One of the stranger places in Andasso is a huge hole in the ground called Yareth's Pit. About 50 years ago, a foreigner named Yareth came to Andasso for unknown reasons. After traveling around the region for a few months, he began hiring all of the laborers he could find, stripping several villages of their entire labor force. For weeks, the laborers dug, completing one deep shaft straight down as well as several incomplete, shallower shafts. Then, abruptly, Yareth ordered them to stop and sent them all home. Yareth was never seen again.
The Pit, located miles away from the nearest village, resembles a dug-out quarry. The main shaft is about one hundred feet deep; the others range from a few feet deep to close to seventy-five feet deep. Much of the rock quarried in the digging remains piled nearby, although some has been taken over the years.
No one knows why Yareth did this, or why he abruptly stopped, or what became of him. Some believe that Yareth was from an entirely different world, and was digging to find a portal back to his home. Others think he was searching for some ancient artifact, and stopped the work as soon as he found it. Most people just think Yareth was a rich lunatic. Today, some of the diggers still share stories about Yareth and his pit.
Showing posts with label RPG. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RPG. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
And Andasso was its name-o
In my last post, I began talking about an old school-ish D&D game idea. I'm going to expand on that in this post, talking a bit about the setting.
Andasso is a medium-sized region sandwiched between two powerful nations: The Empire of the Unbroken Circle to the south, and Brennia to the north. It has remained mostly isolated from these nations for several reasons. Its geography is not conducive to invasion--it is bordered by the two branches of the wide and fast-moving Andasso river, and it is mostly dry hills and scrubland. The people of Andasso (who call themselves the Bisani; everyone else calls them the Andassans) have also fiercely resisted incursions by outsiders, and thereby gained a reputation as barbarians and even cannibals.
Five years ago, though, the Empire learned of a rich deposit of gold in the Andasso hills, so it dispatched its most skilled army into the region to conquer it. The natives resisted fiercely, preventing the Empire from establishing firm control. Then the Brennians intervened, ostensibly to help the Andassans, beginning a protracted and vicious three-way war in the region.
Since the Brennian intervention, Andasso has degenerated into chaos. The two major powers have exhausted themselves fighting each other and the natives. No significant organized government remains. When the Imperial and Brennian armies clashed at a place called World's End (so named because it was the last place created by the gods, according to local lore), both armies collapsed as organized fighting forces.
Now Andasso is chaotic and violent. Towns are usually run by a local warlord, and bandits roam the countryside. Some of the remaining soldiers want to keep fighting for their nation; most simply want to survive. And the people just want to be left alone.
If I were to run this campaign (and I hope to someday), the PCs would start as soldiers from one of the two invading armies. Just before the Battle at World's End, the PCs are instructed by their commander to travel to a nearby mine and retrieve some items that the commander left there for safekeeping. But after that, the PCs are on their own--their army no longer exists, and their commander is dead.
Andasso is a medium-sized region sandwiched between two powerful nations: The Empire of the Unbroken Circle to the south, and Brennia to the north. It has remained mostly isolated from these nations for several reasons. Its geography is not conducive to invasion--it is bordered by the two branches of the wide and fast-moving Andasso river, and it is mostly dry hills and scrubland. The people of Andasso (who call themselves the Bisani; everyone else calls them the Andassans) have also fiercely resisted incursions by outsiders, and thereby gained a reputation as barbarians and even cannibals.
Five years ago, though, the Empire learned of a rich deposit of gold in the Andasso hills, so it dispatched its most skilled army into the region to conquer it. The natives resisted fiercely, preventing the Empire from establishing firm control. Then the Brennians intervened, ostensibly to help the Andassans, beginning a protracted and vicious three-way war in the region.
Since the Brennian intervention, Andasso has degenerated into chaos. The two major powers have exhausted themselves fighting each other and the natives. No significant organized government remains. When the Imperial and Brennian armies clashed at a place called World's End (so named because it was the last place created by the gods, according to local lore), both armies collapsed as organized fighting forces.
Now Andasso is chaotic and violent. Towns are usually run by a local warlord, and bandits roam the countryside. Some of the remaining soldiers want to keep fighting for their nation; most simply want to survive. And the people just want to be left alone.
