"One scale/system to guide them all and bind them." Topic

The following is taken from a rather lively discussion on one of the Yahoo Groups of which I am a member. I found it to be thought provoking and worth consideration by our larger group of miniature gamers. "The inability of wargamers to agree on either a preferred scale or rule system while absolutely understandable has imo been profoundly detrimental to the hobby. The mentality of many gamers is actually a bar to the wider popularity of the hobby. They revel in being a niche, in difference, in
minority – it's part of their raison d'etre. Hang the wider interests of our great hobby. The fact that this puts off the less committed and makes impossible the marketing of 'mass' is a complete irrelevance to them."

What are your opinions on this topic? While I agree in principle with what he says I dont believe that mass over diversity will lead to growth of miniature wargaming and might acutally be detrimental.

Al

This has been discussed before and is a futile endeavor. When I got into the miniature gaming hobby in the 1970s, 15mm had just been introduced as a cheaper alternative scale to 25mm. So you had 5mm- 1/285- 1/300 + 15mm + 25mm.
This does not count all of the toy soldier scales 54mm, 1/76, 1/72, 1/35, etc.
Since then the number of scales available has increased plus the concept of scale creep. Now off scale for specific systems has also been popular recently.

The idea of a common rule system is not reasonable (nice way to put it). Different players prefer different types of mechanics and rule focus. This is not even mentioning the different levels of command/play.

Futile endeavor.

"Hang the wider interests of our great hobby"

Well, exactly. It is a hobby not a job. I couldn't give two hoots about 'growing the hobby', it isn't something I have an annual growth target for, and I have no interest whatsoever in making it more popular.

The diversity of approach, and indeed the do-it-yourself approach, is what makes it interesting.

I really don't understand why you would wish to market 'mass', unless you are trying to sell something. In which case it is a job and not a hobby.

What binds us is our love of toy soldiers. Trying to reach a common ground on figure size or rules is nothing short of silly. Look at any other hobby, such as fishing, target shooting, kking, camping, etc., and you will find a wide range of products in all colors, shapes and sizes. Toy sodiers is no different in that regard.

I have toyed (no pun intended) with the idea of making lines of figures (with scrupulous attention to scale) and simply releasing them into the public domain. letting anyone who wanted to produce them. I think I could make it pay by selling master sets. The people who cast them could make it pay because there would be very little origination cost, just the cost of mold blanks.

I agree with 79thPA. Music, art, sports, ad infinitum, give me one human past time that doesn't have this kind of fractures/factions and I will join your vision of the great hobby. Human nature does not lend itself to universals. I also don't think marketing has anything to do with promoting a idea/item but about how to create profit through interest. Of course I could just be cranky 'cause the world didn't end yesterday.

Martin is entirely correct.

Besides.

Skirmishing in 10mm looks stupid.

And pretending that a half a dozen 28mm figures is a napoleonic batallion looks stupid.

And playing 15mm ww2 while having long range artillery pieces on the table makes you look stupid.

its called scale for a reason.

LOL, Keraunos! I play wargames with Army Men, 54mm figures, with artillery on the table; I freely mix scales (40mm tanks, with 54mm men; 25mm fantasy, with 20mm fantasy figures, and some 28-30mm figures thrown into the mix…), and I don't care if it "looks stupid". ;-) As long as I am having fun with it, that is all that I care about. My fellow gamers don't seem to mind much, either. YMMV, and I'm OK with that. Cheers!

I think it's about playing the game. Doesn't matter the scale, mini sizes or rules. It's about having fun and enjoying what you do. Why would someone want to game to satisfy someone else. Gaming is only limited by the player's imagination. I have no problem in viewing one stand of minis as 500 real combatants while some may not. Does it really matter? That's why we have different rules and scales, something for everyone.In the end it's a matter of preference.

Hang the wider interests of our great hobby…

No wonder the discussion was heated – I hope this communist was told where to shove his great hobby.

Everything in his argument as quoted is so fantastically stupid one's jaw drops.

I went into a bookshop the other day – the inability of book publishers to agree on a single genre and author, let alone a single format or binding type, has been detrimental to the hobby of reading.

Afterwards I walked past some car salesrooms. The inability of car manufacturers to agree on a single body type, colour and chassis has been detrimental to the adoption of the automobile. Hang the wider interests of our tranport needs.

Then I went into a supermarket. The inability of peanut butter firms to agree on a single jar size, crunchyness and whether to utilise organic and non-organic, skins on or off has been detrimental. The mentality of many eaters is actually a bar to the wider popularity of peanut butter as an accompaniment to toast.

Seriously, someone buy that clown a basic economics primer that explains supply and demand – preferably in single syllable words.

I suspect that the original author of the comment and I do not share the same hobby.

Simple…While we will put up with just about anything at work we are not so accommodating with our spare time. Take a long walk on a short pier Mr. Conformity. Sgt Slag apparently represents the extreme of non-conformity….and scares me immensely.

JSchutt -- I nearly fell out of my chair laughing! You, Sir, made my day.

