"Too Taboo... " Topic

What modern era gaming is still considered to taboo to play and why…What makes Viet-Nam OK but not modern conflicts in Ireland?

Vietnam in a real sense was a proxy superpower engagement (not proxy for the Americans though!) The engagements in Northern (mostly) Ireland were terrorist counter insurgency actions.
I think having urban terrorism games can feel like you are somehow supporting them.

I'm not sure the troubles would be gameable. There was almost no military action in the conventional sense, unlike vietnam.
Gamers do like to get to shoot with lots of toys.

Depends on the people you play with, no?

My problem with The Troubles is that many people I have encountered don't understand the issues involved or take a very one sided view of them (see also Irish history generally).

The terrorists on both sides included some pretty ruthless unpleasant characters, much of what they did had much more to do with sheer criminality rather than politic belief. As has been said most operations during the Troubles were one sided shoot and scoot affairs, there were few if any battles.

It's a fair point regarding the legitimacy of various conflicts though, I prefer my battles to be fantastical or only broadly based in reality, like WW2 but as depicted in children's comics.

I don't have issues with playing any period or army and I can't see why anyone would, it's just a game. Controversial statement warning, I also think that a few of the "I won't play Vietnam because Uncle Tim was wounded there" types, are just attention seeking and like to be offended on behalf of others. I'd happily play modern engagements I was involved in, or replay others I know about to see some what ifs.

Further to the Northern Ireland troubles game, it would be boring. A multiple of squaddies wandering around the board for a few hours and nothing happening! Or was that just my tours?

Controversial statement warning, I also think that a few of the "I won't play Vietnam because Uncle Tim was wounded there" types, are just attention seeking and like to be offended on behalf of others.

And since you have admitted it is a controversial statement I will give you my controversial reply. What a load of garbage. Most people who make such a statement about Vietnam or any other conflict for that matter are giving you a reason. They are NOT offended. Just telling you WHY they won't play the game. I have never heard of anyone condemning a game because it is Vietnam or any other conflict for that matter. You would have to get pretty dark before that happened. A WW2 Concentration camp type game, for instance, would bring out the ire of many. They are likely NOT seeking attention.

I'm with Foxweasel. No probs gaming it, but Banner as such would be a pretty boring scenario, no?

Stag on …

Oops …

Doesn't it all boil down to how you set up scenarios and at what level you play? Are most real Afghan firefights particularly interesting to game? I've got a lot of the lovely Empress minis but very few (if any?) of the reports I can recall reading strike me offering an interesting 'real' way to play with them, it's always struck me as better at 15mm or below.

But transfer things to an ahistorical setting/what if scenarios and you can play about a bit more.

We sell a fair few NI inspired Brits etc, primarily targetted at "Winter of '79" style games. You just need to be creative with scenario design, objectives, and scale of game.

I think it's Dougie Robinson's blog that has a S Armagh scenario using Normandy Firefight rules for a handful of figures either side, so even that can be done.

If you're recreating historical scenarios some periods aren't going to be particualrly appealing. But if you're just wanting to play a wargame with toy soldiers that are a bit different to what you usually play with/paint, then…

Who asked this joker, bit excitable aren't you. Shouting on the internet. And your statement wasn't controversial, it was just rude. All I said was some of the people saying that sort of thing, not all. It's not garbage.

I love the fallback line "It's just a game". <sarcasm> As if that means it is in the same categoty as Parcheesi and Monopoly.

Stag on?

Daler240D, but what we do is play games, with toy soldiers. It's nothing grander than that, we aren't replicating actual combat, no one dies.

"Stag on" is what we British soldiers say when it's time for someone else's sentry duty "you're on stag" stag = sentry.

I've seen some quite good games based on the conflict in Ireland, tho they have all been set back in the 1920s.

Chess actually replicates war as well. Choosing to game terrorism or atrocities etc is a choice some people make. How about a game about the Holocaust then? It's just a game after all. I understand that this distinction puts us on a slippery slope, but the absolute binary that something is ok because it is a game seems a buit intellectually convenient, or lazy.

