"What is the Difference between Fantasy and Historicals?" Topic

Here is my quick take on the matter, but I'd like to hear from some other folks.
link

Historical gamers are more 'laid back" ?

Has he ever played with Napoleonic grognards ?

I would have said (a) magic and (b) non-humans and (c) monsters/creatures.

One is firmly grounded in the unlikely and the other deals with monsters and wizards. H

I'd agree with most of what you wrote, NotW. But for me, there's only one primary difference. The fantasy (or SF) game creator has a single question to answer: "Is this a good game?" Though of course there is disagreement about what constitutes a good game. The historical game creator has to answer a second question: "Does the game accurately reflect the history?" Though again we have disagreements about the history.

This makes designing historical wargames vastly more difficult, and subject to a whole different level of criticism even if done right. (I think it's about equally easy to do them both wrong. There are days I think that's the default.)

I'll concede a gray area in which the fantasy or SF game designer has to ask himself "Does my game reflect the tactical reality of the book/movie/TV show?" But when you consider how many of the above have enough tactical detail to be more than a flavoring, it's a very small gray area--Starship Troopers and Star Fleet Battles, mostly. (I'd love to see someone try rules for David Drake's RCN books.)

Agree with Bill. Main difference is green skin.

I gamed with a club which enjoyed both historical, and fantasy games. The historical games were much more serious, much more prone to disagreements about what was good/bad in the games.

There were always after-game discussions (Post Mortem's) about how "unrealistic" the game turned out to be, and what was wrong with how it played out. It always struck me as if the players expected to achieve the same end result in the game, as what happened on the real battlefield…

I shared my opinion that there were literally hundreds (thousands!) of variables which impacted the historical outcome. None of these variables could/would be recreated within one hundred games! I stated that you could play the scenario out 300+ times, and there would be trends, but no two games would be identical.

I shared with them how the USA military staff played out sea battles with Japan's Imperial Navy, in miniature, more than 300 times, prior to the outbreak of WW II; how they found trends, but no two games had identical outcomes. I further shared how the trends in those games, cleaved closely to the real war that followed years later; that games must be played hundreds of times, to approximate what would happen in real life.

Never seemed to make a dent in their thoughts. They always went back to comparing the game's results to what happened, historically. It was as though they expected the game to follow history, closely. Very closely. When it did not come out like history, they seemed disappointed; this seemed common, an ongoing disappointment, for most games played.

To me, all war games are "fantasy." My justification, is my story, above. Cheers!

Well said, Sgt. Slag.

Agree with Sgt. Slag. Especially on the 'all war games are "fantasy" comment.

Historical are more picky, if that is the right word, when coming to painting/uniforms and information. Historical wants to get the uniforms just right "You painted the buttons the wrong color!" while it is up to the individual how they want to paint what an orc or elf wears. Same with various units and when/how they fought an what they wore in this campaign or battle. I have never heard a fantasy player say to other
"the 3rd Orc Infantry were not on the right flank at the battle of Helm's Deep and they were now longer wearing that uniform".

Grattan54, a good friend, who wargames, makes historically accurate uniforms for re-enactors, FIW to Napoleonics period. She sells each uniform, made with period accurate materials and reproductions (historically accurate buttons, insignia, etc.). She has a Bachelors degree in fiber technology. She dyes wool, by hand, and so much more, all with an eye to historical accuracy.

One thing I learned in my own experiences with dyeing wool, is that consistent color results are incredibly difficult to achieve, using natural dyes! Modern, inorganic chemical dyes are impressive in producing consistent, vibrant results, every time…

When I hear/read someone commenting about proper uniform colors on historical figures, I smile. I know how inconsistent the dyeing process is when using natural dyes and pre-modern mordants (fixes the dye color in the material); I know how much the Sunlight can impact the natural dye colors over time. I recognize how the historical gamer's goal is really a fantasy, akin to getting the right flesh color for an Ogre, or an Orc. ;-)

The oil paintings from that period, upon which historical gamers, and my seamstress friend, base their color selections, have shifted hue over the centuries since they were created. Who knows how accurate those hand-made oil paint pigments were when they were fresh, compared to the actual uniforms they tried to depict? Honestly, I believe the artist's paint was far more consistent than the woolen uniforms were.

Hand dying wool, or cotton, or any other fiber, has tremendous variables within the process. All of these variables impact the final outcome of the dye color… Iron-water mordant darkens colors -- it turns white wool to a gray, of varying shades, depending upon the fiber and the concentration of iron oxide in the water; copper-based mordants produce brighter colors. These are two mordants commonly used in the FIW period.

Had to step back from the keyboard. I was laughing so hard. Dying fabric fibers pre-20th century, was nothing like what modern gamers imagine it to be. The results of modern inorganic dyes used for clothing, today, are remarkably consistent, remarkably reproduce-able. Hand dyeing fibers with natural dyes and low-tech mordants, is another matter altogether. Cheers!