If I were to run this campaign (and I hope to someday), the PCs would start as soldiers from one of the two invading armies. Just before the Battle at World's End, the PCs are instructed by their commander to travel to a nearby mine and retrieve some items that the commander left there for safekeeping. But after that, the PCs are on their own--their army no longer exists, and their commander is dead.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
An Old School-ish D&D Campaign
I have decidedly mixed feelings about the so-called old school renaissance in roleplaying; I don't particularly want to get into that at the moment. One thing the movement (if you could call it that) has done, though, is made me think about playing an old school-ish D&D game ( I say "old school-ish" because it wouldn't be pure old school as defined by the OSR). And one particular setting/campaign has been percolating in my mind for a while now.
The setting is a mash up of sorts, combining D&D with Twilight: 2000. The basic idea is the same as T2K: a protracted and brutal war has shattered civilization (although in my game it'd only be in one region, not the whole world), and the PCs are the survivors of that war trying to make their way in the devastated aftermath. I like this idea because it allows for lots of PC freedom of action, and it gives what I think is a sensible context for a lot of the tropes of old school style D&D. I've even started to put together a map, some names, and some locations for the game. If only I had a chance to run it. Since I don't have that time right now, though, I will occasionally write about it here--not as good as playing, but better than nothing.
The setting is a mash up of sorts, combining D&D with Twilight: 2000. The basic idea is the same as T2K: a protracted and brutal war has shattered civilization (although in my game it'd only be in one region, not the whole world), and the PCs are the survivors of that war trying to make their way in the devastated aftermath. I like this idea because it allows for lots of PC freedom of action, and it gives what I think is a sensible context for a lot of the tropes of old school style D&D. I've even started to put together a map, some names, and some locations for the game. If only I had a chance to run it. Since I don't have that time right now, though, I will occasionally write about it here--not as good as playing, but better than nothing.
Monday, February 14, 2011
A World of Darkness Campaign Frame
I've been thinking for a while about a campaign framework for a World of Darkness game for a group of players who know virtually nothing about the setting. That lack of knowledge makes running a Vampire or Werewolf game very hard, but straight-up Hunter doesn't exactly fit what I want either. I've come up with several different ones, but recently I came up with one that I think has legs.
The setting of the campaign is Chicago, mostly in the neighborhood of Rogers Park (where I lived for 7 years). Since I love the city, and think it's a great WoD setting, this makes sense. The PCs are newly assigned members of a gang crime task force that includes the Chicago police, the prosecutor's office, and several federal agencies. In particular, the players are assigned to the section of the task force dealing with Russian gangs in the Rogers Park area.
However, all is not as it seems--the PCs are acting as undercover agents because the Feds suspect corruption. Someone on the task force--maybe several people--has been bought by the gangs, and is sabotaging the task force. So the PCs' real job is to find out who the corrupt people are, and take them down.
How is this a World of Darkness game? Lurking in the background are supernatural forces. The PCs don't know about this, and neither do the players, which makes it good for WoD newcomers. It also presents all kinds of opportunities for intrigue and deception, which is what a good WoD game should have (at least I think so).
The setting of the campaign is Chicago, mostly in the neighborhood of Rogers Park (where I lived for 7 years). Since I love the city, and think it's a great WoD setting, this makes sense. The PCs are newly assigned members of a gang crime task force that includes the Chicago police, the prosecutor's office, and several federal agencies. In particular, the players are assigned to the section of the task force dealing with Russian gangs in the Rogers Park area.
However, all is not as it seems--the PCs are acting as undercover agents because the Feds suspect corruption. Someone on the task force--maybe several people--has been bought by the gangs, and is sabotaging the task force. So the PCs' real job is to find out who the corrupt people are, and take them down.
How is this a World of Darkness game? Lurking in the background are supernatural forces. The PCs don't know about this, and neither do the players, which makes it good for WoD newcomers. It also presents all kinds of opportunities for intrigue and deception, which is what a good WoD game should have (at least I think so).
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
An idea for magic
For a number of years, I've thought about trying out a simple but (I think) interesting system for magic in a fantasy RPG (although I suppose it could be used for other genres as well). It's based on the idea that a gifted person can twist probability in his favor, but there are consequences to this action.
The basic idea is simple: the gifted character can, at any time, gain a bonus to a die roll affecting them (or any die roll, depending on how magic works in the game). The bonus can be any size (although the system you're using will obviously affect the size and meaning of the bonus). The GM keeps a running tally of the bonuses used by the character. At any time that he feels like it, the GM can then use some or all of this tally as penalties against the character. The GM can parcel out the penalties in dribs and drabs, or one huge whammy. Do whatever is dramatically appropriate.
