"Is the Wargaming Convention Dying? " Topic

"Because it seems like every other cross-genre con is flourishing."

So then the unchecked growth of fantasy/sci fi/alt gaming has produced better attendance at HMGS cons? Can you produce some numbers to back that up? I'm not seeing that, but perhaps I am missing something.

No more than you can provide numbers indicating that they are negatively impacting the games – quite simply put, we don't have valid demographics for that, and I doubt the level of data mining for HMGS is being done at that level. That hasn't stopped several people, including yourself, from infering that allowing them has damaged the con in some way, and apparently several people here think in terms of those willing to attend.

25-30% of games in the PEL are non-historicals over the last few years. They seem to be as well attended as the historicals.

If you want to say 'I don't care what size the con is, just get rid of the non-historicals' than fine.

But call a spade a spade. Much of the discussion about the negative impact of non-historicals – which as far I can tell has no numbers associated with it whatsoever – are simply a preference, and not a logical argument based on stabilizing or growing the con.

I'm not proposing banning anything, just limiting it like they said once did.

While we can't say for sure the allowance of so many non-core games has driven people away, we can say some things for sure.

1. The inclusion of so many non-core games hasn't helped attendance overall – the numbers speak for themselves.

2. Given the chance, people will play the non-core games (though many also play historicals), which is the exact opposite of what HMGS was founded for.

3. The drift is across the board – speakers(lack thereof), awards (given to any game now), painting competition (any figure may enter – though few even do), painting seminars(fantasy stuff given out and painted), etc.

Further, HMGS finds itself painted into a corner for alternative sites. They don't need facilities the size they once did. Simple mathematics tells you they don't need all the games they allow as their aren't the players to fully support them. Yet the demands to accommodate everything prevents HMGS from going to a smaller, and possibly a nicer facility.

If I understand current leadership, we are essentially limited to the Host and the FCC. So, like the zombie games, we shuffle along remembering better days. Not to sound like an old guy, but in today's society it seems that anything goes (I really don't need to see half naked people at the bottom of the steps getting a massage), and everything is okay. It's just that this approach hasn't really paid off for what the organization was supposed to be about. Just my take.

One thing conventions don't like doing is shrinking. It seems like you've wasted all that time getting to be the biggest and the brightest.

But on the other hand if you don't get the turnout then you need to be realistic.

Are conventions dying ? I hope not. I get to a couple or three a year, I usually have a good time. I like to mooch around the trade stalls and ogle the big display games. And I like to get into a few participation games if I can.

I'm not sure admire is the word, but I'm appreciative of people who make the big efforts to put on the shiny awe-inspiring game. I have no real desire to do this myself though. If there are shows, and they aren't too far away and I'm not doing something else then chances are I'll be there. And if all the shows fold then this is just evidence that not enough people want them. That's a bit of a sad thought, but if it is really the case then so be it. The thought of running a show doesn't excite me – and I can hardly ask people to do something that I wouldn't bother to do myself.

I am an avid fan of historical gaming, but find that Many historical gamers seem to prefer to hide in their basements and well appointed dens rather than show their games at the local store or game venue. Many will come out and show games at conventions, but other than that, there is not a great effort made by many of us to Recruit the new gamers. Then there is the cry "where are the new gamers?!" Right outside your doors.

There is much angst about the infiltration of sci fi and fantasy gaming into HMGS cons, but one stark reality is that these are the games being played by the younger crowd because this is what they see being played at the local store.

It takes a focused effort to introduce historical gaming in today's market and the climb is a steep one. Most stores don't stock any historicals with the notable exception of Flames of War. So Johnny can't just go from your demo to the shelf and get a rulebook and minis and get started.

What's needed is for HMGS and its members to begin a focused effort to show the easier historical games such as DBA and Bolt Action and Muskets and Tommohawk and SAGA or similar small, skirmish type games that are commercially available to the local store and build interest in the hobby in general.

A huge untapped resource is the local Boy Scouts, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Renaissance Faires, SCA events, and Toy Soldier Shows. These are prime places to show historical gaming to a receptive crowd and grow your group. I have done this at most of these venues. Also, if you can work with a local history teacher to show historical gaming as part of a larger curriculum that results can be very satisfying.

