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

all wargaming is fantasy so….

honestly I really enjoy Kings of War –

never really enjoyed a single game of Warhammer even though I tried several times & worked for GW for several years – the enjoyment/outcome never justified the tedium

I am just not into magic and wizards. That pretty much kills it for me. However, I am a big fan of Historical Fantasy like Flintloque, Panzerfauste and Pax Boche.

I've played quite a few historical games that were more fantasy than historical.

Phil Dutre:

Yes it is a different hobby. Read the essay. I can't put it better myself. I devote hours of research and study to each period I game. I spend hours researching scenarios. I have an entire wall of books I use as reference. There is no way, no how these are the same two hobbies.

It's like comparing wilderness camping to day hiking. Yes they both involve being outdoors and wearing boots but they are not the same.

PDF link

Sorry Rally but I devout hours of research and study to my Sci-fi and Fantasy games I to have book shelves full of fantasy and sci-fi books as well as DVDs of fantasy/sci-fi films and mini series.

Trust me nobody reads The Silmarillion for fun. In my youth I once spent several days going through the works of Tolkien trying to pin down the various military units each faction would be able to field. Just because I my little soldiers didn't exist in real life doesn't mean they take less work to get "right" in their own worlds.

Fantasy and sci-fi games are just as capable of putting hours of work into designing scenarios and campaigns for their games to.

I think your analogy is wrong to. Both groups are day hiking it's just one set like looking at the birds and the others at the plants.

It's what I do for a living. It's what I went to college for and what's more I actually have a life.

I like Tolkien too. The difference being that I know it is pure fantasy. History is not. I know the difference between make believe people and real historic people. I write academic papers and conduct formal research for a living. This all comes in handy when it comes to my hobby.

Look, enjoy your hobby. It is what it is. Why can't we just each enjoy our hobbies and move on. They are different and people are passionate about such things. Give it a rest.

Ah, those of us who game Tolkien have a tenuous grasp on reality. Got it. I suppose I should look in the phone book for the nearest Fantasy Gamers Anonymous chapter.

If Napoleon manages to crush Wellington before Blucher arrives in force, haven't we veered into fantasy?

If our little tin troops are inspired by Aragorn as opposed to Jeanne D'Arc, do they know the difference? Do they care?

If we simply replay a historical battle to get the exact recorded result, is there any point in playing?

People can become emotionally invested in a particular historic period, and that's fine. But it isn't some kind of 'street cred' prerequisite for the hobby.

I used to do a lot of fantasy, both table top games and RPGs, but just lost interest over the years.

I don't "dislike" fantasy, but time is short and I'd rather focus my limited time and energy on historicals and the odd excursion into Star Wars.

I'm not sure why this seems to be getting so many backs up. Nobody's saying history isn't real or that being a historian is the same as being a fantasy writer.

But as hobbies? There are lots of historical gamers who don't bother with much more than a FoW sourcebook or whatever was in a Xyston DBA pack plus an osprey or two on the subject. There are also plenty who'll do more detailed background research and model specific battles or come up with specific rules for a given engagement.

If both those come under the overall category of "historical gaming" then it's comparable to a lot of fantasy gaming on the simpler end, and on the more complex end they can be comparable without anyone claiming that reality and fantasy worlds are the same thing.

The RallyNow/Gildas argument for why they're different things seems to be more a point about the difference between simulation and gaming, and I think that's a better/more useful distinction than the way these two topics are set up.

Longstrider has encapsuled it correctly.

All I can add is that regardless if it's fantasy or historicals, there are two parts, the minis, and the game. The game is the "action" part of the minis who cannot move on their own. The game however has nothing to do with firing armor piercing shot for a tank or belching forth a fire ball for the dragon. Both of them consist of artithmetic manipulations and the tossing of a dice, in some order that simulate the real actions which the models themselves cannot do. They are therefore identical in their nature, and only the titles you place upon them need be consistent with the milieu (Armor piercing shot with historicals, a bushel of habanera peppers for the dragon in fantasy. Both in fact can be EXACTLY the same arithmetic permutations and random number generation, and both will function just fine for their sphere.

What you are dealing with here is a "stealth" question, and invidious one. It goes like this.

"Why don't you like Fantasy Wargaming Topic?

It is invidious because it carries within it the poisoned mushroom. If you don't like Fantasy wargaming then you don't like fantasy, and if you don't like fantasy you are in some sense de-legitimizing the liking of fantasy, and if a person likes fantasy the question de-legitimizes and denigrates his like, which is personalized. We are all familiar with this from our youth when speaking of our war games we remember our parents saying "When are you going to drop that kids stuff and figure out how to make some money?" Or the ridicule from other children when they made fun of our "dorkiness" in playing with toy soldiers.

