Thread: Questioning chirine ba kal

Originally Posted by David Johansen

It's the hard core competitive tournament mind set. Some people are primarily concerned with whether they win or not and they want to know that if they lost it was fair.

Fair enough, I suppose. Really, I got to watch two of the worst players around massively improve because they went to Games Workshop tournaments and saw their scores dive on grounds of painting and sportsmanship You never saw such repentant sinners.

Say what you will about GW, in the late nineties to mid noughties they really pushed the hobby aspect and the playing for fun aspect and sixth edition Warhammer was heavily focused on troops and maneuver not sticking the most absurd magic item combos on characters. It held over into mid seventh edition when most of the old guys like Priestly and Chambers moved on, then it was all just spam, spam, spamity, spam.

Amazing. This is right in line with the observations I've had at both the FLGSs I've been to and the few times I've dropped in to conventions / events. I usually stand and watch the game for a while, and eventually one of the players notices me and asks me if I play THAT PARTICULAR game / set of rules. When I say that I don't they turn right back around and ignore me from then on. It doesn't sell me on the rules, or on the miniatures.

Which is why I try to have hand-outs to give to people at all my games, and have a designated 'host' or 'hostess' - I even have hats for them to wear - to make people feel welcome. It sold a lot of lead, over the year, but these days I feel like I'm pissing in the wind.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

I've never played Warhamburger because the design style never appealed.

But back in the day we had our own way to deal with the worst players... "You're a buttmunch and I won't play with you." Works.

Loved some of the figures, avoided the players screaming "WAUUUUGH!" at the table.

Originally Posted by AsenRG

Well, Uncle, I agree a cyberpunk setting is what we've got today. But some people love to deny it.
I blame Shadowrun. It seems they're not going to admit it until they see elves walking the streets. Though there are people that mod their ears already...


When it comes to RPGs, my answer to that tends to be "we're simulating* living in a setting, and life ain't fair, deal with it". People that can't or don't want to (the latter of which I respect) are welcome to find another table.
I'm suddenly interested what would be the wargaming variant of the same statement.

*Though I seem to be considered a "narrativist" player on this board. Probably because I think some of the dreaded story-games had good ideas that work better for simulations.

All true, I think. I still don't understand this 'story-games' or 'narrativist' thing. I'm too old, probably.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

Gods of Tekumel. On another forum I just saw this: (bolding mine)

"For those that may be interested but missed the announcement.
http://www.choiceofgames.com/petal-t...ource=ourgames

Choice of the Petal Throne
by Danielle Goudeau

In the Empire of the Petal Throne™, will you find glory, or a knife in your back?

"Choice of the Petal Throne" is a 124,000-word interactive fantasy novel by Danielle Goudeau, where your choices control the story. It's entirely text-based--without graphics or sound effects--and fueled by the vast, unstoppable power of your imagination.

M.A.R. Barker's world of Tékumel™ is a fantasy universe like no other, where South American, Middle Eastern, and Indian cultures collide. The princes and princesses of the Tsolyáni empire vie for their father's mystical Petal Throne, tearing the nation apart with civil war and political intrigues.

As a captain in one of their armies, will you play as male or female, gay straight or bi? A brave and forthright soldier, a hedonistic intriguer with a heart of gold, or scheming double agent? "

To quote my response, who gives a fuck?

Is THAT what's happening to Phil's world?

Even better, do Tekumeli think in such notions? Or is sexuality what you do, and not who you are?

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

The first time I played the Fletcher Pratt Naval Wargame, Dave Arneson was the ref.

I had four British destroyers and a Destroyer Leader (a slightly glorified tin can, not even CLOSE to a light cruiser.)

The Japanese had one or two heavy cruisers, four light cruisers, and a mess of destroyers.

I won.

Because my victory conditions were "Escape mostly intact," not "sink all the enemy."

You, dirty hippy storygamer, Gronan!
(That's a basic tenet of storygames using the dreaded conflict resolution. I just found it funny).

Originally Posted by Shemek hiTankolel

I believe he told my buddy "the Wehrmacht didn't go around cowering in the bushes". I always used to look at what the real generals did and went from there.
I just don't get why some people even try and war game when they have this kind of "2 dimensional thinking" when developing tactics. I personally think it's largely because the notion of "trying" is seen as being as good as or better than achieving, and that this has become the mantra for a large segment of society. This is why I no longer have any interest in going to my FLGS and war gaming.

The guy knew nothing about history, period.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

Some people are simply shitty tacticians and try to cover it up by badmouthing the people who hand them their ass in a bucket.

That's a thing, too.

Originally Posted by David Johansen

Well, there's dirty hippy wargames too, where you don't measure distances or movement or worse still where there's no elaborate points system to balance games out. There's also stuff like Chaos in Cairo which comes very close to crossing the line into roleplaying.

"But how will I know if it's a fair game?" one of my young customers wailed when told that Tomorrow's War didn't use a points system. "Some times war isn't fair," I replied. He bought the book but never played it.

Agreed. Back when I wrote "Qadardalikoi", I got a lot of grief from people who thought that I should have included a points value table so they they could use it for 'fair games' and tournaments. I strongly object to the latter; if I found out that my work was being used for one, there would be strong words exchanged.

A long time ago, and far, far away...

I was running a demo game at the first Minnesota Campaign game convention that I ran for Arneson, and the Yan Koryani were defending a walled town. The Tsolyani were attacking, and had about three times more troops then the defenders - which is considered normal. One of the YK players whined to high heaven that I wasn't being fair to him, and demanded that he get as many figures as the attackers so that the game would be a fair one. Haven't played with him since, and won't.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

The first time I played the Fletcher Pratt Naval Wargame, Dave Arneson was the ref.

I had four British destroyers and a Destroyer Leader (a slightly glorified tin can, not even CLOSE to a light cruiser.)

The Japanese had one or two heavy cruisers, four light cruisers, and a mess of destroyers.

I won.

Because my victory conditions were "Escape mostly intact," not "sink all the enemy."

Yep. Did the same thing at the Tin Soldier - Battle of the Java Sea, where I had the invasion convoy - and got all sorts of grief for not attacking like a real man. I pointed out that I was attacking like a real man - it was just that I had invaded Java, and that the real men no longer had a base to operate from. Lots of dead silence, after that...

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

But you must admit, Montressor, that there are a lot of Tin Soldier Shop types that we wouldn't play with for just that very reason. The English Phil Barker was on a tour of various wargame venues in the US once and went to the Tin, and then up to Winnipeg. He told my Canadian wargamer friends that "those people in Minneapolis would rather argue than play the game."

I always figured myself that if I won or lost the game because of 1/16 of an inch, I'd botched my command so badly that I deserved to be taken out and shot anyway.

Oh, I agree with you. I used to run games at The Source, and gave uo on it for this very reason. A lot of the old 'Shop Rats" migrated from Lake Street to the new location, and were just as argumentative. And careless with the figures, too. We called them 'rules lawyers' back in the day...