PDA

View Full Version : "A game for life"?



Osbad
01-05-2007, 13:59
Something struck me recently in an otherwise standard slanging match I was observing between pro-GW tribesmen and pro-PP tribesmen. It was this:

Is it reasonable for us to expect a manufacturer (be it GW, PP, Rackham or whoever) to create a game that will continue to be playable by us for the forever?

I say this because personally I like variety and the thought of only playing one game for the rest of my life bores me silly. However good the game I am always going to want to experiment and try others. At the minute my two main games are LotR and WM, but I'm quite happy that that situation will likely change at some time in the future.

On the other hand, many people here and on other forums have been playing 40k (or whatever, but I do have the impression that this phenomenon is manly exhibited by 40k players) exclusively since they started, have no interest in other games, and expect the manufacturer to continue to produce output of interest to them to keep them "hooked" on the game for the rest of their lives.

Personally I woudln't say that was a reasonable expectation, but you may disagree.

On the third (??) hand, we have those who naysay PP's games on the basis that "they don't have the staying potential" that 40k has, as if somehow a good game needs to be infinitely extendable to be worth considering buying into.

I am genuinely interested in hearing whether (and particularly how) you believe it is possible for one game system to be maintained in an interesting state for an indefinite period. I am trying not to sland this toward or against any individual manufacturer's behaviour/reputation/practices, although as I have said, I have my own personal opinion as to the answer to this question regarding my own attitudes.

clovis
01-05-2007, 16:03
Something struck me recently in an otherwise standard slanging match I was observing between pro-GW tribesmen and pro-PP tribesmen. It was this:

Is it reasonable for us to expect a manufacturer (be it GW, PP, Rackham or whoever) to create a game that will continue to be playable by us for the forever?

I say this because personally I like variety and the thought of only playing one game for the rest of my life bores me silly. However good the game I am always going to want to experiment and try others. At the minute my two main games are LotR and WM, but I'm quite happy that that situation will likely change at some time in the future.

On the other hand, many people here and on other forums have been playing 40k (or whatever, but I do have the impression that this phenomenon is manly exhibited by 40k players) exclusively since they started, have no interest in other games, and expect the manufacturer to continue to produce output of interest to them to keep them "hooked" on the game for the rest of their lives.

Personally I woudln't say that was a reasonable expectation, but you may disagree.

On the third (??) hand, we have those who naysay PP's games on the basis that "they don't have the staying potential" that 40k has, as if somehow a good game needs to be infinitely extendable to be worth considering buying into.

I am genuinely interested in hearing whether (and particularly how) you believe it is possible for one game system to be maintained in an interesting state for an indefinite period. I am trying not to sland this toward or against any individual manufacturer's behaviour/reputation/practices, although as I have said, I have my own personal opinion as to the answer to this question regarding my own attitudes.

It is a very interesting question. I've been playing since the beginning at 40k with Rogue Trader and since then the games(as you all know) has evolved. Some would same for the worst but for me i still enjoy it a lot! I've tried over games of course over the years and most recently WM but is still go back to 40K. It's wierd but i've built this"emotionnal link" with the game and the universe and i'm very attached to it. There are ups and dawn but the game still does the magic for me. I'm probably on e of the few veteran who hasn't left the game:evilgrin:

Templar Ben
01-05-2007, 16:30
Is it reasonable for us to expect a manufacturer (be it GW, PP, Rackham or whoever) to create a game that will continue to be playable by us for the forever?

Forever? No. For 20+ years? Yes.


I say this because personally I like variety and the thought of only playing one game for the rest of my life bores me silly. However good the game I am always going to want to experiment and try others. At the minute my two main games are LotR and WM, but I'm quite happy that that situation will likely change at some time in the future.

On the other hand, many people here and on other forums have been playing 40k (or whatever, but I do have the impression that this phenomenon is manly exhibited by 40k players) exclusively since they started, have no interest in other games, and expect the manufacturer to continue to produce output of interest to them to keep them "hooked" on the game for the rest of their lives.

Personally I woudln't say that was a reasonable expectation, but you may disagree.

