PDA

View Full Version : Safe Sane and Consensual, or The Arrogance of Playstyles.



YorkNecromancer
04-19-2015, 05:50 AM
Safe, Sane and Consensual
Or, The Arrogance of Unacknowledged Playstyles.

WARNING: This is the longest article I’ve ever written, and I normally write long-a** articles. Seriously, this thing is absurdly long. If you want the TL;DR version, skip to the bottom paragraph. I’ll understand.

Coloured Hankies in San Fran.

I’ve always been socially awkward.

Actually scratch that. I was barely more than a nervous frown with the social grace of a rancid fart from the age of fifteen until I somewhere round twenty three. Even now, I find it hard to be around people. A combination of introversion, social anxiety and outright terror leaves me ill at ease in almost ninety per cent of my interactions with humans and functionally unable to talk without embarrassing myself the remaining ten per cent of the time.

You don’t even want to know how difficult I found it when it came to finding a romantic partner. From stumbling my way through what could only be called ‘conversations’ in the most charitable sense of the word, to spending dark hours enjoying that special kind of loneliness you only find in nightclubs, women were never really into me. Even back in the day when you could mount the Steps of Shame to Sheffield’s Poxy Roxy, an establishment infamous because you could catch syphilis from touching the bar, I managed little more than a single snog with a drunken girl in an entirely blacked-out room. And this was over the entirety of my youth out clubbing.

http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/san/mobile-tours/uploads/111_Roxy%20Disco.jpg
Pictured: Leviathan, Lord of The Labyrinth.

Thus it was that when I learned about the gay scene of San Francisco in the seventies, I couldn’t have been more jealous of those burly, beautiful men, and not just for their luxuriant facial hair and stunning abs.

You see, for a maladjust like me, the hankie code of the gay scene seemed the single greatest idea in the history of dating. Identifying someone with the same interests as yourself can be a difficult affair at the best of times, but these magnificent men had the perfect answer: just put a handkerchief in your back pocket and boom – everyone knows you’re single.

Like that, you never again need to be embarrassed by hitting on a some beauty, only to discover they’re already taken. Not content with this one great idea, the brave men of San Fran took this concept even further into the realms of brilliance. Hankies of various colours could be used, in either the left or right rear trouser pocket, indicating availability, personal tastes, every kind of useful data one could want to convey to a potential new friend. Currently with a boyfriend and just out for a few drinks? No handkerchief for you. What if you’re just interested in the most simple hook up? Light blue fabric on the left if you want to be in charge, the right if you prefer to be the one supply the fun.

http://yumbocentrum.com/imagenes/d7colores/fotos/codigo-gay-de-panyuelos.jpg
Pictured: Codex Astartes, circa 1972.

Imagine: instantly having a fair idea of what a potential, definitely available partner is interested in. Clear, simple, easy to follow communication, and all of it free from those awkward ‘So…’s you normally have to start a conversation with. To my young mind, I couldn’t believe this system hadn’t been adopted across the world in every nightclub, ever. The time saved alone could extend the working week by at least another day.

Then I learned you could just talk to girls. Not only that, but if you just talked to a girl, you could get even more information about her likes and dislikes than a hankie might convey. All you had to do was listen. So, yeah, it turned out the problem wasn’t the world. It was me.

After talking to more girls, I eventually talked to one who really liked talking to me, and that’s when I discovered that you can fall in love quite easily. Of course, then I discovered that love isn’t actually enough to build a relationship. It’s a big part of things, but it’s not the only part. You have to find out if you’re right for each other, and that means more talking: exploring and explaining your own expectations, listening to theirs… Discovering, then explaining your boundaries; playing it cool as you discover they have significantly fewer than you, and so on.

It turns out if you want to be an adult, you need to be an adult about it.

This kind of communication, this careful and deliberate exchange of opinions and needs, this meticulous consideration of two people’s shared and conflicting desires, is something that only ever occurs in the world of romantic intimacy, or so it seems.

And I think that’s a mistake. Not because I’m an oversharing crazy man who wants to talk about things that will make your toes curl at the emotional frankness of my statements, but because there are many times in life when there needs to be a free and frank exchange about our needs and expectations when romance has nothing to do with it at all.

Like in, say, wargaming.


Joffrey and the Teachable Moment.

The three universally acknowledged Truths of Life are: death, taxes and Rousey by armbar. The Fourth Truth of Life is that teenaged boys are singularly incapable of any kind of activity without said activity becoming a brutally Darwinian struggle for the fragile, precious resource that is their masculinity. This is because it is a truth almost universally ignored that the most delicate part of a man is his masculinity. This is because he can lose it in a moment, by breaking any number of unwritten rules: showing any kind of fear or weakness; lacking a comeback when he insulted; enjoying anything perceived to have a feminine slant, including baking, sewing, having emotions of any kind… The list goes on and on.

http://usatftw.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/usp-mma_-ufc-170-rousey-vs-mcmann-e1404662475958.jpg?w=1000&h=508
Losing to Ronda Rousey is not on the list, though. Seriously, the only way you’re winning this fight is if you show up with a gun. And a tiger in case you miss. Even then, I don’t fancy your chances.

I’ve run a Games Club at school ever since becoming a teacher, so I get to see just how brittle masculinity is every time those dice get picked up . One the thing you learn very quickly when you’re a teacher is that the moment you put dice in the hands of twelve year old boys, they basically become asocial psychopaths. Fast friendships and lifetimes of companionship are discarded as a single, ugly goal takes their place: winning.

And if you can make him cry at the end, that’s +1 VP.

The really unpleasant thing about when this happens with younger boys is this: the fight doesn’t have to be fair. To a boy, beating an equal or weaker opponent carries no greater reward than whupping some one-foot nothing asthmatic suffering from a gammy leg, a phobia of dice and fear-induced diarrhoea.

The most extreme case I saw was when one boy (We’ll call him Joffrey) decided to ‘introduce’ a newbie to the game (we’ll call him ‘Sansa’. There is no significance to the names. I've just been watching a lot of 'Game of Thrones' recently.) Now, you all know someone like Sansa. Hell, you’ve probably all been someone like Sansa. Eleven years old, his first few months at Big School, and he’s heard about Games Club. He’s seen Space Marines and DAMN does he want some of that 41st century action. Then he’s seen Tyranids and OHMYGODMUMTHOSETHOSEARETHEONESLOOKATTHATONEIT’STHE SIZEOFABUILDINGANDHASFOURARMSOHMYGODIT’SSOCOOLMUMC ANICANICANICANIMUMCANIPLEEEEEEEAASE?!!!

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/thumb/5/5c/Pyrovore.jpg/800px-Pyrovore.jpg
OHMYGODLOOKHOWCOOL!!! Seriously mum, I want three of these. Look how cool they are. This model has to be the best in the whole game. I bet it could fight an army on its own!

