[Spin-Off Central] What Constitutes a Game?

I was going to review Hive, an abstract chess-like game that has been reviewed very favorably by lots of people I like.

The game looks cool and appeals to me due to the two player nature. It's portable and seems straightforward enough, and doesn't have any math or random elements- all of these were plusses in my book. 

So I busted it open and discovered that to ME; it's not a game. It's a problem that needs solving. It didn't have "rules", it told me what I could do with certain pieces. There weren't any examples of "how to play". It confused the crap out of me. I decided I was not smart enough for the game and put it away.

(I will be totally fair and let you know I will give it another try before completely writing it off.)

What's the difference between a game and a problem? To ME, the difference is games have rules. Especially with board games, there are clear sequences and operational things to do, with an end goal in mind.

Hive does things differently. It tells you "here are how things work", and then asks you - "how would you make X happen?".

Based on this specific understanding, at the moment, I don't consider Hive a game. I consider it a puzzle. I don't mind that, but it wasn't what I was expecting.

While I was thinking this little idea over, I came across this post and the conversation it generated. I was very taken by the comments made between Sandwyrm and CaulynDarr. Here's the part I found most compelling:

CaulynnDarr: Games on the other hand are math, cognition, and memory problems, with art supporting the implementation.

You can have great process and great products at the same time. Usually great process is the difference between having 1 great product and several great products. Process is often that thing at the end that sends the whole project back to square one if it needs it.

Actually McDonnell-Douglas had the better design, but got out lobbied by Boing and bought out. Though all three designs would be in the same shape now, due to the conflicting requirements.

 

sandwyrm   23 hours ago in reply to CaulynDarr

Don't be silly. Games are not about math or the technical stuff. They're about the experience. The interactions. Making the interactions of a game interesting and rewarding is just as much of an art as any film or video game. The technical stuff has to support an artistic vision, as Star Wars taught us so long ago. As Apple teaches us now. As Blizzard, id, and Valve prove every day.

Good processes require consistency and predicability. But creativity is never consistent or predictable. So you have to optimize on one or the other. You cannot have both together. Or both end up mediocre at best.

I know these guys were talking specifically about miniatures games- table top war games with figure soldiers and dice and whatnot. But the comment put me in mind of something Porky asked me a while ago:

What is a game?

I think I discovered that anything I will consider a game (at least a board game) has to have operational structure- who does what when; that's essential to me. I think that my tastes have shown that I want a combination of math and/or logic problems ALONG WITH the experience and the interactions for almost any OTHER kind of game.

What about you? What do you consider essential components to be considered a game? What turns you totally off? If you understand either answer, why are those your answers? I'd love to hear.

[RPG] What's Your Take on Surprises?

I am in the beginning stages of working on an RPG campaign, and the majority of the plot will involve something very dramatic and life-altering happening to the players.

I'm debating how to handle this particular aspect of the plot. I'm torn between "make it a big surprise" and "include the players in the process".

  

Surprises definitely have a place in games, and I'd be stupid not to use SOME elements of the unknown some of the time. This decision is a lot more in-depth than that. It's something that would fundamentally change the character- let's say; he sprouts wings overnight, or becomes 16 fee tall. 

But this wouldn't happen to just ONE character, EVERY character would face something huge, dramatic and honestly challenging within the first few runs of the game. 

I'm currently considering putting a "warning label" on the game before I start it. With enough up front disclosure that SOMETHING BIG would happen, maybe player agency won't be lost. 

There's always the option of letting the players help decide what happens to them, but keep it a surprise as to when or even if it actually happens. 

It's a lot to consider. 

Players: would you want to be involved, be warned, or be totally surprised? What factors might change how you feel about this sort of scenario?

[40K] Old Stuff Day - Repost: A Newer Player's Questions: Army Building

 In honor of "Old Stuff Day" for 40K bloggers, I thought I'd repost one of my favorite previous posts. It was not only well received (lots of comments) it's still pretty relevant for a new player. I wound up doing a series of posts as a 'spin-off' of this post, which were all really informative and helped me gather a large portion of the 40K for Beginners' project material..

 Enjoy!
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm thinking this might be a series until I get a better handle on what the crap 5th Ed is all about.

Yes, I think I have * FINALLY * decided what army I'll play. I just have to get figures. And that leads me to the question of the day:


What comes first in army building: the figures or the list?

I don't possess any figs of my own yet. I'm of the opinion that I shouldn't just buy crap willy nilly- I should have a purpose and an army or list in mind. However, there's been some encouragement to use available figs as proxies, building a list to suit them.

Going with the first option gives me control over what goes in my list, what I like and don't like, as well as what flavor or type of army I field. Going with the second limits me to what I have available, but I get to see if I really like the intended army before spending a metric crapton of cash.

Either way, I've discovered that I need one of those Army Builder things (I just happen to be testing one out right now) because it's not the math -it's the details and the math combined. I know I'll get better, but at the moment, I can't keep track of all of it at once.

So at the moment, I'm playing with numbers and imaginary dudes, trying to get a handle on point allowances and Force Org (you're supposed to have a lot of troops, right?) . See you at the next installment.

