Gaming with unpainted models?

[Antonio J Carrasco]

It is an interesting conversation.  There is obviously a large element of visual spectacle in the mini gaming world.  It is interesting though that some consider board games "better games" to the extent that the only appeal of mini games is the visual.

Not exactly "better". They allow for more granularity, for the same level of representation, than miniature games. Miniature games have the distinct advantage of visual impact, over boardgames. I've been gaming both since the 1980s and so far that has been my experience.

Note: Clash of Arms Combat at Sea/Harpoon series is a clear exception to this rule, though. 

It is also interesting that painted figures are a must for some yet other weird visual elements don't bother them.  eg a Napeoleonic infantry battalion of 1000 men is represented by 32 figures and the scale difference between ground scale and figure scale make the entire battle tableau totally unbelievable.  I see many tables with beautifully painted figures and scenery but the scale difference is so jarring to me.  Plus the formations - every unit is a roughly square block, even in line the unit has nowhere near the correct depth and width ratio.  Not only does this impact the visual look but it also makes an attempt at history more difficult as the units interact in ways not possible for the units they represent.
...

Actually, it does bother me, but so far I have been unable to find a perfect answer to that connodrum. I am forced to compromise and accept the scale distortion. I console myself thinking that, at least, the models look nice on the tabletop even if unrealistic. It is not realism what I am looking for in wargames anyway, but rather the opportunity of recreating a narrative, a story, with visually impacting models. Let me explain it in other way; for me a game is kinda like a stage production: you re-create a fantasy, through visuals, sound (you should watch me playing!) and "words" (in a game, the actions of the units in the tabletop); naturally, you need to compromise; you can't, even with the best of intentions, to recreate Agincourt with any degree of realism in a Soho theater, but if done right, with a good cast and a consistent production, then, when King Harry gives his Band of Brothers speech you will feel the thrill of the moment, maybe even will travel in your mind to the day of St Crispin, 1415.

To me, playing with unpainted minis is like a rehearsal. Some moments can be nice, even interesting, but don't communicate the same feelings.

It occurs to me that part of the problem (if it is a problem, of course!) is that some very popular games have put all the emphasis in the competitive part of the gaming experience, relegating the other aspects of the hobby to the background. As I've already explained, when I started I was lucky to join a club, so I had time to start my own collection while, at the same time, I could game with the collections of other members of the club. I remember that when my eldest became interested in W40K, you couldn't participate with unpainted miniatures and that you earned "tournament points" (which affected to your final score) if you got the Best Painted Army award. It was a huge motivator to have your models painted. I think that it was in 2008 or 2009 when GW changed that policy and focused on the competitive part only. If memory doesn't fail me even in the White Dwarf painting articles, the lads at the Studio were asked to dumb down their painting, not to scare the kids out of the hobby. Together with the closing of big shops -and therefore, limiting playing space- it almost killed their side of the wargaming hobby.

I believe that encouraging people to experience the hobby in its totality, i.e. as a gaming and modelling experience, is, on the long term, more rewarding than focusing on just a part of it. Of course, it is just my (very) personal opinion.

[lethallee61]

I'm now currently experiencing one of the downsides of choosing to not play with unpainted miniatures - almost to the point where I've seriously considered giving up the hobby entirely as a consequence.

I used to paint armies with hundreds of figures to a very good standard (I've won a couple of Best Painted Army trophies in my time). Collecting and painting used to be the favourite part of the hobby for me. Nowadays that is no longer possible - age has seriously curtailed my eyesight to the point where painting has become very difficult (even with a magnifying visor). It now takes me so much longer to paint a single miniature. Armies are simply out of the question. If a game has more than a dozen figures - I'm out.

I won't put a miniature on the gaming table unless it's painted to an acceptable level, so a lot of projects I would have jumped at a few years ago are no longer possible, no matter how much I'd love to. I also don't have the sort of income where I can get others to paint figures for me, so I'm left wondering whether it's still worth it at all.

