""It Would be Good for The Hobby!"" Topic

From the recent thread about the Foundry "Napoleon" set, somebody wrote:

[I will probably purchase Napoleon for the eye candy, but I doubt that I will ever play the game as I prefer to use my own rules…. I hope that Napoleon is very successful – it can only be a good thing for the hobby.]

I've seen this sentiment expressed many times. I remember a thread last year in which somebody wrote that he hoped there would be a FOW-Napoleonics set, because it would be "good for the hobby," but that he'd never play it.

In fact, I've seen this sentiment expressed a lot. People often say that such-and-such new product would be "good for the hobby," despite their lack of interest in it.

This has always struck me as curious. Since "the hobby" is simply us gamers, then it does not follow logically to say that a product is "good for the hobby," if people aren't playing it.

Nor does it make much sense to say, "I ain't gonna play it… But I sure hope that other people do!" If you're not interested in it, then why would you hope that others are?

There seems to be some vague notion that people produce wargame products as a charitable gift, putting them out there not in the hope of them being purchased and making money, but rather, "For the good of the hobby."

I find it hilarious that the same Foundry that justified its high prices because it wasn't making figures for wargamers, but for collectors, has now decided to produce its own wargame rules.

Stupid hypocrites.

The line you quote doesn't necessarily support the charity attitude, though.

"I hope that Napoleon is very successful – it can only be a good thing for the hobby."

I could easily read a couple less-than-charitable attitudes into that quote, including an undercurrent of disdain for anything that isn't Napoleonics, but that's probably just me.

If you're not interested in it, then why would you hope that others are?

Because a room, store, or convention hall full of gamers is better than the alternative. I'm having fun at my table, and I hope everyone around me is having fun at their tables, regardless of what is being played (though please, no live-action CalvinBall).

I think it's along the lines of "I'm not really into Indian food, but I hope the new Indian restaurant makes a go of it and people enjoy it. It can only be good for the neighborhood."

Perhaps I'm too small-minded, but if I didn't like Indian food, then I can't imagine I'd care one way or the other whether the town had an Indian restaurant.

I'm always left wondering if other hobbies have this mindset. I'm also bemused by people who think we should promote The Hobby, as if it's a religion. Or maybe a new burger.

Motorcycling is more a way of life with me than a hobby, but when I was in kendo I don't recall constant cries of 'it can only be good for the hobby' every time Shogun was on the telly. Quite the reverse

Wargaming is after all a rather simple pastime however much some intellectualise it. It stands or falls on its own merits.

^that's more rambling than usual, but it's damn hot here and I'm out of cold beer :)

I wonder if it isn't a hold-over from the 'bad old days'.

Back when any product was welcomed as 'good for the hobby' because there was so little available. So Airfix plastic Napoleonics were 'good for the hobby' because they made Napoleonics much more affordable and so more people could play that period. This attitude extended so far that if one wrote a bad review of a product, one was accused of 'harming the hobby.'

At some point between 'then' (1970s) and now, the 'hobby' became financially viable (to the point). So we can slag the newest FoW figures for failing to look human and no one accuses us of trying to kill the hobby.

I'm still not sure why anyone would assume that 'Napoleon' will be 'good' for the hobby. Yes, it's another option of Napoleonics rules, which is good, but we hardly need another one (I think there are more sets of Napoleonic rules written than there are Napoleonic players). It may bring a few new people in just because its associated with Foundry, but that will mainly benefit Foundry, which is not the entirety of 'the hobby', despite Duncan McFarlane's protests to the contrary. It's just another product available in a stable market – gaming will continue whether its an insane success or no one buys it.

It could also be a belief that a given set of rules (in this case Napoleon) would attract additional players and therefore an increase in available supporting products a la what WAB supposedly did for ancients and Flames of War for WWII miniatures.

Even if you don't like the rules, figure manufacturers increase their products and product lines which gives everyone more to choose from.

I would presume that from the perspective of a Napoleonics players it would be a jolly good thing if this new set of rules would bring new players to the Napoleonics from other periods. Thus resulting in an increase in the sales of Napoleonic miniatures, and possibly part of the new Napoleonic players would eventually drift into other Napoleonic games.

Griefbringer

"Perhaps I'm too small-minded, but if I didn't like Indian food, then I can't imagine I'd care one way or the other whether the town had an Indian restaurant."

