"Why don't you like historical wargaming?" Topic

Well, why doncha?

I really don't like people telling me my turnbacks aren't the right shade for 1811.

Did they have turnbacks in 1811? ; |

I do like it. I know it's only historical wargaming, but I like it.

When is the last time anybody told you that your turnbacks are the wrong shade for 1811? Huh? Really?
I doubt that ever happens.

It's one of those urban myths of gaming. Somebody's cousin has a friend who was challenged at a convention by H G Wells.

False premise, since I do like, and actually prefer it, generally.

False premise, since I do like, and actually prefer it, generally.

It's not a false premise. If you like historical wargaming, this question isn't for you.

But I do like historical wargaming….

I don't like historical wargaming … I love it!!

Phil

If you like historical wargaming, this question isn't for you

it's a TMP Poll suggestion … so it's for everyone (and you posted it to the Historical Wargaming Board), and 'False Premise' looks as good a suggestion as any other.

Is there any other kind of wargaming?

I like Historical, I like Science Fiction, I like VSF, and I like Fantasy.

It is like Butterscotch, Chocolate, Vanilla, Strawberry, or Butter Pecan ice cream. Each is good at certain times.

it's a TMP Poll suggestion … so it's for everyone (and you posted it to the Historical Wargaming Board), and 'False Premise' looks as good a suggestion as any other.

No, I like my poll as intended: if you don't like X, tell us why. Telling us "but meesa like it!" is nice, but I don't care. Save it for "Why do you like [fantasy/historical].

If you don't like my parameters, create your own poll!

What Mute Bystander said.

What Phil said:

I don't like it. I love it!!

I prefer historical gaming and the limitations imposed rather than the more open ended Fantasy and SF.

No one has ever criticised my turnbacks or facing colours either.

I really don't like people telling me my turnbacks aren't the right shade for 1811.

I could have forgiven you if it was just that you painted their buttons gold instead of pewter but you did insist on Prussian Blue when they should have been Palatinate Blue turnbacks.

Winston, I did get told once that my chariot wheels had the 'wrong number of spokes'.
I'm with Phil, though.

Historicals is just another period of fantasy wargaming, but without the magic.

Anyway, I play both fantasy and historicals, and I love them both.

I play both. I don't see the reason to be in one camp or the other.

I love fantasy
I love the real
I love the Java Jive and it loves me

Seriously though.

I like both. As long as it's toy soldiers on a table top with terrain, you have my interest. Done AD&D, had a lot of good fun with it. Did historical minis, had a lot of fun with it. Do Imagi-Nations, have a lot of fun with it.

I DON'T like Historicals because of SOME of the jerks in it. But that's life. I like the historicals and dislike he jerks.

I do like it- mostly- but occasionally go through periods where I don't and the reason is because the topic can be quite depressing, you know, constantly reading about real people that were killed, butchered, slaughtered and the pain their families suffered. Its a pretty grim subject.

I dislike people telling me I should use dice instead of firing matchsticks… :-)

Mike

I enjoy historical wargaming tremendousy. Back from my first game of Midway and Gunslinger when I was 8.

What I don't like is historical wargamers that sneer at people who enjoy other form of gaming. Advocating that seems to me to be doing a disservice to gaming in general. At the end of the day if you are in a social situation moving around counters or figures, the medium you are involved in is gaming.

In theory there is no difference between fantasy and historical wargaming. As someone already stated, it's all fantasy, and that is because it is just a game. Now someone can come along and write a highly realistic set of rules and call it a simulation versus a game. You can do the same for fantasy, write a realistic medieval simulation rule set for your fantasy troops, leave out the magic, and veola you are playing a historical feeling game with fantasy mini's. Lose the snobbery and face it, we are all grown men who enjoy playing with toy soldiers whether it is historical or fantasy.

I really don't like people telling me my turnbacks aren't the right shade for 1811.

I could have forgiven you if it was just that you painted their buttons gold instead of pewter but you did insist on Prussian Blue when they should have been Palatinate Blue turnbacks.

No he said 1811! It was the one year that buttons were brass and the turnbacks were cornflower blue.

I would reply, but I'm too busy rebasing all my armies to reflect the latest research on 15th century shoulder width.

I also have never had anyone criticize my uniform choices due to accuracy, perception or whatever but I do recall seeing a really intense debate about what orange is correct for aurore on the Grenadiers a Cheval.

