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

Well, why doncha?

Sometimes I find the "Madeupians vs Neverhappendites" kinda pointless.

It is rare that one learns anything useful of an historical or geographical nature from fantasy gaming.

Same could be said for any historical period points battle.

I used to play Dungeons and Dragons in the early eighties when I was a kid and it was fine, but it seemed that they just kept making more and more books and monsters , each one more magical and powerful than the one before. I just couldn't sit there and listen to someone say, " I have a level fifteen half-elf ranger with a plus 20 sword, plus thirty armor and an amulet that wards off herpes and vampires." Fantasy is always going to go the extra mile to make it more extreme. I realize that a lot of gamers get their start in gaming with fantasy, but I just tend to enjoy historical. the real question should be, Why do people game Imaginations? I can't picture painting a French dragoon in an orange coat with bright red horsehair mane….but to each his own. Game on!

I don't dislike it, just never played it much.

But I do like fantasy wargaming….

I used to play tons of fantasy back in the late 70s and early 80s when the rules were two pieces of paper. I had a blast. What puts me off fantasy now is the GW mindset, as well as some obnoxious personalities I have encountered (and yes, we historical gamers have our own butt heads). It just doesn't look like fun anymore. Every once in awhile I think about building a few small armies for some solo play using I-don't-know-what rules. Back then, in my experience, the historical, fantasy and sci-fi gamers were all the same group of people and was not broken into more distinct camps as it is now.

Because it's a different hobby

Phil

I haven't managed to play every historical period I want to play yet. Once I have I might find time and money for fantasy.

Why do people game Imaginations?

gaming imaginations allows me to use miniatures that wouldn't be fighting on the same side, so I could use von Kleist freikorps alongside Austrian pandours

The few I've tried were over fiddly or goofy with far too many "uber" units designed to sell overpriced figures.

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.

I'm in Mute Bystanders corner :)

I like fantasy, historical, sci-fi, spy fi, post apocalyptc, etc. Like Mute said, variety is the spice of life.

Sorry but both are just games and should be simply enjoyed.

What Mute Bystander said.

I've got room for many different hobbies. Aren't Greek and Norse mythology Fantasy? Nobody bats an eye at Vikings going for the kill in Thor's honor.

Doesn't appeal to me. It is more suited to kids than adults. I do historical gaming because I love history and I learn a lot from it. It is another tool in the Historians tool chest.

This is really apples and oranges. You might as well ask a coin collector why he hates needlepoint. We are talking about two different hobbies.

TMP link

Just don't have a taste or desire for it!

Aren't Greek and Norse mythology Fantasy? Nobody bats an eye at Vikings going for the kill in Thor's honor.

This absolutely makes no sense and completely misses the point.

The way fantasy/sci-fi miniatures are marketed is a scam. After you've put time and effort to paint some (nicely sculpted) very expensive figures out comes a new edition of the rules hey presto your figures are made redundant and outclassed and you have to buy the next bunch of overpriced figures to keep up with everyone else. Try doing that with Napoleonics – oh, I have to buy a whole new French Old Guard because now they have better power armour to keep up with the Prussian Laser-Jagers! That said I don't have much problem playing someone else's fantasy/sci-fi… if there's nothing else on offer! I do enjoy a little "Cthulhuing" from time to time! :)

Not a fan of fantasy. Someone else paints both sides and is the rules-meister, I'll play.

Because somebody is always going to say, "You can't have blue orcs! Orcs are green! There's no such thing as blue orcs!"

Uh….really?

Although I played D&D in the darks ages of the 1970s, with the original paper folios, and coins for figures (cause there were none) I just preferred historicals:

1. I love military history, the research, and tying it into wargames.

2. Given the constraints of time and money, I've chosen to focus on historicals

Depends on the back story.
But I shy away from it because some in my circle want to go in the Star wars, 40k or Warhammer Fantasy direction… Whereas I want Frezzas hard SF "Small Colonial War" and Middle Earth.

Way too much playing of the D&D (AD&D, D&D 3e) rpg in my youth either not knowing about other systems or unable to convince others to play other rpgs. Honestly, I am bored of the Tolkienesque elf, dwarf, magic weapons, and hundred of other tropes that that D&D has cast in iron that has become generic fantasy. Given all the genres, and sub-genres, of things out there in the world, I could never step foot in a generic fantasy world again (in any form from table top to video game) and be satisfied with the time I already have spent to the end of my days.

