Hi All,
I found this in the newsgroups and thought it was too funny not to
share...
Exerpted from Jane's Guide to Wargamers, 4th ed., regarding the differences
between Stargrunt players and Warhammer 40,000 players.
SG players want a game that looks and feels like a historical, but with
rayguns. 40k players want a game that looks and feels like a RPG, but with
miniatures.
SG players believe that realism is very important; the lack thereof makes
WH40k a bad game. 40k players believe that drama is very important; the lack
thereof makes Stargrunt a bad game.
The ideal of realism, to a SG player, is of course the SG universe. The ideal
of drama, to a 40k player, is of course the 40k universe.
On a weekend when they aren't gaming, SG players may be found calculating the
instability of the ringworld or the specific density of the BOLA. On a weekend
when that aren't gaming, 40k players may be found
watching the latest WWF special on pay-per-view.
SG players reject any game that isn't strictly realistic because it goes
against their hard SF fanboy tendencies. 40k players reject any game that
isn't like theirs because GW tells them to.:]
SG players don't like Star Wars because Darth Vader isn't hard SF. 40k players
don't like Star Wars because Luke is a wuss. (incidentally, Legions of Steel
players like Star Wars lots, but wonder why Threepio doesn't get to kick any
ass)
SG players read lots of Heinlien & Asimov, but probably very little Hemingway.
40k players read lots of Wells & Lovecraft, but probably very little
Hemingway.
It is a bad idea to question a SG player concerning his gaming prefrences. It
is a bad idea to question a 40k player concerning his gaming prefrences.
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> I found this in the newsgroups and thought it was too funny not to
Don't even TELL me about your Chaos army, buddy!
> SG players believe that realism is very important; the lack
> The ideal of realism, to a SG player, is of course the SG universe.
Where the hell is the drama in a game between two geeky 12 year olds with
armies composed of more chesse than Wisconsin? Comedy is the word I'd use.
> On a weekend when they aren't gaming, SG players may be found
Excuse me... even I didn't get this one.
> On a weekend when that aren't gaming, 40k players may be found
Oh man! You don't know how true this is! I was at the local game store
yesterday to pick up some figs and recruit some new FT players, and all the
WH40K players wanted to talk about (besides the rumors of what the Evil Empire
is going to do with 40K 3rd edition) was the upcoming WWF SummerSlam on pay
per view.
> SG players reject any game that isn't strictly realistic because
Your damn right I'm a "hard SF fanboy" and I'm ----ing proud of
it!
> 40k players reject any game that isn't like theirs because GW
I got your "chapter approved miniatures" RIGHT HERE!!!!
> SG players don't like Star Wars because Darth Vader isn't hard SF.
Hey! I'm a SG player... and I hate SW for both reasons; especially the latter.
> SG players read lots of Heinlien & Asimov, but probably very little
Heinlien yes... I won't touch Asimov with a Ten-foot-poll....
not after "Foundation's Edge."
> 40k players read lots of Wells & Lovecraft, but probably very little
What the hell does "Farewell to Arms," and "The Old Man and the Sea"
have to do with sci-fi ground combat? Hmmmmmm? Huh?
> It is a bad idea to question a SG player concerning his gaming
Your point being?
> You wrote:
> > On a weekend when they aren't gaming, SG players may be found
Misspelled Bolo. And the Ringworld instabilitiy is a bit of an inside joke.
Niven came up with this "Ringworld" number in his Known Universe
(the only bit of which I bother with is his Man-Kzin Wars stuff, which
rocks!), which turned into a money machine for him. And some Engineering
students sat down and calculated why it wouldn't work due
to orbital instabilities. It's in N-Space, IIRC.
> 40k players read lots of Wells & Lovecraft, but probably very little
Damifino.
> Mark A. Siefert. wrote:
> > On a weekend when they aren't gaming, SG players may be found
Some science geeks told Larry Niven that the Ringworld as discribed in his
book was structurally unstable. Se he went out and wrote Ringworl Engineers to
explain this (and sell lots of books).
> At 06:36 PM 8/30/98 -0500, you wrote:
I was thinking that, but it doesn't make sense to me... who cares what the
density of a Bolo is? (Or have I just not read enough of the Bolo books? Only
have three or so.)
