Musings On... War of the Rings (#13)

Tom Vasel: War of the Ring, by Nexus and Fantasy Flight Games, has certainly made a splash in the gaming world. Yes, it piggybacked part of its success with the blockbuster Lord of the Ring movies, but this was a serious game developed by a trio of designers. War of the Ring attempts to cover almost the entire trilogy of the Lord of the Rings books by J.R.Tolkien, and in my opinion, succeeds on a fantastic level. With thematic elements plastered all throughout the game, I would have a hard time imagining it being rethemed as anything else. Indeed, I could easily imagine all the scenes that happen in our games because the game evoked the theme that strongly. Not only this, but War of the Ring is a lighter wargame with plenty of rules - something I usually shy away from, but in this case I embraced the game with open arms. I stand by my initial statements that this is the definitive Lord of the Rings game, and I expect it to win the IGA two player category of 2005.

Jason Little: I'm not a fan of War of the Ring. My recent attempt at giving War of the Ring another chance is well chronicled by my lengthy review and session report at BoardGameGeek.com, where I'm better known by my login ynnen. I'll summarize my thoughts as best as possible for this blog.

Current War of the Ring Rating: 3.5 / 10

I am convinced that War of the Ring is a game I will never enjoy. It may have a rich theme by virtue of the event cards, but the sheer number of special exceptions, nested conditional requirements for certain actions and the various streams of luck kept me from ever feeling that I was playing the game -- it felt more that the game was playing me, and I was merely a spectator.

I find WotR to be a mish mosh of fairly good (production quality) and very bad (virtually everything else). Very strong theme, excellent looking components (which don't fit neatly on the board, by the way, and make identifying borders and regions nigh impossible). But the complex, arduous gameplay greatly detracts from the experience. I haven't felt so uninvolved and disinterested in my role in a game since playing Tenjo or Risk: Godstorm. Decisions are not very compelling or clear, the exception-riddled rules are confounding, and the gameplay bogs down into a herky-jerky pace that really squeezes any enjoyment out of this.

While I can appreciate that different choices can have a significant impact, I felt that at several times, there were no obviously "good" choices to choose among, while at other times, there was no way for me to evaluate the value/worth of a given action/choice at a particular time. The order of performing actions eluded me, the investment in actions/turns to activate and maneuver certain troops seemed inefficient compared to other options (despite other options seeming equally unappealing), and many of my personal goals seemed incompatible with the event cards and action dice available to me.

If the entire gameplay experience (setup, teaching another player, actual game time, clean up) took 1.5 hours or thereabouts, these issues wouldn't have as negative an impact on my perception of the game. But given the amount of time involved (3+ hours for my 3rd game), these issues were magnified, and ultimately the payoff does not match up with the investment.

Ian Mackey: Well here goes my first musing...First of all, I enjoy this game immensely, but it is certainly a game for me that has its time and its place. One of the most interesting things to me about this game is the intensity of opinions formed over it. Initially there was very high interest and hype and the subsequent shilling and shill-busters that were taking up a lot of bandwidth amongst the discussions. The thrust of my musing goes to what explains the diversity of opinions on this particular game, can we attribute it all to people caught up in the hype, and those who might seek to look for chinks in the armor of any game with a large degree of hype surrounding it?

Well I have theory to throw into the pot. It is not the aha single explanation, perhaps only a factor. I believe that for War of the Ring, we have a much wider group of people offering opinions than for a lot of recent games. Different gamers have different interests, some gamers share the same interests, some have no common ground and every thing in between. Two of the largest camps that participate in certain forums happen to be the 'Euro' camp and the wargaming camp. Long has the search for the holy grail of cross-over hits, the game that all people in both of these camps can love and cherish and could serve as common ground, or at least a game both agree is a 10 or something close to that anyways.

With a large pre-release hype, there were some that hopes that WOTR could be that cross-over hit. If you create an x/y quadrant grid with the wargaming camp on the x-axis and the euros on the y-axis, a particular gamers participation could be plotted where a wargame-only gamer being found on the extreme bottom-right, and the euro-only gamer on the top left. If you accept the constraint that most active hobby gamers will not in the lower left by virtue of being active (yes there are CCG only gamers, et al...), then you can accept that most gamers wanted to at least take a closer look at WOTR by virtue of the hype of being a cross-over grail game, which means that you have a larger pool of opinions that is typical.

Next, if you accept that games that fall directly in the sweet spot of one of these two camps are only getting a closer look by people from the second camp if they have a certain level of activeness in both camps. Where I am going with this is that, euro-only gamers are not going to have a real strong opinion about Advanced Squad Leader because they either have no interest in trying, or do not feel justified to present an opinion.

I believe that WOTR will earn a good to great rating from people who have strong enjoyment in both of these two major camps. I also believe that there are people who have greater imbalance in their participation in both camps who are at higher likelihood of having a poorer rating. My hypothesis is that for WOTR we had many more people wanting to form an opinion for a game they were unsure about, but took the time to form an opinion.

This is certainly not a scientific opinion, only a musing..., I wonder if it has any validity..
My Rating 8.3

Jason Little: Ian -- I think you're really onto something. This is a keen observation, and one that I can agree with, despite not liking the game myself.