It rankles me sometimes that this hobby always places such a high priority on having beautifully painted miniatures fighting over museum quality terrain. My mates probably wouldn't care if I used unpainted figures, but I do. I've been indoctrinated by the industry to never accept any less.

I sometimes wonder whether I was happier as a teenager in the 1970s playing with unpainted Airfix figures next to cardboard boxes than these days when I can spend almost two f...ing years trying to paint up enough figures and terrain pieces for even a small skirmish game.

So yes - I'd always prefer to play with painted miniatures, but it's looking (at least for me) that those days might finally be over.

[Hammers]

To each his own, but I will not play on a gameboard which is not pretty. A gentleplayer has standards.

[jon_1066]

...

Actually, it does bother me, but so far I have been unable to find a perfect answer to that connodrum. I am forced to compromise and accept the scale distortion. I console myself thinking that, at least, the models look nice on the tabletop even if unrealistic. It is not realism what I am looking for in wargames anyway, but rather the opportunity of recreating a narrative, a story, with visually impacting models. Let me explain it in other way; for me a game is kinda like a stage production: you re-create a fantasy, through visuals, sound (you should watch me playing!) and "words" (in a game, the actions of the units in the tabletop); naturally, you need to compromise; you can't, even with the best of intentions, to recreate Agincourt with any degree of realism in a Soho theater, but if done right, with a good cast and a consistent production, then, when King Harry gives his Band of Brothers speech you will feel the thrill of the moment, maybe even will travel in your mind to the day of St Crispin, 1415.

To me, playing with unpainted minis is like a rehearsal. Some moments can be nice, even interesting, but don't communicate the same feelings.

...

I believe that encouraging people to experience the hobby in its totality, i.e. as a gaming and modelling experience, is, on the long term, more rewarding than focusing on just a part of it. Of course, it is just my (very) personal opinion.

I am all for encouraging people to experience every aspect of the hobby and certainly don't like playing with unpainted stuff but to my mind all the other abstractions involved negate the "must have painted figures" mantra.  What is jarring to one may not effect the immersion or the story aspect for another.  We had great fun as kids playing with army men - just because they weren't painted didn't take away our immersion.  Even early days with Warhammer some epic tales still reverberate to this day from 30 years ago but - gasp - they weren't all painted either.  Now the most jarring aspect for me is the scale dissonance rather than the colour of a models tunic.   I would rather play Chain of Command with unpainted Airfix army men than Bolt Action with an outstandingly painted army.  Kind of like the difference between watching an old B&W war movie such as In Which We Serve than a fabulous looking Pearl Harbor.

[Duncan McDane]

To each his own, but I will not play on a gameboard which is not pretty. A gentleplayer has standards.

I expect my opponents to have been showered and changed their clothes before playing me.
Needless to say, I don't play much 

[Chico]

I do my very best not to play with unpainted figures and try not to use a new army/force until they are painted (Which sadly means I often lose interest in said army for another shiny new force before even using it).

But I have no problems playing against unpainted stuff as I agree any game is better then no game as I don't buy my stuff to sit of shelves but to use when I can.

[Gibby]

To me the most important consideration is who my opponent is going to be. I will try to avoid playing against meta-obsessed tournament types because frankly I am in it for a good laugh and hopefully a good narrative. If my opponent is turning their nose up at my less-than-award-winning painting/scenery then equally I would rather not bother.

[Jemima Fawr]

To me the most important consideration is who my opponent is going to be. I will try to avoid playing against meta-obsessed tournament types because frankly I am in it for a good laugh and hopefully a good narrative. If my opponent is turning their nose up at my less-than-award-winning painting/scenery then equally I would rather not bother.

I must have missed the posts where people criticised the quality of someone's painting or scenery (as opposed to the complete lack of same).

[edited to reflect Gibby's edited comment]

[Arrigo]

There are many interesting viewpoints here, and no, despite some attempts, the thread is not slipping down...

Now in no particular order...