[40K] ANewer Player's Questions: Deployment

I've watched more games than I can count. I have read the rules. I have even played more than a couple games (granted, more than 15 years ago). I STILL do not understand deployment.

It seems pretty important- Sandwyrm over at theBack40K says his single biggest piece of advice is to practice. I've read countless battle reports where deployment appeared to have a hand in the win/loss outcome. I understand that it's got a crucial part to your strategy and approach to the game.

I just simply don't understand it. For all proactical purposes the whole "get your guys on the board" section of the game might as well be written in Sanskrit by Einstein. Deployment is akin to anything with an "8" in it for me.

I'm sure that explaining it in comments is likely "unpossible"; so if you could send me to 40K for idiot's school, or point me in the direction of a good website with clear and easy to understand descriptions of what to do when and WHY; maybe I'll learn something. [Maybe.]

[40K] A Newer Player's Questions: Random

It was 40K night last night, so I took the opportunity to watch, ask questions, try to learn, and of course; get more confused in the process. [This is a normal process for me. I'm actually getting a LOT closer to feeling confident about playing a game than I was a month ago.]

So onto the many random, unrelated questions I've gathered recently. I plan to start a series with a more focused set of questions next week. But today, you get random.

1- It has been suggested to me (repeatedly) that I might enjoy Blood Angels since I freely admit to "playing like a brick". I have resisted pretty heavily for a couple reasons.  These include: they don't have a lot of customizable options; They're a lot more mobile than I feel comfortable with (I like go-fast in theory; in practice I lose my mind); They are the new internet rage and seem to have a reputation for being very competitive (which I could not live up to) and lastly- for those of you that know me in real life: They're angels. We know how crazy I get about angels... I think I'd go positively mental trying to do justice to an Angel ARMY.

Can anyone convince me either way that I am wrong or missing a point on these guys?

2- Power of the Machine Spirit is in my Codex, but there's at least a little confusion on how it applies now. Can someone explain it as it works for my army now?

2a- Same goes for Drop Pods. Do I have the old rules or the new ones?

3- Command or Assault Squads apparently "NEED" a ride. I'm still a little fuzzy on why, but I'll believe you because it seems easier that way. If those guys are Terminators (because I tend to change my mind), they CAN'T take a transport. But they can Deep Strike? If that's accurate, is there a benefit or advantage of one over the other?

4- On transports: They look cool, but seem very squishy. The transport in question was a Land Raider. I'm wondering if they are worth my trouble. I heard something about not moving too much and still be able to shoot but failed to ask for more details...is it per turn, or overall that the restriction applies?

5-I have a real and legitimate reason for not being able to use rare earth magnets. Is there something else I can use for modding and modeling?


And, because 40K is more fun with pictures- a shot from last night that was pretty awesome. No real reason, just: it' looked fun.

The Chos in front, facing the LR actually ARE Chaos dudes. The Chaos guys facing the camera, coming OUT of the Raider, are completely modded to "count as" Space Wolves. Grimnar is about to have lunch.

[40K] A List I Don't Hate

Four 40K posts this week- I must really be getting into it!

I worked on making a list I don't hate, and came up with something I like quite a lot. Additionally, I might possibly be able to proxy this. One of my enablers-er- FRIENDS- I meant friend! thinks I could probably borrow what I don't have through The Dude.

There are a couple of legalities questions (can a character with dual lightning claws wear a combat shield, can I have a Cru squad without Neophytes) but here we go.

HQ- Marshall
Dual Lightning Claws
Combat Shield -120

HQ- Command Squad
1 Sergeant, Terminator Honors, Lightning Claw
9 Squad Members, Terminator Honors,  Thunder Hammers (5), Combat Shield (4), Furious Charge, Crusader Seals (10)- 525

EC- AAC- 140

Troops-

Crusader Squad 1
8 Initiates- Plasma gun, missile launcher
2 Neophytes, Shotgun & CCW
Rhino -214

Crusader Squad 2 & 3
10 Initiates 10 Crusader Seals
6 Neophytes
Missile Launcher- 500

Comes up to 1499.

My enabler-FRIEND- wondered why I didn't try to go for 1850, which is what the local league is currently running. Aside from not knowing the rules well enough yet, I don't have enough figures to proxy for that size army. But those are all excuses. Honestly? I'm not ready to play in the league, especially at that point level. I don't mind losing, but I'd like to have a chance.

Again, send along comments, criticisms and general 'you stink and this is why' . I promise to listen and even try to learn from it all.

[40K] The List (for now)

As promised, I came back with a legal list (at least I think it is).

I need to so some more work, but I have a1500 point list.
The problem? I - absolutely- completely- totally- immeasurably- without remorse- fucking HATE it. The only thing I like on it even a little is the Dread. The EC isn't terrible, but I wish I could make the whole thing more coherent.

