"Should we have a "History of Wargaming" board?" Topic

Not "Historical Wargaming", but the history of the hobby itself.

The last couple of years there has been a increasing interest in Old-School Wargaming. This trend is also noticeable in related genres such as roleplaying, which has its own OSR movement.

Moreover, a couple of books have been published on the subject, trying to reconstruct the development of the hobby. See "Playing at the World" from J. Peterson as a fine example. The "History of Wargaming Project" from J. Curry is another example.

So, my suggestion is to create a board on which the origins and the development of the hobby can be discussed. Although these topics are now discussed as well, they are spread over many different boards. Having them in one place would be a nice.

What's wrong with using the Old School Wargaming board?

TMP link

For discussion of anything related to "old school" miniature wargaming.

Do you have any idea how difficult the existing multitude of boards are to navigate to a noob like myself? And more keep appearing!

My impression has always been that the "Old School Wargaming" topics are more involved with using rules, using miniatures, certain visuals and painting styles, that have a resemblance to wargaming practices in the 60s and 70s, possibly 80s. In other words, PLAYING wargames TODAY, in the style and spirit of several decades ago.

OTOH, 'History of Wargaming' would involve the development of the hobby, possibly starting with Hellwig's game, discuss when certain key developments were introduced, discuss the origins of gaming practices, perhaps discuss the origins of certain conventions etc.
It is more about digging in the origins of the hobby, rather than recreating a ruleset of the 60s on today's gaming table.

Such topics are now also discussed (I would not propose it if there is no sign of interest in these topics) – but are spread out over the Old-School board, Game Design board, Toy Soldiers boards, and several others. It would be nice to have a dedicated place to discuss the origins of the hobby.

Do you have any idea how difficult the existing multitude of boards are to navigate to a noob like myself? And more keep appearing!

I feel your pain, but that's more a plea to eliminate boards that are no longer used, rather than preventing to create new ones that address current interests.

I agree with Phil Dutre that there is a big difference between the History of Wargaming and the 'Old School' ethic of recapturing the (often imaginary) spirit of the good old days.

Although I quite like the idea of theming content, I fear these days that people crosspost so bullishly that most of the benefits of theming are eclipsed (click on a WWII topic and you'll likely find it is about Zombies cross posted from Weird War or Sci-Fi as if everybody is interested …) … Hmmm …

Anyway – if there was a History of Wargaming board I would visit it. Interesting stuff.

Phil

I'd be very interested in a History of Wargaming Board. I would love to know more about the development of the hobby and the different forms it did take – including the social and cultural forms, e.g. how the role of clubs developed in the UK.

Cheers,
Thomas

Agreed, yes.

For a better read, don't forget Harry Pearson's Achtung Schweinhund

I'm opposed to new boards and don't like the current proliferation of boards. I've been a member for well over 10 years. Once something rolls off the front page – pretty fast these days – I have trouble finding the thread again unless I can remember that it was on the "Combined Arms during the War of Jenkins Ear" board. I'd much prefer one board for each period, perhaps divided into land and naval, period.

History of wargaming threads, yes, but no new board, just one on wargaming.

This board will have, what, maybe 2-3 topics a year if even that? In a community of esoterics, this will be esoteric. I'd rather see a smart search engine developed than another board.

The sole criterion in creating new Boards is "Would you support this Board?"
All this means is whether or not you would start new threads on this Board, or contribute to them. In my case, no and no. The history of our hobby simply does not interest me all that much.

Historical Wargaming is interesting in that it has no reliable history other than self-serving and hagiographic efforts by some HMGS East posters. Fantasy wargaming has never been too rooted in history, and is so factionalized as to almost defeat any history being written.

Wargaming is a group of islands each inhabited by an exclusive tribe, each with their own legends and superstitions, and few people have a canoe or the navigational skills to travel to other islands. The few who do attempt the voyage usually suffer the fate of Captain Cook.

" The history of our hobby simply does not interest me that much."

As Cicero said," To be ignorant of the past is to be forever a child."

Perhaps, in the context of wargaming, that's a good thing. It also allows publishers to repackage the same old stuff, and sell it to younger gamers as "new."

I'm glad I could supply you with a quotation to be y and snotty about.
No need to thank me.

You might want to explain why I SHOULD care about HG Wells and the other Fabian Socialists, and how that applies to ME.
Don't tell me why YOU care. Tell me why *I* should care.

John, I do not care if you care or not. I do think that the hobby is the poorer from not having a more complete history. Certainly Wells, Featherstone, and Scruby are documented , and some sign posts in rules and events are known, but a great deal has been lost except by anecdotal, and often apocryphal stories. It is odd that a hobby with such strong roots in history, has very little written documenting its own.

History does have its uses in showing trends and the successful precedents, as well as failed concepts. It also is a better guide to the future than willful ignorance.

You do seem to be tres sensitif! Perhaps that comes with being an OFM. Every job has its occupational hazards.

