Are fantasy/sci-fi gamers in a different hobby to historical gamers?

[Vermis]

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.

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?" ) 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?

[Atheling]

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.

[Elbows]

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.

[Sunjester]

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.

[Atheling]

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.

[eilif]

I think there are two different, but related, branches to Wargaming.

Those who collect and play anything (like me)

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.

[warrenpeace]

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.

[eilif]

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.

[jon_1066]

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?

[eilif]

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.

[Lt. Tibbles]

I wouldn't say that the genre splits the two groups anymore but the systems being played possibly can.

[N.C.S.E]

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.

[Jiron]

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.

[eilif]

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.

[CriticalGeek]

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.