The art of playing.

[Lysandros]

How do you get the best from  a game. What ingredients bring satisfaction and excitement ?
My love is the building of scenery, terrian and beautiful units with nothing spared for visual effect except ability ( as below pic)Gaming   l find rather underwhelming .
What do you bring to the party for a fulfilling experience?

[has.been]

I am with you on (to the best of your ability & resources) putting on a visual feast.
I do not like over complicated rules systems.
I don't want = My head in the rule book most of the time, poorly finished figures,
                      bad scenery (this includes things like balancing figures on rooftops
                       to 'show they're in the building' )or games where players say things like'
                      ' So that is +2 for the Gen. & -1 dis.org. & +1 impact'
 do want       = Most of the time looking at the spectacle, wondering what my opponent
                       is planning & how could I respond to his threats.
                      Things that make the game more 'nice' & less distracting,
                      e.g. Instead of dice, curtain rings bright markers (to track casualties/status etc)
                      something that does not distract (a wounded figure, small rock/bush, broken
                      wheel etc.)
                      Instead of balancing a unit on the roofs make the building into a diorama
                      base. The courtyard/garden etc. can hold 4 bases, therefore that is how
                      many can occupy the building, and they count as being in the building.
                     
 To get the above it does help to play with like minded people. I am so blessed.

[vodkafan]

How do you get the best from  a game. What ingredients bring satisfaction and excitement ?
My love is the building of scenery, terrian and beautiful units with nothing spared for visual effect except ability ( as below pic)Gaming   l find rather underwhelming .
What do you bring to the party for a fulfilling experience?

Ah this is the old chestnut isn't it? I agree that the visual ingredient is hugely important to me. But once the game starts I also like to identify with my units or characters as the events unfold, so it's escapism I guess. Trying plans and tactics is also satisfying, and fun whether I win or lose.
 So in short, playing the game tops everything, and the painting and scenery prep are secondary to that, a fun (mostly) means to an end.

[Dolmot]

Well, who doesn't enjoy a visual spectacle? I don't think I've ever met a person who would turn it down if it was free (that is, near-zero money and effort required). Many "which of these nice things would you like to have" questions become pointless if you can choose "both" or "all". Real choices have to be made when you have limited time and resources, and that starts to reveal differences in priorities.

I'd probably be somewhere closer to the "looks first" end of the spectrum. However, reality has repeatedly proven that a captivating game (system & community) is the great motivator. If the minis and terrain don't see any action, working on them easily falls to the "whatever, maybe tomorrow" bin. Conversely, a solid deadline can push you to perform miracles. And even without one, looking forward to a match tends to push modelling higher on the list of things to do.

As you probably know, building and painting a full army and a spectacular table can easily take months or years of work - and a decent pile of money too. Therefore the game should be solid enough to provide value for that whole period. (OK, in historical games it's still kind of viable to try alternate rule systems using the same pieces, unlike in some games fixed to a specific fictional universe, but even that searching comes with its own overhead.) If the system seems to fail hard in some area, people will give up before the project is finished - or even started.

So, even for a looks-oriented gamer, I'd dare to say that the game is still fairly important, just to keep the momentum. An appalling system rarely produces great tables. Meanwhile, an engaging system which starts with only so-and-so looks still has potential to grow and flourish also visually. Already the larger player base provides the extra hands needed for accomplishing something truly impressive.

OK, let's get to the point. What makes a system good enough to deliver for years? For me, one major factor is a certain level of realism and intuitiveness. If it turns out that the winning formulae are completely outlandish and defy all common logic and knowledge, I no longer feel like simulating an actual battle. Yes, you can still play the game, even play to win and some people enjoy it that way, but for me it's a major turn-off. The reason to deploy or move a unit somewhere should be that it's naturally a strong position, not because a quirk in rules gives it ludicrous advantage that way. One classic example of "game-only" tactics is micromanagement of single square bases. You can definitely play that kind of mini-game (even competitively), but does it have any connection to reality? Real world troops rarely come with a rectangular piece of plastic or plywood which completely controls their actions and success. If that kind of stuff repeatedly decides the outcome, it's still a game (like a completely abstract board game), but no longer a credible simulation of anything.

Modelling a battle with pewter miniatures, typical terrain pieces and a small amount of die rolls definitely has its inherent limitations, but the system should still be able to work its way around those limitations and capture the essence of real warfare, not highlight the flaws nor reward their exploitation. Keeping the amount of rules, stats etc. reasonable definitely helps too. Again, some people enjoy games which can be won by memorising massive stat lists and charts, but I no longer have the time or energy for that. In the long run, the game should reward wise strategic choices, not optimising single inches, die rolls or special rule tricks. If the system is really good, you can kind of forget it, relax, and concentrate on your strategies and the spectacle in general. If it's bad, it's like taking a car ride where you're constantly watching the engine and holding a few loose pieces together, hoping that the whole thing doesn't suddenly blow apart. That's not enjoyable.

In short, if the rules make sense and reward the correct things without blatant absurdity or clutter, the chances of seeing excellent visualisations will also improve. That's how you may achieve the fabled "both" solution.

[olicana]

Game first, otherwise it's a lot of time, money and work for a static display - I'd probably just make and paint larger models (1:35 or bigger) and do dioramas if that was my bag.

That's not to say that nice terrain isn't worth while, or that it doesn't add to the spectacle. Your picture is certainly inspirational. I'm not a bad painter or terrain maker - but terrain must be functional first, aesthetically pleasing second.

