|TunnelRat ||12 Oct 2017 12:09 a.m. PST|
What is 'in the Featherstone Tradition?'
|altfritz ||12 Oct 2017 2:58 a.m. PST|
| Florida Tory ||12 Oct 2017 3:55 a.m. PST|
Been gaming since the 1960s, have certainly heard of Donald Featherstone, but have no idea what is meant by the "Featherstone tradition".
|advocate||12 Oct 2017 5:36 a.m. PST|
I too am unsure what the 'Featherstone tradition' is. If it is single based figures in large units with figure removal, then for me that is the past.
I got the impression from his books that he was open to a wide variety of games. If that is the 'tradition' referred to, then may it live long and prosper.
| Flashman14 ||12 Oct 2017 5:53 a.m. PST|
Agreed. I don't adequately understand the question.
|Winston Smith ||12 Oct 2017 6:43 a.m. PST|
I've never played a game out of a Featherstone Book. So, what current games are in the "Featherstone Tradition"?
I'm surprised that so many are like me and puzzled by the question.
| x42brown ||12 Oct 2017 7:31 a.m. PST|
I am as uncertain as those above and I've played in tournaments organized by him. To me it was more that he got isolated individuals and small groups together than a particular style.
|Rallynow ||12 Oct 2017 8:17 a.m. PST|
Please explain to everyone what the "Featherstone Tradition". I have a couple books by him. But no clue what you mean.
|VicCina ||12 Oct 2017 9:00 a.m. PST|
I second what Rallynow said.
|pvernon||12 Oct 2017 9:44 a.m. PST|
|79thPA ||12 Oct 2017 10:48 a.m. PST|
It was never clarified in the pre-poll discussion either.
| Narratio ||12 Oct 2017 7:55 p.m. PST|
I gamed against Featherstone twice in the early 70's and he would play anything against anybody just for the joy of it. So for me his tradition is "Just have a go"
|SeattleGamer ||13 Oct 2017 1:07 p.m. PST|
In my eyes, the Featherstone Tradition means simple, vague rules, that do not cover even the majority of likely situations, for a game played between friends, who can simply come to an agreement when a situation arises.
Which is a GREAT attitude!
But even with my friends, I prefer a better, more detailed set of rules, that are likely to cover 90% of what might happen, and give you some indication of intent for the 10% not specifically covered by a section of rules.
If good fences make good neighbors, then better thought-out rules make for more/better gaming. I think Featherstone was more about "Just get playing" and less about "What happens when somebody gets flanked?"
|KSmyth||15 Oct 2017 11:27 a.m. PST|
Yes, I agree with SeattleGamer, that the games I've looked at by Donald Featherstone have holes in them big enough to drive a bus through. That said, I also think there is a pretty major fun quotient included in the rules which under the right circumstances could really be great. If it doesn't matter who wins or loses and enjoying a great night of gaming with buddies does, there is definitely a place for Featherstone-like games.
Example--Knights Games had Featherstone write a scenario and rule set for fighting Poitiers 1356. I've had and lost this book several times over the past four decades. The rules look fun, but damned if I understand everything the old boy is after. I've never played his rules, but think it's simply cowardice on my part. Some day . . .
|robert piepenbrink ||18 Oct 2017 3:20 p.m. PST|
I'm still working on "better, more detailed set of rules" as though "better" and "more detailed" were related things.
I have not found those of Featherstone's rules which I have played to be insufficiently clear as a basis for play with friends who are using roughly historical tactics. If adding another 50 pages would spare me rules lawyers, I'd consider it--but on all evidence so far, the longer the set of rules, the more rules lawyers it attracts.