Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: Diablo Jon on April 08, 2016, 11:58:37 PM
-
Interesting debate I saw on another wargames forum (which I won't mention because if you go there you've probably seen it). Any way I was interested to see a couple of guys who play historical games feel that fantasy/sci-fi gaming is a different hobby to the one they enjoy.
I remember encountering this sort of thinking back in the mid 80s when a friend and I started frequenting a local well established wargames club were almost everyone played WRG rules those few of us playing Warhammer were seen as a bit odd (not far of the mark to be fair :D) compared to those playing proper historical games between opponents like Vikings and Sea peoples.
I happily play Fantasy, Sci-fi and Historical games and to me it's all the same hobby weather it's rail gun wielding star commandos, Man-ork rhino riders or the 34th royal highland grenadier guards I'm still painting, modeling and playing with model soldiers. Historical gamers sometimes point to the historical research required to play realistic historical wargames but I think that's a little disingenuous to sci-fi and fantasy gamers who can put a lot of effort into the backgrounds and organization of their non historical armies.
I know GW marketing spent years trying to claim Warhammer was a different hobby but back when I was a red shirt the first thing John Stallard did at my staff induction was give me a copy of a Donald Featherstone book on historical gaming to look at. :o
So thoughts are we all one hobby or two different but broadly similar hobbies?
-
My unpopular and old fashioned sweeping generalisation .....
I would have said same hobby as in collecting, painting, modelling, organising and gaming but different play style ethos. Massed armies min/maxed for effect and played at point blank with little tactics (read that as played for fun not any realism).
Until the rise of Bolt Action and to some extent Flames of War, historical games tended to at least try to use historical units and play effects, albeit sometimes at the expense of quick play. The latest trend is that that style of game is outdated and way too complicated so in general yes, they are now almost the same in both hobby and play.
-
My unpopular and old fashioned sweeping generalisation .....
I would have said same hobby as in collecting, painting, modelling, organising and gaming but different play style ethos. Massed armies min/maxed for effect and played at point blank with little tactics (read that as played for fun not any realism).
You can find plenty of that play style in historicals too. It's about the players, not the games.
I think the difference isn't fantasy vs. historicals, but competition vs. camaraderie. If you are playing to win something, then you focus on min/maxing and gaming the rules. If you're just there to push lead around and have fun, then you're going to play more "realistically" because it's more interesting that way.
-
I think if you sum up the similarities and the differences, they're very close, the main differences being the rules (and that has changed, as Queeg pointed out, and need not necesarily be different); and the research required for historicals. Fantasy/scifi aficionadoes can have a freer hand, but those who are modelling to published material (Star Wars, Tolkien etc.) also do research, whilst the historical buffs can foray into what if for a dash of leeway - which is a taken fact, as otherwise each historical battle would have to be played out in the exact manner it took place, leaving no space for strategy - or dice-rolling!
And many cross the inexistent line - some permanently, others regularly in both directions.
And the list of commonalities is stunning - they both:
buy stuff
buy TOO much stuff
have storage problems
complain
clean up models
cut them off sprues (if they have sprues)
injure themselves with modelling knives
go to polyclinics to get themselves stictched up and bandaged
glue bits together
complain about glues
assemble models
make stupid mistakes which they can (eventually) have a laugh about online
make small to massive conversions
scratchbuild
dream about vast plains of scenery
build scenery which they have no place to store, at least not away from dust or cats
undercoat them
complain about the weather
spray paint in their face
basecoat
paint
wash
ink
detail
varnish
clean models after the varnish goes wrong and repaint from start
complain about varnish
make a mess for their partner to complain about
agonise over transporting models
break models
cry over broken models
complain some more
roll dice
roll too many ones
invest in too many rules
play games
lose more battles than they win (I think the wargame god wins most gamesin the end)
store models in boxes, tins, showcases
occasionally try their luck in competitions (modelling or gaming)
bemoan their luck with dice
sell some models (some do anyway)
go through imaginary or very real crises which make them halt their activity temporarily, or occasionally permanently
complain about their deteriorating eyeseight or steadiness of hand
worry about their models' future after they die
produce lists to help their loved ones dispose of their stuff after they die
make sure they have a lead pile which they can never finish in one lifetime, in the hope of extending their lives
write endless online reams of really useful advice or babble (e.g. this list)
take more photos than all the paparazzi in the world combined
use up slightly less online space with their photos of models than cats and porn
complain about how much time they waste online instead of modelling
take on too many projects
are generally good sorts, especially the rustier and crustier ones who are themselves modelled by the hobby
Compared to this ist (which is not exhaustive), the differences are negligible.
