Gamers Lounge Ep. 77 - Therapy

[Fetid Strumpet]

If you are basing your argument of skill gap on the fact that it is now easier to understand how to actually use the models and so less skilled players now have a chance to beat you then I think your definition needs work. The more skilled player, assuming luck doesn't cause you to fail, is still more likely to win, only now the only skill that matters is actually in PLAYING the game, and not the skill of memorizing.

To me your argument sounds like a player of chess who imagines that a large portion of the skill of the game is in remembering how the pieces move, and not in actually figuring out how to effectively use them on the board.

I can appreciate that there are people who prefered the game as complex as it was, but the argument that it now narrowed the skill gap is fallacious. The only skill it narrowed is the one of memorization, not those of actually needing to understand how to efficiently use the pieces in the most beneficial way on the table.

[Manic Mouse]

If you are basing your argument of skill gap on the fact that it is now easier to understand how to actually use the models and so less skilled players now have a chance to beat you then I think your definition needs work. The more skilled player, assuming luck doesn't cause you to fail, is still more likely to win, only now the only skill that matters is actually in PLAYING the game, and not the skill of memorizing.

To me your argument sounds like a player of chess who imagines that a large portion of the skill of the game is in remembering how the pieces move, and not in actually figuring out how to effectively use them on the board.

I can appreciate that there are people who prefered the game as complex as it was, but the argument that it now narrowed the skill gap is fallacious. The only skill it narrowed is the one of memorization, not those of actually needing to understand how to efficiently use the pieces in the most beneficial way on the table.

Actually being REALLY good at chess is about memorising all the different combos and moves. Ask any grand master. Otherwise you are just brute forcing each win like a computer, no intelligence required. But then again I'm sure plenty of chess players wouldn't be happy if chess 2.0 was checkers.

The argument that removing options from models does not make the game less skill based is clearly fallacious. So you think giving a car automatic transmission rather than stick doesn't reduce the skill gap for race car drivers? It places more importance on what you do on the table, only by removing other parameters. It's like saying playing the piano one handed doesn't narrow the skill gap.

Skill in games comes from two aspects - using the mechanics well and making good tactical decisions, and how those two interact. Reducing the complexity of either will reduce the skill gap, by definition.

If you really think complex mechanics are bad, and hinder games rather than add skill layers, then why not play checkers?

Edited July 24, 2013 by Manic Mouse

[HalcyonSeraph]

Actually being REALLY good at chess is about memorising all the different combos and moves. Ask any grand master. Otherwise you are just brute forcing each win like a computer, no intelligence required.

The argument that removing options from models does not make the game less skill based is clearly fallacious. So you think giving a car automatic transmission rather than stick doesn't remove the skill gap for race car drivers? It places more importance on what you do on the table, only by removing other parameters. It's like saying playing the piano one handed doesn't narrow the skill gap.

Removing the labels that tell you what gear you are in and what gears you have available is a better comparison. Or putting a secret gear that doesn't require more skill to use or drive in but only requires that you read the whole user's manual and caught the line where it is mentioned.

System Mastery is not skill, it's just who read the fine print. You can pride yourself on reading and memorizing all the little corner cases, that's fine, but it's not skill, it's just rote. I'm not saying M2E requires more skill, mind you, just saying that removing superfluous or rarely-use clutter abilities does not make it LESS skill-intensive, either.

Personally, and anecdotally, my last 4 or so games of M2E have all come down to 1-point differences and were hard fought and felt like chess games. That tells me that A) I have a good playgroup who knows what they are doing, and that the game is pretty well tuned right now. Blowouts are rarer, at least in my group, and we no longer feel like there's split tiers of viability for masters.

Edited July 24, 2013 by HalcyonSeraph

[PierceSternum]

Actually being REALLY good at chess is about memorising all the different combos and moves. Ask any grand master. Otherwise you are just brute forcing each win like a computer, no intelligence required. But then again I'm sure plenty of chess players wouldn't be happy if chess 2.0 was checkers.

No...

Thats not what grandmasters are doing in understanding opening positions.

