Different Approaches to Game Playing
Patrick
http://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/42288
The guy who created the list is obviously very enthusiastic, and so
are the responses he has received. I also get the impression that his
approach to gaming is probably right near the middle of the mainstream
(at least as far as people who frequent BGG are concerned).
But what strikes me is my own personal reaction: I only own one of
the ten games listed (Pandemic) and don't like it much. Nor can I
relate to most of what this fellow says is so great about the games he
rates so highly.
I suppose the bottom line is that he's very much a social gamer, and I
guess I'm not. I might like to be, if things worked out that way.
But I won't go out of my way to make it happen.
Instead, I play games mainly just to explore the game system itself,
at my own pace, in my own time. If someone else wants to join me in
doing that, fine; I like people, and it's nice to share experiences
with others. But if there's no one else readily available, I'll just
play the game solitaire instead. No big deal.
When I do play games solitaire, I usually feel I'm practicing for
"someday" when I'll play the game with others. Thus, I don't care
much for games that can *only* be played solitaire; that seems too
limiting to me. I also like knowing that the game I'm playing is
enjoyed by many other people around the world; thus I'm part of
something big and social, even if I do happen to be enjoying it in
solitude at the moment.
Anyhow, I just found it striking how different two people's approaches
to gaming can be.
What's your approach? Is it closer to the creator of the GeekList
cited above? Or closer to mine? Or different than both?
Peter Clinch
> I suppose the bottom line is that he's very much a social gamer, and I
> guess I'm not.
> Instead, I play games mainly just to explore the game system itself,
> at my own pace, in my own time.
> Anyhow, I just found it striking how different two people's approaches
> to gaming can be.
>
> What's your approach? Is it closer to the creator of the GeekList
> cited above? Or closer to mine? Or different than both?
Close to both... it ranges all over the place, some games I'm just
interested in the game, sometimes I want to be playing with friends and
the exact game isn't too important.
(Right now, just adopting a couple of children (5 & 7) the approach is
"anything is good that we can get through the rules". Kids Of Catan
last night, went down quite well, definitely a "social experience" for
me and Roos but an introduction to some new concepts in play for the kids.)
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
John McLeod
>I've been looking at a GeekList over at BGG for the past day or two:
>http://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/42288
>What's your approach? Is it closer to the creator of the GeekList
>cited above? Or closer to mine? Or different than both?
Closer to the GeekList creator. I have played 4 of those 10 games: three
of them I thought were really good, one indifferent. One of the others
he lists I am encouraged by his description to try out.
Different in that I play cards more often than I play proprietary board
games.
Perhaps similar in that if someone shows up with a game I have not seen
before that they have just bought, discovered or invented, I'm nearly
always willing to give it a try.
--
John McLeod For information on card games visit
jo...@pagat.com http://www.pagat.com/
Sukunai
playing games for long, or has only got commentary for games played in
the last 5 years.
I've played oodles of games in my life time.
All in all, I'm game for anything that involves other people. But
considering so many wargames are designed on the assumption it is you
vs another player, it's understandable a lot of my wargaming past has
been either me vs me or me vs just one other person.
And as so many wargames are inherently complex rules designs, you
won't find it easy to locate opponents for them.
But I play more than just wargames.
Thing is, is it fair to lump something like a wargame, in with
something like Scrabble or Trivial Pursuit? They're not really that
similar an experience in many ways.
In recent time, with a combination of less encounters between dinner
guests, and no longer access to a regular face to face wargamer, I've
basically become a person that relies on gaming to be something done
with either a computer or a board game done solo.
Then again, technically role games are 'board games' and I have been
playing those since Gary and Dave invented the genre.
Patrick
I just ran a poll over at BGG:
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/416775
I suppose the results overall were about what I might have expected,
but there were some surprises in the mix. Take a look at the poll and
my comments beneath it.
Mainly, it's yet another reminder of how out of sync I am with the
typical game fanatic. The vast majority seem to make a hobby out of
interacting with others socially, and it just so happens they like to
interact via board games. In contrast, I've always been extremely
fond of board games themselves, and it doesn't matter much to me
whether I'm playing them with others, against a computer AI, or solo.
I just like doing the stuff you get to do when playing games.
--Patrick
Peter Clinch
> Mainly, it's yet another reminder of how out of sync I am with the
> typical game fanatic.
You're assuming that the typical outspoken voting BGG reader is the
"typical game fanatic", which I don't think is a safe assumption.