Big Game Gaming - Is it Dead

[WuZhuiQiu]

Much as others have already mentioned, running big games would seem to depend on having at least one game master who has managed to single-mindedly focus on a particular setting and scale, in the face of the relatively recent explosion in variety and amount of military history knowledge, rulesets, and ranges, or on having a group of like-minded players who have somehow managed to synchronize their interests and scales.

Around here, it would seem to be a question of the portable "fad of the year" at the local club or of the few, focused game hosts who have persisted with their choices on the gamble that they can enlist participants (or not, if they are happy simply to collect and paint).

[Simlasa]

I've never really played or seen a BIG game.
I discovered wargaming at about the same time I discovered RPGs. I've never gamed anything bigger than warhammer fantasy in 28mm, or Epic 40K in 6mm.
I do have two 8x4 tables, kind of by accident (converted backdrop from a school play), and the only games I play that will make much use of that space are naval and space battles.

Not that I've anything against BIG games... but if I were ever to approach doing one it would be in 6mm fantasy.

[Tomsche]

From personal experience at my club, I`d say not dead, but not alive either.  Shrodinger's wargame anyone 

I know several people have massive collections, over vast era's, but the recent years it has been a struggle (okay, 2020 doesn`t count) to get something organised.  real life an things often make it impossible for a serious amount of gamers to free up a whole weekend, so our "big battles" like the 40k one tends to be folded in to a one day game, usually about 20 players but a logistical nightmare.  After a turn or 4 to 6 it's over, and points are tallied without any really epic collapses in the battle lines.

About a decennium ago, there where more often two day (technically, an evening and two days) games in the club, but the pressure of organising it while tallied against the ever more busy ratrace of work these days (less people for the same amount of work, more deadlines, I think this doesn`t sound to strange to people in my age range of 35 to 50) just brings it along that you can't bring it all up to organise.

In that same aspect, painting a gazillion figures is a misery as well, while skirmish or small scale games usually are able to be painted up in a decent amount of time, and a game would take around 4 hours, ideally for a wargame evening in a club, and yield a 'finished' result, again something time-limited peeps find handy.

Though the painting seems to worsen every pasing year, as grey syndrome is becoming really bigger and bigger  even though the forces keep getting smaller and smaller... I often feel a weirdo insisting that I finish painting a unit before even considering putting it on the table.

[Ray Rivers]

One of the problems with big games is overly complex rules, IMO. If I can't play a game in 3 or 4 hours max (and I don't care how many troops are on the table)... then I will either look for a new game or new rules.

A cheat sheet or two is all you should need. After a few games you know exactly what the situation is at any given moment and if you roll less than a 7... 

I hate complex rules... 

[FlyXwire]

Is it a big game, because of the chosen big figure scale?

We went through a time [around here in the Midwest USA] when it made sense to downsize our figure scales, so we could play big games (or actually, to play battle scenarios) - with less 'overhead'.

Much of the The Industry and media the past 10+ years have given the nod to the big figures, and perhaps now because it's the common, entry-level point marketed through so many skirmish-level game systems (as was originally mentioned at this thread's beginning), that big figures are also expected to make for better, big games too?   

No doubt the prospect$ of figure counts with sizable scale figures might be discouraging to many, especially at the painting levels seen across the pages of this forum here....

Perhaps, and surely the original question also involves part of what fidelity can come with modelling the larger figure scales, contrasted against what might be obtained as consistently by the wargame experience, but this gaming experienced achieved with the smaller scales, and/or within smaller spaces? 

Lastly, I can't disassociate what the single-figure, and/or larger figure scale skirmish-level systems have rendered, but perhaps more so, what they have seemingly displaced -this battle-size gaming, which now seems less seen (or actually, is less aspired to as a gaming goal).

 

[Elbows]

I think it also depends on where you live.  In the U.S. for instance, the idea of "gaming clubs", let alone ones you pay to join (and even less likely clubs which have their own building, etc!) are exceptionally rare.

So the idea of a "club" putting on a larger game for conventions is less prevalent.  Doesn't stop small clusters of older guys doing it at the larger historical conventions here though.

My general impression of the larger games (generally 28mm and often on huge tables and historical in nature) are...neat to look at, but here is what I generally find at the conventions I've attended:

0900: 8-10 men, almost all over 50 are excitedly talking over a beautiful table of miniatures and terrain.
1300: 8-10 men are sitting in chairs chatting, while models on the table have moved around 8-10" each.
1800: 8-10 men are slumped over chairs, beers are on the edge of the table, and everyone looks absolutely exhausted.  Miniatures have moved another 10-12" by this point.

This is almost like clockwork.  The old "your eyes are bigger than your stomach".  Now this is probably just a bad choice of rules given the size of the game, but it's very consistently that way - equally so for the guys who bring giant 6'x4' hex maps for their favourite Avalon Hill games and expect they're going to play out the entire Operation Market Garden in a day...

I like spectacle, but that is not limited to "loads of figures on a table".  I play skirmish games with full and intricate terrain covering a 6'x4' table.

While I appreciate seeing the rare "big game spectacle", I have no interest in pursuing it myself. 

[Harry Faversham]

One of the problems with big games is overly complex rules, IMO. If I can't play a game in 3 or 4 hours max (and I don't care how many troops are on the table)... then I will either look for a new game or new rules.
I hate complex rules... 

Here! Here, well said that man!
We've run big games with 50 units a side and used Neil Thomas's OHW rules, and they've been spot on. The players could concentrate on their men and not the rulebook. In these games, applying the KISS Principle to Wargames, all the usual things took place that always do...
it just didn't hurt yer brayn trying to work it all out!