Not small-minded, just a different point of view. You're just thinking about yourself and what you like. The person who cares about the neighborhood (or "The Hobby") is thinking about whether other people might enjoy it, or whehter it might benefit the look and feel of the neighborhood. I think many people use the term "the hobby" to refer to the wargaming community of people, rather than the actual hobby itself.

It's simple. The hobby is aging and the attitude I have for the hobby, which is us gamers, is please grow in numbers. Wargaming also includes manufacturers of various kit. If a manufacturer has a hit but I don't play it, there may be benefits to me in the form of accessories, paint, etc.

In the wargaming hobby, a rising tide lifts all ships. We are a small fragmented hobby that needs all the support and growth it can get.
T

By that logic, though, *every* game would be "good for the hobby." Every release, every product… for surely it appeals to *somebody* or brings in *somebody* ?

Not trying a Reductio ad absurdum here, but… doesn't that make the expression "good for the hobby" pretty meaningless?

One of the reasons we have the wealth of wargaming products today is that in the past many people did "what was good for the hobby." I know a number of veteran gamers who in their lifetimes have gone out of their way to recruit and evangelize and thanks to them today I have an unbelievable number of choices in periods, scales and figures. In our area, we have (among others) Bob Beattie, who I think of as sort of a Pied Piper for gaming.

I think the younger generation of gamers are a bit spoiled by the riches of the times (this is not meant to be disparaging at all.)

I see a similar attitude to gamers with new teachers in the teachers' union. They say "I don't need the union. I have a good salary, health care and a tenure system." But we only have that because thirty years ago, poorly paid, uninsured teachers risked their jobs and went out on strike to get those benefits.

…recruit and evangelize…

AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

If I see those two words used one more time in the context of playing with toy soldiers I may not be responsible for my actions

I have yet to have two freshly scrubbed, neatly dressed wargamers appear on my doorstep to inquire if I have been called to wargaming. I imagine they'd be doing it "for the good of the hobby".

If that sort of proselytizing behavior is what we laud, then I guess we need to stop snickering at Games Workshop's retail staff. They're just doing The Good Work, after all.

(I feel like I've fallen into some sort of "Through the Looking Glass" wargaming world here sometimes…)

Allen

On the other hand, I have seen guys at hobby stores with displays, at local role playing conventions putting on games for the unwashed, running games at local schools, starting school miniature gaming clubs, inviting "intelligent" but previously non-gaming friends to weekend games and running games for the little kids at regular miniatures conventions. If those aren't examples of recruiting and evangelizing, I don't know what is.

…and I didn't even mention patronising condescension. "The unwashed" and "intelligent friends" my arse.

Right, that's it, I'm loaded for moose. GITOUTTAMAWAY!

Back in the '70s, Avalon Hill ran ads and put flyers in their games exhorting people to invite an "intelligent" friend to play. I thought someone would recognize the reference.

The "Great Unwashed" was not meant to be condescending, but a reference to the masses -- a term first coined in the 1830s, I believe.

I guess I should footnote these things.

The "Great Unwashed" was not meant to be condescending, but a reference to the masses -- a term first coined in the 1830s, I believe.

I'm aware of its provenance, and it's meaning, but that isn't what you typed. Is it?

By "unwashed" I thought he was referring to the Old gamers… not potential new ones!

and here's me thinking he meant 'scruffy urchins'

Connard, I owe you a pint. And some ammo. Just for the laughs.

That aside, if we don't recruit the unwashed the Hobby really will be in trouble… and everyone "in" something looks down on those who are "out". Rightly or wrongly, be it what hobbies they have, whether or not they're dumb enough to still eat meat, what's a size and what's a scale, etc. It's all meat to someone's gristle.

Okay Connor I'm spotting for you…Range 150, elevation 6, deflection 2…add 2…fire when ready….

anyone?

"That aside, if we don't recruit the unwashed the Hobby really will be in trouble…"

I don't see the fly fishing hobby setting up recruiting centers.

KAAAABOOOOOM!!!

OK, give me a correction on that…

"That aside, if we don't recruit the unwashed the Hobby really will be in trouble…"

Yeah, I'm with Allen – I don't get that, either? I mean: we exist… we play games with each other… and one day we'll all die.

Have I missed anything so far?

Okay, so after I'm dead, after all my gaming buddies are dead… I'm supposed to care whether or not miniature wargaming exists?

