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

[Diablo Jon]

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 ) 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.

So thoughts are we all one hobby or two different but broadly similar hobbies? 

[Queeg]

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 The latest trend is that that style of game is outdated and way too complicated so in general yes, they are now almost the same in both hobby and play.

[Billchuck]

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.

[Vanvlak]

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.

[Sunjester]

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!)

[Lowtardog]

Yup spot on

[Michi]

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!)

That sums it up!

[dijit]

Yeah Sunjester pretty much summed it up.

[rebelyell2006]

It's all plastic and metal, just in different shapes.

[Old-N-Busted]

Vanvlak has  got it spot on in one long and oh so funny list , done most of then things myself at one time or another and i game both historic and fantasy.

[Lowtardog]

Vanvlak has  got it spot on in one long and oh so funny list , 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😃

[Silent Invader]

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!  

[beefcake]

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).

[A Lot of Gaul]

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.
 

[HerbyF]

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.