[fred]

As a gaming group perhaps we are lucky with the resources we have available. We game at our houses and have access to 6’x4’ as the smallest at a couple of houses, 8’x4’ at several, and 9’x6’ at one, and 12’x6’ at one now (and two previously). So we have the basic decent table size available.  We tend to play with 2-3 players a side.

We tend to play with smaller scales mainly 10mm, but some 6mm epic - so we can get a lot of troops on a big table. Most of our gaming is on a Friday Evening, for around 4hrs, which means fairly quick play rules help.

A few times a year we get together for an all day game, or even occasionally a weekend away, where we may play a main game from the evening through the next day.

2020 has changed this - while I have played the odd larger game remotely, we have found smaller games (particularly table size wise) suit video gaming better, as the camera can see all of the playing the area at once.

[Bearwoodman]

Interesting thread!

In my personal experience the barrier to big games is time, both to prepare for a big battle and to play it.

I restarted the hobby from scratch a couple of years ago and while I enjoy gaming the part I enjoy most (and spend significantly longer doing) is the painting and modelling.  Hobby time is limited and I like to try to paint each miniature to a decent level (by my standards!). I also get bored if I try to paint too many similar figures. In addition I like to jump about between various genres and scales.  This all means that I am not very productive and that it takes a long time to assemble a cohesive force. In fact I dont think I own what would amount to an actual "army" of anything yet!

My main gaming friend (we are not members of a club) has been at it for longer, but he too has various unfinished projects on the go (including Blood Bowl, SW Legion and LoTR). We were impressed when he finally managed to finish painting a whole Start Collecting box from Games Workshop! Ragtag warbands we can do, a host of liveried battalions are harder!

In addition we generally involve our sons in games (so it counts as "parenting") who have, shall we say, a shorter attention span. Games therefore need to conclude in a couple of hours.

All this means that skirmish games suit us better at the moment.  We have nothing against battles involving large numbers of soldiers per se, we just don't currently have the troops (or perhaps the rules). In fact I suspect that our battles will get bigger as our collections slowly expand. After all, if you have the toys you want to see them on the table top!

[Patrice]

I personally think that the hobby has grow enormously because lots of different (once separated) areas of interest (such as role playing, board gaming, etc.) have now become part of a main stream group of people who enjoy playing with miniatures, in what-ever form. You see it here on this forum day in and day out.

running big games would seem to depend on having at least one game master who has managed to single-mindedly focus on a particular setting and scale (...) or on having a group of like-minded players who have somehow managed to synchronize their interests and scales.

Yes, and yes. 

I like very big skirmish/RPG 28mm games on very large tables, but can only really do this in conventions and game festivals where there is enough space for it. At home the games are somewhat smaller.

Regarding the interaction between big game players and visitors in a convention, it depends very much on the gamers involved. A large game most often needs a precise scenario and that means that players register in advance, it can be difficult to add more players when it's started. But this should not prevent everyone taking part to explain things to visitors. Then some people like doing this and others are less communicative.

[Deedles]

alive and well with me!









this hiatus is just a chance to grow the collections for me!

[fred]

alive and well with me!

Nice work Deedles!

[Patrice]

alive and well with me!

Nice work Deedles!

Superb! 

Such tables are what I love too!

[warrenpeace]

Early in the previous decade I had an opportunity to participate in two really big War of Spanish Succession games organized by Ian Croxall, Blenheim 2004 and Ramilles 2006. Both games represented every battalion, squadron, and battery present at the historical battle, and the figures were 28mm. Those were massive projects, involving the work of 8 or 9 different painters, several different figure manufacturers, multiple game masters to help run the games (including me at both events), and a few years of rules development to get a simple set of rules that would allow these big battles to be played out in about 6 to 7 hours. And it worked! Blenheim 2004 involved a 6ft x 32ft table and 32 players, while Ramilles 2006 involved a 6ft x 28ft table and 20 players. Neither took the whole of the two 4 hour game periods reserved at the convention. See some images here:

http://www.warflag.com/blenheim2004/enfilade.html

From time to time we have had some wargame clubs in the Pacific Northwest. Those guys in the image both wearing maroon tee shirts are members of one. Back then there was a really active club that played in Oregon's Willamette Valley. There have been a few other big games in the Pacific Northwest since then, though the big games haven't been presented at the regional convention for the last 3 years. Not sure when we'll be able to try big games again. It might be a while.

I agree that simple rules are needed for a big game. It helps a lot if there are several people interested in painting figures for the big game, including people who might be too far away to travel, but who are willing to loan and ship their figures for use in the big game. (We had a couple of people do that for these big WSS games.) It also helps if there are multiple game masters available to run around the table and answer questions and keep the game moving.

I do think it's worthwhile to do something really big as a team project at least a couple of times in one's miniature hobby lifetime. It's an interesting feeling to have been part of a couple of big projects like that.

[Shahbahraz]

Ok, you can burn me as a heretic now. My first ever actual (rules, opponents, etc) wargame was a 'Big' game on an 18 x 6 foot table. (5400 x 1800 for those who have moved into the real world.) Since then I have played in big games at the club (doomed because the megalomaniacs want to put 20% of their Napoleonic collection on the table, literally 750 figures per side) in 6 hours with the rules of choice, no.

yes they look great, yes it's lovely to shove around those figures around. But I don't much want to just be a participant in a sterile exercise. For me, wargaming is aesthetics plus a genuine narrative experience, and yes, subsidiary to that a competitive challenge.

If it's just shoving around pretty regiments till you run out of time, what's the point?