History and wargames

[Angel Barracks]

Every now and then I come across a topic, thread, status update, whatever; 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.

Have you encountered any snobbery as a fantasy gamer from historical gamers, do you only play historicals but have zero issue with those that play fantasy?
Thoughts and experiences please ladies and gentlemen.

[Oh no….]

I started gaming with figures using Tunnels & Trolls (that dates me then) before D&D came out. Then moved onto “historical” ancients, WW2 6mm and 1:3000 naval. Since then its been 15mm AWI, Zulu War, Sci-fi, AK47; 6mm Modern (80s), Napoleonic, WW2 (second time around); 20mm WW2, VBCW; 25/28mm Napoleonic, more Ancients and Dark Age; now 15mm Sci-fi (second time around). There has been a number of forays into other periods/scales along the way.

I have no problem with fantasy at all, even “Historical” is a fantasy as even refighting an actual battle is make believe. Can the sources be totally trusted given that the winner writes the history books?

What does hack me off are rules that promote/dictate that only the companies own products can be used to play them, competition or not!

[Spurious]

Angel Barracks wrote:

. Have you encountered any snobbery as a fantasy gamer from historical gamers, do you only play historicals but have zero issue with those that play fantasy?

I’ve honestly had more of a problem with people expecting intimate familiarity with a fantasy setting than the other way around.

Though it would be nice for me if people gave more of a damn about what they were using for the historical games I play so I didn’t have to be the one constantly reminding them of the basic squad composition of their own army. If that’s snobbery then please consider me an elitist git by all means.

[Ruarigh]

As a historian and medievalist, I have greater issues with historical wargamers than I do with fantasy gamers. I play historical, fantasy and science fiction games quite happily, and I recognise the element of interpretation that must go into a historical wargame. I just wish that other historical wargamers would recognise and acknowledge that their game is interpretative and not a recreation of actual history, as if there were some kind of Rankean objective absolute history that could be played out on the table-top. I know some gamers are more circumspect in their approach, but too many lack an appropriately source critical approach to their reading, and too many rely on older, out-of-date research. If they would only acknowledge that “this is a game based on K. W. Outofdateington’s magnum opus The Battles of Bad Reinigung” instead of stating that it is a recreation of the 13th Battle of Bad Reinigung exactly as it happened, my blood pressure would be in a much better state. Oh yes, and don’t even get me started on people using 19th-century translations of primary texts as their source material … /rant mode off

Back on topic:

1. You don’t need to study history to be a proper wargamer. Playing wargames makes you a proper wargamer, not studying history. I’ve seen some people get quite snooty about this, especially when I expressed the view that all wargames are fantasy to some extent. Apparently this was a personal insult towards those that put in a lot of research time for their games!
2. Wargaming can encourage the study of history, and I applaud this (with the caveats listed in my rant), but this is not a given. Many people just take the nearest Osprey volume or the army source-book for their chosen game and produce an army for the games table based on these. I have done this myself for some periods so that I could get a game in. This is not studying history.
3. All genres of wargame are valid. It’s about rolling dice and talking shite with your mates, not chest-thumping about who knows what a bricole actually is. Not all of these genres/periods will appeal to everyone, but the joy of wargaming is that it is a broad church with room for many different interests, and you are very likely to find someone somewhere who shares your enthusiasm for Early Iron Age Scandinavian naval wargaming.

So, in short, yes, I agree with you. Anyone that tries to prescribe precisely what is and is not wargaming is a numpty and probably best ignored.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

https://roderickdale.co.uk/
https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/

[Russell Phillips]

I might not have got started in wargaming if I didn’t have an interest in military history, but I don’t think it’s required. For me, knowing something about the units/vehicles/equipment involved adds to the enjoyment.

I’ve played fantasy and sci-fi in the past. I don’t have any interest in it these days, but I don’t see why I should care if others do. I’ve not seen much snobbery around it, but I did once know a wargamer that referred to either/both (not sure if he recognised a difference) as “the ruination of wargaming”.

