tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7150649422744296369.post3228193063965909289..comments2023-12-23T02:17:12.549-08:00Comments on Quest for Fun!: 40K: The fluff or the crunch?Gary Rayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11897166491600280320noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7150649422744296369.post-83269843151894694512008-06-09T21:42:00.000-07:002008-06-09T21:42:00.000-07:00It seems to me this distinction is based on bad de...It seems to me this distinction is based on bad design. To use my D&D example again, since it's what I know best, in 1st edition or 2nd edition D&D, you might find yourself playing at a game convention with people who play very differently than you. The rules were subjective, with many, many house rules, dealing with just about every aspect of the game. Games often didn't resemble each other, which helped insulate gaming groups and bind them together, in a kind of perverse way.<BR/><BR/>In 3rd edition, the game became more codified and there were much fewer interpretations on how to play. House rules were usually about preference rather than interpretation of rules or style.<BR/><BR/>What I see in 40K is a lot of fuzziness with the rules in general and not much design rigor for consistency. A lot of rules decisions, such as point values for a particular ability or item, seem somewhat arbitrary. This surprises me because of the popularity of the game, and it reminds me of playing D&D in the old days. <BR/><BR/>From what I can tell on the forums, there are certain designers who have rigor, but the majority don't. Rigor seems a new thing for them.Gary Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11897166491600280320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7150649422744296369.post-43069854166679216512008-06-09T20:34:00.000-07:002008-06-09T20:34:00.000-07:00It can be very frustrating when you show up ready ...It can be very frustrating when you show up ready to play one style of game, and you end up playing the other style. It is a completely different (and fantastically more fun) experience when you play with friends, "for fun".<BR/>This doesn't mean that you aren't going to be competitive on the table, or that you won't try to rip out each other's throats, just that - win, lose, or draw - the play is the thing, not the scoreboard.<BR/>It also means that the real competition takes place on the tabletop during the "game" game, not in the army construction "meta" game.JoeDoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04768616880852081399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7150649422744296369.post-88554533836744602972008-06-09T20:22:00.000-07:002008-06-09T20:22:00.000-07:00That pretty much defines the difference between th...That pretty much defines the difference between the casual/club environment and the pick-up/tournament environment.<BR/><BR/>When you play with the same group of people all the time you can simply agree to play in a certain way. You know that your opponents will play in the same way. This is more or less how it was for me when I first got into playing.<BR/><BR/>However, if you play your games in a pick-up environment where you are playing different people, some of whom you may never have even met before, then you have to assume that they will be bringing the best army to the table that they know how to bring. This is more of the environment as it exists at BDG.<BR/><BR/>To use the knife fight analogy, it's the difference between bringing a knife to what everyone has agreed will be a knife fight, and bringing a knife when no such agreement has been made and it's reasonable to assume the other guy has a gun.Fulminatahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14332824290977548527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7150649422744296369.post-65750455131788002092008-06-09T16:36:00.000-07:002008-06-09T16:36:00.000-07:00By the time one my best friends and I stopped play...By the time one my best friends and I stopped playing 40k regularly, we had pretty much began 'knife fighting.' I was using my Black Templars, ditchin my other Space Marines with heavy weapons in every squad and vehicle. <BR/><BR/>Since he was the only person I have ever played 40k against we constantly had to try new things to beat each other, and we explored the fluffy options and it was enjoyable. When we tried to powergame our games became repetitive. <BR/><BR/>It comes down to what you want to get back from your games. If powergaming is your thing, then go for it. May you crush all before you.<BR/><BR/>-JoshAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7150649422744296369.post-90041026670451725902008-06-09T13:36:00.000-07:002008-06-09T13:36:00.000-07:00Here is my perspective.Having a fluff army/charact...Here is my perspective.<BR/><BR/>Having a fluff army/character is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Not the best weapon of choice, but I am sure you would get an even bigger adrenaline rush out of it.<BR/><BR/>After playing 40k for 9 years you see the same "optimal" layout or themes over and over and you know how to deal with them. But then the game becomes autonomous and you really dont have to make any real decision making.<BR/><BR/>But when you take out the 'knife' the gameplay changes drastically. You become forced to think in ways you did not use to before. Seeing as how you are just starting out, I can understand that this is not clearly understood.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, in a competative environment, fluff armies are not common. But if you have a close friend that you are constantly playing you can both choose to holster your guns and whip out your knives.<BR/><BR/>This "fluff vs crunch" is also relevant to competative video games. Some fighting characters are just really good while others simply have interesting fighting styles which are enjoyable to play. Shooters have a mixed array of guns, but only a few are the best. Sometimes you have to knife a guy to prove your mad 'skillz yo!'<BR/><BR/>Thats all I have to say about that.<BR/><BR/>UsiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7150649422744296369.post-62886340284106598512008-06-08T21:49:00.000-07:002008-06-08T21:49:00.000-07:00I tend to think that the best solution is one that...I tend to think that the best solution is one that 4th edition D&D appears to be making. Allowing you to take sub-optimal choices for fluff reasons, but not crippling you for doing so. You remain effective, just not as effective as you might have been.<BR/><BR/>In both 40K and 3.5 taking the sub-optimal choice is often the same thing as crippling yourself. You're no longer effective at all.Fulminatahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14332824290977548527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7150649422744296369.post-62755520162869679932008-06-08T18:24:00.000-07:002008-06-08T18:24:00.000-07:00Fluff should be something that sets your army apar...Fluff should be something that sets your army apart and makes it unique, not something that makes it "uber" or "unter".<BR/><BR/>The only fl;uff rule I ever liked was "red wunz go fasta" for Orks - but then again, that was at a time when Orks had been a very unpredictable and fluffy army, and the game was normally played for fun, rather than in a competitive/tournament mode.JoeDoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04768616880852081399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7150649422744296369.post-40634224019585096102008-06-08T16:55:00.000-07:002008-06-08T16:55:00.000-07:00>The argument I was given was that it was alright ...>The argument I was given was that it was alright to have bad crunch for the sake of fluff and the game was more about modeling than winning.<<BR/><BR/>That's one of those full of crap lines people come up with when rules don't model fluff effectively. Seriously, if it was more about modelling, everyone would show up with fully painted models and not worry so much about exact distance and line of sight.Bloodwolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04190295752734628697noreply@blogger.com