Wargame or Death March?
I’ve had a long held belief that the perfect convention wargame lasts four hours and has six participants. You would not believe the number of times I’ve seen 12 hour games with 15+ participants in an events listing only to walk by later and see half of the players sitting around chatting or looking bored. I fully appreciate that the “mega-game” looks great and is a testament to the judge’s effort; but, in my experience, these games are rarely as much fun to play as they are to look at.
At home I find myself appreciating the game that lasts two hours or less. I may have been influenced by too many years of Warhammer 40K or Fantasy (both of which take about two hours) or it might be that I have developed Adult ADD over the years. Another possibility is that my wargaming tastes have expanded beyond one or two systems and short games allow me to play multiple games in one gaming day. Whatever the reason, I can’t be alone since one company has even dedicated itself to making two hour wargames.
I’ve also decided that this topic would be a nice one to introduce a new feature here on MiniatureGeneral. I’ve added a polling feature in order to give YOU a chance to respond to The General’s questions. You can find the poll at the bottom of the side bar and I welcome your input.
posted by The General @ 5:20 PM
3 Comments:
General,
I can see the logic in your post, but I feel it could use additional input. You seem to put priority on the amount of time it takes to play a game. For me the total time to play is less important than the amount of action going on. I agree that the typical convention "mega-game" can easily bog down with too few judges and too many players. On the other hand, large games can be pulled off with additional judges each controlling a part of the board and good solid coordination. I played in an ECW game like this at Little Wars a few years back where we had 10 players lasted 5 hrs and I was never bored. This is the exception though not the rule.
For at home gaming the requirements are similar. As an example take Star Fleet Battles (SFB) vs Saganami Island Tactical Simulator (SITS). Both are complex games, and, played to full conclusion of anything other than a 1 vs 1 ship duel, will probably break your 2 hr limit. The difference being (as you point out in A2 + B2 = Complexity2) that SITS keeps moving where SFB can really drag. Much in this same way games like WH40K, WHFB, and the Warmaster line from GW as well as well run role playing or skirmish/warband games can be played (in my opinion) at larger than "tournament" scales and still keep all the players involved.
The old saying goes that "time flies when you're having fun" this is as true in wargaming as in any other pursuit. As long as something holds a player's interest, the game, regardless of length, will be a good one.
Thanks for the comment Lt.
I found your statements about SFB vs SITS to be very accurate. Both games probably take the same amount of time to play; but, the turn sequence in SITS is such that players stay continuously engaged as you don’t have 20+ minute energy allocation phases between the turns. This would tend to support your statement "As long as something holds a player's interest, the game, regardless of length, will be a good one"; but, I can think of several games that are engaging yet after a while seem to turn into grinding death marches.
Two games that, at first, seem like they would be quick and light fillers but part way through turn into a death march come from the board game hobby. Two good examples are Fantasy Flight’s DOOM and Sucking Vacuum by Alien Menace. I think these games suffer from what I will call "lack of progress syndrome" in that as you play your progress is often set back by other players (in the case of Sucking Vacuum) or by a continuous tide of monsters (in the case of DOOM). In the miniatures arena, two games that I think of as being very engaging and fun to play are Rapid Fire and Fire & Fury. I’ve played many of these games in an all day session; and, while they were fun at the end of the day I was exhausted it still felt like work.
One aspect I mentioned about shorter games was the ability to get multiple games played per session. In terms of attention deficit gaming, all day games reduce your exposure to some of the other games you may own and wish there was time to play. Clearly fun and engaging games can make time fly which is generally a good thing; but; fun, engaging and short games are probably the perfect thing.
General,
Couldn't agree with you more (especially about sucking vacuum). I guess in one respect we are different. Two hour games are fun for the typical gaming day. Every once in a while though I have a need for a nice "big bash" so to speak. You know, something with lots of eye candy and a vast scope...
That doesn't mean it should break the rule from our previous posts however. It still needs to move at a quick pace (which Rapid Fire comes close to, but with move/counter move falls short of).
I guess that means the "holy grail" of games for me is something which allows me to play with LOTS of figs (if I want to), but keeps my attention. The closest I can think to this right now is the Warmaster series and its spinoffs (Blitzkrieg Commander, and your own ACWmaster). Even though these are move/counter move you still stay involved since both sides fight each turn or make armor saves etc.
Keep up the great posts.
Post a Comment
<< Home