Turn on or Turn off

[Silent Invader]

Exactly this.

Exactly that. 

[Captain Blood]

Couldn't agree more with everything Arlequin has said. Perfectly expressed.

I used to play big games with ranked up armies using big rules on big battlefields - 30 years ago. That's what people did then. That was wargaming. I actually realised after a few years of doing that, that I found it boring as fuck. To the extent that I got out of wargaming altogether for 15 years.
Some people still like it - fair enough: each to their own.
But a smaller, more fun orientated game, with closer attention paid to both the aesthetics and the narrative, is just what I prefer now. And evidently many people feel the same. Indeed, this forum has provided a focal point for wargamers of this persuasion - the clue being in the name, the Lead ADVENTURE forum (as opposed to the Lead boring traditional wargame forum).

Actually, I thought the standard of games at Salute this year was better than usual. There were hardly any of the usual smattering of Subbuteo cloth tables with books for hills (although I did spot a couple). There were plenty of big spectacular games, and a host of smaller scale, skirmish type games on very nicely presented table tops. And a lot of medium scale games in between, including several presented by various contributors to this forum. The common thread being beautiful scenery, beautifully painted figures, and an imaginative setting or narrative than just another game in the usual period or genre.

Were there fewer of the big, formal Napoleonic or Ancients type battles, with two lines of massed troops marching towards each other to the sound of bickering over the interpretation of rules?
Yes, I suppose so. But then I've never stopped to look at those anyway because they just don't interest me, and haven't done since about 1985.

[Gibby]

I must admit, those 28mm "big" battles where each side lines up across the table with no flanks or any space to do anything other than march towards eachother and roll dice are pretty uninspiring. It might look really impressive, such as Aventine's games at Partizan, but playing it looks like a headache-inducing exercise in tedium. The biggest fights I tend to go for in 28mm are large skirmishes such as with Lion/Dragon Rampant or Sharp Practice. Plenty of figures for the spectacle without getting tedious or clogged up, whilst still providing narrative.

Narrative has always been the key for me. I can't get excited about any game I haven't got some immersion into, be it skirmish or big battle. The latter can be narrative in a way but probably requires a campaign to give the battles that bit of extra context-driven drama. Skirmish games tend to follow the detailed exploits of some or all of the little men on the table and with the right ruleset* can bring out immersion and narrative of an almost RPG-like quality.

The aesthetics of a game are very important and I'm sure we would all choose the fully 3D and beautifully made terrain over flat bits of tablecloth and unpainted MDF, but obviously there are limitations for some people. It's still possible to have a good and fun game using figures and terrain of lesser quality, it's all down to how immersed you get and how much fun the rules are.



*one trend I still can't quite get behind is the "simple as possible please" desire in rulesets. For me, a ruleset ought to have enough detail for decision making to affect the outcome (beyond I move here and roll this dice at this guy til one of us is dead) and also evoke 'feel' of the period/setting it is being used for. Some of the more popular "simple" rulesets, for me, become very bland very fast, and that's like the rule equivalent of using 2D terrain and unpainted figures. Of course, simple and easy to play are not the same thing, before anyone gets on at me about rulesets of excessive detail (I don't like those either)   YMMV as they say...

[Silent Invader]

Immersion is the key factor for me (That's the point of a hobby, right? To absorb, distract, escape) so as well as aesthetics, rules that favour/flavour the genre/scenario, and like-minded folks, I also can't be getting on with figure ratios: I like to game as one man equals one man, whatever the size of the battle.

[Golgotha]

Nothing wrong with big games - more the merrier. Certainly might put some people off but then is there not enough options when it comes to wargaming... even traditional big army requiring periods like Napoleonic games can now be achieved with a handful of minis and a coffee table.

[dbsubashi]

Sigh. I have been seeing this arguement in many places lately. And I disagree with it. "Going big" is bad for the hobby? Nicely modeled, nicely painted minis on nicely done terrain is too much for beginners? So sad. Do the people putting forth this view also apply it to everything is in life? Are cooking shows bad for cooking? Are professional-level sports stopping people from playing them? I think not. I know of noone who says that the spectacle of Premier League football stops beginners from playing footie, or that Walmart/Apple/etc. stops anyone from starting a new business. But appearently this is true for miniature gaming.