The stealth comes in believing that the difference in likes and dislikes implies de-legitimizing, and the belief it's a personal attack. For example, I once had a boss who loved Jazz. I disliked it. I prefer classical. When he asked why I said that I found all non classical music simply noise, and unpleasant to my ear. I didn't think that he was a lesser person for liking Jazz and Rock, just that it wasn't something I liked. He then went on a 15 year campaign to try and convince me it was every bit as good as classical. I then astounded him by agreeing with him. I understood that it had it's own canon, it's own rules, it's own forms, styles, and sub category, and an artistry all its own, and a jargon all its own, but I simply did not like the sound of it, and it was unpleasant to me. A second part of this argument that really sent him off was that my response to music was entirely emotional in that the music had to "evoke" a sentiment or an emotion, call into mind pictures and feelings, tell a story, set a secene, and he on the other hand was besotted with the technique of fingering, or chords or the virtuosity of the player, all of which was completely irrelevant to me. He became at times quite abusive, and retarded my career for my views, including public insults and humiliations. But he could never understand that both sides were legitimate and never get past the idea that if someone did not like what he liked it was a personal insult.

It's the same thing here. People become quite abusive because they feel their likes and dislikes are being criticized by contrary views of others.

Now, a second point. I want to explain why I do not like Fantasy and science fiction. That is to say, I have read it, but it's not my first choice. Non fiction is, but leaving that alone for a while the question is not that I never read it, I do, but what I don't like about it. I am offering this ONLY as an explanation of personal preference, and NOT as a condemnation or disparagement of the genre or persons who do like it.

Let me take an example we all know and can be familiar with, Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings," and second, J.K. Rowlings "Harry Potter series."

Recently I re-read (for the fifth time) Tolkeins work, but I read it in a different manner. I read what I call the Bree and post Bree part as one. That is up to where the Hobbitts bet to Bree and leave, and when they return from their adventures and get to bree on their way back to the shire. Then I read the book between those two points. Actually I couldn't get into more than two chapters of the second part. I found all of these hero types, be they elves, humans, orcs, or whomever utterly boring, full of themselves, and completely sententious. In a word tiresome. All of their silly oaths and swords and horns and self glorifying poetry and songs reminded me of those persons we all know who have to be the center of attention of everything -- the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. I found nothing likeable about them and for the most part they were utterly tiresome. Much the same in Harry Potter, (I was urged to read it by my ersatz grandchildren) I found the characters only likeable when they were at Hogslobber Hollow, or whatever the town was when they were stonking their butterbear and eating some of those dodgy treats. Far more interesting than the grand guignol of Voldemort and the politics of Hogwarts was wondering if Harry was ever going to shag Hermione and wanting to hear more about Linda Lovegood, who everyone names as their favorite Harry Potter character to the same degree they name their most hated Star Wars Character as Jar Jar Banks. I don't imagine that the Slytherin's had nearly as much fun, and Huffelpuff parties must have been the best.

To put it another way, what is quite clear in Star wars, is that the Jedi ARE the problem, in the same way these super-heroes and wizards are. I don't like the implications of a world or universe where the elite are in charge and the center of attention. It's all too much like Napoleonic gaming. There's one guy in the center chewing the carpet, spreading mayhem and uproar, and with absolutely NO sense of humor. Napoleonics is in every sense the fantasy gaming component of historicals, and just about as humorless.

I don't trust superhumans, or Jedi, or wizards, or Napoleons. Such people seem to be the authors of all the misery in the real world where hobbits like me get slaughtered in piles. Me? Even in the Bible I like Sauls as opposed to Davids. "Saul has slain his thousands, while David has Slain his ten thousands!" The Bible exults. Regardless of who's doing it the slain tend to be guys like me and others, and I'd rather have the smaller killer.

Ironically, when talking about Saul and David, it was said of Napoleon that he needed an income of 10,000 lives a month. I find that most of the heroes of sci-fi and fantasy are in the same class. So I'm not too interested in it. It's from my reading of history and realizing the millions of people who just wanted to live their lives and take their ease.

Perhaps the most infuriating, and telling, thing about fantasy is the last scene from the last book of the Harry Potter Series. There's Harry seeing off his kids to Hogwarts while down the platform Draco Malfroy is seeing off his kids. They both turn and recognize each other with a slight nod. Fade to Black.

