"Mr. Macfarlane’s thought-provoking piece" Topic

I've read "Whose history? Are your games re-creational or rec-reational?" (Battlegames magazine, Issue 34, pages 28-29) four times now. (It was downloaded just a couple of days ago.)

I found it well-written, thoughtful, and thought-provoking. I found it rather timely too, as I seem to be in something like an ancients rules "slump" (for lack of a better term). I've had some success reconstructing historical battles with a particular set of rules. The reports on these tabletop engagements have been published. I've not had as much success, nor fun, it has to be admitted, trying out the newer and more attractive books.

Perhaps it's just me?

I find myself tinkering with the idea of taking the elements from the 3 or 4 sets in my current possession and seeing if I can create some kind of hybrid rule set. As a solo gamer, I have no one to disappoint and or frustrate but myself. Given recent experiences, I am reticent to attempt this experiment.

Perhaps I will take a brief sabbatical from my second job (wargaming) and hope that attendance at Little Wars will rekindle the spark and refresh the spirit.

If you have not read the piece by Mr. Macfarlane, I strongly recommend that you do.

Regards,

Chris

I am definitely a rec-reational gamer who just occasionally slips in to the re-creationist tent.

Yes.

Yup. Rec-reational gamer here. While I enjoy playing scenarios based on history, if I wanted to be part of some totally "accurate" conflict I'd have stayed in the army.

Rec-reational.

Rec-reational for me also.

Hi Chris, Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad if it provoked some thought.

Mixing chunks from various rule sets can have odd effects but sometimes it does work with some thought and tinkering and usually at least gets the grey cells going. Also, as you say, no one else is hurt by the experiment. I'd say go for it.

Oh, and btw, I try to avoid "Mr", makes me feel old. :)

-Ross Macfarlane

gameofmonth.blogspot.ca

I am a re-creational gamer who does it for rec-reation. I do not see a conflict between the two. Different rule sets just sit at different points on the spectrum, and I find not all are exactly where you would expect. C@CA for example would, I think, be placed by most people clearly on the rec-reation end of the spectrum. Not sure I agree. It is true that it doesn't force you to act historically, but it does reward you if you do. And as I play more and more, I appreciate better the value of light troops, the importance of keeping a line, and the need for the general to choose his position in line carefully. I love it, and believe it reflects reality ever bit as much, if not better, than more complex rules that concentrate on weapon and armour categories. Either way, the hobby is big enough for people to choose whichever path they wish, and enjoy it!

Mollinary

I'm definitely in the rec-reational camp, as I have abandoned historical forces for Imagi-Nations. But I often use historical battles as the starting point for game scenarios.

IMHO, even if one starts with historical armies, scenario/terrain, orbats/deployment &c., once the game begins – unless one is testing rules by seeing whether they will generate historical outcomes – and one issues orders that were not given in reality, one has entered a fictitious or counter-factual take on events, or even a parody of them.

Which is a different issue from whether rules should/do reward historical tactics. In that regard, I want my rules for my 'Napoleonic' ImagiNations to relect what we think we know – but future research may prove horribly mistaken! -about battle and tactics in that era.

I'm broad-minded as long as the underlying topic is historical. I play a lot of straightforward 'wargames'

For my own tastes, however, the closer the game tries to explore real history, the more compelling it is. I also find, meeting the general public, such games go down well as ways of bringing the past to life.

Phil

It's articles like that which make (made ?) Battlegames so special.

When describing the toy soldiers that frequent my desk, and what I do with them (when I get to play with them, rather than just make them), a question I am often asked is:

"Do you recreate battles then?"

To which I usually respond, well, not really. If I just recreated the battle, it would be going through the motions of what happened. I would already know the outcome, so really I would just be moving unit X to point Y and declaring 'now at this point Z happens, at which point unit X was lost', and removing unit X from the table. Not really much fun there.

Equally in real combat the whole idea is not to meet on equal terms, but to catch the enemy with a sizeable force modifier (whether that be in strategy, numbers or technology) and ideally wipe them out/force them to surrender before they can fire a shot. Again, not really much fun if you are the receiving end, unless you are one of those people who enjoys the challenge of 'how long can I survive under over-whelming odds' – has anyone tried gaming the 300? How long did you actually last??

So…

What I tend to do is tell them I play games that are based in history, themed around a particular theatre, or period, or scenario, but not necessarily a direct duplication of what happened.

"I play games that are based in history, themed around a particular theatre, or period, or scenario."
I think that pretty much hits it on the head for me too.

I thought it was indulgant navel gazing.

Am I a white dog with black patches and are you a black dog with white patches?

Neither, I'm a short-necked, short-legged giraffe :-)

Nope, Your a black and white dog like the rest of us pretending you are a giraffe!