Hi Don: Fair enough (and let me apologize for my horrendous typing skillz in my previous post). For me, it was the context and tone of the message that led me to give that Gamer definition, as well as to ascribe a negative connotation to it. The bottom line [as I inferred; maybe you would not take away the same impression] was ultimately not strategy, but control. People who think there's no strategy to Fluxx have simply not played enough Fluxx, end of story. I definitely agree that there are games with more complex [and therefore, potentially more satisfying] strategy elements, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with preferring that in games. A shorter answer: many posts confirmed my suspicion that "that type of gamer" believes that when they get ahead, they should stay ahead, and that trend should not be reversible in one turn. If that's your thing, then I agree that Fluxx is too random for you. I guess it would be like whittling your opponent down to 1 life in M:tG and having them suddenly play "switch life totals with target player" or something like that... and given that Fluxx has the potential for 1 game to last for hours, that could be frustrating. In summary, I see your point, and I agree I was too harsh. Cheers, Joe > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-ver sion:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; bh=0NHvhlLSCdYS53+65X8Z3UZWdIMjBPQavd9WO6waezU=; b=ejjPJk3qzaBLk0qDQHOB4AQ0ViY09rhsYYtm7det5BcCmrixC4ElTyxNrqhvBfpGGQujpBiPdg+/ua afqYST/+SVJPAHeykeX7k1Fh0r3JYlqsUePPXrAdx0HQeehFaezsMbHFHKH8E2EyQfpRXAQPovNGuRLt TGJfA3DFAfqos= > DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-enc oding:content-disposition; b=hCAaTZORIUcs9MUQKZ7gSZRzbs2XyouNb/NtNIh9KJbdR7X2YZP8tLRXpZEDqMpp2pltsuUThUHL8v IqS+FRqafr+jW+EfsAXTF7xT60bVH3BvRLyOUG6OoMAVv0cLyHj5XGatFaxnvOobKahykJ8hAsCPbokR CnCGLSYm9TM6s= > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:12:56 -0500 > From: "Don Sheldon" <don.sheldon@xxxxxxxxx> > To: "Joseph Pate" <jpate@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Rabbits Discussion List" <rabbits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Kind of Gamer (was: Re: [Rabbits] Fluxx Concepts/Expansion) > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Content-Disposition: inline > X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210 > X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.1, rules version 3.1.40877 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- > > On 1/29/08, Joseph Pate <jpate@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Side note: I thought it was strange that someone in one of those > > "Fluxx attention" links concluded that "gamers hate Fluxx. Non-games > > love it". I don't find this to be true... but then we clearly have a > > different definition of gamer. To me, a gamer is anyone who loves > > games and at least thinks about creating their own. The other definition > > appears to be "someone who uses games to massage their ego and lord > > their skillz over others". This used to be me, but it didn't take > > too long to realize that your l33t gaming skillz mean nothing if noone > > will every play with you. Plus, if you're *that* good, the games get > > a little boring, unless it's all about ego and domination [which it > > isn't, for me at least]. In short, "whatever!". > > Me thinks I hear a bit of bitterness. That's not a fair > characterization of the other side. It's not about domination and > 1337 skillz. I, for one, am the kind of gamer who likes strategy and > skill to play a significant role in a game's outcome. I find great > joy in pitting wits against a skilled player. Fluxx is highly random > in its outcome (I'm trying to say that as neutrally as possible, no > judgement here), it's certainly entertaining, and it can be good to > have a game that anyone can win regardless of skill, but I have always > had the most fun against people trying their hardest to win a game > where player actions alone (or at least primarily) determine the > result. I'm talking deep strategy with no randomness like Chess, Go, > Diplomacy, Homeworlds and the last IGDC winner, Pylon. > > Not sayin' your way is bad, just sayin' "don't hate the player" just > because he has a genuine preference for a different class of games. > > Now, if someone is being a big jerk and thrashing you at a game just > so they can rub it in your face, feel free to go ahead and hate that > player. And if he tells you that you're not a "real gamer" because > you like more casual games, again, feel free to hate on that guy. > > But please try not to villainize all strategophiles. > > -- > - |) () /\/ > It's OK, my wife doesn't get it either.