If Eurogamers and Wargamers are two "circles" of gamers, then War of the Ring could very well be one of the best examples of a game that sits firmly in the area of overlap between these two camps -- like the MasterCard logo, that little orange oval formed by the overlapping red and yellow portions.

For folks inside that area of overlap, the game offers enough of each gaming experience type that it fills a niche in a way few other games have. Unfortunately, I also think that's why there are some very vocal detractors of the game -- for players (like myself) a bit too far on one end of the gaming spectrum (for me, Eurogamer over Wargamer), the game blurs the lines, trying too hard to be both, without a solid identity.

Very interesting concept. I'd love to hear what others have to say.

Aaron Fuegi: I think War of the Ring an excellent game and was even a minor playtester for it. However, my one trouble with it is I think the fun of the game is somewhat unbalanced towards Sauron's forces. He gets more dice/actions and basically drives the action everywhere while the Fellowship player must just try to hold out everywhere as long as possible and advance the Ring. I just find their decisions to not be nearly as interesting as Sauron's and losing every battle isn't that fun, either. Of course, this is quite thematic except that Tolkien wisely only showed us the battles where the Fellowship side won and had all the others (pretty much every one of which was lost or at best holding out just long enough for the Ring to be destroyed) more in the background. Here that can't be done so things feel somewhat dreary for me as the Fellowship player.

Also, although as a game mechanic it works fine, the sacrificing of the Fellowship members (characters who I, as a lover of the books, care about) one after another is kind of painful. I just overall find myself enjoying the game, win or lose, much more when playing Sauron.

Steve Hope: I'm a playtester for the expansion, but I don't think that prevents me from chiming in...

I think the reason WOTR gets such positive/negative reviews is because of its theme. On the positive side, many people feel (as I do, and I think Tom does) that the game is a brilliant attempt to capture Tolkien's world and present it in a game which actually gives the players enough latitude to feel like they're playing a game, while always preserving the flavor of Middle Earth and feeling true to the source material. The game gets a significant boost to its enjoyment factor for me (and I'm sure for many others) because I relate so closely to the characters and events. If someone presented a similar quality game to me, but it was based on a world I was less familiar with (the Eddings world? the Jordan world? Shannara?), I think I'd feel like it was a decent game but had nothing to grab me.

On the negative side, the theme drags people in who wouldn't otherwise be interested in a game of its kind, and some of them recoil in horror at the way the game plays (whether too fiddly, too slow, too simple a battle mechanic, etc.)--which is made ten times worse because it's JRRT's story which has been adapted in a way that they don't like. "They ruined my story!" Also, there are the people who want to emphasize that it's NOT that great a game at its core (i.e. not one of the best 5-10 games ever designed), denuded of its theme, and that the theme has unfairly pushed it among its betters as a pure game design.

The first group of people are just different from me, and luckily there's a huge variety of games out there for them to choose from, LotR and otherwise. The second group raise an interesting issue--is it fair to try and judge a game strictly on the quality of its mechanics apart from the overall gameplay experience?

I don't think there's much value to be gained there, because so much of the design is geared to the constraints of the fantasy world it is set in and the real world where it is sold. As a design accomplishment, is Go more impressive than WotR? I don't really know. Go is obviously an incredible game based on a very simple rule set. It could have been thought up in 10 minutes and had its more tangled issues (ko and so forth) resolved over several weeks of play. WotR was designed to fit very tight constraints--the game has to last X amount of time, replicate this story to a significant degree but still create strategic options for the players, etc. Go is like E=MC2 and WotR is like sending a man to the moon--the first is a brilliant flash of inspiration and the second is an amazing product of engineering. As an aside, I think perhaps the most impressive thing to me about WotR is that in a year of heavy playing and discussion on the internet there has been little consensus about the "best" strategy to employ in the game, with only the "early Aragorn" strategy being one that is well-regarded and wouldn't necessarily be intuitive to a first-time player.

Veering off-topic here. To get back on point, I think the probable source of the game's polarizing effect is not the Euro/wargame blend (does Wallenstein have similarly vocal advocates/detractors?), but the fact that the game treads on ground that is sacred to much of geekdom. It's easy to not have an opinion about the guy who moves in at the end of the street. It's a lot harder when he moves into your house.

My rating: 9 out of 10

Ian Mackey: Steve - I can support your statement about treading on sacred ground creating a tougher critic, but I am not sure I can attribute that as being the only source for strong negative reactions. The fact that it is sacred ground would motivate those negatively impressed to share their views.

I am not a diehard Tolkien fan, but I do know a few and have played the game to our mutual enjoyment; just a couple of data points I know. A very common complaint I have heard is about the extraordinary amount of setup time required before the game can begin. To me, this complaint I can characterize as typically from a player who is very used to getting the board for a euro set up, ready to go in 3 minutes or so. I do not believe that this would be a complaint I would expect to hear from a diehard wargamer. In your example of Wallenstein, which is also certainly in the in-between space, a game can be set up certainly in less than half the time for an unpainted WOTR game.