> And the Ringworld instabilitiy is a bit of an inside
> (the only bit of which I bother with is his Man-Kzin Wars stuff, which
Oddly enough, Man-Kzin is about the only Niven-associated stuff I don't
have... the early stuff was good, but most of the fourth book didn't impress
me at all. (What, another slaver in stasis? <sigh>) I should probably look at
the later ones, though... any recommendations?
> which turned into a money machine for him. And some
Yup. And Ringworld Engineers, though without the reasons. ^_-
> Shoon Writes:
I found this in the newsgroups and thought it was too funny not to
share...
Exerpted from Jane's Guide to Wargamers, 4th ed., regarding the differences
between Stargrunt players and Warhammer 40,000 players.
SG players want a game that looks and feels like a historical, but with
rayguns. 40k players want a game that looks and feels like a RPG, but with
miniatures.
XXX Boy, if 40k is like an RPG, I don't want to play that RPG (Blam! Blam! OK,
everybody roll up new characters...)
SG players believe that realism is very important; the lack thereof makes
WH40k a bad game. 40k players believe that drama is very important; the lack
thereof makes Stargrunt a bad game.
XXX Drama? The only drama I remember in recent 40k is who brought what
latest super-character - that pretty much determined who won. Old 40k
(yes, I used to play - back when there was one book, it was US$20, and
20 Space Marines were US$15) drama consisted of whether or not the scratchb
uilt walker would survive any handling XXX
The ideal of realism, to a SG player, is of course the SG universe. The ideal
of drama, to a 40k player, is of course the 40k universe.
XXX Ask most SG players what their ideal of realism is, and a glaze will
come over their distant eyes, and they'll mumble "Well, I've got this set of
rules I've been working on..." Ask 40k players what their ideal of
drama is, and of course it's 40k. But it's sort of like past-life
regression; everybody's the King of Spain, or the Emperor's Grand Inquisitor
Terminator Chaos Librarian. Nobody's the poor dumb Imperial Guard troopie who
buys it on the first turn in some really unpleasant way.XXX
On a weekend when they aren't gaming, SG players may be found calculating the
instability of the ringworld or the specific density of the BOLA. On a weekend
when that aren't gaming, 40k players may be found
watching the latest WWF special on pay-per-view.
XXX Naw, we're all sitting around coming up with new and ingenious uses for
Frenchmen, and the occasional house rule:) XXX
SG players reject any game that isn't strictly realistic because it goes
against their hard SF fanboy tendencies. 40k players reject any game that
isn't like theirs because GW tells them to.:]
XXX Hard SF Fanboy - oh yeah! My Terran MI can take your weenie Space
Marines any day! Why? Well, for one, we've got realistic background,
substance, and a coherent reason for existing! How about that?XXX
SG players don't like Star Wars because Darth Vader isn't hard SF. 40k players
don't like Star Wars because Luke is a wuss. (incidentally, Legions of Steel
players like Star Wars lots, but wonder why Threepio doesn't get to kick any
ass)
XXX NOTHING in SW was hard SF. Wasn't supposed to be. But I was disappointed
that Star Destroyers didn't have some mucking huge spinal weapon. BTW, I saw
some Traveller TNE calculations for a Star Destroyer
with an appropriate spinal mount (meson gun). Tech 21, about 1.25 km -
that thing could put the hurt on a planet REAL bad...XXX
SG players read lots of Heinlien & Asimov, but probably very little Hemingway.
40k players read lots of Wells & Lovecraft, but probably very little
Hemingway.
XXX Of course I read Hemingway. All of my ESU Volunteer Brigades are quite
angst-ridden, and we have bull-runs occasionally. They rarely make it
past the first APSW. 40k players read?:) XXX
It is a bad idea to question a SG player concerning his gaming prefrences. It
is a bad idea to question a 40k player concerning his gaming prefrences.
XXX No, it's a *good* idea to question SG players' gaming preferences -
you'll usually get a well reasoned answer, and spark some productive
discussion. They can also tell you *exactly* why they hate 40k, too. As for
the 40k players, well, "nothing else looks as cool" (real quote, honest). XXX
XXXNoahXXX
Schoon
On Sun, 30 Aug 1998 17:08:11 -0600, "Mark A. Siefert."