My second love is cooking. I could watch the Cooking Channel all day long. But none of that stops me from cooking as well as I can. In truth, I learn from these programs. A little bit here, a little bit there. I am no professional, but can put out a good table when I wish. (And sometimes just make do with fast food or frozen.) But to say that we should stop these programs for fear we are off-putting beginners is just wrong-headed.

In any endeavor there are beginners, it's in their name! Of course they cannot put thousands of amazing models on a fully kitted-out table. If they could, they wouldn't be beginners. But the spectacle provides them (and the rest of us) something to strive for, and a display to inspire us. Smaller games may allow them to get playing now, but most of us build and paint more models than we need for any game, and sooner or later we want to play with all of them.

I used to work for GW in their stores. We always encouraged new players to play with what they have, and to build on that. It takes little for a hobbyist  (in any hobby) to add to their lead mountain/scrapbook supplies/fly fishing tackle. They will eventually grow their army, and play bigger games.

This new fashion of skirmish games is fuelled by many things, but it is a fashion. Big games will come back, and then be phased out again for "smaller" games. And really, if one just looks at the 3-4 rules sets that come out every year for Naps/WWII/ancients (that is 3-4 major sets for each...) then we can see that big games are still here. Heck, the entire AoS debacle is not because of the new rules, but because the player base for Warhammer wanted to play with all their models. They wanted big games! They, and many players want to move large blocks of troops around a table. After all, one can hardly decide the fate of Europe/the Confederacy/Middle Earth/Mother Russia/Westeros with a dozen men on the table!

That some may see an amazing spread and say, " That is too much and looks too good, so I should even try to start" reveals more about them than it does our (or any) hobby.

[Vermis]

It does cut both ways, IMO. On one hand I think the spectacle of big armies and big games can be inspirational, and aspirational. On the other hand, even while standing gawping at the table you can think 'where do they get the time and motivation to do all this?'

In response to Dbsubashi, applying your metaphor to big armies: it can be off-putting if people start to make comments that you're not putting as much time and effort into your meals as the pros on the Cooking Channel. That's my experience. I attended a club where they loved playing big games across big tables, with big 28mm armies accumulated over years that filled even those tables*. Some of us newbies to the club or the periods were encouraged to join in and start collecting, but grumbles and moans started to bubble up, that units still had to be lent during games because some of our own massive armies weren't growing as fast as they 'should' be.

My final reaction to that attitude could be seen under the 'historicals' heading of my sale thread, here, recently. Not to mention that I'm not a particularly fast or enthusiastic painter, but when I get going I like to make my minis - especially 28s - look reasonably good. The methods these guys were wheedling about, for big, fast armies, would make block painting look like Rembrandt.

* In that, I agree with Captain Blood and Gibby. Waiting for your turn in a big, cramped multiplayer game, just to trundle your couple of units directly forward, then wait ages again for everyone else to do the same, wasn't too much fun in practise. Heck, leaning and stretching 3 feet over delicate polystyrene tiles and flocked trees to shuffle a big, loose unit of 28mm minis about 4-6 inches was a wee, tiny bit of a faff in itself, strange as it sounds.

And the mention made by Arlequin, Nic-e and Gibby about speed and simplification, combined with Daeothar's point about hobbies: I don't like a game to get too abstract, but at the same time like to have a nice game or two in a pleasant afternoon or evening, not a whole weekend. I don't have many strong drives to camp in a strange living room or in some draughty old hall for the sake of wargames, and so far I've managed to dodge it.

All that's not to say I think there's something inherently wrong with big games, just that I think some of the accepted 'culture' about them could change, or be seen more as some options among many.

The guys who I recall had the big armies did nothing but that period, or at least very little else. With smaller forces you can diversify more, explore different things. Variety is the spice of life as they say.

Aye, that.

[Gibby]

I attended a club where they loved playing big games across big tables, with big 28mm armies accumulated over years that filled even those tables*. Some of us newbies to the club or the periods were encouraged to join in and start collecting, but grumbles and moans started to bubble up, that units still had to be lent during games because some of our own massive armies weren't growing as fast as they 'should' be.