-
I think there are two different, but related, branches to Wargaming.
Those who collect and play anything (like me) lol
And those who consider themselves "Historical Gamers" or "Fantasy Gamers" and somehow think they are in separate hobbies to each other(weirdos!) ;)
-
Yup spot on
-
I think there are two different, but related, branches to Wargaming.
Those who collect and play anything (like me) lol
And those who consider themselves "Historical Gamers" or "Fantasy Gamers" and somehow think they are in separate hobbies to each other(weirdos!) ;)
That sums it up!
-
Yeah Sunjester pretty much summed it up.
-
It's all plastic and metal, just in different shapes.
-
Vanvlak has got it spot on in one long and oh so funny list lol, done most of then things myself at one time or another and i game both historic and fantasy.
-
Vanvlak has got it spot on in one long and oh so funny list lol, done most of then things myself at one time or another and i game both historic and fantasy.
Aye it would make a great survey😃
-
I do both: the same way.
I do think there are differences between those with the mindset to primarily compete, those who play, and those who simulate. I haven't given it an ounce of thought but if the 'playing tendency of a gamer' is distributed as a bell curve then the competors and the simulators are surely the outliers. :)
Ps: I regard collecting/accumulating wargaming minis without ever actually gaming them as part of the 'wargaming' hobby: so many gamers have projects that never make it to the tabletop (me included) that actually using them must be a part of rather than the whole of the hobby.
Yeah I know, I drifted OT! :)
-
I'd say the difference is like comparing Rugby Union to Rugby League.
From an outsiders perspective you can see some differences but it's really just all the same. And then on the inside you have varying viewpoints. Some love both games, some can't stand the other game (theme/genre/whatever).
-
Place me squarely in the ‘two facets of the same hobby’ camp. When I first began wargaming with miniatures back in the 1970’s, it was on the fantasy side, with armies from Chivalry & Sorcery and Tekumel. I enjoyed putting a great deal of time and effort into researching, painting, basing, and using appropriate tactics for my miniature armies.
Later on, I switched over to historical miniatures wargaming, with armies of Caesarian Romans, Gauls and Germans. I still enjoy putting a great deal of time and effort into researching, painting, basing, and using appropriate tactics for my miniature armies.
Obviously, one type of wargaming is based on written records of past events and the other is based on fictional settings. But in terms of the hobby-related activities involved, I can see little discernible difference between the two. To me, its all ‘miniatures wargaming,’ an immensely pleasurable leisure-time activity. If that means I am not a ‘proper' historical wargamer, then so be it.
:)
-
From my perspective it is the same hobby. I was collecting & painting Airfix historical figures in the late 60s & early 70s. Then I met some freinds that were into this new game called D&D and I never looked back. Most of the guys I did historical gaming with liked to fill a table with elves & goblins & dwarves once in a while too.
-
I play both, ostensibly. That is, I'm interested in both, but at the moment what I play is largely down to where I play and who I play with. At the mo it's mostly fantasy. And I have to admit, looking at my dusty lead pile, some of the historical armies I started were more about joining in at a historicals club, than being really hooked by the period.
But playing with both types of gamers, I've seen the sneers and ribs. Historical gamers laughing at fantasy gamers with their 'wizards' and 'goblins'. Also fantasy gamers reacting to any suggestion of restraint or subtlety with "why don't you just go play historicals, then?" (Maybe it's something to do with the places I hang out, online and off, but I've heard things like the latter more often than the former. Heard it just a couple of days ago...)
