Old Contemptibles | 16 Feb 2019 9:58 p.m. PST |
In my younger days our little club would play out long scenarios or leave them set up and come back to them. So thirty turns or more didn't phase us. Fast forward a few years. Now in a different town. These guys would rather do seven to ten turns and they are done. I have all these great scenario books where most of the scenarios are twenty turns and some up to thirty. These guys are done playing and the first reinforcements are still five turns from entering the game. I find it frustrating. I put a lot of work into these games and we never seem to finish them. Not even get so far as to have some idea who is going to win. Lately I have resorted to leaving the games up and finishing them solo. I only put on one game a month. Anyone else in this situation. Any thoughts? Am I being unreasonable? Should I lower my expectations? Is this the new normal? |
War Artisan | 16 Feb 2019 10:52 p.m. PST |
Anyone else in this situation. I'm not, right now, but I have been in the past. Any thoughts? Try running shorter scenarios most of the time, to suit your potential gaming audience. Once in a while, throw in one of the long scenarios that you enjoy, but run it over multiple sessions (you mentioned that you have the space to leave a game set up, so this should be feasible) and make it clear to the gamers that this will be multi-session, or a mini-campaign, or whatever. This may gradually acclimate them to longer games without over-taxing their endurance. Am I being unreasonable? Should I lower my expectations? It is always unreasonable to expect other people to conform to your expectations without putting in the time and effort required to lead them where you want them to go. Is this the new normal? Yes, it is. |
Durban Gamer | 17 Feb 2019 3:32 a.m. PST |
Of course, if you get rules that play fast and the players have some experience of those rules, you will get in more turns in a given time. |
robert piepenbrink | 17 Feb 2019 5:08 a.m. PST |
Yes, you're being unreasonable. Games should be designed for the number of players and length of time available. It is not "lowered expectations." It is good game design. And yes, I have been and am in that situation. In one instance, games can't exceed six hours, but I can set up in advance and take down at my leisure.In the other, the games can't exceed four hours including set up and take down. But if long scenarios are the joy of your life, keep working at it. Check how many people would enjoy and could play a long scenario, and schedule one for them. working around the days and hours they have available. But the chef who prepares a five-course meal when he knows the diners just have time for a sandwich doesn't get a lot of sympathy. |
Dynaman8789 | 17 Feb 2019 5:17 a.m. PST |
> Should I lower my expectations? The first thing you have to do is stop thinking of it as lowering. Changing is a better term. Short games are no better or worse then long games. I prefer a 20 or 30 turn game that lasts a couple of sessions myself but release that is not going to happen except with boardgames. |
BrockLanders | 17 Feb 2019 6:28 a.m. PST |
If you can leave the game up I don't see how it's a problem as you can play multiple short sessions to finish the scenario. Or are you saying that they have no interest in any one particular scenario beyond one short game? If that's the case I'd say you're just out of luck with that group of players |
79thPA | 17 Feb 2019 7:42 a.m. PST |
Your group does not have lesser expectations -- they have different expectations. You will continue to be disappointed until you understand that, and design accordingly. I think most of us who are in a certain age group liked to game all day, back in the day. There is just too much pulling at our time now. I imagine the guys are done somewhere in 3 or 4 hours. Is that correct? +1 to Robert. |
DisasterWargamer | 17 Feb 2019 9:28 a.m. PST |
Shorter, Faster, No muss does seem to be the new normal for many. I agree – mix it up – play a few of the shorter ones but mix in the longer ones as well |
Extra Crispy | 17 Feb 2019 10:00 a.m. PST |
Our club still routinely plays games over 2 or 3 evenings. Some times if we have a really great table, we'll leave it set up and play another game on it, changing the scenario and even, in some cases, the era/genre. But mostly we take our time as we socialize, have a beer, look over new toys, chat, etc. |
mghFond | 17 Feb 2019 4:00 p.m. PST |
Our local group often leave a game set up if we cannot finish it. It's not a problem except that the next week the same guys may not all be able to make it. Still it's pretty common for us to play til we get a final result, even if it's more than one session. We are older farts though :) |
UshCha | 18 Feb 2019 2:58 a.m. PST |
First of all I have to agree. Wargames are dumming down from its heyday of Phill Barker and the Warganmes Reasearch Group. Look at all the new "Gamey" games they are more game than reproduction of behavious and tactics that they pourport to represent. At the same time interest in complex evolving, interesting scenarios is waneing in line with the historical quality of the rules. Can you do anything, proably not. Like has been said brief the players that a game will last more than one session. If you have to remove the game or get new players for the next session, photos and records of the game for next time may help. Me I only play one on one generaly. I have no love of multi player games, never enough real enthusists for good multi player games. This might be one option, a one on one game with a more likeminded player can be a serious interesting challenge. Multi player games are more of a modllers convetion with play taking second or even third place against chat and admireing models. |
Jcfrog | 18 Feb 2019 12:18 p.m. PST |
Shorter faster needs to think more about going to the point when writing rules. i don't agree that WRG from ole times was better or more historically lets say accurate than some faster, slimmer sets of today. On the other hand not everything can be done in 10-12 turns/ decision spots. Or a lot of the fighting cannot be dummed down to fit it. If you have a fight that did take 6-10 hours, or could easily do, ten turns means each is 40-60 minutes. Troops would most likely be running out of table etc. These artificial constrainsts easily bring in distorded results and way out of plausible games. But there is no doubt that you should tailor the games to the possible rather than expect more. As said, different players or less of them, well chosen. If you are hosting and preparing everything ( as I do) do put the conditions too. Time, discipline and planning the needs. If they respect you they either agree or give up. |
UshCha | 19 Feb 2019 12:54 a.m. PST |
Jcfrog many games are not even designed to last 10-12 turns, so very difficult to get any ebb and flow of real battles (where it happened of course). |
Bash On | 21 Feb 2019 7:55 a.m. PST |
One approach is to start the game later into the battle, at the critical point. You could even "pre-play" the scenario by yourself to that point to vary the setup each time. I run a lot of group games at the local store. We typically can't set up beforehand and can't go more than five hours. If I want to play a full game, I have no choice but to adapt. To save time, I've tried the following: -More skirmish-type games--different, not dumbed down -For point-force building games, reduce the points per player -Limit the number of forces overall, have them pre-made, and each player commands a smaller size unit. This option is especially popular, as we have a better chance of finishing the game in a given period of time! -Supply all the forces (we typ. have a BYO)to reduce list-building time, which is a big time waster. -We're considering game clocks, both for set-up (all not on board in reserve) and turn time (this option is much less likely to be used). |