It's a very slippery slope. When people play the eastern front, what do they do with prisoners?

You could game almost anything though. I can't really object to people gaming the Irish War of Independence, but then have no problem with the Very British Civil War. It does depend on the level of realism. In the same vein Winter of 79 is sort of the fantasy what if version of The Troubles era.

It is not unreasonable to avoid settings/wars with which one has an uncomfortable association though, although it is perhaps wrong to impose that on others.

I know "The Great Escape" has been gamed in the past. While not a concentration camp per say, it still is a camp with german gaurds and barb wire. Gaming "The Troubles", couldn't it be a pretty good skirmish game. Maybe not super historical, but 2 faction going at it. One very well trained, the other less so but with better morale…I don't know. I'm just spit balling here…

This question pops up from time to time in various forms. I can see wargaming a gun battle between Irish terrorists and military forces but as this happened rather infrequently it would mostly be hypothetical. My rule of thumb for "too taboo" generally comes down to a few questions: 1) is the objective to commit what would generally be considered war crimes, 2) Is one side unable to effectively fight back, and 3) will it offend or disturb those who I respect. If the answer is yes to any of these then I probably won't take part in the game.

I agree with Foxweasel … And it really depends on who you game with as well.

I circumvented all that. After decades of gaming historical. And a decade + of real 1 to 1 scale "war gaming". I just do "hard" sci-fi … No one cares if aliens get wasted !

I'm with Foxweasel and DG, though I don't really see what's controversial about it.

Joker – "They are NOT offended. Just telling you WHY they won't play the game. I have never heard of anyone condemning a game because it is Vietnam or any other conflict for that matter. You would have to get pretty dark before that happened."
I would submit there are some threads here on TMP that you've missed; and the offense had nothing to do with gaming something 'dark,' it was purely about 'modern' gaming, which some folks drew the line all the way back to WWII for. There's a thread out there where one of our fellow wargamers found it repulsive that some of us use casualty figures in games from WWII to present.

What anyone chooses to game or not game is their prerogative and problem; it might seem a little strange to me that guys will say "I won't play Vietnam because Uncle Tim was wounded there" about certain periods, but again, that's whatever, that's their business. The problem has been members here who seek to stake out some moral high ground because they won't game a certain period.

Regarding this: "…are just attention seeking and like to be offended on behalf of others." When gamers are seeking to stake out the moral high ground, this seems to be their modus operandi. I see it even in these recent 'which battle would you fight in?' threads. We get a lot of guys going in there and typing 'none, war is hell.' It strikes me as a bit odd; I'm not a credentialed historian or anything, but it seems to me there've been more than a few wars since the dawn of time, most containing multiples of battles. Which would be hard to do if no one wanted to be in a battle.

Daler – "I love the fallback line "It's just a game". <sarcasm> As if that means it is in the same categoty as Parcheesi and Monopoly." AND
"Choosing to game terrorism or atrocities etc is a choice some people make."
I'm not following here. I haven't seen anyone advocating Holocaust, Concentration Camp, and/or terrorist atrocity games, or anything along those lines. What are you talking about???

We were discussing gaming in the modern era, let's say NATO in Afghanistan (though you're free to pick whatever setting suits you, that's the beauty of playing games). Is there something immoral about that, even if a player has to play as the Taliban/AQ/ISIL? As has been said, if you'll only play a wargame in which both sides of the conflict were pure as the driven snow, you'd likely not get a lot of gaming in.

I'm assuming 'modern wargaming' is occurring in what I would call a 'standard' wargameing fashion, i.e., one in which we have 'side A' attacking a hill held by 'side B,' where the hill is in Afghanistan, circa 2010 or so, side A is French Foreign Legion and side B is Al Qaida. NOT 'side A needs to drone strike as many wedding parties as possible, while side B rapes and mutilates as many female students as possible.' The latter being a game I've never actually heard of anyone playing, though it's often alluded to by people that think others shouldn't be gaming 'modern' conflicts.

So yeah, it's "just a game" using FFL minis vs AQ minis, the point of which is actually that Player A is trying to dislodge Player B from a hill to win the game, maybe have some fun while doing it.