Building the historical gaming hobby should be a year round event, not just something we do at shows.

Well, while I generally would agree with you, I would also point out that local hobby shops are largely a thing of the past – which is why many games moved to homes.

I am lucky as there is a thriving hobby shop near me full of all kinds of games. I too see the younger crowd filling the table with all kinds of snorks and orcs. I have no great belief most will ever chose to play historical games – though that is a better venue to try to recruit them than HMGS conventions. I also seriously doubt fantasy gamers drive to Lancaster or Fredericksburg to be magically converted, and certainly not if they have the ability to play something other than historical games.

At a recent game we put on in a shop, one fantasy gamer came over, looked at our exceptional looking Civil War game, and asking why we did such obscure periods? You may want to read that again, sitting down. He then toddled off to play a game with his unpainted fantasy figures.

HMGS is under no corporate mantra to spread the word to any specific age group. Nor is their charter to "grow the hobby" – which for fantasy gamers means they get to put on their games there too. Like Pickett at Gettysburg, HMGS too may have hit their high water mark. I just see don't see the need to sell out in the name of numbers as the results are a watered down product with loss of focus and interest in the group they were supposed to be serving. I think those numbers (and lack of games) speak for themselves.

I'd also add that HMGS really does nothing special (zip, zero, zilch) to encourage GMs to put on historical military games. In all the years I have run games there, no one from the staff or org ever thanked me for entertaining their paying customers with such games. I think that says it all too.

One more thing. I have zero expectation that HMGS will change. I view this as a friendly exchange between gamers, nothing more.

@HG.

Well, lets take a look at those assertions:

1) The inclusion of so many non-core games hasn't helped attendance overall – the numbers speak for themselves.

Correlation does not equal causation. Could be that the attendance would be half of what it is – we have no data to know.

You can also make just as good a response that the fact that a good chunk of the membership is opposed to non-historicals is why more people haven't come. You have anecdotal evidence of people that don't like the multi-genre, I have anecdotal evidence that many of the current members do enjoy it and that people from other boards have said they stay away because there is a fervency in the older members that is often interpreted as hostility.

The same old guard that isn't coming, because regardless of the impact of multi-genre games, the core membership isn't showing up in the numbers it used to. If they were there would be no decline, period.

2. Given the chance, people will play the non-core games (though many also play historicals), which is the exact opposite of what HMGS was founded for.

Yes, many of the people who play historicals also appreciate the other genres – indeed, several members of the board have stated as such. There's a cross pollination there to be sure. It should work both ways.

If it isn't, anecdotally there's quite a few conversations about why non-historicals should be diminished or banned that shows an undercurrent of hostility in this group of gamers that I've never seen in other groups for embracing other people that want to play with them.

Age, cost, economics, living in an online world – you don't need to add to that being unwelcoming if you started playing with spaceships or orcs. Honestly, I'm a pretty established gamer across multiple genres, and I've been made to feel unwelcome at times because I like more than just historicals.

Its toy soldiers. Sorry guys, that's it, and that's not inherently better than any other flight of fancy out there.

3) The drift is across the board – speakers(lack thereof), awards (given to any game now), painting competition (any figure may enter – though few even do), painting seminars(fantasy stuff given out and painted), etc.

Seems to me the core tenant of this is the same across all of those examples – the 'hard core' historicals guys aren't the ones running the show. If that was the wish of the membership, you'd think they'd win more elections. If the painting seminars are given out fantasy figures, shouldn't a hard core historical guy volunteer to do the paint classes to address that?

As for awards, I think I've seen 1 non-historical award in the last 5 years, and that raised a stink.

If the group wants to alienate a significant fraction of the membership, sink the con attendance even further, I think this would be a great way to go about it.

But remember that the other aspect of HMGS mandate is to expand the hobby, and this is not a casual hobby compared to most gaming areas. There's a high start up cost, and there's far more bombarding the young people then ever was the case when we were growing up. There's an exclusivity to historicals gamers that is quite frankly offputting – and just another factor among the many why the hobby is shrinking. Trying to address that is definitely good for the hobby – and once again, those guys that used to do those great games of yesteryear simply aren't coming out as often.