I would soon be banned from this club I suspect, with my painting rate

[Arlequín]

Couldn't agree more with everything Arlequin has said. Perfectly expressed.

Thanks and right back at you with yours! I also took an extended break from the hobby for a similar time... and us being in agreement feels sort of wrong btw. 

As for the Salute comments... that's interesting, because I'm now suspecting 'not the sort of games I like' with a dash of sour grapes, was the agenda of the person making those comments... i.e. "Not enough real wargames".

As for simplified rules being mentioned, I think what counts as 'simplified' is a bit subjective... when you've played 'Moderns' with a set of rules that requires not only detailed armour factors on any part of a tank, whether it's face hardened, homogeneous, composite, and/or reactive, then factors in gun penetration with whatever ammo you elected to fire (add-in knowing smirk from the guy holding the rule book) and the precise angle of the shot, then requires you to roll several times to assess damage and then ha! let's see them give orders with no radio aerial! is the result... then pretty much anything is 'simplified'. I may have exaggerated a little there.

Taking a whole evening to play out 'real time action' of two or three minutes though, does suggest something needs simplifying. 

I really think though that the only way to do this hobby is how you want to do it and not how other folk tell you how you should be doing it. I struggle not to think that when someone is pushing you to be like them and play what they play, that they have some major insecurities... especially the ones that harp on about how fantastic their game is and how yours is too simple/too big/too small/too purrty/too different.

 

[eilif]

Note: this is written from the perspective of a SciFi and Fantasy gamer.  Also, I'm someone who dips figures so my prep time may be somewhat less that folks who build massive armies with high-technique paintjobs.

Big Battles = Yes Please!

I fell for wargaming because of the big battle spectacle, but I think that we need both.

The problem is that if you dive into something like 40k you don't really have the option (unless you go with indie rules or buy a separate 40k boardgame) to play a small game.  The same is true for KoW, though there are fan skirmish rules.

The key is either to get gamers into a good skirmish system and then work towards something big or to just indoctrinate them from the beginning with the knowledge that your minis can be used in many games.

As an example. I first built my Chaos Warband in Song of Blades and Heroes.  As I added figures to it I was also able to use it in Of Gods and Mortals, Saga and most recently (and most preferred) Dragon Rampant.  It has now grown big enough to use in large battles of KoW.  The journey would have been alot less fun if these figs got no table time until I had painted up an army big enough for KoW.

Saying just skirmish or just big battles is silly.  They are both tons of fun.  Also, skirmish doesn't necessarily mean less work.  The amount of terrain on my Sci-Fi Skirmish tables (Necromunda, ITEN, etc...) probably represents around the same effort as a large army.

[Charlie_]

I like both.

I'm in it for the big battles, but am fully aware of certain negative aspects that can arise from such games. I guess you could say they should be handled carefully!

I also love smaller narrative-based skirmishes.

I base on 20mm squares, allowing me to do both with the same collection. For the big battles I have put some time, money and effort into making LOTS of good quality movement trays, for all sorts of configurations and formations that may arise. Obviously moving big blocks of troops one model at a time can be silly, but also I don't like the limitations of multi-basing. Lots of good movement trays is the solution for me.

[Dave Knight]

Interesting debate.  I am very much in the 'each to their own' camp.

Personally hundreds/thousands of well painted figures on excellent terrain does not inspire me in the sense of making me want to create something similar.  That is not to say that I don't enjoy looking at games that have the Wow factor. 

What normally inspires me is fellow gamers.  For instance my current project is following a series of articles in Slingshot on Jason and the Argonauts.  I am buying and painting figures and have bought the suggested rule set (Hordes of the Things).  A good history book can also be inspirational but I am much less likely to follow through on the tabletop.

Trends in wargaming only effect me when they hit my local club.  Some things  I like and will get involved in, others I don't and pass me by.  Not something I worry about at all.

