What's wrong with SF?

> The third store caters to the areas

I have to say that I come across this a lot. I just don't get it... what do
people see as the problem with SF?

> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 11:09:08AM +0000, Richard Kirke wrote:
what do
> people see as the problem with SF?

I think it's the lack of necessary research. You can't go to the library to
look up the colour of uniforms or insignia for the 3rd Vegan Rangers in the
way you can with the Big Red One. You can just make up anything
that looks good... so obviously it's not _serious_ gaming.

R

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:09:08 +0000 Richard Kirke
> <richardkirke@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The third store caters to the area's historical gamers, who were

> I have to say that I come across this a lot. I just don't get it...
what do people see as the problem with SF? <

Oh, brother... do we have time for all the reasons? Short answer (or
one of them) is that _some_ hysteric-- er, historical gamers don't
think FSF is "serious" gaming. After all, it doesn't involve actual
events -- it's fiction, "made-up stuff" which can't be relied on to be
logical or even consistent, so how can a "simulation" be realistic?

I could go on, but won't, and I expect that all of us here on this list would
agree that that is, in the words of the late, great Douglas Adams, a load of
dingoes' kidneys, but that's the attitude that some of
the more rabid historical types take -- FSS is not "proper" wargaming,
it's immature, over-grown kids playing with toys.

Funny, but that's what a lot of non-gamers think about wargames in
general...

Phil
----
Gravity is a Downer... So let's go flying!

> Oh, brother... do we have time for all the reasons? Short answer (or

Well, this is true. But for me this is often the draw of such a set up, nobody
actually died during these conflicts. I don't wish to accuse historical
wargamers of anyhting... after all I play historical wargames

quite regularly, I just find anything more modern than WWII a bit... close to
home. Perhaps it is that my father is a serving army officer.

> I could go on, but won't, and I expect that all of us here on this list

For my part, I do try and do a fair bit of research into the various armies, I
have NSL (based on WWII inf markings etc) and NI (based on the insignia of the
IDF from the 1970s). To try and keep the armies at least realsitic (ish). Not
that anyone int he world can read the sergeant's stripes on 25mm infantry...
but hey it keeps me happy.

Anyway, I can see that this is something that gets to other people too, at
least I am not alone...

Historical gamers tend to think their fantasy is better than that of
sci-fi/fantasy gamers.

Roger

> Richard Kirke wrote:

> The third store caters to the areas
what
> do people see as the problem with SF?

Like fantasy it's not "realistic" - having played historical oriented
games since 1959 I find this comment hilarious in light of the old Tricolor
Rules.

Gracias,
Glenn - warbeads@juno.com, maybe the last man on Earth without a web
site
.
6 mm miniatures rule! Well, anyway in my mind they do!
.
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:09:08 +0000 "Richard Kirke"
> <richardkirke@hotmail.com> writes:

If you are really interested in the behaviors behind feelings like this
("historicals are better than sci fi," "I only play fantasy games,"
etc.), I
suggest reading Desmond Morris' The Human Zoo. He's a zoologist who examines
topics like tribalism and how living in cities has impacted people. I found it
enlightening after witnessing many flame wars about "my game is better than
yours, nyah nyah."

> From: Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net>
what
> > do people see as the problem with SF?

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:09:08 +0000, "Richard Kirke"
<richardkirke@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I have to say that I come across this a lot. I just don't get it...
what do
> people see as the problem with SF?

Several reasons.

One is Games Workshop. While it's really science fantasy, it's seen as the
worst of the science fiction influenced games. We all know how unrealistic it
is. To those who prefer realistic games, it's seen as a fine example of all
that's wrong with the sci-fi version of the hobby. If you look at the
other
big sci-fi games: Vor, Warzone, etc. they are trying to hit the same
market as GW and often have those ridiculous looking armoured suits (the big
shoulder
pad problem). Even when it's supposedly "serious", sci-fi games can be
rather
silly. There are plenty of folk here that like giant robot/mech games,
but is
it _really_ likely that warfare in the future is going to require
vehicles that skylight themselves and have visual signatures the size of small
buildings?