Oh no’s point about historical being equivalent to fantasy is an interesting one. I first got interested in Cold War gaming in the 1980s. Nobody really knew the capabilities of most of the stuff on the table. Reference books would contradict each other. In fact, one book I had contradicted itself – it said that the British Swingfire anti-tank missile could defeat all known armour, and that the Challenger’s armour was proof against all known anti-tank weapons

Military history author
Website : Mastodon : Facebook

[Not Connard Sage]

Angel Barracks wrote:

Every now and then I come across a topic, thread, status update, whatever; 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. Have you encountered any snobbery as a fantasy gamer from historical gamers, do you only play historicals but have zero issue with those that play fantasy? Thoughts and experiences please ladies and gentlemen.

 

You’ve been over to the dark side haven’t you? 😉

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Chris Pringle]

Angel Barracks wrote:

You don’t have to study history to be a ‘proper’ wargamer.

I agree. You just have to play games based on some aspects of war. That can include fantasy and science-fiction games. Fantasy gamers are wargamers too! Although by preference I am very definitely a historical wargamer, I will happily play fantasy games too, and feel no snobbery towards fantasy gamers. A good fantasy game can be far more fun than a diligently researched but turgid historical game.

Where I have been guilty of snobbery in the past is towards the nominally historical tournament games: generic battles, so many 100 points a side, minimal formulaic terrain, often between ahistorical opponents. It took me a long time to realise that this is neither “better” nor “worse” than what I do, it is simply an entirely different hobby, and people are pursuing it for different reasons from mine and getting their pleasure in a different way. That doesn’t devalue their pleasure. As Ruarigh said, all genres are valid. If someone gets their kicks from pitting Aztecs vs Vikings, who am I to sneer? So I don’t any more. And I apologise for any offence caused by any of my immature sneering in years gone by.

Having said that, I like to refight actual battles, and I research them thoroughly so I can write each scenario to capture the salient features of whatever battle it happens to be. I’m fully aware of my own fallibility, the limitations of my sources, and the fact that my scenarios are an interpretation rather than somehow definitive. But I did balk at one of my tournament gamer friends fresh from his Afrika Korps civil war looking at my finely crafted conflict simulation and saying “It’s all just fantasy really”, as if his game and mine were the same, when in (to me) important respects they are not. But he probably owed me a sneer!

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!

https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info

http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk/

 

 

 

[Jonathan Gingerich]

Two points: Aren’t most fantasy worlds/games based on something historical? most D&D (or Starwars) model a romanticized high middle ages.  What is the most alien fantasy game out there?

As someone who gets his jollies pursuing minutia about the Russian Napoleonic army, I get annoyed by know-nothings.  People who pound their chest about how you can paint your troops any way you like, because, well, they probably were wearing what ever they could find.  No, you can paint your troops any way you like because they are your troops.  But sometimes we have a very clear idea of what they wore and sometimes very little.

[Phil Dutré]

Historical vs fantasy is an antiquated and artificial division in wargaming that stems from the early seventies when people started using fantasy miniatures in their games and a name was needed for this ‘new’ period. The amount of gamers that play both historical and fantasy indicate that gamers tend not to subdivide themselves along these lines.

A much more significant genre division would be scenario-based gaming vs point-list based gaming. That expresses much more a difference in attitude and approach than the distinction between history and fantasy.

Does one need to now history to be a wargamer? In principle no, but if you’re not at least interested in the history, then what’s the point?

[Ruarigh]

@Phil: Surely the point of being a wargamer is to play wargames. You don’t need to have an interest in history to do that; you could just play using the latest WartyK rules and the army lists related to them. When you do that you are still playing a wargame, but your focus is on the game, the social interaction, and perhaps the modeling too.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

https://roderickdale.co.uk/
https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/

[Guy Farrish]

Wow!

8 replies and barring NCS’ which I suspect wasn’t meant as a serious comment (!?) I can agree and argue with all. Good going even for me.

