Opponents That Drive Us Crazy

ericmwalters

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
86
Reaction score
1
Location
Chesterfield, VA
Country
llUnited States
I noted that the discussion on simulating C2 in board wargames was degenerating/devolving into a "things that drive me buggy" discussion regarding wargaming opponents. Thus, I began this thread....

Okay, I have to caveat my discussion with a bit about how I like to play. I'm a social/historian wargamer, having lost my competitive edge many moons ago via playtesting for wargaming companies.

So...here are the guys that I can no longer play with:

-- If it's worth winning, it's worth cheating for. W.C. Fields type players. I'm sorry, but I can't play with these guys ever again. I am not competitive, but I do like the tension in the game situation as it stimulates problem-solving. Cheaters just short-circuit the experience for me. So I won't play them again.

-- Competitors Above All Else. Can't play these guys either as winning is everything. They lose sight of the history in order to win. I've seen some very bizarre rules interpretations by these guys.

-- Rules Lawyers. Normally, I don't mind these guys as they are very useful for playtesting. But when I'm playing a friendly game, they just get in the way....

-- Germans Cannot Lose. You know the type. Even if they're 1944 Nazis, somehow they aren't supposed to lose (even at the Bulge!). They quit when the tide of war turns against them. Sigh.

-- Buffs. The kind of guys that are all into the hardware and could care less about the intangibles...indeed, that stuff isn't important. So they quibble about weapons performance but don't give a rat's behind about morale, leadership, tactical proficiency, and so on. Sigh.

Who drives you nuts? I've got all kinds of stories....

--emw
 

Tom DeFranco

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
435
Reaction score
0
Location
Norridge, IL
Colonel Walters, basically I'm allergic to the same groups, except that rules lawyers irk me more. Granted, they have their place in playtesting as you mentioned, but outside of that, forget it. That is because the rules lawyers I've played with could care less about the history and more about one upping somebody in the rule book - big deal, so they found an out in the rule book. That's the reason they have errata.

The other guy that I was mentioning who was the rules accountant was also politically just to the right of Dolphy boy (you know the short Bohemian corporal with the funny moustache). He, therefore, had an over the top affinity for the boys in feldgrau. He was graceful in defeat and victory, but seemed to understand which designers fell under the category of "Germans cannot lose" (i.e. Ty Bomba, IMHO) and gravitated towards them.

Of course, he had the annoying trait of always wanting to play operational or strategic level games so he could count 3:1 attacks all day. He was absolutely lost in a tactical game, where units have fire points and not strength points. He could not fathom line of sight rules - it took me an hour to explain why I could pop off my arty at him in a grand tactical game of the battle of Koniggratz. Also, as I stated in the other thread, it took him an hour to move his twelve (only really should have moved nine of the twelve, as the other three were machine guns) units one space each. I think he was afraid of spilling German blood by climbing the trenches (we were playing the introductory scenario of Landships, my favorite WW I tactical level game). We had to quit the game. One time we played Proud Monster. I was the Russkies, he and another friend had the Wehrmacht split in half. He took AGN and the top half of AGC and the other guy had AGS and the southern half of AGC. I took awhile setting up the Russkies, simply because of the massive amount of units, about 45 mins to an hour. My other friend took 30 mins for his half of the Wehrmacht and he took two hours setting up his half. You see, he wanted each German unit positioned, not as they were, but as Hitler wanted them positioned. He got the idea from Command magazine. To top it off, he won in the first turn, thereby, vindicating in his mind, I'm sure, of the genius of Der Fuehrer.

