"Post Game Discussions" Topic

There has been interesting bits recently about games. The very interesting Boardgame definition of Eurogames and Ameritrash has a few common points.

We have noted in the past in our club there were for a time our group and one other playing very diferent games in the WW2/Modern period.

The post game discussions were of interest, as the topics between the two were so diffrent. The Other Group would describe their gams in terms of who got a lucky throw here or a bad throw there and how that impacted there game. How leader X won through.

If you looked at Our Group it was about how house X was not recognised as a key defence point untill too late, whether reserves were commited at the right time and how the battle progressed relative to expectations we would have for the outcome of a similar real world situation as we would interpret it from our readings of battle accounts.

Clearly diffrent games with diffrent audiences. Neither of the groups mixed the games, nethier found the other of the slightest interest there being little common ground between them.

Both Groups were regular players so that was not a group differentiator.

Where do you fit in relation to what possibley are two extreems?

It does seem to point to there can be no one single game that will satify all.

Where do you fit in relation to what possibley are two extreems?

I don't think there are, necessarily, two extremes.

I can enjoy roast beef & I can relish a roly-poly. So I'd say that "diffrents" may be less than you think.

Sounds like two groups of people discussing the same thing in two different ways…

That why ice cream comes in so many favors. Most of my stuff is based for more than one system. Thing that always gets me about war gamers is how they have to try and convert you to their rule set because its is the best at ________ and the other one is bad because _______. And the funny thing is almost no one uses the rules they used 20 years ago.

Your premise is faulty.

I have never been party to a game recap that resembled either of your examples. Mine are always a blend of the two. On the one hand there are the memorable "scored zero hits on 12 dice" events we laugh about, as well as the "I should have launched the dragoons in earlier" points. Some nights are more tactical, some more gameplay.

Usually a mix of three things:

1) Who had hotter dice (if either side did)
2) Significant mistakes made (in our group, these are admissions of ones' own mistakes, not pointing out those of others)
3) Feed back on the scenario/rules.

I think the views and expectations of the 2 groups were different to begin with .
Group A was there to play a game and have fun in their way and that was what was important to them
Group B was there to run through a tactical exercise that would conform to what their expectations and biases were.

Different reasons for being there and wanting different things out of the event.
I can imagine Group B complaining about Group A ("Don't they know they shouldn't do that") But Less so Group A complaining about Group B (maybe " who cares that he uses 5.56 x 45 and I have a 5.8x42 – I still wasted his squad")

Gbrt, there was is no animosity between the groups, we just recognised we were there for different reasons. It just interesting to see the spread of inclinations of players and designers in this self selecting group on TMP.

Well, when it comes to board games, I am 110% Ameritrash :-)

For after-game chatter, I'd say it's half tactics and decision making and half "Man, I can't believe I missed the shot on your KV twice in a row".

Mostly, it's about memorable moments.
If we're testing something, then most of the talk will be about mechanics of course.

Just remember, Eurogames are not wargames. They are generally based around unique mechanics, often they are not directly combative, and can be collaborative.

The other extreme has no attraction for me. Spurious accuracy that ruins any experience and falsely suggests that you can model all aspects of combat..

I know the periods I game, and the main thing I ask is that combat is modelled in a way that is plausible (within the limitations of my own knowledge of course), does not rely mainly on dice luck, models 'friction', and provides sufficient player decision making to create engagement.

But frankly, anyone who thinks we know enough about periods other than the very recent past to start modelling it 'accurately', is living in as much of a fantasy world as some of the rule sets they are critical of.

'But frankly, anyone who thinks we know enough about periods other than the very recent past to start modelling it 'accurately', is living in as much of a fantasy world as some of the rule sets they are critical of.' Good point.

When I write up an AAR of a game, boardgame or miniature, Eurogame or AmeriGame, I try to mix analysis of game mechanics with the game events, along with enough purple prose to keep it interesting. Granted, it's written from my perspective, and in really good games, or really large games, my perspective is a small part of the overall battle. Stick in a few photos (when I remember to take them) and presto-magico, you have a pdf with enough description to remember the game -- complete with the wacky events.

Then again, what I remember over the last several decades of gaming is more on the extremes (mechanics and events) that occurred or were discovered…

Now, how did I manage to roll 42 (yes, 42) dice and NOT get one, single, lousy, miserable hit during the Battle of Savo Island…!?!?!?

Regarding post game discussions in general – I've noticed if we talk a lot about the game it usually means it's a good set of rules. If we talk a lot about the rules, we'll most likely not play it again.

Regarding Euro v American games, you're confining the discussion to board games, yes? I'm not experienced with enough of them to hold forth on the nuances. I will say I'm astonished whenever I wander over to BGG – the incredible variety and constant flow of new games is mind-boggling. I always figured that broad, diverse volume of games, goals, mechanics, detail levels was there because they cater to a broad and diverse market. It seems obvious there isn't one single game that will appeal to everyone.