[dadlamassu]

This is a discussion that I have heard over and over again.  When I attend shows as a visitor I like to see nicely painted figures on nice terrain.  What turns me off?  Any game of any size where it is billed as a "demonstration" but either nothing happens or I do not get a "go" at playing.  Many are (very nice) dioramas as far as a visitor is concerned.  What I do like are the games where people are actually playing and there is someone explaining what is going on.  Even better are the ones I get to play.

I take our grandsons to the shows and they enjoy (and remember) the ones that they get to play.  To them it does not matter if the figures are painted by Leonardo da Vinci or by Grandad, nor does it matter if the terrain is made by granddad or the museum.  What matters is that they get "hands on" and most importantly the have fun.

Our first real wargaming came from Games Workshop - The Hobbit Escape from Goblin Town and now we are collecting and playing Lord of the Rings.  Why?  We got to play the games in the shop, at shows where enthusiasts explained the rules and encouraged a 7-year-old to play.  He got success, enjoyment and now that he is painting his own figures - a sense of achievement.

Big or small, museum quality or homespun matters only a little.  What really matters is enjoyment.  The inspiration, for me, comes not from the toys on display but from the enthusiasm of the players to SHARE their hobby that is what drags me into a new project.

[mcfonz]

Sigh. I have been seeing this arguement in many places lately. And I disagree with it. "Going big" is bad for the hobby? Nicely modeled, nicely painted minis on nicely done terrain is too much for beginners? So sad. Do the people putting forth this view also apply it to everything is in life? Are cooking shows bad for cooking? Are professional-level sports stopping people from playing them? I think not. I know of noone who says that the spectacle of Premier League football stops beginners from playing footie, or that Walmart/Apple/etc. stops anyone from starting a new business. But appearently this is true for miniature gaming.

I don't think that is quite right. It's more like watching a cook on TV prepare a large meal with several specialist dishes for a banquet or something - where the reality is most people would not have the time or space to do it themselves. Now - it does not stop someone saying, oh I really like the look of that dish, I will try that. Not at all. But for some people, they will gloss over it because they cannot see past the size and complexity of putting on such a meal for so many people.

Now apply that to some of the 'spectacle games' - it's like picking out a unit, or a piece of terrain that you would like to recreate, and yes, it has every ability to get the creative juices flowing, however - the reality is that so few people will be looking at it as a whole and thinking "yeah, I could do that", because the majority of people, and even clubs, are lucky if they have a 6x4 table to play on.

Now, I wouldn't go so far as saying that they are damaging or negative to a show or to the hobby - not at all. But I personally, do feel a disconnect with them. I don't have the space to do it myself, nor the time and I know a number of popular clubs wouldn't be able to spare the space on a typical games night as well. The reality is booking out a space for a day. And again, this brings in other difficulties. Sparing a whole day is one, and the money to book a venue is another factor.

In any endeavor there are beginners, it's in their name! Of course they cannot put thousands of amazing models on a fully kitted-out table. If they could, they wouldn't be beginners. But the spectacle provides them (and the rest of us) something to strive for, and a display to inspire us. Smaller games may allow them to get playing now, but most of us build and paint more models than we need for any game, and sooner or later we want to play with all of them.

I used to work for GW in their stores. We always encouraged new players to play with what they have, and to build on that. It takes little for a hobbyist  (in any hobby) to add to their lead mountain/scrapbook supplies/fly fishing tackle. They will eventually grow their army, and play bigger games.

There are two points I'd like to draw out of this if I may.

but most of us build and paint more models than we need for any game

This is very true. And in my case it is more because I like models as in they look good etc. I am mainly a fantasy/sci fi gamer with some modern zombie stuff as well. I would say that I buy more than I need because I'll buy a model I really like with character, and then decide it needs a warband to go with it. Or I will add it to an existing warband. Personally, I have found that I cannot paint unit upon unit upon unit of very similarly uniformed and posed miniatures - for me it drains my creativity and my enthusiasm and I find it tedious. Now, I know we all vary so you know, as someone has already said, variety is the spice of life.

I too used to work for GW, and I think I can say with confidence that beginners did one of two things, preferred smaller purchases to better their modeling and painting skills one step at a time. Or get mum and dad to buy them bulks of stuff and then rush through putting it together so they can get it on the table - the latter tended to be the ones that didn't have longevity in the game - you can often see the end result on ebay.

