Saturday, April 28, 2007
Friday, April 27, 2007
I'm doing up some artwork for a client.
Just an FYI there.
Mechanical design using REAL equipment, and making it all work on paper...to scale...=REALLY FUCKING HARD!
I'll be glad to go back to drawing figures again.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
For a long while I've been feeling that I'm not in sync with other players when it comes to Warhammer 40k and other games. It comes from how I view the game versus how others view it.
A lot of folks view it as just what is within the covers of the Warhammer 40,000 4th Edition Rulebook and that is what the game is, period, end of story. This means that the game is technically a set of rules to follow to the letter. Tactics mean using those rules to the greatest effect, not necessarily "using terrain and cover" because realistically, you only get one save, and so if you have a better armor save than cover will give you, then there is little point in using cover. There are innumerable similar analogies I can use here. I can't really argue that this view is incorrect.
From where I sit, I don't see this as tactics at all. I think this is because I come from a Role Playing background, and 40k to me is the Stories, Fluff, and novels written which very often bear little resemblance to the game. The stories and all tell of troops using cover, and using strategy and tactics as I recognize them. You don't ever hear of (in novels) Tau Fire Warriors shooting and not being able to be assaulted by a team RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM because a hover tank, positioned in front of them keeps them from being assaulted...then hopping back in to the APC/ Tank to move to the other side so they can shoot again. This is unheard of in the fluff, novels, and flavor text of the codices...but standard fare in the tabletop game.
I think part of it comes from a level of common sense on the battlefield, while set in a fantastical setting, and has at least the semblance of reality to it. The game system however has none of this. Most don't.
When I play 40k, I use my guys in a fashion that is consistent with the fluff, and novels, using common sense and the like. This of course makes no difference on the playing table when playing guys who simply min-max their rules lists to take combinations of weapons that while uncommon are technically legal...and ultimately devastating on the tabletop. The use of legalistic rules loopholes is the order of the day. Where in a Role-playing setting it would be completely metagame thinking, min-maxing and rules lawyering, on the tabletop minis game it is the order of the day and players such as me are rare, and ultimately outgunned.
Differences between Wargaming and RP
I think it comes down to the difference between Role-playing and Wargaming. Ultimately, in a war-game, the story, the motivations, fluff, and dozens of novels written about the same forces, written by the company that created the game, mean absolutely nothing next to using a certain number of troops and special weapons to gain a mathematical advantage on the tabletop. Players claim to use "fluffy" armies, but from what I've seen in lists from players from
It's kind of sad really. Maybe it's just my expectations of playing what I've read in the novels and in the codices and in the flavor text of the rule books is unrealistic. I guess the flavor text is there to suck the guys in so they'll play in the first place.
I've never played a tabletop game "to win". I'm not there to compete. I want to play out battles like what is in the novels etc. I've found that the Warhammer 40k game isn't the place to do that. Warhammer 40k is a competitive game, made to have a winner and a loser. I really have no need to prove anything, or a need to stroke my ego by WINNING! Really, if we have a cool, fun close battle, I don't care who wins.
Honestly, at this point, I think I'm about finished with playing 40k. At least with most folks out there.
I've enjoyed playing with a few select people whose views are the same (these are really few and far between).
I'm glad to be moving away from these sorts of systems. Flames of War seems cool...but now I'm seeing the same sort of issues in it which is not good. Play the game instead of play what makes tactical sense. Buy specialist units so they can make certain rolls instead of just using stock units. Here we go with another game that makes special characters rule the day. Maybe I'll have better luck with Fire and Fury (American Civil War rules).
Now I see why so many of the older more seriously tactically-minded gamers tend towards Historical Wargaming over games like Warhammer Fantasy, Warhammer 40k. Flames of War is only barely considered in the same category as Historical Wargames due to the issues of truncated fast-play rules that oversimplify and the use of special characters which off-balance the game. You can see the difference in the crowds as well: Fantasy-type players tend to range from their teens to mid-thirties, and Historical Wargamers tend to average in their 40's. I'm starting to understand why. In a way, I believe it has to do with having to prove something through competition...younger guys need to, older guys don't.