What they are doing is understanding where those lines lead them so that they can achieve known positions from which they can perhaps deviate or introduce "novelties" to take their opponents "out of book".

A thorough understanding of opening play is quite important at high levels of play even at the state level. But your assertion that the memorization is relevant to anything more than time-saving to come to the same sorts of conclusions to get you to the positions from which you want to approach the middle-game are wrong.

You can be quite good at chess and not know the openings at all. The openings are based in different ways on principles that can be understood without knowing a Ruy Lopez from a Sicillian or a Queen's Indian.

Develop your minor pieces, keep solid pawn structures and control the center. If you do those things, it does not matter what you call your opening.

And again, I will bring up "Go" as an example of the extreme of few rules and move options, yet is the deepest game I have ever tried.

[Manic Mouse]

Removing the labels that tell you what gear you are in and what gears you have available is a better comparison. Or putting a secret gear that doesn't require more skill to use or drive in but only requires that you read the whole user's manual and caught the line where it is mentioned.

And again, good racing drivers have read the manual. And studied the race track. And looked up the weather. And with stick shift worked out what gears they should be taking what corners at.

The proponents of 2.0 sure do love trying to somehow make out that doing your homework is bad and not to be rewarded.

Maybe I'm coming out overly negative here. I'll be playing M2E, I'll just miss fun models like the Rail Golem. You can argue that it doesn't take less skill to use the new Rail a Golem (I disagree, just as it takes more skill to drive a 747 than drive a car), but you can't deny he's a whole lot less interesting.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Manic Mouse

[Jonas Albrecht]

If by "doing your homework" you mean newbie traps and false choices.

[Guy in Suit]

The proponents of 2.0 sure do love trying to somehow make out that doing your homework is bad and not to be rewarded.

I don't think that 'doing your homework' is bad, per se, it's just a boring way to win games. Last go round I made a concerted effort to NOT do any homework before Adepticon and it was even more fun than 2012!

---------- Post added at 09:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:27 AM ----------

If by "doing your homework" you mean newbie traps and false choices.

Exactly - I am SO done with one turn Pigapult victories it isn't even funny...

[HalcyonSeraph]

And again, good racing drivers have read the manual. And studied the race track. And looked up the weather. And with stick shift worked out what gears they should be taking what corners at.

The proponents of 2.0 sure do love trying to somehow make out that doing your homework is bad and not to be rewarded.

Maybe I'm coming out overly negative here. I'll be playing M2E, I'll just miss fun models like the Rail Golem. You can argue that it doesn't take less skill to use the new Rail a Golem (I disagree, just as it takes more skill to drive a 747 than drive a car), but you can't deny he's a whole lot less interesting.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to feel like the game I play as a hobby is like homework. And I don't want races decided by who read the manual the closest. I want them decided by who is the better driver. If the only way to win in real life racing is literally just memorizing shift patterns and tracks, then ok, I don't know much about racing, and its a bad example on my part.

I honestly don't see what changed so much about the Rail Golem. He still uses burning counters to get extra actions, he still hits like a truck and can vent burning to surrounding models. The exact mechanics of how he does what changed and you can't get 1 action charges anymore. Locomotion condensed a handful of different 0s. But the way you use the model is functionally the same. I just don't see the change at all in that case.

[Zac]

I've started listening to this, and am having to listen in small amounts.

Firstly thanks for putting your thoughts down on "paper". I feel that a few of your "counter arguments" are a bit straw man, but I wasn't there for the original arguments. If anything can make arguments like that it's the internet.

The podcast does sound a lot like a Therapy session: your title is spot on. It's true that the closer you get to something the more it is able to hurt you. This is true of relationships, game systems and short swords. Your dedication to this game has put you in a very vulnerable position during the change, as you're extremely close to it all. People like me who are learning to play are unlikely to feel as strongly about it all as those of you who have been teaching these past few years. I hope that having aired your thoughts will allow you to enjoy M2E a little bit more, and that maybe you will find some more of what you love in the rpg as well.