Some quick responses on a beaten horse:

1. "Correlation does not equal causation. Could be that the attendance would be half of what it is – we have no data to know."

No we don't. But we do know that attendance is falling. It is not an unreasonable assumption that the changed nature of the cons has left many who attended with less enthusiasm to attend. Something sure has impacted their participation.

2. "Yes, many of the people who play historicals also appreciate the other genres"

Which goes to show that if mainly historical games were offered, they would happily play those. So how does the inclusion of non-core games fulfill the charter and do what the cons are supposed to do under the 501 c 3 non-profit incorporation? They don't.

3. "Seems to me the core tenant of this is the same across all of those examples – the 'hard core' historicals guys aren't the ones running the show. "

And that has a lot to do with the looking the other way, or self-justification (oh, we have the room, or they pay for themselves, or, who cares, it's only toys?) – yet again, more self-justifying for the drift.

"As for awards, I think I've seen 1 non-historical award in the last 5 years"

Then you know more than me as I rarely even see awards posted anywhere. So how does that encourage further historical games? It doesn't.

" If that was the wish of the membership, you'd think they'd win more elections. "

Given how few vote, or how few run, not surprising. Still, I think there will be some change this year with so many people running and there is an undercurrent of dissatisfaction of how things are going. Let's see what happens.

"If the group wants to alienate a significant fraction of the membership, sink the con attendance even further, I think this would be a great way to go about it."

A self-justifying argument – with no facts in evidence – which goes against your previous post:

"Yes, many of the people who play historicals also appreciate the other genres…"

So, they are happy to eat pie at a pie eating contest, but given the option of eating cake too, they'd eat it. Hmmm. Not very sound logic. I say, offer them pie at a pie eating contest and let them eat cake at Origins or Gencon, or Zombiecon, or Comicon, or whatever.

"But remember that the other aspect of HMGS mandate is to expand the hobby…"

It is? Can you provide a quote from a corporate document that says that? The charter says:

"The purpose of the Corporation is exclusively for …. the running of educational programs promoting historical miniature gaming and military history."

I looked through the bylaws and constitution, didn't see anything about growing the hobby. It's thinking like that that has led to the steep decline of attendance, the bank account, and the almost move to Baltimore and the current facility at FCC – which has witnessed a 1/3 decline in attendance – even with the zombie crowd.

"and once again, those guys that used to do those great games of yesteryear simply aren't coming out as often."

Well, given that people who run the group are soft on what the corporation is supposed to be doing, why would that be surprising? They do nothing to promote and encourage GMs to bring historical games, and gladly fill the space with zombies and other assorted non-core gaming.

"If the painting seminars are given out fantasy figures, shouldn't a hard core historical guy volunteer to do the paint classes to address that?"

Hmmm. Sore point there. Well, we would, if we weren't actively being blocked by the zombie crowd. I can say that as I ran the first painting competition ever held at FI. I limited it to historical entries, had more people enter than they had at Hcon. The result? When I offered to run it again, or even at other cons, I was turned away. Did you see the painting competition this year at CW? Me neither. Don't even know if they had one. So, your theory doesn't hold water when such proponents of core activities are turned away, blocked, ignored, etc.

Look, it is what it is. It isn't going to change, at least with the present crowd running things. So be happy with your snorks, orcs and zombies. I believe they are safe at HMGS cons, at least for now. But if they move, then would be the time to put the limits in place the founding fathers forgot to.

As an aside, I remember working at one con and seeing Bob Coggins running around apoplectic that a LOTRs game was taking place at his beloved Historicon. May he rest in peace. :-)

I understand the angst of people who want only historical games. These are, of course, historical mini conventions.

That said, I don't see how it does any harm. Many gamers play both with equal enthusiasm. SF and fantasy games are probably more effective at recruiting to the hobby overall (especially with younger gamers). Also, they provide some size to the conventions. Higher attendance helps dealers which helps the convention generally. If the guy you bought your WW2 figures from couldn't have made his convention work without the spaceships he also sells, you benefitted from the non-historical games.

I'm not sure what historical orthodoxy would serve, save for the pointless satisfaction of those offended by non-historical games. It could only lower attendance and revenues, probably making HMGS even more rapacious about increasing everyone's fees.

