Boardgame News.... with Bite.

mjl1783 wrote:

The game would be longer, yes, but there doesn't seem to be a lot too SmallWorld as it exists now.

There's not a lot to it, but that's intentional. It's basically a kids' game, it's for ages 8 and up. In that context, I think the simplicity and unrealistic troop movement are just fine. If you start looking at it like it's a real fantays wargame, or a serious strategy excercise where you squeeze every possible VP you can out of every turn, it's not going to be any fun. So, y'know, don't do that.

Thanks for telling me what I should and shouldn't do. Are these threads now just feeding to TOS?

I don't think a little more realistic troop movement could hurt all that much. Just a wee bit more.

I haven't seen a lot of kids playing this yet. Though I suppose they could. If the game were cheaper I'd buy it and fire it up for some of the good sports that I introduce games too. We played Quicksand and Niagara tonight instead. They had a blast with both, esp Quicksand. I'm referring to the 1989 Parker Brothers edition with the sectioned explorers. It had more options than the typical move and roll of that time did. I just bought the game for cheap for the figures, but before I cannibalized the game for them, I figured I'd give it a try with the recommended playing audience. They had a hoot with the ever sinking and rising explorers.

Ryan B. wrote:

BTW, most of these forum conversations take place during the day... and by nightfall its dead.

Don't any of you guys have jobs? (LOL)

I have the same problem posting from a different time zone. It drives me mad. It especially drove me mad when my inability to post it the same time frame as everyone else meant all the slots for forum play BSG filled up before I could say "me! me!".

I was amused to note that you were inspired by an article of mine that you'd criticised (with some validity, as I noted in the discussion). I'm glad it served some useful purpose for you Certainly your arguments hold water as far as I can see. Saying that either you or I are ascribing undue amounts of "influence" to one section of the game industry or another (as some of the BGN commentators have done) does not invalidate the argument - it simply means the impact of what we're describing is possibly less than we're suggesting. But the problems are still there.

And of course it doesn't matter how many games you own. What matters rather more is how many different games you've played, and whether or not they span a wide range of game styles, themes and mechanics.

This thread made me enter sevenity.

MattDP wrote:

Ryan B. wrote:

BTW, most of these forum conversations take place during the day... and by nightfall its dead.

Don't any of you guys have jobs? (LOL)

I have the same problem posting from a different time zone. It drives me mad. It especially drove me mad when my inability to post it the same time frame as everyone else meant all the slots for forum play BSG filled up before I could say "me! me!".

Why not start a second game?

Schweig! wrote:

Why not start a second game?

Are you volunteering to GM then? Excellent! Count me in

Well, I do have some time at hand, but I neither own the game nor have any tools to play it online. Also I'm not online on weekends and only visit this site once or a at maximum twice a day (for variable lengths). Consequently, a game I GMed would run an awfully lot slower than Ken's.

Schweig! wrote:

Well, I do have some time at hand, but I neither own the game nor have any tools to play it online. Also I'm not online on weekends and only visit this site once or a at maximum twice a day (for variable lengths). Consequently, a game I GMed would run an awfully lot slower than Ken's.

Exactly. That's why we can't just start another one - no-one else is up for running the game.