So, post-Xmas, in addition to candy-induced pre-diabetes, Sansa show up with a tiny beginner’s Tyranid force: thirty Termagaunts and a Tyrant. He didn’t like the wings and he doesn’t know any better, so he’s built it as a footslogger. He’s brought his little army – all painted in what looks like a mix of 10% emulsion, 15% Tipp-ex, 75% childish joy – and more enthusiasm than a puppy trapped of a basket of clothes which are warm from the dryer. See, he’s got his army sorted, for today, He Becomes A Man.

Unlike Sansa, Joffrey is a Lannister, and so he’s got a lot more income. He, too, has brought his new Xmas army, but he knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s rocked up with 10 Grey Knight Paladins, a horrifying number of Psycannon, Draigo and an Imperial Knight. That’s right. For a half hour pick-up game at lunch, he’s done the equivalent of showing up to a playground fist fight with a ninety pound lump of plastic explosive carved into the shape of a giant middle finger.

Sansa, who at this point is friends with Joffrey, asks him if he’d like a game, and Joffrey? Well, he’s more than happy about this… In the same way a 220 pound San Quentin inmate is pleased when he’s finally given a new cellmate to replace the one he ate. Unable to turn down fresh meat when it walks so willingly into his larder, Joffrey leads Sansa over to the table and – like a good friend – starts setting up his Tyranids for him. By the time he’s finished, the Tyrant is out alone in the middle of nowhere, the Termagants are positioned thirty inches away, and he’s huddled them into a single block, with all their bases are touching in a cluster conveniently designed to be exploded by a single large blast.

The nearest cover these poor ‘Nids can claim is three feet away.

In Joffrey’s deployment zone.

Joffrey then sets up his own men, all castled up behind a Castellum made of the finest dictionaries public money can buy. His good work finished, he then – and I kid you not, he really did this – actually started rubbing his hands and salivating.

At this stage, I could change the names to Ramsay and Theon and you’d have much the same idea what was going on here.

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/arts/tv_club/features/2013/game_of_thrones/week_10/season_3_finale_the_men_of_westeros_aren_t_faring_ so_well/130612_TVCLUB_THEON.jpg.CROP.multipart-medium.jpg
’If you think this has a happy ending, then you’ve not been paying attention.’

But in the end? It didn’t go that way. In the interests of full disclosure, I must admit: up until this point, I’d been sorting out some GCSE coursework in the filing cabinet at the back of the room, because being a teacher requires more work than there are hours in the day. If Joffrey’s innate need to gloat about how cool he was being hadn’t lead him to get me to step over, I probably wouldn’t have noticed this prison shanking go down.

‘Sir? Have you seen this?’ Joffrey says , a wide grin on his face. ‘This is going to be hilarious. He’s not got any weapons that can shoot me. And the ones that do can’t even hurt my knight, and they’re not going to get through my Terminator armour. And that Tyrant doesn’t stand a chance; I’ll have stripped all his Wounds away by the time he makes it into assault.’

(Oh yeah, forgot to mention: the Tyrant was equipped with quad Scything Talons, because, and I quote: ‘they looked coolest’. Sansa had actually taken the time to source extra ones off of eBay, because he liked them so much.)

I look at Joffrey’s greedy little face, and he's just desperate to drill Sansa full of so many holes you could strain tea through him. So, I ask what seems to me to be the only question that matters when you’re an adult confronted by the ugliest kind of immaturity:

‘Why are you even playing?’

Joffrey looked at me like I’d just told him that I liked One Direction (#NotWithoutZaynIDont).

‘What… What do you mean?’

‘If you’re just going to take the very best, most unkillable units, ignore points costs, all in the name of making yourself feel big… Why even play? Why not just roll a dice and tell him on a zero or less he wins, on a one or more you win?’

Again, he looks at me like I’m mad.

‘But... But I’m only teaching him how to play. Anyway sir, he might win. If his Tyrant gets into assault with my Knight…’

There followed a few more justifications and rationalisations for his total douchery. I then reminded him that it was Sansa’s first game. That what he was planning would completely ruin the game for Sansa, and possibly put him off playing forever. That what he planned was not merely unfair, but ungentlemanly. He looked at his shoes, and then…

Then he agreed with me. He put the Knight to one side, packed Draigo away, reshuffled the scenery, and ran the game using only two three man squads of Paladins.

It was a good little game: tough, roughly fair, quite competitive. Both players came away having enjoyed themselves. Sansa joined the club as a regular.

Now, those of you with functional empathy will, I’m sure, agree that Joffrey’s initial behaviour was unfair. Some of you may even find it unfair enough that you think Joffrey’s deserving of some kind of imp slap.

http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/joffrey-and-tyrion.gif?w=635
Pictured: satisfaction in gif form.

The thing is, away from the gaming table, Joffrey’s actually a really good guy. He’s kind and funny, and incredible supportive of others. It’s only when he’s playing the game that something weird happens to him; it’s kind of like, because it’s not real, but still matters, he’s allowed to do crazy stuff, like claiming a Knight with a chainsaw the size of a school bus is somehow equal in value to a handful of Termagaunts (who, if left alone, are happy to hide in the brush and think about rabbits until George comes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24-zvMyxNAo).). It’s also worth noting, Joffrey’s behaviour is understandable because he’s 12. We’re all monstrous when we’re twelve, because our brains are full of stupid and (if you’re male) the first poisonous whisperings of testosterone. His behaviour was fine for a young boy,because when he realised he was out of order, he made amends and played fairly afterwards.

Now, the thing that really matters about this story is the coda.

See, Joffrey and Sansa actually had that crazy match-up a few months later. Both had been talking about it, and eventually both were curious enough to give it a go and see what would happen. So they set everything up, rolled some dice, and to the surprise of exactly no-one, the Termagants were reduced to meat paste and the Tyrant received a Destroyer Weapon enema. Not a single Grey Knight was lost.

Both boys loved the game. The reason why is obvious: they had talked. They both knew the score, they both realised what would happen, and there were therefore no problems once they were done. They actually drew a crowd to watch, and everyone wanted to see that plucky little Tyrant slap the yellow off that Knight’s faceplate. Not a single person was rooting for the Grey Knights.

Not even Joffrey.

Teaching and Learning styles

One of the first things you learn when you train to be a teacher (at least, one of the first things I learned) is how arrogant people are when it comes to their learning style.

See, everyone learns a different way, and everyone assumes their way of learning is the best. There are three styles of learning, and each can be combined with the other to greater or lesser degrees.

The first is visual. Visual learners learn by seeing and reading. They like books and words, pictures and illustrations. As a result, pure visual learners tend to be good readers or artists. The second is auditory. Auditory learners learn through hearing; they like teachers to tell them how to do stuff. Pure auditory learners tend to be great at music too – for obvious reasons. They also memorise things better when they make them into a song (where a visual learner will do much better by simply writing their ideas down). The final style is kinaesthetic. These people learn by doing things with their hands, or by moving. Pure kinaesthetics tend to be great at things like sport or carpentry, sculpting or dance.