First up – I can’t really answer as we don’t have (and probably never will) an agreed definition of ‘wargame’ let alone ‘proper wargamer’.

For me wargaming pretty much has to have a historical element. My interest in the game comes from an interest in the history of warfare and a variety of ‘what if’ around it. That doesn’t mean it has to be a ‘simulation’ (please let’s not get into a simulation/game discussion here – really – let’s not) but the actions of troops does in some way (written rules, ‘tool boxes’, umpire knowledge/whim) have to have an input from known data. How likely a 1944 platoon of county regiment Brit infantry was  to take a position defended by a 1944 section of Wehrmacht was for example? (not very on its own). Extend that to 1944 Brits vs imaginary post WWII Soviets and you are into problem areas, go on to Alexander vs Landsknechts and that is fantasy. Yes both used pikes but the cultural use and expectations of those using them are vastly different and those cultures didn’t clash – no data.

To me that makes a lot of ‘historical’ wargames, fantasy games. Does that mean they are not wargames?

Possibly. They are games using figures or models (physical or notional) taken from history but in an unhistorical way. ‘True’ fantasy/SF games of course use protagonists that never existed so they must borrow data from history and/or future projections to allow interaction. Both these types can make great games but do they make ‘war’ games?

Anyway, is not being a wargame a bad thing? No of course not. It is probably little more than a debate about nomenclature for me. So, although there is a little pedantic person niggling away inside my brain saying  ‘no they’re not wargames really’, I’d be quite content to admit any game that has a desire to be called a wargame into the fraternity/sorority (any game that thinks being admitted to that club is a step up in social recognition, needs all the help it can get).

Snobbery?

I don’t think so – for me its just precision in definition – but as I said initially – we don’t have a definition so what do I know?

[Angel Barracks]

Guy Farrish wrote:

Both these types can make great games but do they make ‘war’ games?

If you play a game that models war then it is a wargame surely?
Not a historical wargame, but a game about war all the same.

Calling something only a wargame if it is based on actual events to me is silly.
What would happen if you play a fictional scenario set in the very near future, say a game set in Syria based around the very real conflict there, that then comes true?
It is not called a wargame up until the point it becomes a historical event, then it suddenly is a wargame?
The game itself has not changed…

Guy Farrish wrote:

(please let’s not get into a simulation/game discussion here – really – let’s not)

I agree!
😀

[Not Connard Sage]

Guy Farrish wrote:

Wow! 8 replies and barring NCS’ which I suspect wasn’t meant as a serious comment (!?) 

 

I’m rarely serious about toy soldiers.

 

There’s a thread on TMP in similar vein to this. Hence my post.

 

See?

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Angel Barracks]

Phil Dutré wrote:

A much more significant genre division would be scenario-based gaming vs point-list based gaming. That expresses much more a difference in attitude and approach than the distinction between history and fantasy.

I think I can get on-board with that.
I much prefer the scenario based games these days.
Back as a youth, I was all about the line them up and fight until one side is defeated.

Phil Dutré wrote:

Does one need to now history to be a wargamer? In principle no, but if you’re not at least interested in the history, then what’s the point?

Escapism and an outlet for creativity.
Getting together with mates and having a mutually enjoyable experience.

[Guy Farrish]

I’m not too invested in this, really, Michael and certainly have no belief that any variety of wargame (broadest definition you can think of) is ‘better’ than any other.

But just being precise (picky?) for a minute how does fantasy gaming or SF, model war? It is modelling a novelistic version of a conflict, or a fictional creation of the gamer that never happened. There is nothing that happened to model.

Now I said that a lot of ‘historical’ games weren’t really wargames either for the same reason. I’m not trying to limit the title ‘wargame’ to a replica of an action that actually happened, but I do think the basis for the decision making about the modelled combat should be how those ‘types’ of troops actually fought. You can extend this of course (that’s what ‘professional’ planners do) to include events that haven’t yet happened. In those cases the planners try and confine themselves as far as possible to known variables. Once you move into characteristics that are made up and generated by whim then the link, however tenuous with reality disappears. And the concept of ‘types’ does open up a can of worms for what can constitute a wargame under this definition. Can any person with a bolt action rifle stand in for any other distant effect weapon armed  person? Or is there something else we are trying to model in a wargame other than weapons and their effects?