I do my very best not to play with unpainted figures and try not to use a new army/force until they are painted (Which sadly means I often lose interest in said army for another shiny new force before even using it).

I think this observation is cogent, possibly opening another thread but it highlights on of the issues involved (on both sides), personal pleasure vs advertising pressure. I admit I was like Chico, until few years ago I was hit by the realization I was massing and amassing lead/plastic/resin without any real purpose.  I  took a seat (because after moving part of said pile my back was aching...) and come to think about my own wargaming hobby. What is the point of that? Now I try to focus on a single project at time, I even pushed forward several big  projects that were languishing. I also started to cut back new forces, what I can really play with? What really works well on the table? A bit of discipline, and less weakness in front of subtle and not so subtle advertising is extremely important. But then, you will lose interested to the next oh shiny even if they troops are unpainted.

Another element I saw is I play my own painted miniatures, but I do not complain about my opponents troops. I understand it but to me is anathema. Is not just my force, is the whole game that matters to me.  So for me half half is a no go. Did a couple of time in tournaments and it spoiled the whole thing. I don't play in tournaments anymore for this reason (and other too).

Scale distortion. It is one of the issue in miniature games, except in skirmishes. Of course there are way to avoid this. Sometime it is a problem in the rules I tend to avoid rules were scale abstractions are too extreme.  Another  perfectly sensible answer would be... what about playing with smaller scale miniatures, for example. And it would start the usual scale war. Worth to note, that the scale wars seems to contradict  the game at all cost crowds, because the model themselves become more important than the game...    But well this is the XXI century, it is internet, consistency is basically a very very optional rule...

What always leave me baffled, is the painter/modeler vs gamer approach of some people. Not so much here (It is lead adventure after all) but it is something I have seen in some discussion on BGG. There are people who appears to see a big, thick, divide between the two, as they are completely separated hobbies with no point of contact. I started building models and play 'simple' wargames (hex maps) when I was around eight. I saw miniature wargames being played at the same time. At that moment, and still now, to me miniature wargaming  is the contact point between modelling and wargaming. Someone said...

Fighting battles on table tops, with miniature soldiers and model terrain features, is one of the oldest and most exciting of indoor sports. A good war game combines all the strategy of chess, all the fun of model railroading, and all the excitement and challenge of a game of baseball.

Possibly because I have built countless kits (including Revell 1/72 Flower Class...) I do not see the building part as a chore. Actually the building part as made me happier about the whole process. I also prefer working with plastic than metal. But when you finish something like this...







It make me proud.

As for the games themselves... I will not play bolt action with beautifully painted miniatures and awesome terrain, becase I am not interested in it. I am not playing COC with unpainted stuff either. What is the point? I can just take down The Last Hundred Yards, Lock n Load Tactical or maybe ATS, and have a good if not better game experience, with less hassle, and certainly even a better visual experience than bad terrain, and unpainted miniatures. I will not recommend The Last Hundred Yards enough.

[Arrigo]

Note: Clash of Arms Combat at Sea/Harpoon series is a clear exception to this rule, though.

This is an interesting observation. Because the Admiralty Trilogy is sitting straight in the middle. You can think of them of a map based game without a grid but with counters (it has them and the CoA ones were a treat), or a miniature game that can be played also with counter and on graph paper.  It is worth to note that it is so granular that larger scenarios requires appropriate set-ups and not just an umpire, but a team. I have also found that Joe Balkoski Fleet series is much better at that level. Harpoon certainly excels at smaller engagements, and the two other groups (Fear God and Dread Naught and Command at Sea) are also better on specific tactical engagement.

[Jemima Fawr]

Well said Arrigo, but I think your ladybirds are out of scale... 

I've never, ever seen anyone set up a game in a club with unpainted models and it's not something that my personal pride would ever let me consider.  For me, the desire to play a particular period or scenario is what gives me the spur to paint a particular army or unit and it's the completion of that goal (being able to play a scenario with a fully-painted orbat and the associated visual spectacle) that gives me the buzz for the hobby.  It's the complete whole - not one thing or the other.

