""Of Dice and Men" trashes entire hobby of wargaming?" Topic

Or not. I picked up a copy of David Ewalt's book at Barnes and Noble out of idle curiosity. Its focus is mostly on D&D and the beginnings of role-playing games. But he has a few chapters on the history of boardgames and simulations, and does 'field research' in the form of a con game for newbies, using 'Napoleon's Battles' as the ruleset.

After this, his first experience with historical wargaming, he concludes: "Four hours of little war was enough for the weekend – or for a lifetime, really. . . Historical miniature battles aren't for me. It's not just that there are too many rules – I can handle rules. I love rules. It's that these rules are too complicated, and they're the absolute focus of the game; it's not about telling a story and having an adventure but about accurate simulation. For me, at least. . .war games have too much regimentation and not enough imagination. It's interesting but its no Dungeons & Dragons."

Not sure what to make of this – if he doesn't like historical gaming that's his right, but he seems to be implying that the players don't have as much imagination as your basic dungeon-dweller. I play both types of games and enjoy both, and was put off by his (premature) conclusion. It may also be that he was thrown into the 'deep end of the pool' and a different period/ruleset would have sparked his interest (I kinda doubt it, tho).

Anyway, I'm going to plug away, finish the book and maybe post a full review here. In the meantime, discuss amongst yourselves – I'm going to be verklempt for a bit!

Meh. Personally I've decided I don't like RPGs because I don't like acting.
And one can do all kinds of imaginative story telling with historical wargames. Especially on the skirmishy end of things.
I rather like taking a game AAR and turning it into a short story.

Who? To each his own, his opinion means naught to me. I play both RPGs and wargames. And I second Kyotebluer, Get off my Lawn!!!!

Apparently, this guy and I went to university together and had the same social circles, although nobody I still talk to from school remembers him.
I don't hold much stock in his opinions.

Actually from that quote I don't see how you can say the guy is implying anything about wargamers. If he bent over backwards any further to point out it was just his opinion as an RPG only gamer he would snap his spine.

So someone does't like historical miniatures gaming. Big deal.
I would be bored to tears playing a game of Judge Dredd. Sue me.
I would also make a lousy fly fisherman.

From your brief description, he seems to be the type who has to have a superior hobby to everyone else. I don't care if mine is superior or not. I just enjoy mine.
Now, excuse me. I have to go back to my table and paint some more of those damn white straps.

What John said ……

Hey, guys ! Ease up ! After all the guy has a MASSIVE
sampsize upon which to base his opinion, eh ?

<sarcasm mode off>

Yeah, good thing D&D wasn't originally based off, you know, historical miniatures games.

It was Napoleonics (DUCKS BIGTIME). Really, I am not sure that Napoleons Battles are the best rules set to expose the uninitiated to historical wargaming. I also question whether this fellow has enough knowledge of military history which is IMHO necessary for the enjoyment of historical wargames.

Well fantasy supplements to historical miniatures games, anyway!

Dynaman, he does try to give himself a 'get out of judgement free' card, but looking over the chapter, I certainly didn't gather a positive impression of wargamers. The two umpires at the table apparently spent a good amount of time arguing with each other over rules interpretations (which tells me, not a great system for a convention or for first-time players).

In contrast, the chapter before spends copious verbiage describing how interesting and fun his fellow D&Ders are. I suppose I have to hold off judgement until I finish the book, but so far I agree there is no 'imply'. He more or less flat out states "rpgers are a better quality of folk I'd rather hang with."

Try him on black powder with a decent scenario and see what the reaction is. Nothing will put someone off more than using turgid "accurate" rules dreamed up by the button counting brigade.

I was going to say the same thing, Peg: this is what Black Powder exists for.

Never heard of David Ewalt …

It's interesting but its no Dungeons & Dragons

A good starting point for any leisure activity, I'd have thought

Phil

Never heard of David Ewalt …

He's apparently an author, but he's no HG Wells

Don't try to convince him with anything. He would have the same opinion of TSATF or DAF's AWI rules or Black Powder. He was obviously amusing himself by humoring the peasants to demonstrate superiority.
I do not waste my time by trying to convert what Sister Alma would call " the invincibly ignorant".
Good thing he didn't 't try one of those newbie-friendly games like Empire or Harpoon.

Hey OFM!
Paint some of those straps Lichen or Sand and give yourself a break! After all, on campaign the pipe clay probably washed off the canvas!

I read the book. When I read that section I thought what Ed Mohrmann thought. As well, he picked a game that was a "boot camp" style training game. In case you've just crawled out from under a stone, if the description of a game says it is a "boot camp" it is probably for a game that is pretty complicated. So not exactly the best game to judge a hobby by. Had he got in a game of GASLIGHT, for instance, he might have walked away with a very different opinion. (Yes GASLIGHT can be used for historicals. HAWKES run historical games all the time).

And trashes the entire hobby? Hardly. Just not for him.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Wot? Some dude don't like my hobby? Oh, woe is me.

I ran a few FIW games with GASLIGHT and nothing beyond the main "ordinary" rules.
The first time it was very bloody, but the second time I tuned down the Shoot numbers and everything was fine.

He probably ran into a game of Empire, or Chef de Battalion :)

Never heard of the bloke……

This appears to be his first published work other than articles in Forbes, so there's no real reason we should be familiar with his name.

But even from the RPG perspective, he's confining himself exclusively to D&D? That's rapidly becoming a much-respected but never-played dinosaur of the genre.

My first game at a con (in Jacksonville Florida sometime in the 70's) WAS Empire. I had a GREAT time. I had no idea about the rules or anything. We had great game leaders who knew the rules. I basically knew how to roll dice and move metal. we had an 8 man game IIRC, and I told one of the game leaders that I wanted to charge that hill with all those Russians on top of it. He helped explain my choices and told me how to perform the actions I wanted with the framework of the rules. I'm sure glad this "author" wasn't playing in in game; he might have spoiled the afternoon for me.

He probably ran into a game of Empire, or Chef de Battalion :)

If memory serves it was Napoleon's Battles. Probably 3rd Ed. While I never thought 1st ed was difficult (I've never seen 3rd ed), It is definitely not a beginner's game.

I have played a lot of stuff. Some is for me some not. Simple as.

Anyone point out to the author that D&D was developed out of Chainmail, a historical miniatures wargame rules?

I thought it was a rather interesting and enjoyable book, he just played the wrong game. He does write on the history of D&D and of course he knows that it was derived from mini wargame rules, that's why he plays one in the first place.
What I found most interesting is the genre of the book, being what could be called a confession. In that aspect, it is similar to Achtung Schweinehund, which btw likes to make fun of roleplayers – and then the author admits that wargamers shouldn't make fun of anyone, playing with miniature soldiers ;-)

Anybody with any kind of a hobby to which they are at least moderately devoted lives in a glass house. Put down that rock, ya nut!

Gosh that OFM is such a wise person!