For example, in a Fudge style game, a PC takes a +1 bonus during a battle in which he fears for his life. Later, he takes a couple of +1 bonuses to healing checks to recover from the battle. So the tally is now +3. Later in the session, the PC tries to use diplomacy to get an NPC to cooperate, and the GM drops the whammy--a -3 penalty, which leads to catastrophic failure of diplomacy.
I think this system could be adapted in many different rules systems without a problem. And it is balanced if the GM does in fact use the tally to penalize the player. I think it could be a lot of fun.
The basic idea is simple: the gifted character can, at any time, gain a bonus to a die roll affecting them (or any die roll, depending on how magic works in the game). The bonus can be any size (although the system you're using will obviously affect the size and meaning of the bonus). The GM keeps a running tally of the bonuses used by the character. At any time that he feels like it, the GM can then use some or all of this tally as penalties against the character. The GM can parcel out the penalties in dribs and drabs, or one huge whammy. Do whatever is dramatically appropriate.
For example, in a Fudge style game, a PC takes a +1 bonus during a battle in which he fears for his life. Later, he takes a couple of +1 bonuses to healing checks to recover from the battle. So the tally is now +3. Later in the session, the PC tries to use diplomacy to get an NPC to cooperate, and the GM drops the whammy--a -3 penalty, which leads to catastrophic failure of diplomacy.
I think this system could be adapted in many different rules systems without a problem. And it is balanced if the GM does in fact use the tally to penalize the player. I think it could be a lot of fun.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Games I Want to Run or Play In
I think it's probably typical for roleplayers, but there are many, many games that I'd love to play in and/or run. Here's a short list:
- A long-term Traveller game: I've only become interested in class SF fairly recently, and it'd be a lot of fun to do a sandbox type Traveller game. I actually managed to start a game like this, and I think it was going well, but then I had to stop gaming on account of the impending arrival of twins.
- A low-magic fantasy game. I'm not sure D&D would be the right system for this, but I'd love to run a game that is very close to medieval Europe, but with magic and horror lurking in the shadows. I've sketched out many setting elements and ideas for this type of game over the years, but never managed to actually run one.
- A World of Darkness game: I love the World of Darkness games (at least the old WoD games; never played the new ones), and I haven't played one of them in years. I'd love to remedy that. A while back I ran an mash-up of Mage, Unknown Armies, and a bit of Kult for some friends, it was a hell of a lot of fun. But that was years ago. I miss being steeped in that setting.
- Something set in ancient Rome. That's why I find Cthulhu Invictus so interesting, although Rome could be a great setting for lots of types of campaigns.
I could easily expand that list.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Is my wheel burning?
An RPG that I'm very tempted to try is Burning Wheel, a fantasy game that gets rave reviews for encouraging characters to take an active role in driving the plot. I love that in a game, both as a player and as a GM. So it sounds like Burning Wheel would be a perfect fit for me.
However, BW is also fairly crunchy--it's got a lot of a detail. I don't think it's excessively complex, but there's a lot of interlocking parts. And from what I've heard, it's so well constructed that tinkering with the system can have massive effects. I'm not sure that such a system is for me. I'm especially not sure it's for me when you consider that if I got the game and introduced it to my friends, I'd have to explain it to them. And I hate explaining complicated rule systems to others. If everyone got a copy of the game and read it, then I'd be more willing to try it. But I doubt that'd happen.
However, BW still tempts me. I'd love to give it a try, but I don't know if it'd work for me.
P.S. Anyone interested in learning more about BW but don't want to buy the game, check out the Podgecast. It's an excellent RPG podcast in general, but they love BW, and talk about it a lot. There's even a series of campaign recaps from (so far) two different BW campaigns they've played. Well worth listening to. And I really want to play in a game with those guys.
However, BW is also fairly crunchy--it's got a lot of a detail. I don't think it's excessively complex, but there's a lot of interlocking parts. And from what I've heard, it's so well constructed that tinkering with the system can have massive effects. I'm not sure that such a system is for me. I'm especially not sure it's for me when you consider that if I got the game and introduced it to my friends, I'd have to explain it to them. And I hate explaining complicated rule systems to others. If everyone got a copy of the game and read it, then I'd be more willing to try it. But I doubt that'd happen.