Was it really such a tragedy for American society that Bridge went out of style? Or Bingo? Or stamp-collecting? The people who liked it, did it. Nobody wants to do it anymore. So what.

My wife has gotten into knitting. Suddenly all her girlfriends want to learn, too. They now have a regular Monday night get-together like 19th century women spinning cloth together. They've revived an ancient hobby. Good for them. But in-between when knitting went out of style, and now that it's come back into vogue… Was that some sort of tragic loss?

I don't see the fly fishing hobby setting up recruiting centers

Point taken, but in my seaside town the tackle shop has a better location than the FLGS…

I guess the difference is that I do care about what happens after I'm gone. As a teacher, I live on the faith that what I'm doing will make a difference -- even if it's one that I'll never see on this earth.

But I plan on checking it all out from the great fairways and greens in the sky. :)

[I guess the difference is that I do care about what happens after I'm gone. As a teacher, I live on the faith that what I'm doing will make a difference -- even if it's one that I'll never see on this earth.]

I'm a teacher too, and I also care about future generations…

…but we're talking about playing with toy soldiers here, guys. Not climate change or terrorism, or democracy, or dwindling resources or inflation or actual real, serious stuff.

Games. Just games.

Life's a game. Golf and toy soldiers are serious business. :)

Short…add two, right one… pack some extra powder for this one…

Murph. Just don't hit the clubhouse. I'm going to need a drink at the 19th hole.

Can't we just recruit the "pre-washed". That will save on time and soap.

Griefbringer, nycjadie, and Titchmonster put it very well. Interest in a specific period is good for EVERYONE who plays that period because it generates additional development in that period. Also, success in that period allows them to fund work in other (less profitable) periods.

I slightly disagree with Allen's comment about fly fishing. That is my second pastime. As a member of Trout Unlimited, I can say they have a program for young people. The most recent tagline in TROUT magazine is 'We need them to love it too." The children's program is the Stream Explorers.TU is pushing for every chapter to run a youth education program.
So, pretty close to a recruiting center.

Shall we all stand and sing "Tomorrow belongs to me"?

I'll get my coat…

Or "Shall We Gather at the River"?

"It Would be Good for The Hobby!"

I have said something similar in the past, which surprises me. I hate it when someone presuems to speak for "the Hobby", and has some crackpot idea to improve it. Like moving Historicon to Wilkes Barre…

I bought all of the editions of DBM, and all of the lists. that's about 10 books… +/- 2
I have none of them now, and played maybe 2 games.
It just became a caricature of itself. In my less than humble opinion, which I do not demand that anyone share.

HOWEVER…
ANY rules set will result in more figures being bought to play it. Even though it is impossible to play with SHC with 28mm DBM, but I digress…
I still believe that there are no bad rules, as long as they provide figure manufacturrs with food on the table, and gasoline for their Lamborghinis.

I learned my lesson with DBM. No longer will I support "The Hobby" by buying rules I have no interest in playing. I will only buy rules that I intend to play, with figures I already have painted. Yeah, right.

As for stamp collecting, Pancreas, tell me about it.
I have thousands of 'em, just sitting there, and no interest at all in them in the outside world. All they are good for now is for calibrating a C14 detector.

John, I know! I haven't looked at my stamp collection in years.

"FOW-Napoleonics set"

The writer is referring to the rule set as a being a beginners set. He, while not a beginner himself, believes beginners sets are good for the hobby, or for a specific era of the hobby. Based on the success of FOW and it's impact on the WWII gaming market (new rules, new lead, new accessories), the writer has a point. As a previous poster wrote, a high tide rises all ships.

[ As a previous poster wrote, a high tide rises all ships.]

I'm not sure about that. It's complicated.

Very, very few publishers nowadays can come close to the sorts of sales figures of the high-end games from 20 years ago: Empire, Nap's Battles, Fire & Fury, Tactica… each sold between 15k and 25k copies. There were very few choices; it was a few high-end publications, or the huge numbers of slap-dash amateur ones.

Nowadays a game publisher considers himself successful if he sells 2000 copies, and he has a runaway hit on his hands if he sells 3000. There's a plethora of choices available for a relatively static number of gamers.

In other words: if these new shiny game releases were indeed attracting new gamers, then they ought to be able to sell at least as well as high-end games did 20 years ago. But I'm aware of only three products in the past decade that have done so: FOW, FOG, and Warhammer Ancients.

