It's all fantasy!!!

On various internet forums, there's with regular intervals a discussion about the nature of fantasy wargaming. Usually the discussion starts with someone asking "What's fantasy wargaming exactly?". Then, invariably, the discussion veers off towards the following statements, also usually in this order:

• Fantasy is D&D!
• Fantasy has dragons and wizards!
• Fantasy is ancients with magic!
• Fantasy is ancients as the ancients themselves believed the world to be!
• Romans vs Aztecs is fantasy as well! (I blame DBA :-) )
• Actually, any non-historical army list is fantasy!
• If you invent your own orders of battle, it's fantasy!
• Any "what-if scenario" is fantasy!
• Operation Sea Lion is fantasy!
• Any battle that did not take place in history is fantasy!
• Since we are playing with toy soldiers, it's all fantasy!
• We are all playing fantasy!
• "I'm not!"

I always get very tired of this type of discussion, and I say that as a wargamer who does both like historical and fantasy wargaming. The latest reiteration of these arguments came in one of the columns of my favourite wargaming magazine (Miniature Wargames with Battlegames #399), and I was a bit taken aback. Not because of the particular author or column in question, but because it always seems as if fantasy wargamers still have to defend themselves against the idea of not being "real wargamers".

Let me explain:

1. Although I do understand people could be confused about the nature of fantasy wargaming when it gained popularity several decades ago, should we not all know by know that the "fantasy" in wargaming has the same meaning as the "fantasy" in "fantasy literature". To quote from Wikipedia:
   

   Fantasy is a genre of fiction that uses magic or other supernatural elements as a main plot element, theme, or setting. Many works within the genre take place in imaginary worlds where magic and magical creatures are common.

   Yet, many wargamers bend the discussion about fantasy often in the direction of a different meaning of fantasy, indicating anything that has not actually happened (see bullet list above). This is always weird - as if people do not know fantasy wargaming is based on an established literary genre. It's difficult for me to believe wargamers do not know that difference. Actually, I do think they do know, but enjoy bending the meaning to make some sort of point and cause confusion. Sci-fi wargaming, btw, does not suffer from this.
2. Fantasy wargaming has been a genre in wargaming since at least the 70s with rules and figures based on Tolkien's Middle Earth - although Tony Bath fought his games back in the 50s in the imaginary continent of Hyboria, based on the Conan universe. Perhaps Bath's wargaming was not fantasy as we know it today (we would call it imaginations these days), but anyway, it's not as if fantasy wargaming is the new kid on the block. Why does fantasy wargaming still evoke such emotions? Isn't it an established genre by now?
3. Fantasy wargaming became big in the 80s (Warhammer!), and many wargamers of my generation (I'm turning 50 later this year) have enjoyed fantasy wargaming tremendously as youngsters. Actually, I still like playing fantasy games, although I heve evolved beyond Warhammer. Fantasy wargaming is part of the DNA of many, by now "older" wargamers, and the Oldhammer phenomenon clearly illustrates this. I am therefore still surprised there is a faction of gamers that still want to question the validity of fantasy wargaming as being "real" wargaming.
4.  Usually, the sentiment is raised by historical gamers whose games are firmly rooted in historical research, and base their games on a methodological approach about the period in question. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that - I have done this myself for some of my favourite periods - but it is by itself not the "one and only true" approach to wargaming as many want others to believe. This particular brand of wargaming also only came to the foreground in the 70s. If you read the wargaming literature of the 60s, you see quite some liberal interpretation of history as well. Look at the writings by Grant and Featherstone. Although their wargaming is inspired by history, it does not try to replicate history. Grant is famous for his 18th century imaginations, and Featherstone was the one who condemned the "Staff and Command Boys" in War Game Digest in 1962, arguing against an "aura of pseudo-science of what is a pastime" (look it up - you can find info about this debate online!).
5. Although one's motivation might be different to play with toy soldiers (historical research vs exploring an imaginary universe), the end result is surprisingly the same: same props, same rules, same army lists, ... This is of course not surprising since much of fantasy literature is based on (often medieval) history. But - and this is not unimportant - the enjoyment or fun one gets out of it might be different. One wargamer enjoys seeing an historical plausible military encounter developing on his table (and perhaps gaining some insights in militory history), while the other enjoys seeing a military encounter in an imaginary world coming to live on his table (and perhaps gaining some insights in the fictional universe). Hmmm, perhaps not so different after all?
6. Many wargamers do not limit themselves to pure historical or pure fantasy. Almost every wargamer I know plays - or has played - various genres next to each other, and this even extrapolates to other gaming hobbies such as roleplaying games or card games or computer games ... So, if people switch with ease between different spectra of gaming, why insist on hard divides?