Now, we generally all learn in all three ways, but to greater or lesser degrees. I’m very much a visual learner myself, but with a powerful kinaesthetic element. The visual side of my learning manifests through my chosen profession – there’s a reason I teach English, and it’s that I was always good at reading. My kinaesthetic skills though? I was good at making things too, and I use those skills in my wargaming: I love to convert models.

The thing is, I’m a terrible auditory learner. I know this, because I don’t remember things people tell me. And thus, when I started learning to teach, I never included auditory elements to my teaching, beyond those that just showed up accidentally.

Until I had VAK (that’s what we call it BTW) taught to me, for the first month or so of being a teacher, I had no idea I was doing anything wrong. After all, I was structuring lessons in the way that worked for me, so why should I worry? I knew my way was right, because it was right for me. Those kids who ‘just weren’t learning’? Well, that wasn’t my fault. I was doing what worked. They were probably just lazy.

Of course, I know now: they were auditory learners, and they fell behind because I hadn’t made the lessons as accessible for them as I had for everyone else. I mean, most of them still did okay, but then, once I started to include auditory stuff as well?

Man. You wouldn’t believe how quickly those ‘lazy’ kids suddenly turned out to not be lazy after all.

Well, apart from the actually lazy ones.

If you’re going to teach, you have to learn humility. You have to learn that the way that works best for you? It isn’t the only way that works. Some people’s brains are set up very differently to your own, and in subtle ways that aren’t immediately obvious. None of us can control how we learn best, and saying that a visual learner should just adapt to kinaesthetic lessons is like saying a pupil with no legs should just try harder to be good at football. (Or ‘soccer’ if you’re one of our charming American cousins).

There is an arrogance to demanding others be like you. In teaching, the self-importance can cause real damage, which is why you learn VAK so early on.

So why am I talking about teaching? Because that same kind of arrogance is absolutely prevalent in wargaming… And if you’ve ever had someone call you a WAAC player, or ever been trounced by one when you were expecting a friendly pick-up game, well: I think you know how.

The People You Don’t Even Realise You’ve Hurt

There was a recent thread on BoLS Lounge (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?54744-Stop-Your-Whinging!) where this subject - of different playstyles - was brought up. Of course, if you read the title of that thread, you’ll see why it very quickly descended into unpleasantness.

It strikes me as kind of self-evident that there are three ‘wargaming styles’, in much the same way as there are learning styles. Just like the fact we’re all set up to learn in one primary way (with a little or a lot of overlap from the other two) I think we’re set up to enjoy games in a similar way.

I would define the three playstyles as follows:

Competitive: you like to win. In fact, it’s the main reason you play. The other person is there to serve as a challenge. You may or may not enjoy the social aspect of the game, but that dopamine rush as you take the victory is why you pick up the dice. Losing is anathema to you, and while you may not despair when things go your way, losing is an uncomfortable experience emotionally. You find it hard to understand why anyone would willingly go through it.

Narrative: you want to tell a story. For you, wargaming isn’t like other games exactly because of this opportunity. Sure, you enjoy when things go your way, but even if you lose, as long as your side got to participate in some awesome events (maybe good, maybe bad, maybe funny), you’re less worried. Your ‘win’ doesn’t come at the end of the game, but much later, when you get to tell people about what happened: the dice roll that let the Genestealer kill the Dreadnought, the time the guy with the 2++ invulnerable bought the farm to a laspistol… If there’s an interesting enough anecdote, you might even forget who won. You go all-in to for the fluff, and probably have hugely detailed army backgrounds… Not to mention named characters leading. And not named characters created by GW. As a side note, this is obviously the player GW is pushing us all to be, what with their ‘Forge The Narrative’ thing.

Finally,

Casual: You’re just here for a good time with friends. You’d like to win, but mostly? It’s about the chat. The game is simply a structure to hang your social engagements around; a shared interest that gives you and your buddies something to jaw about.

http://static.sportskeeda.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/the-undertaker-and-brock-lesnar-2096307.jpg
Pictured: Competitive meets Narrative. Spoiler: this doesn’t end well for Narrative.

For my part, I’m primarily a Casual gamer, with the Narrative side brought out by the modeller in me. As far as being Competitive? Never. I don’t think it’s too strong a statement to say that I not only dislike the idea of competitive play, I actively despise the very concept of a tournament. I can’t imagine ever going to one, even to simply watch.

Now, I’m sure that statement seems not just wrong, but actually crazy to more than a few people reading this. Especially when I tell you I enjoy reading articles on strategy and tactics, and that I like seeing the statistical breakdown of the meta after a big tournament.

But these are the things I like about the hobby: how can I be wrong about what I enjoy? I literally can’t be wrong: enjoyment is a purely subjective experience.

Which means you can’t be wrong about what you like either.

However, all of us can do harm.

My friend Arya is an abuse survivor. She spent two years of her childhood suffering the most appalling horror, and at the point this story takes place, she had only just been able to finally admit to herself that those experiences had left her with a number of debilitating mental health issues. One of them was introversion; another was a fear of going out.

Then she got an invite from my mate Podrick. Pod’s a great guy, and he knew she was in a bad way. He asked if she wanted to join him for a game of ‘Vampire: The Eternal Struggle’. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire:_The_Eternal_Struggle) It’s like ‘Magic’ but with vampires and politics, and it’s a great game. He knew Arya enjoyed LARPing at the local Camarilla game, that she’d just picked up a Toreador (http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Toreador_%28VTM%29) deck, so he thought she’d enjoy a game. If nothing else, it’d finally give her a reason to get out of the house.

So, she put on her prettiest clothes, put her nicest bow in her hair, and set out in her knee-high sh*tkickers to be social. It was the first time she’d felt capable of leaving the house in a fortnight. It was the first time she’d gone out socially in six months.

She sat at the gaming table, was welcomed, and everyone smiled. It was friendly. Pod got the beers in and the game began.

Within two hours, Arya was barely holding it together. Another player, a friend of Podrick’s named The Hound, was attacking her with the relentlessness of his namesake. Everything she tried, he countered. Every fight ended in her minions destroyed, her holdings razed to the ground. After two and a half hours, she started to have a massive panic attack because The Hound would not stop. Unlike most people I’ve met who suffer from panic attacks, Arya’s are almost undetectable; she doesn’t say a thing. Not because she doesn’t want to, but because of the lessons her stepfather taught her. The lessons she had learned at twelve, lying on her back in terror as he did what he liked, all while making it very clear:

If you make a sound this will get worse.

So she sat there for another forty five minutes as The Hound played card after card after card, as her minions burned around her. So, in desperation, she began playing to lose, just so she could end the nightmare that was happening to her. In the end, even losing proved too much. She got up, said she’d had a lovely time, but that she needed to be up in the morning. She reached down to pick up her cards.