Historical Wargaming is interesting in that it has no reliable history other than self-serving and hagiographic efforts by some HMGS East posters.

The Vintage Wargaming Blog combined with the work of John Curry's History of Wargaming project, not to mention a number of entries on Wargaming Miscellany provides a good basis for exploring the history of wargaming (meaning historical wargaming in that sense: fantasy being a more recent offshoot, really*) that I don't think is self-serving or hagiographical.

There was always plenty of spin right from the beginning, of course (there is much more Kriegspiel than H.G.Wells in Peter Young's introduction to Charge!).

Generally, Repiqueone, I agree, however – and I find this subject one of the more interesting ones to crop up on TMP.

Phil
*but that statement is creating history in itself, of course …

History is always interesting, Phil, though many prefer fantasy. ;-)

I can't agree that the history of the wargaming hobby isn't well documented. Virtually every book I read about a wargaming topic has a chapter on the history of the hobby from Ug the caveman to George Jetson's space marines.

And just because Cicero says something (supposedly) doesn't mean its true. Quoting some old dead guy never impresses me. It generally just comes off as pompous.

So, while I do find the hobby's origins of passing interest, I would likely not support a new board when there are already other boards that can handle it.

Virtually every book I read about a wargaming topic has a chapter on the history of the hobby

I am not sure what books you are referring too, but most books just have a potted history along the lines of "There was Kriegsspiel in the Prussian Army, then there was HG Wells, and then there was Featherstone". Then some other details are added depending on the author's favourite rulesets or stories.

The history of wargaming is much richer than that – see some references given above. The mere fact that blogs and books are appearing about this very subject indicate there is a growing interest.

…when there are already other boards that can handle it.

Well, there are not. Topics related to the history of wargaming show up in many different boards, unrelated to each other. That's a pity, and I think it is justified to group these discussions together.

This board will have, what, maybe 2-3 topics a year if even that?

Given the fact that there are blogs solely devoted to the history of wargaming and spinn-off hobbies such as roleplaying, I am convinced that there is a much wider interest base that 2-3 topics a year.

Agreed.

I'm opposed to new boards and don't like the current proliferation of boards. I've been a member for well over 10 years. Once something rolls off the front page – pretty fast these days – I have trouble finding the thread again unless I can remember that it was on the "Combined Arms during the War of Jenkins Ear" board. I'd much prefer one board for each period, perhaps divided into land and naval, period.

Agreed!!!

A history of wargaming board would be a good idea if all the "do you remember when….?" threads could only appear there. The main problem is we end up being reliant on oral history rather than a systematic history of wargaming – all the histories I've ever read are

(i) regional – be that by country or city – I know nothing of Sheffield's gaming scene of 1976, and suspect most in Sheffield don't have any history with the London gaming scene of the same era.

(ii) reflect the writer's interests – be that napoleonics, ACW or GW

(iii) contradict my own known "facts".

I don't know how you can separate historical board gaming (Avalon Hill, SPI, GDW etc) from historical miniatures. I don't know but I would bet most historical miniature gamers started gaming back during the "golden age" of board wargaming back in the 1970s. There has been a few books and articles on this subject already.

I just don't believe there is enough content or interest on this subject to warrant a separate board. I am interested in the historicalal wargaming too. But once its been written, what else is there to discuss?

A history of wargaming board may be a little interesting at first but after that the number of posts by different people will drastically fall. Oh and just don't lump historical gaming with other gaming genres. Very different animals.

Beware of sweeping statements.

I don't know but I would bet most historical miniature gamers started gaming back during the "golden age" of board wargaming back in the 1970s.

Perhaps in America, home AH and SPI, maybe not elsewhere.

I'm British, I began wargaming with miniatures in 1970. I didn't even know board wargames existed then, and neither did my peers. I remember seeing adverts for S&T in Military Modelling in the early/mid 70s and dismissing the games as "bits of cardboard, that's not proper wargaming". I didn't actually play a board wargame until around 1978 (Wagram, from the Napoleon at War quad), and I remember being singularly unimpressed.

I got better though. I own a hundred or so of the genre now :)

I don't know but I would bet most historical miniature gamers started gaming back during the "golden age" of board wargaming back in the 1970s.

Perhaps, but hobby wargaming goes back till at least 1890.
What happened in the 10s? 20s? 30s? Etc.
This history is mostly unknown and unwritten, sow e need to dig it up!

Agreed!

Yes agreed. Although if you count moving blocks on a battle map as an early version of board wargaming.

I use to advocate for an Historical Wargaming Museum. Exhibiting games and minis through to today. It would be a niche museum but I work at a niche museum. This is as close to it as I have seen.

link

This is one of the reasons we need a board like this:

link
(fragment from the BBC Antiques Roadshow from yesterday, Sept 8).

Especially starting at 2:45 there is some interesting stuff for wargamers.

Any chance this might become a poll?