What's more important - Looks or Playability?

[Dr DeAth]

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.

[Codsticker]

I can't decide; I waffle one waffle then the next...

[MHoxie]

If the gameplay is tedious, then I wouldn't want to use those rules again. Use those good minis/terrain with a better rulebook.

[SteveBurt]

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?

[Captain Blood]

Dear God, do you have a kamikaze wish Mark? 
Re-opening the almighty can of worms...

Wait for the first accusation of 'wargaming snob'... 

[Plynkes]

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.

[gweirda]

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?

[BaronVonJ]

Dear God, do you have a kamikaze wish Mark? 
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.

[Emir of Askaristan]

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.

[AWu]

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.

[dadlamassu]

I play wargames.  While the look is important (e.g. no unpainted figures) the game and the social interaction are far more important.

[Elk101]

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. 

[Deedles]

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!

[mcfonz]

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.

[Charlie_]

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!