I have some strong thoughts about the value of the story over the game. I guess it comes from my lean towards role playing and simulation over just game play. I must admit to not being an avid game player, even though I collect with a vengeance and love the process of researching and completing. I like the idea of it, the social side and the collecting/preparing, but when it comes to play I am heavily in the “just for fun, casual only” camp.
If this is looked at more closely, I could even rank it numerically, and I guess, so could you if you see yourself there.
1 The Modeller.
The look and feel of the simulation are more important than the game itself. Battles fought are historically accurate (even fiction must fit it’s own truth). It is not unlikely, that I will simulate an entire battle, scenery and all, just for literal reenactment, leaving little flexibility for re-use or theoretical endings. Collecting (accurately) is important to me, as is supplying both sides, so everything is consistent and eye pleasing (which can lead to heart flutters when others handle things). I often write my own rules, because my thoughts on the subject, after extensive research, do not fit with the ones of others I have bought.
2 The Story Teller.
I love the subject matter and value the stories the game potentially represents. Always preferring a scenario to set head to head “balanced” tournament game, I will play anytime and collect anything that interests me, good or bad. The level of simulation and story fidelity in my games is directly linked to my enjoyment, so I rarely play in tournaments or against competitive players, unless they share my love of the back story and accept my point of view, sticking to faction and time line. I will buy anything that is related to my favoured faction(s) for completeness, even if I know I will be derided by more competitive friends for buying “that” crap option (often, ironically off them after they have stripped it of the good bits).
3 The Casual Gamer.
I like my games, because I like the company of friend’s and the down time it allows me, but I take play seriously enough to bother thinking about it when not playing. I play what I like, but not what is fashionable or to others tastes if not mine. Star Wars is great, so I play games based on that etc. The actual game is not overly important as long as it feels right and does not get too intense. I rarely supply/make/buy complete or exhaustive games, rather, I use what is provided (a friendly number 2 or 4) or I may choose a single favourite faction to support and play against whom ever I meet.
4 The Semi-Serious Competitor.
I collect only the perfect forces to be strong on the table or occasionally something off-beat to amuse or surprise others with my “cleverness”. I am aware that sometimes I go too far, so if pushed, I will accept the desires of others for balance and logic to prevail and play by those rules. It is unlikely that I will purchase anything that is not competitive just because it looks nice or fits into canon, but I will buy a rubbish expansion for the useful parts and off-sell the rest to a “gullible” #1 or 2 who will buy anything just because it “fits their collections”.
Really serious gamers often make me feel inadequate, so I migrate between communities, staying until things get toxic, then go and find a new “crush”.
Nothing says you cant have all the best options in one experience.
5 The Pure Gamer.
The game comes first. Winning, or at least being competitive is all. Nothing is off limits as long as the rules, stretched to their limit, can cope with it. I can even accept unpainted miniatures and dodgy terrain as long as there is a game. I spend waaay too much time thinking about winning combinations or tactics and dreaming of titles to be won. My intensity can put some off, but they are weak, so should be afraid of me, while others are drawn to my “expertise” like pathetic moths to my stronger burning flame. I do not indulge lesser impulses like unlikely combinations unless I am sure I will have an edge.
Story accuracy means little in the game (although I may know everything there is to know on the subject). I play Attack Wing because I can beat most I play with my bizarre but powerful combinations of crew and ships and have only a passing interest in the stories themselves (there is not enough combat in Trek, so “they” are clearly doing it wrong).
I am also a competitive video gamer when I have any spare time (usually between 12am and 6am).
*
Of course, there is a little of all of these in all of us, especially if we have multiple periods and games types we like.
With historical miniatures, I like to create a force (usually in WW2 for example a battalion or equivalent at 1:5 scale), which will play off against a variety of opponents in hypothetical, but historically feasible scenarios. I do not like to play actual campaigns, but rather smaller actions within these. In other words I prefer the experience of playing like a combat leader of the time (#2), rather than the strict simulation of a particular action (#1), but value the spectacle and experience (#2-3) over winning at all costs (#5). I also tend to prefer “clean and clever” rules lite games.
I will not chase an all comers ancients play-off tournament that pits 12th century AD Saxons against Hittites, or two periods of Romans against each other (#5) but am happy to supply the Romans, Germans, Gauls, Britons, Parthians, Numidians and Spanish for a round robin Caesarian game (#1-2).
In Sci Fi, there is just as much need for “historical” accuracy. Maybe even more. The Sci Fi and Fantasy writer is trying to get us to pay into their created world. The Star Trek universe covers over 100 years of change and even divergent “pseudo” universes.
Mess with this too much and it makes little sense very quickly. I cannot roll off the names of all the leaders form Game of Thrones or the entire Federation fleet from the original series, but I know what fits where and how. When it doesn’t, the make believe world falls apart very rapidly, with little to hold it together but shattered belief.
Overall I tend to hover between 2 and 3, with an occasional lean towards 1 (which rarely ends well) and 4 for specific, often contained games such as Canvas Eagles, BB X Wing or board games.
What is interesting to me is how certain games bring out a type in me. X Wing leans me heavily towards 3-4 casual tournament thinking (controlling), while Attack Wing is more 2-3, scenario driven (all of the work I have done to “fix” 1e X Wing compared to the basic stick to faction requirement of my AW games is telling). The game mechanics are nearly identical, but the feel is not.
The one type I am almost never is the #5, which goes back to my role playing days where “rules lawyers” were game or mood breakers. No matter how much I like a game, I cannot let go of my basic desire to story tell, even if it means I do let go of a winning edge.