It would be unreasonable to expect the game to not change since the nature of the game requires change. Monopoly has remained popular even though the rules have not changed but that is due to the nature of the game itself. People like that fact that board games are the ultimate in balance and the fact that the rules don't change. Now if the shoe got an extra d6 to roll for movement but gave up the ability to have more than 3 houses on a property I am sure it would not have the static staying power.


On the third (??) hand, we have those who naysay PP's games on the basis that "they don't have the staying potential" that 40k has, as if somehow a good game needs to be infinitely extendable to be worth considering buying into.

People have different standards is the best reason for this. If I am going to invest in the game then I want to know that it will stay around long enough for me to "get my money's worth". The prices at GW don't bother me because I make plenty of money to play. Other people have a different breakpoint. I could drop $5K at the casino just as easily but I get more out of GW as far as entertainment. (Add in the booze and hookers and the scales tilt but I digress). How much is PP? How much time must you dedicate to learning the rules? How much time will you spend trying to find someone to play against? How much can you actually play the game? How many years can you find people to play against? Compare that to GW. I am not saying GW is the best but that is definately a consideration for many. It is not a requirement for infinate extension but a view of is the initial investment recovered.


I am genuinely interested in hearing whether (and particularly how) you believe it is possible for one game system to be maintained in an interesting state for an indefinite period. I am trying not to sland this toward or against any individual manufacturer's behaviour/reputation/practices, although as I have said, I have my own personal opinion as to the answer to this question regarding my own attitudes.

The nature of this game is change. By changing the rules in a manner that doesn't eliminate the current players while allowing for growth will keep the game growing. Growing power levels isn't the way but I think GWs periodic reviews where the "obvious" choice becomes more expensive and new choices are added will serve them well going forward.

TheLionReturns
01-05-2007, 16:54
I'm not really sure whether I should be contributing to this as my experience may fall outside the question. I enjoy the hobby from a fluff, modeling and painting point of view more so than the actual gameplay itself. For me the attraction of the hobby is partly the ever deepening of the background of each race and the ever improving quality and variety of miniatures.

In this sense the constant support for the game and constant innovation is important in keeping me interested, but considering if interested I will spend on the hobby this seems reasonable.

If you are referring more to the constant changes to he rules of games to reinvent them, this is less important to me. I find it hard to take the hobby seriously enough to play competitively (I get my competitive juices flowing with other activities), so the balance and precision of the rules is less important to me. I would not be bothered at all if GW stopped bringing out new and improved rules as long as the innovation in fluff and models remained.

In fact more complicated and for me richer rules particularly in previous incarnations of 40K appealed to me more, and I would not have been disappointed had GW not invested and kept things the same.

Of course this is my experience, and for a competitive gamer change is necessary. Both in terms of the need for the new tactical challenge of different units but also removing the rule anomalies that get exploited from time to time. In this sense if GW wished its games to be competitive and run tournaments for them I believe continuing change is a requirement that goes with the territory. Yes just bringing out a completely new game would be one option but that would disappoint people who experience the hobby in the way I do and quite frankly probably be more effort and more of a risk for GW. Not only would more time and resources need to be invested for a new game but there is the risk of it not being liked. GW is a business and as such is risk adverse, within reason of course.

grickherder
01-05-2007, 16:56
Is it reasonable for us to expect a manufacturer (be it GW, PP, Rackham or whoever) to create a game that will continue to be playable by us for the forever?

Assuming we still have a copy of the rules, the miniatures, some terrain, dice and working fingers, we can keep playing any game we like. Nothing stopping you from busting out Rogue Trader.

But I guess what you're getting it as is whether or not we should expect a game to be continually expanded, revised and supported indefinitely.

I would say probably not. There are very few games that stand the test of time and fewer game companies. Also, if a game changes to the point where it is close to unrecognizable when compared to it's beginnings, is it still around?


I say this because personally I like variety and the thought of only playing one game for the rest of my life bores me silly. However good the game I am always going to want to experiment and try others. At the minute my two main games are LotR and WM, but I'm quite happy that that situation will likely change at some time in the future.