This brings up another potential source of difference between the wargamer and the eurogamer... being the tolerance/enjoyment of 'chrome' in a game. Traditionally some wargamers gets a lot of satisfaction from game elements that help represent the historical accuracy of events coming up during gameplay even to the extent that the additional burden on rules length, situational ambiguity overcome by post-release errata are an expected part of the hobby. In the case of WOTR, this historical accuracy can translate to a parallel of a well understood and documented content-rich work of fiction. I would contend that an intolerance for chrome could create a tough critic from the viewpoint of a euro-focused gamer.

Now amongst some of the reasons why this title does rate highly for me on a personal note:
• this is a 'chrome' game that I can bring out from time to time without making a significant time re-investment to relearn the rules.
• the movie trilogy offers a very high visual relationship to the game on top of the literature. I can imgaine in rich detail the retreat into stronghold siege warfare.
• an appreciation of the dedication of the pre-release efforts that went into such a game that is new evidently would be held under such scrutiny
• nostalgic remembrance and re-introduction to a past hobby of miniature painting. Some may see the ambiguity of the good forces as a negative, on a personal note, it was the desire for clarity that brought back days as a teen painting scores of lead figurines.
• the appeal to the would be 'amateur designer' in me. I love the Sauron dice mechanic for the hunt, the partially known position of the fellowship, the fight for control over tiles targetting the entry into Mordor.
In summary, I believe there are many possible factors, and the fact that no one can really point to a definitive proof allows for the existence of multiple sources. I do acknowledge that there are many flaws that are in the game, such as physical region/unit size limitations and the like, but for what this game offers to me, I would not consider removing it from my collection. This leads me to another potential source of evaluative angst...

How do I rate this game? I consider myself more in the euro camp and the defacto scale is the BGG scale. Well the BGG scale tells me that if I want to rate WOTR an 8 or mote, I will never turn down a game... Well that is not going to fly, there are many reasons for me not to not bring this one on the table:

- I don't believe my opponent will enjoy themselves and would rather suggest an alternative we both will like
- I feel like something more social or dynamic right now
- I don't have the time right now - could go on...

If I deviate from the defacto scale, how can anyone else know how to interpret my rating..., but there are really distinctive things about this game that make it very meaningful for me. In the end, I decided to leave the defacto scale and substitute my own seat of the pants rating scale. If I had to take my game collection and order them in importance to me, how would they stack up? In this scenario, I tried to rank in relative terms of importance my enjoyment of other games in my collection. In this case an 8.3.

Seth Owen: For all practical purposes, War of the Ring is a historical wargame, never mind that the events depicted are fictional. Tolkien's world is so richly detailed and "sourced" that it compares favorably with the historical record we have some many eras of ancient warfare. On the other hand, it has many of the attributes of eurogames, particularly the high production values, neat "bits" and simple underlying game routines (no CRTS, etc.) As such I think it illustrates the fault lines between eurogamers and wargamers that sometimes make me wonder if ever the twain shall meet. As a wargame, WOTR is quite an achievement, managing amazing fidelity to the original sources while providing strategic choices. Most of the complaints against WOTR that I have read seem to be the generic complaints nearly all wargames get. To most eurogamers "chrome" is a distraction. To wargamers it's a vital part of the experience. To me one of the most interesting things that has happened with WOTR is the vigorous debate over game strategy. I don't think anything like that has happened since the early days of Avalon Hill, when everybody was playing the same handful of games. While those early AH games such as Afrika Korps, Stalingrad, Midway, Waterloo and Battle of the Bulge often left something to be desired as games, they were examined in considerable detail, and they have an extensive strategic "literature." The flood of wargames that started in the 1970s had many positive aspects, but it also means that very few wargames since then have been played enough by a large enough number of people to have had an examination in any depth. It's refreshing to see a "historical" wargame provoke this level of interest and debate.

Steve Hope: Ian--no need to apologize at all!

I agree that much of the negative reaction from people to the game comes from eurogamers who venture into more wargamey territory and find the game "inelegant" or "fiddly" or "too long" or whatever. As you say, the reason for the DEPTH of the reaction (i.e. why people feel the need to vent against the game rather than simply dismiss it as one they don't like and move on) is probably some combination of the much-beloved theme and the fact that the game IS so highly rated.

Seth--I am 100% in agreement that I'm surprised at how strategically robust the game seems to be. With people like Alex Rockwell turning their analytical minds to the game, it's surprising to me that there hasn't been a consensus "best" opening which has developed in the game. It could be that the event cards have such an impact on plans that you can't sketch out an opening strategy without so many caveats that it's not worth your while.

I also agree with Aaron regarding the Shadow vs. FP issue. The friend I usually play WotR with doesn't like playing the FP and feels like he only has enough "going on" when he plays the Shadow. I don't get this feeling to the same extent, but it's certainly true that there just isn't that much to the "war" part of the game as the FP--you might go through a whole game moving less than 10 armies.

Richard Young: At the risk of repeating what I have already shared on the Geek, I believe this to be a towering achievement! I have always been a solid JRRT fan, but not a rabid fanatic. Let's just say that I'm pretty familiar with the back-story. The captured imagination that goes with being a fan can be an advantage and an impediment. Renderings of the Middle Earth universe, in whatever form, runs the risk of offending what the imagination has created in each of our minds. So, my impressions come with that as backdrop. Overall, this game satisfies everything I imagine a game on this theme should be, after many other earlier disappointments. In some ways it reminds me of the 1977 SPI release of the same name, but this is so very much better in all respects.

