NagoyaHammer.com

Well folks, it's time for another "Prim has too much free time and not enough to occupy his mind" thread.

If you had to choose between the two games below, assuming all other things being equal, which would you choose and why?

Game A
Game A has fluff and background for every unit you will use in the game. Army lists dictate exactly which options you may select from. Armies are themed around one or two concepts. (E.g. Fast and shooty, slow and tough).

Game B
Game B has an open sandbox-y style background. There is fluff, but it has plenty of room for players to add in whatever they want. There are no army lists per se, instead players can choose from whatever they like and construct their own units from a set of menus.

Game B sounds more interesting because you can put more of your own ideas and imagination into it. If I had lots of time and opponents, I would choose this.

But given my current circumstances, I would probably choose Game A. This is because it looks like it would take less time to prepare for games, and that I would know what type of playstyle to expect from my opponent's army. Since I rarely play a specific Wargame more than a few times a year, it would be better for me.

B for my fella.

I'd like to have the ability to have the freedom to create what I want/need.

I like option B, as it allows for players to tailor their army to match their models. This makes it easier to start playing (as a new player). The options need to be clear, though, so there's no ambiguity. Also, there'd be a high probability of being able to break it using power combos.

I think the "game" part of B could get frustrating if you and your opponent weren't on exactly the same page vis a vis the scale between "constructing a cool, fluffy army" versus "constructing an army that will win games". I suspect it'd have to be either very tightly designed or go full DBA and basically have a small number of types of units that you can portray however you like on the tabletop.

The Other Dave wrote:I think the "game" part of B could get frustrating if you and your opponent weren't on exactly the same page vis a vis the scale between "constructing a cool, fluffy army" versus "constructing an army that will win games". I suspect it'd have to be either very tightly designed or go full DBA and basically have a small number of types of units that you can portray however you like on the tabletop.

Dragon Rampant seems to have taken the DBA path. Heavy cav, is heavy cav regardless of race.

I don't see it as the game part of B being frustrating, but rather the choice of opponent being the problem.
In a tournament setting, there wouldn't be much you could do about that, but rules like those would be more for an informal setting I'd imagine.

Spevna wrote:I don't see it as the game part of B being frustrating, but rather the choice of opponent being the problem.
In a tournament setting, there wouldn't be much you could do about that, but rules like those would be more for an informal setting I'd imagine.

This is me thinking about the Joshin gaming group and going HMMMMMMMMM.

(Not, I should say, that I'm trying to say anyone in the group is a jerk or anything - just that there are some legit different approaches to this kind of thing even in only as small a group as we have.)

The Other Dave wrote:

Spevna wrote:I don't see it as the game part of B being frustrating, but rather the choice of opponent being the problem.
In a tournament setting, there wouldn't be much you could do about that, but rules like those would be more for an informal setting I'd imagine.

This is me thinking about the Joshin gaming group and going HMMMMMMMMM.

(Not, I should say, that I'm trying to say anyone in the group is a jerk or anything - just that there are some legit different approaches to this kind of thing even in only as small a group as we have.)

Fair point.

If you and I played a game where my space marines wanted to fight your space marines,and we both rocked up with very different space marines because the rules allowed us to make them as we see fit,someone wouldn't be too happy.

I reckon that these type of rules would lend themselves much better to a narrative driven game where the players sit down and work it all out together (or via mail/sms given what our schedules are like), and not everyone would be willing to do that I guess.

Having read a few threads on other forums concerning different approaches to rules, (which is what prompted this thread), the feeling I got was that for pick up games, it was usually best to go with the restrictive approach because it does cut down on prep time and allows you to jump into a game easily.

I do think that the 'choose what you want' approach sounds like it could be more fun if you and your opponent are of one mind on things, or even if one person were organising the game for both players perhaps.

would it be impossible to have both systems? Say, have the emphasis on "this is the standard style of game (type A) but here is an alternative set for those of you who are more narrative minded (introduce set B)" ??