"TMP represents the hobby" Topic

Does TMP fairly represent the totality of miniature wargamers?

* yes
* no, because (insert)

No

The rest of the Hobby Plays modern wargames, not dusty old OOP Napoleonics

I don't know, but I'd be a little surprised. Are the people who don't spend their days chattering about miniatures on line playing the same games in the same proportions? What constitutes "fair representation?" Age? Sex ratios? Favorite periods? Army size and composition? And how do any of us determine "the totality of miniature wargamers?" I suspect Mr. Elmo is a monument to sampling bias, but suspecting isn't knowing.

Most of TMP hides behind "handles" and unverified information. Bill, go to the Great Wargaming Survey, check it against the membership information the rest of us don't have, then tell us how closely me resemble it and what criteria you used.

I have to agree with Robert above. I am sure that TMP represents some portion of the hobby and it does serve a purpose although with the advent of increasing social media options, that is likely less than in years past.

Does TMP fairly represent the totality of miniature wargamers?

I am sure that TMP represents some portion of the hobby

So that's a firm NO then

Not at all.

No, a portion of it, but not in its entirety. I wonder what our current demographics and tastes are. You could run a survey, Bill, to find out.

I don't really know. I know people who game who don't belong to it, so I would say no.

I only play a few miniatures games (2e BattleSystem fantasy, very occasional historical games, and Army Men games). I am blissfully ignorant of the rest of the hobby. Not qualified to say, but with the popularity of social media, such as FaceBook (PUKE!!!), I would say, No.

DM Scotty, the godfather of D&D terrain crafting, abandoned his very active ProBoards Forum in favor of FB. He seems to have some 40,000 subscribers on FB, while there are only a few of us left, on PB. I can't stand FB, so I only know what I hear on YouTube.

FB seems the way to go if you want pure numbers. The way postings move down into oblivion, on FB, as new posts are created, turns me off on it. I can't tolerate that approach to managing postings -- I refuse to become a reading addict (read: slave to FB) in order to avoid missing out on the latest postings… Cheers!

I guess it represents the hobby for those of us who are here. But a look around the other forums shows them all to have their own ambiance, which appeal to different people.

FB is it's own beast, and while I follow a few pages, like Sgt Slag I hate the temporary feel to it (but the pictures are good).

Yes. I think the key word is fairly. A page can only represent those who are on the site, and this does it fairly.

No

Mr. Elmo, may I ask how you know what the totality of the miniature wargaming hobby is and does? Oh. And what's the cutoff date for "modern" wargames these days?

No – simple sample bias. "Does the group you belong to represent the entirety of the category/interest?"

Wait, are you guys suggesting that there are wargamers out there who are NOT members of TMP? Heresy!!

I think TMP does a pretty good job of representing historical miniatures gamers from what I've seen of other sites, forums, blogs, etc. I think the hobby has so many different genres, scales, etc., that representing all of them is impossible. FB is great for ideas, news, etc., but trying to find something that you remembered seeing a few weeks ago is a challenge to say the least.

No, TMP and Tango don't represent my hobby interests. It's too US centric. I use it for news from manufacturers (not all manufacturers use TMP) and that's about it.

Toombe may have a point. I find Lead Adventure Forum to lean heavily towards the Brits. TMP leans more for Americans. TMP doesn't do much for Role Playing. Maybe a bit light on Fantasy? But for my tastes, yes, it covers my interests.

I find the beloved TMP Crowd to be decidedly more conservative than your average game store crowd.

Perhaps because TMP is an older crowd base whereas the store crowds tend to be younger "kids" in their 20s.

Yes, but TMP needs to maintain what you started- A place to visit to learn more and meet more that also enjoy the hobby. Please allow me to repeat "the hobby". People have hobbies to escape from the daily grind of political vitriol! TMP has infringed upon the sanctity of a place to share and enjoy the HOBBY by promoting venues for discussing politics. That spills over into the hobby related posts quite often. There are plenty of other sites one can visit if they wish to vent over politics. Please keep "our" "happy place" "happy".

TMP over the years saw many "heated" discussions on various gaming topics yet it was done with respect. I know many who left because of the veering away from topics not related to gaming. They get enough such dribble and attitude from work. They cannot easily leave work as they must put up with such for their livelihood. They do not have to stick around on TMP if they see it as an extension of that type of environment. Just look at how many have been inactive for so long. You may want to analyze if that database could quantify the magnitude of of a perceived problem.

