Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: Dr DeAth on March 06, 2019, 01:09:20 AM
-
A few of us were discussing what was most important to us in a wargame. For some nicely detailed terrain and well painted figures were more important than how the game played, for others the aesthetics of the game were much less relevant than the playability. Given the choice I guess we'd all want the best of both worlds - great terrain and figures and lots of playability, but when push comes to shove what's more important? Interested to see what the rest of the LAF think.
-
I can't decide; I waffle one waffle then the next...
-
If the gameplay is tedious, then I wouldn't want to use those rules again. Use those good minis/terrain with a better rulebook.
-
I think the question wasn't about the rules, but about the terrain and table. There's a balance between a great looking table and one that is practical to play wargames on. Model railway type scenery doesn't have enough space for figures, and things like lift off roofs help a lot with playability. Movable trees are a great help when placing figures in wooded areas, but how do you also get them to look good?
-
Dear God, do you have a kamikaze wish Mark? lol
Re-opening the almighty can of worms...
Wait for the first accusation of 'wargaming snob'... ::)
-
Yes, both are more important.
LOVE playing on gorgeous hand-crafted boards, but they have their drawbacks too. I find the straight line chasms where the board pieces join take me out of the game as much as any sloppily-done scenery, and I have had problems on some boards just getting the damn figures to not fall over all the time. But if someone has put the work in, I do really appreciate a good layout.
For my own gaming though, I'm quite happy with the mat or tablecloth "golf course" look. It does the job for me, making terrain boards just isn't my bag. You generally don't get all the falling over with that kind of table either.
Not at all keen on playing with unpainted figures or scenery, though, which some of my friends have occasionally inflicted on me in the past. I'll play, because these are my friends, but I will probably grumble a bit.
-
My opinion is driven by the objective: What is it you are trying to model?
The figures and terrain model the things themselves, the game models the action.
As a lifelong (and retired professional) model builder, I loves me a good model, but if the pretty gets in the way of (and at the worst end: prevents) the play of the game then that's where the line is drawn. The model railroad equivalent would perhaps be to-scale tracks that prevent the running of the trains?
-
Dear God, do you have a kamikaze wish Mark? lol
Re-opening the almighty can of worms...
Wait for the first accusation of 'wargaming snob'... ::)
It was late and night, and we kinda pushed him into it.
-
After spending a day wrestling with processes, procedures, issues, stats and other such joys I can really do without dealing with complex, complicated rules and mechanisms in my hobby as well.
Simple playable rules work best for me. If I love a game I'll spend time money and effort on the figs and terrain to play it, but if I can't get into it there's no joy at all.
-
I vote playability, as you asked for a wargame..
I tend to collect a lot of miniatures, and some of them for looks without any plans to ever play the game (40k is major example, Infinity is another one)
There is a lot of games I will play when hosted by some friend with painted armies and scenario, but for me to organize gaming I have to like the game.
And judging by popularity of games lacking miniatures these two are not necessary connected at all. And most of the games that took my attention lately were gaming system without miniatures.
On the other side there are games with set settings that are vehicles to selling miniatures.
If the minis are very setting centered they have to be good looking for me to make a buy but they rarely are very interesting as a games to me lately.
I am looking for very specific things in games now, and game lacking them has no chance to capture my attention.
-
I play wargames. While the look is important (e.g. no unpainted figures) the game and the social interaction are far more important.
-
I think the crux of the question was if forced to choose between either a) top quality figures and terrain and a 'meh' game, or b) top quality gameplay and 'meh' figures and terrain, what would you choose? I suppose it's almost a "why do we play?" sort of question? Some of the most exciting and entertaining games I've played have been on ordinary tables with pretty ordinary miniatures, yet they've stuck in my mind because the game itself was so much fun. Clearly a top table with top games play would be the best arrangement, but that's not what the question was asking. If pushed, I'd prefer top gameplay over top figures, though the aesthetics of the game and miniatures are still very important to me. Luckily I get to occasionally game on some very fine tables with some very finely painted miniatures and have a lot of fun. :D
-
Simple playable rules work best for me. If I love a game I'll spend time money and effort on the figs and terrain to play it, but if I can't get into it there's no joy at all.