My table is currently set up like this for a 'knock about' game. Very middle of the road on the aesthetic scale.

[Digits]

Fun.  Above all, it has to be fun.

I helped run Ammobunker forum for a few years and we were all about the collecting, conversion of minis and every now and again, getting together for a fun , and often large scale weekend.  The fun there was the sharing of the experience, showing off the minis and making a few mates along the way.  Armies were HUGE ( mostly 40k) and a few of us got to show it off at GW games day once in a while, including winning best table.

However, we didn’t play an awful lot, and that is where the true fun is.

Getting together with your mates, joshing the guy who can’t motivate himself to paint whilst enjoying the latest paint jobs or modelling feats of the next guy.  Playing out a few games and not having to worry about rules lawyers.

Yes we’d all like big armies, or ranked masses of beautifully painted minis, but we also must remember that we don’t all have the skills, disposable income or time to have those things.

Yet, with a little imagination, a few bits of card, some lolly sticks and a few dozen metal minis and even limited painting skills, we are all capable of making something FUN to play on or with.

Personally, I have always played with one rule....that any minis on the table should be painted, or at least have a minimum of four colours on.  It’s simple etiquette.  If your opponent has gone to the trouble of painting his, then have the grace to follow suit.

I also like to play on a table with good scenery.  It makes the atmosphere of the game more enjoyable, offers up the options of cover, line of sight challenges and problematic obstacles. 

[RobertBruce]

Indeed one of the age old questions, and worth returning to on occasion.  For me there is a balance to be struck. Its subjective, no right or wrong answer. But the balance is key - both the game and the setting should get equal attention.

The game is the narrative. It is a story played out with high drama and exciting events. The rules are part of the plot, very important to find the rules that work best for your satisfaction. If you don't care about the game, perhaps you have the wrong rules?   The game reaches a turning point and resolution, a good story enjoyed by all. Without it, its a museum display snapshot, lovely to look at, but only a moment in time.

That said, the setting is part of the story and brings the story to life. The more evocative of the events it is, the better the story. Scenics are important. Why paint such beautiful figures for a bare bones table?

Personally one of my preferences is that there not be a flat table. The world is not flat. I need to feel like I am somewhere for the story to work, not map-like but more like an aerial view. I want my scenery to be flexible so I can visit different places. My figure bases are very flexible, every 6mm stand is magnetic, I easily change formations, create new units, etc. I want to have a lot of new stories ready to go without having to do a lot of new scenery or basing. I am no expert in painting figures or dioramas, but I try to find a balance between the two. RB

[FlyXwire]

Flat boards haven't been too much of an issue with us (as long as there's some visual deception in play).  Our gripe has been about keeping those big mitts out of the pictures, or from knocking over all the terrain! 



Or during a rare moment - with "hands off". 





Seriously though, it's much about how the game conspires to immerse players into the drama, and like Digits said "Fun.  Above all, it has to be fun."  At the same time, we don't want to get too immersed - some of us might have to be driving home afterwards. 

[FifteensAway]

Agree with the above points and would add the opponents have to be focused on everyone having a good time, not on winning.  The real Victory is everyone walking away having had a good day, win or lose.  A good raconteur with a sharp wit helps.  But I'm also solidly on the side of the visual element of the game.  I'd rather build a beautiful table and just look at it than play a game that wasn't any fun for the players.  However, I'd prefer to use that table to set up miniatures and take photos and maybe use them to tell a story.  I might have swung into that being my higher priority over the game.  Games can be fun and, well, frankly, sometimes they really suck either from one or more participants spoiling it for the others or a very poorly designed scenario or, worst of the worst, rules that make a vicious tooth ache appealing! 

And, Olicana, your setup isn't stellar but its hardly middle of the road.  That level of effort in visual presentation would be a fun table to play on.  Beats heck out a blanket, masking tape and oval cut-outs of felt in different colors - though there is nothing wrong with the latter if that is all a budget can afford.  We were most all of  us there at one time.  Takes a long time for the average war gamer to build up to the stunning display - as said.

[RobertBruce]

Agree with all points, and second the thoughts on Olicana's table. The balance is there, and I am definitely drawn to the potential of an entertaining narrative. While I may like hills, I know an attractive set-up when I see one.

Also -  My 6mm troops and bases are far from perfect, especially as they are meant to be reconfigured at will.  I agree with many here that 6mm scenery is more impressive than the figures sometimes. And 6mm may be more game oriented, especially for grand tactical, while missing out on the amazing artistic figures you guys create.  RB

[William Bath 2]

Lysandos, I agree with your statement. Games are more appealing with terrain that suits the period and campaign.

[FlyXwire]

As you guys have mentioned, the figure scale and basing can have an impact on the choice of terrain fidelity too.

I've encountered this when making fur mats for 28mm skirmish gaming - the terrain fidelity can be ramped-up, and then the terrain density taken advantage of within many skirmish-level ruleset(s), but often single-mounted/maneuvered figures topple over on furry slopes.  Luckily, since the game scale and terrain scale are often reduced to a smaller space of land being featured, there's fewer elevations that might be needed (woods can often double for missing hill features on anonymous battlefields vs. wanting them on historical ground).

[ChrisBBB]

My take on what makes for the High Quality Gaming Experience is here:
https://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-quest-for-high-quality-gaming.html

[miltiades]

Playing a wargame on the table is only a pretext to deploy a luxurious scenery ...

[has.been]

Well said Miltiades!