Going back to "Germans cannot lose" stuff. One afternoon, he and I played the old Normandy Campaign from GDW. We played Operation Cobra. I could not believe the victory conditions. I had to whack every German battalion on the map to win. I missed by one - and lost. Who thinks up these victory conditions?
 

ericmwalters

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
86
Reaction score
1
Location
Chesterfield, VA
Country
llUnited States
Obnoxious Germanophiles

Two occasions are seared in my memory. One was playing an old SPI Eastern Front game while I was in college, against a U.S. NROTC nuke schooler type guy. The game was one where you had to maintain a continuous front from north to south or lose victory points for having a "hole" in your line. Well, he'd pocketed a few of my Russians against the northern board edge--I'd retreated a few hexes when I knew I couldn't save them...but maintained a continous front, north to south. He tried and tried to argue that he should get victory points because I could not maintain a chain of units/ZOCs to these guys who were on the northern board edge. His argument was that I was technically in violation of the continuous front rule as there was no continuous front from these guys to the southern board edge. I didn't buy this argument, because there was no penalty for him pocketing units like this in the middle of the board vice a board edge. So I didn't agree with his interpretation of the rules.

Another occasion was in high school...I had just cracked the code on how to use all those seeminly worthless 1-4 Russian divisions in SPI's MOSCOW CAMPAIGN (1972). Previously I'd stacked them as all nugget Russians do when faced with killer stacks of Panzers. Trouble is, they don't overrun the stacks but kill them/retreat them in normal combat and then tear ass in the rear, surrounding piles of Soviets. So I finally figured out the best Russian defensive tactics was to alternate hexes with single worthless divisions...he'd overrun the first line, kill the second line in regular combat, overrun the third line in mechanized movement, but I'd have a fourth (and sometimes a fifth) line behind that to keep the front solvent. Reserves would build lines behind the weakened sectors, thickening them, while the rest of the line would conduct a generalized withdrawal. Usually worked until the mud would set in, buying me some time to reform on a large scale. Well, this German I'm playing has no clue how to do combat. He insists that instead of resolving each attack against single defending hexes, you total up ALL the attackers against ALL the defending hexes and resolve them ALL with one single die roll. Despite my lengthy quotations of the rules, he wouldn't budge. And he was making panzer noises when he moved and shot his armor units--very irritating. As was his habit of doing Seig Heils at totally inappropriate moments.

I don't miss those players one bit. Fortunately I haven't had a lot of grownups play this way, especially when gaming against military types.

--emw
 

Tom DeFranco

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
435
Reaction score
0
Location
Norridge, IL
Re: Obnoxious Germanophiles

Originally posted by ericmwalters
Two occasions are seared in my memory. One was playing an old SPI Eastern Front game while I was in college, against a U.S. NROTC nuke schooler type guy. The game was one where you had to maintain a continuous front from north to south or lose victory points for having a "hole" in your line. Well, he'd pocketed a few of my Russians against the northern board edge--I'd retreated a few hexes when I knew I couldn't save them...but maintained a continous front, north to south. He tried and tried to argue that he should get victory points because I could not maintain a chain of units/ZOCs to these guys who were on the northern board edge. His argument was that I was technically in violation of the continuous front rule as there was no continuous front from these guys to the southern board edge. I didn't buy this argument, because there was no penalty for him pocketing units like this in the middle of the board vice a board edge. So I didn't agree with his interpretation of the rules.

Another occasion was in high school...I had just cracked the code on how to use all those seeminly worthless 1-4 Russian divisions in SPI's MOSCOW CAMPAIGN (1972). Previously I'd stacked them as all nugget Russians do when faced with killer stacks of Panzers. Trouble is, they don't overrun the stacks but kill them/retreat them in normal combat and then tear ass in the rear, surrounding piles of Soviets. So I finally figured out the best Russian defensive tactics was to alternate hexes with single worthless divisions...he'd overrun the first line, kill the second line in regular combat, overrun the third line in mechanized movement, but I'd have a fourth (and sometimes a fifth) line behind that to keep the front solvent. Reserves would build lines behind the weakened sectors, thickening them, while the rest of the line would conduct a generalized withdrawal. Usually worked until the mud would set in, buying me some time to reform on a large scale. Well, this German I'm playing has no clue how to do combat. He insists that instead of resolving each attack against single defending hexes, you total up ALL the attackers against ALL the defending hexes and resolve them ALL with one single die roll. Despite my lengthy quotations of the rules, he wouldn't budge. And he was making panzer noises when he moved and shot his armor units--very irritating. As was his habit of doing Seig Heils at totally inappropriate moments.