Agree!
-
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive so the question is odd.
The two aspects don't really compare. If the game is poor I won't play it no matter the terrain and figures.
If you are talking about terrain and miniatures that are being sold alongside the game then I would say it depends upon how generic or specific they are.
For example, I like some of the Gates of Antares miniatures and have bought some but I don't play the game. I like to be able to play games that I like with the miniatures I like.
For example, I have plans for an Incursion project but I am replacing the US Paras with UK Paras because nearly every war movie, tv series and comic etc features the US and I feel it sort of white washes everything. So I figured I would play around with it.
At the end of the day it's all got to be fun for me.
You have to want to own the miniatures, they have to appeal to you, same with terrain. If they don't and the rules are quite niche then you're less likely to buy them.
If you like the miniatures and they are generic enough, but the rules have been panned by the community then you'll use them with other rules.
I really like the walking dead all out war from Mantic, I have designed my own cards etc and used it for sci fi with aliens instead of zombies (http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=106381.msg1325250#msg1325250).
-
I voted looks, as for me it's the visual spectacle that is important.
However I am VERY fussy with the rules I use too - I don't like to just use any old ruleset so I can get my miniatures on the table quickly, and am never sold on a ruleset just because it's "quick and simple". I like a little bit of complexity in my rules - the question is what areas of the rules are complex, and is it necessary for the end result I am trying to achieve? So for example I appreciate a good level of complexity in the area of resolving close combats between units, in terms of falling back, following up, breaking, pursuit, outnumbering, flank attacks, breaking ranks, etc.... But have no interest in bogging down the game with over-the-top details concerning different weaponry, armour, statlines, missile ranges, etc.
I want to have a game where which people can look at and say "wow, that looks good", and importantly they can understand what is happening just by looking at it - so the looks are helped out by the rules. I want the rules to support a 'realistic' game in terms of how the units are deployed, how they interact.... Not bogging the playing surface down with cards and counters.....
I want people to look at it and think "oh wow, his right flank looks like it's in trouble, those cavalry are heading right for it and he's gonna be outnumbered.... that melee in the centre looks like it might grind on for a while..... I think his pikemen are going to struggle to make it through those hedges in time......" etc...... So if they were invited to participate, even without knowing the ruleset, they will quickly understand how the battle is flowing and what they want their units to do now they've taken command.... Rather than it just being a confusing mess of random models, cards and counters, the armies split up into loads of little square units all facing different directions, lacklustre terrain that could be representing anything, so a casual viewer really has no idea what's being represented. Know what I mean?
So 'looks' are the most important thing. Obviously that means painted miniatures and good terrain... BUT the rules and their playability have a huge impact on it too!
-
Either I have not understood the question, or some other people haven't.
Assuming it's not about the rules, I would have trouble choosing.
The looks of the table & terrain are central to the idea that you're watching a story unfold. If the table looks like you slapped some felt down, then it's hard to believe you're looking at anything but some toys on a table.
But if the fabulous terrain is getting in the way of the game play, and you can't place your figures where you want them, then you're not going to get a great experience anyway.
So I think the game is paramount. After all, if you want great visuals you can always watch a movie. So I vote for game.
-
Interesting question; it delves into the root of why one became involved with this hobby in the first place.
I myself am first and foremost a modeler and painter. It's because I had been building plastic model kits for almost a decade before I actually got involved in miniature gaming. So that was my basis, so to speak.
Therefore, I feel a good looking table and (well) painted miniatures are important for me to really immerse into the game and narrative, but I fully get the idea that beautiful terrain ought to be playable as well.
To be honest, I've not come across any instances of beautiful terrain that was hampering gameplay (and I really tried to come up with examples), but I do recall many a situation where bad or mediocre terrain actually did.
