> What is various people's obession with the form of game called
It has nothing to do with taking your gaming too seriously. Or with forming a
gaming group (although that might happen, with any luck). It's about playing
the damned game. Say you're at a convention, for example...you have your FT
ships with you, but you were not able to sign
up for any games in time. You run into another guy, who also has his fleet.
You decide to play. Each player uses the same point total of ships, in order
to have a game that is (more or less) evenly balanced. You play. You have fun.
That's bring and battle.
I enjoy it because A: it allows me to play some of the games that I am
normally not able to (due to a lack of local players),
and B: because it is fun to go head-to-head with an opponent and, all
things being equal, proceed to beat the tar out of him with the forces that
you have spent so much time and effort on.
Scenarios are a lot of fun, and I enjoy playing them, but they take work. They
take time to design them; time that I do not have. Plus, I have found that,
all too often, I would be the one designing the scenario, and therefore would
be the guy stuck with the Ref cap. I don't like running games. I like playing
them. I like the luxury of being able to pick up a box of tanks, go to the
local Hobby Shop, sit down and play.
You can't do that with Stargrunt. That, and its total lack of local
popularity, are why I have given up on it. I CAN do tha
> What is various people's obession with the form of game called
(Sorry if this show up twice. My finger slipped.)
It has nothing to do with taking your gaming too seriously. Or with forming a
gaming group (although that might happen, with any luck). It's about playing
the damned game. Say you're at a convention, for example...you have your FT
ships with you, but you were not able to sign
up for any games in time. You run into another guy, who also has his fleet.
You decide to play. Each player uses the same point total of ships, in order
to have a game that is (more or less) evenly balanced. You play. You have fun.
That's bring and battle.
I enjoy it because A: it allows me to play some of the games that I am
normally not able to (due to a lack of local players),
and B: because it is fun to go head-to-head with an opponent and, all
things being equal, proceed to beat the tar out of him with the forces that
you have spent so much time and effort on.
Scenarios are a lot of fun, and I enjoy playing them, but they take work. They
take time to design them; time that I do not have. Plus, I have found that,
all too often, I would be the one designing the scenario, and therefore would
be the guy stuck with the Ref cap. I don't like running games. I like playing
them. I like the luxury of being able to pick up a box of tanks, go to the
local Hobby Shop, sit down and play.
You can't do that with Stargrunt. That, and its total lack of local
popularity, are why I have given up on it. I CAN do that with a lot of other
games. That's why I still play them.
You know, annoying though GW gamers are, I can say this much for them:
They are at least a hell of a lot less arrogant than GZG gamers....
> They are at least a hell of a lot less arrogant than GZG gamers....
This is a rather sweeping generalisation. I'd rather be called a Sad Star Trek
Space Gamer, who has tried them all and found FT to be the space combat game
*I* like the best.
They may not very good for B&B gaming, but they aren't designed for that sort
of gaming encounter (not that wanting to play such games is wrong. The point
system is too loose and house rules are pivotal to the game.
Lets not degenerate into 'my games better than your game' because it all comes
down to what suits *you*
> They are at least a hell of a lot less arrogant than GZG gamers....
Now, Tim, be fair. He wasn't saying any other game is better or worse, just
that we're arrogant (I'm assuming obnoxiously so.) ;->= Probably from
underdog status.
Personally, I've already admitted that I don't care for SG or DS, but love FT.
I admit that makes me a simple sort. And, I'd be the first to admit holes in
FT, though it 'is getting better'. (Old man's voice from Monty Python and the
Holy Grail.)
Plenty of arrogant folks dedicated to any game you care to mention. I
personally apologize for any arrogance in my words.
The_Beast
PS. As an aside, Yes, Minister and Yes, PM have played in the US on PBS; Yes,
Minister is even available on tape from Signals. Charming little show.
"Tim Jones" <Tim.Jones@Smallworld.co.uk> on 09/21/98 09:10:13 AM
Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc: (bcc: Doug Evans/CSN/UNEBR)
Subject: RE: [MISC] Bring and Battle
> They are at least a hell of a lot less arrogant than GZG gamers....
This is a rather sweeping generalisation. I'd rather be called a Sad Star Trek
Space Gamer, who has tried them all and found FT to be the space combat game
*I* like the best.
They may not very good for B&B gaming, but they aren't designed for that sort
of gaming encounter (not that wanting to play such games is wrong. The point
system is too loose and house rules are pivotal to the game.
Lets not degenerate into 'my games better than your game' because it all comes
down to what suits *you*
tim jones
> At 06:26 AM 9/21/98 -0700, Tom Sullivan wrote:
> have found that, all too often, I would be the one designing the
> other games. That's why I still play them.
This is the main problem my friend and I had in trying to get people to play
SGII at both our regular gaming club and newer one we joined. People we showed
the game to made the first comment of "Where's the points system!?!". When we
expalined that the game had no points system and that
the game was scenario-based, they mostly shrugged and said "THAT can't
be fair then" and would walk off (it needs to be noted here that most of those
who wrote off the game without trying it were the hardcore 40K players). The
very, very few that were left and wanted to try a game played and thought it
was too hard to do the work on scenarios to bother, and the game lay silent.
Recently at our local club, the game has taken a revival (much to Toby and my
pleasure) as they have all started to see the merits of the game and the fact
that the scenarios aren't too hard to do anyway. Thank the gods!
> You know, annoying though GW gamers are, I can say this much for them:
> They are at least a hell of a lot less arrogant than GZG gamers....
As other have said, that's a gross generalisation. No criticism, Tom, but it
is. Here in Brisbane I have found the opposite to be generally true. The
hardcore GW gamers are supremely arrogant about their game and talk about
nothing else. Try to talk to them about other gaming systems and they quickly
leave, shut you up or try to get the topic back onto GW games. After that they
really don't want to know you unless you start to play GW games. The GZG
gamers are much more open and willing to try new games and to talk about them.
And they tend to be much friendler. Sure they get a bit arrogant about GW
games and gamers, but its kind of a "they do it too" attitude. Here in
Brisbane, the GW gamers are generally much, much worse (there are exceptions,
but most of them are really, really arrogant).
I still do enjoy the odd game of 40K. Hell, I like the universe with its
high fantasy and escape-ism and I have a sentimental attachment to my
Imperial Guardsmen who have taken on personalities of their own. But to play
the game and enjoy it, I have to radically alter the rules or
introduce numerous house rules to play. With SGII I don't. Its kind-of
realistic, fun to play and always nail-biting (remember your green
trooper who downed the veteran Powered Armour trooper and killed him, Jase?)
IMHO. If the new 40K is everything I've heard it to be, I may just try it out
but I will be playing SGII for much, much longer.
Whew! <Rant Mode OFF>