I think that indicates where I am, and how I feel: kinda stuck and pulled between the two genres and opposing viewpoints, and wondering why there has to be as much antagonism between the two basic concepts. I also like fantasy with realistic elements - weapons, armour, anatomy, etc. - and with an established, extensive background that can be explored and applied to miniature armies. (With more or less leeway for interpretation or preference) Like discussing how Tolkien's orcs should look, or looking up the heraldry and livery of Westeros. :) That is, I like fantasy with historical elements.
I guess it could be said that puts me in a third snobbery camp, when I roll my eyes at pauldrons like bathroom sinks and cries of "it's fantasy so anything goes!" But in many cases I think that old chestnut's less 'in defence of fantasy and magic' and more 'in defence of not having to get off me backside and think about it for two minutes'. Though in my defence, I much prefer this old chestnut: "I wouldn't mind so much if there wasn't so much of it about!"
And I still think imagi-nations gamers are fantasy gamers in denial. lol
I think the difference isn't fantasy vs. historicals, but competition vs. camaraderie. If you are playing to win something, then you focus on min/maxing and gaming the rules. If you're just there to push lead around and have fun, then you're going to play more "realistically" because it's more interesting that way.
I don't know if I agree with this. I've heard this kind of thing too often lately, as a weak rationalisation for Age of Sigmar's lack of structure and why points systems, all of a sudden, are an unspeakable evil in the wargaming world. "You liked Warhammer's points - you're a dirty competitive WAACer, not like us friendly AoS guys!"
I don't buy the dichotomy. I don't think 'playing a fluffy/realistic army, pushing lead around, and having fun' and 'playing to win' are mutually exclusive, mostly because they're both how I approach gaming. I love digging into background, and I don't go for min-maxing, meta-gaming, measuring every millimetre or denying my opponent any uncertainty in the game or rules; but I don't play to lose, either!
Maybe I'm getting into third way snobbery again, but if I build an army according to a certain theme or precedent in the setting, I like to try to play it to it's strengths, within the game rules. I think we might be in agreement that that's playing 'realistically'. I enjoy the challenge of manoeuvre, manipulation, and maximisation of my chances on the tabletop - as opposed to the same in listbuilding - even if I'm not particularly good at it. ("Why don't you just go play chess, then?" ;D ) I'm sceptical that 'just pushing lead around'* is the only good, friendly, or - especially - fun way to play.
I know it'd bore me to tears!
* It might depend on your definition, though. Literally lining up figures and pushing them at eachother, trusting to nothing more than dice rolls? Or something more involved?
-
I'm going to go out on a limb and say "yes".
My reason? OK, I do a lot of reading and research for my historical wargaming and get a lot of pleasure in getting things right (as mush as possible) in terms of uniforms etc etc.
I don't think this applies much to sci fi and fantasy with then added caveat tthat some sci fi and fantasy players do make an effort with the 'fluff' and model their armies accordingly.
My main beef is that most, though not all, games I've played against sci fi and fantasy players have been an exercise in maxing out on the army lists and a win at all costs mentality which I simply don't share. It just seems pointless.
I'm not averse to the odd Fantasy game; we had a wonderful Dragon Rampant game over the X-mas hols at the club which was brilliant fun- but then again, Dragon Rampant does not lend itself to maxing out as the lists are very flexible.
My unpopular and old fashioned sweeping generalisation .....
Until the rise of Bolt Action and to some extent Flames of War, historical games tended to at least try to use historical units and play effects, albeit sometimes at the expense of quick play. The latest trend is that that style of game is outdated and way too complicated so in general yes, they are now almost the same in both hobby and play.
And the above- a point very well made.
Darrell.
-
I think some gamers/modelers are definitely very rigid in their own interests. My father, for example loves building models, and games hex-based strategic historical games, etc. While we share a hobby, he and I have little cross-over beyond modeling/painting etc.
He doesn't have any interest in fantastical worlds, and I can't be bothered to push hexes around on a small board. This isn't a bad thing, certain people just aren't interested in other genres.