I play and enjoy lots of Sci-Fi and VSF in addition to Historical but for whatever reason, Fantasy just leaves me cold, possibly because I have never liked the idea of an RPG enough to try one.

It is certainly is as valid a genre as any and more power to those that enjoy it.

@RallyNow

I guess the point is that they are not as different as some would like to portray them. The quest for the Golden Fleece, yeah its Fantasy but its got historical Hoplites in there. As Tap would say its a fine line between stupid and clever… I mean Historicals and Fantasy.

disclosure: I despise game systems that have proprietary miniatures. An Orc is an Orc is a Hun is a Hun.

I'd pull the green circle to the right to overlap Historical Fiction. Pure Historicals outside the circle, agreed.

I'm going to take the time tomorrow to read the article fully and the TMP thread link provided. Looks like really good stuff, but I need to go get a perfectly factual history lesson of the Vikings from my DVR right now.

I appreciate you sharing the links, I'll be sure to give it its due.

To be honest it is the nerds that put me off.

It's not that I don't like Fantasy Wargaming. It's that I like historical or sci-fi wargaming most, so I have not time (nor money or space!) for Fantasy.

I started with Middle Earth wargames in the 70s, moved to Warhammer when it first appeared, then moved to historical when Napoleonics at our club was more fun than the latest Warhammer, 93/94.Still play the odd game of 3rd Edition and have finally got round to painting my LOTR chaps,

Tally Ho!

Fantasy is simply another wargaming period, nothing more, nothing less.

A better question would have been "What don't you like about fantasy wargamers" or "What don't you like about fantasy wargaming companies."

In practice, there is almost no difference between how people experience their games, whether fantasy or historical. Go to any con and observe.

Wargamers who do not like fantasy usually have reasons that have nothing to do with the wargaming activity itself, but have to do with peripherals.

Because it's a different hobby

Is it?

If it is, I don't see much proof of that in the field. Show me the evidence.

And don't give me the anecdotical example of the amateur-historian who – by playing a well-designed simulationist wargame – suddenly develops a deeper and novel insight why Darius lost at Gaugamela. I've never met someone like that.

What I observe in practice, with fantasy and historical players alike:
- Wargamers discuss the merits of painting jobs;
- Wargamers discuss using buckets of dice or a D20;
- Wargamers discuss whether premeasurement is allowed or not;
- Wargamers discuss the latest battle movie they saw and how this can be recreated on the gaming table;
- Wargamers suffer from the "Ooh-shiny"-syndrome.
It is not a different hobby, it's the same hobby.

Sure, I understand the source material is different. You can play games inspired by military history, or you can play games inspired by fantasy literature. That doesn't make it a different hobby.
I totally understand that some wargamers prefer history only, and that some wargamers prefer fantasy/scifi. However, reality is that most wargamers enjoy both. Proof is the many cross-over genres that exist today.

Embrace fantasy wargaming as part of the wide wargaming community. Don't create artificial divisions based on some sort of experience back in the 70s in which you lost a fight against a Tarrasque in a D&D game because you rolled a 1 on a D20.

Funny that this has come up now.
Like many of you I use to play fantasy wargames and D&D in the 70's although I started with WWII and Napoleonic's (as well as dozens of board games).

I got very sick of fantasy because it became so cliche. I use to make Warhammer armies, paint them up and sell them for a big profit. But I never played a game and was never interested.

But then earlier this week I bought Dragon Rampant and I really like the look of it. It pretty basic and you can make of it what you want so it doesn't have to be what everyone else expects. And, my existing German medieval troops will fit the bill with just a couple of fantasy elements thrown into the mix.

I play both.

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 intrest. 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 Fantasy because of SOME of the jerks who play it. But that's life.

I don't know. I used enjoy it a lot in college, DnD and all, but…my tastes changed. I don't know why.

Interesting.

My problem with fantasy as a wargame was that I wanted to play LotR or Greek myth games but until HOTT came out there wasn't really a generic wargame engine (that I knew about anyway) that you could plug your chosen fantasy armies into as you the gamer wanted.