That's it! All that mayhem and turmoil and uproar, people killed! Hogwards vandalized and ruined! Pain and suffering and horror and tears and this is all you get? A nod between two super-heroes as they send their feral little monsters off again? Is it all just a game to them?

Just so, just so, and that's why I don't like fantasy and science fiction. Having studied history all my life I know how horrible it is and who pays the price for "La Gloire." Surely when super heroes are involved we will have super-misery.

Read Thomas Hardy's, "The Man He Killed."

But of course none of this means anything when we get to gaming, for it is all just a game, or is it?

I'm a fan of miniatures more than the game. I don't like the look of the minis for most popular fantasy games these days. Too many huge, ridiculous looking weapons.

I totally agree about huge, ridiculous looking weapons, but my opinion is completely opposite – some of my favorite miniatures in the world are fantasy miniatures. There is some awesome sculpting and terrific painting to be found in the fantasy and sci-fi genres.

I just don't care to game with any of them.

- Ix

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!

This is very true. It's the reason why no new historical rulesets have been released in the last forty years. Same with miniatures. That French Old Guard tin flat sculpted in 1934 is the only French Old Guard figure on the market.

Ottoathome,

You make some interesting observations about historical versus fantasy wargaming of which I find myself agreeing. On your second point as why you don't like fantasy literature, I get it, that fantasy is not for everyone. Just as you point out that classical music is not for everyone.

Some of your arguments though, specifically when it comes to Tolkien's work seem to have flawed reasoning. As example you suggest that the super hero elite types will lead the hobbits to the slaughter.

I don't trust superhumans, or Jedi, or wizards, or Napoleons. Such people seem to be the authors of all the misery in the real world where hobbits like me get slaughtered in piles

I get that in the real world there are many conflicts with plenty of bad guys on either side in which it seems that the innocents stuck in the middle are the ones getting killed. In LOTR, the hobbits are certainly the innocents, but they are also simpletons who are ignorant of what is going on outside the Shire. They are kept in peace and security by the efforts and sacrifice of others unbeknown to them. It was the Rangers of the North who guarded and protected the Shire. It it wasn't for these "elitist" super hero types and wizards then the hobbits really would have been led to the slaughter; for Sauron was not content to simply rule in Mordor, but wanted domain over all living things in all of Middle-Earth and would have eventually. Maybe Tolkien was making an argument against isolationism, I don't know.

In the real world there is usually plenty of evil warmongers on both sides of an actual conflict. Those who either thirst for power or want to hold onto power, plus all the arms dealers, smugglers, etc. Fantasy can draw very clear lines between who the good guys are from who the bad guys are. I think that is one reason why people may like fantasy; no ambiguity on which side are the good guys. And one other thing, I prefer classical music over other forms of music too.

Fantasy has gotten too fantastic. Especially the size of the figures. Weapons are ridiculous looking. Magic and monsters have morphed into Lala Land.

My brand of fantasy is more Tolkienesque and Howardesque, i.e. historical-feeling armies. And limited sorcery, which remains extremely dangerous to use….

@English Thegn – great, thanks for the information on Pelennor Fields.

@Prince Rupert – agree with all of that. If you are setting a conflict within a fictional world there is still research necessary to get the game right. However, I tend to think the scope and depth of the research necessary for many historicals, especially on the smaller levels where combat is less abstract, is greater. But ultimately I think players game in the genres that they enjoy. As a subset of enjoying history or enjoying science fiction or steampunk or fantasy. Almost all of what historical players goes to saying 'my hobby is different entirely from yours' is absent at the game table at most conventions and game days. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist to greater or lesser degrees, but it does mean that it isn't that relevant IMO to the structure of the conventions. Most of that is past political issues that took place in the 70s and 80s, at least in the area I game in.

Dear USAF pilot

But they failed to protect them, didn't they. In the end the Hobbits had to do it themselves. But again the question of this or that in Tokein is unimportant I was simply elaborating why I don't care for fantasy and my personal reasons. The point was that the opinion is personal and does NOT impinge or devalue others likes or dislikes of it. But the problem with your analysis, as I see it, is you accept the justifications of the elites as to why they are elite. I don't. It's all very well and good to think of these noble rangers wandering about "protecting" the shire, but from what? You really have to ask Tolkein what he mean't by this and we can't so we are left teasing out of his writings what we think he meant. Note, what WE THINK he meant.

The real question unanswered in Tolkein is much the same as in Harry Potter. What does Sauron (or Voldemort) want? Why is he doing all this. It is not enough to say "power." Wizzards, super heroes, rangers, kings, all want power, but the question is what do they want power for, what do they want to do with the power. What will the attainment of such power allow them to do?

It is when you get to that question that I believe you enter into the REAL question of the Lord of the Rings. Perhaps one of the best essays on this can be gleaned from Norman Cantor's The" Making of the Middle Ages" which is book on the great Medievalists in history. Cantor, himself a medievalist, never lets go that Tolkein wrote the two works for which he is most known as a means of providing his family with some financial support, but also as a quest, right out of the same genre of the Middle Ages. The whole point of the quest is that the universe has somehow become "broken" it is out of joint, and it can only be rectified by the hero taking some object from where it is now to where it must be to set the universe aright. That is, once it is restored to its rightful place, the universe will heal itself. Thus, it is to the hero, quite often "The simpleton," "The poor fool," "The Parsival" to be the hero.

So we have in the Lord of the Rings. Sauron has "broken" nature by forging the rings of power and the one-ring. The ring has slipped from his grasp and the hero, our Poor Frodo, our poor fool, our parsival must return it to the place from which it was taken. But the question behind this is why did Sauron forge the ring in the first place. What did he want? Much the same with Voldemort in Harry potter.

The real question unanswered in Tolkein is much the same as in Harry Potter. What does Sauron (or Voldemort) want? Why is he doing all this. It is not enough to say "power." Wizzards, super heroes, rangers, kings, all want power, but the question is what do they want power for, what do they want to do with the power. What will the attainment of such power allow them to do?

The simple answer as to why Sauron wants power is because he is evil.

And I realize that not everyone believes in the concept of "evil". That is a philosophical and religious debate that has been going on for centuries.

As for the hobbits, they were saved from Sauron by the combined efforts of the free people. (The saved from "what?" would have been their enslavement by Sauron.) Now the wizard Saruman was able to do some damage at the end which the hobbits were able to handle themselves as Saruman had no real power left.

Eh, Tolkein didn't write primarily as a source of income. He wrote the Silmarillion since 1914, constantly revising it, and it didn't see publication during his life. The Hobbit was a modest financial success, but his publishers were then the ones to push him to his next novel. When they got the LOTR they balked, they released them as six books, and Tolkein wasn't given any money on them until they returned a profit. If he wanted financial success, he would have gone about this differently.

Tolkein himself, a linguist by profession, indicated that the books were a large part of his study on linguistics. As to the fact that he invented several languages as part of it, there's certainly some truth to that.

He does answer why Sauron acted as he did – but that's in the Silmarillion. The LOTR doesn't provide a POV for the Dark Lord, so the questions as to his motivations aren't explicit. But then, that's a very humanistic thought that the motivations of a fictional mythology has to be couched in our terms. Tolkein was writing mythology. In that construct, it worked just fine. So I can certainly understand a preference in that regard, but it doesn't need to answer that question to work on its own merits.

The RallyNow/Gildas argument for why they're different things seems to be more a point about the difference between simulation and gaming, and I think that's a better/more useful distinction than the way these two topics are set up.

Ottoathome wrote:

Longstrider has encapsuled it correctly.

The game is the "action" part of the minis who cannot move on their own. The game however has nothing to do with firing armor piercing shot for a tank or belching forth a fire ball for the dragon. Both of them consist of artithmetic manipulations and the tossing of a dice, in some order that simulate the real actions which the models themselves cannot do. They are therefore identical in their nature, and only the titles you place upon them need be consistent with the milieu (Armor piercing shot with historicals, a bushel of habanera peppers for the dragon in fantasy.

Both in fact can be EXACTLY the same arithmetic permutations and random number generation, and both will function just fine for their sphere.

Otto and Longstrider:

That can be true, depending on what the designers are attempting to mimic in the way of probability. For the Fantasy designer, he is trying to create a successful game in which such probability--the chance of something happening--doesn't outrage the gamer's sense of what the fantasy is about.

For a variety of reasons, the historical wargame design can and often approaches their design exactly the same way for exactly the same reasons. History is seen as fantasy, so no worries.

However, the implied representation behind such arithmetic, those probability computations, is that the change of X happening corresponds to the chance of it happening in 'real life', or history. Hence all those "How often did something happen?" questions on the various TMP lists.

For Fantasy TMPers, you don't have those kind of questions because there is no reality to compare them to, unless, as many F/SF designers do, they turn to reality for the answer.

So, part of the reason that Fantasy and Historical wargames can have "EXACTLY the same arithmetic permutations and random number generation" is that both use the same approach: they don't give much thought to history or representing reality, but rather the game needs.

The other part is that many Fantasy designers use historical wargame permutations because they are 'more like reality.'

So, it isn't surprising that many fantasy and historical games use "EXACTLY the same arithmetic permutations and random number generation."

It is neither some inherent game design necessity nor some kind of accident, but rather purposeful.

Dear USAF PILOT

Not quite. The problem with your argument is now you must define evil. It doesn't matter what the debate has been throughout the ages in this case, simply what Tolkein defines as evil. But here the thing begins to break down because Tolkein himself does not categorically define it, and again the means that he chooses to define it can only be gotten from the corpus in question, that is, the Hobbit and the Lord of the rings. An interesting question in and of itself.

While Tolkein made his career as an Oxford Don, all the commentaries on the works remark that he created Hobbit and Lord of the Rings because of concern for his family with approaching old age and death. Silmarillion is not really a work by Tolkein but a shaped up and post-facto compilation of his research notes and digressions. Little or no continuity can be seen there EXCEPT as the antecedent for Lord of the Rings.

The one thing that comes through in Lord of the Rings is Tolkein's interest and research in Languages. Certainly no other work has such a compilation of poetry and linguistics as his, but this even more leads us to the point that the whole story comprehensible, really, as a modern embodiement of the medieval idea of a quest.

But it's been an interesting argument. I do feel that "Sauron wants power because he is evil" is not a sufficient explanation. If evil is the effective cause for wanting power then all the creatures allegedly "protecting" the hobbits are evil for they too want power. Oh to be sure they have a dazzling self justification for it but it's untenable if the essence of evil is the desire for power. But remember Tolkein is not writing a philosophical treatise, he's writing a quest.

My own thesis is that what Suaron (and Voldemort want) is to destroy creation so creation cannot laugh at them.
Sauron, and Voldemort, are utterly humorless characters, (and in Lord of the rings so are everyone else besides the hobbits. Even the Orcs crack jokes, but not the great ones.

Faulty Logic

I will occasionally hear an argument for some position and find that it sounds logical, but on later reflection realize that it really doesn't follow the rules of logic and therefore might lead to a false conclusion. For example, if we are told that "Someone must plug the leak or the boat will sink," and then are told "The leak has been plugged, so the boat won't sink,", we might feel that is a logical conclusion. It turns out that this is not logically valid. Even if the original statement is true, it is possible that both the leak could be plugged and the boat could sink anyway for some other reason.

For us to survive as well as we do, the human mind has to be very good at coming to correct conclusions and making good judgments (despite the occasional blunder) and so it is reasonable to say that it has the ability to perform logically. However to the extent that we are logical, I do not believe it is because we take sequences of statements expressed in words and correctly perform logical deductions on them. If we did, we would not make or accept flawed logical arguments as often as we do. Instead I think the arguments we hear conjure up images or impressions of what is going on, and if our impression is consistent with the conclusion of the argument, we are likely to accept the argument as valid. In the case of the boat, we imagine a situation in which a boat is in danger of sinking because of a leak, and if the leak is fixed the problem will not get any worse and the boat will continue to float. If the statement had been made in the context of a boat in a terrible storm or engaged in a naval battle, our image would be different and we would not be so quick to assume that the leak was the only threat to the boat's sinking.

Suppose someone made the statement: "You must buy a lottery ticket or you will not win the lottery," and later concluded "Since you bought a ticket, you will win the lottery." It is very obvious that this is not a valid argument even though the logic is essentially the same as in the leaking boat case. The situation makes it obvious that the conclusion isn't true, since most people can instantly recognize that having a ticket doesn't guarantee winning a lottery.

The visualization strategy is fairly logical in its own way and seems to be quite adequate for helping us to survive. However it also can lead us to accept a verbal statement that is not correct for situations that are different from what we visualized. It is very different from reasoning using syllogisms and logical proofs that we may learn about in philosophy or mathematics classes.

An article in Science News (Jan. 22, 2000, p56) tells of a psychologist talking to a nomad in central Asia. The psychologist told the nomad that all bears in the North are white, and that a friend living in the North had seen a bear. The psychologist then asked the man what color the bear was. The nomad responded "How should I know? Ask your friend who saw the bear." Apparently western education teaches us how to deal with this sort of question, but people from some other cultures can get along fine without skill at this kind of reasoning.

I think it is important to learn about formal logic and deduction; it is a very useful tool if we are to make good judgments about what is true. But I think it is also important to recognize that it is not a tool we use automatically or even very often. It requires stopping, concentrating, and carefully analyzing what is said.

Is there a way to detect faulty arguments without a great deal of study and practice in formal logical rules? Fortunately I think this can be done fairly well with a simple principle, although it still requires us to stop an reflect for a time. When I hear reasoning I'm not sure is valid, what I usually do is look for a counter-example. Is there a way the conditions in the argument could be true but the conclusion would still be false? In the case of the sinking boat it was not hard to think of ways the boat could sink even if a particular leak was fixed.

I expect that most people look for counterexamples when faced with an argument that leads to a conclusions they disagree with. We are usually pretty good at finding flaws in arguments we don't like. The problem comes if we like the conclusion, or if we are so impressed by the speaker that we assume the person wouldn't make the argument unless it was valid. If we care about not adopting false beliefs, we need to examine not only the logic we don't like, but also things we agree with. It is particularly important to look for the holes in our own reasoning. Of course if we make our points to others who disagree with us, they will probably be eager to "help us out" by pointing out where we are wrong. This is why free inquiry and opening up our ideas for criticism is valuable. Still, most of us usually prefer to find our own mistakes rather than having someone else point them out to us.

Sauron wants *absolute* power to make Middle Earth the way he wants, regardless of the views of the Free Peoples. This is despite their preference for rangeing/singing in trees/horse-riding and shouting/smoking pipes and drinking beer. It's this and the way he goes about it with rings to corrupt people and remove their free will that makes him evil. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that for the story to work.

It's really very obvious about the corrupting influence of absolute power when it comes to the one ring (Smeagol/Gollum and Boromir) and the nobility of the fellowship in not taking it from someone who couldn't fight them off is made evident. They recognise the temptation but resist.

Sauron doesn't want to destroy creation, he just happens to think his plan for how Middle Earth should be is best.

Dear Ben and USAF

This is interesting but we are in the realm of individual interpretations of a text. Rather than get into bitter feuds of an academic nature (of which I have seen many) we shall have to leave it at that.

One particular point though that I disagree with you on, USAF is on logic. After a lifetime of study and reflection on it, I have come to the absolute conclusion that people do not think logically. Oh to be sure when we are talking about some hypothetical thing or discoursing on an acquaintences condition we can be quite logical and dispassionate. Once however it touches us and our own, we become completely illogical and make our decisions on pure emotions.

But it's been a good talk.

My reasons are experience. I have been in management all my life, and close to the fonts of absolute power, or at least the power to smash a corporate life as thoroughly as Sauron could do, and in each case what I saw was NOT a wish to remake creation, (or the company) Not a wish to achieve some higher end (like more profit or a larger company) but simply mindless hate for anyone who would question or say "wait a minute, this is entirely self-destructive and behavior, and a bad idea." In each case what the person on top with unlimited power wished was to punish and destroy (as much as they could) those who disagreed, and especially those who had the temerity to make jokes at the powers expense. Make no mistake about it. If Shelob hadn't dispatched those orcs who were grousing about "how things have slipped," and nattering on about 'I tell you those big ones up top don't seez it, but I do!" Sauron would have. In fact. Most of the time I bet he's looking in the Orc pits trying to find out who started the joke about his hewed off finger. I can see it now… oen of them says "ARR ARR ARRR, they hewed off mor'en his finger theys did-- Ole "short-finger is short in other places e' iz, ifen ya get my meaning, AAR AAR AAR…

That's the reason for the whole war of the rings. To destroy the Shire, because… in the shire,,, they have fun! That's what Sauron hates, people having fun. It's what Voldemort and Slytherin hate too, people having fun.

Got another one for you.

The ring WANTS to be destroyed. It want's to return to nature from which it was wrenched.

I think it's funny the way fantasy can launch "us" into debates on philosophy. Funny and insightful at the same time.

Short version for me: Sauron was Morgoth's pupil/disciple from the First Age. Everything that Morgoth wanted, Sauron wanted. Morgoth/Melkor is the "Lucifer" figure in Tolkien's mythology. Find out what the fallen angel of light, "Son of the Morning" wants, and you have what Sauron wants. And that is simply to rule on Earth in the place of God. Through petty sabotage, and then raising up a counter empire with corrupted creations populating it, in mockery of God's creations through his privileged children, Morgoth waged a war of resistance and conquest, and finally destruction. In order to take him out, much of Middle Earth had to be destroyed (not unlike chemotherapy!). Sauron inherited the remains of Morgoth's power, a mere shadow of what it had been before being stopped ("until the next time").

Tolkien's thesis on evil is that each Age it raises up, it's power is less than before; but quite sufficient to cause worldwide trouble. And each evil "dark lord" is less than his predecessors, but motivated by exactly the same desire to rule and defy God and his privileged children. Jealousy and envy and pride are quite potent enough motivations….

Dear Great War Ace

Yes, that's the "canonical story." But you are correct in how fantasy will cook up a host of theories and philosophical subjects on "the end things" and how the universe works. But then, that's the inevitable consequence of speculation on causality once you get beyond the phenominal (that is, that each and every act we perceive is a phenomenon with no cause and effect). Once you begin probing into causes and the telos of thing it gets highly speculative.

Tolkeins view of evil, which I will accept as you have laid it out for the "sake of argument" is very Manichean, almost monophysite. Again there is nothing new here and that theory was in play long before Tolkein appropriated it. However that does not matter. The question becomes one of "OK so be it, therefore…" and the contradictions abound. For example why does God allow Morgoth or others to do this and why does he not "mend" his creation with each fall of evil. There are dozens of answers to that question of theodicy, and which you chose yields other dilemmas. We are in fact back in Aristotle land, where we strike the foundation stone of western thought, which is "A thing cannot be, and at the same time be its own negation."

But a deist or theist could argue that these contradictions exist because they were devised by Tolkein, a human, and not a God. Indeed the argument then goes to the point that can man comprehend or understand the universe as it is, in it's nature. Both Moses Maimonedes and Johh Calvin held that we could know God in his nature, only in his effects.

It does add tot he fun of gaming because gaming is itself so speculative. What would have been the effect if Grouchy had come between Wellington and Blucher? What would be the effect if Flaminius had figured out what was up at Cannae? It gets more speculative when you get into the part of wargames called Imagi-Nations, where you run a mythical country. Eventually one must get to the question of "Well if I am king of a country what sort of King would I be, which is exactly the same as the essence of philosophy which is "What do I mean when I say what I mean?"

Most fantasy games involve lines of guys meeting in the middle and then you play yahtzee until one side runs away.

I do enjoy fantasy skirmishing an awful lot though but mass combat rules have so far left me cold.
Hordes of the things being the one exception (so far!)

I will go with the "canonical" version. Because anything else opens the biggest can of worms.

It's why I no longer argue religion with anyone. I will propose ideas outside of any canon. But I won't argue them.

If a definition of evil in "your universe" agrees with the way that evil manifests in our world, then at least the canonical version will have a lot of adherents. Enough to play as many games as you want, on that basis at least….

Dear Great War Ace

Be careful! You are incautious on terms. You use the word "manifests" for example. Depending on what you mean by that can change the character. It's also not "my: universe but how the individual sees the universe, specifically how it works, or seems to work in their philosophy.

This is the reason that these subjects cannot be spoken about without long definitions and careful agreement on terms and methods. The best we can do is a "shorthand" conception like "evil" which is imprecise as saying "not good." THAT merely begs the question then of what is "good." Believe me, defining what is evil is child's play compared to defining good.

Still it was an interesting digression on fantasy. Fantasy is a subject crying out for such discussions though. Consider… in most games aren't players really just mugging monsters for their money, which--- is really no more than the monsters do to others? But this again goes to the unease some can feel in Fantasy games.

Thanks again

Otto

Trust me nobody reads The Silmarillion for fun.

It's a strong contender for the book I've read the most times for fun.

As for the question, I don't particularly dislike fantasy wargaming, but I like historicals more, so there's where my time and painting effort tends to go. It doesn't help that I don't care much for the fantasy rulessets that are popular around here (primarily WarmaHordes and WH40k).

(If someone wants to argue that WH40k isn't fantasy, be my guest, but do consider it's got elves, orcs, and demons in it.)

It is not that I dislike fantasy. It is mostly because my friends and I have only so much time available for gaming. I would rather spend my time gaming historical.
History also appeals to me more than fantasy.
Tom Semian
Avalon, Pa. 15202

– some of you come across as the very epitome of the worst stereotype of war gamer grognards the outside sees in this hobby.

They are ing games! Nothing more. Nothing.

In the wise words of my otherwise idiotic brother in law, "there is an ass for every seat." Just because we do not play a certain type of game does not mean that it is not valid. People cross rules for games all the time. Fantasy to fact and back again. Table top games explore the what ifs and whatever's that could have or should have been. To outsiders we are all just big kids playing with toys so get over yourselves and play nice!!!!

Ooh and I got into gaming back of the great miniatures of the Dust universe. I model mainly static armor and scific, but now I can play with my models too. I have played historical games and was really put out by someone telling me that it was not done that way when I tried something new. I looked at him and said well maybe it should have been. History is hindsight that you learn from. So do it a new way. Sorry off topic I guess.

While I consider myself a historical gamer, I do enjoy fantasy games. Man o War was blast. WHFB never appealed to me for a variety of reasons.

First, I'm not a fan or tournament/points games because it inherently leads to unsportsman-like behavior. At best, this is min/maxing army lists, and at worst, it searching for and exploiting nuisances in the rules to unbalance the game.

Second, there are times when single figures, usually very expensive figures, are the most powerful elements in the game and the rank and file troops either become their victims or onlookers cheering the boss' every move.

Third, scale. No one every wonders why the Emperor God has appeared to lead his armies in a battle to capture an out house in a remote village. Why not just let the NCO take care of this mission, your Holiness, 'cause living gods have something better to do.

Fourth, army building gets dragged down to the level of deciding if it's worth the points to have the unit musician carry the Codpiece of Wrath or the Flute of Destiny. Who the hell cares what kind of equipment Bob the sophomore in Music 101 decided to pack today?

Third, scale. No one every wonders why the Emperor God has appeared to lead his armies in a battle to capture an out house in a remote village. Why not just let the NCO take care of this mission, your Holiness, 'cause living gods have something better to do.

Waterloo was also fought over a farm.

Waterloo had 75000 soldiers on a side. Not five units each roughly the size of an intramural coed softball team.

"Waterloo had 75000 soldiers on a side. Not five units each roughly the size of an intramural coed softball team"

Can be a wargames thing with folks referring to their 10 tanks as an army! The fantasy books I read have visions of hordes of thousands upon thousands of orcs etc in the battles. That is how I see it, big battles with big forces, made me laugh when I bought the "Legions of Middle Earth" GW book, to see that the legions were in fact tiny little skirmish forces!

Tally Ho!

It has been said that all historical games are really fantasy games, in that they are rarely actual historical battles and usually "What-IF" situations.

In the same way there are no fantasy games, just historical games. Fire balls are merely bazookas without instrumentation. From the point of view of the gamer they are the same thing. The somatic and manipulative components of a spell which when not done right render the spell inoperative. So too if you don't attach the firingwire right on the bazooka rocket. They are all derivative.

Perhaps the greatest example of this is the board game "Age of Mythology" which I find repulsive. After the tease of "Mythology" all you get is hydras and manticores and dragons which act like tiger tanks and 155mm guns. Most of the game is grubbing for various commodities to build things, and the people in your world ars so dumb you have o tell the farmers to farm and the artisans to artis. If I wanted that I could go to work where the union workers were too dumb to pull their pants down when they took a dump.

I wanted a game where the three Goddess came down and did the sexy shimmy to get me to give them the golden apple or weave stories like the Acteon Myth, or the race of Atalanta, that is where you have real mystery or enigma, tragedy and grand events of cosmic scope.

This is where all fantasy largely falls flat on its face. It's not fantasy at all, but thinly disguised real life where the romance and adventure is subsumed in the real life shabbiness. Most characters even in FRP are simply trying to mug monsters for their money, which is what the monsters are doing too.

War games has nothing to do with reality, fantasy or otherwise. The "tests" we make to do things in a game are completely artificial and have nothing to do with the prototypical action in real life. They are simply a mathematical caluculationf followed by the generation of a random number, and frequently are the same rule.

You can have in a historical game "A Tank which is firing high explosive at another tank will destroy it on a six, but if it is firing armor piercing shot, it will destroy it on a 5 or 6.

You can also have.

A bowman firing on a target will kill it with a six, but a Longbowman will do so with a five or a six.

And you can also have.

A bowman firing on a target will kill it with a six, but an Elvish Bowman will do so with a five or a six.

Same rule three contexts. It's all the sententious bull you pack into the definition that makes the differene. The actual task has nothing to do with Elvish bowmen firing APDS on a tiger tank which has just breathed fire and is reloading it's 88.

Now…what would be different would be to told that you are a hunter, in ancient Greece, your name is Acteon, and as the game proceeds you are told your survival depends on your having a rational argument with your dog as to why the later should not tear you to pieces.

How is that different from "persuasion" as a skill?

You are falling under the "spell" of monotony. Welcome to Earth.

It has been said (check out the philosophies of going to war a hundred years ago), war is invigorating, peace is boring.

One way to inject a hefty dose of reality and dread into your games, Otto, is to smash the dead with a hammer….

"Why is it we can't all just learn to live together"? – Jonathan Winters in "The Russians are Coming" (Just before he punches someone in the mouth) BTW, I understand he was a figure collector, if not a gamer.

I don't hate fantasy gaming, I still play D&D after all.

Table top gaming? Too many historical projects I'd sooner do so it's a matter of indifference.