Some thoughts on gaming system commitment, and some questions
Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:08 am
I initially wrote this in the Warhammer Underworlds thread, but it kind of grew into more of a general mental vomitation of my thoughts and ponderings on the subject of fidelity to a given game system. My apologies for the length and meandering nature of this, but I'd be very interested to see what people's thoughts on this are.
Here's what I wrote:
So, we've had previews of the new Underworlds box, and my initial reaction is that it looks nice. The swamp orcs seem cool, and I quite like their scraggly long arms and tendency to look a bit creepy rather than brutish comedy sidelines. The new sigmarines are actually really cool, which surprises me a lot (I dont keep up with AoS stuff so much, so I dont know if this aesthetic is commonplace or not.) But yeah - overall it seems like a nice box.
But... (and I do like a big but, I cannot lie...)
Should I even bother with this season?
It's not so much the financial cost. Assuming similar structure to S1-4, it should remain fairly affordable. It's more about the time/effort/emotional commitment. I bought the entirety of season 3 and 4, and most all of S2, and some of S1 (I got in late), but I haven't actually played with or really engaged with S4 at all. Obviously the pandemic was largely responsible for that, but even so, when Prim posted the other day about Malifaux, I felt a flicker of interest that has pretty much eluded me regarding Underworlds for some time. I bought all the warbands for S4, but haven't even cracked them out of their boxes. I could've done, but I just didn't feel inspired to do so. Worse, it felt like an obligation or duty that I was putting off. A hobby shouldn't do that, should it?
I do love the underworlds minis. There really isn't a single warband that sucks, and some of them are absolutely superb. I'm fairly happy to own the stuff I own for it, if only to paint. But if I'm just buying em to paint, then surely I should just spend my money on some Pegaso mini or summat equally "check me out, I'm an ahtist" type figure.
As a game, a big part of the appeal of Underworlds for me is deckbuilding, but I think MtG (and especially Arena) has trained me (for better or for worse) to approach that in an iterative, constant improvement kind of way. As such, one game every six months just wont cut it, especially if I have 8 factions to mentally process. With MtG, I enjoy building a deck (whether self built or netdecked) and playing/iterating it half a dozen times or more in an evening. I'll then use the same one deck for months at a time, tweaking as I go, getting to the point where I know roughly how a game will play out after maybe one or two turns in. Even though the deck I'm running at the end of that time frame wont be anything like the one I started it with, I'll know exactly what cards went in and out, and the reasons why. I want to be able to achieve this kind of familiarity with Underworlds, but the frequency of my games (and to a slightly lesser extent, the length of a game) means I cant realistically do so. As such the game has started to feel a little frustrating, inasmuch as I have a nagging feeling that I'm durdling around, not playing it "efficiently" or approaching it in such as way as to actually improve. It's not even that I want to win - I'd happily lose as long as I felt I had maximised my possibility of winning (specifically, as long as I felt I had made the optimal decisions). It's more that I'm frustrated because I can't even know if I'm playing the game in the "best" way without playing a lot more games, which I don't have time (or opponents) for. Incidentally, I have this same "efficiency" problem with computer games. I get annoyed if I'm not improving my skill, but also if I'm not being efficient when it comes to maximising rewards for my time. MtG Arena and Fortnite both reward successful play with in-game items (in the case of Arena, you get cards and in-game currency. For Fortnite it's cosmetic items (no game effect) and currency), and both reward you more for playing a bit every day rather than in one big weekendy lump. This marketing model (and I'm well aware it's a marketing device) is also present in Underworlds. Fomo, peoples. Fomo.
I don't like to be manipulated (but I really want the stufffffff )
Conversely, when Prim brought up Malifaux, I recalled how much I just enjoyed being involved in the game. A few years back I actually bought the print rulebooks purely to read the lore. I enjoyed playing the game, and the playing-card based mechanics open up all kinds of interesting interactions you just cant do with dice. And I really do want to paint my minis for that game, especially Lynch and his wierd nightmare duders. I even want to look at the Wyrd site and see what other warbands might tickle my fancy. Malifaux surely suffers from the same problem that I'd have with any game, ie - actually having opponents to play against, but at least I want to play. Underworlds feels more like...I should play because I'm already so heavily invested. You could maybe argue that a less long-term investment type of game like Stargrave might suit me better, but although Stargrave is a fine game and all, the lack of lore leaves it feeling very beer-and-pretzely. Not a bad thing in and of itself, but I kinda have a bit of an itch to actually feel invested in a game again, read up on some lore, learn tactics etc. And I have doubts about Underworlds being it.