Rather, you were restricted to the various armies that Warhammer (or whatever your chosen rule set was) covered, not to mention fantasy rule sets seemed to go hand in hand with a given brand of miniature.

At it's simplest, I enjoy fantasy wargaming, and since HOTT came out I haven't found a mythology I was interested in that I couldn't adapt to the game engine. Figures can still be a bit of a problem, but really this is a great time to be a fantasy wargamer.

I find it hard to believe there are people still banging the it's a different hobby drum. It reminds me of going to my first club back in the 80s, with a friend, and playing Warhammer. While grey haired old men, in cardigans, clutching a treasured copy of WRG 5th edition gave us disapproving looks in between long calculations on weather those Viking berserkers had just broken those Punic pike…you now proper historical wargames.

It's all fantasy gaming.

Personally I find that there's little difference between historical and fantasy on the Con scene.

The difference comes from your individual enjoyment of the hobby. I certainly understand why people love the depth of historical research and analysis you can go into in readings. The ingenuity of man and the grit and determination, the motivations and politics, as well as the endess array of means we've come to prosecute war does amaze me. As well as the sacrifice and personal loss, which I find completely ignored by almost all gaming enthusiasts.

Fantasy and scifi are clearner of that profound agony, and for me at least that seems to allow for less introspection when I take off that little orc or space marine off the table. Real men dripped real blood. In some ways it seems disrespectful to me to trivialize those sacrifices. Maybe that's why when I do do historicals, it tends to be vehicle based, or in ancient antiquity. A greater level of abstraction.

Fantasy allows for a broader range of tactics and possible scenarios, though many fantasy games find their roots in historical issues. Historical games do tend to blend in to many fantasy games that take their 'simulation' seriously. After all, Tolkein's Rohimmir came from the Professor's speculation what would have happened in the Battle of Hastings if the Anglo-Saxons put forward better cavalry. Lots of players play both, and there's no surprise when classic historical situations pop up in fantasy gaming. That is where our study of tactics came from, after all.

But to each their own. I don't think either is inherently better. I think someone thrilled to be gaming in Aquilonia or Star Trek is just as immersed as the guy that is playing Caesar's conquest of Gaul – maybe more so, because those experiences are more tangible with today's media. Ultimately to me its the narrative and what you take out of it, and that's what I'd like to see more of in gaming in general.

"I tried historicals once with the Newbury Fast play rules somewhere in the 70s. I didn't like it, and I played fantasy ever since."

That's the sort of argument you see being put forward here …

So, the Lion Rampant player belongs to one hobby.
The Dragon Rampant player belongs to another hobby.
Go figure …

Newbury "Fast Play" rules have a lot to answer for. If the Truth in Advertising laws applied to gaming, they would still be in prison.

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.

Why not admit that this is no more than reverse snobbery. 'Its only a game' or 'playing with Toy Soldiers' don't apply to all wargamers. Even if your experience excludes them you must know other types exist from repeated posts on this forum – yet you continue to deny what they tell you !!!

Of your list of what 'all' wargamers do I only recognise two of those that feature often in discussions around the tables I play at.

Far more likely is discussion of the merits of a rule set in giving a satisfying re-creation of a period – perfection isn't expected but some semblance of historical reality is. Or we might be discussing why the set up to re-play some historical battle went the way it did.

I'm not saying that we do that all the time. Lighter stuff is played by many and enjoyed by most (Pony Wars, Bolt Action, OnGarde etc., VBCW). But Fantasy never figures in those group games – and don't tell me VBCW is fantasy, it has a basis in historical reality with no more than a small twist in historical fact.

Demiurgex,

Thank you for your post-While I knew Tolkein's Rohirrim were in fact Anglo-Saxons I hadn't realised that he was speculating on an alternative Battle of Hastings.

I believe that Tolkein's Battle of the Pelennor Fields was based on the historical Battle of Chalons in AD 451.

It's all fantasy gaming, and IMHO anybody who thinks differently is just fooling themselves. I'll play just about any genre; as long as I have fun and a good time with friends, I couldn't give a damn what the snobs think

There is no difference 'tween the fantasy, science fiction and historical as far as gaming goes.There can be ers and bad experiences in all three factions but that is how life is in general.

Now LARPers, well they are just beyond The Pale.

:)