I'll play Warhammer Quest, The Great War, Lion Rampant, and B-Sieged in a single week. I'm pretty open, as long as the key point of the game is "fun". I don't want to spend 12 hours pushing 6mm Napoleonics across a table. Not that it's not a good game perhaps, but if I don't get to laugh and chuckle and have a good time - it ain't worth playing. I'm not interested in military history replication (some games are more a study of historical engagements, etc.)...but enjoying time with friends.
-
My main beef is that most, though not all, games I've played against sci fi and fantasy players have been an exercise in maxing out on the army lists and a win at all costs mentality which I simply don't share. It just seems pointless.
To be honest I have had that experience many, many, times over the years regarding historical gamers. They can quote the army lists by heart for WRG/WAB/FOG/FOW etc, but have not got a clue about the historical reality of the army they are fielding. Power gamers/rules lawyers exist in all types of gaming.
Within our hobby we have a myriad of different approaches towards wargaming, but to try to divide things along the idea that Sci-fi/Fantasy gamers are different to Historical is nonsense. And where does that put the majority (in my experience) who, like me, play most things.
-
To be honest I have had that experience many, many, times over the years regarding historical gamers. They can quote the army lists by heart for WRG/WAB/FOG/FOW etc, but have not got a clue about the historical reality of the army they are fielding. Power gamers/rules lawyers exist in all types of gaming.
Oh, I agree. It's an across the board problem. I'm amazed me at how little research some historical wargamers do.
Of course, when it comes to things like Ancients we do have to sometimes make huge approximations ;) :)
Darrell.
-
I think there are two different, but related, branches to Wargaming.
Those who collect and play anything (like me) lol
And those who consider themselves "Historical Gamers" or "Fantasy Gamers" and somehow think they are in separate hobbies to each other(weirdos!) ;)
Put another way,
Its the same "Wargaming Hobby" tree but different limbs. And each limb has branches of it's own.
As a SciFi and Fantasy gamer I definitely feel that I'm on a different limb from Historical folks. In addition to the different genre gamed, there's a (varying) degree of holding to what one perceives as "reality" and "Historicity" and an element of research that I'm just not interested in.
Additionally, as someone who prefers narrative gaming over competitive/tournament gaming and fast-play independent games over big-box games with lots of rules I find myself on a different branch than the majority of Sci/Fantasy gamers.
-
Where do we put hybrid stuff such as Gothic horror in a Victorian setting, or Victorian Sci-Fi, or Pulp sci-fi and horror? Some people seem to like mixing historical elements with fantasy and sci-fi elements.
-
Where do we put hybrid stuff such as Gothic horror in a Victorian setting, or Victorian Sci-Fi, or Pulp sci-fi and horror? Some people seem to like mixing historical elements with fantasy and sci-fi elements.
Honestly I drop all that stuff into Sci/Fantasy as well as superhero gaming, Post-apoc, etc... I'm sure there are folks who really try to make their crossover games as close to historicity as possible, but IMHO, most of that is as close to historical as Hollywood King Arthur is to medieval reality. I don't mean that as a bad thing. I'm a Sci-Fantasy guy who has a bunch of Steampunk/Victorian-Sci-Fi figs coming from RAFM and am looking forward to taking IHMN for a spin.
-
I would say it is an arbitrary split. The main differences I would see are between game rules. Bolt Action has much more in common with WH40k than it does Chain of Command despite it being the same setting. Any generic rule set that covers 100+ years of history is a fantasy anyway. eg most Black Powder rulesets are as historical as Sharpe - ie it is a setting but doesn't reflect the reality. So the history becomes just a story to wrap around the game. The game is no more realistic than one with a fantasy or sci-fi storyline.