‘If you’re withdrawing, you have to wait until next turn; there are rules. You can only withdraw if you go a turn without being attacked.’ said The Hound, readying his next attack card.

To my eternal admiration, she said no. She said that she was going. Then she picked up her cards and left.

A week later, I found out from Pod that The Hound talked sh*t about her not playing by the rules for the next hour. When Arya got in, she spent the night holding her knees. She didn’t cry, didn’t sleep. She just sat and rocked a little. I was living with her at the time, and honestly, I was terrified. I didn’t want to think what she might do. So I just asked if she needed anything: a cup of tea, or perhaps even a hug.

‘I just need to be alone. I need to be alone and quiet.’ She said.

She didn’t go out for another four months.

She didn’t play any games for two years.

http://a.dilcdn.com/bl/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2013/03/kitten-club.gif
Kittens don’t make this story any less horrible, but they hopefully take the edge off a bit.

You may be pleased or relieved to know that this story ends positively. We got to meet The Hound socially about a month later, and I was absolutely ready to beat the sh*t out of him with his own teeth. When I met him, I couldn’t have been more surprised. He’s honestly the loveliest guy you could know. He’s kind, and thoughtful; whenever he visits a friend – any friend – he brings food. And not pizza – actual gourmet stuff. Regards it as polite. Socially, he’s a gentlemen in the truest sense of the word. He’d give you the money in his wallet as a gift if you only asked, and is a man I honestly feel privileged to call friend.

Three years after it happened, Arya was finally ready to tell him her side of what had happened that night. I watched as she sat there, explaining how it had felt. When she was finished, The Hound cried. Openly. He wept like a man, and said he was sorry, that he had no idea. He’d never intended to cause the reaction he did.

It’s just how he plays games, that was all.

He just thought everyone played that way.

Safe, Sane and Consensual

Arya’s story is an extreme one, no doubt, but it does serve to illustrate the problems that can occur when you make assumptions about what others want. The Hound is the hardest-core WAAC player I’ve ever met, so we never play together. I literally refuse to play him, because I know I’d hate every moment of it. He’s honestly one of my very best friends, but I have boundaries.

See, I know what I want.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Images/Product/DefaultFW/xlarge/cyber-bundle.jpg
SOON.

In my opinion, and no matter what you may hear online, honestly, there’s nothing wrong with being a WAAC player, a fluffbunny, a beer & pretzel guy, or anything in between. Nothing… As long as everyone knows the score. It’s entirely possible to have a great, great game where a Tyrant and thirty Termagants get kerbstomped by the cheesiest Draigowing + Knight combo. Entirely possible.

The problem isn’t the game (because balance is an entirely different issue – one that, I suspect, Narrative or Casual gamers place a significantly lower value on than Competitive ones, because to us, as long as it’s mostly fair, we don’t mind. After all, we’re not really playing to win in the same way). The problem isn’t people being hypercompetitive, or building insane netlists, or whatever.

I think the problem is when you assume your opponent is okay with your personal style without asking. If you’re both high-level WAAC guys and you want to fight each other with the latest meta-busting netlist of doom, well, why not? If you’ve talked about it, and both know the score, who cares? Not me. If you’re both happy, that’s actually a wonderful thing.

Which brings us round to handkerchiefs again. We all know what we want from the game. You know if you love to play to win, or if you like to Forge A Narrative. In the same way that those moustachioed geniuses used a simple colour-coded system to clarify their desires, why don’t we?

I’m not saying we go around with little green swatches in our back left pockets. But I do think we should start to acknowledge that different people want different things from the game, and building a community which supports and encourages that. The more we talk openly about these currently unspoken desires, the better the hobby will become.

I don’t know about you, but I think the idea of ‘self-identifying’ to our opponent at the start of each game would be a really positive step. Pairing up with people who want the same as you, while being tolerant of those who don’t can only lead to more satisfying games for everyone. And that has to be a good thing, doesn’t it?

Haighus
04-19-2015, 07:06 AM
Good read. I think I'm going to start asking players: "Comp, cas or b and p?" Will probably get a few funny looks the first time...

daboarder
04-19-2015, 07:17 AM
Interesting, cant help but feel from both examples that the whole thing was an elaborate dig at people playing competitively and an attempt to call them the problem as opposed to point the finger at game balance/design itself.

perhaps you should add an example about the kind of player that B*tches constantly about balance not being important when the competitive players say they just wish the game was more balanced so that everyone was on equal footing? Surely its not hard to find examples, this is BoLS after all and that situation happens every week. (OH you also have to add the part where the competitive players get put down for wanting to play differently.)

EDIT: See the people that you've described....thats not a "playstyle" thats a dickhead being that guy.

Haighus
04-19-2015, 07:30 AM
Hmm, a balanced game still wouldn't eliminate this issue entirely though, because unbalanced set-ups can still be created even if every unit has as much worth as any other unit.

Also, I think it only comes across that way because this is from the perspective of a non-competitive player, if Mr YorkNecromancer was competitive it would likely be from a different angle of time being wasted, lack of enjoyment form the game for not being a challenge etc, which were both touched upon in the article.

The people are, as stated, extreme examples to highlight what not asking your opponent can yield.

I feel like you are reading bias into it. Also, the way the various branches of the community act towards each other are a separate issue to how much they enjoy playing each other.

Kirsten
04-19-2015, 07:55 AM
excellent read

daboarder
04-19-2015, 07:55 AM
Hmm, a balanced game still wouldn't eliminate this issue entirely though, because unbalanced set-ups can still be created even if every unit has as much worth as any other unit.

Also, I think it only comes across that way because this is from the perspective of a non-competitive player, if Mr YorkNecromancer was competitive it would likely be from a different angle of time being wasted, lack of enjoyment form the game for not being a challenge etc, which were both touched upon in the article.

The people are, as stated, extreme examples to highlight what not asking your opponent can yield.

I feel like you are reading bias into it. Also, the way the various branches of the community act towards each other are a separate issue to how much they enjoy playing each other.

we pretty much touched on this just the other day in the other thread.
and balanced games go a long way towards preventing this abusable behaviour, because provided your list is reasonable (ie: you have a mix of anti air,tank,infantry,monster a game would largely be determined on skill. what you have to remember is that you a removing the abillity to build lists that game the sytem.

Now, all that aside as it has been said before (pretty much a weekly basis) my problems are with the way the articles written, the tone is overly belligerent against a specific playstyle and honestly the while york attempts to point out that these are "stereotypes" Thats part of the problem isn't it.

Because they aren't accurate representations of your average tournament player. They are, figuratively speaking, every single negative stereotype of a gamer rolled into a nice little package and called "competive player" to slant the entire narrative in favour of one particular playstyle.

I mean just consider this, do you really think someone thinking about giving a fair representation of both sides of a situation would call one of the participants a "Joffrey" in this culture? Seriously that is a deliberate attempt to direct the narrative, because the connotations of that name or the "hound" are fairly negative.