EDIT: To Private Matter's point: "My rule of thumb for "too taboo" generally comes down to a few questions: 1) is the objective to commit what would generally be considered war crimes, 2) Is one side unable to effectively fight back, and 3) will it offend or disturb those who I respect."
I agree wholeheartedly, but to me that has nothing to do with which era/setting (i.e., Ancients vs Moderns) you decide to play, that's simply the type of game you choose to play. And while admittedly most of my gaming is solo or with family, I personally would never play that stuff, haven't seen it played, and haven't even heard of it being played.

V/R,
Jack

I think it's comical how fast people get worked up on topics like this. In this case the question was asked in a manner that I think inadvertently promotes arguments. In what is probably an an ill-advised attempt to second guess the original author's intent, I answered the question as what I felt was too taboo for me and not what is too taboo for all wargamers. I would be interested in hearing other gamers' thoughts about what is too taboo for themselves to game without them telling me their opinion of what nobody should play. After all opinions are like a**holes, we all got them and they all stink.

I think Private Matters sums things up well as to what I would put beyond the pale for my own gaming.

But I was at a gaming weekend at a friend's last year. The host suggested I bring my modern Afghanistan game. A third party said he was " morally opposed to modern games" but he regularly plays the TYW complete with religious propaganda commentary. The TYW is to me far more icky.

We played Sharp Practice and Dragon Rampant instead. So it all worked out

I agree, I will NOT play monopoly with my one aunt, she takes it far too seriously. But gunning down Japanese banzai charges is just fine, as is using Kamikaze planes on US aircraft carriers. So I guess its who your playing to be honest.

For me the decision is not that difficult: if I manage to distance myself from the actual history being represented, then I game it; otherwise, I don't.

I have never heard of anyone condemning a game because it is Vietnam or any other conflict for that matter

I HAVE been condemned for playing a Vietnam game, as well as having written on fro THW. At a convention I was told that all I was doing was "glorifying the deeds of the babykillers" and that I should be "burned with napalm just like them" for doing so. Now, keep in mind that scenario I was running at the con was based on a real operation with US forces evacuating a village that was under attack by the VC.

Another time I was harangued because we were playing a big pirate game that included major trade goods and ports in the Caribbean and some of the tokens represented slaves. The individual doing the yelling and threatening didn't care about historical accuracy, just that he didn't thing "real human beings" should be exposed to such evil whether it was real or not.

As for me, the only game I have refused to play was a riot game that was not only obviously racially based, but the GM was taking much glee in the slaughter of the minority raced rioters by both the police and National guard players.

Not modern warfare but the reasoning is similar.
I tried to get a friend into Battle Fleet Gothic, we only played one game before he got a good read at the Warhammer 40K background, found out both Imperial and Chaos ships use slave labor, he never played again.

I'm with Foxweasel.
No problem gaming it for me.

Hell some gamer's still will not game WW-II using SS.
So what dose that say?

So what was left for him to play? Ancients is out, Colonial Jingoistic games are out, American Civil War games are out, WWII is out due to conscription…Chutes and Ladders is fun…

Also, it wasn't my intent to cause fights or arguments, just wanted to gain some insight from others…

I set up a Power Projection game during the Fifth Frontier War. The Imperial Navy ships were commerce raiders, lying in wait on a moon of a gas giant where Zhodani merchants were expected to refuel.

On reading the Imperial operations order, one of the players -- the youngest at the table, probably 17 or so -- moaned, "we're monsters". The senior officers on his side of the table reminded him of the Zhodani sneak attack that started the war, the fact that the merchants had chosen to carry war materiel, psionics, they're attacking our merchant vessels, etc.

The Zhodani merchants of course had escorts and it turned into a pretty good fight. The young commodore acquitted himself well.

A year or so I put on a 28mm Vietnam Demo game on at a convention and only had positive feedback. When I posted photos on Fields of Fire, I was told that I was brave to put a on public Vietnam game. Now this is NZ not the US so things are probably different as we only had a small role in the War, and I was living in the UK at that time.

