Is Wargaming Getting Too Easy?

[joe5mc]

My thoughts: https://therenaissancetroll.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/is-wargaming-getting-too-easy.html

[stone-cold-lead]

I would say it's been getting more accessible rather than easy.

[joe5mc]

I don't think those things are mutually exclusive.

[nic-e]

I think people too often conflate EASY with LAZY.

I have for more fun with a game of ASOBAH or AOS than i did with rogue stars or gurps.

there's always going to be people that want a game where you can roll to see how much gravel your soldiers footfalls displace as they march to the barracks to get ready for orientation But I have a suspicion that these people were always going to be in a minority.
 it just seems more obvious now that the tabletop community is more exposed and people who perhaps wouldn't have considered themselves involved enough to say, join a forum, now can and do engage alongside the gravel botherers.

[levied troop]

Heaven forbid we should make it easy to get into wargaming.  These people need to suffer for their enjoyment 

[stone-cold-lead]

From the blog post it seems that you like:

Undecipherable rules
Having to build a table of terrain (presumably from scratch)
Lots of book keeping
Rolling buckets of dice
Lots of charts and cross referencing
Arithmetic
Having an excuse to practice your calligraphy skills

And don't like:

Tutorial videos
Pre-painted models
Lack of terrain
Stat cards
Custom dice
One box games

It kind of comes across as a little elitist and a bit fuddy duddy. It's exactly what keeps people from getting involved in gaming.

Back around 89/90 when I bought WFB 3rd edition that rule book was a daunting tome for someone who had never played a wargame before. It sat on the shelf for a couple of years because it was a bit too complex an introduction for me and even though I had a fair few figures I still couldn't play it because I didn't have a suitable army of models. The amount of models needed and the cost of that excluded me from the game. There is enjoyment and satisfaction to be had from collecting and painting an army over time but if it's going to take several months to do that before you can even play a game it's going to put people off. Games that enable players to start small and that give the total beginner everything they need are a really good thing (AoS versus WFB for example). It's not that people (these young 'uns) are lazy it's that everyone wants to be able to play without the excessive hard slog that will inevitably kill the passion of many. Gaming doesn't need lots of hurdles.

[Antonio J Carrasco]

I can't agree with you. Games like X-Wing or Armada are just another way to play a wargame. My own take on wargaming has evolved from fantasizing about building gigantic armies to play Waterloo, to a more modest approach: start with skirmish forces for games like Saga, Sharp Practice or Pikeman's Lament. Then they might, if I find the time and nothing else catch my eye, be the base for something bigger. I rather like the amazing range of terrain pieces that I can chose from nowadays. I am not very skilled at building things, but like a good table as much as any wargamer worth his salt. Companies like 4Ground has saved me dozen of hours trying to put together a building that would have been less durable and no doubt uglier.

[Inkpaduta]

Me, I might not like all the changes, but I sure do appreciate painted figures and stat cards.

[Plynkes]

"Is Wargaming Getting Too Easy?"

No. Next question.


Even though it's couched in friendly language and contains some nice "I'm not saying..." and "you are free to..." sorts of phrases, it still feels at heart like yet another iteration of "If you don't do wargaming the way I do wargaming you are doing it wrong", with the added bonus of a nice dollop of Four Yorkshiremen. Kids today, eh?

Me, I prefer trying to find common ground with my fellow gamers over looking for ways to feel superior to them. It's an urge I have to fight sometimes, and I don't always succeed, but at least I do try to fight it.

[Severian]

I think the blog post is actually rather measured and non-exclusivist or elitist, to be honest.

I read it as a plea not to allow the (understandable, and in many ways very positive) proliferation of out-of-the-box gaming to stop people exploring the many other sides of the hobby, particularly those that involve making things and painting things and writing things down. I can't see anything to object to in this.

I have no problem whatever with small-scale games using ready-painted miniatures (though I don't currently play any, but then again I don't do that much gaming of any sort at the moment) but my strong preference, in a world where there were no other calls on my time or energy or enthusiasms, would be for grand scale big battle gaming with lots of hand-made scenery, mostly because big projects are fun, and I like to make things (though I don't do it especially well).