As much as I'd like to be a historical gamer I find myself mostly being a period gamer. I never seem to have all the necessary figures to recreate specific battles.

Oh yeah I forgot to ask, What is historical wargaming? What are it's core principles?

I do like historical wargaming, but I now enjoy skirmish level gaming more than I do the "big battle" table groaners or the tournament contests that were the norm of my early gaming years. A few of the self-sworn "Historical Gamers" that I know consider this preference to be HWG treason.

I consider myself a historical minis gamer as well as a roleplayer & fantasy & sci fi minis player

there are many games I enjoy but my interest is limited to specific periods – moderns being my first love & with the exception of DBA not really a fan of anything before WWI

& with the exception of GW's long out of print Man O'War – have never enjoyed boat games – which includes spaceship games (boats on black cloth) & airplane games (boats on multicolored cloth) Harpoon is at the top of my 'no thank you' won't play again list – wasted several hours that I'll never get back

I like history and I like historical wargamming…however as I've got older I find that painting and modeling an army are frequently more fun than the playing with it. So I tend to do more Sci-fi or fantasy because my imagination can run riot and I'm not constrained by historical accuracy same goes with historical based imagi-nations because I can choose what to have in my army and what colour the turnbacks will be :)

I do like historical wargaming, but I now enjoy skirmish level gaming more than I do the "big battle" table groaners or the tournament contests that were the norm of my early gaming years. A few of the self-sworn "Historical Gamers" that I know consider this preference to be HWG treason.

I don't really understand what you are saying. Skirmish gaming isn't historical? On the contrary, most of skirmish gaming is historical. We do a lot of TSATF and its historical variants. We also do WWI and WWI skirmish gaming. Currently we use Bolt Action for WWII and for the Middle Ages we use Lion Rampant. Not to mention Sharpe Practice and many others.

Although I am pretty much pure Historical I will admit one of the things I don't like about it is the constant tense and effort to make sure everything is painted exactly right!

Historicals is just another period of fantasy wargaming, but without the magic.

Phil:

No, no. Fantasy gaming is just another type of Historical wargaming with Conan, elves and magic. It's fantasy, so it can't have a period, era or anything historical like that unless it's made-up…you know, fantasy. Historical periods are times that actually did exist. Besides, historical wargaming was created long before fantasy gaming became a thing.

Enjoy playing both.

Of course! History is all fantasy. I was thinking all history is bunk. Now you tell me its fantasy without the magic. Six years of college and a thirty year career wasted.

I guess all the custom buildings, detailed research, going through Washington's papers. The trips to the National Archives, Trenton Historical Society.

Building terrain. All for my Battle of Trenton game could instantly be turned into a fantasy game be giving Washington and Rall some magic spells to cast. It's just the same as fantasy! Brilliant!

Of course! History is all fantasy. I was thinking all history is bunk. Now you tell me its fantasy without the magic. Six years of college and a thirty year career wasted.

Can we leave out the drama, please? I fail to see what a career in history has to do with a debate about fantasy wargaming vs historical wargaming.

For you it's two different hobbies. You don't have to like fantasy wargaming, no one can force you. But please take a look around and look at people, products, magazines, cons, … It all looks like the same hobby to me.

I like to play medievals and 7YW and ACW and WW2. I don't play ancients, actually I dislike them. Does that make 7YW and Ancients wargaming two different hobbies?

As I said in the other thread, embrace the variants of wargaming. Don't try to create artificial divides that were resolved already 30 years ago.

Btw, just curious: what type of fantasy gaming have you tried to come to your conclusion it's a different hobby than historicals?

I can only think of one thing I don't like about historical (miniatures) gaming: it's nearly impossible to get a group of players to agree on a set of rules.

Of course I'm too obtuse, obsessive and neurotic to stop trying.

- Ix

In theory there is no difference between fantasy and historical wargaming. As someone already stated, it's all fantasy, and that is because it is just a game.

USAF:
In theory? Have you read the design goals stated by current Historical wargame designers? Fantasy designers?
Lots of difference. In theory, both types are wargames are using similar mechanics to represent very different things: historical reality rather than made-up Fantasy and SF worlds that don't and never have existed. Literally non-fiction and fiction. You can argue that historical designers fail to "represent real combat" [a Black Powder Designers' goal] but 'theoretically' that is very different from representing Orcs battling dwarves with magic.