Besides, what is historical? Some made up gangster thing? Sumerians fighting Teutonic knights in an ancients tournament? How far does the quest for orthodoxy bite? Is a hypothetical 1980s Soviet invasion of Europe really any more historical than Lord of the Rings?

I think a live and let live attitude makes sense. We have a small and fragile hobby, and arguments like this make me think of civil wars in Rome, circa made 460 AD.

CD:

Given that you like these games, it is not surprising that … you like these games at HMGS cons.

I really had little problem with them when they made up an anecdotal 10% of the cons, but now that they have tripled, I kind of do, as they have repurcussions across the board as I listed above.

"Many gamers play both with equal enthusiasm"

Good, then they can play historicals at HMGS cons with no problems then.

"SF and fantasy games are probably more effective at recruiting to the hobby overall (especially with younger gamers)."

Probably? Who knows. That is just a guess. But either way, a convention in Lancaster or Fredericksburg seems any unlikely place for any "conversion" to take place. It just doesn't seem logical that someone is going to drive all that way to play fantasy stuff, the suddenly become a historical gamer. Maybe at their local club or store, but not at a convention. You either like history, or you don't.

"Also, they provide some size to the conventions."

Well, they really haven't. Even with their unchecked growth, HMSG on overall attendance has fallen at the same time these games have grown. I would also point out your statement ignores the fact of the number setting years and upward growth in attendance while these games hovered around 10% or less of the conventions, so this justification for them doesn't hold up.

"Higher attendance helps dealers which helps the convention generally"

And that is my point about drift. With the growing proportion (but not overall numbers) of non-core gamers, the dealers will sell more non-historical stuff, which is not what HMGS is supposed to be about.

"I'm not sure what historical orthodoxy would serve…"

The entire purpose of the corporation. From the corporate bylaws and constitution:

"The purpose of the Corporation is exclusively for …. the running of educational programs promoting historical miniature gaming and military history."

"It could only lower attendance and revenues…"

So then their growth has led to record numbers and growth? Just the opposite has occurred while the number of these games have grown.

"Besides, what is historical?"

It's the letter H in HMGS. Let's not get silly. Some of the program booklets already break it out for you.

"I think a live and let live attitude makes sense"

Which is more of the self justification of the people who want to play these games at HMGS cons. It has not led to growth. We also know that recent leadership has tended to think this way as well, and the org has lost much of its focus and made it less of a must-go-to destination for military historical minded gamers, at least in my exerpience with friends who no longer attend.

In rereading the words from their corporate docs:

"The purpose of the Corporation is exclusively for …. the running of educational programs promoting historical miniature gaming and military history."

If I could figure out how to bold the word "exclusively" I would. Not really much wiggle room there once you read the corporate documents and see that word.

Perhaps someone can explain to me how "exclusively" even allows these other games to be put on and meet the 501 c 3 intent?

I could run a game using Beanie Babies to educate about and promote military history better than some of the "showcase" historical games.

TMP Zones of Interest:
•General
•Fantasy
•18th Century
•19th Century
•World War One
•Modern
•Science Fiction
•Toy Gaming

We all have our biases. :-)

Not to worry, the zombie crowd is in control anyway, so what are you worried about?

@CD – if there is a beaten horse here, you are the rider. No one is going around saying there should be more options at the Cons or we need to increase their presence. The only response comes when there's talk of excluding everything but historicals – and you are the primary proponnent of that pov here.

To continue the discussion:

1) No we don't. But we do know that attendance is falling. It is not an unreasonable assumption that the changed nature of the cons has left many who attended with less enthusiasm to attend. Something sure has impacted their participation.

I'd say there's a wide spectrum of things here – age of the core crowd, resources (often impacted by retirement for an older group), a near decade where the economy was in decline, possibly the move of convention sites, frustrations with registration, lack of accomodation for GMs, etc etc. I certainly won't say that the convention staff couldn't make improvements – but I'd also say that most of the people volunteering their time for this are also older, and the number of people who volunteer have also declined.

If it is simply the sight of a zombie facing off against modern troops that is turning people away, that's a pretty strong indictment of the membership. Why would you let that impact the fun you having playing the hundreds of historical games and numerous tournaments?

