"Anything you wont play for personal reasons?" Topic

Any game periods or armies you don't feel comfortable gaming for various personal reasons, beliefs or similar?

I know vietnam veterans who happily game vietnam and others who don't want to. I know people who game modern day afghanistan and some that don't feel comfortable with it.

I knew a guy who was a vehement conservative, yet he loved playing the soviets in cold war and ww2 games.
I've known African Americans with an interest in confederate history and I've talked to Germans who won't do WW2 games (or do Finn's if they do have an Axis army)
Others feel it's all toy soldiers.

Note that I am not talking about periods you aren't interested in for more mundane reasons (I don't read much history about pre-medieval periods so gaming them never caught my attention)
.
Please make your post about YOU, not the poster earlier who said they didn't want to play with your favourite army. Be nice.

Nope – pretty much play anything at least once to check it out.

No, it's a game. I would have no problem playing anything.

I've seen descriptions of games that are over the line for me but I'm pretty sure most of them were bad attempts at humor and not serious games.

But practically speaking, no. If the game looks nice I'll play.

Now if the forest is green felt with one tree, and the roads are masking tape, I'll pass.

For me, nope.

Vietnam, not because I'm a vet but because my dad was. Any anything really where I might end up seeing someone who was actually there stand and gape at the table top.

I used to play AK47. Came home one day after a couple of games, turned on the news, the main story was about Darfur. Basically, what I'd just been playing. Put my stuff away for a while, then sold it.

Playing hypothetical modern stuff doesn't bother me, but that did, in the end.

No 9/11 games.

Fantasy…no basis in reality. On the other hand, I've never heard anyone get into an argument about the color of a dragon or robot.

I'm not really wrapped up in these issues. My father and I are both retired Army. My dad and father-in-law were in Vietnam and Korea, and my uncle died in Vietnam. I myself was in El Salvador, Panama, and Iraq. I guess I really do understand these are games, and since I'm seriously into military history, the game complements my research.

I have not been able to set up games of nazi extermination camp escapes.

ACW, just too sad and still with unresolved issues for some/many people.

The World Wars, for the same reason.

Cold War period fracases, for the same reason.

Modern stuff. I don't feel interested in "playing" something that could come boiling down the pike next year or tomorrow.

I won't play anything from Vietnam on. My dad did three tours in 'Nam and everything after is too close to my own service.

I recently read the after action report by the Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department of the Navy Yards shooter last year. There were many interesting details about the problems encountered and the fact that this particular shooter actively stalked the responders (set several ambushes) and died in a last minute attempt at an ambush (all firing during the end ambush was conducted at 5 feet; the guy who killed the shooter had been hit in the chest and saved by his kevlar vest – he didn't realized he had been hit until he found the spent round in the vest afterwards). I found myself thinking about how this could be made into an interesting game, especially using the THW Chain Reaction system. Then I realized I was thinking about gaming a situation where one side represented a person who shot down 12 people with no apparent remorse and became sickened about the whole thing. While I highly admire the various police officers and others who went after the shooter, I decided I could not game this.

Certain periods don't interest me, Thirty Years War through FIW, Sci Fi, most fantasy (LoTR, etc. although I do like "classic" Arthurian. The "historic" Arthur has zero interest for me.) Biblical warfare also doesn't. As for forces, my Dad was in WW2, the unit he trained with (he was transferred and served in NWE with another outfit) had its HQ overrun by an SS unit late in the war, they killed all the Jews in the HQ, I'll never play an SS unit.

After encountering Camille Klein I stopped playing Batteletech. The love I had for the game turned into ashes in my mouth after a go-around with her.

I know they are only toy soldiers and such, but I can never play the Yankees in ACW. It does make solo play rather difficult

Interesting. I've never been in a situation personally where I felt uncomfortable enough to not play something, but I can easily see situations where others would. Some games out there are too close to personal experiences for some, and some are too highly partisan, and others are just in questionable taste.

As an observation, I have Jewish friends who have no problems playing WWII Germans in things like Axis & Allies but who knows what they might feel about taking command of an SS unit in a tactical minis game? I have another friend whose uncle served on the Ark Royal in WWII and will ONLY play the Allies in A&A. I also know of Irish gamers who object to the Irish civil wars topic (the 1916-1922 era, not the modern Troubles) due to family memories and such like. I know ACW buffs who will NOT play either Blue or Grey, depending on their respective allegiances. Oh, wait -- I did once turn down an opportunity to play General Sherman's command in an ACW scenario, out of a sort of moral judgment on Sherman and also so I could joke that "if I play Sherman, I can't go home to my [pro-Southern, Gone With the Wind devotee} wife."

I have my own partisan preferences for many historical topics, but I'm usually pretty amiable about playing whatever side I am dealt. I can usually find a gaming challenge from any perspective and I can often see both sides of some historical quarrels.

The Mexican-American War is on my Do Not Play list. A list of only one war, btw :-)

I also won't play as the Nazis.

Everything else is not objectionable, but a lot of stuff I am just not interested in.

I don't do anything post -1871 because it seems to be too close. I fully appreciate the hypocrisy and absurdity of that, as millions died in the wars that I do game, but it is just a question of what I personally feel comfortable doing. I don't judge anyone that feels differently about it.p

I dont play rules with biased names (crush the kaiser), or rules with hidden sublime propaganda message, or rules who give the favorite side of the author extra pluses or positive modifiers.