I definitely agree. The good thing about miniatures is that they don't melt. Sure, they go out of fashion, perhaps need to be repainted as painting styles change (and skills improve). While new editions of a given game might make a certain miniature with certain equipment no longer valid in the rules (that happened to me a lot between 2nd and 3rd ed 40k and 5th ed and 6th WFB), the miniatures are still little statues of something and you can either make house rules or play with rules that have rules to make anything work (5150 from twohourwargames.com for example).


On the other hand, many people ... expect the manufacturer to continue to produce output of interest to them to keep them "hooked" on the game for the rest of their lives.

Personally I woudln't say that was a reasonable expectation, but you may disagree.

It depends how much tolerance they have for change. During the height of Battletech, if you would have asked a player how they would feel if eventually Battletech became a game with prepainted miniatures, no hexes, and all the stats on a base which you click when it gets damaged, they'd tell you to get lost. Fortunately for them, those who still want to play the original can get classic battletech stuff from Ironwind Metals. That said, it's certainly not a common game anymore. It could be that over the next 20 years, something similar will happen with 40k.


On the third (??) hand, we have those who naysay PP's games on the basis that "they don't have the staying potential" that 40k has, as if somehow a good game needs to be infinitely extendable to be worth considering buying into.

First of all, I'd have to challenge the "staying potential" idea. Is it something about the rules themselves? The way miniatures are released? It seems to me as long as people keep buying them and playing, it has as much staying power as anything else. 40k was once the size of Warmachine. A big global recession could hit in the next 10 years that shatters GW but allows a smaller company to whether the storm. I find such predictions and assessments useless.

I would agree with the posters conclusions-- a game does not need to be infinitely extensible to be worth buying into. If PP packs up the show and moves on to something else, my miniatures will see use with other rules sets. Same with 40k or anything else. Sure, miniatures will improve and my miniatures might look old and ugly, but painted old and ugly is often better than the latest and greatest primer grey mass.


I am genuinely interested in hearing whether (and particularly how) you believe it is possible for one game system to be maintained in an interesting state for an indefinite period.

A long time? Yes. Indefinitely, probably not.

Bloodbowl has hung in there pretty well. Major cities often have 20+ player leagues. Some of it hasn't changed in a long time, but some of it has changed drastically.

I would say that 40k doesn't even qualify. The differences between RT and 2nd Edition are such that one could call it a separate game. The differences between 2nd and the latest editions, likewise.

D&D is another good example-- I'd say that d20 isn't the same game as the 1970s D&D. It has the brand and some concepts, but I'd say it's a completely different RPG. I'd even go so far as to say that d20 is nearly a miniatures combat game with an RPG wrapper. The style of given group can drift play as they like though, emphasizing some things and not others.

So I would say that things won't have infinite lifespans and even the long lived games bear little resemblance to their original inceptions and then might even count as different games (whether or not they are better, is a matter of taste).

I think a useful skill to learn from historical gamers is to think of your miniatures as being separate from the rules. Just look at how drastically rules can change. A historical gamer might take his armies and run through scenarios in 10 or more rulesets over years. His miniatures don't melt when he shelves rules he doesn't like. Neither do ours. They go out of style like clothes, but take a look around, that doesn't stop people.

Huw_Dawson
01-05-2007, 19:17
D&D is another good example-- I'd say that d20 isn't the same game as the 1970s D&D. It has the brand and some concepts, but I'd say it's a completely different RPG. I'd even go so far as to say that d20 is nearly a miniatures combat game with an RPG wrapper. The style of given group can drift play as they like though, emphasizing some things and not others.

Spot on there. As a DM believing in no-board adventures, it requires alot of quick maths on the basis of how far things are away, but it is possible. It's probably not the best way to go about it, but meh.

- Huw

The game is afoot
01-05-2007, 20:38
Is it reasonable for us to expect a manufacturer (be it GW, PP, Rackham or whoever) to create a game that will continue to be playable by us for the forever?.


Wicked topic Os.
I feel blessed that it's already happened to me, I played at the first European 'Armies of Arcana' tournament in London last weekend and I will play that game system for as long as someone wants to play it with me.

After 24 years of playing WFB at tourneys etc. I was worn out with all the many problems that exist in that system.
It's still a good system for bringing the kids in to the greater hobby but I need something better, something more advanced and realistic with balance between the lists...