2. Which goes to show that if mainly historical games were offered, they would happily play those.

What would define 'mainly' for you? Because currently its at its highest level ever, and when we discussed this last a surview of events was done. Over the last few years that's been at 70-75% – not including the tournaments. If 3/4s of the games of historicals, why is it somehow threatening?

3. And that has a lot to do with the looking the other way, or self-justification (oh, we have the room, or they pay for themselves, or, who cares, it's only toys?) – yet again, more self-justifying for the drift.

Or its a specific trend by the membership and the board in order to attempt to bring new people into the hobby. But that's right, you don't think introducing new people into the group is a good idea – you'd rather let it die out when the current membership grows old and feeble.

I guarantee you my kid would never play a historical minis game if I didn't bring him to these cons. None of the kids do.

Then you know more than me as I rarely even see awards posted anywhere. So how does that encourage further historical games? It doesn't.

OK, so changing from complaining that on rare occassion an award is given to a non-historical games to the fact that you aren't provided with sufficient information on which games get awards. Which isn't it? Are you ill informed on the awards, or are too many awards (one as far as I know) given to non-historicals?

I was going to continue on in this vein, but yes, it seems a waste of time at this point.

If the number of people that believe that HMGS has no room for other types of games becomes rampant, I'll just vote with my feet. Yes, I can indeed go to Origins or Gen Con or… You know. Like everyone else does. At least an order of magnitude more attendance than the HMGS cons.

And I have to think no small part of it has to do with members such as yourself, that would rather drive people away who could enjoy their games too, if they aren't 'purists.' It seems juvenile to me, especially when historicals are already a hard sell in terms of time, investment, and willing players. There's a reason that none of the big companies are in this market, and that its still a niche subgroup of a much larger gaming community.

I'm working with my kid to put on a game right now where he will be the lead game master. Its going to feature Napoleonic soldiers sent to a fantasy setting, where they will have to deal with fanstatic elements. Of course, all the kids know about dragons and orcs and such, and almost none of them know the specifics of the Napoleonic era. I bought him Napoleon: Total War, and he's got a homework project to research the Napoleonic factions and their armies from wiki and from my pile of old Osprey books. He's having a blast.

Why that's somehow less worthy, I'll never understand. But then, I'm not an antisocial nerd, that feels the need to try to exclude others. I'm a social nerd, that tries to include others. :D Will my kid get into historical minis because of this? I don't know – but he loves history, plays Civ V and Crusader Kings, and knows his dad loves history, so there's a chance.

If he's told his game isn't welcome when he's ready to run it at an HMGS event, then I'm sure he'll go back to computer games, because lets face it, there's a hell of a lot more options there for him.

People keep talking about the hobby. What is the hobby? The hobby is gaming, but it has many different genres or sects. There was a time when a historical miniature gaming convention was just that. I remember heated arguements in HMGS East about allowing other types of games at Historicon when numbers started to decrease. It has happened to Hurricon and Recon as well, and I remember those arguments when Warhammer people wanted in. The Historical part of the hobby is graying, no matter how people look at it. I see very few young people playing historical games at cons. They want to play fantasy or science fiction. In the tampa area there aren't any historical gaming shops. When the members of my school gaming club ask me where they can buy the historical figures I have to tell them to look on internet. I first got into this hobby in 1979 when I walked into a store called Waterloo games in Stony Brook, Long Island and saw a column, line and square game in 15mm. I was hooked by the painted figures and the terrain. Today young people can only be introduced to this by clubs like mine or by going to a convention. With all the online selling, an historical store can't make any money. There is no way to compete. And with all of the manufacturer's lines out there, there is no way to stock. I was at Armada games two weeks ago and didn't even see Flames of War figures, which are popular.
Unless we get out there and pull in the young people with game days, clubs, and advertising the historical part of the hobby will gray.

@Nick – some good points there. One thing from my perspective though is that the definition of the hobby is different for many HMGS members. Most gamers focus on the games aspect of it, as you seem to as well.

Many historical minis enthusiasts focus on the history of it. To them, it is a separate – and inherently more laudable – area of endeavour. And while I'm a huge history buff, I fail to see how this necessarily translates in the gaming hall.