<cthulhu@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
> Where the hell is the drama in a game between two geeky 12 year
Maybe they mean drama in the wider sense. It easily qualifies as a Greek
tragedy, or a Roman farce...
> > On a weekend when they aren't gaming, SG players may be found
SF fanboy geekdom stuff. The kind of stuff that I used to do when I was in
high school, actually. There's a reason there's a famoust (well, famous in SF
circles) saying that, "Science Fiction is 14"...
> Your damn right I'm a "hard SF fanboy" and I'm ----ing proud of
Don't worry, you'll grow out of it... probably. :-) I used to be, too.
Then I started to look for something different in fiction: characters,
emotion, writing... After a while, "good ideas" aren't enough. Niven has yet
to write a female character with more than two dimensions, for one thing...
(which puts him about 1 dimension ahead of Tom Clancy... sorry, I'm in a catty
mood). :-)
> SG players read lots of Heinlien & Asimov, but probably very little
not after
> "Foundation's Edge."
You could touch Asimov with a 6 foot pole attached to an auger, though. Got to
get through that casket lid...
> 40k players read lots of Wells & Lovecraft, but probably very little
I think the writer was poking fun at SF with the usual mainstream belief that
no one has written truly literary SF. This is a spurious argument, such as
judging all mainstream writing on Tom Clancy or Jackie Collins. Instead of
Hemingway, and to keep on an SF note, the writer could have used Philip Dick,
Sheri Tepper, or even Harlan Ellison (his earlier stuff) or Ray Bradbury
(I'm
not a big Bradbury fan, but he's a wordsmith, thus a darling of the mainstream
world).
> It is a bad idea to question a SG player concerning his gaming
They are both prone to flame wars?
I don't buy a lot of the argument made in this joke. I'd replace Stargrunt
with Star Flee Battles, and it would be pretty accurate. I find Stargrunt
players are prone to playability. Most of the players I've played with aren't
big SF fans. I also don't find Stargrunt to be THAT accurate a realistic
simulation. I do happen to like its mixture of playability and realism,
though. The Stargrunt players I know are also willing to experiment and try
different systems. There are a number of SG2 players on this list who like
Great Rail Wars, Legions of Steel, Shockforce, and even games by the Evil
Empire.
In short, I find SG2 players to be open minded. I find too many GW players are
deeply indoctrinated in the religion of the One True Game. But they grow out
of this when they start having to spend their OWN paycheck on the
game...
On Sun, 30 Aug 1998 19:58:44 -0500, Noah Doyle <nvdoyle@midlink.com>
wrote:
> XXX Boy, if 40k is like an RPG, I don't want to play that RPG (Blam!
Blam!
> OK, everybody roll up new characters...)
As an RPG player, I find that SG is closer to my RPGs than 40K. Of course I
play Call of Cthulhu, not AD&D, or (shudder) the near-infamous Senzar...
> Old 40k
I remember old 40K! In fact, Rogue Trader was the only version of 40K I ever
played. It had its problems (no negative modifier for firing when moving? no
opportunity fire rule? broken point system? arms race?) but they were easily
fixed (in fact, GW actually recognized the opportunity fire rule problem;
funny, Dunnigan realized this shortly after Panzerblitz came out, about 15
years earlier...). It was a fun game if you kept it down to 30 or so figures a
side, most of which were just regular infantry types.
> XXX Hard SF Fanboy - oh yeah! My Terran MI can take your weenie Space
Gee, and I thought it was because your MI had nukes...
> XXX Of course I read Hemingway. All of my ESU Volunteer Brigades are
I preferred F. Scott Fitzgerald, myself. All my NSL troops are destined for a
tragic demise, but with lots of neat imagery in the terrain...
> XXX No, it's a *good* idea to question SG players' gaming preferences -
> you'll usually get a well reasoned answer, and spark some productive
This echoes my thoughts!
> As
I always thought 40K was the triumph of style over substance.
> Allan Goodall wrote:
...Snip...JTL
Niven has yet to write a
> female character with more than two dimensions, for one thing...
