. I can see why manufacturers do
it. They have to give you an incentive
to buy their latest release but it is something I am very wary of.
Army lists and army building should influence
but not decide who wins. I fully admit
to having spent hours over the years tweaking and developing army lists. The advent of computer based army builders
makes this even more fun, but a good army build should not guarantee victory
before a game starts.
My ideal game is one that is closely fought
with victory going to the player who has the better tactics or occasionally
better luck. Tactics are important to
me. A game that offers deep and real
tactical choices is one that appeals to me above all others. Unfortunately for
me at least the opportunities to play this sort of game seem to be ever
decreasing.
I am amazed at how game design has improved
since I started gaming. The first rule
books I used were small, closely typed in black and white with few if any
illustrations. I remember one world war
two rule book that had a shooting table that involved looking for the technical
name of a particular gun in a paragraph of about twenty names with ten or more
paragraphs. No one thought to give all
the guns in a given category a numerical value and then put that in a
table. The quality and choice of rules
and models has grown and improved enormously especially since the advent of the
internet. Not only have games improved
themselves but we now all have computers and printers to make life easier. I remember when affording to pay for
photocopying out of pocket money was a real concern. Photocopying was expensive in the early
eighties!
For a long time I thought I just needed to
demo games with greater tactical depth to get people interested. I actually feel nervous when I give a game
demo now. If it does not go really well
the system will never be played by that player again. Why would they when there are so many alternative
choices out there. I realise now I was
wrong in thinking that demo games would be enough to interest players in a
given system. With the multitude of
games and systems available I realise most people only play the same game a
handful of times in a year. A single
demo game is not enough for anyone to see the tactical depths of a given game. My
current choice of sci fi rules is not decided by which rules give the greatest
tactical depth but by the criteria of whether they can be understood by someone
who plays the game casually a couple of times a year.
On the one hand this vast array of gaming
products undreamt of in my youth is a huge blessing. On the other it is a curse. Barely has one system been brought to the
table before people lose interest distracted by the latest game launch or
kickstarter. If you only play a given
system a few times in a year you will not see the hidden delights it has to
offer. Now I do not wish to disrespect
or discourage all the wonderful people in the industry bringing out new
products. If people are going to play your
system I wish they would play it a bit more.
Neither do I wish to try and dictate to people what they do with their
gaming time, but my suggestion is this, slow down. If you are going to take the time to play any
game, play it more than once. Give it
the time needed to fully understand the rules and explore different tactics
when playing. With the fantastic
products we now have available I am pretty sure you will find there is more to
the game than you thought at the end of your first game. Who knows you might even have more fun.