However, BW still tempts me. I'd love to give it a try, but I don't know if it'd work for me.
P.S. Anyone interested in learning more about BW but don't want to buy the game, check out the Podgecast. It's an excellent RPG podcast in general, but they love BW, and talk about it a lot. There's even a series of campaign recaps from (so far) two different BW campaigns they've played. Well worth listening to. And I really want to play in a game with those guys.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The Rewards and Perils of Consistent Campaigns
When I had a lot more time for gaming, I played in a number of what I call consistent RPG campaigns (although it's likely that there could be a better term), by which I mean campaigns where we played regularly (at least once a week) for a solid block of time (at least 6 months). This is my preferred way of gaming because you really get to know the characters (your own and the others) and the setting, and you get to really care about the game.
In many ways, this is the best way to roleplay--you can really build up great relationships with other characters and the setting, and it gets very easy to slip into playing your character. The best RPG campaign I ever played did exactly this. I played Vampire: the Masquerade for the first time in Chicago staring in '94, and we played that game at least once a week for nearly a year. I've never gotten so into a character, understood him so well. I've never had such great in-character relationships--hostile and friendly. No matter what its flaws, I'll always love Vampire in part because of this campaign.
This type of campaign can have a downside, though. A few years after the Vampire game, we started a Fading Suns game. All the ingredients for a repeat of the Vampire game was there--same group (for the most part), same GM, and even a game created by former White Wolf guys. After a good start, though, the game degenerated--it turned out that, despite being told by the GM to make a group of characters who would want to work together, two characters from the outset hated my character and/or lied to him (one decided during character creation that his character blamed mine for his father's death; the other decided to cheat me and several other PCs from the start). The hostility bubbled over fairly early and eventually the game became a grind--it was a weekly session of my character constantly arguing with everyone else, and eventually several PCs were actively plotting the deaths of others. The game ended ignominiously when half the party died on a lost world.
In case it's not obvious, this campaign still pisses me off after many years. I'm annoyed as hell that the GM let the others make these characters, given that he told us to make compatible characters. And I'm pissed at the other players for making such characters. It's incredibly petty for me to hold on to this, but I'm a petty man.
I suppose I can't blame the failings of the FS game on the consistent nature of the campaign--but the consistent nature of the campaign exacerbated the problems in the game. I guess the real point is that a consistent campaign makes a good game better, but a bad game worse.
In many ways, this is the best way to roleplay--you can really build up great relationships with other characters and the setting, and it gets very easy to slip into playing your character. The best RPG campaign I ever played did exactly this. I played Vampire: the Masquerade for the first time in Chicago staring in '94, and we played that game at least once a week for nearly a year. I've never gotten so into a character, understood him so well. I've never had such great in-character relationships--hostile and friendly. No matter what its flaws, I'll always love Vampire in part because of this campaign.
This type of campaign can have a downside, though. A few years after the Vampire game, we started a Fading Suns game. All the ingredients for a repeat of the Vampire game was there--same group (for the most part), same GM, and even a game created by former White Wolf guys. After a good start, though, the game degenerated--it turned out that, despite being told by the GM to make a group of characters who would want to work together, two characters from the outset hated my character and/or lied to him (one decided during character creation that his character blamed mine for his father's death; the other decided to cheat me and several other PCs from the start). The hostility bubbled over fairly early and eventually the game became a grind--it was a weekly session of my character constantly arguing with everyone else, and eventually several PCs were actively plotting the deaths of others. The game ended ignominiously when half the party died on a lost world.
In case it's not obvious, this campaign still pisses me off after many years. I'm annoyed as hell that the GM let the others make these characters, given that he told us to make compatible characters. And I'm pissed at the other players for making such characters. It's incredibly petty for me to hold on to this, but I'm a petty man.
I suppose I can't blame the failings of the FS game on the consistent nature of the campaign--but the consistent nature of the campaign exacerbated the problems in the game. I guess the real point is that a consistent campaign makes a good game better, but a bad game worse.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Musical Association
Probably lots of people associate songs or musicians with certain games and memories of gaming. Even though I haven't played much Over the Edge, I always associate the King Crimson song "Neurotica" with it--it just reminds me of Al Amarja and the tone of the game. I was listening to "Beat" on the way to work this morning, and "Neurotica" came on. And I found myself thinking of Al Amarja.
