"Old West game you can really sink your teeth into" Topic

Pass th' ketchup.

I don't know what to say.

I don't want to play this.

Would this be considered poor form? Many gamers won't do modern periods (Vietnam on) because of the closeness of the period to living persons. But wow, a game of eat the rich (or not so rich). Kinda sick?

This goes way beyond 'poor form'. I live near where some of the artifacts of that horrible event are displayed. And I've recently been to the site itself. Turning that event into a game is pretty sick. Cannibalism? Are they serious? As entertainment?

It's one thing when its tongue-in-cheek in a Hollywoodish pirate game but this is a real event. What is their encore – the plane crash with the sports team in South America? Or how about the restaurant in WWII in the Oakland area where they butchered some homeless people and served them up?

I genuinely hoped this was a late post of an April Fools day event. Apparently not.

Grotesque.

Their next kickstarter is a toss-up between the Warsaw Ghetto or a concentration camp.

Boy, you said a mouthful!

I say good for them. Poor form or not, they can do as they like. In fact, they're probably making more money/sales because of the "touchy" nature of the subject matter. There are worse things in the world to worry about.

Is this really worse than the SS or Templar knights units we see being used at wargames events every weekend ? No.

Is it worse than a tabletop game of Isandlewhana or Omdurman ?

If it offends you play something else.

I agree. We play games which are almost invariably based on people killing other people. When "outsiders" criticise us we say that it's just a game, they don't understand.

What is worse – killing someone, or eating a corpse? If this had been a game about surviving in the mountains by killing the rival groups nobody would have batted an eyelid. I'm unlikely to pick this game up, but I am not going to come over all moralistic about the subject matter.

Be honest, how many games do you play regularly that don't involve somebody trying to kill somebody else?

At least from the blurb quoted above doing too many unsavory things, like cannibalism, will cause you to lose the game. So it is not like it is giving victory points for commiting atrocities.

So, what some of you are saying in this thread is that there is no moral boundary – at all – to our hobby? Maybe that isn't your overt intent but I don't see how the ultimate logic of your argument can avoid arriving at that locus. While I will readily defend anyone's right to self-expression, I will just as readily say that there must be a line in the sand beyond which lies a territory best left unexplored. Otherwise, those who rail against this hobby on moral grounds become right, in an absolute sense. I, for one, will fight against that, if only with words here – or where they are needed. And I will definitely reserve my personal funds for other endeavors.

Yes, we represent killing in our games – but in my case I try, hard, to create fair fights between opponents. Is it still war? Of course, one of the most heinous activities of humanity. But opponents with a chance of victory at least has some elemental fairness on the table top. As opposed, say, to sport hunting. Does an elephant have any real 'fair' chance against the weapons used to hunt it, the over high calibre rifles? Of course not.

What I don't try to do is justify war. Sometimes this hobby does cause me to question its validity as a past time. But I won't quit over it – what I do is 'a game' where no one suffers actual physical harm, just the emotional distress of losing. Really, wargaming has far, far more in common with a game of chess than any actual real war. By boundless margins.

But the game should be about camaraderie, not victory. When we achieve that, everyone at the table wins no matter how the game is called. The words kill and death are but replacements for things like check and checkmate.

If you disagree then, for those of you who haven't already had the experience, perhaps there is a real shooting war you can volunteer for. Come back from that experience and regale us with your new found wisdom.

(And for the record, yes I've served in the armed forces as a volunteer and, no, I was fortunate enough not to go in harm's way as part of that service. Not that I haven't been in other forms of harm's way – but that's another story.)

Or maybe some of you would like a serving of long pig?

Gaming events that took place in the last 30 years is where my moral boundary is.

Is this REALLY worse than running an ambush scenario set in Fallujah where the first move is an IED going off under a US Marines vehicle ?

Comparing this game to a tactical wargame is just plain crazy. The "tactic" is to stay alive without collecting so many "shame" points that you lose even if more of your party stays alive than anyone else's. This is tactics?? I thought that we, as wargamers, tried to avoid depicting the more horrifying situations of war. Raping, murdering children, etc would not be tactical and it wouldn't be fun. It would be repelling. I'll stay away…far away…from this one.

Didn't read the entire linked article. Any chance of an optional sound effects add-on feature?

Early Morning Writer, you're entitled to your opinion – as is everyone. I do not see a line in the sand as you do, and I've been in harm's way.

You have the choice whether or not you purchase or partake in something you find offensive and that's the beauty of it.

My personal take is simple: there is a lot of real evil in the world, and terrible, awful things. I've been fortunate enough to only witness a handful. So a game, regardless of its content, simply doesn't register as something to even begin to worry about.

Turn Style .
I fully agree with you . It is a board game and only a board game.
There are games I decide not to play because of my personal opinions ,but they are still only games.
A long way to go before they even approach reality (and yes I have "been in harms's way " and have seen gamers playing conflicts I was involved in )