Lose the snobbery and face it, we are all grown men who enjoy playing with toy soldiers whether it is historical or fantasy.

There's no snobbery involved. We are grown men [of varying levels and durations of adult behavior, speaking for myself] playing with toy soldiers… with rules designed to do different things. I'm surprised that you play both and don't see the differences. I mean the terms Historical and Fantasy are used to describe that differentiation in wargames.

It isn't snobbery to point out and enjoy the very real [not theoretical] differences regardless of what we play with and use for counters on the table.

Then someone comes along and insists that no, there are no differences and it's all just toy soldiers and you're a snob to disagree?

That is doing a disservice to both historical and fantasy wargaming. I happen to like the differences and want to keep them. I think I can do that without insisting one is better than the other [snobbery] or insisting, get over it, there is no difference? [patronizing?]

McLaddie@ I see where you coming from and there are certainly differences between rule sets for historical and fantasy sci-fi games there are also however a lot of rules that cross over.

Warhammer historical took Warhammer and made it usable for historical gaming (ancients right through to WW1), Hail Caesar and black powder have there roots in Warmaster fantasy.

Coldwar/Blitzkrieg commander were converted into future war commander.

WRG ancients rules had appendix for fantasy gaming and DBA was used to create HOTT.

Lion Rampant has spawned Dragon Rampant

It would be quite easy for someone to play historical and fantasy sci-fi games using broadly similar rules which have only slight differences and not see there being much difference between the two.

edit@ and you've edited your post while I was typing :)

What is a Turnback?

Mcladdie, the only difference between fantasy and historical is the uniforms. Prince Rupert is mostly right.

with rules designed to do different things. I'm surprised that you play both and don't see the differences.

In theory they could/are designed to do different things. But in practice, the difference is so minimal it actually does not matter. There are plenty of rulesets who take exactly the same mechanics for historical or fantasy battles. So, according to your reasoning, that means either that those historical rulesets are flawed, or that the fantasy rulesets are not so ahistorical after all ;-)

Don't get me wrong, I understand your arguments (in this and many other discussions :-)). The source material is different, the goal of the rules designer is (or might be) different. But the end result are rules that – in practical day-to-day wargaming – are simply interchangeable.

You look at the design process to label history and fantasy wargaming as two different activities. I look at the outcome. The outcome – as experienced and lived by the players – is mostly the same. The similarities are much bigger than the differences.

Sure, of course I see the difference between a well-designed historical ruleset, rooted in a thorough study of military history, with the specific aim to recreate some aspect of historical military warfare on the tabe; and a fantasy game, simple designed as a game to sell more miniatures, and with players who are not the elast interested in underlying military tactics from which the fantasy game drew its inspiration. But those examples are so atypical for the entire range of wargamers one sees and meets at cons and gaming groups. In practice, I just don't see them as essential different hobbies. Which doesn't mean that any individual might prefer specific periods or approaches to the game.

E.g. I think that Warhammer competition players have much more in common with DBx competition gamers. OTOH, a historical scenario player who draws inspiration from actual engagements has much more in common with the Middle Earth player who studies Tolkien.

In theory, there is a difference between historical and fantasy wargaming. In practice, there is not.

It seems that some of the disparity of opinion is driven by differing definitions.

What Phil says is completely true, as long as you define "historical wargaming" as "what most gamers do" in actual practice, and nothing else. This is as misleading as defining "American beer" as the beer most Americans choose to drink, and nothing else. Phil's definition excludes all that is possible, but not typical; I prefer a broader definition.

McLaddie@ I see where you coming from and there are certainly differences between rule sets for historical and fantasy sci-fi games there are also however a lot of rules that cross over.

Prince Rupert:

There is no denying the crossover, but it is a 'crossover', not the same thing.

Don Trioani's representational, historical art uses oil paints, canvases and brushes just as Picasso did. Even so, no one would say that Troiani's painting of the Battle of Fredericksburg "Clear the Way" is just the same as Picasso's painting of of the bombing of Guernica.

Different styles, purposes and subjects even when both are about war using the same medium. There certainly can be crossover. A science fiction movie can be a thriller too, "Alien" or a romance like "terminator."