A poster above commented negatively to TMP allowing older sets of rules or periods to be discussed here and answered "No". The question was "Does TMP fairly represent the totality of miniature wargamers?" If you only catered to the new and shiny, it would exclude several segments of the hobby and NOT represent the totality of miniature wargamers as it would exclude them.

Bill, you have created a wonderful medium for us to discuss gaming related topics. Please, keep it that way by sticking to that objective. Thanks from an "Old Timer".

The rest of the Hobby Plays modern wargames, not dusty old OOP Napoleonics

13 years, 13000+ posts and I've never seen or participated in a Napoleonic discussion. Point being TMP is a big place with a lot going on.

That said, I agree with robert piepenbrink that "the totality of miniature wargamers" is also big with a lot going on.

So, do two large things that you can't reasonably characterize have some type of nebulous, undefined relationship? Sure … why not?

TMP suits me fine.

LOL no

I think it represents a portion of the hobby. I don't think it is representative of the hobby as a whole however.

Years ago, I think it was more representative however I've noticed a change. Perhaps some portions of the community stayed and other portions left.

Certainly seems to be more appetite for more politics and less actual hobby.

Let me sum up the situation:
1. We have no agreement on what the most important things to "represent" are--Age? Education? Periods played? Scales? Rules?--or how closely they have to be mirrored.
2. Whatever they are, we can't tell you their distribution among TMP participants.
3. We also can't tell you their distribution among the "totality of miniature wargamers."

The term "Minnesota hog-weighing contest" comes to mind. You get a fulcrum, a stick, a hog and a bunch of rocks until you find a rock which exactly balances the weight of the hog. Then everyone guesses the weight of the rock.

Sadly, we don't even have the fulcrum and the stick. When someone finds a way to add information to this discussion, please PM me.

yes.

yes

No, no and thrice no.

No. TMP is a distinct subset. The general vibe is on the conservative side of the wargaming population and there is a strong US focus.

I like to think of TMP membership as the elite cognoscenti of the hobby.

Not even close.

A portion of it? Sure. The portion that frequents this site.

A fair representation of the totality of miniature wargamers?
No. Not even close.

In fact, I seriously doubt any single site does that.

I dont think TMP is the sole representation of the hobby it allows a free exchange of views and ideas and it is a broad church with sections following a variety of "passions" and the like.

it should never be so dogmatic as to rubbish some games and slavishly follow others if the famous quote "all life is here" revel in it enjoy it even contribute to it.

yes it has a very heavy US input but it is none the worse for that – there are sections for other countries to allow more specific discussions Im in the UK and am addicted to the magazines here as geographical issues arise.

I wont give up my three regular magazines in hard copy = you can prise them from my cold dead hand (Charlton Athletic).

YES, because I haven't been kicked off yet! :)))

Just kidding – but I do see TMP as 'NA' centric.

I like that there's some separation from peddling and the average hobbyist, not necessarily by the forum administration policing of advertising, but that I feel my fellow members are expressing opinions that they're not profiting off of.

So to Bill's original question, my own rub – I like this forum's degree of separation, which encourages independent representation.

USA:UK posts 5:1 would be population representative…

eto, if you have any evidence to suggest that there are five US miniatures players for every Briton, I'd love to hear it. Every indication I have suggests that there are roughly as many British miniatures players as there are Americans--which is why the Brits usually have clubs, and why the "lead belt" isn't located in Appalachia.

No. It is a very small and unrepresentative portion.

Amongst the population of gamers who enjoy nattering online, the bulk of the discussion happens on Facebook groups dedicated to particular games or genres.

Witness discussion here a bit ago that nobody plays The Silver Bayonet — which has an official FB group with 3,600+ and growing members with multiple posts per day.

I don't have any empirical evidence that the proportion of wargameers in the US and UK are close. What is your evidence that the proportion in the UK is roughly five times the US?

I don't know, and I don't know how you would find out. There is no real data on this hobby that would support a conclusion.

but this remains a vital forum. It does lean conservative, sometimes stridently, but manages to stay on course overall via good oversight. FB changed wargaming online groups big time, but its wargaming pages have become so specialized and fragmented that it does not foster a sense of community. Many pages get infrequent use. And it has all the other baggage I associate with FB.

TMP on the other hand, remains a community. I never visit Lead Adventure Forum anymore because of its focus on 28 mm,IMO. but it is also a community, although it felt less open to me than TMP, certainly not as helpful if you wanted to talk diverse things like 6mm or ironclads.

Now, if we could just get that Franco-Prussian War board going….