I don't miss those players one bit. Fortunately I haven't had a lot of grownups play this way, especially when gaming against military types.

--emw
I read you. Unfortunately the guy I was talking about is now in his mid-fifties. We haven't played in about 7 years - since I met Dave Powell and Dan Cicero. I still play with my other friends that I've known since then, luckily the rest of us are adults.
 

Tom DeFranco

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
435
Reaction score
0
Location
Norridge, IL
Colonel, regarding your "Sieg Heil" buddy (I use the term loosely), did you consider checking to see if his actions would qualify for justifiable homicide?
 
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
318
Reaction score
1
Location
Minnesota
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by ericmwalters
Who drives you nuts?
Actually, I'm pretty easy-going and accomodating. I've run into different kinds of game players and been able to tolerate most all of them. Maybe I've been lucky enough to avoid the more extreme cases.

I have put a fair amount of thought into different types of gamers, though. Even wrote an article on it for the old Avalon Hill General years ago ("Bringing Us All Together," in Vol. 25, No. 5). Since then I've done some research into human personality, and I've modified the view I had back then--but only by adding a fourth type of gamer to the three I described in that article.

Despite our complexity and the endless variation we see among individual human beings, I agree with David M. Keirsey (author of the book "Please Understand Me II") when he says there are just four basic temperaments at the root of it all.

If you're not familiar with it, Keirsey's worth a look. I'd recommend the above-named book primarily. His Web site leaves much to be desired. But if you're in a hurry, it's at:
www.keirsey.com

There's also a free online questionnaire to help you discover your own temperament, at:
www.advisorteam.com
(When you finish the questionnaire, you'll be offered a "full report," for a price. I have to recommend against it. Your money is better spent on Keirsey's book.)

Some will find the theory simplistic. Me, I like the elegant simplicity of Keirsey's approach--which, btw, is nothing new. Keirsey just updated a theory that has been around since ancient times (and also covered by several prominent psychologists in modern times). In fact, I like Keirsey's theory so much that I've been running a discussion group dedicated to it:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/temperamenttalk/

Didn't intend this as a plug; it's just a subject I'm much interested in and can't hope to cover in a single post without links.
 

JimWLegg

Member
Joined
May 3, 2004
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Location
Hickman KY
Country
llUnited States
I have never really had anyone much to play with except my wife. She won about 50% of the time and didn't know and wasn't really interested in what she was doing.

I guess, I am one of the people you are talking about. I had a acquantance over to play "Richtofen's War". What ever we were flying he had the manuverability and I had thealtitude. I had gotten up but he would not let me come down. I would have tried to fight it out but why go to certain death as I came down. I am not sure any WWI pilot would have. So the game fizzled out and I have never had anyone to play it with me again.

I like "Mosby's Raiders". I understand it is flawed. So why not just enjoy it and not use the flaws. I have never understood the "press the Alt, Cont, Windows key while you make a smiley face and it will make all the other ships disappear". Why not meet the game head on. I believe there should only be 11 players on the field in a normal American football game.
 

ericmwalters

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
86
Reaction score
1
Location
Chesterfield, VA
Country
llUnited States
Keirsey's Personality Types and Wargamers

Patrick--I never thought about profiling wargamers by this method--Keirsey personality types. When I was in high school and college playing games, I was an INTP. After 23 years in the military, I am a very strong ENTJ. Figures, right? But I wonder what the kinds of opponents are that I played then and currently play against/with now....

Will have to mull over that one!

--emw
 
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
318
Reaction score
1
Location
Minnesota
Country
llUnited States
Re: Keirsey's Personality Types and Wargamers

Originally posted by ericmwalters
Patrick--I never thought about profiling wargamers by this method--Keirsey personality types. . . . I wonder what the kinds of opponents are that I played then and currently play against/with now...
In my article for The General (which I wrote before I'd ever heard of Keirsey), I described three types of gamer: the Competitor, the Socializer, and the Dreamer. Now that I've read Keirsey's book, I think that what I had in mind back then matches up pretty closely with his Artisan (SP), Guardian (SJ), and Idealist (NF) respectively.