Now I have a strong preference for ranked up Fantasy War Games, with lots of models and superb looking terrain, but as there are not many options, I did all the well known options first in my search for a new game.
I searched through Crocodile Games Wargods of Aegyptus, PP Hordes, Rackhams Confrontation, did a few years of Warmaster, checked out WAB which is essentially WFB without the magic based on historical armies. I went through DBA and DBM all over again.

None of these systems ignited the old passion for TTG until a fellow introduced me to a game I'd never heard before and the rest is history.
It is balanced, works to a stat line formula and also costs ALL special abilities.
Everything in the entire game is balanced to everything else because of a formula that has seen ten years of rigorous playtesting.
The morale system is a juxtaposition of pure simplicity and realism , I cannot speak highly enough of it AND, ALL models from ANY manufacturers are welcome.
So all my existing models were eligible, it didn't break my bank to buy more brand specific models for a new brand specific game.
It also allows historical armies to play within the Fantasy genre on an equal footing so I can roll out the '300' from the film against Lixardmen, or I can play Maximus and

Is it perfect?
Nothing is.
But it is easily the best ranked up TTM fantasy game I have ever seen or ever played.
It gives me everything I always wanted from WFB and more without the shortcomings.
Frankly, I'm currently in gaming heaven.
When I was playing WFB I spent the last four years only attending WFB tournies because the tourney atmosphere made up for the aspects of the system that had grown to irritate me especially when after each edition they were not being addressed.
So as time went by I was attending less and less WFB tournies until my gaming had almost dried up.

Since finding this new system I have played over 40 games of it in the last calendar year and my painting and converting inspiration has rekindled, seeing me purchase another 5 very large 28mm armies from smaller figure manufacturers like Westwind, Kallistra, Black Tree and Vendel.

I hope everyone else can find their holy grail system that makes them play this many games in a calendar year and gets their gaming desires rejuvenated to fever pitch.

dodicula
01-05-2007, 21:21
I don't expect it to last forever, haven't played 40K in over a year, because its just not fun anymore. Still trying to find a decent sci-fi game to replace 40k and where I can use all my miniatures. Till then, I'll just have to content myself with WHFB, but it is comferting to know that if GW ever screws up the rules, Armies of Arcana is a few mouse click away

grickherder
01-05-2007, 21:28
Still trying to find a decent sci-fi game to replace 40k and where I can use all my miniatures.

I'd recommend giving 5150 from twohourwargames.com (http://www.twohourwargames.com) a look. THW's reaction system creates a different type of play than 40k, but it is satisfying. It's also designed to work with any miniature. Like Armies of Arcana, production values are not up to the glossy standards of GW, Privateer Press or Rackham, but the game is solid and the author answers any question quite quickly in the twohourwargames yahoogroup. There are also lots of players for it on the forums at theminiaturespage.com, so I'd imagine you'd get discussion on it there as well.

Just a hint-- if you do get it and buy the print version, whine a bit about not being able to wait for such a cool game to arrive by post and Ed might send you a free PDF copy as well.

swordwind
01-05-2007, 21:43
Play Starship Troopers. Everyone knows Space Marines are just the Mobile Infantry under another name anyway.

Mr Zephy
01-05-2007, 21:56
I'm probably on e of the few veteran who hasn't left the game:evilgrin:

You're on E? :eek:

Myself, i've only been playing 40k for a few months, and WhF a few years ago. To me it all depends on who you're playing with. If they make the game fun, and varied, it could never die. However, trying new things in a group is fun.

THE KAPPTIN
01-05-2007, 22:24
Interesting point. But I believe Warhammer and 40k actually do have the potential to last a lifetime. The thing is this isn't because the rules are good, or because there is lots of support or new content to keep the game fresh, it's because the players can contribute so much life and variety to their games and their hobby.
You can start and re-start armies endlessly and have each army be unique, whether by changing colour schemes, converting, or writing a new backstory. Basically the same thing goes for gaming: you can keep making it new for yourself by creating new terrain and scenarios, playing different types of campaign, narrative business, etc. As long as you rimagination holds up, the game has endless variety.
GW's games are particularly suited to this because of their rich background that makes it easier and more interesting than average to make your own unique armies and scenarios. There's so much there to draw from. A newer game like WM has less background so it's harder to come up with ideas. Also, in WH, armies are endlessly varied. Empire can come from any number of cities, and you can use their city as your excuse/reason why they have their own individual "look" and story. As far as I know in WM, Khador is Khador, and Scorscha is Scorscha, so there's less inspiration to customize.