This new fashion of skirmish games is fuelled by many things, but it is a fashion.

I have to stop you there, I really do. It is not a 'fashion' or a 'fad'. It is a trend, and one that has been growing for quite some time. GW had a spike that dropped off sharply with Apocalypse and super-sizing WHFB units. The spike was mainly caused by the introduction of some larger scale plastic kits like the Baneblade etc. Now. I know quite a few GW only chaps that dropped out at that point due to the aesthetic of lining up so many 28mm models in deployment literally inches away from each other, just really unrealistic and less fun to game.

If you look around at some of the popular skirmish games out there, you can hardly call them new. SAGA was introduced to the wargaming hobby 5 years ago, the fact that it is still going strong and releasing supplements would suggest that it is more than just fashionable. Bolt Action is at least as old again. There are others of course. But like I say, it is a trend, and at the moment, one I do not see subsiding for some time to be honest. It just suits today's social and wargaming demands.

Big games will come back, and then be phased out again for "smaller" games. And really, if one just looks at the 3-4 rules sets that come out every year for Naps/WWII/ancients (that is 3-4 major sets for each...) then we can see that big games are still here. Heck, the entire AoS debacle is not because of the new rules, but because the player base for Warhammer wanted to play with all their models. They wanted big games! They, and many players want to move large blocks of troops around a table. After all, one can hardly decide the fate of Europe/the Confederacy/Middle Earth/Mother Russia/Westeros with a dozen men on the table!

Actually, I think you will find that the main issue with AoS is the destruction of the world that all of the players armies belonged to and the relatively quick time in which they are being re-sculpted, and in a larger scale at that. Again, in the example of local clubs this has seen people either quit WHFB entirely or simply move to Mantic Kings of War. Most of them really didn't like the direction WHFB had taken in regards to the incredibly large units as well, preferring older editions of the game where units of 16-20 were the norm. And the reality is, that although still more popular than other games out there, WHFB was rapidly losing sales. Knowing the players locally, I would say this was primarily down to GW pushing players towards bigger games whilst hiking up the prices. Neither were favoured nor popular decisions before AoS. AoS then struck the blow because those that had tried to do what GW pushed them to, were then slapped in the face when the theme or backstory in the game was destroyed.

quote author=dadlamassu link=topic=90547.msg1118698#msg1118698 date=1463902200]
This is a discussion that I have heard over and over again.  When I attend shows as a visitor I like to see nicely painted figures on nice terrain.  What turns me off?  Any game of any size where it is billed as a "demonstration" but either nothing happens or I do not get a "go" at playing.  Many are (very nice) dioramas as far as a visitor is concerned.  What I do like are the games where people are actually playing and there is someone explaining what is going on.  Even better are the ones I get to play.[/quote]

This in spades.

I do like to see the "spectacle games" as well, purely for inspiration - but I think that is the key. I'm not likely to want to recreate the entire thing, where as I have looked at skirmish tables that are more the same size as the one I have access to and it's got me thinking how I can make the best use of space and whether I could build "that board".

Like others have said, I too am definitely of the "each to their own" but I also try to remain realistic and philosophical. Reflecting upon the last decade of Salute's I would say that the trend is continuing to push towards more games that can fit on smaller tables.

[Arlequín]

I think it's worth mentioning that most of the 3 or 4 rule sets that come out for Ancients and Napoleonics each year, tend to be for big battles in smaller scales and typically feature 'postage stamp' units... not that there is anything wrong with that, but it's not big battles with 25/28mm figures.

As for WWII there is no 'Big Battle' rule set, they are all 'skirmish' games, with the 'company' (be it in terms of the quantity of figures, or the representational formation) being the largest formation on-table. You might squeeze a battalion on the table in 6mm, but what were the last 'big battle' rules anyone can remember that came out for those?

As for skirmish games being a fad... well Donald Featherstone wrote Skirmish Wargaming in 1975 and since then there have been numerous skirmish rule sets for various periods each year. I used to play Medieval skirmishes with Retinue back in the '80s. It didn't all start with Warhammer Skirmish and Saga and there was life before Games Workshop.