Comparisons to SCA and RP/ regionalism?
In a way, it reminds me a lot of the SCA,
In 18 or so years of playing in the SCA, I fought in literally hundreds of battles.
Out west, more often than not, we traded off guys and balanced the sides, and at the end of the day, the winner was unknown and everyone had a great time and drank beer together afterwards. Not a big deal. Everyone was there to have a battle, fight and have a good time. (Example: AnTir-West War.)
In the Midwest and East, winning is of utmost importance and a lot of effort and time is placed in training so they can go out and beat the hell out of the other guy. (Example: Pennsic).
Out west I had a lot of fun playing 40k and Fantasy. We put our guys out and just had fun.
Out here...it's a totally different world.
Competitive guys are everywhere; I don't want to lead anyone in to thinking otherwise because it simply isn't so. I know folks who are GT players who are the most cut-throat bastards you've ever played, and that is in
I guess in a way, I really don't fit in here.
What to do?
Essentially, I can't play many games with folks here. Not board games, not wargames, and even RP is different. It's like my interests are too different from everyone else’s.
In board games I just want to have a good time, and play a game. I'm not interested in winning. Just a good time.
In wargames I want to use tactics. Not using the rules to the best advantage. Sorry, too many years as a soldier get in the way of things. I want to play people who want to play a fun game and recreate tactical situations in history or in novels. Competition isn't a concern. Winning isn't a concern. Reliving and recreating memorable scenes in history and in other books is the goal.
In Role-playing I like to have fun. I want to have an immersive experience with dramatic scenes and situations. Dungeon crawls are handled more efficiently on a console system or on a PC. What I can't get on a console system or PC is in-depth character interaction. Getting in to character, thinking from the perspective of the character...not from the perspective of the ruleset and the +2 synergy bonus, and the bull rush maneuver.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that these things are unattainable. What I want ...I can't have, and how I play is incongruent to how others play.
Where does the problem lie?
I think it's just me. In a way I think I may be a dinosaur.
A while back a concept passed my way called "Social Contract" and I've really grabbed a hold of it as the single most important concept in gaming. In a nutshell (and I'm paraphrasing a lot and simplifying the concept from the forge-baked, ultra specific version) it means that the players of any game are up-front about their expectations and their preferences of play. Before any game starts, any game group begins, and group gathers, the interested parties talk about what they like and dislike, and what they want to see and not see in whatever they are planning on doing. Then, once everyone who is in agreement...agrees and then they play...according to the agreed-upon preferences of those involved. Social Contract can be simple or complicated, but I think that in some fashion it should be used in every game.
For example, a group gets together to play Shadowrun. My preferences are for a serious game, with intrigue and plot twists, with combat...but combat as a garnish, not the whole meal. Less overt weapon play and more covert. Threats of violence over shooting up a bar. Your preferences could be a variety of things, but in the end, we come to an agreement (or not, nobody says everyone has to agree. There are other games out there. If I'm not digging where everyone else wants to go in a game, I'll go elsewhere...no hard feelings, maybe some other time).
This would apply to all sorts of games: RPGs to board games, to Wargames. I think it would apply in the SCA as well. Hang out with those who play that game the same way as you...don't play with those who play in ways you don't like.
Thing is, I don't think I'll get what I want.
In the past few years I've dropped out of the SCA entirely due to irreconcilable differences with some of the local crew. It's too much time, effort and money to justify playing anymore.
Gaming (wargames and RPGs) is almost non-existent. I've played in a few good games, but I've never found a group I really gelled with. Maybe a couple people from all the groups to make one UBER GROUP...but it'll never happen. Everyone else’s interests are different from mine. Social Contract is a nice idea, but unless others jump on that bandwagon, I'm on my own.
That and available time for play is limited for everyone, which is a HUGE factor.
Those are my two big hobbies.
What I love. What I've spent several tens of thousands of dollars on in the past decade.
Where does the problem lie?
