Sometimes the YouTube algorithm throws up something really interesting, and last week it suggested that I might find a channel entitled GALEN'S GOT PARKINSONS of interest. I did ... and found a wonderfully eccentric set of videos that I have thoroughly enjoyed watching!
The channel is described as follows:
I started wargaming in the 1960's and love it more than anything. I believe that it is the most amazing and fulfilling hobby. Now I have Parkinson's and things are slowly getting worse, I'll try to share the ups (and downs) of tackling the various fun challenges that I, and others, face. First played D&D in 1978 with 'The Tomb of Horrors' then 'The Giant' trilogy. I bought D&D by accident which is why I tried 'The Tomb' first ... what a mistake that was and I've been making them ever since!
He started wargaming not long after I did, and I have considerable empathy for a fellow long-time wargamer who has an medical condition that isn't going to get better. He still enjoys historical wargaming but is also a very active D&D player with some wonderful Fantasy armies, some of which have been created from original Minifig 'Lord of the Rings' figures.
I find Galen's enthusiasm for his hobby very infectious ... and even Sue has enjoyed watching some of his videos.
A selection of Galen's most recent video output.
Please support GALEN'S GOT PARKINSONS by looking at – and even subscribing – to his YouTube channel.
Galen's video playlist. The Heroes of Gaming one was of particular interest to me.
Well, there's a coincidence, I was watching some of Galen's videos yesterday after he turned up in my Youtube recommended feed. Really interesting and he's so engaging..
ReplyDeleteRed_Cardinal,
DeleteI find his videos endearingly eccentric, and his delivery is wonderfully enthusiastic.
I have a friend who also has Parkinson's Disease but who is not a wargamer. He used to be a fanatical golfer, but can no longer play ... and this has devastated him and - in my opinion - has been one factor in his recent slow mental decline.
Galen has shown that having a hobby like wargaming can still provide the sort of mental stimulation and interest we need to help us cope with life's trials and tribulations.
All the best,
Bob
Funnily enough the YT algorithm presented me with his video yesterday. Needless to say I have subscribed.
ReplyDeleteMike C,
DeleteInteresting. I wonder if this is linked in any way to the recent surge in web bot activity.
All the best,
Bob
This looks interesting, I will check it out.
ReplyDeleteMark Cordone,
DeleteHe has a certain British eccentricity that can be very appealing.
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
ReplyDeleteMy attention was at once engaged by the sight of George Gush's 'Guide to Wargaming'. One of the best introductory books around I thought, complete with rule sets, but I particularly liked the chapter on designing rule sets.
I can't say I went a bundle on his mid-19th Century war game rules, though. Why? Saving rolls. Quel dommage! The most frustratingly annoying mechanic I've ever encountered. With Charles Grant's help, I discovered a better.
The thing with saving rolls is that your 'good shooting' can be horribly undone by saving rolls. In the one game I played (ACW), all through the game I'd be outrolling the enemy in shooting Mainly because I kept getting the numbers of troops in the action), and he outrolled me in dodging the bullets. So, I'd score 8 hits and he'd save 6; He'd score 5 hits and I might get lucky and save a couple. Aaarrgh.
I once went through Don Featherstone's ACW action narrated in his first book. Yep: same story. The Confederates were putting more bullets in the air, and more bullets were landing on their targets, and the Union proved more adept at staying alive and standing.
I think I could design Mr Gush's artillery scatter chart better too.
Nevertheless, the book is a great read. One of the classics - not top 5 maybe, but certainly top 10. Come to think of it, I haven't picked up my copy in years. Must have another look!
The problem I had with the WRG rule sets discussed by Galen Wood was that there were so many variables included in the charts - many that I considered to be of questionable relevance - that even those familiar with the rule sets spent most of the game time with their noses in the rule book or narrowly examining the chart for pluses and minuses for each and every combat. The margin for familiarity with the rule set was frankly discouraging (and that was to suppose one could trust the notoriously flexible memory wargamers possess - I think Phil Barker himself made some comment about that). Were it not that so many people played the WRG Ancients and WW2 rule sets, I would have called them unplayable!
The DB# sets were a breath of fresh air (for mine), though they too have their problematics.
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteGeorge Gush was the founder of the Tunbridge Wells Wargame Society, which organises one of the best small wargames shows in the UK, Cavalier. He certainly can be counted as one of the driving forces behind wargaming in the 1960s, and I think was one of the people who made wargamers aware of wargaming potential of the Renaissance period.
I bought his guide when it was first published and thought that it was a well-written introduction to wargaming. This probably isn't that surprising as George was a senior history lecturer at the local Tertiary Education College.
I also don't like saving throws. The reasoning behind them is that they are supposed to iron-out the extreme results that can occur ... but to my mind, this can be avoided by using better-designed combat mechanisms.
I don't know any wargamers of my generation who have not used WRG rules at some time, but I found the list of factors used to be tedious to use. I want to play wargames, not undertake an evening of mental mathematics!
All the best,
Bob
A month late to this conversation, but I feel like the main excuse for saving throws is to spread out probabilities when using d6s. The next best alternative (IMHO, of course) would be to go very 1960s and set up a die roll vs probability chart for x/36, giving things in a gradation of ~2.8%, or almost half a d20. Using dice other than d6s would help, but not be as accessible.
DeleteRob Dean,
DeleteI’d always prefer to use a D6 based system than one reliant on those that use the Platonic shapes (i.e. D4, D8, D10, D12, and D20).
All the best,
Bob
Oddly enough l was watching him the other day. His videos had just popped up on my feed.
ReplyDeleteTradgardmastare,
DeleteThe YouTube algorithm certainly seems to be doing its job properly ... for once!
All the best,
Bob
Thanks for the heads up Bob... I'll go and have a look. I work for Parkinson's UK so it really strikes home.
ReplyDeleteAlastair,
DeleteCheers! I am pleased to have been of help.
All the best,
Bob
What a great find - thanks for sharing the link Bob.
ReplyDeleteMaudlin Jack Tar,
DeleteI am very pleased that you enjoyed his videos. I find them wonderfully off-the-wall at times, and I wish that I could bottle and sell his enthusiasm.
All the best,
Bob