I think, on reflection, that a big part of the issue is the rotating nature of Underworlds. With Mali, or even 40k or pretty much most any other minis game, you can stop playing for six months or a year or more, then come back and pick up where you left off. My Malifaux crews from a couple years ago are still mostly useable, the rules (and all paper-based assets) are free online, and it looks like I could get right back into it by reading a rulebook and reminding myself how it used to work, with tweaks. No money needed. While there has been some restructuring of what minis go where, and one of my warbands has been mothballed, my stuff is still useable. Heck, the mothballed warband even has rules available for it just for folks like me who have legacy minis. 40k, by comparison, would probably be a bigger effort to get into, simply because of the scale of the game. In mali I maybe lose one or two minis. In 40k, I'm pretty sure significant portions of my eldar would no longer be useable (in part this is due to GWs buy-new-stuff-its-stronk policy), but in theory I could buy a rulebook and get back into it (I guess. I may be wrong on this.) Underworlds, however, is specifically designed to render old stuff obsolete. It's baked into the rotation of seasons. Warband boxes go out of print, again, by design. That makes taking a year out a much harder decision, because if you do, then get back into it later, you'll have a hole in your collection that is really, really hard to fill after the fact. You could probably get by without the minis, but without the cards you're buggered (yes, proxying is a thing, but teh game shouldn't require you do do it.) In MtG rotation is also baked in, but because of the huge secondary resale market associated with it, it's super easy to pick up older cards if you want them (and yes I realise some really old cards are bonkers expensive, but those cards are more akin to old baseball cards or summat. They're collectibles, not playing pieces.) Moreover, there is a thriving variety of ways to play MtG that allow for older cards, so you can easily just build a deck from your collection and play. I just don't see this daeveloping with Underworlds, partly because of the mini/card combo nature of the game. There just doesn't seem to be a secondary market where you can pick up single cards (or old warbands) in any meaningful way.
So, yeah. I'm just wondering if others had any thoughts on this. Do you ever feel like you've lost touch with what you enjoy about a game? Or that a particular system has become more of a burden than a benefit? To quote every YouTuber ever, "Let me know, in the comments below..."
Here's what I wrote:
So, we've had previews of the new Underworlds box, and my initial reaction is that it looks nice. The swamp orcs seem cool, and I quite like their scraggly long arms and tendency to look a bit creepy rather than brutish comedy sidelines. The new sigmarines are actually really cool, which surprises me a lot (I dont keep up with AoS stuff so much, so I dont know if this aesthetic is commonplace or not.) But yeah - overall it seems like a nice box.
But... (and I do like a big but, I cannot lie...)
Should I even bother with this season?
It's not so much the financial cost. Assuming similar structure to S1-4, it should remain fairly affordable. It's more about the time/effort/emotional commitment. I bought the entirety of season 3 and 4, and most all of S2, and some of S1 (I got in late), but I haven't actually played with or really engaged with S4 at all. Obviously the pandemic was largely responsible for that, but even so, when Prim posted the other day about Malifaux, I felt a flicker of interest that has pretty much eluded me regarding Underworlds for some time. I bought all the warbands for S4, but haven't even cracked them out of their boxes. I could've done, but I just didn't feel inspired to do so. Worse, it felt like an obligation or duty that I was putting off. A hobby shouldn't do that, should it?
I do love the underworlds minis. There really isn't a single warband that sucks, and some of them are absolutely superb. I'm fairly happy to own the stuff I own for it, if only to paint. But if I'm just buying em to paint, then surely I should just spend my money on some Pegaso mini or summat equally "check me out, I'm an ahtist" type figure.
