Are you a gaming snob?

[tin shed gamer]

 ,
Momotaro,Momotaro.
Fact is stranger than fiction,The first resin Orc Titan sold at a Games Day was built around an Indian tonic water can.The rhino resin conversion kit was a brass plumbing fitting,The prism cannon was a wooden tulip and asthma in hailer capsules.(I know because I was only given a day to make them).
As for shoe box land raiders really the wrong person for that  ;Dbin there (well recycling bin)done that and rhinos too
As for people turning up at your door with an arm full of lead.It happens to me more than you'd think.As I work from home.
Jon,
I think you missed the point I was trying to make,there's that many points in this thread that comments are being attributed to the wrong point.In my earlier posts in this thread I mentioned how much enjoyed the way people of all abilities are willing to display their latest ,as the enjoyment of the creative process is the common denominator regardless of their skill level or time invested. This is something I don't discount when people ask for my opinion or help both in person at shows or on this forum (a lot of this I do by PM's)Although I do object to having my pint pushed away from my mouth and having figures stuck under my nose. If I were still in khaki and a lot younger that would have been enough to get your photo on a milk carton.
My daft little statement wasn't aimed at people gaming with badly or un painted figures,Nor was it aimed at people with little time or even less spare cash(because both of those apply to me,I've five children three of which are at college,to me buy new socks is posh)
It's a khaki phrase that's been pc'd to the point it's printable.
My point is simple,This forum is open to anyone there are no exams to qualify you as a member.So if you feel that the work people post here is beyond you and you don't think you could join. Then that's not the fault of the people on the forum.its your own fear of failure that's holding you back.Giving rise to the gaming equivalent of wee man syndrome .
GW in the early nineties had a similar crisis,and chose to 'dumb' down the quality of painting to block colour/base coat figures in its magazines in order to be more inclusive of beginners and intermediate painters and gamers.
It backfired,and it backfired badly hitting their pockets.People were not inspired .Its the high standard of painting and tables that keep you interested ,and make you buy.Its high standards that inspire you to improve and create your own next best piece ,it's a learning curve not everyone's in the same place,and people on this forum aren't stood atop of it looking down their noses .They post pic's of were they are and tell you the route to take to avoid traffic .Its not elitist or snobby .
No marathon runner is chastised for running faster than another

[dadlamassu]

I have played with toy soldiers for about 60 years.  Yes that is what I do - play games with toy soldiers.  We call them many things but essentially that is what we do - or at least my friends, family and I do.  

I have armies of unpainted toys, pre-painted toys, re-painted toys and toys I have painted (and repainted etc). I have lots of unpainted toys in boxes and kits waiting to be built, too.  

I have played against opponents who did not bat an eyelid at my unpainted or crudely painted toys when I started out.  They were content to let my part or poorly painted soldiers face their superbly painted and researched armies.  I have opponents who are physically and mentally not up to the task of painting well and who cannot afford to get their toys painted.  I've brought my children and grandchildren into the hobby as well as students, handicapped youths and adults, young offenders, youth clubs etc.  And so I follow the style of the great gentlemen who brought me into the hobby and accept that these newcomers have spent all they can afford in terms of cash and time and ability to enter the hobby.  They have had the courage to come along to a club full of strangers knowing that their toys are nowhere near as good as those that the "regulars" have but they came along anyway.  

When a chap or chapess comes along with unpainted or badly painted you can ignore them, send them away, laugh at them or whatever you want and the hobby loses out.  If they come to my house or to our club they will be welcomed, allowed to play with their own toys AND they will be helped to learn the techniques of playing, painting, making up scenarios and anything else they want to get started.  

Probably they will come back and participate in a fascinating hobby.  Every year we put on games that attract children and adults at wargame shows with simple rules, averagely painted toys and home made scenery.  This is deliberate to show that an enjoyable game does not need artistically perfect models and museum quality terrain.

Our objective is to play games, enjoy the camaraderie (bad jokes too) and have a snack together.  To have fun in a word.

I often hear people say that ours is a dying hobby ... I wonder why?

[Dim_Reaper]

I just think is wargaming MANNERS to have your figures painted on the table.

Lets face its any monkey can have unpainted stuff  on the table  BUT a true wargamer  would not dream of having stuff on the table unpainted HE will have taken time  and money too get his army up to a like able  standard  .

This kind of sums up the running attitude of this thread, and indeed the article that matakishi linked:

Those who paint are at a higher standard, and thus have the right to be rude to others, because apparently those who don't do exactly as they do are being rude.

Anybody else spot the double standards with that?

Of course I could be mistaken, but that's the impression I get from this. Especially when you read phrases like "true wargamers". Elitism much?

[tin shed gamer]

Whilst I agree they are toys.Its not a term I can apply to myself in a conversation outside a forum.it would lead to an awkward silence.