What I omitted was Keirsey's Rational (NT), so I'll add that now and call this type of gamer the Scientist (first thing that pops into my head).

In a nutshell:
The Competitor (Keirsey's SP/Artisan) plays to win. The parry-and-thrust between one mind and another is what wargaming is all about, and this type of gamer thrives on opportunism and psych-outs. He may not always have a grand plan, but he's usually adept at tactics and always on the lookout for an edge. His weakness, or least interest, is in making associations between the game and the underlying military history.

The Socializer (Keirsey's SJ/Guardian) plays wargames just to get together with other people and do something fun and structured that they all share a common interest in. Winning or losing doesn't mean as much to this type of gamer as fair play and a good time had by all. He may be a slower, more thoughtful player, with a special knack for logistics. But he may be weak when it comes to long-range vision and strategic planning.

The Dreamer (Keirsey's NF/Idealist) considers a wargame to primarily be a representational art-form, a symbolic portrayal of some real-life military engagement. This type of gamer may find it hard to stay focused on planning and execution, because he's wrapped up in vicariously experiencing military history. His forte is seeing and explaining associations between the game and the real-life events it's based on. His weakness is liable to be tactics.

The Scientist (Keirsey's NT/Rational) is a strategic planner. His main attraction to wargames is a love of problem solving. This type of gamer often has a powerful mind, and he's able to strip away all the chrome and cut to the chase, sizing up a game situation and seeing at once what needs to be done. He not only has a plan, but he's a contingency planner; his grand scheme will be quickly broken down into a series of efficient steps. If he has a weakness, it's likely in the area of logistics (he'll see what needs to be done, but he may not always have the patience to painstakingly haul everything to where it ought to be).

Back when I wrote my General article, I had the Scientist and Competitor confused in my mind. I considered them two sides of the same type of gamer. Since then, I've learned that there's a difference. Competitors have a remarkable coup d'oeil that leads to astounding tactical plays; Scientists have a more detached overview which produces sound strategic thinking.

I should reiterate that these four temperaments (or gaming styles, as I've presented them here) are just root-level personality styles. There's much more to any given individual, of course; people are complex and changeable. But even if you can identify somewhat with all four types of gamer, I believe it's likely that one of the four types will be predominant in you most of the time.

Btw, I'm an INFJ myself, which makes me a Dreamer (alternatively, Imagineer or Historian--or a Keirseyan Idealist).
 

Viking67

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
272
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
Country
llUnited States
When I play chess, this really burns me: I'm better than most people where I live, so I usually win. Sometimes after I win, my opponent enacts the "Nuclear Chess" rule. They basiclly wipe the board and send the pieces flying. I need to start playing agaist more mature people.
 

MomoJak00

Member
Joined
May 21, 2004
Messages
444
Reaction score
0
Location
In a Costco on top of a h
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by Viking67
When I play chess, this really burns me: I'm better than most people where I live, so I usually win. Sometimes after I win, my opponent enacts the "Nuclear Chess" rule. They basiclly wipe the board and send the pieces flying. I need to start playing agaist more mature people.
Hmmmmmm...
BOOOM!!!:demon:

But seriously, i used to play Magic all the time and one or two particular people REALY got on my nerves. One would never budge on the "No you can't" stance-- or in this case, Philosophy-- and the other STOLE other people's cards (he took two of my own decks! TWO!)

Also, the first player mentioned told me the following story:
One time, when I played a land, he told me "you can't do that".
He did that for the sole pupose of making me mad! The Yaktard! And he succeded. I can stand people who have a hard time learning, but these people (the immature Yaktards) bore into my skull!

sigh...
i take nap now.:sleep:
 

BarcelonaBlom

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
0
Location
Pensacola, FL
Country
llUnited States
Rules Lawyers and I DONT KNOW HOW TO PLAY THE GAMERS

Rules Lawyers obcviously and the 2nd one long story:

We play mini games, RPGS and everything else, I own all the rulebooks, everyone else is too lazy to get their own and even after our 50th session still don't have a basic grasp on the rules.
 
