[Consim-l] Sand in the Whirlwind - KPG Opponent and GM Wanted

[Thomas Cundiff]

To be clear, what you are remarking upon is my comments about Maiwand, not 
Sand in the Whirlwind.

Now, in the case of Maiwand, it's not a matter of one side playing by the 
rules and the other side not doing so.  In this case it's a failure of one 
side to understand what is written, but to make an assumption based upon 
other rules sections, that doesn't exist when applied to a second and 
entirely separate rules section.  In this case players are making an 
assumption about Melee combat that doesn't exist, but is fueled by a rule 
that does exist and ONLY applies to fire combat.

The rules are clear, but the players are making a common error by seeing 
what they "Think and Expect" they see, and not what is actually there.

It's not the game or the designer's fault.  It's the fault of players who 
get in the groove of seeing what they expect.  And, then being fooled by 
that.  They have deceived themselves, and that's no one's fault but their 
own.

The game isn't unbalanced.  It's hard to win, but it's not unbalanced. 
Again, that's a perception ... I say again, perception that exists, but 
exists erroneously.  It's erroneous in this case because of an error in 
players expecting to see something in all sections of the rules that doesn't 
exist and isn't written.  They've hampered themselves because of they have 
thought they saw something in the rules that doesn't exist.

This isn't a bad game.  It's merely Perceived to be a bad game because 
players have made an error in rules comprehension, still haven't figured out 
what it is, and have blamed the game and designer, not from malice, but 
because they simply don't know any better.

Cundiff

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Kohr" <davekohr at gmail.com>
To: "consim" <consim-l at mailman.halisp.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Consim-l] Sand in the Whirlwind - KPG Opponent and GM Wanted


> On 2/24/07, Thomas Cundiff <tdcgunslinger at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> I completed an article on KPG's Battle of Maiwand, and sent it off to Jon
>> Compton (F&M), who has already read and accepted it for publication 
>> (perhaps
>> in #145 or 46).  That game has got very bad press and it's not the game's
>> fault.  There's a quirk in the rules that permits the British player much
>> greater ability to destroy the Afghanis than previously thought.
>
> I don't know or care anything about this particuar game, but your
> comment does touch on a very troubling yet sadly common problem among
> wargame publishers.
>
> If it's the case that the game, as published, is severely imbalanced
> if one side plays in a particular (legal) way, then how on earth can
> you claim it's "not the game's fault"?!? It sounds to me like it *is*
> the game's fault. And that means it's the fault of the designer,
> developer, publisher, and playtesters.
>
> The usual case, which I see happening repeatedly, is that the game was
> inadequately playtested.
>
> My usual response is to say "this game is crap, time to move on to
> something else".
>
> There is an enormous number of wargames available, why waste time on
> the bad ones?
>
> Dave
> _______________________________________________
> Consim-l mailing list
> Consim-l at mailman.halisp.net
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/consim-l
>