Why bother posting it? Because it's some where to start. I'm trying to dial out the bad advice from the very, very smart (special thanks to nikephoros over at Bringer of Victory and Weinas at Indy40K) as well as get a feel for what I like and what I don't. Also, this list is one that I have almost enough models available to proxy and test. I would only need to borrow about 7 Scouts for Neophytes, and we'd just have to say all the bits/weapons present on the models were the ones on the list.

So here it is. Comments, suggestions and absolute ass-ripping are more than welcome, I'm willing to start all over and not sweat it. If there's any glaring illegalities, lemme know, please. Also, I have no real sense of how lists are supposed to be written out, so I'm going to do it the way that makes sense to me and you can help me in the comments, right?

HQ- Commander:
Marshall
Artificer Armor
Terminator Armor
Frag Grenade
Holy Orbs of Antioch - 126pts

HQ: Terminator Command Squad
5 models
Furious charge
Missile launcher
Assault Cannon-263 pts

REQ'D - NON HQ -
Emperor's Champion
Accept Any Challenge -140 pts

Elite: Dreadnaught
Twin linked Las cannon
Heavy Flamer
Tank Hunter
Venerable
Extra Armor
Hunter-Killer
Smoke Launcher-188 Pts

Troops : Crusader Squad (x2)
10 Initiates
6 Neophytes
Power Fist
Flamer
Frag & Krak grenades - 578

Troops: Crusader Squad
10 Initiates
Power Fist
Frag & krak Grenades- 205

[40K] A Newer Player's Q's: Options

I have a couple sample lists finally. A buddy from the game store helped me get started- I was pretty much missing the point when trying to build my lists and was coming way -way- WAY under. I simply didn't understand or know how to operate all the dang options and wargear BT present.

Once I got that out of the way, there came the question of- what STYLE list did I want to run?

I personally see several options- a pure "fluff" list with chaplains, holy sigils, blessings, and so on; a foot list; a fast list; and a small but mighty combination list. I'm sure there are others, or better twists on those- but that's what I see.

For my sample list, I really wanted to go with the fluff- that's why I like the Black Templar so much. They're so incredibly evocative and offer so many options for naming, details and thoughtful touches. I chose a chaplain for my HQ and worked the rest of the list from there.

Before I share my lists- onto the questions. How do you handle picking options or wargear for your armies? Do you try to make things fit with your theme, or effectiveness, or some combination thereof? Do you have a lot of choices, or are you stuck with things that you don't like? Am I crazy, or is 100 points of wargear way to friggin much?!?!?!?!?!

------------------------------------------------------

OH, I am so glad I tried to post this!

I just went through typing out the whole list I came up with (with my friend's help)- I was pretty excited about the ideas and options I had in front of me- when I realized...

I forgot The Emperor's Champion.

Crap.

I'll be back later today with a legal list, I swear!

[40K] A Newer Player's Q's: Army Building

I'm thinking this might be a series until I get a better handle on what the crap 5th Ed is all about.

Yes, I think I have * FINALLY * decided what army I'll play. I just have to get figures. And that leads me to the question of the day:


What comes first in army building: the figures or the list?

I don't possess any figs of my own yet. I'm of the opinion that I shouldn't just buy crap willy nilly- I should have a purpose and an army or list in mind. However, there's been some encouragement to use available figs as proxies, building a list to suit them.

Going with the first option gives me control over what goes in my list, what I like and don't like, as well as what flavor or type of army I field. Going with the second limits me to what I have available, but I get to see if I really like the intended army before spending a metric crapton of cash.

Either way, I've discovered that I need one of those Army Builder things (I just happen to be testing one out right now) because it's not the math -it's the details and the math combined. I know I'll get better, but at the moment, I can't keep track of all of it at once.

So at the moment, I'm playing with numbers and imaginary dudes, trying to get a handle on point allowances and Force Org (you're supposed to have a lot of troops, right?) . See you at the next installment.

Reinventing the Wheel

A friend of mine who loves fiddling with games told me recently that he is trying to come up with a D&D 3.5 rewrite that won't make me puke. He's selling it to me as a point buy, without classes and minus the THACO.

He's trying to hit on my "laundry list" of hated points of pretty much any D&D variant. I know he means well, and I enjoy his creativity. I'm willing to consider looking at it when he's done because I'm a good friend, but in all honesty, it will be very hard to convince me that it's not the same stuff I've come to find so distasteful.

I understand why he's doing it- he wants to try to give me the "shared experience" of the D&D culture. He wants me, of all people, to enjoy what he enjoyed so much and what he grew up on. He wants to give me the opportunity to see things through his viewfinder. I'm really touched that he likes me that much. He's not writing it just for me, but he wants to share the end result with me for a very specific purpose.

I appreciate it- it's an interesting concept. But part of me wonders, why go to all the trouble? There are a wide variety of clones and there's so many ways to play the game without fiddling with an existing ruleset. What point does having yet another adaptation of the 'predecessor' prove?

To me, it's like riffing on Night In Tunisia- it might sound good, but why mess with it in the first place? Love it or hate it, the structure, pacing, elements, mood and performance are the "gold standard" for a certain place and time for jazz. The same can and perhaps should be said for D&D- a standard that shouldn't be emulated.

Am I totally off?