Nowadays the internet has – or is in the process of – replaced the old typed/stapled homebrew sets of yesteryear. Those games are still around and always will be. It's the middling guys who are struggling, because frankly it takes a hell of a lot of money and labor to produce a high-end game… and if you're only going to sell about 2000 copies, it's probably not worth it.

That's just an observation – not a complaint. I'm saying two things that are probably counterintuitive to most people: (A) diversity often has the unintended consequence of *reducing* sales for everybody; and (B) the flagship products have not had the anticipated effect of broadening the market for others… nor have they done much better than flagship products did 20 years ago.

I don't know anything about figure manufacturing, so I can't say whether or not it applies there, too, but many of the same trends seem to be in evidence: a whole lot more small and middling-sized ranges now than 20 years ago, probably serving about the same number of gamers.

Obviously there are other factors like rising affluence. Since most gamers today were probably also gamers 20 years ago, it follows logically that they now have more money than they did back then, and thus will buy more stuff.

But I'd be curious to know whether that has offset the problems of diversity, or whether sales per producer have dropped, the way they have for rules publishers.

I'd be interested to know if the phrase, "good for the hobby" is used pretty much strictly by historical gamers when describing something that will hopfully bring in new gamers or are fantasy gamers using it as well?

Shrug.

I don't play FoW. But I have seen lots of good-looking FoW games and seen first hand how it increased club membership and attendance at my local club, including bringing in a few new players.

In that way it was 'good for the hobby'. It was also good for me because some of these guys tried games I did play. More people playing is a good thing IMO, both for 'the hobby' and for my selfish desire to find opponents easily and see more armies about.

I don't have to play FoW to benefit. Nor do I even have to benefit to wish them well and see it as a positive thing.

I wouldn't call it something i was 'deeply concerned' about though.

"There seems to be some vague notion that people produce wargame products as a charitable gift, putting them out there not in the hope of them being purchased and making money"

There of course plenty of people who do this, free rules, paper figs & terrain etc. Other people hope to make some money, either full time or on top of their day job. There aren't many people who have got rich from selling wargame products though.

I'd be interested to know if the phrase, "good for the hobby" is used pretty much strictly by historical gamers when describing something that will hopfully bring in new gamers or are fantasy gamers using it as well?

I have seen it sometimes used by fantasy/scifi gamers, but it seems to be more common amongst the purely historical crowd.

Griefbringer

Good for the hobby. Why do we obsess about this ? Unless your livlihood depends on selling little metal or plastic men and the rules to govern their lives what should we, as hobbyists, care abbout the health of the hobby ?

What is in it for me if wargaming becomes the most popular hobby in the world ? There are already more figures, books, rulesets, terrain pieces, board games, paint ranges, basing ranges, for goodness sake flock ranges than I can ever hope to use in my lifetime.

Once you've been gaming for about 5 years you probably already have so many figures that you will never get them all painted (unless you stop buying RIGHT NOW), hit 10 years and you'll have accumelated many lifetimes worth of stuff. After that, well….it's not a pretty sight (it is whilst you buy 'em, but when you see them next to the stuff you already have…..)

So, why do I need the hobby to be bigger ? I can't keep up now.

And what will global domination bring us ?

Tournaments. Official rule sets, and idiots that work out that DBA V1.0 only lets your spear unit wheel through 86 degrees. Oh, I need more of that. Not.

It's a great hobby, I enjoy it, spend less time on it than I'd like to for the amount of cash I've sent its way, but I don't see evangelising as my role.

We do have a window to the wider world already – the national distributed magazines and (to a very lesser extent) the conventions and day shows. We should be willing to discuss the hobby in general conversation (e.g. "what did you do at the weekend ?" – "I conquered Russia and burnt Moscow to the ground, and you ?"), lend people who show any interest a magazine or two and give them a game if they come back and aask, and even offload some surplus figures to any colleague who says "Oh my kid likes Warhammer". But more than that ? No. When I hear about people "mentoring" new gamers or "evangalising" I just stop and wonder what the hell they are about – it's a hobby, not a cult.

I can probably sit back and watch my count grow now…..

OK, so at Origins I ran Field of Glory demos all day at the Osprey booth, I didn't get paid although they did offer to reimburse my expenses. I did it because I thought it was good karma, a nice thing to do and also because it might bring some more people into FOG or historical gaming. Am I a dope?

Steve

Steve, Only if FoG has an equivalent to screaming "WAAAARGH!!".