Which lead me to the following thought; when creating beautiful terrain, most people will give it a lot of thought beforehand, taking all kinds of factors into consideration, because they want to go the whole nine yards, and playability is one of those factors. Whereas quickly thrown together terrain, made just because it's required in the game, will most likely not have had that much thought put into it.
Personally, I do not like to play on terrain that is populated just by monolithic blocks of (barely) painted foam (even though I did many times, at tournaments). Especially when laid out to make the games as balanced as possible (by mirroring the terrain for both players).
This takes all the narrative out of the game, making it more and more abstract, until we end up playing Go or Chess. Nothnig wrong with either of those great games, but they do not pretend to be miniatures games; they have abstracted warfare down to mathematical levels, and that has nothing to do with miniature wargaming as we know it.
So; (to me) nice terrain is an essential part of the hobby, but playability is also a must. I therefore am withholding my vote, as I am so solidly on the fence, I can almost taste it.
But I would not want to withhold you the joys of this one table I played on last Poldercon; Assassino. It was also present at Crisis 2018, and it is a shining example of combining both points of view into one coherent whole. The table is simply beautiful, but also ultimately playable, as the builder took a lot of care to keep a balance between both requirements. All the houses have interiors (most on multiple levels), the joining of parts of the table are cleverly hidden in terrain features, and the icing on the cake, even though it was not within the scope of this discussion, the (homegrown) rules were really enjoyable too.
A true masterpiece which shows that the two points are absolutely not mutually exclusive...
-
I would vote C. Get the look as good as I can in the limits of storage, budget, ability, time, etc. If I was designing a piece of terrain it should take into account how it will be used in the game. eg I built a castle but made sure the walkways were wide enough to place figures on. It didn't have doors that could open as that was too difficult so I have to use markers to indicate smashed in doors. It is modular so there are noticeable joints between towers and walls but that means I can use it for many different set ups.
Things that jar the most to me are hills too steep to place figures on and movement tray full of troops perched on top of a building.
-
This is a bona fide false dichotomy if I have ever seen one.
-
I would say it's not. Take a wood. Sometimes what looks best is worst for playability. eg lots of densely packed trees that are fixed in place but you are limited in where you can place figures in it. How do you solve that problem but still look good? Where you lie on this spectrum will guide how you approach it. You could mark the wood with a flat piece of card or show the extents with a piece of cloth with a few trees. Or do you have movable trees that are then fiddly and subject to damage. There is no one solution.
-
To be honest, I've not come across any instances of beautiful terrain that was hampering gameplay...
An example would be a (28mm)model of a wall with a well-flocked/modeled base that may be 10-15mm wide: A very nice piece of terrain to look at for sure. Put a few figures on the usual 25-30mm bases (also beautifully flocked) with it and each look fine. Unfortunately, the closest they can stand to the wall is (for this example using the CoC ground scale of 25mm=10ft) around 6 or 7 feet, which expands the footprint of all the terrain (like blowing up a balloon) which -because of the ground scale influence on movement, weapon, command ranges- impacts the size of the area being represented on the tabletop. Before rolling a single die the beautiful terrain and figures have warped the battlefield. The impact is not as great on a mostly open landscape, but adds up quickly with a lot of features on the table.
Now add a game where you want your men behind the wall to gain cover from MG fire. Because of the bases only 3 or 4 can fit behind a 40ft section of wall. Does the terrain dictate that the other men of the section simply stand in the open? You can cram/overlap the figs to fit and/or simply state that the entire section is gaining cover (ie: the tabletop does not represent the action) which hinders/diminishes the gain of using terrain/figs in the first place.
...nice terrain is an essential part of the hobby, but playability is also a must... the two points are absolutely not mutually exclusive...
I agree completely.
As posted earlier: For me the issue hinges on what is being modeled on the gaming tabletop.
Where you lie on this spectrum will guide how you approach it...There is no one solution.