KaptinDregzag
04-19-2015, 08:00 AM
Thank you, YorkNecromancer. I cried (like a man) a little, too. Your articles are always the best.

Charon
04-19-2015, 08:01 AM
Also, I think it only comes across that way because this is from the perspective of a non-competitive player

Which is exactly why I do not like it.
I'm a non-competitive player but I know what competitive means... "win by all mean necessary because losing sucks".
And there we go with prejustice and a biased opinion.

Winning or losing does not matter to a competitive player. You want a challenge and you want a close game. And in the end you want to get better and better after each game. You want to LEARN from each game.
That happens to only work if both sides are roughly equal. Why do you think cometitive tournament players spam a lot of games with the same list and make only slight adjustments? Because they just want to have easy wins no matter what? No. Because they want to MASTER their chosen playstyle and test it in as many situations as possible.
Beeing competitive is a working process, not a road of buying shiny stuff and stomp some noobs like the OP makes it sound.

In my experience, the people whining most about losing are casuals.

40kGamer
04-19-2015, 08:06 AM
Both boys loved the game. The reason why is obvious: they had talked. They both knew the score, they both realised what would happen, and there were therefore no problems once they were done.amed characters created by GW. As a side note, this is obviously the player GW is pushing us all to be, what with their ‘Forge The Narrative’ thing.

I don’t know about you, but I think the idea of ‘self-identifying’ to our opponent at the start of each game would be a really positive step. Pairing up with people who want the same as you, while being tolerant of those who don’t can only lead to more satisfying games for everyone. And that has to be a good thing, doesn’t it?

Knowing the type of game you are going to play and discussing things in advance is essentially the only way to have fun with 40k at the moment. RIP random pick up games.

- - - Updated - - -


Which is exactly why I do not like it.
I'm a non-competitive player but I know what competitive means... "win by all mean necessary because losing sucks".
And there we go with prejustice and a biased opinion.

Winning or losing does not matter to a competitive player. You want a challenge and you want a close game. And in the end you want to get better and better after each game. You want to LEARN from each game.
That happens to only work if both sides are roughly equal. Why do you think cometitive tournament players spam a lot of games with the same list and make only slight adjustments? Because they just want to have easy wins no matter what? No. Because they want to MASTER their chosen playstyle and test it in as many situations as possible.
Beeing competitive is a working process, not a road of buying shiny stuff and stomp some noobs like the OP makes it sound.

Well... the only way to get the two sides roughly equal in 40k is to build the army lists together. Otherwise the happy cat bringing their Grot cheer squad is going to fair poorly against a value optimized list.


In my experience, the people whining most about losing are casuals.

To be fair they are the one's getting the lion's share of brutal, wiped off the table beatings in the game.

daboarder
04-19-2015, 08:14 AM
I too am a purely narrative driven casual player (as anyone whose seen my lists and modeling threads can attest)

But I have friends that are competitive players and it is easy to see how this article does them a disservice.

Charon
04-19-2015, 08:16 AM
Well... the only way to get the two sides roughly equal in 40k is to build the army lists together. Otherwise the happy cat bringing grot cheer squad is going to fair poorly against a value optimized list.

You don't even need to do that as in most cases you already know your gaming partner in advance because if you want to spam games both have to be ready.
If the happy cat brings his grot cheer squad he is wasting my time. You always give some infos before you actually start... you are not going in and all your communications is "Hi! 1750 points, go!"


To be fair they are the one's getting the lion's share of brutal, wiped off the table beatings in the game.

Of PERCEIVED brutal beatings.
When I play casually with my frineds I do not bring my Eldar. I bring my Dark Eldar or my CSM. I build an average list even without formations or anything that is spamming of good units or not CAD.
I still tend to win most games by a landslide.
And what is the most common complaint I hear?
"That is because DE/CSM are OP and my Necrons/SM/... suck."
It is NEVER because "Hmm... I made some tactical mistakes" or "I should have tired to stick to the mission objectives".. it is ALWAYS "your army is OP" coming from a SM player who tires to make his Centstar work, A necron with multiple harvest formations or an imperial player with lots of wyvern batteries and a knight.

40kGamer
04-19-2015, 08:31 AM
I too am a purely narrative driven casual player (as anyone whose seen my lists and modeling threads can attest)

But I have friends that are competitive players and it is easy to see how this article does them a disservice.

I have fun playing at all levels as each offers a completely different experience. The article does come across as marrying 'competitive' to 'WAAC bunny killer' which is a shame and hopefully not intentional.

- - - Updated - - -


You don't even need to do that as in most cases you already know your gaming partner in advance because if you want to spam games both have to be ready.
If the happy cat brings his grot cheer squad he is wasting my time. You always give some infos before you actually start... you are not going in and all your communications is "Hi! 1750 points, go!"

Actually the 1750 points go used to be the way I played 80% of my games pre-6th. It still lead to some very one sided match ups but it wasn't the absolute horror that you can achieve by trying it in 7th. If you yell go and your opponent plops a full Knight army down when you expected something different you may as well just skip rolling the dice.



When I play casually with my frineds I do not bring my Eldar. I bring my Dark Eldar or my CSM. I build an average list even without formations or anything that is spamming of good units or not CAD. I still tend to win most games by a landslide.
And what is the most common complaint I hear?
"That is because DE/CSM are OP and my Necrons/SM/... suck."
It is NEVER because "Hmm... I made some tactical mistakes" or "I should have tired to stick to the mission objectives".. it is ALWAYS "your army is OP" coming from a SM player who tires to make his Centstar work, A necron with multiple harvest formations or an imperial player with lots of wyvern batteries and a knight.

True. Even with a handicap an experienced player will typically beat a casual one. But without the handicap the casual player is usually missing their entire army by mid game which is pretty brutal. The most common complaint I hear is the dice treated me bad, sometimes true but often it was that they didn't play the mission or made some unbelievably poor choices.

Deadlift
04-19-2015, 08:38 AM
It's a good read, but I did find it came across in it's examples as "the competitive player is the bad guy" I don't think it was intentional but I did see bias in the article.
I get that most here are casual players, and that because of this they struggle to see in the inbalance in the game. But it is there and a competitive player will use that to win.
Being competitive isn't a bad thing, talk to anyone who competes in any sport. My own as an example is full of very nice folks who are all really friendly. But when it's time to step up, you want to win.
My beef is that being a competitive player is treated here as bad. It's not. It's your hobby and you should be able to enjoy it anyway you like. Like York said as long as your opponent knows what kind of game they are playing it's all good.
The fluff bunny v Waac debate will go on for ever. It's funny to me though that the guys that come across more reasonable and polite in the forums are the ones being vilified.

40kGamer
04-19-2015, 08:46 AM
The fluff bunny v Waac debate will go on for ever. It's funny to me though that the guys that come across more reasonable and polite in the forums are the ones being vilified.