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
318
Reaction score
1
Location
Minnesota
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by BarcelonaBlom
Rules Lawyers and I DONT KNOW HOW TO PLAY THE GAMERS

Rules Lawyers obcviously and the 2nd one long story:

We play mini games, RPGS and everything else, I own all the rulebooks, everyone else is too lazy to get their own and even after our 50th session still don't have a basic grasp on the rules.
Since when is one sentence a "long story"?
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
Location
Cruising the Old Man River
Country
llUnited States
Of the people I have played, there were only two that ever got on my nerves. (Thankfully) One was an arrogant fellow who didn't like newcomers. I had just started playing magic and had a deck that, only by sheer luck alone, was winning. He decided he would rather quit than get beaten by a rookie.

I feel the need to defend the buffs a little. I feel it's okay to analyze rules and debate their historical accuracy outside of gameplay. I agree, however, that buffs shouldn't criticize historical accuracy while complaining over a defeat.
 

Viking67

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
272
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by MomoJak00
-- and the other STOLE other people's cards (he took two of my own decks! TWO!)

sigh...
i take nap now.:sleep:
Ol' Alex sure can be a :demon:, eh?
 

Mike Duffy

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2004
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Country
llUnited States
At the risk of some repetition, here is my list of people I hate to play against, in no particular disorder.

1) Nazi/Confederate/French etc army nuts. Their army can/should never be beaten.

2) Rules lawyers. "First we kill all the lawyers..."

3) Morons. Men just too stupid to be seen neat a wargame, much less playing one. Even worse when combined with...

4) Know it alls. People who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.

5) Idealogues, including but not limited to Nazis,rascists,
communists, religious fanatics, and conspiracy theorists.

6) One Game Guys. Gamers whose lives revolve around one game/system/company. ASL, World in Flames, Europa, Axis & Allies, etc. Get a life. Or a new game.

7) Redesigners. Those who can't play design. Those who can't design redesign.

8) Slobs/neat freaks

9) Liars/cheats/thieves

10) Slooooooooow gamers

11) Trivia freaks

12) Angry, loud, paranoid, or self righteous players

13) Excessively competitive gamers and those looking for "easy Kills"

Did I forget anybody? Hope not.
:D
mike
 
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
318
Reaction score
1
Location
Minnesota
Country
llUnited States
Confessions

Originally posted by Mike Duffy
At the risk of some repetition, here is my list of people I hate to play against, in no particular disorder.

1) Nazi/Confederate/French etc army nuts. Their army can/should never be beaten.
I can relate to this type of player, in a weird sort of way. When I'm playing a Poland '39, Chancellorsville, or Austerlitz game, running the army that won historically, I like to feel I have an advantage in the game. And if I blow that advantage and lose, it comes as a shock. I kinda like being the mind behind the juggernaut; it saves me from having to think so hard.

2) Rules lawyers. "First we kill all the lawyers..."
Actually, I'm a stickler for the letter of the law when it comes to game playing. When an ambiguous situation arises, I'm the first one with the rulebook in his hand. I dislike the unscrupulous rules lawyers--the ones who dig up loopholes that give them a competitive edge; but I do like those who play by the book and don't try to fudge everything or make unnecessary "gentleman's agreements."

3) Morons. Men just too stupid to be seen neat a wargame, much less playing one. Even worse when combined with...
What about those who misspell "near"? ;) Personally, I have a lot of patience for "morons." I enjoy teaching, and I breathe a sigh of relief when I realize the competition will be easy enough for even me to handle.

4) Know it alls. People who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
I guess I like learning as well as teaching, so I have a lot of patience with windbags too. Quite often they do know things that I don't know.

5) Idealogues, including but not limited to Nazis,rascists,
communists, religious fanatics, and conspiracy theorists.
Somehow I never run into wargamers of this ilk. Outside of wargaming, lots of people I know would fit this category. Depending on how strict your standards of "normalcy" are, I myself might be considered a religious fanatic or conspiracy theorist--but it'll never come out over a wargame. Why should it?