My take? In essence, I don't think there is much difference between various wargaming genres, since they have much more in common than they are different. I see gamers playing with toy soldiers rolling dice. And although the motivation to play a game might be different, that doesn't make it a different hobby.

Me playing a game of Warhammer - one of my earliest wargaming photos, probably late eighties. As a historical gamer, fantasy wargaming is a significant part of my gaming DNA.

Demo game? Participation game? Hybrid game?

In issue 399 of Miniature Wargames with Battlegames (which, BTW, has been added to the growing index of all wargaming articles ever published ;-)), there's an article by Nick Hughes discussing the type of games we see at conventions.

Roughly speaking, at the European convention scene, there are two types of games:

• Demo games: a gaming group demonstrates a specific game setup, a period, a ruleset, ... The intention is not participation by convention visitors, but the game is rather a starting point for explaining visitors what the game, rules, etc. are all about.
• Participation games: the game is set up with the purpose of visitors participating, and might vary in length between let's say 15 minutes of fast fun and a few hours.

When games are run well, no matter the type, there are distinct advantages, and are a good addition to any convention. But there are also disadvantages. Demo games take up space, and interaction with the public is not always a success due to various reasons. Participation games might take too long and hence fail to attract participants. The times when visitors would spend an entire day at a convention - and hence could devote several hours playing a single game - are long gone.

So, the article proposes a hybrid: the visual spectacle of a demo game, but with the intention of letting visitors taking control of the game for a few turns.

This reminded me very much of the type of games we have run with our gaming group Schild & Vriend during various conventions - mostly CRISIS in Antwerp - over the past 10 years. We have designed our games around the idea of micro-participation - i.e. allow visitors to take part in the game for only a few minutes. The game would run all day, and the flow of the game is the result of a sequence of turns taken by many players over the course of an entire day.

Arnhem 2005

The first game of this type we ran was our Arnhem game in 2005. The design was based on Free Kriegsspiel. A gamesmaster would run the game all day long, and when a visitor passed by, he would be offered a decision to make: "These platoons have been hiding in these woods. Do you think they should shoot at the enemy, or move forwards?" Once the player hade made a choice, a few dice were rolled (e.g. determining movement distance, or outcome of the fight, ...). The player could stick around for a few more moves, or could move on.

Attack on Fort Stanley 2008

In 2008, we tried a different approach. Set in Darkest Africa, a fort was under siege. The besiegers were controlled by the umpire, but the besieged were under control of whatever visitor was present at the table. The system was run using cards. A5-size cards - displayed prominently - outlined the actions a player could take, including requested dice rolls and chances for success. The only thing a player had to do was pick a card, move the figures, throw a dice. When the action was complete, a new card was drawn. Again, this allowed for a few minutes of quick fun.

Red vs Blue 2013

Our largest experiment in this style was Red vs Blue, in 2013. We had printed over 1500 custom playing cards, which we dealt out in the entire convention hall: at stands, at the entrance, at the bar, ... At the gaming table, there was a real-time clock, indicating what side (red or blue) was "on". When you came to the table with one of the cards, you could participate immediately, following the actions on the card. The cards came in many different variations: movement actions, artillery bombardments, reinforcements, etc. At then end of the day, we logged over 250 participants.