First the map board: mounted (hello GMT) and absolutely beautiful. It is what my mind sees when I recall The Map. I will grant all the criticisms it alone has garnered in terms of markings, borders, size of areas, etc.; but, as far as I'm concerned, it all still works. It wouldn't be The Map and answer some of the critiques without being, say, twice as large as it is. It already stretches the capability of my dining room table. I find the unit replacement counters work just fine, and I like them better than the tiny poker chips employed by Axis and Allies. As for the markings, and border areas, colors and so on...it only took a couple of playings before that became second nature.

The Figs: I love them...even the Nazgul! Especially the "pewter" ones. I don't find them to be indistinguishable at all, I don't feel I have to paint even the bases (I'm not into painting miniatures), and, again, one playing was all I needed to be happily familiar with all of them. Once the figs have been sorted and bagged, along with the other bits, I'm rubbing my hands together in anticipation...

The Setup: I don't find it a particular burden. Wallenstein has been mentioned by way of comparison, and frankly, I still struggle more with the pre-drawn setup for the different player numbers in that than I do with WotR. Besides, WotR is an epic and setting up for it should feel like you are getting ready for just that! Gamers are great for coming up with helpful player aids...they are out there...get one that works for you if that's what you feel you need.

The Cards: Event/Battle card design is a separate discussion in itself. It is not an easy task to design these sorts of decks without drawing a lot of criticism but as far as I'm concerned, the decks in this game are as well done as anywhere I've seen. Along with the dice, they help shape and drive the action and, in general, do what these things do best which is to force players to think strategically rather than just manage an operational level war game. Moreover, they aid, as do all the other components, in capturing and maintaining the theme. I do wish that a slightly larger font could have been chosen for the cards however (note point three of my intro).

The Play: Is the thing! I had initial concern that the game would quickly end up playing you rather than the other way around. There are enough games out there that, once the voyage of discovery has been sailed, end up largely playing themselves. History of the World, played by a number of equally experienced players, is just one example. Detailed discussions of strategy and tactics I will pass over for now, but after playing this game a fair bit, I come away with even more admiration for the thought, effort and design subtlety that results in leading the player to follow the story arc. A seamless and rewarding blend of a character game with an strategic/operational level war game, the task of managing your dice, cards, and resources (characters and forces) to do what you soon learn you have to do still provides an fully satisfying array of decisions and moments of tension and suspense.

It remains my favorite two-player game and has the highest rating I've given a game to date (9). Thanks for reading this far.

Sean McCarthy: Well, I better start by saying that War of the Ring has been my favorite game since about two months after it came out. Throughout this time, I've enjoyed playing it repeatedly, and indeed have also signed up to playtest the expansion (which I have also enjoyed immensely).

Coming a bit late to the conversation, I think many of the relevant points have already been covered. I just want to say a bit about theme in War of the Ring, and why it's a good story-telling game.

I think War of the Ring has a great balance between forcing people to follow the story, and giving players freedom of strategic choice. It doesn't, in fact, force much of anything. here are the mandatory "choices":

1. The Fellowship needs to bring the ring to mount doom.

2. The Shadow needs to corrupt the Fellowship and conquer Free Peoples nations.

3. Both sides need to bring their great leaders - Gandalf the White, Saruman and the Witch-King - into play.

That's really it - just a couple requirements set forth by the victory conditions and some bonus action dice. You're not forced to do anything else, though it often makes strategic sense to do things that happened in the story. Minas Tirith is an excellent location to conquer, not because the rules say so, but because it's strategically located.

Throughout the game, there are many situations where it makes sense to follow a similar path as the forces in the book, but it's not because the designers want to give you brownie points for replicating the story - it's because the designers have replicated the situation that decisions in the story were based on. Anyone who has tried to make a game based on a story should know that this is a pretty big accomplishment.

Another commendable aspect of the game is the restraint the designers showed when it comes to special abilities. I swear, if I had made the game, there would be different figures for each Free Peoples leader - Faramir, Eowyn, Cirdan etc. - and each of them would have a unique special ability.

Instead, the game as printed has a marvelous sense of perspective. In the books, the story was experienced by hobbits, and so the individual people around them took on great significance, while far-off wars were ignored. In War of the Ring, it's a much more epic point of view, and everything is on a different scale.

Look, you can see all of Middle-Earth from up here. Over there is Gondor, and here is Thranduil's Woodland Realm. Both are woefully under-defended. See here - it's the Fellowship! Can you tell which one is Boromir? I can't. He's one of those three, but honestly he looks just like Legolas and Gimli from up here. In the grand scheme of things, it's pretty irrelevant, isn't it?

Indeed it is, and that's what I mean by restraint on the part of the designers - the level of detail is appropriate. There are only two kinds of troops - regular and elite. All the wonderful qualities of our heroes are represented by a simple "1 leadership". In my opinion, this game has just enough rules to fit the story and situation, with hardly any unnecessary chrome

.