Fantasy and Sci-fi figures cost roughly two to three times more than historical figures.

Sgt Slag – you would be amazed at how close it is possible to get to a sample colour with natural dyes. The secret is something people today have forgotten about or don't even know it exists. It is called SKILL; the accumulated experience of generations of dyers who have worked out how to do it.

I'm not saying that every dyer could do that but there were plenty of them around who's knowledge could be used if such accuracy was needed. I doubt that it was needed very often though. The run-of-the-mill people in the past were not as fussy or as precise most of the time as we are today but the rich sometimes were prepared to pay a hefty price for the best.

Sure, GildasFacit, it can be done, but on a large scale, for thousands of army uniforms… No way they would be able to make them that close in color, on a massive scale.

Like I said, painters mixed up their own pigments of paint. They painted with what they had. I believe that reality, differed considerably, from what they put on canvas.

Even if the dye job was accurate from the tailor, once it hit the field, it was subject to weather effects, and personal cleaning habits, which varied with each individual.

Once you got mud on your wool jacket, you could try to clean it up, but they had to do so by letting if fully dry before brushing it. Water washing can be done with wool, if you avoid too much agitation -- this felts it, causing it to shrink, and compress its fibers. There was no dry-cleaning shop to take them to.

Once an army hit the field, long marches, in inclement weather, their uniforms changed color from when they were first worn.

Look at any historical tabletop army, and the figures' clothing will be unrealistically uniform in color. Gamers want to believe that their uniforms must be painted precisely, accurately, to just the correct hue… Sorry. That is artificial by its very nature. They base their color choices on oil paintings which are centuries old, having been exposed to aging sunlight, uncontrolled humidity, large temperature swings, etc.

Consider Vietnam era films of troops in the field. The new recruits, fresh off the airplane, have darker uniforms. The veterans who have been in the field for months, wear uniforms which are considerably different in color, usually faded -- a great deal. Note that Vietnam era fatigue uniforms were made with inorganic dyes, using modern mordants; they have far more consistent dye colors, made by industrial machines, using modern automation and control systems, not people slaving over wood-fire heated dye pots.

I find the concept of matching the pre-20th Century, "historical colors," to be a farse, wholly and completely. To me, it just is unrealistic considering how poorly color consistency was maintained in the 20th Century, with modern industrial processes and chemicals, far more reliable than 15th-19th Century processes and chemicals. Cheers!

One is good and the other is a waste of time, and creative energy. Take your choice; I have mine.

Fantasy and Sci-fi figures cost roughly two to three times more than historical figures.

But one generally needs two to three times as many figures to play Historicals than Fantasy or Science Fiction, so it all evens out.

Fantasy army lists are inherently more reliable as they won't be overturned by new archaeological evidence.

Only rarely -- one game a year, maybe -- does a dragon appear in a historical game set in the Middle Ages.

In fantasy games, however, dragons appear more than once per game.

I have been historical wargaming for decades and in my experience never do games get bogged down in the minutia of uniform colours, buttons or whatnot. After game discussions are more about game balance and modifying the scenarios to make it possible for both sides to succeed equally. In short, making a better game that is enjoyable for payers.

To me this was just a poor tirade of a fantasy players with no interest or understanding of Historical games. Decent historical rules are not mired in the over commecialised deradful rules like 40K that have not eveolved in any way since 1964.

Historical players have an interest in in the real world beyond mere fantasy and are not obsessed with whet are effecytively competion rules faught on sterile terrain, as if not the Points system does not work. Historical players pick from a vast array of real situations, not "line them up and throw dice" of the fantasy breigade. So there is no commparion they are so diffrent that comparision is not usefull.

Historical games have a verisimilitude that fantasy and sci fi don't claim. In the end Fantasy is "ancients with magic" and Sci fi is "modern with lasers"

Historical games want to be "real" but how many are written by combat experts and of any that are how playable are they? In the end they are all games played for fun (or competition)

As a designer of both fantasy and historical systems, the parameters for historical games are a lot stricter.

Once the project the fanatic nature is up to individual players and their "devotion ".

Some of the players of the one are pathetic, self-important snobs who want everyone else to know how much smarter they are than the "lesser" beings who play "lesser" games, and will tell you so, repeatedly, ad nauseam, until you give up and walk away.
Some of the players of the other are obsessed fan-boys who will pontificate for hours about the underlying backstory of their preferred army and how the rules are supposed to work so as to fit that backstory, and if you disagree they will come to metaphorical blows from safely behind their computer screens, heaving personal insults at any who do not hold with their interpretations…

Oh, wait. They're both entirely the same.

[/snark]

:P

The big difference is vampires, and bugbears.
I game historicals. I'm not worried about magical armor or dragons. If I'm facing the 5th regiment of foot, there's really no surprises.😉

Historical games results should be plausible. I play with simple rules (but not simplistic) on nice terrain with well painted figures. My friends roll some dice and have fun while exploring history. Winning or losing, bah! However, there is plenty of solid historical research that goes into the rules , and more importantly, the scenario. Just because you dont know any serious 'combat experts' involved in the hobby doesnt mean they are not out there. Fantasy is limited in the same way novels are, they must pass 'the suspension of disbelief'. History is not, although our games usually are.