Agreed. Whatever spot chosen should make the game fun for you, that's all that really matters.
-
An example would be a (28mm)model of a wall with a well-flocked/modeled base that may be 10-15mm wide: A very nice piece of terrain to look at for sure. Put a few figures on the usual 25-30mm bases (also beautifully flocked) with it and each look fine. Unfortunately, the closest they can stand to the wall is (for this example using the CoC ground scale of 25mm=10ft) around 6 or 7 feet, which expands the footprint of all the terrain (like blowing up a balloon) which -because of the ground scale influence on movement, weapon, command ranges- impacts the size of the area being represented on the tabletop. Before rolling a single die the beautiful terrain and figures have warped the battlefield. The impact is not as great on a mostly open landscape, but adds up quickly with a lot of features on the table.
Now add a game where you want your men behind the wall to gain cover from MG fire. Because of the bases only 3 or 4 can fit behind a 40ft section of wall. Does the terrain dictate that the other men of the section simply stand in the open? You can cram/overlap the figs to fit and/or simply state that the entire section is gaining cover (ie: the tabletop does not represent the action) which hinders/diminishes the gain of using terrain/figs in the first place.
Oh, absolutely; I'm not stating there is no beautiful terrain that is not hampering gaming, just that I've not had the (dis?)pleasure of playing on it. And the example you sketch is obviously tipping the scales to the side of looks, as opposed to playability.
With the rules set you used in your example that is...
Because even though rules were not in the equation originally, maybe we can now state that a chosen rules set is of import, when it comes to determining playability. Taking cover for instance; many modern rules will state that a miniature is in cover when in X range of a certain intervening piece of terrain (of Y height). With those rules, the described wall, with its base, will create an issue. But there are older rules sets, which use true line of sight, when determining if a miniature is in cover yes or no. With those rules, the base of the wall may have a lot less impact on game play.
So just as much as we cannot see the looks of the terrain separate from the setting of a game, the construction of the terrain cannot be separated from the rules set the terrain is constructed for.
Possibly meaning that using universal scenery pieces might actually create game play issues, if the rules sets used with them are too far apart in their use of terrain...
-
These days we tend to play more skirmish games than anything else. So i clutter up the table with plenty of terrain pieces and cover. It looks great and you can always find a space to roll a one!
::)
-
Both!
But if it came down to it, I'd rather play a good game with bits of fluff than a bad one with pieces of art.
-
You can always have both, it just requires more of an investment of time per game, whether that's because you personally have to spend more time creating terrain or painting figures or simply have to work more hours to afford a nicer product.
Just don't ask me how much I paid to get an all-in pledge for Anno Domini 1666... ::)
-
...or simply have to work more hours to afford a nicer product.
Just don't ask me how much I paid to get an all-in pledge for Anno Domini 1666... ::)
...or what you did to earn the money? ;)
-
But if the fabulous terrain is getting in the way of the game play, and you can't place your figures where you want them, then you're not going to get a great experience anyway.
Ah, no, I didn't mean games where terrain was hindering the placement of the figures, I was just curios that if one had to make a choice (and I do understand that it's possible to do both) between
1. A great looking game that was tedious to play
2. A table full of felt squares for terrain that was exciting and interesting to play
Which one would people choose.
Kind of binary really. :D
-
Oh...
(https://ethicsalarms.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/emily-litella-never-mind.jpg)
-
I run games at home, at our local gaming shop and at Historicon, I try to make the games pleasing on the eye and enjoyable so attention to detail and playability is important.
I have friends who have well painted figures witt basic terrain but enjoyable rulesets so for me I can overlook the terrain and have a good game.
I have 2 worst evers - a small convention in a north American state where terrain was the packing from tv sets and unpainted plastics, the second was my favourite convention where Picketts Charge was represented by a green sheet laid over plywood sheet and the forces represented by blue and grey fluff balls.................. :?