The issue is that when I play a game like 40k, I'm thinking in terms of a Space Marine Codicier, or Tau Shas'O, or Eldar Farseer...move and shoot, use cover. I don't think of moving back 1/2 an inch to deny my opponant a charge, or using Terminator Honors to get an extra attack, or butting up two squads so neither can be assaulted (because you'd be within an inch of a squad you didn't intend on assaulting...because the base size is just shy of one full inch). I don't think that way. In these games, that way of thinking is called "using tactics", and without it, you'll simply get snuffed by players using "tactics". Right or wrong, that's within the rules, and that is the game being played. It's my choice to not play that way, and in doing so, it means I'll not be fighting a "fun battle with friends" I'll be getting steamrolled by someone who wants to win. It's not their problem or fault. I chose to play. If I don't like it, then I shouldn't play the game...because that's what the game really is. It's just disheartening...that's all.
What am I left with?
Lots of game books I'll never use, minis that'll gather dust, and SCA armor and garb that I'll likely never wear again.
Start something new?
What? Take up macramé? Get in to NASCAR or sports?
I don't know. I'm at an impasse. No clear roads before me.
I have no answers. Only more questions.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
As soon as we get the vehicle situation sorted out (two vehicles, both are broke-dick right now: one needs a head gasket and an additional $450...the other needs a starter VERY soon).
Gaming is at a screeching halt. I haven't played anything in at least a month or so. That was even a one-shot. I did have a demo game of Flames of War a week or so ago. Anyhow, I'm painting up minis for games I'll possibly play one day (Modern Skirmish figs, Rangers, Delta Force and a bunch of terrorists. Urban War Junkers Legionaries and Syntha (it's a hella cool game I got figs for on the mega cheap [seriously 60% to 70% off]). American Civil War 10mm figs.
Assembled a light tank platoon of Stuarts for Flames of War as it looks like a lot of folks are in to the heavy armored battles, and my light-weight 3/504th PIR is going to get steamrolled withoutat least some tank support.
I miss RPGs. I've played with some cool folks and all, but the depth simply wasn't there. Either it's a dungeon crawl beer and pizza game or it's an Indie game which I'll usually sit out. Seems the folks I've played with believe D&D or other similar systems can only be used for brainless games. I've had some stellar games with the D&D 3.5 system with plenty of depth, same with Savage Worlds and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.
Thursday Katie and I are playing some Warhammer 40k at The Last Square, getting prepped for the next 40k League. She needs to bone up on the game and get used to her troops (Space Marines: Blood Ravens) and I need to get used to mine: Eldar.
Other than occasionally playing, we can't really do much else till the vehicle debacle is over. The cars are taking up most of our fundage right now, and we need to play it very cool over the next month or so to get out of this hole. Thankfully, gaming is a cheap hobby once you have all the minis/ rulebooks, etc.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
I took a detour along my path one day
Heard of a pleasant diversion
Took the why-not option
Found myself liking this road better
And took a right at the intersection
I've chatted with Mercury
Pleaded with Hecate
Even flashed Legba a leg
Conversations that led me on the road
Gave me glimpses of the Kerouac vision
And what lay beyond the intersection
In dreams and visions I've chased you
Through sunlight dapple and rainbow heat ripple
Under moonlight dazzle and starshine shimmer
Summer ice cream haze
Winter fireside laze
Felt you always just out of reach
A lane or two away
On the other side of the intersection
Came to the crossroads one night
Devil at the bottom of my glass
Left an offering, a piece of my soul
A sweet incense smoke of memory
The taste of rum on my lips
Bright-speaking your name, an incantation
You knelt before me
Under the lights of the intersection
When worlds collide like Venn diagrams
There is a moment:
"Will you?" "Yes."
"Can I?" "Come in."
A plot on a graph that begins a line
A value for x that traces the curve
A central kiss that opens the door
Between potential and immanent
Fingertip and handclasp
Word and deed
Thought and whisper
Leads to the alchemical exchange
Of pheromone and love
At the moment of our intersection.