As far as accuracy goes, Khusrau hit it: these are games. You want 'accuracy', engage in real war, colonization, diplomacy, epidemics, homicide, espionage… Life isn't Turn-Based.

It does seem to point to there can be no one single game that will satisfy all.

Has there ever been such a game??? And why on earth should there be? Different games provide different experiences. I like the variety. As most all game designers predict…at some point gamers figure out the optimal moves of ANY game and move on to another game system that offers new challenges.

Has there ever been such a game???

I'll be cynical here & suggest one reason there's a plethora of games (& even post-game discussions) is so that some gamers have the opportunity to try to feel superior.

" You play what ?!?!"

As most all game designers predict…at some point gamers figure out the optimal moves of ANY game and move on to another game system that offers new challenges.

Explain the continued success of such classics, as TSATF, or even chess. TSATF has certainly been around long enough for players to figure out the optimal moves, and yet people keep playing it.
Obviously chess has had full libraries dedicated to optimal moves and yet people keep playing it.

The OP keeps denying that there is any animosity. Yet he keeps insisting on dividing gamers into camps. The frivolous and the serious. The very way he defines the Other shows his … is "contempt" too strong a word?

I am at one with Winston again. I must see my psychoanalyst. Winston writes "The OP keeps denying that there is any animosity. Yet he keeps insisting on dividing gamers into camps." The frivolous and the Serious." The very way he defines the "Other" shows this… in contempt too strong a word."

I agree Winston, I never heard the word "Ameritrash" till he used it but I have heard "Eurotrash" but in another non-gaming concept.

In 54 years of gaming in clubs, conventions and basement groups I never once heard any discussion like the type he hankers after. In every case what discussion there was, centered on 1) the most outrageous justifications of the players own completely lamebrained and idiotic decisions, and blaming others for not supporting him or 2) the most vehement and outrageous attacks on me and the rules for not writing them such that the players completely lamebrained and idiotic decisions were not rewarded as master strokes of military genius.

Gut then, I am who I am and I guess it's my fault and the people I play with, after all we're all Ameritrash gamers, and cannot hope to ever come up to his standards.

But we do have a ripping good time listening to the astoundingly absurd excuses people make. Some of these in our group have even become part of the vocabulary."

I'll be cynical here & suggest one reason there's a plethora of games (& even post-game discussions) is so that some gamers have the opportunity to try to feel superior.

" You play what ?!?!"

That is just a bit cynical. I'd suggest that there are a plethora of games because there are that many different reasons for playing games… which different games try to address. AND folks like variety. That *some* use that as an excuse to feel superior doesn't have any bearing. Without games, they'd find something else to feel superior about.

Explain the continued success of such classics, as TSATF, or even chess. TSATF has certainly been around long enough for players to figure out the optimal moves, and yet people keep playing it.

Obviously chess has had full libraries dedicated to optimal moves and yet people keep playing it.
The OP keeps denying that there is any animosity. Yet he keeps insisting on dividing gamers into camps. The frivolous and the serious. The very way he defines the Other shows his … is "contempt" too strong a word?

Winston:

It's no dark mystery why some games last. Most designers understand some of the reasons, even though that doesn't make it any easier to create one. Here is what Raph Koster writes:

"…extremely formal games (such as board games) have fairly few variables, and so you can often extrapolate out from the known rules set. This is an important insight for game designers: the more formally constructed your game is, the more limited it will be. To make games more long-lasting, they need to integrate more variables (and less predictable ones)…page 38 A Theory of Fun

Some of the qualities that Chess and TSATF have in common are their simplicity, but wide, wide variety of avenues to victory. There are literally millions of possible combinations of moves in chess. With TSATF, the cards randomizing movement and of course the die rolls for combat provide the same thing. Obviously, those are not the only reasons, but it does explain why no one plays tic-tac-toe for very long, and checkers is not as popular as chess. Some games become predictable. I still play For the People after dozens of games because no two games are never the same.

Games are puzzles. Some have a limited number of optimum paths to victory, others a wide variety. The latter are the ones that continue to hold folks' interest long after the former have been 'figured out.'

We have all played games like that.

I will concede that post-game discussions are often the best bits of a wargame. But that's simply because the good fellowship that accompanies the hobby is omnipresent. They can be of many types: focussing on history, game mechanics or one's (usually!) flawed strategy. Taking them too seriously is anathema to what I think the hobby is about (i.e. 'Fun').

Each-uisge's (I hope he won't mind me using the correct, Gaelic, spelling of his user-name) OP, seems to place inordinate importance on the differences that even if present, are superfluous.

I'd probably fit in the second group as I don't make tactical errors, so I'd be forced to talk about luck.

We probably wouldn't talk about the real world as we know (1) it's game and (2) we'd use artillery and air to flatten everything first. So whether we missed something or not wouldn't really matter.

It does seem to point to there can be no one single game that will satify all.

Vive la difference.