So, Black Powder used some of the same game mechanics as Warhammer. The designer of Warhammer didn't have a goal of creating a "representation of real combat" by historical period.

That doesn't make either better or worse, but definitely different in game goals and play experience if successful.

Every category has crossovers and exceptions [Human sex and genders, for instance]. That doesn't render the categories non-existent.

It would be quite easy for someone to play historical and fantasy sci-fi games using broadly similar rules which have only slight differences and not see there being much difference between the two.

I agree. I see that as the consequence of:

1. The lack of clear/recognized definitions of those differences… as opposed to Abstract and Representational art. [Designer and hobby failure]

2. The rules being abstract and ill-identified as to what they are supposed to represent. [design failure]

3. The lack of any designer differentiation. Not caring about the history and wanting primarily to create a 'fun' game. [Designer intent] IF the designer doesn't care about the difference in designing the game, then players aren't going to see any.

4. Fantasy games arrived on the wargame scene after historical games, so they used the same rules systems, which is just fine. The other issue is one of 'the suspension of disbelief' or the 'Magic Circle' of pretending that games provide. What helps players get 'into' that state are details… details relating to the real world. Tolkien did this and so did George Lucas in "Star Wars."

The cover of the Warmaster rulebook has Knights fighting skeleton hordes and the rules deal with undead, orc and high elf armies, but in the introduction the designer states:

"Warmaster is fundamentally a game based on a general's ability to command rather than on his troops' ability to fight… Each turn of the game reflects the time taken to consider, formulate, communicate and enact decisions made by the general rather than the literal time it might take for a man to walk or run…. Indeed, as in real wars, we must assume that our warriors spend a great deal of time awaiting orders and relatively little time actually moving and fighting.

Really? Why 'must' a designer of a fantasy game assume that? Is that "true" for Skeleton Hordes and Chaos armies? There is no imperative for that assumption at all except that it helps players relate and/or it is a designer's CHOICE.

If there is is crossover between Historical and Fantasy game designs, it is by intent and most crossover is from historical to fantasy and science fiction to give those games some 'realness' rather than some innate similarity between the two genres.

Fantasy wargames need historical 'realness' far more than historical games need fantasy to work. That doesn't make one better than the other, but we do need to be clear about what is happening when either are designed.

And crossovers are just great, as they are with novels or other art forms. The novels of Dragons during the Napoleonic wars His Majesty's Dragon are a good example. What makes them work though, is the historically accurate details of the Napoleonic period as much as the author's imagination.

Mcladdie, the only difference between fantasy and historical is the uniforms. Prince Rupert is mostly right.

Not according to the designers of those games. I think you are confusing the medium [game mechanics] with the message.[how the mechanics are arranged and to what purpose…as well as the content which is far more than uniforms.]

In theory they could/are designed to do different things. But in practice, the difference is so minimal it actually does not matter. There are plenty of rulesets who take exactly the same mechanics for historical or fantasy battles. So, according to your reasoning, that means either that those historical rulesets are flawed, or that the fantasy rulesets are not so ahistorical after all ;-)

Phil:

Yes, see above. IF the theory--that is--the ability to design two different things is correct [different purposes and different outcomes like Picasso and Troiani], then it is the implementation that is flawed… Either that or the ability and willingness to identify the differences.

the only difference between fantasy and historical is the uniforms

If that is the only difference you make, then that is the only difference you will see.

I think you are confusing the medium [game mechanics] with the message.[how the mechanics are arranged and to what purpose…as well as the content which is far more than uniforms.]

Exactly.

Blocks of stone can be piled in a heap, or arranged into an Egyptian pyramid, a Roman aquaduct, or a Gothic cathedral. Their appearance and function will be quite distinct, but the blocks still look the same.

As I mentioned in the other thread, this isn't really a relevant question, and it seems to be provoking a bunch of game vs. simulation sentiment.

Saga, or a DBX game where some Siculo-Normans and some Assyrians have a bash, aren't necessarily going to do anything differently than a game of Dragon Rampant is. While a given group of gamers might take the historical element to mean that they ought to go do some research on how to paint and model things, that's really about as far as they stretch.