I don’t think most recreational wargames are in fact wargames (and probably none the worse for that in providing entertainment). Chess is a game that in a way models war. It doesn’t strike me as a very good way of modelling war, but it is clearly a very good game that has its origins in war. Is it a wargame?

Back to what we define as a wargame.

Wargame is clearly a lot neater term than ‘Games having their origin in an interest in modelling warfare including but not confined to…’ etc.

So okay we are all wargamers.

(And I still have no idea, and don’t want one, of what a ‘proper’ wargamer is)

 

NCS – wargames don’t have to have toy soldiers – in fact they may be better without but I still like them)

 

 

[Angel Barracks]

So my question was:

Angel Barracks wrote:

Have you encountered any snobbery as a fantasy gamer from historical gamers

Which I think has been answered.

[Angel Barracks]

Not Connard Sage wrote:

You’ve been over to the dark side haven’t you?

 

I hadn’t, hard to believe given how this is pretty much identical to that one…
But I have now and see more snobbery from some historical gamers..

Makes me want to drive you to tears with a Rimmer-esque recollection of a time when I was at a show as a seller..

 

[Ruarigh]

Guy, the OED only says that a wargame is ‘a game that simulates war’ so we do have a definition but it is problematic because it does not address what it means by ‘simulate’ or ‘war’. I’m hoping we can all agree what a game is at this stage! 🙂 Personally, I feel that saying it has to be a historical war with accurate historical tactics is special pleading and not warranted. It is also self-defeating. Given that we do not know precisely how people fought in many of the periods gamed, that would exclude e.g. most ancients games from being wargames. It also runs counter to common usage which is and must be the ultimate arbiter of definition.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

https://roderickdale.co.uk/
https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/

[Guy Farrish]

Ruarigh, I’m happy to live with a very wide definition as I said (although the OED definition is a useful general English language one but doesn’t really work if you want to dig any deeper – I’m not sure I want to here as it will bore a lot of people – probably me included).

I would agree with you that my maunderings would lead to Ancients being excluded – and as wargames based on toy soldier tabletop tactics I am happy that they do. Most wargamers want far too much control in Ancient battles and they miss all the important part of the proceedings because they aren’t interested in gaming sacrifices, auguries and logistics (can’t say I blame ’em).

Common usage gets many things completely wrong and I am happy to ignore it

But as I said, I have no snobbery about ‘proper wargames’ – I don’t know what they are. Neither do I think that people who think that wargames, for them, need history should be dismissed as trying to be superior in some way, they just look at the game differently. I play all sorts of games – some are even wargames.

(I once wrote that I was happy for an afternoon’s theatre workshop on Northern Ireland to qualify as a wargame – so in practice I accept a fairly broad definition).

[Ruarigh]

I’ll not disagree with you about common usage, Guy, although how people use language is really what defines it. It’s just that I find much common usage inelegant or at odds with what I was taught as a child, so I would prefer it to be wrong. I try not to be a prescriptivist, but sometimes the tendency wins through!

I struggle to see how a theatre workshop could be a wargame, but I suppose topic and approach come into it.

You are certainly right about many gamers wanting too much control. Many is the time that I have howled internally as changes are proposed to rules sets to increase the level of control that the player has. I’m not a fan of micro-management in games. Some games do add in the interesting bits, as you term them, but not many. I think Hoplomachia included the possibility of augury and sacrifice. There are others that are trying to dredge their way to the fore of my morning-fuddled brain, but I cannot remember them specifically, and they may have been fantasy games anyway. But I agree that most games don’t which is a shame because they can add a bit of period colour to the proceedings.

Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

https://roderickdale.co.uk/
https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/

[kavita1]

I’d like to think I’m not snobby about different wargame syles/approches… but I have to be honest and admit I looked down a wee bit on fantasy gaming. Dwarves and Hobbits it just not right is it… 😉

I guess it takes a while to admit I’m simply enjoying playing with toy soldiers. For years I played Avalon Hill etc boardgames and I think the dominant discussions on these definately reinforced a few illusions.

I’m interested in the history, like the researching, like the modelling – the vehicles, the units, the buildings – like the collecting, like the idea of being able to play scenarios that try to be as representative of historical realities as possible (the last one being a pretty impossible ‘hope over reality’ straw for me to clutch onto…). And this wee hobby gives me the opportunity to combine all these. When looking at WW2 rule sets – which was my starting interest – I was a bit sniffy about points-based rules. Its not my thing or interest or desired approach – but the truth it is just another way of combining and enjoyng a set of interests.

So my initial preconceptions have fallen by the wayside. I’m warming to the idea of VBCW at the moment – I love the imagination and honest humour – so small steps for an old fart 🙂

I completely agree with Phil D’s point about a more significent division being that between “scenario-based gaming vs point-list based gaming”. *shakes fist at the clouds*

[Ivan Sorensen]

Fantasy games can include the study of source material and I’ve played in plenty of historical games that were plain fantasy 🙂

I think people who enjoy history are obviously more inclined towards historical gaming, in a way that fits their love of history.

Others play for other reasons. s’all good.

I’ve had people tell me that this or that game I wrote was great because it was historically accurate and that it’s great because it’s not worried about historical accuracy… in the same rules. So who knows 🙂

[McLaddie]

Every now and then I come across a topic, thread, status update, whatever; 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.

“Angel”:

I would agree and haven’t really encountered those attitudes. I and my mates play historical, fantasy and all other sorts of wargames. [Recently played Axis & Allies WWI and had a great time.] Enjoy them all. We don’t play each one for the same reasons though. We go to the table for difference experiences besides just a good game.  If that was all we wanted, we’d play Qwerkle. A great game without all the paraphernalia, time requirements and controversy, and up to six can play and have teams if desired.

Personally, I have no more expectations of a rules set than what the designer says the rules provide. It they are promoted as ‘historically accurate’ and providing the same challenges as those faced by the real commanders, that is what I expect from play. And I have reason to ask how that was achieved, not that the question is often answered. But there is no rule that says a ‘proper wargame’ has to provide such things.  The question would be what makes a set of rules a ‘proper wargame?’ And how does one make it ‘historical’, whether that constitutes simulating or not?

Bill

[paintpig]

Personally I like war gaming because I enjoy history ‘n stuff, I enjoy history ‘n stuff because I like war gaming…. how does that work?

Opinionated snobbery comes with the territory in all sorts of hobbies. I couldn’t give a fig about what they game, how they game or why…… people play war games, they derive enjoyment out of it doing it their way, let it be they sang.

I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel
Slowly Over A Low Flame

[McLaddie]

 I have no problem with fantasy at all, even “Historical” is a fantasy as even refighting an actual battle is make believe. Can the sources be totally trusted given that the winner writes the history books?

On No:

No source can be ‘totally trusted.’  That’s true for most disciplines or subjects of study that uses sources of any kind, including science.  And yeah, historical wargaming is make believe.  But then, so is every simulation ever made. They are fake, artificial, not the real thing.

“‘Simulation’ is a broad term. But simulation is, by definition, pretending. All simulations are “tools that give you ersatz (as opposed to real) experience.”

–Marc Prensky, Education and Training Simulator  “Interactive Pretending: An Overview of  Simulation.”                                                                                                                                                                                  Digital Game-based Learning  2007

In other words, simply because all wargames are pretend doesn’t keep them from being simulations… if that is what is wanted.  No rule says that that a wargame has to be or should be. It’s all up to the designer and what the players want from their gaming experience in make-believe.  However, unless you believe that all history is fantasy, a historical wargame isn’t based on fantasy. It is modeling something else altogether.