That's because under that cute fluffy exterior we have this:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ1tm5YoKL83myk68fYwnr_vxZUV_qun pF8ySILGfH9BIiq13ln

Deadlift
04-19-2015, 08:54 AM
^ Bols really does need a "like" system.

YorkNecromancer
04-19-2015, 09:04 AM
Why is it bad to be a WAAC monster?

I'm not saying that people who go all-out ugly-competitive should change. I'm saying we as a community should move to a culture of self-identifying, which is a more nuanced and hopefully mature response. Gaming is a social activity, and social activities rely on good communication. I'm saying that we all have a very personal mixture of needs and desires that we don't discuss as a matter of course and we should. If you come to me at the start of a match and go 'Hi, I like to play a hardcore style of game, full-on with no quarter given', I can then say 'Oh, I would find that difficult. Can I interest you in something more casual?' and we can negotiate from there like adults.

As for the article having a bias against competitive players? Well, I hope you read the bits where I pointed out what good chaps both Joffrey and The Hound were? That their pseudonyms were chosen carefully to deliberately wrong foot you about the kind of people they were? Most importantly, that the stories ended well for all concerned? Too often, I've read stuff on BoLS bashing the WAAC guys (like The Hound), kind of missing the point that he enjoys that style of play, and why shouldn't he? He's allowed to like what he likes! It's totally unfair to ask him to stop. WAAC players are kind of the 'worst' examples of competitive players, but they're just as capable of being decent chaps as the B&P pick-up guy, and they're just as entitled to their fun. I have no bias against them; I just used the most extreme examples because they help make the point, which is this: the article has a bias against people who make assumptions about their opponents' needs/desires. I can only talk about my own experiences in gaming, and as a casual player, I have only had problems with competitive ones because the casual players generally wanted the same things as me, not because they were 'bad people' or 'doing something wrong'. I would suggest that I notice competitive players more because I am not one of them, not because I have a vendetta.

It's like if I was into salsa dancing, and a ballet dancer came along. And she's all 'You're doing it wrong!' and I'm all like 'No, you are!'

Then, when she goes back to her ballet, and enjoys her time with other ballet dancers, she gets confirmation that she was right. When I go back to my salsa studio, and spend time with other salsa dancers, I get confirmation that I was right. In truth, right/wrong doesn't even come into it. Ballet is fun; salsa is fun: our lack of communication was the problem. I wanted salsa; she wanted ballet. If only we had discussed this, everything would have been cool.

But as it stands, 40K makes no distinction for what you want. It's been forcing everyone into the 'Forge A Narrative' style, which I personally think is just as unfair to the WAAC players. There shouldn't be a universal 'right way to play'. One size does not fit all, and we should all encourage each other to talk more fully about what we want from our hobby in a more 'meta' sense.

Charon
04-19-2015, 09:16 AM
Then, when she goes back to her ballet, and enjoys her time with other ballet dancers, she gets confirmation that she was right. When I go back to my salsa studio, and spend time with other salsa dancers, I get confirmation that I was right. In truth, right/wrong doesn't even come into it. Ballet is fun; salsa is fun: our lack of communication was the problem. I wanted salsa; she wanted ballet. If only we had discussed this, everything would have been cool.

And still you wrote:

There are a few type of dancers:

Ballet Dancers: These just want to show off. They need the spotlight at all costs and not standing in the center of attention makes them feel miserable. They can not understand how somebody can enjoy dancing just for the sake of dancing. Dancing without applauding audience is emotionally uncomfortabel to you.

And even if you discussed you dancing styles prior to dancing, you would still belittle ballet on the internet ;)

Deadlift
04-19-2015, 09:19 AM
I recently subscribed to the Veterans of the Long War over on spikeybits. They had their first live show on Monday I think it was and during the show they briefly touched on this issue as well. It's worth a look.

YorkNecromancer
04-19-2015, 09:28 AM
Ballet Dancers: These just want to show off.

Isn't that true of all performers, though...? Especially salsa? :p


And even if you discussed you dancing styles prior to dancing, you would still belittle ballet on the internet ;)

WHEN BALLET INCLUDES THE 200 POUNDS OF RAW SEX THAT IS IREK MUKHAMEDOV?!!!

http://www.geocities.ws/irmk2003/images/irekco02.jpg

NEVER.

Cleon
04-19-2015, 01:39 PM
When I play casually with my frineds I do not bring my Eldar. I bring my Dark Eldar or my CSM. I build an average list even without formations or anything that is spamming of good units or not CAD.
I still tend to win most games by a landslide.

I have a similar games group, the majority of our players are quite casual, with maybe one army of 'game size' with maybe one or two 'swap' units, but then there is also a core of more 'experienced' gamers who have multiple large armies. I used to play a mix of WFB and 40K.

In WFB there was one guy who had an awesome undead army, he never changed the core of it, but played around the edges. We had a great few years where I'd put a list together, he'd beat it, I'd tweak it and we'd keep going until I won, then we'd start the process over, unfortunately his army just didn't work in 8th edition and without the time to build and paint a new force he wondered away from gaming.

With 40k We didn't have a 'Competitive' player so I used to always mess around, taking different units each game but still generally winning until I met a couple of guys through work who were 'Competitive' players and the first time I played them with my 'mess about' list I got stomped, HARD. I found that inspired me to pay attention to list building a lot more than I had as well as generally inspiring me to pay more attention to my units capabilities and optomisations and after a few more beatings I managed to start holding my own and got to the point where although they beat more often than not, I did at least 1 in 3 pull off a win and it was usually close. Unfortunately they both took one look at 7th edition and said 'Nope, that takes everything we didn't like about 6th and turns it up to 11' and got into playing X-wing instead, personally I like X-wing as a mess about game but don't enjoy it playing hard so that leaves me without any GW games where I feel I have to push myself, I'm having to reign myself in every game and that get's dull.

I don't really have a point here I guess, just adding some experiences to the mix.

daboarder
04-19-2015, 03:35 PM
York,

You keep using the term WAAC and competitive interchangeably. And thats one of the flaws i see here. Firstly WAAC has strong negative associations within this hobby. And secondly you are misrepresenting competitive players. As Charon pointed out. Its not all about the win for them. Its more about mastering the game and then having the tightest, fairest competition you can.
Furthermore, the least flexible most WAAC players i have met are mostly the casual players, not the competitive ones.

This disconnect is a fundamental flaw in this article and the way it presents the multiple play styles. I mean if you do not understand the motivations of competitive players then you cannot really comment on their flexibillity or willingness to tone down the game.

Hell in Australia there is a huge drive by competitive players to introduce and build a community comp to balance out the flaws in the game. They want it to be tight and fair.

Cap'nSmurfs
04-19-2015, 04:20 PM
YorkN, I always look forward to your articles. Thankyou, that was excellent.