"so mark what do you do for a living?"


"I sculpt adult toys"

[Connectamabob]

This kind of sums up the running attitude of this thread, and indeed the article that matakishi linked:

Those who paint are at a higher standard, and thus have the right to be rude to others, because apparently those who don't do exactly as they do are being rude.

Anybody else spot the double standards with that?

Of course I could be mistaken, but that's the impression I get from this. Especially when you read phrases like "true wargamers". Elitism much?

My counterpoint would be that this seems to require stretching the definition of "rudeness" in order to apply. I don't think either side is being rude.

While it's true that both sides seem to take varying degrees of offense to the other's way of doing things, that's not really an indicator of rudeness all by itself. It's sort of like the difference between implying and inferring, if that makes sense.

Both sides have different priorities. Neither side is obligated to play with anyone they don't want to, for any reason. Getting offended because someone refuses to play with you isn't an absolute indicator of rudeness on their part. To use extreme examples: refusing to play someone because of their race (the gamer's race, not their army's race) would be rude. Refusing to play someone because they refuse to wear pants would not be. Pantsless McDanglies might feel offended and left out, but that doesn't indicate he was treated rudely.

Whether or not ones figures are painted is not an extreme. It's a middling issue of preference, and whether a given rejection on those grounds is rude or not is down to how it's delivered, not the fact of the rejection itself.

I don't think showing up with unpainted minis is rude on principle (though I acknowledge others have said this), because I think there are perfectly legit reasons for doing so. It only becomes rude when those reasons are satisfied, yet one continues to do it anyway. If you know you like the ruleset, and you've been bringing the same unpainted minis around for a year, and you won't accept loaner painted minis, and so on. There's a point at which all the legit reasons have dried up, and all you're left with is "I don't care and can't be bothered". Any group that values painted minis is within reason to start turning you away at that point.

And of course as that last sentence states, it all depends on the group consensus. If you're the only guy in the group who feels one way or the other, and keep either insisting on or refusing games (i.e. forcing your personal beliefs on the rest of the group), then you are the dick, and should better find a new group who's consensus does match your preferences. Again: REGARDLESS of which preferences you have. Same rules apply in a  PUG match setting: If you find yourself excluded from one table/game, just find another one. If all tables share the same view, that's not them being rude, even if you feel put out. That's just you being at the wrong meet.

Again, I should point out here that I'm not one who would exclude someone for not having pained minis, but I don't think it's rude for others to do so when it's their game/table. It's how they turn you away that determines whether they are rude or polite.

Sure, being turned down for having unpainted minis feels bad. But y'know what else does? Showing up with a bunch of terrain you've spent weeks pouring your enthusiasm into for the benefit of the whole group/game, only to have everyone shrug blankly and ignore it, and you realize they are 100% indifferent to weather that "house" on the table actually looks like a house, or is just a shoebox or square of felt. And worse, they think you're some kind of pitiable weirdo for caring. That's every bit as alienating as snobby rejection, and every bit as likely to drive that person away from the venue or the hobby altogether.

...But it is also not rude in and of itself.

[fitterpete]

connectamabob Great post!

I don't play with unpainted figs but a lot of guys at our club do.
I really believe there are two parts to gaming, playing and painting/building.

If I go to the club to play I don't really care if the other guy has painted figs or not, there will be some good natured ribbing if they dont of course.I go to play the games  and the game is the most important thing, that day.

But if I want to " put on" a game or scenario I just tell the guys painted  only please or supply all the figs myself.If I'm going to put in the time to make up a scenario and supply the terrain then its my rules, right?

[Dim_Reaper]

But all of this is rather different to what I take issue with, as the assumption that somehow having painted miniatures makes you a better gamer, or a "true" gamer, and if you turn up to games every now and then with unpainted ones you aren't a "true" wargamer. I find that somewhat rude and very elitist.

Now, don't get me wrong, I accept that games are definitely better when everything's painted. But I just find it ridiculous that anyone who doesn't have painted stuff right now doesn't have a consideration of aesthetics and the beauty of miniatures.

Both sides do indeed have different priorities, yet I find fully painted gamers tend to have less consideration for those with different priorities, and that attitude is far more common than the odd person who doesn't appreciate the value that painting adds. Those tend also to imply that anyone in said different category obviously doesn't appreciate any visual part of the hobby, including features of miniatures that are not invisible before painting them. They can be enhanced, but not always. I've had a few cases of being called a hobby loser by people whose paint style is awful. If I was as bad as them I wouldn't bother, frankly. And for the record I do paint, I'm just very slow. I won't speed up for gamers. I do accept the ribbing as the cost for being slow, but I'm not accepting myself and others being dismissed as not being part of the same hobby because I haven't dropped my perfectionism in favour of army painter, base coat and ink dipping. No, sorry, would rather be pleased with the result, even if it takes ages to achieve.