Rules must be neutral in any sense.

Nothing I would consider 'beyond the pale' because of "personal reasons, beliefs or similar".

Naval gaming, skirmish gaming have very little appeal. Fantasy/Sci-Fi etc absolutely no appeal but just a matter of taste.

Miniatures-wise there are only a few topics that actually interest me: Modern skirmish, ACW, Platoon sized WWII engagements, Seven Years War and the Crusades. I play W40K, although not as much because the rules interest me as because it is the only miniatures game which is easy to find oponents.

I would refuse to play Concentration camp and ww2 ghetto uprisings. Children soldiers. The Dutch "pacification" of Aceh. Anything that smells historically genocidal. Anything involving rape. The "line" for me thematical, not periodical. Playing Desert Storm would be no problem for example.

There are plenty of periods I am not interested in, but few I won't play. I used to be more picky when I was younger with a 'good taste horizon' of about twenty years.

The only thing which still makes me somewhat uneasy is playing ww2 Japanese, although these days I'll do it, but I won't collect any figures for it. It still feels a little disrespectful of my grandfather who died in a Japanese pow camp in 1944.

TYW, ACW and WWI.

I won't buy or paint SS units. I would be very reluctant to play any recent (post Vietnam), or ongoing (including pretty much anything after WWII in the Middle East), conflict and would much rather substitute a fictional or hypothetical war.

I cannot think of any period that I would not play. It IS after all "playing", and (like Phil Barker once said) there are no tin widows. In some historical scenarios you even have to terrorize the civilian population: think for instance of the chevauchee, a Medieval way of making war. For me therefore the only thing that matters is the question: is it fun to paint ?

The card game "Lunch Money"…

anything current – EG the Gaza crisis.

On the other hand, I've never heard anyone get into an argument about the color of a dragon or robot.

Well then, you should look into D&D and 40K… :)

I won't do WW2, but that's more about the attitudes that surround the period than anything else – if I have to hear one more person go on and on about how the side they've decided to champion were *really* the good guys and the others were so bad oh and it was so totally a close run thing (despite the fact that in any vacuum you would look at the Axis position and declare it unwinnable). Blech.

I think having studied history extensively just makes me a bit overly sensitive to people putting their biased and unsupported opinions out there as these one true facts, especially when dealing with a human tragedy on the scale of that war (atrocities committed by all sides, even if some were worse).

The falklands, too peronal

Interesting question.
Until recently I would have said anything modern as that's too recent rather than the dim and distant past. However, I'm playing Force on Force tonight so obviously when it has come down to it that's not a reason. It would definitely be as others have said) anything that is genocide / massacre of civilians etc. It needs to be two sides with a fair chance against each other for me to have any desire to participate.
I thought Happy Little Trees comment about AK47 was interesting. I've played it a few times and enjoyed it. However, I think if I had had the same experience I would not want to play it again either.

AK-47 and related Modern Africa. I have a close friend who is a Mogodishu vet (Army Rangers) and others who are Rwandan Genoside survivors. Just hits me too close to home. Funny thing is my buddy would probably play the Mog if he wargamed.

I find it very surreal to read Force on Force game AARs about the conflict in Afghanistan written by soldiers on deployment in Afghanistan playing while in deployed. Especially as I don't like gaming the evening news.

Fantasy/sci-fi games where I'm not allowed to name my own officers or characters. In historical gaming you're expected to play Commander X or General Y, and that's okay. In SF/F games there should be a lot more leeway. Any set of rules that says that I have to use their 'official' characters (not to mention their 'official' models) just leave me cold.

My brother only games the East front in WWII. As he puts it, who cares who wins there?
I personally try not to play Confederates in ACW, although I will if I need to. There are usually more than enough people willing to play confederates that I don't need to.
I knew a guy one time who wouldn't play English Civil War. He said he had strong feelings on that subject. Now that is holding a grudge for a long time.

When I was growing up, we had a hard time finding kids to play the Yankees (in gum ball and dirt clod wars).

I'll play anything that might be fun. Heck, I've even played Soviets in games.

I like to think I know the difference between a game and the real thing.

Rob

I don't wish to command forces of ACW Yankees or WW2 Japanese. However, if really pressed to do so I have/will mass my force and charge the toughest part of the enemies' force. Makes for a short game…

Depends on the rules system, for me. Simpler,the better. That's historicals. As for RPG's,they just don't do much for me.

20th century land warfare except for the occasional WW II skirmish, as Allies. I also don't care for non-canonical fantasy and sci fi.

Really modern, Vietnam up to right now. Too many old friends involved and what happened to them. And confederate, will play American Civil War but just cannot command nor paint those people.

I am with Ironmike on the games that force named characters on you. It is one of the problems I am having with X-Wing right now that the game seems to not really play well without named characters.

I play/demo Vietnam/CharlieCo and I preface the game by asking if anyone at the table is a vet just to make sure everyone is OK with it. But now my brother married a Vietnamese girl with a very lovely and funny family, I think I may have to revisit that choice.

These are great family fun!

1938 Out with the Jews