Of course, some might decide to take up a more detailed approach, but arguments in the Napoleonics board often have the same tenor as ones I used to hear on the schoolbus between folks arguing which class was the best in D&D. None of that is to say that the arguments about how to rate French morale in 1809 or what have you aren't attempting to wrestle with reality whereas the cleric v. druid argument is most definitely not.

War Artisan's point that if the difference between fantasy and uniform is basically uniforms, it's because of a decision you've made about your approach rings true, but again that seems to me to be more of a distinction between someone who wants more of a simulation of history and someone who's happy to throw down some Bolt Action with a Nisei platoon taking on some Finns.

Personally, I wasn't interested in Fantasy gaming for a long time, actually – I got into miniatures gaming in the 90s through the usual teen nerd GW route, and by about '05 I was mainly into 40k and, through FoW, a few other WW2 sets. Really had no interest in fantasy till around 2010 or so, and then for some reason fantasy plus ancients really started being interesting to me, and anything from gunpowder on lost appeal. I have no idea why, really.

As I mentioned in the other thread, this isn't really a relevant question, and it seems to be provoking a bunch of game vs. simulation sentiment.

Please, please don't reframe this into that rabbit hole. As you said, it isn't a relevant question. That hasn't been the discussion.

It is simply about what designers means to create, the differences between historical and fantasy wargames and what wargame mechanics can do.

If the designers state their games are simulations or representations of real combat, that is the designers' choices. If the players choose to ignore those choices when playing their wargames, that is neither here nor there concerning the actual differences.

If the designers state their games are simulations or representations of real combat, that is the designers' choices. If the players choose to ignore those choices when playing their wargames, that is neither here nor there concerning the actual differences.

But it is the players' experiences and their approach towards the game that is important in the end. I guess this is the underlying assumption for many of these debates. What is the intent of the designer vs the way players use it?

Anyway, when most wargamers talk about "historical wargaming" or "fantasy wargaming" it has to do with the visualized period, not so much with the intent of the rules designer.

There are rules, set in an historical period, but which are mere games without any deeper historical insight attached. The only difference with fantasy wargames is that they use historical visuals.
Would you call that historical wargaming? If not, what would you call them? If yes, then what's the fundamental difference with fantasy wargames?

When a wargamer walks up to a table at a con, and sees orcs and elves, he thinks "Ah, fantasy wargaming". When he sees tanks and infantry, he thinks "Ah, historical wargaming".
It's all very well to use your own definition of "historical wargaming", but if that doesn't match what most people understand under that name, discussion such as these are entertaining, but a little bit pointless :-)
I see the difference between differently designed games. But that difference doesn't translate in the "historical" or "fantasy" labels. Unless you use those names differently compared to most wargamers.

Dear Phil

Be careful. You are getting further and further away from your core. Don't move the focus of the game from the game, the toy soldiers and the visuals to the game designer, who is largely irrelevant. Your examples of the "gaze" of the wargamer on the table top and seeing orcs and elves versus tanks and machine guns is quite correct, but at the same time quite subtle. A person sees the objects on the table top and constructs in his mind a picture of what the game is. But he does not know what the processes behind the game are. If the rules for the tanks have been filched from the rules for fire breathing dragons the games will still work as will the rules for mustry filched from an American Civil War game for Elves. The rules behind the objects are merely nominal, it is the objects tha imprint upon our mind.

In fact there is absolutely no reason NOT to use the rules for fire breathing dragons for tanks, as both do not in any way breathe fire. All are merely mathematical permutations leading to a dice roll. Therefore the instrumentation is identical for both, only in the minds eye is there a difference. If you didn't KNOW the rules for tanks were filched from those for fire breathing dragons you would not think anything but that the procedures were a certain way. All you would see would be a bunch of modifiers to the die roll expressed in mathematical terms. As long as the verbage attached to the operations were consistent with historical or fantasy, whichever genre you were in. Thus, +1 if the tank is using armor piercing or the dragon had a bushel of habanera peppers for lunch) are considered normal, but not if interchanged.

In all cases the central truth, the only truth is the toy soldiers.

The dichotomoy of historical/fantasy is a predeliction in "the minds eye" of the gamer. That is he wants to SEE historicals or he wants to SEE fantasy.

For me at this stage in my life with a half dozen full huge armies in the 18th century alone, part of the joy is in the conversions I have made to create unique units and figures, and the acquiring of unique and exotic units with absolutely NO table top utility whatsoever.