Just to clarify, I'm not offended by anything I've read here. Disappointed? Somewhat. As demonstrated above, I can also be elitist about painting quality, although not before being criticized for the speed (or slowness to be more accurate) that I paint. I also accept that some people just don't bother and its not wrong that people who do get models painted take issue with this.

But the issue itself is not black and white, yet whenever it is discussed it is always portrayed as such, even by people who are no doubt more tolerant and amicable about it than they say they are. I generally find myself in the middle of the debate, (being someone who does paint, but slowly), and where I draw the line is the elitism. It exists on both sides, undoubtedly, but is most prevalent among the painters, and you'd be surprised how people fuelled by the idea of doing the right thing or aspiring to the right attitude end up feeling empowered to do wrongs in order to justify it.

[Mr.J]

What I have taken from this thread is that it doesn't really have anything to do with the volume or quality of the miniatures that you paint but the effort that you put into it.

It seems clear that most people would like to play with painted miniatures and nice terrain, obviously everyone has different standards and capabilities and everyone's abilities vary greatly but I think the most common theme is that people are adverse to playing with people who make no effort and regularly field unpainted armies as they are uninterested in painting them (this is where the counter/marker etc. comment I think is fair). However if you are a slow painter, have no time etc. or have any number of other reasons it seems that most people would be content to play with you.

We have very prolific painters on this forum who would have no qualms about using dip to speed and batch paint miniatures to get them onto the table, we also have those who wouldn't dream of it. To each their own I suppose. Some who love MDF terrain and others who wouldn't touch it but I very much doubt that this would stop them playing a game with each other if the opportunity arose.

I think it would be fair to say that there are a few elite painters on this forum but I have never had anything but a positive experience when dealing with them. I certainly haven't experienced any of the rudeness or arrogance that seems to be implied in some of the comments. I have visited this forum for quite a few years now and I have seen and received nothing but positive feedback and constructive critisicm for which I am very grateful. I have NEVER seen anyone excluded, patronised or deliberately offended on LAF if I had I probably wouldn't be here most days. I certainly see LAF as aspirational and inspirational rather than elitist and snobby. Just my opinion though.

[Dim_Reaper]

What I have taken from this thread is that it doesn't really have anything to do with the volume or quality of the miniatures that you paint but the effort that you put into it.

It seems clear that most people would like to play with painted miniatures and nice terrain, obviously everyone has different standards and capabilities and everyone's abilities vary greatly but I think the most common theme is that people are adverse to playing with people who make no effort and regularly field unpainted armies as they are uninterested in painting them (this is where the counter/marker etc. comment I think is fair). However if you are a slow painter, have no time etc. or have any number of other reasons it seems that most people would be content to play with you.

I think this is the point that all or at least most of us can agree on. I'm certainly not going to say that being a slow painter is an entirely defensible position, as no excuse entirely excuses. Sooner or later you have to make time for painting, and if you can make time for everything else, you can do so for painting. My personal problem is a mixture of perfectionism and moodiness, coupled with laziness. I can more easily spend time playing a computer game in a foul or unmotivated mood than I can work up the energy to paint. I find it easier to get around to building and converting, but I'm more skilled at that. My painting is good, when I finally do it, but I have higher standards than my own abilities sometimes and if I am not settled on a paint scheme it'll be a disaster and then I'll not paint again for months.

I tend to be more snobby about rules, so it's not as if I'm some paragon of virtue. I see that flaw in myself in that instance and I detect it here. This hobby is built on social contracts, and there are expectations. Those expectations aren't wrong, but they can be taken too far. For me, saying you're a better hobbyist, or the only fully enlightened hobbyist, just because you've fulfilled one aspect of it to a greater degree than some others is taking the whole thing too far. It is more than "just a game" or "playing with toys", but it's not so much more that there is ever a need for the sorts of language of disparity you find in professional sports or arguments about race/creed. We can definitely be bigger than that.

[Hobgoblin]

I never heard anything about my limited english here or somthing bad about my painting or about my terrible photos.
Reading this discussion it feels like talking about the wrong forum 

This is the best comment yet, I think! This forum is terrific for encouragement and positive criticism. And I write as by far the worst photographer on the board (and possibly the worst scenery-maker too).

As for the "rules of engagement", I only play with painted models, but that's because my opponents are either (a) my kids or (b) some old friends who either have their own painted models or will use mine.

The one thing that is baffling to me, though, is the idea of not having the right models painted. If a game can't be played with the wrong models, is it really a game worth playing? (I accept that this may not work with historical games, but in SF and fantasy ...).