40kGamer
04-19-2015, 04:32 PM
In Australia there is a huge drive by competitive players to introduce and build a community comp to balance out the flaws in the game. They want it to be tight and fair.

Building a viable comp system will be an enormous task... especially with all the rapid fire releases!

daboarder
04-19-2015, 04:37 PM
Building a viable comp system will be an enormous task... especially with all the rapid fire releases!

yup, its undertaken by a large group of players across the two cities Melbourne and Sydney (and they take community input too). But recent releases have a lot of them asking themselves "why bother".

Asymmetrical Xeno
04-19-2015, 07:07 PM
As someone that has absolutely zero interest in the gaming side of this hobby, I've always felt like I am on the outside looking in - so it's always been strange to me when people criticise how other people wish to enjoy themselves. I figure each to their own - competitive or narrative alike, theres no "wrong" way to have fun as long people are respecting each other. Perhaps oneday ill actually try to learn the rules and see what this side of the hobby is like.

Lord Manton
04-19-2015, 11:44 PM
I recommend it, AX. This game can be a whole lot of fun when you come up against someone who has the same goal in mind as yourself.

The problem really, is that on a Wednesday night when you've gotten to shop after finishing work and grabbing some food, you've only got until 9 or 10 before the store closes (if you're lucky). So there isn't a lot of time to sit around talking about the game you want to play. Inevitably, that means it really is a case of "I've got 1500pts with me." "Cool, so do I, let's do it."
I've been in this situation and it taught me some valuable lessons about list building and expectations in pick-up games.
On the other hand, when playin against my pals, I've never ever had that problem. We know what each other has and plan accordingly, making sure the other person is OK with flyers or formations etc.

If you go to a tournament with your Wych Cult DE list that's fluffier than Yorky's kittens, don't be surprised when a min-maxed tooled up Tau/Dar hits you like the freight train it was designed to be. Honestly though, this complaint is very rare. More often than not people are complaining about pick-up games that have gone sour because there was no planning.
Ultimately what this game needs it's a community wide shake up. The real question is how do we do this? Who among us is willing and able to lead the way it provide a solution. I'll admit, I've learned from the mistake of "that thread". I tried to present a solution, unfortunately it came out as a rant and was topped off with an idiotically incendiary Title that ignited a pretty horrible flame war. All I really learnt from that experience is that the answer is one that isn't easily found. It will take a lot of soul-searching.
DaBoarder, where can I find this Australian comp system? I want to see where it's at. Tournament play really interests me, even just as an observer.

Edit:

I hope my description of the taudar list doesn't come across sarcastically. There is nothing wrong with min/maxed tooled up lists in a competitive environment. That's the whole point. Even in a casual setting, as long as you both know what you're getting yourself into, it's a-okay to play that list (you don't need my approval anyway, play how you want).

daboarder
04-20-2015, 12:46 AM
I recommend it, AX. This game can be a whole lot of fun when you come up against someone who has the same goal in mind as yourself.

The problem really, is that on a Wednesday night when you've gotten to shop after finishing work and grabbing some food, you've only got until 9 or 10 before the store closes (if you're lucky). So there isn't a lot of time to sit around talking about the game you want to play. Inevitably, that means it really is a case of "I've got 1500pts with me." "Cool, so do I, let's do it."
I've been in this situation and it taught me some valuable lessons about list building and expectations in pick-up games.
On the other hand, when playin against my pals, I've never ever had that problem. We know what each other has and plan accordingly, making sure the other person is OK with flyers or formations etc.

If you go to a tournament with your Wych Cult DE list that's fluffier than Yorky's kittens, don't be surprised when a min-maxed tooled up Tau/Dar hits you like the freight train it was designed to be. Honestly though, this complaint is very rare. More often than not people are complaining about pick-up games that have gone sour because there was no planning.
Ultimately what this game needs it's a community wide shake up. The real question is how do we do this? Who among us is willing and able to lead the way it provide a solution. I'll admit, I've learned from the mistake of "that thread". I tried to present a solution, unfortunately it came out as a rant and was topped off with an idiotically incendiary Title that ignited a pretty horrible flame war. All I really learnt from that experience is that the answer is one that isn't easily found. It will take a lot of soul-searching.
DaBoarder, where can I find this Australian comp system? I want to see where it's at. Tournament play really interests me, even just as an observer.

Edit:

I hope my description of the taudar list doesn't come across sarcastically. There is nothing wrong with min/maxed tooled up lists in a competitive environment. That's the whole point. Even in a casual setting, as long as you both know what you're getting yourself into, it's a-okay to play that list (you don't need my approval anyway, play how you want).

Its available from WargamerAU and the Hammer House website.

http://www.communitycomp.org/

Pretty sure thats the website they are running it off now.

EDIT: Yup thats them

personally I like the system because it doesn't overly punish any one "trick" it just stops you pulling them all on ridiculous levels/ at the same time.

Lord Manton
04-20-2015, 12:49 AM
Cheers, buddy.

daboarder
04-20-2015, 01:05 AM
Cheers, buddy.

Now worries, I really can't push that document hard enough, its well thought out, under constant revision and the fact that it allows a 2 tier points system is a fantastic way of limiting spam without overly damaging armies that do not have a plethora of viable options to choose from (whereas highlander does this)

Denzark
04-20-2015, 08:42 AM
Knowing the type of game you are going to play and discussing things in advance is essentially the only way to have fun with 40k at the moment. RIP random pick up games.


Is this just an American thing? I go to clubs in the UK. I rate those club games as 'random pick up games' because they are not pre-planned narratives with a friend. I NEVER go into one of those games without asking: "Is this a tourney (ie cutthroat) list?" "Do you have any super heavy" "Do you have any flyers" because all of those things I think need a bit of preparation.

Most of these clubs have a forum on a blog or a facebook page to allow this.

I keep hearing how FLGS are the bees knees and much better than a GW store - surely they can get a free no cost facebook page where people can avoid being ambushed?

or

If you have to meet a stranger to have a game, surely after you say: "Have you got a game mate?" You have a discussion, rather than putting out 1500pts of fluff horde thats gets stomped by 5 knights he pulls out?

Erik Setzer
04-20-2015, 09:50 AM
Is this just an American thing? I go to clubs in the UK. I rate those club games as 'random pick up games' because they are not pre-planned narratives with a friend. I NEVER go into one of those games without asking: "Is this a tourney (ie cutthroat) list?" "Do you have any super heavy" "Do you have any flyers" because all of those things I think need a bit of preparation.

Most of these clubs have a forum on a blog or a facebook page to allow this.

I keep hearing how FLGS are the bees knees and much better than a GW store - surely they can get a free no cost facebook page where people can avoid being ambushed?

or

If you have to meet a stranger to have a game, surely after you say: "Have you got a game mate?" You have a discussion, rather than putting out 1500pts of fluff horde thats gets stomped by 5 knights he pulls out?


It's an "all over the world thing."