As a game, a big part of the appeal of Underworlds for me is deckbuilding, but I think MtG (and especially Arena) has trained me (for better or for worse) to approach that in an iterative, constant improvement kind of way. As such, one game every six months just wont cut it, especially if I have 8 factions to mentally process. With MtG, I enjoy building a deck (whether self built or netdecked) and playing/iterating it half a dozen times or more in an evening. I'll then use the same one deck for months at a time, tweaking as I go, getting to the point where I know roughly how a game will play out after maybe one or two turns in. Even though the deck I'm running at the end of that time frame wont be anything like the one I started it with, I'll know exactly what cards went in and out, and the reasons why. I want to be able to achieve this kind of familiarity with Underworlds, but the frequency of my games (and to a slightly lesser extent, the length of a game) means I cant realistically do so. As such the game has started to feel a little frustrating, inasmuch as I have a nagging feeling that I'm durdling around, not playing it "efficiently" or approaching it in such as way as to actually improve. It's not even that I want to win - I'd happily lose as long as I felt I had maximised my possibility of winning (specifically, as long as I felt I had made the optimal decisions). It's more that I'm frustrated because I can't even know if I'm playing the game in the "best" way without playing a lot more games, which I don't have time (or opponents) for. Incidentally, I have this same "efficiency" problem with computer games. I get annoyed if I'm not improving my skill, but also if I'm not being efficient when it comes to maximising rewards for my time. MtG Arena and Fortnite both reward successful play with in-game items (in the case of Arena, you get cards and in-game currency. For Fortnite it's cosmetic items (no game effect) and currency), and both reward you more for playing a bit every day rather than in one big weekendy lump. This marketing model (and I'm well aware it's a marketing device) is also present in Underworlds. Fomo, peoples. Fomo.
I don't like to be manipulated (but I really want the stufffffff )
Conversely, when Prim brought up Malifaux, I recalled how much I just enjoyed being involved in the game. A few years back I actually bought the print rulebooks purely to read the lore. I enjoyed playing the game, and the playing-card based mechanics open up all kinds of interesting interactions you just cant do with dice. And I really do want to paint my minis for that game, especially Lynch and his wierd nightmare duders. I even want to look at the Wyrd site and see what other warbands might tickle my fancy. Malifaux surely suffers from the same problem that I'd have with any game, ie - actually having opponents to play against, but at least I want to play. Underworlds feels more like...I should play because I'm already so heavily invested. You could maybe argue that a less long-term investment type of game like Stargrave might suit me better, but although Stargrave is a fine game and all, the lack of lore leaves it feeling very beer-and-pretzely. Not a bad thing in and of itself, but I kinda have a bit of an itch to actually feel invested in a game again, read up on some lore, learn tactics etc. And I have doubts about Underworlds being it.
I think, on reflection, that a big part of the issue is the rotating nature of Underworlds. With Mali, or even 40k or pretty much most any other minis game, you can stop playing for six months or a year or more, then come back and pick up where you left off. My Malifaux crews from a couple years ago are still mostly useable, the rules (and all paper-based assets) are free online, and it looks like I could get right back into it by reading a rulebook and reminding myself how it used to work, with tweaks. No money needed. While there has been some restructuring of what minis go where, and one of my warbands has been mothballed, my stuff is still useable. Heck, the mothballed warband even has rules available for it just for folks like me who have legacy minis. 40k, by comparison, would probably be a bigger effort to get into, simply because of the scale of the game. In mali I maybe lose one or two minis. In 40k, I'm pretty sure significant portions of my eldar would no longer be useable (in part this is due to GWs buy-new-stuff-its-stronk policy), but in theory I could buy a rulebook and get back into it (I guess. I may be wrong on this.) Underworlds, however, is specifically designed to render old stuff obsolete. It's baked into the rotation of seasons. Warband boxes go out of print, again, by design. That makes taking a year out a much harder decision, because if you do, then get back into it later, you'll have a hole in your collection that is really, really hard to fill after the fact. You could probably get by without the minis, but without the cards you're buggered (yes, proxying is a thing, but teh game shouldn't require you do do it.) In MtG rotation is also baked in, but because of the huge secondary resale market associated with it, it's super easy to pick up older cards if you want them (and yes I realise some really old cards are bonkers expensive, but those cards are more akin to old baseball cards or summat. They're collectibles, not playing pieces.) Moreover, there is a thriving variety of ways to play MtG that allow for older cards, so you can easily just build a deck from your collection and play. I just don't see this daeveloping with Underworlds, partly because of the mini/card combo nature of the game. There just doesn't seem to be a secondary market where you can pick up single cards (or old warbands) in any meaningful way.
So, yeah. I'm just wondering if others had any thoughts on this. Do you ever feel like you've lost touch with what you enjoy about a game? Or that a particular system has become more of a burden than a benefit? To quote every YouTuber ever, "Let me know, in the comments below..."