[Angel Barracks]

paintpig wrote:

Opinionated snobbery comes with the territory in all sorts of hobbies. I couldn’t give a fig about what they game, how they game or why…… people play war games, they derive enjoyment out of it doing it their way, let it be they sang.

I agree, which is why I was wondering about cross-genre/period elitism and snobbery, not if a game is a simulation or realistic.
Just if people have had to endure other fellow gamers looking down on them as they play what is classed as fantasy (non historical.)

[irishserb]

I’ve been “wargaming” since the mid-1970s.  My first experience with gamer snobbery was at my first convection and featured a historical gamer looking down on other historical gamers.  He was an officer in a fairly large gaming club that was sponsoring he convention with an interest in Napoleon and earlier.  For whatever reason, he found need to announce that WWII gamers weren’t real wargamers, and that anything with tanks should be excluded from the convention.  Being a life long tread-head, I kind of noticed the proclamation.

In the years since, I’ve probably seen every form of gamer snobbery and/or bigotry that can happen.  I really don’t worry about it too much for the most part, though will sometimes respond if the mood catches me right.  I’v been rejected by historical games for playing the wrong historical games, for playing sci-fi and fantasy; by board gamers for playing miniatures; by fantasy and sci-fi gamers at different times for playing historicals, etc.  I’m use to rejection.

The way I look at it is that “the hobby” is at least a little different for each of us, and it feeds our individual needs in different ways.  My hobby interests have sparked me to read and study history in a far broader scope than just military history.  In fact, I read a lot more non-military history, than military.  I also study various sciences as a result of gaming interests, expanding my understanding of calculus, physics, botany, etc due to gaming interests.  I think that the focus on military history in association with historical gaming is often too narrow, that much of the relevant history is lost to the gamer, but we are back to what feeds us.

From my perspective, historical wargaming is a subset of the broader term, wargaming.  Also from my perspective, wargaming applies to fantasy and/or sci-fi, because one way or another, all that we imagine starts with what we know.  Fantasy wargaming finds its origin in real conflict.  The “true” validity of any  game is a function of the intent of those who participate, not the intent of those who dismiss it.   It is about what feeds you, the gamer.

I have interests and specific disinterests within the hobby.  Am I a snob? I try not to be, but am sure that I am still offensive to some.  I don’t care to game most of what happened from about 1500 AD to 1850 AD.  Though some really interesting history takes place there, and I have literally hundreds of volumes (mostly read) on my shelves covering that period, but I don’t game it.  I shy away from games that feature more than one fig per stand.  The games just don’t tend feed me.  However, I do appreciate the history, art, the effort, fiction and fantasy, and even enjoy sometimes watching games featuring things that I don’t like to game.  Sounds ambiguous?  I don’t apologize, I just do what feeds me.   I often find inspiration for my games in those things that I don’t do.

I don’t know what a “proper wargamer” is.  I game mostly history and sci-fi, though have had a growing desire to get back into fantasy in recent months.  I’m cool with people gaming what they like, and particularly enjoy seeing things that are different from what I do.

In the end, I just do what I enjoy.  A few may not like that.  I’m okay with that.

[paintpig]

Angel Barracks wrote:

paintpig wrote:

Opinionated snobbery comes with the territory in all sorts of hobbies. I couldn’t give a fig about what they game, how they game or why…… people play war games, they derive enjoyment out of it doing it their way, let it be they sang.

I agree, which is why I was wondering about cross-genre/period elitism and snobbery, not if a game is a simulation or realistic. Just if people have had to endure other fellow gamers looking down on them as they play what is classed as fantasy (non historical.)

Dont play sci-fant myself so cant answer from that perspective although I have played with some pretty opinionated people on the subject you pose however that was some 25 odd years ago. Nice chaps but they had no time for the likes of GW and it’s ilk (it wasn’t a branding issue back then), really cannot recall much snobbery from historical gamers since those days, the lines are so blurred between fantasy-scifi-historical fact in popular culture (and war gaming) nowadays it would have to be a very particular species of Gaming Luddite that still harboured a them and us mentality….. I haven’t encountered one for many years Mike, I have no doubt they likely exist in the damp dark places, I suggest they best be left alone, gawd knows what spores they carry.