The OP keeps denying that there is any animosity. Yet he keeps insisting on dividing gamers into camps. The frivolous and the serious. The very way he defines the Other shows his … is "contempt" too strong a word?

I'm getting the same vibe from the OP as Winston and Otto

If you don't want accuracy play risk, or Stratego.

As for post game discussion. Always been a mix at every group I've gamed with.

Some of the comments here seem absurd to me. If folk want red cars and some like black. It is of interest who likes what. To claim this is decisive is to say the least bizarre. So why a perfectly reasonable question considered divisive? There are different stokes, why should we not revel in the difference?n

> So why a perfectly reasonable question considered divisive?

It's the internet, no more need be said.

Dynaman, I could give you a list of 100s of games that make huge claims to accuracy and then get the basics wrong.. like claiming to represent 1000's of men and having an archery range that would be a mile or two if related to the ground scale for figures. All games have to include some sort of 'fudge factor' if for no other reason that you simply cannot play out 4 hours of gaming for 30 seconds of real time.

And as a final note, I recall what a good friend of mine said, after we ran into friends who arrived in Paris and walked into the bar we were in, quite by accident.

'Fiction must be plausible, real life has no such constraint.'

How does a 'realistic' game model the 1/1000000 chance that occurs in real time way more often?

Its all in the phrasing of the question/comment .
using your red car / black car analogy
all the new car owners got together
Some people bought red cars because they looked like they went faster and they were shiny .
My group bought black cars because they are a more sensible car to own and their electric engines are better for the real world and an easier car to maintain because we have read the manuals

Yes people bought both -but clearly the writer is looking down on the people that bought red cars .

Basically exactly how people (including myself) have viewed your post .

Because UshCha, you keep bringing it up. You have started several threads and posted the same question on list started by others and as Winston said, made the same divisive dichotomies, which you make perfeclyt clear by your vocabulary, and when you are told by many people "different strokes for different folks," "Some like oysters, some like snails," Some like Coke, others prefer Pepsi, Some like Fords, other Chevies, some men are breast men and others are leg men, some like mustard on a hot dog, others prefer ketchup, you don't give up. YOU have even said this when others have made an argument endorsing the games you like and counter to your own preferences. However you keep bringing it up.

If you got your answer once, why do you keep asking? It's obvious you want a different answer. People are in the hobby for FUN, what's fun to you may not be fun to the other guy, but you are transcending the argument of "fun" and taking it to what is "worthwhile" or "worth the effort" or "respectable."

Please understand. I agree with you. Americans are stupid, uneducated, unsophisticated louts. The games they play are trash, mere beer and pretzel horrors compared to the advanced, top level General Staff worthy games you are involved in. I admit it, being one myself, that ANYTHING that comes from America is worthless junk and entirely worthy of the epithet of being coupled with "Trash." houldn
t even be allowed in wherever country you come from. What makes this even worse is that we stupid Yanks have GLORIOUS FUN with our games, which of course shows you what we know!

There… happy?

I have some sympathy for the OP's point. Some people want to simulate and learn/study. Some want to play, compete and win.

I think you can place these two variables on the x and y axis of a graph and plot every player as a point or maybe a region of the plane – if you follow.

If a group of gamers are too widely separated on this graph they won't gel and while they may play together for years it will not produce the synergism to satisfy any faction.

I'm extreme. I'm only interested in games to learn/simulate. If someone will repeatedly try to win by stretching the rules it ruins the experience for me. Perhaps this explains why I only play solo. I would like to find others who are compatible, but it is not easy.

Ottahome, I, find you attitude at least as repulsive as that you portray of me and you denigrate of ALL types of player. I recognise there are different types of play and different aims and objectives. You appear not to do the same.

Khusrau – Better to try and fail than not to try at all. Plenty of history books get the history wrong, should we stop trying to make more accurate books?

I didn't say 'don't try' – I say, 'understand the limitations of your attempt at simulation. I recommend you have a look at Sabin's "Lost Battles".

There are a range of simple tests; for example – can you refight a known historical engagement and get the same result consistently, without having to add lots of specific rules?

It is simply impossible to model every factor, and futile and time consuming to try. The decision about the level of abstraction is a core design choice, personally, I think that for example, the rate of turret rotation between Tank A and Tank B should simply be factored into the accuracy, which at another level of abstraction can be factored into effectiveness.

Descending into the realms of the 'roll a dice to check whether the blacksmith had a hangover on the day he shod the messenger's horse' are to me an abomination. Especially as player decisions cannot mitigate those type of factors, unless you want to role play the blacksmith. And the messenger, and the horse.. it simply becomes absurdity layered on assumption and inaccuracy.

Repeat after me – 'complexity is not equal to accuracy' there are plenty of complex games that are guaranteed to not reflect anything like the reality they purport to simulate.

I'll agree to disagree. Complexity does not always equal accuracy due to a mistake, but arguing that it is thus bad is also wrong. Also – complexity just to be complex is no good either. Getting things accurate does not have to mean making them more complex.