I suppose it comes down to whether you're into the gaming aspect, or the hobby and storytelling aspects. Hobby and storytelling can keep WH alive forever, even if GW stops supporting it. But if all you want is rules (and you're not prepared to make up some of your own), no amount of complexity could keep the game interesting forever.

Damien 1427
01-05-2007, 22:36
No, I just want an interesting rules-set. I have that in LOTOW, and with that I can go anywhere - Sci-Fi, Zombie Horror, Dungeon-Crawling... I can't say I want support. Necromunda is pretty much dead save for fan interaction, and that's probably my favourite.

So no. I don't need GW to keep it up to keep me in the game. I'd love to see Necromunda get a full reboot back to the Good Old Days, with plastic multi-part boxed-sets of the Houses, metal Outlander kits, and a huge push ala Lord of the Rings. Won't happen, and I have my various gangers to keep my hand in.

Warmachine, as long as you can get the models, will probably do well. It's greatest strength and greatest weakness is the way it works, akin (Vaguely) to a CCG. This means the core book alone will get you by, much like Necromuna, much like LOTOW or LOTR.

It isn't terribly reasonable. They'll (The various publishers) make games until they stop making money. All we, the gamers, need are the core rules. With that, access to models, and access to other players, we're laughing. Everything else is just icing.

Horus0001
01-05-2007, 22:36
Its easy to look at the systems alone, but the hobby as a whole encompases the background material, painting and gaming. So it really gives 3 types of entertainment. But i doubt anyone does it regularly for 20+years, i personally have done it for about 8years now, with a few gaps in between.

Lockjaw
01-05-2007, 23:48
personally, as much as I like 40k and WFB, I have to play more than that, I play some of the clix games (mageknight, mechwarrior, hero/horrorclix) Pirates of the 7 seas, RPGs, the WoW cardgame, brikwars (a lego wargame) chainmail, heroscape, risk, monopoly and other boardgames, historical wargames to an extent, and always try new games when i can

Nurglitch
02-05-2007, 00:03
I already know some games I plan to play for the rest of my life: Go, Chess, Poker, and Crossfire.

Mad Makz
02-05-2007, 00:26
A great rule set alone will last me a lifetime if I want to play toy soldiers with my friends or children.

A great boardgame will also last a lifetime.

Only GW produced ruleset that I have played could say could do that is LOTR, the base mechanics already having spun off another game I am interested in (LotOW)

I think GW have done enough to not need any updates to the rules for LOTR ever - due to the way it was designed and then tweaked through the Fellowship, Two Towers, and ROTK releases. The core mechanics are elegant and brilliant and can used for almost any sort of heroic skirmish, narrative style game with the barest of bolt on rules - the sort of game I could play with both a wargamer and none wargamer and get a kick out of.

Fantasy I will probably play for sometime yet - but I don't see me keeping up with it past the current edition (which still gives me another 5 years or so) - I think that'll probably be me done with Fantasy.

As a company though I expect GW to protect it's IP for as long as it can possibly be profitable - and as GW's IP has become a fairly massive force then I'd at least expect it to stick around the greater a part of a century from it's inception.

I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years from now GW models start showing up on the future equivalent of Antiques Roadshow, and toy soldier collecting and painting gets identified as a 'great craft movement of the late 20th/early 21st century)

starlight
02-05-2007, 00:48
It's funny that you should say that because just last week I was talking about the massive amount of minis that I had and the lady went on about how her relative pulled out grandad's box o' toy soldiers which turned out to be worth tens of thousands of dollars.......

Who's going to have the last laugh......?:p

I forsee the LotR rules *system* outlasting WFB and 40K combined. It was designed for gaming from the ground up with zero legacy and 25 years of experience times the number of contributors. It will stand the test of time.

