Modern Imagi-nations and such like

[Rob_bresnen]

Morvalonga's President for Life, Saviour of the Nation, the Legendary, Bishop Moses Besquit announces that The Republic of Morvalonga has its own web pages:

http://www.morvalearth.co.uk/Morvalonga/Morvalonga_Intro.htm

Be aware that there are many puns and stereotypes.

Cool website

RB

[Red Orc]

Really I don't have any objection at all to a discussion about what criteria people use in their games for deciding what is or isn't acceptable - I've participated in many before and I'm sure I will do again.

I think some of Rob's comments in particular are very interesting, because they're almost exactly the opposite of how I approach the background to games, though I can entirely see the reasoning behind them.

I was interested briefly in Spanish Civil War gaming, but quickly realised that actually gaming that period (as I started to think about assembling forces and whatnot) made me feel very uncomfortable. I don't game WWI or WWII, and I realised that my problem was 'fictionalising' real events in the recent past. People are still alive who knew people killed in those wars. On the other hand, I have absolutely no problems with VBCW - that's where my SCW Socialist Militia have ended up - because it isn't 'real', even though paradoxically it has real people in it - one of my militiamen is based on my grandad, who was born in 1912 and therefore would have been in his mid-20s at the time of the Abdication Crisis. I have no problem with that as it's utterly unreal. My grandad wasn't really being shot at by fascists in 1938. On the other hand (again), I've changed some of the 'historic' stuff from the period, 'my' fascists aren't Mosely's BUF, they are either Roderick Spode's 'Blackshorts' and/or a 'British League of Fascists' (mostly from Lancashire and Yorkshire, where the 'Union' is considered too posh and not hard enough).

What's this got to do with ImagiNations? Well, the questions in the beginning were about whether people took background from books and films - such as Matobo (fictionalised Zimbabwe) from 'The Interpreter' and Nambutu (which I'm using as an analogue for Angola) from 'Casino Royale'. I'm happy to lift stuff from books and films to use as analogues (whether that's the Blackshorts for the BUF, Nambutu for Zimbabwe and Ruritania for Bohemia) and then embelish that with other stuff that might be more pun-based (OK, 'British Union of Fascists' to 'British League of Fascists' isn't exactly a pun but it is a joke) and generally less 'real'. But I wouldn't have a murderous dictator in Zimbabwe, it wouldn't feel right to me.

On puns, I think I'm happier punning and making jokes about things that I feel culturally close to. A British officer called Colonel Hammond-Mustard? An aristocratic Englishwoman called Lady Waldeming-Blumers? A Dutch pirate called Django van Dango? A French assassinatrix called Anna-Baptiste and her silent companion Marie-Celeste? Not a problem. But I'm likely to avoid doing that in the context of South America, Africa or South or East Asia. Just don't feel as comfortable taking the micky out of things I know nothing about.

[Arlequín]

Well yes, I can understand that. Whatever political violence, oppression, or unsavoury habits that a nation's secret police undertake in an Imagi-Nation, is implied, or presented as comedic background, if it's mentioned at all. I've yet to encounter an Imagi-Nation that's been presented 'straight', with all the things that come with that. We can assume that bad things happen to good people in them, but I've yet to find someone who dwells on that side of things in their fluff. Most gamers create an imaginary setting to play battles in, which is where their attention is focused and not the reality of who and what their regimes actually represent.

I can understand anyone being reluctant to play an historical period of the near past and it's their choice at the end of the day. I don't feel the same way myself, although I don't play anything after around c.1980 (other than sci-fi). That's an aesthetic choice though, not a morale one. On the other hand, a number of WW2 veterans played WW2 wargames (and indeed pushed it as a period back in the day) and a number of serving soldiers play Iraqistan-orientated games as we speak. Regardless though, if it's not for you, then don't do it.

     

[Red Orc]

Oh, sure, I'm not trying even implicitly to criticise anyone else's different choices, as Bezzo says, different strokes for different folks. I know there are large wargaming fraternities in both the British and American militaries, and I'm sure it's the same in many other countries too, and the games they play range from the fantastical to the historical to the ultra-modern.

And I'm happier about playing truly 'historical' games myself - I'd not feel squeamish about the English Civil War, for instance, because it's long enough ago that it doesn't really affect anyone now. But I realised that, for me, anyway, anything 'real' inside living memory is just a bit... icky. I don't mind gaming as Hydra, but I'd certainly feel uncomfortable as the Einsatzgruppen.

[Arlequín]

Who wouldn't? *He said, knowing that there are one or two such people out there, who wouldn't mind that actually.* 

I've contemplated several alternate histories, where I've wished to 'write out' the really unpleasant bits, even to the point where a fascist axis of France, Poland and Italy have threatened peace in Europe, with a Weimar Germany eventually allied with Britain. Such is the success of Nazi 'brand awareness' though, that inevitable associations would be made, regardless of the fluff written, when you put your panzers on the table.

I like the freedom that Imagi-Nations give, but it's all too easy to 'create' something that is either; little different to an actual particular historic conflict, or so far 'out there' to be utterly ridiculous.

[Rob_bresnen]

You both raise very good points and I am beginning to wonder if my 'realist' campaign setting might be a little bit too real for some tastes. I will go back and review what I have written and planed so far, with a view of adding another layer of fiction to further remove Zugando from the bloody and tragic reality of sierra leone. I think I would feel better about it then.

This debate is worth having.

[carlos marighela]

If it's well enough researched and thought though, I see no reason why the straight version shouldn't work. Actually, I find the 'Carry On' type treatment rather annoying and the steroptypes invariably grate at some point. Too often I can discern some unpleasant underlying assumptions parsed off as schoolboy humour.Almost entirely a matter of personal taste and different people's mileage varies.