(which puts
> him about 1 dimension ahead of Tom Clancy... sorry, I'm in a catty
...Snip...JTL
Personally I have always considered the female characters to have a minimum of
three dimensions. Not to mention all the degrees they must have to fly around
space all the time!
bue for now,
> You wrote:
> XXX Naw, we're all sitting around coming up with new and ingenious
Dammit, the rules for mineclearing with penal batallions aren't done yet! And
I won't release them until I'm satisfied with 'em! Now leave the Frenchmen
alone, I need them to playtest with!
Is it really parody if you're parodying yourself?
> Marines any day! Why? Well, for one, we've got realistic background,
And tacnukes. Those are nice.
> XXX Of course I read Hemingway. All of my ESU Volunteer Brigades are
Angst? Angst? Most of my troops are too busy shooting something to look it up.
> ...Snip...JTL
(which puts
> > him about 1 dimension ahead of Tom Clancy... sorry, I'm in a catty
John L continued:>
> Personally I have always considered the female characters to
So we're all looking for well rounded female characters, eh?
> laserlight wrote:
(which
> puts
Enough with the double entendre. No, not for feminism sake. I just
hate being reminded that I'm still hopelessly single. ;-)
> On Sun, 30 Aug 1998, Mark A. Siefert. wrote:
> laserlight wrote:
(which
> > puts
You're a gamer. Judging by the batch of gamers I know, "hopelessly single" is
part of the legal definition.
Back on topic, I found Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy to have a nice
combo of genuinely 3-d characters - male & female - and very hard
science...
> John writes:
> You wrote:
> >XXX Naw, we're all sitting around coming up with new and ingenious
> Dammit, the rules for mineclearing with penal batallions aren't done
> Is it really parody if you're parodying yourself?
In this case, yes.
> Marines any day! Why? Well, for one, we've got realistic background,
> And tacnukes. Those are nice.
Oh, yeah, those. Actually, I was thinking of pitting them in a more literary,
existential conflict. Granted, 40k Space Marines may have everybody beat in
fatalism & ceremony, but Heinlein's cap troopers are the one's I'd want to
drink with. I mean, how many times can you hear stories about last stands,
cleansings & whatnot. And from guys who wear
bell-bottom PA?
> >XXX Of course I read Hemingway. All of my ESU Volunteer Brigades are
> Angst? Angst? Most of my troops are too busy shooting something to
Well, the VBs (above-mentioned Volunteer Brigades) have a lot of
ship-time
to read, while being transported from one mine-clearing operation to
another.
Seriously, though, I would hope that most SG players would get a good dose of
Kipling, as well.
> On Sun, 30 Aug 1998, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> SG players read lots of Heinlien & Asimov, but probably very little
SG players are probably literate enough to spell Heinlein's name
correctly ;-)
> Mark A. Siefert. wrote:
Was not there a thread just recently on how to calculate the energy level of a
metal rod launched from orbit as it impacted an AFV? They went as far as to
take inot account how muchthe reentry would degrade the metal rod.
I
would have to agree on this one.
Having played both games I would have to say the difference would be more like
the comparison a comic book and a war novel. On one hand you have people who
just want to see how "cool" they can make their stuff and how powerfull they
can be. On the other you have people who want to challenge others and
themselves tacticly and recreate some really nifty ideas on how combat might
be conducted in the future. I tend towards the latter but enjoy the goofiness
of the former every now and than also.
Of course as a whole I think that the SG guys would whip the ever lovin snot
out of most the Wackyhammer40K group. SG are justa little more serious about
being good at the game instead of just winning the game. Makes a big
difference.
Returning to my hole
That
Chuk Guy
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
And then there are those of us who read very little Hemingway because we don't
like it...:)
> You wrote:
> Seriously, though, I would hope that most SG players would get a good
Heheh...
One of the drinking songs in the bit o' fanfic I'm putting together is derived
from a Kipling poem.:)
> Noah Doyle wrote:
> 40k players want a game that looks and feels like a RPG,
Blam!
> OK, everybody roll up new characters...)
Ah, the good ol' original Traveller days....
'Neath Southern Skies