The problem, as elucidated by Viscount Eric, is despite the research that goes into the games, very little of that is conveyed to the players. And while real historians may smile at the games put on, and the level of resources, time, and artistry in some of the games is amazing, at the end of the day its all about one of two things. The artistry of the figure and terrain. And the tactics which are inherent in the rules and force structure.

Indeed, the very nature of historical gaming exists to create results that are ahistorical – whats the point of playing a game if the end result is preordained?

That's why I look at the gaming side of this more than the history side – I certainly get massively more from my reading about history than I do at the gaming table.

Wow!
Long post,
Long string…

"The purpose of the Corporation is exclusively for …. the running of educational programs promoting historical miniature gaming and military history."

In my gaming club I teach the history of the battle and period of time before they play. I also don't tell them the historical results until the game is over. Some of my kids actually research the battle to find out what happened, which is fine with me. As a history teacher I am always interested in the history of the period. I read, research, etc. But the kids are attracted more by the figures and terrain than the history.

@Nick – that's great! Yeah, the kids aren't going to be drawn initially by the history in most cases, but if I little falls in between their ears along the way… :D

@HG – yep, that's what it says alright. If you want your smaller con with less games and vendors, that would definitely be an excellent way to do so. It would also mean less new blood – when there is a faint trickle now.

It sounds to me that not even you believe that it would revive the group – as you suggested the smaller con format in the first place.

Again, all you have to do is get people to vote – and then you complain no one does. Which means there isn't a large body of people that feel the way you do, because certainly if there was there'd be no issue in terms of the charter getting done what your vision is.

Demiurgex,

"@CD – if there is a beaten horse here, you are the rider. No one is going around saying there should be more options at the Cons or we need to increase their presence. The only response comes when there's talk of excluding everything but historicals – and you are the primary proponnent of that pov here. "

I have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about. My post was entirely about why I think it is foolish, short-sighted, and needlessy obnoxious to go gunning for people who like other types of games. I'm all for all the games people want to run and play. So, I'm not sure how I became the proponent of being the gaming gestapo.

HG:

You're entitled to your opinion, certainly, but let's address things realistically and not torture figures.

Yes, HMGS attendance is down. There are MANY reasons for that, many of which have been discussed here. I am no fan of the way HMGS has conducted itself, and I feel there is plenty of shame to go around. That said, the actual attendance level has NOTHING to do with whether non-historical gaming is adding to whatever the numbers are. It's likely the figures would be even lower if the focus of gaming was narrowed.

This is, by the way, really just basic logic. If you narrow the areas of interest you will have fewer people attend. It's not really arguable. You can say you'd prefer a smaller convention that is 100% historical, but it's just fantasy to suggest that when you slice away whole areas of interest you won't lose some people.

You suggest there is no proof that the SF/fantasy stuff is effective at recruiting. I think that is a difficult position to argue empirically, but even so it still leaves the following. Either it is helping recruit or it isn't. So mathematically, it still makes sense to have it, as it is at least a percentage chance of aiding in recruiting. What's the point of the argument that "we don't know 100% that the games help recruit so we shouldn't have them."

As far as the dealers, again, I'm not sure you understand my point. As HMGS has continued to drive the organization into the ground and the costs for dealers has increased, the business proposition has become dicier. You may dream of a dealer hall filled exclusively with historicals, but how many dealers there now couldn't make the numbers work under those restrictions? There are a number of dealers I used to buy stuff from routinely (all historical) that are now gone, no longer coming to the shows.

If we kick down the doors and drive out the fantasy and SF stuff, the dealer hall will be half empty. And that's before the cross-genre dealers (like those who sell terrain or foam cutters, etc) find that their business has been cut in half and they bail too. Let's throw out the guys selling board games too (miniatures is as prominent in HMGS' title as historical). Then we'll be able to save space and fit the remaining dealers in one of the bathrooms.

There was an argument floating around (never a very good one, imo) that the fantasy and SF stuff pushed us past the amount of space available and forcing us to find new venues. Well, HMGS has cleverly managed to eliminate that problem by inflicting so much damage over the last five years that there is little danger of filling anything soon.