Lander
02-05-2007, 01:27
WHFB and 40K have the potential, not to mention all the Specialist Games.


On the third (??) hand, we have those who naysay PP's games on the basis that "they don't have the staying potential" that 40k has, as if somehow a good game needs to be infinitely extendable to be worth considering buying into.

PP's games have a fantasy/steam punk basis you can do alot with that, hell I thought up 3 Jacks and Warbeast not in any of the books yet...

grickherder
02-05-2007, 07:16
I forsee the LotR rules *system* outlasting WFB and 40K combined. It was designed for gaming from the ground up with zero legacy and 25 years of experience times the number of contributors. It will stand the test of time.

The publishers of Warhammer Ancient Battles (Warhammer Historicals, a division of GW) have already made a Wild West wargame using LOTR as the basis (called Legends of The Old West):

http://www.warhammer-historical.com/
http://www.warhammer-historical.com/tow/books.asp

EDIT-- sorry, I see that you already mentioned LoTOW in the previous post. Links are nice though :D

grickherder
02-05-2007, 07:24
It isn't terribly reasonable. They'll (The various publishers) make games until they stop making money. All we, the gamers, need are the core rules. With that, access to models, and access to other players, we're laughing. Everything else is just icing.

Exactly. Once we take ownership of a game, it can live on long after it's creators. At a con, I saw people playing a modified version of a hex based wargame from the 70s but with miniatures. The guys running it said there's enough interest that they run it every month at a local club.

If I were to list a couple of "core rules" that I think are brilliantly applicable to all sorts of settings, I'd probably include the system behind LOTR/LOTOW, The reaction system from Twohourwargames.com and Crossfire (or it's skirmish relative Company Commander) for anything post WWI.

snurl
02-05-2007, 08:08
When I retire there is going to be one LONG gaming session.

dodicula
02-05-2007, 10:23
I'd recommend giving 5150 from twohourwargames.com (http://www.twohourwargames.com) a look. THW's reaction system creates a different type of play than 40k, but it is satisfying. It's also designed to work with any miniature. Like Armies of Arcana, production values are not up to the glossy standards of GW, Privateer Press or Rackham, but the game is solid and the author answers any question quite quickly in the twohourwargames yahoogroup. There are also lots of players for it on the forums at theminiaturespage.com, so I'd imagine you'd get discussion on it there as well.

Just a hint-- if you do get it and buy the print version, whine a bit about not being able to wait for such a cool game to arrive by post and Ed might send you a free PDF copy as well.

I took a quick look at 5150, and it seems like a small skirmish game. Does it work with lets say the equivalent models for a 40k 1500pt. game? Also, what do you like dislike about it? What makes it better than 40K?

Mr Zephy
02-05-2007, 17:13
My only problem i can see with it is that on the front cover, someone has a missile stuck to their head.

grickherder
02-05-2007, 17:24
I took a quick look at 5150, and it seems like a small skirmish game. Does it work with lets say the equivalent models for a 40k 1500pt. game?

Almost. It can work, but it will no longer fit in the "two hour" time frame of twohourwargames.com. I think most people find the most they'll fit in 2 hours is about 50-60 miniatures and a handful of vehicles once they have the results for the reaction system in their heads a bit.



Also, what do you like dislike about it? What makes it better than 40K?

I dislike the low production values the most. Their stuff quite literally, has been made in a word processor and exported to PDF. Most of the art is alright, but not anywhere close to the standards set by say GW or Privateer Press.

I also dislike how for a lot of wargamers, they have to unlearn a bit first. It can be a bit of a barrier because the reaction system is quite frankly, unique. Generally speaking someone without preconceived ideas about how a wargame should go seems to pick it up faster than someone expecting something like 40k. I'm sure more examples or some additional rules explanations might help with this. The rules are solid, but some people just can't seem to "get it." This could be a failure of the writing, but it's equally likely the person is being held back by their ideas of how a wargame works.

