"classic wargaming revival" Topic

I now have 10 classic wargaming books back in print and it is clear there is a resurgence in interest in simplier wargames that can be finished in one sitting.

I am now curious as to why do some modern wargamers now want straightforward rules from for lack of a better phrase 'the old school'?

The suggestion box is now open.

Thanks

John

johncurryevents.co.uk

Well just the other day, someone was moaning and whining at the modern trend for quick, simple and fun games, and yearning for the long, complex and boring games of the old days.

I wasn't around in the old days so I don't know what the games were like. But old timers, make your bloody minds up, will you? Which was it?

People have shorter attention spans these days… and more entertainment options vying for their time… maybe?

Well just the other day, someone was moaning and whining at the modern trend for quick, simple and fun games, and yearning for the long, complex and boring games of the old days.

I wasn't around in the old days so I don't know what the games were like. But old timers, make your bloody minds up, will you? Which was it?

Bloody kids

He means the simple games of yore that preceded the complex games of yore.

Of course the complex games of yore were a reaction to the simple games of yore, which were dismissed by the complex crowd as 'merely playing with toy soldiers', while the complex crowd tried to convince themselves and anyone who would listen that they were 'exploring alternative outcomes to the great battles of history using miniature figurines'

60s and early 70s – Grant, Featherstone

later 70s, 80s and early 90s – Empire, Challenger

Go it?

I think it was more a complaint that the rules of today are dumbing down for the sake of providing for "fast play". While the "old school" rules were designed to produce a fun game, rather than just a fast game.

Because after decades of playing this or that rules set, that promised to be THE ultimate in gaming simulation for whatever specified period, many of us realized that the games were no more,and in many cases far less, fun than the simpler rules we were using in the 60's and 70's.

You said it, Cyrus!

I agree with Cyrus.
Empire …the memory gives one the shivers…..

I ran a big Wells "Little Wars" game at Historicon a couple of years ago and it was full. Real Britians and shooting cannons. However, the next year I did a Featherstone game of ACW from War Games and nobody attended. I did a Tony Bath ancients game with flats the next year and only a couple came. I did a Morschauser game the next year with only 2 players.

Do people really like these old style games? They are not well written with lots of holes, compared to today's more complex but more tightly written. Still fun for me with the old toy soldiers. The Featherstone game had SAE, Spencer Smith, and Scruby figs, all "30mm."

Bob,
Keep in mind that at conventions people like to play rules they don't normally play to try them out. Many older gamers may already be playing the earlier style rules with their friends at home. Younger gamers may not know what they're missing or may have to come to the same conclusion, some of us have, in their own time.

Also, nearly everyone's heard of H.G. Wells, and attendees would naturally be curious as to his spin on the subject, whereas Featherstone is a name with more esoteric resonance--even a lot of gamers have never heard of him.

Depends what rules you are talking about. There were quick and easy ones and complicated in the seventies just as now. The ones I've seen from the sixties I would put in the quick and easy catagory.

"Also, nearly everyone's heard of H.G. Wells, and attendees would naturally be curious as to his spin on the subject, whereas Featherstone is a name with more esoteric resonance--even a lot of gamers have never heard of him."

That, if true, is really sad! We are greatly indebted to Don Featherstone for promoting figure wargaming into the thriving hobby it is today and for publishing books crammed with practical ideas with which to experiment.

I wonder whether H.G. Wells is that well-known by today's youngsters/newcomers to wargaming. If I was at school I'd do a quick survey of my pupils to see their reaction. Perhaps it is simply the timeless appeal of toy soldiers and shooting at them with toy guns that attracts attention, not the fact that Wells was the author of Little Wars?

I have also experienced a lack of interest in early-era rules. I tried to run games for kids and newcomers at a number of cons, but lost out to games of Star Wars or Car Wars. H.G. Wells has a certain cachet; Featherstone and Scruby do not.

From a longitudinal standpoint, having been a gamer from the 60's (ouch), my experience has been that early rules were often pretty "gamey", without much by way of historical flavor. Jack Scruby, bless his heart, was an avowed "non-historical" historical gamer, whose rules often were fun, but based on his reading maybe two books on the subject; when I joined his former gaming group in the 70's this was still the case. [I am NOT belittling Jack's contribution to the hobby, incidentally, only disagreeing with how he went about producing some of his sets of rules.]

The reaction to this for many people was to start layering on complexity, in the belief that this more accurately reflected what really happened on the battlefield. Column, Line, and Square, for example, expanded and expanded until it ran WAY over 100 pages, and was unapproachable for a newcomer. This trend continued for quite some time.

Unfortunately, complexity does not ensure "realism"--it only ensures complexity. Hence, there gradually emerged a longing for simpler rules. The nonsense about recreating actual warfare fell by the side, but the desire for more historical accuracy still remained, which meant the early rules generally just did not cut it anymore.

I see "Old School" rules as an effort to have the best of both worlds; faster, simpler game mechanics, which produce results which are reasonably close to what players expect would have happened in real life--the so-called right "feel" for the period. (Boy, am I sick of that term.)
I personally agree with this approach, but given the pendulum ever swinging between playability and realism, I'm sure a new trend will come along soon enough.

Well I have no wish to return to WRG Ancients, as soon as other games came along I jumped ship like a burning rat. However I do miss that kind of simplicity that you used to get from hand-zeroxed booklets that were born, and usually died, in the early eighties. They were usually devoid of any period detail and Napoleonic Rules were pretty much the same as ACW or ECW rules with a couple of extra paragraphs here and there.

2OB-don't think WRG Ancients is what people had in mind re 'Classic' wargaming and certainly they don't fit the 'Old School' bill – they are 'modernist' vice classical.
Many current 'stripped down' rule sets are 'knowingly retro' – postmodern ironic – ie they are 50p games in £35.00 GBP dresses. The irony is in the price. This does NOT apply to John Curry's efforts which are genuinely offering pieces of seminal wargaming history for very reasonable sums.
More power to his elbow.

For me, the term "Old School Gaming" means "Column, Line and Square". I heard of that before I ever heard of Featherstone.
I never played it, I had just heard of it. It sounded positively biblical, with the rules, the appendices, the commentary, the notes, and so on. It was also ruled by a Divinity, omnipotent and unforgiving of heresy. That is what I HEARD, no idea if it's true or not.
Just hearing about it has probably had a lot to do with my anti-Napoleonics prejudice.

I broke in with WRG Ancients, D&D, and 1776 AWI, coming in from boardgames. So, I really have no nostalgia for so-called simple rules to fall back on.
I had always thought "add up all the positive factors, subtract all the negative facotrs and roll the dice" was the only way to go.

John, you're right on regarding the CLS devotees. I once tried to explain to one of them (about 1974) my idea for playing a higher-level game, in which maneuver elements would be single-base brigades, thus allowing for a much grander-scale game. I was advised that this would not really be wargaming. Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

Some further ideas; of course they are generalisations.

Time is more limited in the Western world for individual hobbies, so wargamers have less time for longer games.

Wargamers play across a wider period of games than before, therefore most have less time to devote to learning one particular system.

Some very clever rule writing allows some straightforward games to accurately represent history.

e.g. a card activiation system is simple, but helps create the confusion of battle with each general not knowing which unit will react first. (i.e. each unit gets a card which determines which one moves/ fights next).