"Spectacle Versus Game" Topic

Dropped by Little Wars today and did a little shopping, checked out the gaming hall.

There is a spectacular "55 Days at Peking" table in 25mm, with hundreds and hundreds and figures.

But looking at the masses of figures and the utter lack of maneuver space I wonder if the game is actually challenging and fun? Is there any thinking or is it just an all out bum rush? (I didn't play so I have no idea).

But it got me thinking about other convention games that looked spectacular but turned out not to be very good games. I think some times gamers obsess over details but lose sight of "is it fun?"

Thoughts?

The age old game design problem of Playability and Enjoyment. I have played beautiful games that were dull and boring. I have played in Butt ugly games that were amzingly enjoyable.

Convention game have to catch the eye and also make the players stay consantly involved with the game.

Miniature wargames have three aspects: Rules/Competition (How can i win the battle?), Aesthetics (How good does it look?) and roleplaying (How immersive is my experience of the battle game?). Fun can be found in all three of this aspects. I remember games, where the overwhelming joy sitting at the side and looking at the masses of models was my fun.

But like Wackmole says, a convention game is mostly targeted at the aesthetic side of the hobby. So game organizers will put the most effort into that.

Looks more fun than most competition games working out precise angles to get a tiny corner of a base to contact the enemy and claim a charge!

Tally Ho!

It can be both. I'm reminded of the Bridge to Far game from Historicon. A massive and spectacular table with several firefights occurring all alone it.

I played in that. I did well holding the bridge at Arnhem but taking a biology break I noticed XXX Corps had barley crossed the river!

I agree, it is a challenging balance to achieve. I am an army painter: GEtGW (Good Enough to Game With), at arm's length. I focus more on the play aspects, relying heavily on quantity has a quality all its own.

I've made mistakes in scenario designs where I thought it was blatantly obvious how to play it out -- obvious tactics. I was wrong… Making mistakes like that, pretty much ruined the game for several of the players who sat on their hands while their team leader wasted precious time doing artillery shots which accomplished little, when the intent was that they should rush the city walls while the artillery fired as they approached, to keep the defenders occupied.

My goal in putting together my games, is to get the players engaged, ASAP. I play to have fun, over sitting and staring at a museum display diorama. That's my preference. Cheers!

I have come to realize that even simply block painted minis do the job. Well based with good terrain and your game will look aces. Where as 100 works of art fighting over a scrap of brown felt is……eeech.

@Sgt Slag: Yup, been there. Ran a Vietnam game. Said close combat was a last resort. Turn 2 the VC charged into close combat. The game was effectively over on turn 2.

I have played games while taking pictures of the next table over, The game I was in was fun, but the next table over looked fantastic.