People first games! (across euro, AT divide)

Hi guys and gals. I wasn't really anticipating to open a thread on F:AT, but some recent articles and discussion baffled me a bit. Namely all this love for Splendor and good old euro games.

Where've you been!?

I have a banner flying high since dec 2012. A year and a half!

Here's the manifesto and subsequent discussion (developed on pages from 2 onwards):
Non aligned Movement! (aka People first games)

I'd rather not paraphrase too much, as some of it was written in pure inspiration, but it's about. Less power to games, more power to gamers, less obstructions in forms of rules and more space which we players can shape. Also: low overhead.

So, please, read it, comment on it - here. And we're still searching for a name of this movement, so all ideas will be welcome.

Link not working

The link doesn't work, but color me interested.

Dr. Mabuse wrote: Link not working

Oops. Never used url links on F:AT before - link working now.

Man I'm sick of this shit. Play whatever games you like because you like them. Everything doesn't need to be fucking classified as one thing or another.

Yeah, after reading I'm with Mad Dog on this. I think the vast majority of gamers aren't really in either camp and don't even think along the lines of genre. They just approach games on an individual basis. I'm not sure trying to call myself "non-alligned" is any more descriptive than saying I'm for or against something.

We create genres to give us expectations, not for the purpose of classification so we can declare ourselves in one camp or the other. Or in this case, neither.

Mind you, I agree with just about everything you wrote about the state of these different schools of design. I just don't think it's particularly useful to classify oneself as being non-affiliated. It feels like a way to make a stand without actually doing it.

Mad Dog wrote: Man I'm sick of this shit. Play whatever games you like because you like them. Everything doesn't need to be fucking classified as one thing or another.

Man I'm sick of these comments. Got them on TOS as well. On first page as well.
(that's tongue in check, mind you).

Without articulation, old habits will persist, things will stay as they are and a group of people sharing common interest will never know they share a common ground. I found plenty of really interesting people via that manifesto - and that's what it was about. People first!

For fuck's sake we DON'T need a name.

This ridiculous OCD attempt to classify everything is absurd. You know what? Sometimes I like a brain burner calculator, sometimes I like a miniatures game with tons of chrome, sometimes I like a war game and sometimes I like an AT game. I'm pretty sure most people are like this (at least the ones I know).

Stop trying to put everyone into your little idea for a filing cabinet. Play whatever games you fucking want with whatever people you want.

San Il Defanso wrote: I think the vast majority of gamers aren't really in either camp and don't even think along the lines of genre.

That's not really the aim here. Okay, one of the aim was to demarcate the line between current euro paradigm and German games of old, because it's the context of bgg.

But I think it's about a certain desire, outlook, approach.I deliberately didn't put any games on the list, it's not about games at all. It's about gamers.

They just approach games on an individual basis.

And I articulated one of the approaches in picking games.

With all this "oh it's relative" argument, in discussions people will still use terms which are around. I just felt I had a certain approach to games, which wasn't vocalised and needed to be so. This was a year and a half ago.

I'm not sure trying to call myself "non-alligned" is any more descriptive than saying I'm for or against something.

Wasn't supposed to be. It was just about shouting what I like and quite some people joined in. Hell if I know if we even share anything real - like games, but that's not the point. The point is to voice a different attitude than the trend toward gamey-ness in recent years. And probably there's more stuff involved. Like general dismissal of games with are "less game", low overhead, short, filler, social and so on. It's about saying certain features of games have value.

Whatever we name these features or games or attitudes. I mean we haven't found a name for ourselves in a year and a half and nobody is too worried about this, which certainly says something.

We create genres to give us expectations, not for the purpose of classification so we can declare ourselves in one camp or the other. Or in this case, neither.

Manifesto coincided with certain trends - microgames had just come out. Resistance was all the rage. Certainly there was (and probably still is a space) for accessible, socially engaging games. I game group I helped co.create and London on board share certain tastes - it's not a recognised genre, still certain games and types of games will come up. (But I still find manifesto to be more open than just these trends)

I just don't think it's particularly useful to classify oneself as being non-affiliated. It feels like a way to make a stand without actually doing it.

I am utterly puzzled why this is the first thing you Americans notice? It's not even what anything in this text is about. It's just a stylistic approach.

Hey you can fuck right off with that racist bullshit about Americans. Do you usually categorise an entire continent because of the view of one person??

I'm NOT American BTW and I think your argument is shit.

sgosaric wrote: And we're still searching for a name of this movement, so all ideas will be welcome.

Dr. Mabuse wrote: Link not working

And we have a winner!

Evidently they skipped the "Don't tar with too broad a brush" lesson over at the Non-Aligned Movement School.

ThirstyMan wrote: Stop trying to put everyone into your little idea for a filing cabinet. Play whatever games you fucking want with whatever people you want.

As I said the text is old and the context was to differentiate two different types of euros, so this was that part. Not the most integral part. But there's also many other notion to connect to - like Barnes' idea of fun first games. I'm talking about certain approaches to gaming and game design, which are not connected to any game as such, or even a genre. It is a notion of games being more accessible and open which runs counter to some trends I'm noticing (for sure in eurogames with more and more gameyness being seen as a positive thing).

The reason I added this link here now is because the recent discussions about "the good old euros". Arguments used are similar me and others in discussion used on that thread.

I'm NOT American BTW and I think your argument is shit.

That was just a remark. Typed in a light tone. You really upset it, the remark is now beside my legs hiding (and probably asking for chocolate, not a lot of guts in that one). Poor remark. Yeah, I really don't have much to say towards the perceived aggression of perceived categorisation. Ignore it, probably. It's not the interesting part of the text (if it's even there).

RobertB wrote: Evidently they skipped the "Don't tar with too broad a brush" lesson over at the Non-Aligned Movement School.

The genres mentioned are just for marking the map and finding things readers (on TOS) recognize, but the essence of the text is much more abstract: less game, more gamers. Less constriction, more creativity, games which enable players to get right in and play against each other from the get go. So in these terms broad brush was deliberate, it's an illustration, a sketch, in watercolours. (because I like watercolours, but suck at them in real life)

So yeah, where was I? Right. I'll stick around to see if this thread survives. Usually at TOS I get such remarks for the first page, before we start talking what the OP actually is about (pages 2-4, then we get some lost people who return with page 1 remarks). I hoped here things would get to this stage quicker than on TOS, hence my initial surprise.

So yeah, maybe some discussion aids:

Conversation menu:
1) Low overhead. Desirable? Perversion of proper 50 page rulebook gaming?
2) Games which are not a centrepiece but an arean where we interact with one another.
3) How many plays are okay for learning the system, before one is able to interact, block, attack, ally and do other stuff with their co-players?
4) Is more game good? Meaty and stuff?
5) People first VS fun first games. Same thing?

Well I'll break with BGG tradition and not wait until page 5 to tell you to fuck off.