-
At the end of the day playability is the thing. However I think that care should be given to the look of the game. I have played great games on felt covered foam blocks that still looked good. I have also played games on tables that looked like movie sets that were zero fun. We are gamers after all so fun interesting games are as I said the whole point.
-
Ah, no, I didn't mean games where terrain was hindering the placement of the figures, I was just curios that if one had to make a choice (and I do understand that it's possible to do both) between
1. A great looking game that was tedious to play
2. A table full of felt squares for terrain that was exciting and interesting to play
Which one would people choose.
Kind of binary really. :D
Terrain may hinder playability whether they look rubbish or not so I maintain it is a false dichotomy. There is nothing wrong with playing on cardboard/felt board with unpainted or cardboard figures. To me a reasonably well formed, figure based analogue game has become what makes it distinct from board game.
-
I wouldnt want to play either of those choices honestly.
-
...or what you did to earn the money? ;)
I mentioned to the wife that I'd made a bit of a larger-than-intended purchase on a game kickstarter, and her response was "Don't ask, don't tell." lol
-
Short answer.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
(Thats why at the start of a nightout everyone can agree on @*!# ugly when they see it.)
Long answer
So It all depends on what you personally value. The enjoyment of the game is paramount but thats as much to do with the company you keep as the rules you use.I was talked into playing a game at GW. Bored to tears (so so many dice.) This weekend instead of training we played The tufty club road safety board game ( okay there may have been just the one beer each.) It was a riot.
That said everyone one of use would be wounded if we turned up to a show and the display games were just bits of barely 3D felt and un painted figures.and were met with 'yeh but the game play is much better this way '
-
I didn't vote, because I always aim for my games to look great while the game-play is enjoyable for both players.
Undercoated only miniatures and books for hills are just not for me, but I totally get that people enjoy playing in this style.
Gareth
-
Bottom line, it's all about friends and fun. But... I demand both of myself and the games I put on. No amount of polish compensates for tedious rules and clumsy game play, (or poor company) and for me, painted figs and terrain is inseparable from enjoyable war gaming.
That said, I recognize the limits to my skills and time, so I try my best to have everything presentable and complete.
-
Option B
I can always swap miniatures and scenery for better stuff...swapping rules is not always as easy.
-
A bit of both, actually. To me, it is a compromise between both extremes. Nice, functional terrain and well painted miniatures are essential for me. Maybe thus why I like MDF buildings; they are not realistic, nor museum-quality displays, but with a bit of work they look really good in the table and playable, at the same time. It's the same with mats in the style of Cigar Box Battlemats and the like; they gave nice backgrounds to your figures without a lot of work, nor storage space. We are very lucky as wargamers; we enjoy a wide range of possibilities to enhance the look of our games.
This kind of set up is what I feel comfortable with (Saga rules, Cigar Box Battlemat, 4Ground buildings)
(https://i.imgur.com/NNtKHro.jpg)
-
The reason I play miniatures games is for the looks. I can play cardboard or computer wargames for the quality of game play. However, I don't like spending my time playing a game with rules I don't like, or with a gamemaster who is not so good at running a good game. I'm lucky to have guys to play miniatures with who present games that look at least average, if not above average. Not all games are great works of art, but the ones I get to play don't look bad.
The choice affects me the most when I'm picking games to participate in at game conventions (USA style, meaning virtually all "participation games"). I'd rather roam around looking at the best looking games rather than playing in ones that look good but play poorly, or in the games that play well but look poorly. I have played in either one, however. And I may try additional games that have rudimentary terrain but with GM's who have a good reputation for a game that plays well.
-
Personally l cant get any pleasure from any form basic playability set up. They look awful. Well painted figs without wonderful terrian is underwhelming and looks half complete , even lazy.
I play on highly detailed model railway boards and have no problem moving figs. The overall look is far more important than winning or losing for my taste.
Unfortunately l feel very detached from game mat/play at all costs brigade as we have so little in common . That is why some of us feel removed from the hobby and realise that we are more of a "diorama gamer " of sorts.
.