Not all historicals are like that but I would say there are enough that the difference between histoircal and fantasy is not where the split should lie. It is between realism and abstraction. So something like Chain of Command I would say is realistic in that WWII platoon tactics emerge from the gameplay. WH40k is a total abstraction. It has no internal logic such that huge amounts of devastating weaponry are used by troops bunched in an area the size of a football pitch. I would argue that something like Pulp Alley belongs with the realism camp since it models a Saturday morning picture show or Indiana Jones movie. Fantastical things happen but they exist within the internal logic of the universe. Fighting a Bolt Action battle between 1944 Japanese vs 1940 Germans is absurd on any level from the 50 yard rifle range to the a-historical combatants.
So the best rule sets start with - if this was/is the reality how could we model it and what impact would it have on fighting a battle?
-
Not all historicals are like that but I would say there are enough that the difference between histoircal and fantasy is not where the split should lie. It is between realism and abstraction.
That's an interesting approach. As you suggest a sci-fi or fantasy game can be a "realistic" and detailed simulation or an abstract exercise in much the same way as a historical game. I prefer sci-fantasy and abstration, so I'm no more interested in highly detailed Sci-Fi combat than I would be in a highly abstract Civil War game
However, I would say that while realism vs abstraction is a very useful way to categorize games, but that it in no way diminishes the usefulness of genre divisions such has Historical, Science Fiction, Fantasy and their various sub-genres. They are both very useful measuring sticks but one should not overshadow or necessarily supersede the other.
-
I wouldn't say that the genre splits the two groups anymore but the systems being played possibly can.
-
I remember listening to (of all things) Podhammer many years ago where the guys couldn't help but pour condescension upon the room full of ancient historical gamers they saw at Cancon (Australia's big games convention). The impression I got was that that was where you went once you reached a certain age and stopped playing Warhammer.
I'll play any game which I like the theme and the look of the miniatures and the rules seem fun. Generally that'll be historical games, but I don't mind a bit of VSF and am even being drawn to a bit of imaginations. I'd even play Warhammer if it weren't so bleeding expensive in Australia. :-[
This is coming from a 20 year old mind. :)
-
For a long time I have been WFB and W40K player. I have recently started to build Anglo-Saxon Army for historicals. I have also played several games with several different rulesets and scale. I must say, that I feel absolutely the same. I still have huge amount of grey plastic to paint, I still give names to the characters who perform well on the battlefield. I still build lists as I like them, which is usually spam of the most common thing in the "setting" (so, when I played Khorne Berzerkers, I fielded huge amounts of Khorne Berzerkers and only a few of anything else... Now I play Anglo-Saxons, spaming spearmen). I still enjoy writing battle reports.
So, the way I enjoy the hobby haven't changed. Therefore, I doubt there is a difference in the group. There might be some possible antagonism based on mutual misunderstanding.
-
Maybe the illustration of car clubs is a good way to look at it.
Those on the outside might call them all car enthusiasts, and some car clubs do span all types of cars. However, much like wargaming there are clubs whose focus is on a certain brand, era, style, etc...
Some folks in that hobby would consider themelves to be classic car enthusiasts and some would consider themselves to be in a the particular group of Shelby Mustang enthusiasts.
Personally I do see the deliberately fictional nature of SciFi and Fantasy gaming (my gaming interest) to define a different branch of the wargaming tree than the attempted-reality-basis of historical gaming which interests me almost not at all. However, if some folks consider the differences to be less substantial, then that doesn't much affect my participation in the hobby.
-
I tend to agree with eilif. Wargaming, to me, is simply broken into a lot of different branches and permutations. It's kind of like pen and paper RPGs where there are many different genres and styles of RPG gaming, but the people sitting on the Traveller RPG branch would be horrified to find themselves connected to the branch where the Vampire: The Masquerade players sit. Factionalism, pure and simple, but the hobby is altogether the same. You can find jerks/WAACs/Paint Snobs in all the different miniature wargaming branches. I will say that certain branches tend to attract a particular median of personality types, however, but not so many as to be a rule.
-
the people sitting on the Traveller RPG branch would be horrified to find themselves connected to the branch where the Vampire: The Masquerade players sit.
To be fair, I think most gamers would be horrified to find themselves connected to any branch where LARP'ers are hanging out.
;) :D