I'm not especially squeamish about modernish conflicts although I'll admit there are a number of contemporary conflicts that have little or no appeal as gaming subjects but that is purely a matter of personal taste. I have a nice little collection of contemporary French, perfect for just the sort of thing they are doing In Mali as we speak. I'm not sure I would tackle Mali per se but for quite some time I have been working on a campaign for a French intervention in West Africa, along the lines of but not an entirely faithful recreation of recent events in Cote d'Ivoire. Likewise I have built up a force of US Marines and have plans for a Grenada style affair. Not Grenada but something like it.

I remember reading an excellent article many years ago  on the disguised wargame. If I recall correctly it was in Military Modelling or Battle. The author demonstrated that by changing a few key or even a few superficial aspects of an historical campaign, like the period or general geography you could breathe new life into a topic. I liked the concept beacuse even if the players actually discern the original model for the game, they can't be sure that all the elements will follow. They can choose to 'fight the last war' as it were a bit like many contemporary generals but the uncertainty element is in play. Obviously it has its limitations but I think it can be a thought provoking exercise if conducted well.

[Hildred Castaigne]

I remember reading an excellent article many years ago  on the disguised wargame. If I recall correctly it was in Military Modelling or Battle. The author demonstrated that by changing a few key or even a few superficial aspects of an historical campaign, like the period or general geography you could breathe new life into a topic. I liked the concept beacuse even if the players actually discern the original model for the game, they can't be sure that all the elements will follow. They can choose to 'fight the last war' as it were a bit like many contemporary generals but the uncertainty element is in play. Obviously it has its limitations but I think it can be a thought provoking exercise if conducted well.

Brilliant post, Carlos!

In regard to moving the setting, I think the recent version of Coriolanus did that very nicely.
It is a fine example of what you can do with some small changes!

[Brummie]

I tend not to do Imagi-nations as such.

The Caliphate as I may have said sometime before, is the only 'country' I have made up, but rather that's a coalition of Islamic countries, with a common goal, that follows similar principles to the original Kulifar founded after the Last Prophets death in the 600AD period. Of course it will also suffer from similar divisions that hit it later on, so in effect its a very narrow historical repeat, just with a modern setting and different variations, characters etc.

I have tried to avoid stereotypes with my backgrounds (I removed/changed some of the stuff from my British Civil War background because I thought it was all a bit OTT and silly) but I do try and add some of the culture to it, so the Caliphate involves a lot of varied cultures given the range of peoples involved, they are just united by a single goal; to rid the area of dictators/monarchs and protect the Islamic world from outside meddling.

I try and ensure there is plenty of 'realism' in a sense to the backgrounds of the various forces in my Near Future WW3 scenario. The entire war is meant to be a conflict of Ideologies, and what could potentially happen in the event of a Climate disaster/Ultimate economic collapse in particular areas of the world. All the dark stuff is there, slavery, starvation, genocide, Extremists hell-bent on killing anybody who has a slight difference in opinion. There are no real good guys, no real bad guys. Only thing that calms it all down is I added occasional Alien raids, Rebelling A.I and Zombies.

But I prefer realism anyway. It just makes things seem far more relevant. I'm not keen on wargaming current conflicts, but I like to do What-if Modern wars, and to keep it fairly realistic, it just feels so much better that way. After all there are plenty of wars that could have been, but never happened, thankfully.

I think if you add Stereotypes your walking into ugly territory more than if you did something more realistic. I tend to find people who find the concept of miniature war gaming quite a strange concept, find it more interesting if you base it on a subject that is actually more serious/based in reality (without of course going apeshit about it, because then people think your taking it all waaaaay to seriously). We are messing about with toy soldiers anyhow, like we need to worry about whether the topic sends the wrong message.

[commissarmoody]

Bezzo I have been called strange and weird my whole life.
 Honestly gaming is more then likely one of my more wholesome and "normo" hobbies and obsessions. 

[Arlequín]

What passes for 'normal' nowadays is often nothing to be proud off... I was going to say 'to make a song and dance out of', but it reminded me of X-Factor for some reason.

Btw... some great posts there guys! 

As a group, I think wargamers worry far more about the perception of the hobby than the Normos, as a whole, care. My general experience has been that "It's a bit odd" from back in the day, to "Meh" in the present. Which I suspect is largely thanks to a mix of; the D&D generation becoming adults, GW stores on the high street, PC and console games, and numerous 'fanciful' TV shows and movies. Given the openness of today's society, it's not even by far the weirdest pastime about, evidenced by the often heard "Is that all?" and occasionally "So you don't dress up to do it then?" when I've 'come out' of the wargaming closet to prospective partners and friends in the past.

As for Imagi-Nations, some realism is far more preferable to me. I don't mean 'copying' a situation so much (which is fine too), as creating one which is believable in its context. I find the 'black and white' focus of some, to be both suspect and somewhat patronising at times and I much prefer differing shades of grey. I'm sure someone cleverer than me could list a set of tropes and idioms that are commonly used for this sort of thing and might speak volumes about the person constructing the country.

As Carlos said and Brummie has done, you can pretty much take any scenario, or campaign, from the history books and place it in any modern setting. Why we wage war and how we wage war, actually hasn't changed that much over the millenia. Although we have different names for things, we're also still tied to concepts like 'heavy infantry' or 'light cavalry' et al., so any classic battle can be re-fought with modern technology standing in for the original.   

[carlos marighela]

"the D&D generation becoming adults"

Now Jim, you know that is simply not true.

Well OK, their generation might but the actual D&Ders?

 

[Arlequín]

Fair point... 

[commissarmoody]

Yeah they do kind of stink. And lets not get started about the card gamers! 

[commissarmoody]

Yep, I don't gamble, do drugs, live in a casino or go to the strip if I can help it.