What makes it better than 40k? The reaction system. It's a simple little mechanic where you check 2 dice against your "rep" (or if you want, a specific stat, but generally the typical grunt won't have too many, if not only one). The results are pass none, pass one and pass two. You might roll when you get shot at, or see an enemy run passed an open space. It basically builds in the ability to react, have over-watch fire, etc., right into the system.

There's also suppression built right into the system. Even if your unit doesn't get killed, you can get "outgunned" and have to hunker down or back off.

The game is also designed to be a bit cinematic. There are "stars" and "mooks." Stars obviously have more options and are stronger. They also have the ability, on some rolls, to choose their outcome-- no pass, one pass, two pass. Because sometimes you don't want a certain result.

I would say the best or worst thing about it is that it doesn't take itself too seriously. If you like competition or rules-lawyering you might not like it. It's about being enjoyable. If you're the type of gamer that gets frustrated by things not going your way, it might not be a good fit. If you like to design killer lists and tweak wargear, it might not be a good fit.

The game is afoot
02-05-2007, 22:08
When I retire there is going to be one LONG gaming session.

When I retire I'll probably be dead in a week so I'm maximising my gaming while I still can.

Harry
02-05-2007, 23:13
There really are some old buffers on this thead with all this talk of retirement.

I am with game is afoot on this. Play now. You might never make retirement.
No one ever died and thought 'ohhh, I wish I had spent more time working.'

I have been at this a while. I first started playing Wargames with my brother when I was about 8-10. We played with a couple of rules sets and airfix soldiers. (the little ones).

When I was about 10 years old I discovered Dungeaon and Dragons and Tolkien at roughly the same time. I got completely lost in a fantasy world of Elves, Dwarfs and Goblins and have remained there evere since. Marvelous.

I loved D&D and sppent hours with it without ever actually playing that much. I just loved creating characters and dungeaons and background etc. I honestly thought that would be a game for life. But Then along came Warhammer.

I was there at the start and got a signed copy of the first edition hot of the presses for some small contribution I made as a child. But I didn't have the money to invest in the armies then. Having a bit of spare cash and the third edition came along at roughly the same time. I have been lost to Warhammer Fantasy Battle ever since. It will be the game I play for the rest of my days.I doubt I will ever play another Fantasy game. (but then that is what I thought about D&D at the time).

If I want a change I tend to want a change of Background and play WWII or Wild West or Warhammer Ancients rather than a change to a different Fantasy setting. The warhammer world has just so much depth to it compared to almost anything else I just can't see me being tempted away from it.

(Having said that to hear The game is afoot waxing lyrical about Armies of Arcania I am almost tempted to order up a copy and take a look just to see what all the fuss is about).

RavenMorpheus
03-05-2007, 00:39
Something struck me recently in an otherwise standard slanging match I was observing between pro-GW tribesmen and pro-PP tribesmen. It was this:

Is it reasonable for us to expect a manufacturer (be it GW, PP, Rackham or whoever) to create a game that will continue to be playable by us for the forever?

I say this because personally I like variety and the thought of only playing one game for the rest of my life bores me silly. However good the game I am always going to want to experiment and try others. At the minute my two main games are LotR and WM, but I'm quite happy that that situation will likely change at some time in the future.

On the other hand, many people here and on other forums have been playing 40k (or whatever, but I do have the impression that this phenomenon is manly exhibited by 40k players) exclusively since they started, have no interest in other games, and expect the manufacturer to continue to produce output of interest to them to keep them "hooked" on the game for the rest of their lives.

Personally I woudln't say that was a reasonable expectation, but you may disagree.

On the third (??) hand, we have those who naysay PP's games on the basis that "they don't have the staying potential" that 40k has, as if somehow a good game needs to be infinitely extendable to be worth considering buying into.

I am genuinely interested in hearing whether (and particularly how) you believe it is possible for one game system to be maintained in an interesting state for an indefinite period. I am trying not to sland this toward or against any individual manufacturer's behaviour/reputation/practices, although as I have said, I have my own personal opinion as to the answer to this question regarding my own attitudes.

The interest in a game system only has longevity if it can attract new players at the same time as retaining established players, keep recruiting and keep existing players and you can't go wrong - but if you can't keep the exisitng players don't bother.

ashc
03-05-2007, 00:42
Wow, excellent thread Osbad.