6) One Game Guys. Gamers whose lives revolve around one game/system/company. ASL, World in Flames, Europa, Axis & Allies, etc. Get a life. Or a new game.
Ouch! Now you're really hitting close to home. All my wargaming life (over three decades) I've been on a quest for the perfect wargame. Each time I've bought a new game, I had fond hopes that it'd turn out to be my one game for life--a game so good I'd never need consider buying another. Alas, each and every one so far has come up short. And I've ended up feeling a lot like Don Quixote.

7) Redesigners. Those who can't play design. Those who can't design redesign.
Guilty again. This is tied in with #6 above. When I'm into a game that's great but not perfect, I proceed to house-rule it in hopes of making it into what it should have been in the first place. Unfortunately, I then realize I'm the only person in the world who plays by the rules I've written--and that's a lonely, miserable feeling. So I never play that game again.

8) Slobs/neat freaks
I agree about slobs--but that's because I'm kind of a neat freak.

9) Liars/cheats/thieves
Never ran into any of these in wargaming circles.

10) Slooooooooow gamers
These guys do test my patience--but I still have a pretty high tolerance. And depending on your standards, I may be a slow gamer myself. I always used to be shocked by the estimated playing times given in the General's "Reader Buyer's Guide," because I'd never finish a game in that little time! I used to play a lot of SL/ASL, and I timed myself a few times: I averaged about 20 minutes per player-turn. How anybody could finish a ten-turn scenario in an hour or two was beyond me.

11) Trivia freaks
Same as know-it-alls to me, except that what they know is sometimes a little less interesting.

12) Angry, loud, paranoid, or self righteous players
I've rarely encountered these. When I do, I give them their space and let them do their own thing.

13) Excessively competitive gamers and those looking for "easy Kills"
Finally--one that I can agree wholeheartedly with! I've met gamers who take a game like ASL or A3R and mentally strip it of all its "chrome," then act like they're playing poker or chess or something--at a tournament, for high stakes. They glare at anybody who brings up the history behind the game, because they consider that irrelevant. And they'll scratch and claw for every tactical or strategic edge they can get, even using psychological ploys to undermine their opponent(s).

If a wargame were nothing but an elaborate chess variant with dice, I'd just stick to chess instead. To me, the whole joy of wargaming has to do with vicariously experiencing a slice of military history (or fiction) come to life on the tabletop.
 

Mike Duffy

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2004
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Country
llUnited States
Confessions

1) Nazi/Confederate/French etc army nuts. Their army can/should never be beaten.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I can relate to this type of player, in a weird sort of way. When I'm playing a Poland '39, Chancellorsville, or Austerlitz game, running the army that won historically, I like to feel I have an advantage in the game. And if I blow that advantage and lose, it comes as a shock. I kinda like being the mind behind the juggernaut; it saves me from having to think so hard.


Actually, I really was meaning to say that I hate playing against people who are so enamored with their particular army that if it loses (i.e you beat him) the game must be wrong.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Rules lawyers. "First we kill all the lawyers..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I dislike the unscrupulous rules lawyers--the ones who dig up loopholes that give them a competitive edge

That's the kind of lawyers I'm talking about - the crooked ones. I really have nothing against people looking up rules to win. That's the point of having rules in the first place.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Morons. Men just too stupid to be seen neat a wargame, much less playing one. Even worse when combined with...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What about those who misspell "near"? Personally, I have a lot of patience for "morons." I enjoy teaching, and I breathe a sigh of relief when I realize the competition will be easy enough for even me to handle.

I never said I wasn't a moron, I just said I didn't like playing against them.
And I never said I didn't like teaching new players. I just really hate playing against people who obviously don't belong near a serious wargame. I've seen a few of them & it's not a pretty sight.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Know it alls. People who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I guess I like learning as well as teaching, so I have a lot of patience with windbags too. Quite often they do know things that I don't know.