So, yes, it is possible to design games around the idea of micro-participation. It takes some thinking and some preparation. But, it also is very exhausting, especially of you want to run the game all day long. Red vs Blue ran for 6 hours, in real time, non-stop.

Will we repeat such mass-participation wargames again? Perhaps, although I do not have plans for the immediate future. I feel that with Red vs Blue we reached the limit of what this genre could do - unless a lot more people get involved in the running and participation. After all, we usually did this with 2 or 3 people on the organizing team ;-)

One-Hour Wargames ... some test games

The book One-Hour Wargames by Neil Thomas has been available for a little while now, but I never tried out one of the rulesets contained therein.

The idea of the book is as follows: provide a set of  simple rules for a number of popular wargaming periods, along with 30 generic scenarios.

Yesterday, we decided to try out the WW2 rules. I decided on scenario #5 (Bridgehead), using my 15mm North-African WW2 troops. The British would try to establish a bridgehead, with the Italians attacking, trying to prevent it.

I made a small change the rules, replacing the measurements in inches to hexes (3" = 1 hex). Since the rules only have ranged fire and movement (no close combat), the conversion didn't introduce strange anomalies (see here for a more thorough discussion on how to convert inches to hexes).

The table looked as follows:

We played the game twice, my regular wargaming opponent Bart and me switching sides.

So, what are our conclusions?

1. The game plays fast, we needed even less than an hour to conclude both games. So, the rules do what it says on the cover :-)
2. The game is somewhat dull, and didn't offer many challenges for the players. Perhaps this was due to the scenario, in which all troops were focusing on a single area on the table (the bridgehead), but it also was due to all firing ranges (12") being identical for all troop types. This means that you move your units within firing range, and then both sides keep on blasting each other until all units are gone. So, we ended up with all troops being in fire range of each other, and kept on firing till one side was eliminated. There was simply no incentive to move away (why should we?), or move closer (why should we?), or try repositioning (troops have 360 degree fire arc, no facing), ... so it was just a shootout.
   Typically, much of the decision-making in a wargame involves troops firing at different ranges with different effects, such that you have to decide whether to move closer or not, when to fire, etc. Cover can help inthis decision-making, but then you need a terrain that has cover at a density higher than the firing ranges (12"). None of the scenarios suggest this.
3. Perhaps the other periods work out better, but the WW2 rules were  ... too simple. As Bart put it "It's like playing with Green Army Men using dice". No sophistication at all.

One can of course argue that all wargames involve moving to each other, then start shooting. In a sense, that is true. But at least, rules should be designed in such a way that you have options for how to do that, and those options can/should be triggered by various troop statistics. Some troop types have larger firing ranges; some move slower; some have more hits; etc. That sort of variety does not only provide atmosphere, but also triggers decision-making.

If you have a game in which all troops basically behave identical, decision -making should be triggered by other means, e.g. activation mechanics. If you have a limited number of units you can activate each turn, that forces you to think about what units should activate first. But that is also absent from One-Hour Wargames. Or sometimes the fun in a wargame can lie in the developing story. Even if the rules are simple, good story elements can drive the game forward by providing mechanics that inspire the imagination of the players (random events, morale effects, ...)

To be honest, we could have chosen a better scenario. In hindsight, we should have realized that a scenario in which all the action focuses on a single point is not the best to pick.

One-Hour Wargames seems to me like a set of rules best used by kids. Young children have fun throwing dice and see who can roll highest, and these rules evoke that type of game. But as an adult gamer who has been wargaming for over 30 years, the rules felt too simple. And although I am a fan of simple and elegant rules, I was reminded of  "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Full Thrust Boxed Set

In Miniature Wargames with Battlegames, issue 399, I read that there is now a 25th Anniversary boxed set of Full Thrust.

Wow, 25 years?