But big projects all take more time and space than I currently have, so it's small-scale stuff for now, or in some cases just painting things I may not use for a while if at all. And I do this because I enjoy it. If others enjoy different things, good for them. It's a hobby, after all. But it's a hobby with lots of different aspects (historical research, painting and making, gaming, collecting, you name it) and it would be a shame if some people weren't aware of some of those aspects.

Judging from the many impressive projects here on the LAF, though, there's a good bit of life in the old-school approach to wargaming. So maybe we needn't be too worried.

[DS615]

Sigh.
There is nothing that needs to change for you, you aren't being forced into anything.
Play the rules you want to, even if <gasp!> the rules aren't the most current or <gasp!> aren't "supported."
If you think 7 hour turns are awesome, then play that.  If you like the multi-paged fold out poster sized "quick" reference sheets, then use them.

Buy what you want. Build what you want.  Play what you want.
Other will do the same thing.

[Connectamabob]

Way I see it, wargaming hasn't been changing, it's just that the space that used to exist between wargaming and boardgaming has been getting gradually filled in, resulting a in a single rich gradient where two formerly separate concepts used to be. The ends are still the same, but there's all kinds of middle that people can walk around on now to find things they like.

I'm generally in favor of this sort of proliferation of options. It's an "everybody gets what they want" situation. The only people who lose are people who's niche is too small for them to find other players, but that scenario would imply that they didn't truly have as many fellow enthusiasts before as they thought, just people who had to settle for lack of what they really wanted. Which still leaves them in the cold, granted, but the terms are fairer than under the previous alternative.

[Sbloom141]

Some unfair criticism of the OP here, what what is essentially an opinion price.

I’m a big lover of X-Wing and simplicity because I can get other people to play with me! It can also be just as narrative as other games, which is always the way I play it, but unfortunately the internet community is mostly obsessed with tournament play so from the outside it looks very one sided.

I grew up writing my own rules for playing solo games mainly because I had second hand copies of hero quest etc which I couldn’t make head nor tail of. I used to really enjoy elaborating on existing rules for board games I owned, and combining them. I’m sure there are kids still doing that sort of thing.

I wouldn’t worry about simplicity interfering with wargaming. Yes, certain designs have ‘tightened’ but in my opinion a more accessible hobby is a healthier hobby and the more complicated options still exist for those that want them.

[joe5mc]

I believe what I wrote, although I think some might be reading a harder stance than I intended.

I don't think anyone one thing I mentioned is a big problem. Internet tutorials can be good. Pre-paints can be good. Out of the box terrain can be good. X-Wing IS good.

My point is that all of these things put together encourage a somewhat cookie-cutter approach to the hobby, and I think that is a bit of shame. I think it would be better to encourage people to dig deep into the hobby and give all of its aspects a try. You may not like them, that's fine. (I don't much care for converting), but unless you give them a fair try, you may never know, and you might be missing out on the great enjoyment that comes from personal creativity.

[Antonio J Carrasco]

I believe what I wrote, although I think some might be reading a harder stance than I intended.

I don't think anyone one thing I mentioned is a big problem. Internet tutorials can be good. Pre-paints can be good. Out of the box terrain can be good. X-Wing IS good.

My point is that all of these things put together encourage a somewhat cookie-cutter approach to the hobby, and I think that is a bit of shame. I think it would be better to encourage people to dig deep into the hobby and give all of its aspects a try. You may not like them, that's fine. (I don't much care for converting), but unless you give them a fair try, you may never know, and you might be missing out on the great enjoyment that comes from personal creativity.

The problem of your point is that it starts with a fallacy: that a "cookie-cutter" approach to start into wargaming precludes encouraging people to dig deeper. That is non-sequituur. A person can start with X-Wing or Wings of Glory and then want to learn more about the dynamics of aerial combat; from there that person can continue digging deeper and follow a more old-school path. The opposite might also be true: people that starts old school and then move on plug-and-play games  such as Armada. You are presuming that only one path can be taken, when the truth is that there are as many approaches to wargaming as wargamers.