Thank goodness I am home alone, or surely the White Coats would be after me with their close-fitting, extremely long sleeved jacket! {I must admit, I do enjoy bouncing myself, repeatedly, off of the soft, rubberized walls of the lovely, empty rooms they like to put me inside of. The food they serve, however, is ghastly, even with the flavor pills they assure me will improve the taste -- they don't!} Gotta go -- it's time for my med's again. Cheers!

Well guys, how do you really feel about this? Love the comments. BTW I am in agreement. I just found this so amusing that I had to share. Let me keep my niche. I will admit that the current popularity of 15mm for SF is a bit frustrating since I game in 6mm and 25mm. Gawd! What if the one scale decided upon for everyone was 15mm? I guess I would have to huddle in my niche. I do think that the sometimes bewildering variety of scales, rules, periods puts off some people but life offers multiple choices and if you cant make a choice so be it.

"The inability of wargamers to agree on either a preferred scale or rule system while absolutely understandable has imo been profoundly detrimental to the hobby. The mentality of many gamers is actually a bar to the wider popularity of the hobby. They revel in being a niche, in difference, in
minority – it's part of their raison d'etre. Hang the wider interests of our great hobby. The fact that this puts off the less committed and makes impossible the marketing of 'mass' is a complete irrelevance to them.

Balderdash.

Time, cost and space are quite relevant to scale choice. Not to mention who gives a monkey's about spreading the word. This is not some crusade we are on, it's toy soldiers for fun.

Why should we have to agree on scale and rules? I submit diversity has been good for the hobby since those that want 6mm skirmish can play without fear of being locked up for breaking the rules.

You all must have missed the memo:

54mm scale is the "one true scale."
Featherstone's rules are the one true set of rules.

You may play Morchauser if you prefer your troops on stands or if you get tired of them falling over.

All of you other scales and rules are a diversion from the truth.

The quoted paragraph is full of mental errors, and is not compelling in the least.

the wider interests of our great hobby.

A fiction. Doesn't exist.

the marketing of 'mass'

Experience has shown this to be detrimental to quality in any market. It serves only the corporate interests in all cases, with the only benefit to consumers being lowered prices, usually at the cost of everything else that makes the product worth having.

The mentality of many gamers is actually a bar to the wider popularity of the hobby.

A reversal of cause and effect. The aspects of the hobby that bar it from wider popularity are precisely those things which make it attractive to gamers of that "mentality".

Very sane discussiuon. I agree with the scepticism about the wider interest of the hobby. And I certainly don't think scale diversity holds anything back.

Rule systems come and go, but 28mm is the only scale I play.

Afterwards I walked past some car salesrooms. The inability of car manufacturers to agree on a single body type, colour and chassis has been detrimental to the adoption of the automobile. Hang the wider interests of our tranport needs.

However, when it comes to the issue of size/scale and the rules, there indeed is rather significant level of standardisation in the car genre.

If you measure the width of the cars, you will probably notice that they will fit in a rather narrow range. With length there can be more variation, but nothing comparable to the relative range of dimensions you can find in the miniature gaming.

And while the drivers have a freedom of selecting their car from a rather large pool of choices, with the rules system there is only one choice – those spelled out by the local government. Car drivers do not have the luxury of being able to pick a rules system of their choice, or to vary it from day to day to match they mood.

I submit diversity has been good for the hobby since those that want 6mm skirmish can play without fear of being locked up for breaking the rules.

Right on brother Stenicplus!
Though of course some of us try to re-write these rules as we go.

Michael.

Size Matters!

"The inability of wargamers to agree on either a preferred scale or rule system while absolutely understandable has imo been profoundly detrimental to the hobby. The mentality of many gamers is actually a bar to the wider popularity of the hobby. They revel in being a niche, in difference, in
minority – it's part of their raison d'etre. Hang the wider interests of our great hobby. The fact that this puts off the less committed and makes impossible the marketing of 'mass' is a complete irrelevance to them."

I really dont know, what is your problem with these sentence. The author doesnt say, we have to be different, he only claims how we are. And he is true. When i ended playing GW i started to love my historical niche. That is really my raison d'etre. And that is why we will never have a mass like football. Whats wrong with the sentence. We all love it that way, but that doesnt make the sentence wrong.

"The inability of wargamers to agree on either a preferred scale or rule system while absolutely understandable has imo been profoundly detrimental to the hobby. The mentality of many gamers is actually a bar to the wider popularity of the hobby. They revel in being a niche, in difference, in
minority – it's part of their raison d'etre. Hang the wider interests of our great hobby. The fact that this puts off the less committed and makes impossible the marketing of 'mass' is a complete irrelevance to them."

Problems with this paragraph are as follows:

1. What evidence is there that the wide number of scales and ruleset choices have been detrimental? I suggest one first starts with the definition of detrimental. If it is just an opinion then it is just an opinion, and is neither right, or wrong.

2. What does wider popularity mean? Again no definition, and how are you going to meaningfully measure it?

3. All people revel in their niches; if you assume that all people like to have something that they value that others don't? However, the underlying sense of the question is one that implies reveling to be bad. How is it bad, and by what metric do you measure said badness?