David: The strength of War of the Ring, for me, is its ability to play out the "what if"s of Tolkein. What if Boromir had returned to Minas Tirith in time to aid his father? What if Frodo hadn't broken the fellowship? What if Gondor had come to Rohan's aid instead of the other way around? Since this fictional world has meaning for me, it adds gravitas and storytelling to the games. Only the most "pure" gamer would say that theme has no impact on a game. This kind of thinking is an anathema to wargamers, otherwise you'd see very-well-designed games about the Crimean War outselling run-of-the-mill WWII and American Civil War games. It doesn't make sense to me either. Theme matters. If you don't like the theme of this game, then you should expect to have less fun relative to the most vocal fans.

In general I avoid Licensed products like the plague. Coming from a computer-gaming background, it's been drilled into me time and again that licensed EQUALS shoddy. I only gave War of the Ring a look after much research and review-reading.

I've played the game about 30 times now. I think I mainly got invited to this party on the strength of my frequency-of-posting to the BGG WotR Forums. I'm still climbing up the learning curve. And not in a derogatory, "I can't read the cards they're too *#*&! small" kind of way, but in a "the possibilities are endless!" kind of way. Still certain patterns are appearing often enough that I no longer have to thrash through them every time. Occasionally, though, I fall "out of book" and have to think with my forebrain. Like the time my buddy failed in all his seiges, but had corrupted the pants off the fellowship on its final approach to Mordor. The FP had nothing left to muster, so it was only a matter of time, but it was going to be a LONG time: the SP barely had any military units left on the board. As Frodo I could go to Mordor with high corruption, or I could backtrack to Dale, heal up for a few turns, and then try a suicidal dash. Neither was a very good option, but I just didn't know how much time I'd have to work with. The SP only had four of his ten victory points, on turn 12 or so! George Bush would call that a "tough decision", and I had to mull it for a long time. Then well I recalled the feeling of when I was a new player, agonizing about splitting members off the fellowship. I had to make decisions without an accurate mental model of the ramifications, and frankly if you're having that feeling on the 15th play of a game, the game is doing something RIGHT.

It seems every time I play this game, I want to play it two more times to explore the options we could have taken if we'd made different choices.

The game doesn't appeal to many people I play games with. Some are put off by the rules. Others by the theme. Others by the time it takes. However, the people that like it tend to really like it. And really you only need to find one other person in that category, and you're set for some serious fun.

Thomas Eager: I consider WotR to be one of the "pearls" of my collection; it's a gorgeous game I like a lot and will play almost anytime. That said, I must acknowledge that I AM a Tolkien fan, and as such have played just about every game that deals with Middle Earth, from SPI's War of The Ring to the dreadful Hobbit. Part of the reason that I like WotR so much is that, FINALLY, here is a game that gets it right.

The designers have done an outstanding job of realizing the nuances and major "historical" events of the Trilogy. Probably my favorite aspect of the game is the remarkable way the event cards allow players to create a new story with each play! I've had games as the FP where Aragorn led a glorious charge through Orthanc and the rest of Isengard and up to Moria, culminating in a Free Peoples' military victory, and I've also had games where an uncrowned Strider spent the whole game drunk in Bree! Since players will likely use most of the Event Cards for their combat effects, those cards played as Events usually have a significant impact on the game, and consequently serve to craft and mold the "story" of that game.

Complaints about excessive "fiddly-ness" or complexity, frankly I just don't understand (or agree with). As a grognard of the "old school" (cut my teeth on Afrika Korps and its ilk), I'm used to games of grievous complexity and endless exceptions, neither of which are present in the relatively simple rules of WotR IMO. The game is fairly deep, though, and will require a couple of plays to get all the mechanics meshing smoothly, as well as attaining a good grasp of how best to utilize one's Action Dice. One quibble I have (which is likely adding to some peoples' confusion) is the quite unnecessary inclusion of the "Basic" game rules. The "basic" game is so different that I don't think it really helps players grasp the diverse mechanics of the Advanced Game.

I also do not agree with comments stating that the FP has few choices with regards to gameplay--it might seem that way after just a few plays, especially if the FP player has utilized the so-called "Fellowship Blitz" to ride hell-bent for Mordor. But my advice for players seeking a Free Peoples' military victory is to recall the adage of Robert E. Lee--"The best defense is a good offense." Consider abandoning "surrounded" strongholds (such as Lorien) and counterstriking with your still-intact army--after all, the shadow needs 10 points of strongholds to win--the Free Peoples only need 4. If the Shadow player has left his stronghold thinly defended--charge down and grab it! Moria and Dol Guldur are the most obvious targets, but as the FP, I have also seized Orthanc, Minas Morgul and Mount Gundabad. It CAN be done, I assure you.

I think Steve makes a great point that WotR has provoked such hostility because of theme--the designers are treading on "sacred ground" in a sense. But as someone who has literally searched for decades for a great game with a Middle Earth theme, I feel comfortable saying that WotR IS that game--THIS is the one I've been waiting for!