I've been into the warhammer universes since i was 10, and its only in recent times within the last year when i came to university and discovered all sorts of other games people play. Currently we are running all sorts of rpgs (D&D, Iron Kingdoms, Vampire, and Paranoia) cardgames such as Magic and Munchkin, as well as a range of wargames including 40k, fantasy, warmachine/hordes, urban war. Its really opened my eyes to other systems around me and whilst i enjoy all the above, i still find myself drawn back to GWs IP.

I received armies of arcana last week and my plans for a samurai army will finally come to fruition! :evilgrin:

"a game for life"? - I don't know. "a gamer for life" - definitely.

Ash

starlight
03-05-2007, 00:53
I think Ash has it in one. It's not about having the *be all, end all* game, but offering the *gamer* the ability to move back and forth over time as they go through different phases of their lives.

This is where GW has not only dropped the ball, but smashed it flat and buried it. GW should have maintained Specialist Games, not because they make piles of money, but because they provide a service to the long time customer who may not have the resources (time or money) to invest in 40K or WFB, but dearly loves the GW worlds.

Instead of binning support, they should have celebrated the smaller games and pumped Fanatic Mag full of crossover ideas to keep reminding the gamer that 40K and WFB are *just over there* when they get more time. Instead they drove loyal gamers to the competition looking for well supported smaller games. If Necro and Gorka had been properly supported a fan wouldn't have had to create *40K in 40mins*, which GW repackaged as Combat Patrol.

The game is afoot
03-05-2007, 06:21
I received armies of arcana last week and my plans for a samurai army will finally come to fruition! :evilgrin: Ash

If you like ranked up systems, it's going to pleasantly surprise you.

One_Second_of_Insanity
03-05-2007, 07:55
this is where it get strange for me i have only ever played 40k (since early 2nd edition) along with dabbling in necromunda and gorkamorka. i have tried to start a few fantasy armies but for some reason they just havent stuck, ive always been drawn back to 40k.

as far as a rules system goes with a game for life it think that there are things that move around. i have also played space crusade, space hulk and advanced space crusade which all have different rule systems which work effectively. i am looking at trying to get some more units covered by the advanced space crusade stats and rules set and am finding it quite enjoyable.

what i believe makes this a game for life is all the peripheral matters such as painting and modelling combine that with the rich background i think the 40k universe becomes a place for life.

Gaebriel
03-05-2007, 09:02
...
"a game for life"? - I don't know. "a gamer for life" - definitely.
...
Dito.

I switched game systems back and forth over the years. I switched my focus between miniature collecting, boardgaming, roleplaying and wargaming (reading and films as a given). I have some games I don't feel I want to play again, I have others that I revisit then and now - I played 40k for a few months in the mid-nineties, and again for three years till last year.

All in all I love change. Nothing more exciting than coming back to a game after a couple of revisions and see how it turned out. It's less the rule but the backgrounds side that keeps me hooked on something.

Though I admit in general I like games with a low entry threshold (ressource-wise) - spending a couple of hundreds if not thousands is nothing I would do on a hunch (though it happened both with Magic and with 40k ;) ).

Back to the question at hand : I guess a game system should stand for itself - radiate an attractiveness whether it is the current edition, is out of production, get's shiny updates every year, and so on - but then, I'm from the last century :p

Osbad
03-05-2007, 09:13
Wow! Some great, thoughtful, responses here. I am very interested in hearing them all!

We all have different things that appeal to us, based on our experiences, friends, natural proclivities and the like. It's only by hearing these various views expressed that we can try and gain some understanding about what may or may not be "reasonable".

I personally love variety, but I have gained a little more understanding about those who are more focussed in their interests.

Great work gang!

Thumb
03-05-2007, 18:56
I like what Ashc said about "Gamer for life". I have been playing for a farily extended period of time and I find that the game system really doesn't matter as long as you have people that you can enjoy the game with. I own a number of game systems and have friends that play each and everyone of them with me. If it wasn't for the the friends that play I would probably just model and paint, which I find very relaxing. For me it isn't so much the game as it is the game community.