Once again, maybe my taste for a pithy sentence gets me in trouble. I have nothing against experts or even windbags. I have been guilty of both charges at times. I just really dislike know-it-alls/windbags who really don't know much and/or have really stupid opinions....Like one guy who went on and on about why and how Patton should have invaded Russia after Germany surrendered, etc.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) Idealogues, including but not limited to Nazis,rascists,
communists, religious fanatics, and conspiracy theorists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Somehow I never run into wargamers of this ilk. Outside of wargaming, lots of people I know would fit this category. Depending on how strict your standards of "normalcy" are, I myself might be considered a religious fanatic or conspiracy theorist--but it'll never come out over a wargame. Why should it?

You're lucky. I've run up against all of them at one point ao another over the last 30 years of wargaming. And I don't consider somebody with "unorthodox" opinions a bad opponent, just people who can't keep their mouths shut about it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) One Game Guys. Gamers whose lives revolve around one game/system/company. ASL, World in Flames, Europa, Axis & Allies, etc. Get a life. Or a new game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ouch! Now you're really hitting close to home. All my wargaming life (over three decades) I've been on a quest for the perfect wargame. Each time I've bought a new game, I had fond hopes that it'd turn out to be my one game for life--a game so good I'd never need consider buying another. Alas, each and every one so far has come up short. And I've ended up feeling a lot like Don Quixote.

Well, Don, keep looking. All games have their plusses and minuses, and none are more than a rather subjective model of how wars are really fought. That having been said, the same holds true for books, and movies, and documentries, etc.

Sometimes the quest for the perfect wargame leads to just plain silliness, like turning a perfectly decent game like Squad Leader or World in Flames into a colossally self-indulgent duluxe master players sixth edition.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) Redesigners. Those who can't play design. Those who can't design redesign.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Guilty again. This is tied in with #6 above. When I'm into a game that's great but not perfect, I proceed to house-rule it in hopes of making it into what it should have been in the first place. Unfortunately, I then realize I'm the only person in the world who plays by the rules I've written--and that's a lonely, miserable feeling. So I never play that game again.

I think every player had devised a house rule or two. My peeve is against guys that constantly harp about how they could have done better. If you think you can do better, then do it - don't talk about it. For the record, I'm as guilty of this as anybody. "He who is without flaw cast the first counter..."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9) Liars/cheats/thieves
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Never ran into any of these in wargaming circles.

I have. Trust me, they're a pain to play with, even if they are good friends. Back in my Navy days I had a very close friend who lied and stole like crazy.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10) Slooooooooow gamers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


These guys do test my patience--but I still have a pretty high tolerance. And depending on your standards, I may be a slow gamer myself. I always used to be shocked by the estimated playing times given in the General's "Reader Buyer's Guide," because I'd never finish a game in that little time! I used to play a lot of SL/ASL, and I timed myself a few times: I averaged about 20 minutes per player-turn. How anybody could finish a ten-turn scenario in an hour or two was beyond me.

Warfare isn't pretty, and wargaming shouldn't really be either. It's not chess, either. Fog of war, confusion, and mistakes should play a part in gaming just like they play a major part in real war. I really have little interest in gamers who don't appreciate this.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11) Trivia freaks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Same as know-it-alls to me, except that what they know is sometimes a little less interesting.

It is. sorry.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12) Angry, loud, paranoid, or self righteous players
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I've rarely encountered these. When I do, I give them their space and let them do their own thing.

I've seen them & I stay the hell away from them.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13) Excessively competitive gamers and those looking for "easy Kills"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Finally--one that I can agree wholeheartedly with! I've met gamers who take a game like ASL or A3R and mentally strip it of all its "chrome," then act like they're playing poker or chess or something--at a tournament, for high stakes. They glare at anybody who brings up the history behind the game, because they consider that irrelevant. And they'll scratch and claw for every tactical or strategic edge they can get, even using psychological ploys to undermine their opponent(s).

If a wargame were nothing but an elaborate chess variant with dice, I'd just stick to chess instead. To me, the whole joy of wargaming has to do with vicariously experiencing a slice of military history (or fiction) come to life on the tabletop.

Finally we agree on something!
_________________
Mike
 
Top