[jon_1066]

...

As for the games themselves... I will not play bolt action with beautifully painted miniatures and awesome terrain, becase I am not interested in it. I am not playing COC with unpainted stuff either. What is the point? I can just take down The Last Hundred Yards, Lock n Load Tactical or maybe ATS, and have a good if not better game experience, with less hassle, and certainly even a better visual experience than bad terrain, and unpainted miniatures. I will not recommend The Last Hundred Yards enough.

The point is to make a start.  Once you have played that Lock n Load then what? - it goes back on the shelf.  After playing CoC you can go and paint some of the models, add some supports, build a tank, chop up some upholstery foam and make a wood, basically have hobby time outside of face to face games.  It is the starting point.  You guys seem to only play once you are at the end point of two completed sides with enough terrain to cover a 6 by 4 board.  Well that would take me years to reach that point so I can either never play a new period/scale again or compromise on the aesthetic in the mean time.

[Gibby]

I must have missed the posts where people criticised the quality of someone's painting or scenery (as opposed to the complete lack of same).

[edited to reflect Gibby's edited comment]

No, you're quite right. I edited the needlessly inflammatory part out, but would rather have deleted my entire post in hindsight. I was not trying to drag the thread down, but I wasn't exactly staying on topic. My apologies, all.

[Gabbi]

I try to play with fully painted armies (well, warbands - I play almost exclusively skirmish-sized games), but I can field unpainted or partially painted models along the finished ones, while I'm in the process of painting everything.
To keep up with the goal of playing painted I've also lowered my standards. While I would like to be able (and have time and motivation) to paint to higher standards, once my models look fine on the tabletop, I am happy with them.

[Arrigo]

The point is to make a start.  Once you have played that Lock n Load then what- it goes back on the shelf.  After playing CoC you can go and paint some of the models, add some supports, build a tank, chop up some upholstery foam and make a wood, basically have hobby time outside of face to face games.  It is the starting point.  You guys seem to only play once you are at the end point of two completed sides with enough terrain to cover a 6 by 4 board.  Well that would take me years to reach that point so I can either never play a new period/scale again or compromise on the aesthetic in the mean time.

Well each box of LnL Tactical comes with plenty of scenarios, I designed some too... plus it comes down the shelf quite often (even if now will probably often be replaced by Last Hundred Yards).  Said that, it would be quite unwise to assume what people one marginally know do and making assumptions, and then present them more or less like fact. 

What I say is different. If game-play is the thing, there are plenty of off the shelf product that offer good if not better game play (and no dictatorship of the ruler, I found grids much better to regulate movement and less prone to... misunderstanding from competition games...) and certainly a comprehensive graphic package that requires zero effort. But well, before you ask... I have read post of people complaining about the need to remove the counters from their frames... oh well years ago there was a chap on the evil pit complaining that he did not like miniature gaming because of the need to set up and remove the board...

After playing CoC you can go and paint some of the models, add some supports, build a tank, chop up some upholstery foam and make a wood, basically have hobby time outside of face to face games.  It is the starting point.

For you not for me.  As I said I play Chain of Command for the visual aspect, so for me doing it as a work in progress does not hold any interest. Of course this not meant that I can 'at time' (euphemism as every wargamer knows) add some new elements to a specific force.

What me and other are trying to say is that there are many ways to approach the hobby, but we found some a tad baffling. You would be surprised that there are people who play Chain of Command on VASSAL.  On the other hand Antonio started this thread with a very specific example, two player who were not even interested in painting their forces in case they got 'nerfed'.  I would argue that they were not miniature wargamers, not even wargamer, but Flames of War competition players. They could have played with wooden bits with stats on it, if evil Battlefront would have allowed... and that led us back to point 1... why not play a map and counter game?

Actually one thing that always puzzled me is why there is so much hostility between these two categories of wargaming?