 

I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel
Slowly Over A Low Flame

[McLaddie]

I agree, which is why I was wondering about cross-genre/period elitism and snobbery, not if a game is a simulation or realistic.
Just if people have had to endure other fellow gamers looking down on them as they play what is classed as fantasy (non historical.)

Angel:

I guess the question would be is such snobbery or elitism is more prevalent in our hobby than others.  I don’t think so. Tournament racquetball players can look down on the occasional player. A True Scale RC airplane modeler can look on those who only build and fly semi-scale planes.  The hardcore backpacker who hikes all summer in sandals can turn up his nose at the boot-clad backpacker who goes out maybe three or four times a year. I have seen them all. Those are snarky individuals.  However, elitism on a large scale across the wargaming community can be symptomatic of something else. In that previously mentioned wargaming site, the question was about the differences in wargame genres, but the discussion unsurprisingly led back to the very question you asked.

So it is a question of whether the elitism simply involves snarky individuals [or groups] or whether it is a historical Wargaming attitude in general.

If such snobbery is general, that can be for one or more reasons:

1. The type of people attracted to historical gaming.
2. The changes of who, what and why people are now involved in wargaming [Change can make folks grumpy in general]
3. The lack of distinctions between genres, leading to any mildly different ‘type’ of wargame incursion [at a club, convention or…even weblist] creating a sense of possible loss or assimilation simply because no concrete distinctions are commonly recognized.

I really doubt that it is the type of person attracted to our hobby, from the many folks I have met. The elitists are few. In general, I think it is a combination of 2 and 3, three being what makes the changes and ‘inclusion’ more threatening than simple change.

My first experience with gamer snobbery was at my first convection and featured a historical gamer looking down on other historical gamers.  He was an officer in a fairly large gaming club that was sponsoring he convention with an interest in Napoleon and earlier.  For whatever reason, he found need to announce that WWII gamers weren’t real wargamers, and that anything with tanks should be excluded from the convention.

Irishserb:  That is a good example of #3.  Why would he feel the need to make such a pronouncement and what could it gain him? He probably knew there were as many or more WWII treadhead than grognards. That could have been threatening… [That doesn’t mean the guy didn’t earn a label of ‘jerk’, of course.]

When I started out wargaming in LA as a teenager I joined the Spartans International, boardgaming. I also joined a group of miniatures gamers. I was welcomed by both, but even though I was the only teenager in the miniatures group I never experienced the snobbery or elitism that I did in S.I. And that isn’t saying that most all of them were great guys.

[irishserb]

It occurred to me that my post above might be a little misleading.  I mention that I’ve seen  gamer snobbery in many forms, which might seem like I’m suggesting that it is a frequent thing.  That hasn’t been the case.  I find it to be a small minority within the hobby.  Every now and then it pops up, but not often.  I also think that over the years, the frequency of it has diminished.  My hobby community is tremendously larger now, than in the 1980s, but I see it less often now.

[paintpig]

irishserb wrote:

It occurred to me that my post above might be a little misleading. I mention that I’ve seen gamer snobbery in many forms, which might seem like I’m suggesting that it is a frequent thing. That hasn’t been the case. I find it to be a small minority within the hobby. Every now and then it pops up, but not often. I also think that over the years, the frequency of it has diminished. My hobby community is tremendously larger now, than in the 1980s, but I see it less often now.

I certainly agree with your observation Herb, my gamer circle is much increased over the last 30+ years, from good friends to casual internet/forum acquaintances, and the elitist element of that circle seems to be much smaller. Sure there is the odd one or two that pontificate over much but I find that this is more their nature in general and very few subjects, even outside of gaming, are beneath their sharing wise words to set us aright.

