Is there a link between number of games and number of different games?

[Whirlwind]

In your experience, is there a relationship (positive or negative) between the number of games a gamer plays and the number of different games that gamer plays?

[OB]

Yes, for me.  I play 5 different games and I think if I only played one I’d get more games in.

OB
http://withob.blogspot.co.uk/

[JozisTinMan]

Yes, when I paired down my number if periods played, my games went up significantly. I spent more time thinking about rules and setting up games than painting another project that would not get used.

http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/

[McKinstry]

I find a balance works for me. A mix of systems keeps it interesting but bouncing around too much requires too much painting and not enough familiarity.

The tree of Life is self pruning.

[MartinR]

We play something different every week. The main influence on how many games get played is making sure we get to the club regularly.

"Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

[Chris Pringle]

Whirlwind wrote:

In your experience, is there a relationship (positive or negative) between the number of games a gamer plays and the number of different games that gamer plays?

Interestingly, I’d say for our group the relationship has worked first in one direction, then in the other.

When three or four of us settled on a core ruleset, focusing on that one game that we liked led to us playing more games. The obvious fun going on in our corner of the club attracted more players to that corner, so our group grew, which meant that there were enough people to guarantee a game every week, which led to us playing even more games.

The fact that we now have a large group of regular players has meant that while it was initially created by a narrowing of focus, it has now enabled more games to be laid on using different rulesets to reflect people’s different interests. Hence I would say most of us are now playing more games than 5 or 6 years ago and more variety.

What started it, though, was finding a core ruleset that the group could coalesce around. I think some important elements were:

• the ruleset appeals to different types of players (the competitors, the historians, those who just enjoy the spectacle, etc);
• the ruleset covers a range of very different wars, so we could play many very different games without having to learn new rules each time;
• we always organize multi-player games, so we have the flexibility to accommodate players who drop in, and if someone drops out then their opponent isn’t left with a wasted evening.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!

https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info

http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk/

[Ivan Sorensen]

From my own experience, we were never really tied to a specific game, trying new things was specifically part of the draw for us.

That being said, I can absolutely empathize with pairing down.
I couldn’t do it with rules, but I always envy the guys who end up doing EVERYTHING in one scale or who just do WW2 or whatever.

[Author]

Posts