Copyright 2007 Elissa Carey
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
at Marriott's Lincolnshire Resort
Ten Mariott Drive, Lincolnshire IL 60069
Their website is: http://www.hmgsmidwest.com/main.taf?p=2
We were smart and loaded up the bus yesterday.
I'll be gone from tomorrow morning to Sunday night, spending Monday unloading the bus.
I'll be demo-ing the Axis and Allies Naval Battles Miniatures (I guess I should sit down and read up on the rules now huh?)
If anyone in the Chicago-land area is bored over the weekend, it's a blast!
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Two of the guys who played have figured out what they want to play (they figured it out in advance and last night cemented the deal) and they picked up blisters. Yay team!
Talked with Bev and we get a 10% discount on FoW stuff and the corresponding Osprey Books on monday nights now!
Very cool night. Everyone had fun, we learned a lot.
Monday, April 9, 2007
I closed the account this weekend. Just no point in it.
Next is the Livejournal.
I do actually use it to keep track of friends/ make it easy to be kept track of. Unfortunately the signal to noise ratio sucks. My attention span is shrinking...I just have no interest in keeping up with a lot of these folks, and really don't care if they keep up with me. Not all of them. There are a few who I keep up with regularly. It's just that the vast bulk of it is inane bullshit I don't care about. Selfish? Probably.
I've been a paying member for a long time. LJ does have a lot of nice features: galleries, lots of userpics, which I like a lot. Blogger is very...bland in that respect.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Mage/ nWoD/ Exalted by Jen Woods
This was a hodgepodge game where a lot of the game was freeform and some good RP happened via chat. Everyone got in to their characters bigtime. Jen's first time at bat was IMO a home run!
Mage: TA set in New Orleans by Kevin Hinote. An old army buddy ran a Mage game that was amazingly detailed. I learned a lot about New Orleans and later found out that what I learned was geographically accurate.
Legends of the Five Rings by Kevin Hinote. I'm sure you'll see a pattern by now. This game we all sat on the floor, Kevin printed off Kanji banners (with watermarks in english) and we had sushi and sake. We had handout messages in kanji (with watermarks). Man that was an awesome game!
Millenium's End/ GURPS by Rick Horton. Detailed game, everyone did a good job with their characters and the planning and execution of the plans were cool as hell. Rick is an excellent GM (protege of Kevin Hinote of course).
D&D 3.5 Baar Durak by Sage Howard this was a campaign that ran for a long time. Actually, there were several campaigns Sage ran that were all pretty much top shelf. It was D&D with real depth. Plots, characters, subplots.
Stormbringer by Charles Green; being a writer for Stormbringer and all...he really knows his stuff. Man, that was an awesome campaign! He did a short delta Green game that was class as well.
Vampire:TM (New York by Night) by Holly Harsdorf. Probably the single best campaign I've ever been in...for all time.
Runequest by Bohemond. Goddam, that was how a small scale game SHOULD be run. Very detailed. Deep interactions. Great players.
Middle Earth Roleplaying by Tony Amie. This is going way back, but man it was a lot of fun. Me and Vrin were the only two players. Great game.
There have been a number of other games, that while fun and memorable didn't quite make the list. Reasons vary. (note, these games weren't bad, just not the best of the best)
SWRPG/ Traveller d20 by Clayton Woods was one. Good game, but hot and cold: GM styles changed midgame, player gamestyles and interests changed too. Probably would have worked better if we talked more upfront about what we all wanted. Good game nonetheless.
Pulp nWoD by Genevieve Gorman was okay. Just couldn't get in to it.
Various D&D 3.5 games as well as Savage Worlds games. Just too much of a brainless dungeon crawl for my tastes. I need more depth to get in to it.
Rippers, Fading Suns, Witchcraft etc by Jason Blair could have been good if we got to actually play more than once as well as being able to get all the players on the same sheet of music as far as the kind of game it would be (ie: Combat Monsters rarely have a place in any of JLB's games.)
Dogs in the Vineyard by Daniel Hosterman. The game itself was okay, but I didn't enjoy the lack of depth and lack of reprocussions for actions. Serious problems with the game system. Had more fun painting minis and watching Drawn Together.