D.W. Tripp: This discussion sure sounds like what I read on BGG. WOTR does create a fissure in gaming circles. I'm somewhat with Ynnen on this game. I've tried it three times, and it left me wanting less, not more. My personal tastes in games are such that WOTR seemed destined to be on my playlist regularly. It's not about length, it's not about set-up time, it's not even about the klutzy mechanics... shifting from card effects to dice rolling and such. I could even get past the fact that the miniatures are hard to distinguish, tend to fall over and are a nuisance to keep track of.

What I can't seem to get past is how difficult it is for me to wrap my limited mental resources around what I'm supposed to do next. On top of the bull-in-a-china-shop feel I get from the miniatures spread everywhere is the annoyance of the small print on the cards. Do I really need to buy one of those Owl magnifiers they sell on TV in order to play a game?

Having read detailed reviews that praise WOTR I can understand why some people tout this one as the best. But to me nothing seems to flow about the game. Since I internally relate games to other interests, such as cars and motorcycles, I get the same feel about WOTR as I do about the SUV that Porsche makes... the Cayenne. Great label, great engine, great features, great finish, great, great, great! But a family SUV? Made by Porsche?

Why?

If you can afford a Cayenne then I'm guessing you can buy a real Porsche and a Dodge Caravan. Why muddy the waters with something that tries to be two things and ends up being neither? That's WOTR to me. A top quality game, obviously crafted by skilled designers and based on a popular theme. But it's not a game that in my thinking has a distinct genre... it doesn't stand out as a TYPE of game. WOTR is more like art that is cliquey, if you have to ask what's so great about it then you'll probably never understand.

FWIW, I also played the LOTR Risk game three times... the Trilogy Edition. It's definitely NOT as well done a product as WOTR, I'll concede that. But it plays faster, makes more sense and left me feeling like I had played a game rather than wrassled with an angry bear.

Andy Daglish: War of the Ring is a great classic game. They don't come along very often. The last one was Wilderness War, and its sales were poor until recently. They are easily recognisable even at the playtest kit stage, even if they've got more holes in them than a horse trader's mule. So no hype.

This was the first test of mine where every problem could be illustrated by an example from the past. Testing this game wasn't a very popular activity, which surprised me, whereas just about everyone turned up for the expansion test. A problem with great classic games may be that to some degree they require great classic players, lest the game, that inanimate cardboard and plastic construct, proves itself to be the dominant force in the games room.

The early Aragorn strategy we missed, except perhaps when accumulated Fellowship moves and events, combined with a Will, led to sudden crowning in Dol Amroth. However I have doubts that it is any good. There is a strong temptation to separate Gandalf early too, depriving the Fellowship even more. This is the game where the SA's nerve is regularly tested by a Fellowship in Lorien before his military conquest is apparently underway. However after that the FP Ring and Military games can fall apart rapidly.

The "hidden hobbit" or Fellowship Starting Point technique is questionable. It doesn't much matter whether Sauron knows where they are or not, since better knowledge would not confer greater powers to his Ring game. Carrying over movement of the FSP between turns merely allows it to scoot out of trouble, or into safe havens, along with the aforementioned boosted separation of companions. The design brilliance lies in the indirectness of Sauron's ability to set about the Fellowship. The SA player gets the impression that Sauron doesn't really know if the Ring is extant at all, nor what is intended for it. He just suspects strongly -- perhaps more on some turns than others! Thus the bane of previous Tolkien games is defeated.

Richard Young: Looking at the views expressed so far, it looks like the game has attracted some solid support. I hope that the reasons for this are evident enough to convince readers that we're not just fanboys. Still, I can't help musing on the impact the theme had on our opinions. I, for one, was willing to forgive aspects that have drawn sharp criticism from others because the design choices that were being critiqued, as I saw them, simply helped to support the theme. So, it is easier to forgive (or submerge) "little" things when the total package just seems so right.

I think a number of us may have been wondering how our fanhood affected our impressions. If I disliked the whole Middle Earth thing, would I be as easy on some of the niggling annoyances, most particularly the font on the cards? Or, on trying to fit a bunch of figs into some tiny space and also keep track of whether it was important for combat or victory point purposes? The whole design leads us roughly along the story arc of the trilogy. Knowing the story certainly helps the player accept where he is being led...but what if you don't know, or care, about the story?

Personally, I think the game design is robust and satisfying and simply benefits from having such strong thematic elements. In fact, I think the best games are those that have both strong design and theme. El Grande is generally credited with having a lot of good design hooks. Where it falls down for me is that most of them don't support the theme. Okay, I've read the design blurb and have a general idea of the timeframe and nature of the struggle in Spain that is supposedly being represented, but as I play the game I'm not being reminded of any of it. Same goes for Wallenstein. If you are going to do the Thirty Years War, shouldn't you try to have the game's timeframe roughly match the premise? A lot of "pretty good" games lack that certain something that compels you to be playing. It is why I prefer playing Settlers of the Stone Age to the original. As well as being a lot less random, it has a story to tell that you relate to as you play.

There are scarcely any hooks in WotR that don't contribute to both gameplay and theme in some way, from the use of the dice and cards, how combat works, the play of the individual leaders/characters, through to the way victory is defined. As you play, the story is unfolding. It's pretty hard to miss. Frankly, you are probably better off never having read the story than having been bored by it, because you are going to be re-living it in this game!

