I recently read an article (can't remember where) that criticised GW's selling strategy for LotR. Basically, the article highlighted how GW sells LotR primarily as a scenario based game, but that, while LotR is good for scenarioes, the vast majority of gamers don't use it that way. I found it very interesting and thought I'd share it here. Now I think about it, GW does seem to focus on the scenarioes when trying to sell LotR. Perhaps they'd have more success if they tried to sell it the way most of us play it.

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings

I don’t think I’d agree with that too much.

SBG really did great as a scenario game and anyone that is a true fan of the books/films but never played the scenarios really missed out on something I think. At the same time though it offered plenty of generic point-match options in the OR rules and LoME book and I’d say 75% of my actual SBG game time has been with those. They journeybooks obviously were very heavily weighted to the scenarios because that’s exactly what they were representing, but that is only three books out of their library. For all the other sourcebooks there are some scenarios but not nearly enough to say it’s where the focus is. I’ve never looked at a 40K book before but I can’t imagine that they are completely void of scenarios to represent the new models being presented and add flavor to the game. If I’m wrong and they are purely background, profiles and painting guides with no scenarios then please correct me. But I can’t see how it could be said they targeted scenarios primarily and that was a factor in their sales. I’ve played many other wargames that offered far fewer options for how to play than SBG did.

As for WotR, there is almost no focus on scenarios. There are a few suggested games that try to represent some of the larger conflicts in the stories but WotR is almost dedicated to using the generic match up generator (roll for objectives, roll for deployment, etc.) with generic point-built armies.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

Fantasy and 40k have twice as many scenarios as WotR in their rulebooks. SBG has a lot more than that, but I don't think it's that they focus on them - rather, the game is better for them. With it being a small-numbers skirmish game, having a storyline and unique aims etc are what makes it more interesting. Try do a 75 model game of just killing each other with WotR and it becomes tedious because you just repeat yourself - do the same with WH or 40k and (because they're squad/regiment games) it won't get anywhere near as tedious (or at least as quickly).

Did you mean WotR here? Because I would have a hard time playing a WotR game with that FEW miniatures, and this sentence fits in with the rest of your post better is you meant SBG.


Fantasy added a whole bunch with this last edition, but standard 40K has 3 objectives and 3 deployment options, each randomly determined separately, exactly the same as WotR.

40k and Warhammer army books do not have scenarios - and the painting guides have been removed from the new books. It's just background and profiles. The rulebooks contain several scenarios, but not really enough to write home about.

The issue i find is that we are slowly edging more and more into:

1, a generation of people with short attention spans and simple minds
2, a hobby supplier that is too focused on the need to raise funds and not to engage gamers
3, a series of games that are becoming too simplified

This is what i see as the problem with GW, when i played 40k last year it went like this:

1, find opponent that has 40k and enough models for an agreeable points match
2, pick a vacant table and randomly place some agreeable scenery on it (ignoring the terrain generator as no-one knew about it)
3, roll a D3 on a table for type of game and then for type of deployment
4, play game
5, pack up from table, pick next opponent, rinse and repeat until done

This led to me only attending on a Tuesday as they were open until 10pm and this meant a wider range of players as it gave them time after work to get there and get a few games in. With these games i often suggested other ideas, like alternative scenarios, deployments and points differences and half of them jumped at the chance, finally something different seemed to be the general view.

If you can see where i am coming from then this will all make sense, often you go to a GW or a gaming club and everyone is playing the same basic game with the same basic list and nothing really changes. I go to have fun, inject a little variety and this is what i think GW are missing out on, the fun and the variety. Sure some, in fact many, people will sit and play the same scenarios over and over but these people i avoid, not as they are bad people but they lack one of the core features of the game for me, variety.

Oh and to those asking, in the present 40k Codexes you get about 30 pages of background (or 'fluff'), about 20 pages of colourful pictures of models and finally about 15 pages of rules and profiles. The rest are the usual contents and legal what not. Can't say much for the WHFB ones but they are not that much different from the few i have seen. Really it is a sad state of affairs as when i started 40k i remember that every Codex had at least one scenario for that army, the main rules gave at least 6 different games and even ideas on how to make your own. Admittedly there is the Battle Missions book but about 75% of those are the same ideas but with one extra Special Rule or different army and a diluted version of Kill Team (the original is a great way to get into the game).

'FireKnife'

ForgottenLore: was talking about SBG

Elland: It has 6 - the different objectives and set-ups are also called scenarios...