[tin shed gamer]

I think this is likely to me my last thoughts on the subject before I start feeling like I'm going round in circles.
These days I'm a 'clay and brush whore ' by trade. My 'A' game is what ever style you pay for.My sculpting is for who ever commissions it and pays on time. And I'll spend time showing anyone who ask how to make or paint what ever they're interested in.
As for my own collection there is not a single A game figure in it! It is all a series of 'bums on seats' figures as I've very little inclination to fill every waking hour painting.Nor would I if I could.
I've never not spent time talking with someone at a show who wanted too or to show me their work.Infact I'll be at the York show in Feb,if anyone wishes to chat(,and Yes I'll be at the bar at some point.)Simon,and Mick at 1st Corps always have a rough idea where I'm likely to be.
As for the Forum,I've put my money where my mouth is and written the odd tutorial,in non of them do I ever presume to be better than anyone else,I do believe that the models in the tutorials are achievable by anyone and to believe otherwise would make me an elitist snob.
I offer most advice and tips via PM's and any questions I have, or mistakes I note will be made through PM's as well.
I've sent free painted  miniatures to Australia to illustrate a painting techniques for people on the forum.I've sculpted for free and posted to America for people on the forum. One member of the 'league' also received a free Series 3 Austin I converted /resculpted to a Dunster force variant ,not forgetting (although i have forgotten to send on occasion ) the free white metal parts and figures I've sent.So an elitist snob not so much.
Did I bounce into this hobby from an art college,no I started my adult life in khaki,then as a mental health nurse.So I'm self tought and as a result I've learnt to look and listen.Because there's always something to learn or relearn.and people who don't have the same skill set as me are often the most likely to have something new to teach and not be bound by your idiosyncrasies .
So I will not be self deprecating in order to be inclusive ,just receptive ,because in order to be included you have to join in.
So the more I read the more I realise this is about being accepted and appreciated wether you shout elitist ,or snob.and I'm far to aware of my own short comings not to be comfortable being me.Now if my musings offended you then it was never my intention .If you see me as an elitist snob,Then it's a shame ,but I'm big I'll cope.If not I'll see round the shows or chat on the forum .
All the best,
Mark,

[weismonsters]

No.

[Dave Knight]

I am a reverse snob  

My approach  has always been that the hobby is wargaming and the clue is in the name.

I have no problem at all with those whose hobby is miniatures painting, but the idea that gaming is only worth doing with well painted figures on well constructed terrain is an alien concept to me.

On a club night I will take time to admire well painted figures and compliment friends on their brushwork.  Once my game starts it is all about the interaction with my opponent and unfolding drama on the table.

I do like the 3D effect so am less keen on playing with counters.  A pet hate is printed terrain (a hill being a picture of a hill).

In terms of what I actually use on the table over the past nearly 40 years my ratio has gone from mostly unpainted to almost always painted.  This has been achieved by a mixture of painting, buying second hand painted figures and more recently by paying a painting service.

Wargaming is an inclusive hobby, I do find it a bit depressing that some posters place limitations around their enjoyment of it.  I suppose I do find that elitist.

Perhaps it is because I am a poor painter.

Each to their own.



  

[eilif]

I don't know if I mentioned it in this topic, but at my club we don't care how the figs get painted (basic tabletop or super detailed, self painted or someone else, by hand or pre-painted) as long as it is painted.  Last night we played Alpha Strike with rebased Mechwarrior figs. 3 of the 4 of us had simply rebased and kept the stock faction paintjobs (one of us had repainted his).  Yet, the visual impact of the game was so much better than if we had been playing with grey hordes.

Gaming is so much better when it's in color, and with my limited game time, I just won't settle for less.

I am a reverse snob  

My approach  has always been that the hobby is wargaming and the clue is in the name.

That's a good point. "Wargaming" is a rather big tent that includes alot of things, including chits-on-hexes. I am not simply a "Wargamer", though I have used the term as short-hand.  Nor to I subscribe to the generic term "gamer"

Rather, the hobby I participate in is "Miniature Wargaming".  Not only does miniatures refer to models, which are traditionally (in most milieus, wargaming, railroading, doll houses, etc) painted, but the history of the wargaming hobby shows us that from the beginning of the commercial era of the hobby, painted miniatures have been the norm and standard. 

I concede that it can be said that those who do not paint are technically participating in wargaming with miniatures, but they have chosen to ignore a core part of the hobby.  That's their prerogative, but at that point, we're really not participating in the same hobby anymore.

At the very least, I think we agree that terms matter.

[Dave Knight]

Interesting eilif.

I am also a person who almost exclusively wargames with miniatures - boardgames and computer games are to me at least related but different.

My point is that the gaming part is the key.  Many people enjoy painting - which is great for them - but I don't see how that is a core part of the hobby.

There are some wargamers whose entire collection has been painted by painting services.  Are they lesser wargamers because of that?