"Fun is what makes a game spectacular" Topic

You were asked – TMP link

What Makes a Spectacular Game?

And in the final round of voting:

48% said "all of these"*
15% said "fun game with lots of laughs"
12% said "good scenario"

* all meaning fun game with lots of laughs, good scenario, good friends, fast and fun rules, efficient gamemaster

Absolutely!

Unless "spectacular" is being used (imprecisely) as a mere synonym for "great", I would firmly disagree with the equation of spectacular = fun. A miniatures game is a "spectacle" when the figures and terrain are breathtaking, eye-grabbing, envy-producing. But such games are all-too-often not that much fun to actually _play_. Massed, beautifully painted units lined up two-deep edge-to-edge are an awesome spectacle, but give little scope for player choice. I'm always left thinking, "what did you need us for? You could have just pushed the figs straight ahead and rolled all the dice yourself."

That being said, I have learned over the years that a not-inconsiderable number of wargamers do not play to make meaningful tactical choices – they play wargames in order to watch a war movie. Spectacle (as defined above) and melodrama (caused by unanticipated swings of fortune – fortune cards, special event tables, larger-than-life heroics from named command figures) is what they seek. That's perfectly fine, we don't all have to want the same things from our hobby. But for me, a game which is decided by the initial set-up, or by random events, can never be very enjoyable.

Eumelus +1

This seems an odd definition for me. We don't have or need a gamemaster, why would you need one if the players are even halfway competent with the rules, so that is NOT a requirement of a spectacular game for me, probably more of an indicator of a bad game, nobody has much idea of what going on or are too distracted to care about the game, each to their own.

Fast and fun rules, you mean oversimplified and not catching the history of the period, definitely not in my list of spectacular. Tried some of them, tedious and boring would be my take on them, spectacularly bad perhaps.

Some game structures, such as the Prussian kriegsspiel – and of course, Dungeons & Dragons or similar – DO require a gamemaster.

I would be very happy to play a tabletop wargame with miniatures, with a gamemaster receiving my verbal or written orders, determining what happens using whatever rules are required, and then simply telling me the outcomes in real life, rather than game rule, terms.

arthur1815, While we do that for one player, ex-Miliray this means that as much as 1/3 of your tim,e is spent ajudicating games rather than actually playing them. Personally I am a PLAYER, so wasting 1/3 of my time ajudicating does not seem a good use of my hobby time. Plus a game now needs 3 participants not two so getting time slots every week is harder so you may lose over 1/3 of the time. With decent rules and a few weeks playing, the rules becom "invisible" and all that counts is the strategy. Like driving a car or Kite Buggying the machanics become automatic and you only consiously only concentrate on the situation, hemce wasting vitalhobby time as a gamemaster is unneccessary.

I agree with Rick

martin

Personally, I would not regard acting as a gamemaster to provide my friends with a challenging, entertaining wargame as 'wasting vital hobby time'.

UshCha, you are of course entitled to your opinion as to the best use of your time.

But using a game master and a 'closed' structure to create uncertainty and the fog of war is not ipso facto 'an indicator of a bad game'.

@geometry dash A well-crafted scenario or theme enhances player immersion. Games with rich storytelling, engaging backdrops, and dynamic settings keep players engaged and invested in the gameplay.