I would like to draw a parallel here if I may. Mass effect three ending. It was a strange experience for me that the gamers demanded a different ending from published. As a culture we treat our games differently to any other media: we want a tailored experience. Wyrd were very cool about having an open beta. They want to make a game which people like and which isn't immediately broken. At the end of the day though, it is still a Wyrd game. They will be judged by it, and so they will make it the very best they can, in their own opinion. The fact that their very best game is not the same very best game as yours is not their fault, and they should not be hated for it, in the same way that the mass effect 3 writers should not have been hated for publishing the game they wanted to publish.

As a thought exercise, I would ask Nix: what do you think people would be complaining about if the editions had gone 2, followed by 1.5?

All the best, and in hope of a good conversation.

[AgentRock]

I am always up for a game of Malifaux Classic, and happy to run tournaments if there are 6+ people who want to play.

*grin*

Since I've still got the cards under my name I was trying to contribute to the playtest and push the new edition as much as possible in my area. Haven't tried going back to a 1.5 game. I have a feeling my brain would hurt like when I was in a d&d 4th edition and a Dark Heresy campaign at the same time. But, I'd certainly be game to give it a try, assuming I get the job of course.

---------- Post added at 10:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:57 AM ----------

I will ask one question about the counters issue that they brought up in the episode. Has it really been that big of an issue for people? I played a game of Squatter's Rights where at least one of us was doing the Line in the Sand scheme and didn't have issues keeping track of which counter was which. Maybe adding in corpse/scrap would have exacerbated it, but I think that making it 1 counter/dead person actually helps with this.

The Wyrd colored bases work fabulously for this, IMO. A bit of pre-marketing, perhaps?

[Fetid Strumpet]

I think their point was that the visual appeal of the game is a big thing, and that all the theoretically multi colored markers that are going to be cluttering the board detracts from that aesthetic in a large way.

[HalcyonSeraph]

I think their point was that the visual appeal of the game is a big thing, and that all the theoretically multi colored markers that are going to be cluttering the board detracts from that aesthetic in a large way.

I think most people are playing on boards that aren't perfectly themed, with models that are various levels of painted and unpainted, with the occasional piece of terrain that doesn't match or the like. I'm sure we've all played a game where the terrain was piles of books and coke cans. I personally don't think markers detract any more than that, if at all.

[Mister Shine]

My counters all match my theme, but im also that guy who colour coordinated their dice with their 40k armies.

[mythicFOX]

I think we also need to keep in mind that if you add number of models and counters in the average game of Malifaux my guess would be we'd still have less stuff per square inch than most wargames.

to having themed markers. My molemen are SO getting some molehill scheme markers of their own. *grin*

[Dracomax]

What we need is for Wyrd to sell markers with a low relief faction image on them, so that we can paint them as we see fit, but that they still seem thematic.

I'd buy them.

[thebarbalag]

It's not like pretty counters are hard to come by. Advance Deployment and a few other companies make Malifaux-specific counters that look great on the table, and really, if you're running Guild you can just use some kind of red chit, Neverborn, purple, etc. It's not like Scheme markers need to be distinguished from one another on the table, except as You v. Opponent. I've not seen this be any kind of problem. Some people may be more "marker averse" than me, I suppose. Shrug.

[Dracomax]

The problem is that those colors are at least part of the problem. when you built a thematic board, with realistic terrain, and then litter it with bright, multicolored tokens, it breaks the versimiliatude.

It's not a problem everyone has, but it is a problem.

[HalcyonSeraph]

The problem is that those colors are at least part of the problem. when you built a thematic board, with realistic terrain, and then litter it with bright, multicolored tokens, it breaks the versimiliatude.

It's not a problem everyone has, but it is a problem.

Well if you are living the dream of having a fully themed and matching board that also matches the bases of the models you put on it, you probably care enough to make themed markers too.

But I don't feel bad about putting my Rasputina crew standing on chunks of ice down on a jungle table, or my swamp-themed Marcus crew in a dusty western town, so I similarly don't feel bad putting down a blue scheme marker.

[Dracomax]

Well if you are living the dream of having a fully themed and matching board that also matches the bases of the models you put on it, you probably care enough to make themed markers too.

But I don't feel bad about putting my Rasputina crew standing on chunks of ice down on a jungle table, or my swamp-themed Marcus crew in a dusty western town, so I similarly don't feel bad putting down a blue scheme marker.

