that talks about how wargaming encourages study of history, and that without understanding history you can’t ‘get’ wargames.
Tosh I say, wargames can be fantasy too.
You don’t have to study history to be a ‘proper’ wargamer.
Wargaming is not the sole domain of the historical gamer.
Are they saying that though? Some are, I’m sure. But many others are likely talking about historical wargaming when saying this. I think that context is important in individual cases but the greater problem though is one person telling another person what their hobby should be. I believe that is ultimately what you’re talking about.
I have encountered that. On this forum in its early days, in other forums, in person, at conventions, etc… It is easy to come across, wargamers are a very opinionated bunch and many, many are contrarians. If you say you are looking for a system that does XYZ, you’ll easily find someone who says that is the wrong way to do it (which is fine) and that you’re an imbecile for seeking to do it that way (which is not fine).
Years ago there was a category of games that sought to simulate history through wargames. Those systems gained an often deserved reputation for being highly complex and cumbersome. That eventually caused a schism between gamers who separated into pro-complex and pro-simplistic. The word ‘simulation’ became known to be equal to “overly complex and cumbersome”.
People argued a lot about which method was the “right and true path”. I’m sure many people here are fairly familiar with this history.
The sad thing to me is that while game design has changed, products have changed, communication has changed, sentiments haven’t. The people who wish to play games that simulate systems – in complex or simple ways – are often ragged on by people who favor games that don’t have seek to simulate anything and just function as games. Historical gamers are a niche inside a niche, told by fantasy and sci-fi gamers they play the “boring games”. Fantasy and sci-fi gamers are similarly ragged on by historical gamers and it goes on.
For my part I am rather negative about Flames of War as a historical wargame. However, I am also very respectful of its excellent business model and its coherence as a game. A coherent game is difficult to create and whether *I* like a given game or not, coherence is something to respect. I believe I must be able to accept a game can have value independent of my preference for it.
I think that is really the core of what you’re talking about, people who are unable to accept that “your hobby is right for you”.
We would be better off as a gaming community if we accepted these are personal preferences and not the right or wrong way to practice the hobby.
Cheers,
The Bandit