4. With regard to the final sentence, how do you prove that this puts off the less committed, and if you can prove that it does do so, how is this a bad thing? I would agree that the mass market is an irrelevance within the definition of free thinking game play.

Where are the facts? Stating something is a fact doesn't make it so. Nothing wrong with opinions, but opinions are not facts.

Anyway, fact :-) the one true wargaming scale is 6mm; well 10mm really, as 10mm is the new 6mm. What I've just written is an opinion, not a fact, because there is no evidence, or way to measure the opinion that is meaningful outside a very limited dataset of one i.e.: me.

YMMV

Some things are at their best when not mass-marketed nor widely known. I believe wargaming being one of them.

I really do not have a scale or a set of rules. It all varies in accordanceto the size and scope of the conflict I wish to game. Generaly I'll skirmish in 28's and larger. But for a sweeping battle or siege, I'll go 15's or smaller. For any period/genre I have several rulesets to cover conflict type. This IS carried over from my 40k days where I'd use BFG to orchestrate a planetary landing, epic for the movement of task forces, then 40k standard for company and smaller level movements. I even modified necromundia for commando team raids.
I have been slowly raising forces for ACW and Napoleonic using 28's and 54's for skirmish and 15's for gettysburg and waterloo…if I get that done, it'll be stalingrad in 28 and 15 next

The inability of wargamers to agree on either a preferred scale or rule system while absolutely understandable has imo been profoundly detrimental to the hobby.

Yes. Very probably. We don't have a genuine control group to test against but the nearest thing – Games Workshop – suggests that an overarching acceptance of one rule set per genre probably would increase the wider popularity of ‘the hobby' – presuming we are talking about historicals.

The mentality of many gamers is actually a bar to the wider popularity of the hobby. They revel in being a niche, in difference, in minority – it's part of their raison d'etre.

Yes. Most wargamers are obsessives who are too self opinionated to put up with other people's interpretation of anything for long. They hate consensus.

Hang the wider interests of our great hobby. The fact that this puts off the less committed and makes impossible the marketing of 'mass' is a complete irrelevance to them."

Yes. Why would it be otherwise? They are interested for the most part in self indulgence not making the world (in general or of wargming in particular) a "better place".
Whether anyone thinks we SHOULD be doing this is a different matter but as a straight description of how things are this is pretty much spot on.

Grow the Hobby? Good Lord,I cant keep it fed now…all the stray cats in the neighborhood are gone! Even now,I hear it straining against the door,searching for weak spots,biding its time…..

It's my hobby, it's your hobby, it's anyone's hobby. I use a variety of figures in my armies and I don't care. I still use 'outdated' rules and care even less.
If the welfare of my family depended on the scale I game in, rules I use or anything else it might be important, otherwise I don't care.

Multiple scales are communism?

come on guys.

You buy and sell almost everything involved in the hobby.

Home made figures and rules might be considered communism, but having multiple scales on sale?

and it was a capitalist who said 'any colour as long as its black'.

I don't accept the premise of the original post that 'the hobby' needs to grow or attract new recruits.
There is no such thing as "the wargame hobby" – there are just guys who play wargames with their friends.
Why should I care whether the wargame hobby grows or not?
What is wrong with being a niche?

Chess – Isn't that "A standard set of wargame rules"? But can you play it in 6mm scale with 3 players per side?

I have 1:1200 Naval [Dystopian Wars], 3mm Cold War, 6mm Napoleonics, 10mm VSF, 15mm Hitlerwar, 20mm Great War, 28mm Napoleonics & 17th Century Colonial & Old West & ASOIAF (more theory than substance) & bits of unloved GW. I have more than one ruleset I use for a number of these and the last thing my gaming life wants is for all the different scales and periods to boil down and becoming dully similar. Call it my reason de tree if you insist, but the remarks on books and peanut butter hit the nail on the head for me.

I think if we were going to have a 'single' wargames product that could be marketed at mass it would probably be 28mm WW2 and almost everyone would be unhappy with it. Especially people like me who are sick to death about the period so much that they call it derogatory names like 'Hitlerwar', or the people who can't stand 'heroic' scale gaming, or the people who …

I personally have no interest in seeing the entire hobby(tm) adhering to one set of rules and one scale, but the attempt of some rules to cover multiple periods with one set of rules and period modifications is nothing new. I never played them, but Piquet is noted for this, and Sam's "Honour" series (WIP) is presented as many different rules for the horse and musket period with a common set of terms and basing conventions.

The only practical application of the OP's ideas would have to be on an individual level, or MAYBE among a local group. At a loss in variety, the presumed benefit would be a more focused collection of figures and scenery, and less confusion from having to sort out the rules being used. From time to time I have toyed with the idea of reducing my collection to only one or two periods, one of which would be horse and musket for North Ameridcan battles. The terrain you use for FIW can just as easily be used for AWI, W1812, and even the ACW (worm fences, ploughed fields, log cabins, etc. But I could never force myself to give up any of my painted figures. :P