I understand non-historical games upset you for some reason, but I really don't see how it affects anyone who doesn't play in them. Frankly, the VAST majority of games I play in or run are historicals too. So, it's not like it would matter much to me if the other stuff vanished. But I don't feel some pointless need to stamp it all out to absolutely no positive effect whatsoever.

Do you have ANY compelling reason why this is necessary other than the fact that it annoys you that OTHER people are playing these games?

Sorry Civil, my fault – that remark was directed at HistoryGamer. Problem from posting on the run. I apologies for any confusion.

So the average age of respondents on TMP to the 'Greying of the Hobby' was 53.8, and probably is right around 55 as several people simply said they were around when fire was invented.

If you aren't bringing in new blood, this hobby is in dire trouble in the next decade.

"At a recent game we put on in a shop, one fantasy gamer came over, looked at our exceptional looking Civil War game, and asking why we did such obscure periods? You may want to read that again, sitting down. He then toddled off to play a game with his unpainted fantasy figures." (HistoryGamer)

Quite possibly the most Zen moment of this thread.

Wingnut

So the average age of respondents on TMP to the 'Greying of the Hobby' was 53.8

Keyword = "respondents". Nothing like a valid sample of The Hobby, at large. The younger ones didn't respond because they have better things to do with their time (like playing wargames) than hang out on an obscure internet forum with a bunch of old fogies.

"Do you have ANY compelling reason why this is necessary other than the fact that it annoys you that OTHER people are playing these games?"

Because… "The purpose of the Corporation is exclusively for …. the running of educational programs promoting historical miniature gaming and military history."

Why do you find that simple fact so hard to accept?

And unlike some, I'm not enamored with gaining numbers. Numbers come with a downside (like letting go of corporate values), as we have found out. Smaller, more upscale, focused and true to the corporate charter is just fine with me – and I suspect others as well.

I'm also not advocating the exclusion of these games. What I am advocating is a greater management of its space (HMGS manages by benign neglect), greater encouragement of historical games, and a reasonable limit (with the corporate goals in mind) of pre-registered non-core games – like they theoretically had for many years. And what goes on in the pick-up game realm is fine by me. Again, this is all for discussion and is not going to happen.

@War Artisan – Keyword = "respondents". Nothing like a valid sample of The Hobby, at large. The younger ones didn't respond because they have better things to do with their time (like playing wargames) than hang out on an obscure internet forum with a bunch of old fogies.

Absolutely, and this isn't scientific in anyway. However… :)

If demographics of internet useage are any measure, we probably are overrepresenting younger respondents compared to the true demographics. A Pew Research poll showed there being anywhere from a 10% to 30% tilt in internet useage by youth: link

Younger people use the internet in larger numbers. That's just a fact.

And as the price of entry in minis is high, most of the younger guys are playing what is in the stores and in the culture these days – that's robots, zombies, space ships and wizards. The game stores in my area rarely carry historical minis – only Flames of War sells.

@HG – I concur with you on one point. Due to the nature of the HMGS charter, free entry for a set numbers of gamer hours for GMs should only be provided for the historical GMs. I'd be absolutely fine with that. And I agree that HMGS could do better with supporting GMs. But a lot of that has to do with the level of activism among the members, and having an older population base and all the inherent issues that go with that means you aren't going to get as many people doing active jobs for the group. Actively supressing any avenue for younger gamers into the hobby is not in the best interest of the hobby. And your assertion that expanding the hobby not being in the charter is specious IMO – that's the point of the educational aspect of the charter.

Sigh!!!

OK I'll go through it again.

"Growing the Hobby" won't be done by bushwhacking boy scouts or tricking people into playing. Two of the three big draws of the hobby are the "Sense of Wonder" and "Spirit of Play." That's the high-falutin' terms for them but they mean the WOW!!!!!NEAT!!!!! factor and the "LET'S MAKE BELIEVE!!!!" factor.

But those aren't the most important.

The most important factor is YOU!

Wargames is a social hobby and if people don't like you, if people don't want to be around you than flogging the hobby will be beating a dead horse. We go to games, wherever they are (at least in America) because we like to hang with the people who go to games, and we have fun and laugh and joke and argue if Obama is the Antichrist or the best thing since sliced bread, and gossip and cat about people who aren't there and have fun and eat munchies and be with pleasant people. Thinks about how the vast number of people got into it. You had a friend at work, or down the street, or you met someone at a store, or you went over their house and saw the hobby shelves lined with miniatures.