At the same convention there was a Skirmish Sangin Tournament which included ISIS and other terrorist type organisations. I don't recall any horror at those forces being played. I personally would like to smash the ISIS figures with a Hammer but would have no issue with using Taliban figures myself.

The War with Japan in WW2 is another period I've not been comfortable with till going to Thailand and seeing the Bridge over the River Kwai for real. I've learn more about the period which has settled my anger rather than inflamed it, just like reading about Vietnam has.

The troubles in Northern Ireland is another period I'd not like to game, although the 1920's could be interesting. Might as well set up an English style train set and blow a few houses up if you want to game the 1970's.

I HAVE been condemned for playing a Vietnam game, as well as having written on fro THW. At a convention I was told that all I was doing was "glorifying the deeds of the babykillers" and that I should be "burned with napalm just like them" for doing so.

ports in the Caribbean and some of the tokens represented slaves. The individual doing the yelling and threatening didn't care about historical accuracy, just that he didn't thing "real human beings" should be exposed to such evil whether it was real or not.

Was this the same guy ? Or another "wargamer(?)" that does not understand what wargaming is ? Either way he or they should get a new hobby.

Of course if the individual who made the comment about Vietnam. Said it to the wrong guy … He or she may not have been able to walk away.

1945 is my cut-off line.

I find anything else "too real" (ie too close in time) & my hobby is meant to be escapist. The mini Napoleonic soldiers or Bronze Age warriors are far enough removed chronologically for me to forget the horrors of war.

And yes, I know this is flawed logic but represents my feelings, none the less.

However, my redeeming feature is I don't point the finger of scorn or superiority at anyone wanting to game the modern or (in TMP parlance), Ulta-modern) periods.

The lunatic who ranted about slavery & "baby-killers" needs to be shown a door.

None.

They're games with tiny miniatures.

So we're out for dinner and person 1 orders a steak.

Person 2 says "meat is murder you freak".

Person 3 says they don't particularly like steak and order a pork chop instead.

Person 4 says "If you don't like steak, why do you even go out for dinner?"

Person 2 and 4 don't get invited back because it's none of their damn business what I do eat or what I don't eat.

I don't want to move my 1/72nd scale troops 1 inch per turn for 37 turns to have one guy step on a mine. That type of combat is boring and ungameable to me. Just like your mention of a concentration camp game is ungameable.

I want to move masses of tanks or horses and vast numbers of infantry and shoot at something every turn. I want WAR in my wargames. Not guarding prisoners, not peace keeping, not winning hearts and minds, not endless patrolling.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

You can game anything, it is only a game. What is "acceptable" largely depends on your audience and how you approach it.

And yes, you can actually make informative and interesting games about Northern Ireland, although as noted above, the scope for Tactical warfare is a bit limited. Committee games around the factional infighting between different bits of the IRA Otoh….

Just what sort of conflicts do you think professional Wargames simulate these days? Certainly not Tank Armies clashing on the North German plain.

The Troubles would probably make for a good COIN series boardgame. I don't think I would want to play it but the series handles political and "terrorist" situations fairly well I've heard. Or a variant of Twilight Struggle perhaps.

If the game is boring then it's taboo.

The channel islands during WWII comes to mind. Maybe a raid, even as a RPG not much more that a one off game.

The Irish vs. English in Ireland not much different than the Free French vs. the Germans. Some good action possible, but mostly a gaming wasteland.

Years ago, SPI made a pretty good board game about the Search & Destroy, COIN ops, etc. In the early stages of the Vietnam War. IIRC it was called "Grunt". And the designers were assisted in the design by a former Inf Ofr who served there. It was pretty good.

Used a lot of dummy counters, etc. But it did drive home that those types of ops were very frustrating, etc., at times. And a very low intensity tempo, etc. Was a good historical "tool". But was not liked that much by some gamers. They preferred Kursk and Battle of the Bulge etc., games. For obvious reasons. However, I found "Grunt" a pretty interesting, etc., "simulation".

Just what sort of conflicts do you think professional Wargames simulate these days?