As for me, I enjoyed reading the story and now playing the story back through this game. Few others have done such a superb job of melding story and game together. As much as I admire and enjoy playing the board game rendering of Dune and believe it fairly captured the essence the book, I have to admit that this game does everything that game did but a great deal better!

Jason Little: A few things I have seen posted from time to time about War of the Ring seem puzzlesome to me.

First are comments which seem to mirror Bubslug's observations that predisposition to the theme seems to create a willingness to overlook issues with the game -- be they mechanical (clunky mechanics) or physical (clunky components/font size). I agree that a strong theme can have a favorable impact and allow players to look past blemishes to enjoy the "spirit" of a game.

In a way, this is why some games still hold a strong nostalgia rating for me, even though I know in my heart of hearts that the game is not nearly as good as I remember from my youth (Talisman, Castle of Magic). But since I have such fond memories of these games, and I desperately want to still enjoy them and keep those memories evergreen, it's incredibly difficult for me to offer unbiased feedback, let alone concede some of the problems that exist with the games -- after all, they're my babies... I don't want anyone saying anything bad about them! While it's not wholly apples to apples, I think a bit of this nostalgia factor applies, since so many people have a strong attachment to the Tolkein fiction.

On the other hand, I'm a bit surprised by comments which seem to pass off some of these blemishes and (what I perceive to be) flaws as actual innovations and brilliant design achievements. It's one thing to have your perception altered by an eagerness to embrace a theme (or in my case, clinging to nostalgia) but I think there comes a point where this can lead the player to lose objectivity, and thereby make it difficult for new or prospective players to get a real sense of what the gameplay experience offers -- or what quirks/oddities the game may include which could affect someone's purchase decision.

Not to pick on Andy, but his comment in a previous post is a good example of the sort of comment that catches me off guard:

The design brilliance lies in the indirectness of Sauron's ability to set about the Fellowship

To the casual reader, this sounds like a clever innovation. But rather than design brilliance, my personal experience was otherwise. After playing the game, my admittedly biased translation of this comment would be:

The design problem is the inability of the Sauron player to directly set about the Fellowship

A number of players see this element as a challenge to overcome or a nuance to explore strategically, while other players see this as a limitation preventing them from pursuing gameplay strategies that seem sensible. A truly objective evaluation might end up being something more like this:

The design structure limits the ability of the Sauron player to directly affect the Fellowship

... My point? I guess the bottom line is that since War of the Ring generates such fanfare and has attracted a healthy, vocal fanbase, I think it's becoming more and more difficult to find objective and balanced content about the game, which I believe is just as important to the potential gamer.

Andy Daglish: Theme has always been a problem in American game criticism because they think it somehow matters, as if it is an integral part of the design. European designers treat it as something of a joke. Martin Wallace never actually played Secrets of the Tombs, but he did get around $10,000 in advance for designing it, his proof that he never took its crappiness seriously. We and they, the true professionals, don't forgive design failures because firstly they are failures and secondly because they are obvious in play, and how could they not be? Whether some players are looking past it or genuinely are unable to spot the problems doesn't matter, as it results in the same thing. Thus naughty old Knizia has learnt to publish everything, even Stephensons Rocket.

I have little or no interest in Prof. Tolkien, or his works, and especially not in the wake of the films, and its certainly not his fiction that he would have liked to have been remembered for. He died just before the potential value of LotR began to be realised. I imagine a curmudgeonly old bugger who was far too intelligent not to dislike analogy, at his happiest spouting that elevated combination of Welsh and Finnish he liked to call Elvish on Radio 4. Similarly the genuine themes of his books are rather high-minded, almost sophisticated, and as such have been over-used as the basis of academic coursework. Tolkien did take his fantastical hobby seriously, however, as do we, which may not have been so common in his time.

One reason Jason may be puzzled is that he clearly mixes up his own subjectivity in his first paragraphs with his perceived objectivity later on. It's harder to lose objectivity if you feel that's the only way you can judge the quality of a game's design. The fundamental point of Sauron's hunt for the Ring in the books is that he never considered that his enemies would try to destroy it, at least not until a few seconds before the deed was done. Reproducing that, by a simple method of indirectness, is this game's crowning achievement, and what the rest failed to do and the reason why they don't really work. I think this was actually admitted in the notes of the SPI game.

Turning to Master Tripp's post, I'd hope that here we are in a clique, and not just on Geek Mk. 2. As for the Cayenne, clearly it's supposed to be faster than the similar VW Toureg, the silly Turbo being neither family nor utility in its fuel consumption, but excellent across muddy fields. BBC's Top Gear showed in December that a Murcielago driven by a racing driver could not get away from an Evo VIII, and eventually he spun out trying to.

I think the Lamborghini was red, but does it matter? 

Pierce Ostrander:  I, like Jason, am one of the detractors, but for entirely different reasons. Although I think I understand his reaction… let me explain.