I remember I first played Full Thrust back in 1992 at GenCon UK, which was then held in Camber Sands. It was a gaming mecca for me at the time, and I was discovering a lot of new games that were not available on the continent back then (pre-internet days for the masses, so the discerning gamer-geek had to cross the channel to get the good stuff). Full Thrust was one of the games I discovered, playing in one of the demo games. I bought a rulebook, and I have played countless games of Full Thrust since then.

I always admired the apparant simplicity of the rules, which allow for some clever manoeuvring your starship around the table. Especially the elegant rule of "half turn in the beginning, half turn in the middle" of your movement always seemed very clever to me. The damage system was an eye-opener for me as well.

I enthusiastically bought plastic Star Trek and Star Wars micromachines for my first games, and modeled asteroids and planets. Moving asteroids always were a favourite, since there was always a player who steered his ship right into one. Later on I upgraded to proper metal models, of which most are still in my collection.

However, as the games and the years progressed, I started to feel there was a certain "sameness" to all the games. Tactics revolved not so much around manoeuvre - once most players mastered the intricacies of writing down orders - but who did get to shoot first with what at what target. Given the ranges, many games became a straight shoot-out, which called for more complicated scenarios. I also bought the expansion More Thrust, but somehow I lost touch when the Fleet Books were published.

In our gaming group, we launched a few efforts of setting up Full Thrust story campaigns, but they always petered out after a two or three games at most. Although I guess those campaigns never officially stopped, so they can always be revived!

For a number of reasons, I didn't play many games of Full Thrust during the past 10 years or so, but perhaps I should revisit this old favourite. However, this is always dangerous. Actual gameplay when replaying fondly remembered games often is disappointment compared to the memories :-)

Here's a picture from one or our last Full Thrust games, in 2006.

Eddy Sterckx, Phil Dutré, Frank Vleugels, Koen Devroey, all playing Full THrust during a hot summernight in 2006.

I painted something!

After a long hiatus, I finally managed to paint something!

I did not paint the space station - which came prepainted - but I painted the flying stand black, and put some white stars on the base.

That must count for something, right?

Cataloguing the Collection (10)

The next drawer to be indexed is my small collection of spaceships. These all date back to the nineties, and I haven't back-identified (i.e. identifying the original manufacturer) yet for all models.

This collection is very much a retro-collection for me. I first played a game of Full Thrust in 1992 (IIRC), at EuroGencon in Camber Sands. I have been a Full Thrust fan ever since, although it has been many years since I played a decent game. We played most games during the mid-nineties, in the gameshop in my hometown Leuven.

At one point I also had a large collection of plastic MicroMachines of various Star Trek and Star Wars ships, but I sold them at one point. The current collection are all metal models acquired during the nineties, with a significant presence by Games Workshop (Space Fleet), GDW (Traveller New Era) and FASA (Star Trek). The fighter stands are scratch-built, with counters printed and then mounted on a flight stand.

The purple shapes you see in the top-right corner are my attempt at scratch-building a space-floating alien, modeled after the planet killer in Star Trek.

Still unidentified;

•  all the green ships on the left-hand side.
• the red ships in the middle. They are Tholian ships (Star Trek), but haven't been to identify them properly. Probably FASA?
• the round and solid starbase (with 3 red griffons) in the top-right corner.

Cataloguing the collection (9)

I resumed my efforts of indexing my collection of miniatures. Next up in my figure drawers were the "Animals" and "Skaven".

How to paint a horse?

I reported before that my magazine index was very useful for looking up horse colouring patterns.

Here's another horse colour chart. Very useful!

Wild West house rules

Back in the nineties, we ran quite a lot of Wild West games, both in 54mm and 28mm. We used a little ruleset called "Shootist" (Bunblebee games), and adapted the rules over the years. Everything is now collected on the Wild West House Rules page.

54mm gunslingers in action.

Wet Paint: forest troll

Just a quick post to show the completed forest troll from before. Here he (it) is in finished glory: