Is Kyle Ferrin's art too cute for some of his games?

Don't get me wrong, I like his art.

For Fort, it seems appropriately inviting. But for some of this other games...

Rather than start a tangent in Jackwraith's Chaos in the Old World thread, I was thinking about how Root fits my "Asymmetric DOAM" niche pretty well, and I thought back on how I initially bounced off of CitOW when I played it late night at GenCon and had a rough first teach from another first time player. Even though I've played Warhammer and 40K, I didn't really get into the setting this time, and in fact found it a but off-putting. Meanwhile, Root is probably in the top 5 cutest games out there, yet is arguably as complicated and difficult to learn as Chaos. (I'm not certain of this, as it has been forever since I tried to play CitOW). I even think that one of the reasons people are willing to go through the learning games is that the game has such a cute host of woodland animals.

Then there's Oath, with a similar style. There's even at least one meme reference that I know of (the hard times Herald/Harold). And yet it's even more complicated and tricky to teach than Root.

Do you think there are people out there who have picked up any of these games and then been blindsided by how complicated the games are? Or do you think that people who are gonna spend $40+ on Root or however huge amount on Oath have done their research and know what they're getting into?

I tend to think of it more positively in terms of Root and Oath (I've never played Fort.) Ferrin's art was a huge part of the selling point for Root and I tend to think that, rather than be off-putting to people when they found out how daunting a first play might be, it introduced a ton of people who thought they didn't like DoaMs to the genre. Once you get past that first play, it's seriously interesting for most players, as Root is a complex game (lots of depth) but not really a complicated one once you figure out rule, crafting, and so forth. But, yes, Ferrin's art was the draw to a lot of people who didn't realize they were playing a wargame and never would have sat down to it if they knew.

I think the intent with his art on Oath was to give what for many people is an overwhelming topic- history, especially one told in terms of trends and changes -the veneer of simplicity. It doesn't have those ominous figures or old maps like Diplomacy. It has cool, cute Kyle Ferrin art, so it must be OK! If they'd gone with a more historical approach like with Pax Pamir, it probably would've been a harder sell to many people. And, of course, the cross-marketing to Root fans is a factor, as well. I think it works for Oath because of that attempt to tell a complex topic in a game.

Yes, definitely. I saw an Amazon review for Oath by a pretty angry guy who bounced off the game very hard. Mind, in that short review he wrote that the rules were disorganized trash without mentioning the playbook (with the huge red 'read me first' banner) or the cards explaining the setup. As a case of 'I am so smart I can understand everything without paying attention' it was pretty typical? I see this scenario a lot outside of boardgames, too.
Last week I slowly went through the books by myself and after that first game I feel pretty confident about it. That may be because Oath seems to be exactly what I want from a game these days. And some years of experience learning new rulesets.
Just yesterday I saw this interesting talk by Cole Wehrle at the GDC, he adresses some of that.
I found that he is aware that the people his games are for are a tiny fraction and that the Art really helps to lure people in who haven't heard of High Frontier. At one point he confesses that the Art made it possible for Root to be even meaner.

Yes I think that putting it in real settings would be more daunting/uninteresting for a lot of people. I enjoy that it is more metaphorical/analogous commentary on history and stuff (that's Root and Oath).

I'm not sure how many people it sucks in; I'd suspect if those people weren't getting sucked in to that they'd be getting sucked in to some other complext game anyway. But one thing I'll say about the artwork is that I enjoy that it looks different to the vast array of derivative fantasy artwork that seemingly gets so much praise.

Jexik wrote: Do you think there are people out there who have picked up any of these games and then been blindsided by how complicated the games are?

Not many, at least with Root.

Here's the thing, most don't play "complicated games" because they don't want to try not because they can't understand the rules. The average gamer, even if new to the hobby, is more than able to play any all middle-weight games from Root to Galactica to Brass if they try. And it's undenaible that more people want to put in the effort because Root is cute.

I've said this before, but the art direction is the most important reason for Root's success. I firmly believe it wouldn't have broken 3000 copies without it, for better or worse. The art has helped it overcome a bunch of taboos, which are violence, real-life politics and war. Seriously, nobody would play a game with Marxist revolutionaries, Islamic Terrorists and Capitalist Colonizers if they weren't cutified somehow.

Jexik wrote: Meanwhile, Root is probably in the top 5 cutest games out there, yet is arguably as complicated and difficult to learn as Chaos.

I can assure you, Chaos is much simpler. All factions use the same economy and the same phases, turns are very simple (spend your money to play units and cards) and you don't need to know as many details about the factions in order to do well. I've teached it a few times recently and I'm always surprised at how simple it is.