One can catalog all the negative elements of WoTR play: long combined setup / tear down time, long playing time, single scenario, complicated rules, limited number of strategic options in play… or those of production: small type on the cards, difficult to distinguish minis, crowded board surface, difficult to differentiate board marking… but in my view this doesn’t get a the crux of the issue. The problem with War of the Ring (for those who have a problem with it) is that it is, in all the ways meaningful: a war game! After all… the title is not “Euro of the Ring”…

A personal confession: I am a recovering grognard. I played my first AH war game in about 1975, played it again and then never looked back. I spent 20 years as a lifestyle SL/ASL player – at peak, competing in 3 tournaments per year and playing at least once per week. I loved war games, particularly tactical war games. Yes, I said “loved” (past tense). I realize now that I have “come to the light” (a reference for those who view euro-players who turn war gamers as “turning to the dark side”). In the late 90s, I moved to an area of the country where I couldn’t find regular opponents. I got tired of teaching new players. I stopped playing.

Fast forward to 2002… on my way home for Christmas, I decided to pick up a game to bring home and share with the family… a euro game. I’m not even sure how I became aware that they existed. As they say, the rest is history. I now have a cabinet full of the darn things (they keep multiplying), I host a game club with an average attendance of over 20, and attend yet another game club. My wife and I have played games every night for the past 5 nights straight… a new low… or a new high, depending on how you look at it. I’ve converted a number of my friends to the hobby, or at least to an enjoyment of it when they are with Ruth and I after dinner, or sitting at anchor in some quite cove of the Chesapeake with an evening to kill.

Another confession: In retrospect, I realize that WoTR was a watershed for me. Before the game came out, I got caught up in the hype. My wife and I had read the Hobbit and the three volumes of LoTR in the year before the first movie came out and have since had seen all the films. So I guess you could say that we were “into” the theme. When the rules were posted, I downloaded them and set about to master them, before the game even came out. Remember, you are dealing with an ASL player here… one who can still recite the entire sequence of play in every detail from memory. Complication and convoluted-ness was not an issue. I wrote a rules summary. I posted it on the geek. I like writing rules summaries and making player aids… that’s part of the fun!

So, back to WoTR as a watershed… I bought the game; I played it. The first time was a “dry run” with my spouse during our annual Fall sailing trip. It was a rainy day in a slip on Tangier Island and we were down below in the cabin with the fireplace going, WoTR set up on the galley table, two mugs of hot chocolate and the sound of the wind in the rigging. We played a half-dozen turns or so, enough for me to get the feel and flow of the game. I considered it a success; but my wife was put-off. She doesn’t like that many rules and that much complication in her games.

The next play was with Steve, my buddy at the Friday night game club. Steve and I are very fond of each other… we tend to have a really_good_time when we play. This playing of WoTR was no exception. By that time I had the rules down pat, and had developed a plan for explaining the play of the game. Both of us were very impressed with the game (Steve ultimately ended up buying my copy from me…). The theme to mechanics-of-play link is ingenious and superb. I LIKE the interaction of the cards, action dice, and the board play. The way the key characters of the story are incorporated is spot-on. This is a moment of genius in game design.

Over the course of the next 5 plays, my enjoyment of the game continued, but diminished. I admit, that yes, I even enjoyed my 6th and final play with yet another Friday night game bud, Alex. We too had a delightful time… but we always do, regardless of the game. By then, I was bored. The game was too long and too repetitive. I was done. It was a fun ride and a good experience. Did I “waste” my $40 (plus all the cash and time I spent preparing and printing player aids)? Heck no! I had a grand old time. But in the process, I realized something…

I was no longer a war gamer. Euros had spoiled me. This was no longer my cup of tea.

As I said at the outset… WoTR is a war game. All of its “weaknesses” are the weaknesses of war games. If you like war games, and you are interested in the theme, you will like WoTR. If you are a Eurogamer, be forewarned… this is not a Eurogame. It is not even a crossover game. It is a wargamer’s wargame.

If you like theme, if you enjoy setting up a “historical” situation and playing it out, if you don’t mind establishing a position and watching it develop ever. so. slowly… then you will enjoy WoTR. There are huge barriers to entry… the rules ARE complicated (compared to the average euro) the combined set-up and tear-down do take a long time, the time to play is long, it is a single scenario that varies only at the margins from play-to-play… but if non of that bothers you, and you want to experience a truly innovative and well-designed war game that captures it’s theme like no other… then WoTR is for you.

Seth Owen: I give WOTR a '10' because I think it succeeds admirably as a wargame and as a game. It succeeds as a wargame because it manages amazing fidelity to its theme, which is always difficult for a 'historical' wargame and doubly so for one on a very well-known subject. A designer tackling an obscure battle has more leeway than one dealing with a popular topic where most players will have already formed strong opinions.

It also succeeds as a game, because the game play is rewarding, full of strategy and drama for the players. Is it the last word in elegant game designs? Probably not. It's extraordinarily difficult for any 'historical' wargame to be a clean, simple and elegant design, because history (and Tolkien's fiction has the detail of real history) is 'messy,' full of unusual events, unforeseeable twists and human frailty. People are much more unpredictable than 'meeples.'


~FIN


And that's all folks! I hope you enjoyed the new style, with some of the best writers about board games contributing. Stay tuned for our next one!

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games"
www.tomvasel.com