The only way the hobby grows is not by formal presentation or sententious demonstration games, but by getting people in and letting them roll die. You won't get converts by sermonizing them, or lecturing them, or beating them over the head with history. You will get them because at first, it's all nice and flashy splashy, but the secret is they want to hang around with you.

Trust me. There is no great yearning burning hole in the soul of the average man that can be filled by war games.

But people like to have friends, to socialize and be with each other, drink beer, cram munchies down their mush and be accepted. They like the simulated danger of the die roll but they like being with other people.

So if you want to grow the hobby get off your buts and evangelize. I could go through the recounting of how many people I have gotten into gaming who have stayed, but you've heard it all before.

By the way, as for the graying of the Hobby, Walt O'Hara put it right a few dozen posts ago. The reason the hobby seems greying is that young people drop out of gaming for a while because of destractions. The kids of one family I converted to gaming (yes, got the whole family, mom, dad, 9 year old son, 14 year old daughter) into it and they loved it. The 14 year old daughter (drop dead gorgeous, then and now) is into other things like her fiancé and getting a job and married, and the son is absorbed in school work, his facorite subject now being blue-jean biology. But I can see the seed is planted and in 6 years-- they'll be back.

As for games at conventions. I'm a wargame w***e, (the fillin the blank letters are "hor" )I'll play anything, board games, D&D, historical miniatures, Sci-fi, (No zomibies, they're disgusting) and love every minute of it.

But, I'm also a strict nominalist, so that will be a problem for many (they're toy soldiers, mere tokens, they have no connection with reality and have no mystical connection other than aesthetics with their real life prototypes)

So if you want to grow the hobby, start talking it up.

Otto

DM:

I would generally agree with your post.

I would like to address these two parts of your post:

"Actively supressing any avenue for younger gamers into the hobby is not in the best interest of the hobby."

I'd use the term limit instead of suppress – though I still don't buy the story people come to HMGS to play fantasy games and then magically become historical gamers. I think they either do or don't like those games already. I believe any cross-over happens a long time before any HMGS con occurs.

"And your assertion that expanding the hobby not being in the charter is specious IMO – "

It is because there is no reasonable or practical way for HMGS to expand the hobby. People don't pay $40 USD to wander in, have a look, and then become converts. I don't buy that idea at all.

"…that's the point of the educational aspect of the charter."

The point of the educational aspect, IIRC, was to use military historical games to support interest in military history – buying books, studying the period, attending lectures on same, etc. Again, fantasy gamers 1. Aren't likely to stumble into an HMGS con and convert, and 2. Aren't likely to attend lectures on military history. The educational idea also supports the idea of a 501 c 3 as well since those types of corporations are supposed to be non-profits with an educational goal. Somehow educating people about zombies doesn't quite have the same ring. :-)

By the way, I personally love sci fi and fantasy movies/books, watch the Walking Dead regularly – I just don't want to see HMGS overwhelmed and lose their reason for being. I have a member number in the 200s, so I've been around a while and seen where the org came from and where it is now.

Due to the nature of the HMGS charter, free entry for a set numbers of gamer hours for GMs should only be provided for the historical GMs

I think this is a false dichotomy. Who are these historical GMs and non-historical GMs? They are, in fact, the same people.

Keyword = "respondents". Nothing like a valid sample of The Hobby, at large. The younger ones didn't respond because they have better things to do with their time (like playing wargames) than hang out on an obscure internet forum with a bunch of old fogies.

Like Demiurgex said, the error will be that the younger crowd will be overrepresented in this sample.

Also: "The younger ones didn't respond because they have better things to do with their time (like playing video games)………."

There, fixed that for you.

"I think this is a false dichotomy. Who are these historical GMs and non-historical GMs? They are, in fact, the same people."

In some instances, yes. Perhaps what the write meant to say is that only military games based in history should be given the free GM pass. If a GM runs both types of games – say historical and fantasy, he still gets in free since one game is historical.

The organization already breaks out the type of games in the programs at times, so someone is determining that already – not that it's that hard anyway. Though I did see a theme game listed in the CW program booklet that made one pause.