"how many are written by combat experts?"

Well, Louis, von Reisswitz served in the Befreingskriege, Peter Young was with the Commandos and the Arab Legion. Don Featherstone fought through North Africa and Italy with the Royal Tanks, Joe Morschauser commanded flame-thrower tanks on Okinawa, and Charles Grant flew with the RAF. (Fred Vietmeyer had his time in OCS cut short by V-J Day, so he had to settle for hunting war criminals in occupied Germany.)

But I'm sure none of this compares with the GW staff's experience fighting trolls and Chaos Marines. No doubt their rule and OOB changes are based on the reports of returning Brettonians and Space Marines.

Sgt Slag, I'm sorry you had a bad experience with some historical gamers, but there is a serious difference between "results are approximate, or in a given range" and being completely ignorant. My Napoleonic French are chosen from a range of uniform choices and degrees of fade or stain. My Punic Wars Carthaginians are no more than a best guess based on scanty sources. My goblins are whatever I want them to be. Surely you understand that these are different levels of research and uncertainty?

I'm with you on this one UshCha.

The historical game creator has to answer a second question: "Does the game accurately reflect the history?"

There is, of course, a spectrum among historical rules. Some are historically 'serious', and and some are beers-and-pretzels. Some historical gamers are into it for the history, and some are in it for the fun games.

In the end, and I ask this seriously, does it matter? As someone who plays both and enjoys both, I just don't get the angst.

I've had wonderful and horrible experiences playing both and still enjoy both for very different reasons.

You might reflect on those "very different reasons" Tgerritsen.

But yes, I think it does, even though I also enjoy both. Historical miniatures players see the difference as self-evident: we have to research to put on our games, and if the games are well done, we may even learn something from them. But the "discussions" are almost always initiated by some fantasy or science fiction player insisting that there is no difference--that it's bigotry to hold a historical miniatures convention and expect historical miniatures games, and that there can be no higher level of difficulty. It generally winds up, as you see here, with claims that there can be no such thing as historical knowledge. (I'd think of that as the Ridley Scott school of history.) That's why sooner or later I get lured into these discussions.

Yes, we share a love of competition, and of miniatures. Yes, and lot of techniques and rule mechanisms are transferrable. But the person insisting that "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!" is not just fairly obviously wrong, but has an agenda to which I am opposed.

'Way too philosophical for before sunrise on a Saturday.

Where's the LIKE button?
I guess I'll just have to give Parzival an +1 instead.
Well said.

Gaming is a very big tent. It contains all manners of folks playing a wide variety of games be they historical, fantasy, sci-fi or some mix such as steampunk. They are all capable of meeting the desires of the gamers playing those games and they all contain a mix of humanity as in regular folks and complete tools. We make do as best we can but should avoid throwing stones as all our houses contain some glass.

just don't get the angst

I sensed more defensiveness from Historical Players. I take it to be caused by an attack on the realism they think their games have.

Any games I play feel accurate enough. It could be Bolt Action for Historicals or add some werewolves for Konflikt 47. With the release of The Old World, I am interested in how Warhammer Ancient Battles could be adapted to freshen up Ancient/Medieval a little. I think Saga was the last fresh air in that genre.

"I sensed more defensiveness from Historical Players."

Not defensiveness, Louis--irritation. After the first two or three years, you get tired of replying to people whose fundamental position is that there can be no such thing as historical knowledge. Because if there is such a thing, and historical miniatures players are attempting to incorporate it into their games, then no fantasy and SF games are not just the same thing as historicals, and that, for some reason I have never figured out, drives a certain percentage of the F&SF crowd nuts.

Really guys: you can enjoy rugby without claiming that it's the same thing as American football, and you can enjoy miniature golf without claiming it's identical with the PGA tour. If you enjoy fantasy or SF gaming, go for it. I'm sure some of the rules are very well designed. And the rules will be just as well designed and the games just as enjoyable without the semi-annual claims that they're just the same as historical miniatures.

Ironically I have found some fantasy players to adhere much more closely to their "reality" than some historical players. If you want pure fantasy look at the matched up army pairs in the Society of Ancients tournaments. Old Kingdom Egyptians vs Samurai is no more historical nor less fantasy than Orcs vs Elves.

Now, put on a game of Napoleonics with Peninsular British facing off against Austrians…. Much more realistic and historical than much of Ancients as played.

The Military Modeling topic had a interesting unconscious bias statement:

just like all those kids that "graduate" from GW games to historicals,

There is an implication that Historicals are somehow a higher form of life. My assertion was both are cut from the same cloth with neither being particularly realistic but both "feel right" considering they are, in the end, games.