Lots of theirs there hope they’re used correctly… not making sense is a talent I possess in abundance

Anyways, as an afterthought Mike, maybe period, painting, rules or figure (brand) snobbery might still be a thing….. although I think it is more often than not lighthearted/piss take rather than a serious put down?

 

I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel
Slowly Over A Low Flame

[Steve Johnson]

“Have you encountered any snobbery as a fantasy gamer from historical gamers, do you only play historicals but have zero issue with those that play fantasy?”

I play both ‘periods’ quite happily. Personally I prefer historical wargaming but still enjoy fantasy as it takes me back to my formative days as a wargamer. I have encountered snobbery from within and without both ‘periods’, but nowadays just ignore this and carry on enjoying my games.

[Sane Max]

I always thought this sort of ‘snobbery’ was merely a spelling error – the ‘s’ is not needed.

Fixating on the cause, effect, reasons, definitions therefore does not tie up any of my time. Nobs will be Nobs, and it’s the same sort of people who will criticise your choice of footwear for the war of Jenkins ear or the rivet pattern on your ’44 sherman who will sneer at your Goblins or dis your love of Hittites.

I would expect that there may be a slightly greater degree of nobbery from Historical gamers as there is a tendency for it to attract people who think they know it all from their academic background, or service in the Madeuppian Army fighting at Nuoc Mam in ’72. But only very very slight.

[Sane Max]

i DID encounter an interesting Tipping point in another rplayer – I have bult a number of small forces in 20mm with the general plan of playing Saga with them. I had a troll for my Dorks & Notlings and the Lizardfolk had a Giant spitting Lizard, so thought it would be nice to give other forces a monster choice as well. I got a bunch of cheap plastic toys from a local zoo – you know, a Plakky Scorpion, Spider, Snake, Crocodile etc – and repainted them.

But one person, happy to battle to defend Dol Guldur in 28mm or to wage endless war against Chaos in outer Space in whatever scale that is, balked like a cat presented with Lidl own Brand Petfood. Not in a sneering way, not in an unpleasant way – just in a ‘too far – brain can’t take it’ way.

“But they are Toys……” is all he could say ….. “But they are Toys……”

‘The Horror……. The Horror

[Piyan Glupak]

Sane Max wrote:

balked like a cat presented with Lidl own Brand Petfood

Actually, Lidl cat food is quite good.  Our two ornithologists (who are are connoisseurs of meat, fish and cat food) love it.  It also seems to do them good, in that their coats usually look better if that is the main component of their diet, as compared to other, locally available cat foods.

[Not Connard Sage]

Piyan Glupak wrote:

Sane Max wrote:

balked like a cat presented with Lidl own Brand Petfood

Actually, Lidl cat food is quite good. Our two ornithologists (who are are connoisseurs of meat, fish and cat food) love it. It also seems to do them good, in that their coats usually look better if that is the main component of their diet, as compared to other, locally available cat foods.

One of our cats preferred cheaper branded food. In a non-scientific test, when presented with Felix, Whiskas and Lidl catfood, he’d go for Lidl every time***. Cats can’t read the label, so they go with what they like 😉

 

We now return you to your usual programme 🙂

 

***then he’d eat the Whiskas and Felix…

 

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Guy Farrish]

Whilst I accept it is ‘cat food’, and that your cat may like it, is it ‘proper’ cat food? I mean in the greater scheme of things does it fulfil the best approximation of cat food to its Platonic ideal?

Or is it just going through the motions?

 

[Angel Barracks]

ahem

[Ivan Sorensen]

irishserb wrote:

It occurred to me that my post above might be a little misleading. I mention that I’ve seen gamer snobbery in many forms, which might seem like I’m suggesting that it is a frequent thing. That hasn’t been the case. I find it to be a small minority within the hobby. Every now and then it pops up, but not often. I also think that over the years, the frequency of it has diminished. My hobby community is tremendously larger now, than in the 1980s, but I see it less often now.

It probably stands out exactly because it’s not that common.

[Guy Farrish]

Angel Barracks wrote:

ahem

Sorry

[Author]

Posts