Monday, November 15, 2010
What I Don't Like About 4E
Fourth edition Dungeons and Dragons has generated a lot of controversy. Some people love, some hate it, and some go so far as to claim it's not really D&D. I have no real opinion about the game for the most part. From what I can tell, it's a good game for what it does, but that's not the kind of thing that I like. However, I haven't played it that much, so my opinions on it are not strong.
One thing, however, bothers the shit out of me about D&D 4E: Wizards seems to have done little (or bad) playtesting. Quite a few things about the original game didn't work very well, and had to be corrected. The most extreme example I can think of is skill challenges. Literally within a month or so of the first 4E books coming out, Wizards issued a set of errata that quite dramatically changed skill challenges. Given that Wizards is by far the biggest RPG company, and they had ample time to playtest it, this is inexcusable. They should've known that skill challenges as written in the original Dungeon Master's Guide didn't work. It seems like they just decided that they would have the players who paid for the game playtest it.
There are other examples as well. I've heard from a number of gaming podcasts and blogs that several classes have been rather significantly rejiggered because they didn't really work that well when they came out. And other people have said that basically the design team didn't seem to really understand class design until at least Players' Handbook II, almost a year after the original release of the game.
These problems all could have been discovered with adequate playtesting. I wonder, though, if Wizards did some of this on purpose. The big money maker for 4E isn't the books, it's the subscription the the online service Dungeons & Dragons Insider (DDI). One of the key benefits of a DDI subscription is that it has all the game rules available online--and they're updated regularly. This makes me wonder if the whole business plan is to sell people something that wasn't carefully playtested on purpose so they could make more money on the subscription with the correct rules. If that's true, then that's just scummy. And it shows that the design goals of 4E weren't about making a good game, but about making money.
I don't know if Wizards is that sinister; in general, I think you shouldn't attribute something to malevolence that could be the result of incompetence. At the very least, though, the original publication of D&D is flawed, by Wizards' own admission, and you have to keep paying them to get the corrected version. That's not something I want to be a part of.
One thing, however, bothers the shit out of me about D&D 4E: Wizards seems to have done little (or bad) playtesting. Quite a few things about the original game didn't work very well, and had to be corrected. The most extreme example I can think of is skill challenges. Literally within a month or so of the first 4E books coming out, Wizards issued a set of errata that quite dramatically changed skill challenges. Given that Wizards is by far the biggest RPG company, and they had ample time to playtest it, this is inexcusable. They should've known that skill challenges as written in the original Dungeon Master's Guide didn't work. It seems like they just decided that they would have the players who paid for the game playtest it.
There are other examples as well. I've heard from a number of gaming podcasts and blogs that several classes have been rather significantly rejiggered because they didn't really work that well when they came out. And other people have said that basically the design team didn't seem to really understand class design until at least Players' Handbook II, almost a year after the original release of the game.
These problems all could have been discovered with adequate playtesting. I wonder, though, if Wizards did some of this on purpose. The big money maker for 4E isn't the books, it's the subscription the the online service Dungeons & Dragons Insider (DDI). One of the key benefits of a DDI subscription is that it has all the game rules available online--and they're updated regularly. This makes me wonder if the whole business plan is to sell people something that wasn't carefully playtested on purpose so they could make more money on the subscription with the correct rules. If that's true, then that's just scummy. And it shows that the design goals of 4E weren't about making a good game, but about making money.
I don't know if Wizards is that sinister; in general, I think you shouldn't attribute something to malevolence that could be the result of incompetence. At the very least, though, the original publication of D&D is flawed, by Wizards' own admission, and you have to keep paying them to get the corrected version. That's not something I want to be a part of.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Indie RPG Ur-games?
The Indie RPG movement of the last few years has been interesting, at times maddening, and certainly colorful. I haven't gotten into very many of these games, but I have a fair amount of experience with what I think are three earlier games that exercised huge influence on the Indie RPG movement:
- Amber Diceless Roleplaying: A game that shattered many of the rules of older style RPGs--no dice, character auctions, incredibly freeform rules. This was the first RPG I encountered that strongly emphasized doing what was dramatically appropriate, not what was realistic or advantageous to your character (it may not have been the first to do so, but it was the first that I saw). With the right group, this is a great game.
- FUDGE: Steffan O'Sullivan's game did a number of things that I think shaped the future Indie movement. First, he relied very heavily on the internet to get feedback and promote the game. Second, he built a game to emphasize telling stories, not crunchy combat. And Fudge incorporates a lot of verbal elements; things aren't just about numbers. At the very least, Fudge exercised a huge influence over Fate which is a detailed variation of Fudge, as is The Shadow of Yesterday in some ways.