I would think if you mean military "wargamers". They'd "game" most types of warfare, etc. As we can't be sure there won't be another war like WWIII in Europe. As has been proposed in the past. Albeit, many years ago. We trained for a European battle, Korean War Part II, MOUT, jungle, desert and even artic conditions, etc. Especially with Light Infantry units, we trained for COIN as well.

The US Training Centers like at the NTC and JRTC are geared generally for COIN now. But I'm sure other types of operations are trained in other location as well. All over the US and elsewhere. A Tank crew still has to know how to kill another tank. The same goes of Infantrymen. Not only kill other infantry types but tanks too. And most Tank and AT weapons can certainly do damage to most structures. Especially where US Forces currently find themselves engaged.

As I have said on other threads, the US military had[has] OPLANs for many, many contingencies, incidents, events, etc. I'm pretty sure there are classified OPLANs for Aliens landing on the WH Lawn, etc. … maybe …

I have gamed Vietnam con games a number of times. I have a gamer friend who wont play in them because he was there, and that causes him a number of issues. But, not only has he never condemned any of my games, he has actually commented on how things where and gave me a good bit of insight on scenario design.

And had another vet play the North Vietnamese because he wanted to see how it looked from their side.

I game to have fun, with friends, even if I just met them at this con. It is not fun if you upset people you like. OTOH, most of my gaming friends are fellow vets, and they are not generally easily offended.

Owen

Some settings are not easily gameable.

Some settings have too high a squick-factor. I think there's only one game involving a concentration camp is the one at the tail end of WW2 where Heer and US troops are shooting the SS camp guards to liberate the camp. I'd want to figure out how to give the guards an AI so that no-one has to play them.

It's a very slippery slope. When people play the eastern front, what do they do with prisoners?

Well, my WW2 rules don't deal with prisoners, so it's not an issue for me. I play both Germans and Soviets, too, though the only Soviets I play are the Engineer-Sapper battalions for kicking in the teeth of the Germans.

..all of that … but because Northern Ireland would suck to play as a 'game',.. wheras 'Vietnam' is often tremendous fun.

If you played a Northern Ireland 'troubles' game you would have to paint everything gloss because it is always raining there.

How about a game where you play as SS guards trying to stop prisoners escaping a concentration camp?

Negative, it's despicable.

But it's also the regular straw man, made up bull argument typically made here by 's with an agenda other than just playing wargames.

And it has nothing to do with the OP.

Umm, what are you trying to accomplish? Or are you actually trying to solicit players for your SS concentration camp game?

"Though good and bad men suffer alike, we must not suppose that there is no difference between the men themselves, because there is no difference in what they both suffer. For even in the likeness of the sufferings, there remains an unlikeness in the sufferers; and though exposed to the same anguish, virtue and vice are not the same thing. For as the same fire causes gold to glow brightly, and chaff to smoke; and under the same flail the straw is beaten small, while the grain is cleansed; and as the lees are not mixed with the oil, though squeezed out of the vat by the same pressure, so the same violence of affliction proves, purges, clarifies the good, but damns, ruins, exterminates the wicked."
― Augustine of Hippo, City of God

It is not the game itself but your motives for playing the game that matter. The game is the destination but the journey to it is what determines who you are and what you are. What others think could be inconvenient but is not of primary importance. It is what you think and believe that makes you who you are. Thus it is your choices as part of your journey to the game that matters and not the game itself, nor what others think.

If you play a popularly acceptable game to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on opponents, real and imaginary, then you are one thing. If you play a publicly deplored game with good humanity and an intention to make the game's outcome a better one, then you are another thing. One who seeks to liberate stricken prisoners falsely held and plagued by other wicked men is probably good. One who seeks to mete out divine justice on those he considers evil without due consideration and process involving the counsel of others is arrogant and possibly is an evil-doer himself. It is why you play and not what you play that is the essence of this debate.

Cheers and good gaming.
Rod Robertson.

Just Jack, I'm confused a bit by you post. Was it directed towards me? If it was you're way of base. If not…every things cool…