Even if you say "I'd like to play a fluff game without a beatstick list," some people will still claim their beatstick list isn't that nasty and there's a viable fluff reason for it, even if the fluff is crying while they explain that of course Tzeentch would totally be summoning Nurgle Daemons as they're best of pals on this day of days.

I don't like having to rely on having a discussion with someone to try to figure out how to balance the game with the armies we're bringing to the table so that it's an enjoyable match. That people have to do so isn't really a sign of a great and amazing game like some people seem to think.

Denzark
04-20-2015, 10:24 AM
Surely there is more interaction than 2 people just saying: "Game?" "Yeah Game" "OK 1500 maelstrom roll for set up."

Its all about degrees. If you can't get a regular game and you rely on pick up - but not having a discussion makes your pick up unenjoyable, you have to work out what's more important - getting the game at all or not discussing anything.

40kGamer
04-20-2015, 11:30 AM
Surely there is more interaction than 2 people just saying: "Game?" "Yeah Game" "OK 1500 maelstrom roll for set up."

Its all about degrees. If you can't get a regular game and you rely on pick up - but not having a discussion makes your pick up unenjoyable, you have to work out what's more important - getting the game at all or not discussing anything.

Once upon a time it was 'who wants to catch a game of 40k? How many points? See you at the table!' and it worked ok. Part of the fun was in the surprise factor. Now it's almost a guaranteed waste of time.

Path Walker
04-20-2015, 11:34 AM
Once upon a time it was 'who wants to catch a game of 40k? How many points? See you at the table!' and it worked ok. Part of the fun was in the surprise factor. Now it's almost a guaranteed waste of time.

You can still do that (i'd argue that it never really worked ok, depending on your opponent and their intentions) but the game now emphasises that you'll get more benefit from the hobby if you interact with your opponent and that is a good thing.

40kGamer
04-20-2015, 11:38 AM
You can still do that (i'd argue that it never really worked ok, depending on your opponent and their intentions) but the game now emphasises that you'll get more benefit from the hobby if you interact with your opponent and that is a good thing.

It can work but we've gone from ~10% chance of a bad matchup to something like a ~90% chance. I wouldn't play a random game in this edition at all.

Denzark
04-20-2015, 11:47 AM
But that's what I'm saying 40KG - surely that limited chat can still allow you to have a random game? In fact if you go on the FLGS facebook page and get a game confirmed surely you save the problem I understand is also more of a US one - that travel distances are magnified? Wouldn't want a wasted trip.

The surprise element can be don't reveal army list before deployment. But I sure would be hacked off with the opposition dropping in unbound SH alles uber den platz without letting me know.

Surely the thrill of a random game - totally random like a 28mm one night stand - is secondary to the thrill of having a good game that you had a little chat about?

Erik Setzer
04-20-2015, 11:57 AM
Eh... Not really enthused that the game is such a jumble that we have to spend so much time planning it to have a game now. But that's the game we have, and are more likely to have if they recognize that making units more powerful really boosts the sales.

I just feel like it's a shame that we even have to talk about this stuff and ask someone, "Hey, could you not bring X unit?" (Or "Could you not bring X, Y, and Z unit?") I'd prefer to be able to let someone bring what they want with a legal force, at least Battle-Forged, and trust that it wouldn't let them make something that could blow me off the table with no real damage in return. Such discussions almost always involve me making the concession to leave an expensive model off to the side, even though my opponent actually has several ways to deal with it (like the Space Wolf player so scared of my Knights... and then it maybe did a total of two wounds to his TWC before they completely destroyed it (actually, I believe those wounds came with the explosion after they wrecked it).

Path Walker
04-20-2015, 12:29 PM
Its 2015, talking to an opponent before the game is easier than ever for even the most socially inept gamer, its not hard to take a few minutes to chat to have a good game, its going to be 2 hours of your life, spending an extra few minutes before hand isn't a big ask!

Ask your opponent what they want to do, come up with some fluff, tell them about your characters, what there names are and how they're hunting down their mortal enemy. You'll enjoy that game a lot more than even the most balanced game against an opponent you haven't spoken to before.

Adam Huenecke
04-20-2015, 03:16 PM
So, the comments went pretty much as I expected (folks getting defensive, protecting that masculinity, whatever), but I wanted to chime in and say that this was the greatest single thing I've ever read on a gaming forum. It isn't just advice for gaming- it's advice for living well. Well friggin' done.

Kirsten
04-20-2015, 04:23 PM
amazing that this argument is still going really. different people want different things in a game, that is all there is to it. people are putting forward their own entirely subjective, local idea of the problems with gaming, and applying it to the whole hobby. if your group is very varied, then sort games out in advance. plenty of clubs however are perfectly easy to go in to and say 'hey who wants to play my 1,500 point army?'

Charistoph
04-20-2015, 04:30 PM
So, the comments went pretty much as I expected (folks getting defensive, protecting that masculinity, whatever), but I wanted to chime in and say that this was the greatest single thing I've ever read on a gaming forum. It isn't just advice for gaming- it's advice for living well. Well friggin' done.

To true. I read it as the OP was talking about being a jerk, not targeting competitive play. There are jerks on every side of this game, from fluffy players which snobbishly deride you if the number of purity seals on Tactical Marine #II-5 is wrong, to people who don't realize you're a new hobbyist and say, "you should thin your paints" without explaining what they meant, and casuals who blow by rules just to make the game run quicker while ignoring important steps or gossip-snipe you behind your back.

But let's face it, the first place we go when we think about jerks are those competitive types, just as when we think about sleazy people we think used car salesmen or politicians. Why? Because it is easier to catch them at it? Because when we think competitive, we think of those jocks who gave people swirlies in grade school? Or is it just because it is harder to identify the fluff-jerk or the casual-jerk?

In one case on the original post, the guy didn't know he was going to be a jerk because he hadn't thought things through to see it from the other person's perspective. As soon as someone pointed it out, he thought about it, he changed his mind and stopped himself from being the accidental-jerk.

Key point, just be aware of others and try to avoid being a jerk.

mattblowers
04-21-2015, 12:33 PM
That was a good read. My only critique would be the observation that many players don't know what type of player they are. Honest self-assessment should come first before you are able to articulate that to others.

Alaric
04-24-2015, 12:53 PM
Helluva article man, thanks for taking the time. Agree on all fronts, Im surprised this isnt on the front page.

Grand Master Raziel
04-29-2015, 08:57 AM
Its 2015, talking to an opponent before the game is easier than ever for even the most socially inept gamer, its not hard to take a few minutes to chat to have a good game, its going to be 2 hours of your life, spending an extra few minutes before hand isn't a big ask!

That might have worked in 3rd/4th edition days, when more people were playing 40K, or it may work at large LGSs with a big tabletop gaming community. In my experience, there may be only one other person looking for a pickup 40K game, and if that person's play style is too far away from yours, the game is likely to suck. So, your options are a bad game or no game.