That's fine, but you have to understand that for some people, it's a much bigger deal than for you. (I am not one of those people, but I understand it) Mocking it, or saying it isn't a problem misses the point that just because it isn't a problem for you, doesn't mean that it isn't a problem that needs to be looked at.

Worst case scenario, Wyrd starts selling nifty new thematic plastic inserts/ one piece markers. And that would be cool.

[HalcyonSeraph]

That's fine, but you have to understand that for some people, it's a much bigger deal than for you. (I am not one of those people, but I understand it) Mocking it, or saying it isn't a problem misses the point that just because it isn't a problem for you, doesn't mean that it isn't a problem that needs to be looked at.

Worst case scenario, Wyrd starts selling nifty new thematic plastic inserts/ one piece markers. And that would be cool.

I'm not mocking it at all. I'm just trying to understand. Do you insist that your board match the bases of your models? How about your opponents models? If so, ok, that is more hardcore than I imagined. If not, then why does that not bother you but a marker does?

Also, plastic base inserts would be wonderful, I would definitely buy them. Or partner up with one of the better-known resin base companies to make Malifaux-branded resin bases.

[Dracomax]

Bases don't bother me much, but I do get how a bunch (often 10-30) of multicolored tokens on the board, in addition to corpse and scrap markers (which exist as actual corpses, scrap, etc.) could be that point that's just a bit too much. It's a matter of scale and scope. Like in a movie, how you can buy magic, elves, and dwarves, but the motivation of the villain, or a specific artifact break the suspension of disbelief.

If you have too many elements or go too far from the built world, it causes people problems.

[HalcyonSeraph]

Ok, now we're getting into crazyland. 30 markers? I have played scheme-crazy Marcus against corpse-heavy Nico and it never got over like 12 or 15.

[thebarbalag]

If brightly colored chits displease you, have you looked at the laser-cut wood ones? I suspect there will be new ones for M2E that will serve as scheme markers. The link below is to corpse/scrap tokens. They're very attractive, and don't distract from a well-put together board, to my eyes, at least.

http://store.advanceddeployment.com/corpse-scrap-token-set/

[Tuttleboy]

This thread:

[dgraz]

I forced myself to listen to the end. After the first half hour I was ready to turn it off. Someone said the title was right and I agree....it sounded like a vent/therapy session. I would find it difficult to believe that either podcaster will ever play/like M2E with all of the other baggage they're carrying around....especially Bill. There is so much negativity right down to his toes that M2E is defeated before it is even played.

I don't care how many times he's "given it a chance"..........he's never given it a chance.

It's not worth arguing about, their minds are made up, they just want to complain and be validated now. No law against that, and good for them that they have a venue for it, just not worth the argument.

That said, there were a few things that I sort of agreed with, but there were a LOT of things I disagreed with....a lot of things that were 'theory-faux'...and therefore meaningless....and plenty of whining about stupid things that were a waste of time.

The biggest thing that struck me as hypocrisy by Bill was that he loves pre-measure....because he hates winning or losing due to screwing up a measurement. But he's okay with winning using those corner-case abilities that people can never remember....so they forgot and he won. Both of these things are examples of winning/losing by stupid mistakes........not tactical play. So it looks to me like....'well I'm no good at this, so making it easier is great....but I'm one of the few people that are really good at this other thing, so making that easier for others is bad.'

We're all hypocrites at some point, so I don't really care. They don't like M2E. Okay. Sad because they're losing the game they love....and we're losing some awesome community assets. I suppose I could allow myself to lose respect because they were snarky and sarcastic.....but I don't know the back-story of their lives....or whatever falling out they had....maybe they feel justified in their attitudes and I'm no judge.

I'm totally in the camp that believes there are going to be errata and such and that there is nothing "magical" about M2E.....but I also feel that it is really good and I'm having a lot of fun playing it. I feel like it's still a better game than anything else out there.

Hopefully Bill and Spencer will 'come-around' but I wouldn't count on it. So, I hope they find something they can play and be happy with. I'll miss them.