- Over the Edge: A brilliant and very weird game. This was the first game I ever saw that had no defined stats or skills; you created your own for your character. This alone had a huge influence on games like RISUS, the PDQ system, and arguably Fate's Aspects (although I'm speculating on that last one). It also featured a simple and elegant dice mechanic, character design that gave you tons of hooks to roleplay with, and a very cool and bizarre setting.
I could be wrong about the influence these three games had, but it seems to me that many of the key features of Indie games appeared here.
It's all about firsts
So what's my gaming background?
I got into gaming way back in the late 1970s. My first real move beyond normal games like Risk was the Dungeons & Dragons basic set (now referred to as the Holmes edition), sometime in either '78 or '79. I quickly moved on to AD&D 1st edition, and played the hell out of that for years. My gaming tapered off a number of times, but I was always able to get back into the hobby.
My first real move away from D&D-style games was in grad school. Through some great friends in Chicago, I got into games like the original World of Darkness games, Over the Edge, Amber Diceless, and a number of others. We continued to play D&D, but I moved away from Chicago shortly before D&D 3.X came out. In fact, I have little experience with D&D 3.X or 4.0; I've played *much* more 1st and 2nd edition AD&D.
In the last few years, I've gotten into Savage Worlds (which I am very sick of) and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, as well as some Call of Cthulhu and Traveller.
As to wargaming, I got started a bit later. Sometime in the early '80s, a friend and I became all but addicted to a computer wargame called "Eastern Front." We played that thing for hours. My friend's dad had played some of the classic Avalon Hill games, so we went out and found Afrika Korps. That was my first board wargame, and I've continued to play such games since then.
My favorite wargame is probably The Russian Campaign. I also quite like some of the card driven games, especially Hannibal and Paths of Glory. And I love Up Front. I've actually written a few reviews for Paper Wars, although that publication's erratic schedule means that several I've written have yet to see the light of day.
While playing wargames, I also got into a variety of non-war non-family type boardgames. I'm not sure which was the first; I remember playing several games like Kremlin and Junta in college, but I may have played some others before that. Of the Eurogame type, I got a bit of a late start--I played Settlers of Catan for the first time several years after it came out. I'm by no means a hardcore Eurogamer, but I quite like some of them, especially Settlers and Age of Steam. I also quite like the 18XX games (although I've only played a few of them) and some of the crayon rail games.
I got into gaming way back in the late 1970s. My first real move beyond normal games like Risk was the Dungeons & Dragons basic set (now referred to as the Holmes edition), sometime in either '78 or '79. I quickly moved on to AD&D 1st edition, and played the hell out of that for years. My gaming tapered off a number of times, but I was always able to get back into the hobby.
My first real move away from D&D-style games was in grad school. Through some great friends in Chicago, I got into games like the original World of Darkness games, Over the Edge, Amber Diceless, and a number of others. We continued to play D&D, but I moved away from Chicago shortly before D&D 3.X came out. In fact, I have little experience with D&D 3.X or 4.0; I've played *much* more 1st and 2nd edition AD&D.
In the last few years, I've gotten into Savage Worlds (which I am very sick of) and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, as well as some Call of Cthulhu and Traveller.
As to wargaming, I got started a bit later. Sometime in the early '80s, a friend and I became all but addicted to a computer wargame called "Eastern Front." We played that thing for hours. My friend's dad had played some of the classic Avalon Hill games, so we went out and found Afrika Korps. That was my first board wargame, and I've continued to play such games since then.
My favorite wargame is probably The Russian Campaign. I also quite like some of the card driven games, especially Hannibal and Paths of Glory. And I love Up Front. I've actually written a few reviews for Paper Wars, although that publication's erratic schedule means that several I've written have yet to see the light of day.
While playing wargames, I also got into a variety of non-war non-family type boardgames. I'm not sure which was the first; I remember playing several games like Kremlin and Junta in college, but I may have played some others before that. Of the Eurogame type, I got a bit of a late start--I played Settlers of Catan for the first time several years after it came out. I'm by no means a hardcore Eurogamer, but I quite like some of them, especially Settlers and Age of Steam. I also quite like the 18XX games (although I've only played a few of them) and some of the crayon rail games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)