Hi Kimberly: No need, it's clear that I was overgeneralizing even in my follow-up post. Busted! ;-) -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:in-reply -to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=PFBozyrjIWsHhnp01oPexBle3aQh8jRMxYgkPYH6Rx4=; b=yFHs/5KoE9dG7v3NGdydtwEZmej861RrpcHFIL+qn2SiAMahk578QhuITeDwaPzJyeAeWnX9z2I0M2 Txhqic2TY9tiXYqUYkR4QnfJntvu7I+1ShGHT4o3pKqfgKaxaoTKfybXevBQxF7X6Vr9EyUjE1ZlQ/zX V2FoQB3OHz0H0= > DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:referenc es; b=tP5h8mFGBwjcjmQCavbxA9Py9IKGM7JUmeu5ZfqPPAnwrsLsYQGsA/0fb/OwTa7/185tHsA8FrFD5a 4KSrlVt/tWToxCkSRhrpWHoheLAXX2vWch26bbjFVaKjCfyvGf15ySHfUBI7sWH3wPNHmoiXNe0rPxfb YYwcm2DKsLmm4= > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:26:47 -0500 > From: "Kimberly Terrill" <kiter5@xxxxxxxxx> > To: "Joseph Pate" <jpate@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Rabbits Discussion List" <rabbits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Kind of Gamer (was: Re: [Rabbits] Fluxx Concepts/Expansion) > X-ASG-Whitelist: Sender (Per-User) > > I have played Fluxx with my husband often. He is great at games like Volcano > (and chess). He still claims there is no strategy to FLUXX. I don't think it > has to do with him not having played it enough. I think it is just how his > brain works. I see the strategy in it and can use the randomness to my > benefit. He just doesn;t enjoy the game like he likes chess or Axis and > Allies. And that is fine with me. He will still play FLUXX with us- in is > eyes it is a 'family bonding time/fellowship game' . I'm fine with that > mindset of the game. And at least he plays it willing. I won't play Axis and > Allies with him (chess, yes- but chess doesn;t take 5 hours usually- I lose > quickly) > Brian may not tink fluxx has strategy and it maynot be the most enjoayable, > but your short answer doesn;t describe him at all. He plays other games that > wax and wane in whos in the lead as the games progresses. (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.) just because someone > doesn;t think Fluxx has strategy doesn;t mean they are 'that type of player' > I don't think. > somepeople just don't enjoy playing fluxx. maybe because there are no > tangible points to count at the end or how many tanks did you blow up. And > maybe 'that type of player' is just a poor sportsman that likes to win from > the beginning of the game or not play at all. > > but I need to go back ad re-read the original post on this. I forget details > from i t. > > --Kimberly > On Jan 30, 2008 2:14 PM, Joseph Pate <jpate@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > >