"A Brief Defence of Imagi-Nations " Topic

"Now, I imagine the first response to last week's post is that ‘it doesn't apply to me.' Of course not. It really does not apply because I am not a historical gamer. I am a fantasy or science fiction gamer, or I am a historical gamer but I play in an imagi-nation. The implication here is that these occupations get us off the hook as wargamers. In an imagi-nation, or any of the others, the wargames can exist in as much or as little a vacuum as we choose.

Thus, as non-historical wargamers, we do no need to worry about what our toys eat, where they sleep or what they believe they are fighting for. The game is the thing. We can prescind from all these rather dull and boring bits of social, cultural and intellectual history, and just play games.

This is, of course, all very fine and dandy. It enables us to cut through all the clutter of messy human lives and living, and gives us a clean cut wargame without worry. Something set in a world of imagination carries a lot less baggage than the real thing.

Except that it does not quite work like that…"
More here
ancientrules.blogspot.com.ar

Amicalement
Armand

Dear Tango

I don't see this as a "defence" of Imagi-Nations. Nor is her generalization that we (in the Imagi-Nation ecumene) see human nature as "essentially unchanged." Here of course we are in a logical limbo as "human nature" has not been defined by the author or spelled out in its attributes. I do point out that many Imagi-Nation gamers are fascinated by these rather "dull and boring bits of social, cultural and intellectual history, and in messy human lives and living"

Nor do I see any real "justification?" To justify something it must be attacked. When the boundaries of a war game army or set up or Imagination are limited entirely by the personal desires of the owner, and others are not required to play in an imaginary world by the designer, but do so on a voluntary basis, no paradigms ore blocked and shifted or invalidated. Indeed there is nothing to prevent you using pink coated regiments of the Principality of Princess Trixie of Saxe Burlap und Schleswig Beersteins as stand-ins for French, Prussian, Russian, or martians for that matter. Unless you are going to insist that there is some transcendent link between that little lump of lead with the pink coat and the Preobrazhinski Guards of history which would throw the universe into disorder were we to use them as such (or figures of the Preobrazhinski Guards for the musketeers of princess Trixies army which of course never existed at all) which again would cause the Earth to leave it's orbit and crash into the sun, then it's merely expediency because wave not painted the correct figures yet.

What is amazing is that Imagi-Nations needs ANY sort of defence or justification, as it is immediately obvious to the most casual and uninformed observer, that all of the great authors of war games used Imaginary Armies with reckless abandon and indifference. Grant, Featherstone, Moreschauser, Bath, Young, and dozens of others did so without the slightest thought.

Ottoathome +1

A bit off track but, aside from demonstration games, I find there are very few gamers who really worry about exactness in their troops. I've watched a lot of Flames of War where, as they didn't have the right models models a Stu IIIG became a Nashorn, or a IIIH and that randomly designated infantry carried flame throwers or were heavy machine guns etc.

In the Imaginations, like most historical games, it's the game itself that matters.

Myself wargame an Imagination history since 20 years ago!… so I'm from their side…

Amicalement
Armand

You know Armand, something just occurred to me. The Author is right when he says we cut our self loose from human nature when we create Imaginations, as in the real sense our Imagination means we can impute to that environment we have chosen the human natures we ourselves have. The historical gamer can do this too but then you really have to abstract the game into an exercise in comparative statistics rather than the inner workings of the mind. Just as in fiction, we the designers of an Imaginary -Nation or world are able to make all of reality dance to our tune and put in to the mouths of our Imaginary characters whatever drivel we wish, and make the world believe it no matter how ridiculous it is. Two examples to prove the point.

The first- Imagine that all of WWII had not happened, assume there was no Hitler, No Holocaust no war nothing. Assume this were an alternate dimension. Assume to boot there was no WWI for good measure. Now, if you took the story of WWII into that dimension and took it to a publisher to try and have it printed as a novel, I have no doubt that every publishing house would toss you out on your ear with the contempt of our work being called the product of a diseased, depraved, violent, and repulsive mind.

Yet we know it happened.

The second example would be the favorite complaint from our favorite topic, Nude and Semi Nude Female figures. Imagine an Imaginary world where the completely irrational style of armor (legs and arms in enormous body army, but torso and thighs completely exposed. Stupid, I agree, but it's merely an extension of reality.

The examples are meant to be extreme and over the top ones, but nevertheless, the positing of an Imagi-Nation leaves open the possibility that we can make reality dance to our tune in ways that LOOK historically accurate, or "close enough accurate. '

The question is, if we say, like Prince Orloff, "i do it to amuse me, Jacon a' son gou" then are we amused? And must anyone else be amused as well?

On the other hand if you do it because you want to really and truly believe you are a diamond in the rough, an "undiscovered military genius" and you have the games to prove it, then the author's point is valid.

I understand what do you said Otto.

At the end… all is for Fun… or not? (smile)

Amicalement
Armand