Another is that it's pretty much all made up. Some people just have a problem
playing a game where the tactics -- based on the weaponry -- are
completely fictional. What's the proper formation to deploy your steampunk
tanks to defend against a Martian tripod? Note that even GZG products suffer
from this. SG2 isn't so much a representation of far future warfare as it is a
representation of far future warfare as seen through 1970s technology.
Artillery, just to name one, is far more effective today than it is in SG2. If
you are a simulationist and want to use realistic tactics, these realism
failings can be a real problem.

People talk about historical players being elitist. I will calmly point out
that most of the people I know will play both historicals and sci-fi. I
_have_
come across a lot of rabid fanboy types who will _only_ play sci-fi, and
who
most often will _only_ play the single game they have learned. The
elitist
"historical player" is often just a backlash to the sci-fi player who
won't look at anything beyond "The Games Workshop Hobby (TM)". Kids don't
learn a lot of history in school, or at least not in such a manner as to make
it interesting. They often see history, and historical games, as "boring".
They
don't bother even _trying_ a historical game. This has led to a backlash
(though there were some people who didn't like sci-fi games in the first
place because of a feeling that they were "made up").

Oh, and there are people who just don't like sci-fi. They are out there,
just as there are people who don't like mysteries, or fantasy, or romances.
It's not for everyone.

There are some folks with strong religious beliefs that won't play fantasy
games. I've seen _that_ a lot. They believe that "magic" (even fictional
magic) is the tool of the devil. I've met these people a couple of times
online.

I was born in 1962. I grew up watching movies and TV shows about World War II.
That was my first introduction to miniatures gaming, and it led me first to
historicals and then to sci-fi gaming. Kids today just don't see
anything historical on TV or in movies. Instead, the big movies for kids are
almost
always sci-fi. Kids who wouldn't _think_ of reading about WW2 pour over
GW Codex books. Meanwhile, those of us who grew up with a real interest in
history just can't see the reason for getting all worked up about fictional
background universes. (This is one of the reasons that I don't usually
participate in the hot debates over the GZG background; it's just fluff for
giving games a context, not something of any real interest to me.) This has
resulted in a generation gap, with both camps looking at the other with
disdain.

Finally, sci-fi games have a habit of taking over game stores and
conventions. I'm thinking GW again. Miniatures stores end up having to bring
in GW just to pay the bills. This means that table space in the store often
has to be shared between historical players and GW players. GW is more
popular, so the miniatures players are shunted to fewer tables, or fewer days
in a month that they can play. This happens at conventions, too. As a result,
historical players have to have their own specific historical game conventions
just to have their own games played. In the end, an "us against them"
mentality sets in.

I will repeat something: most of the people I know will play historical
_and_
sci-fi. A recent thread on rec.games.miniatures.historical suggests that
this is quite common. The elitist historical player exists, but I suspect he's
not
as common as people who play historicals and sci-fi and/or fantasy. I
also
suspect that _both_ camps are dwarfed by people who _only_ play sci-fi
or only play fantasy. We have all heard the stories here about GZG players
trying to pry people out of the pockets of GW.

> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Richard Kirke wrote:

> >The third store caters to the areas
what do
> people see as the problem with SF?

According to the local Historical group, its because the purpose of wargaming
is to exactly recreate the battle and the rules are supposed to give teh exact
factors that influenced teh battle (I'm sorry, but your general had a cold
taht day so we're going to impose special cold rules on you:). They don't play
because its fun, they play because its historical reasearch. Of course they
don't like it when I point out that if they excactly capture the battle, its
going to turn out the same as it did in

history and they could just read the Osprey book...

I think its fear that they might have to think for themselves instead of

using a script.

> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 10:23:39AM -0500, tsarith@io.com wrote:

I believe there's an ACW wargame which has special rules for General Hood's
opium hallucinations (from patent medicines)...

The other factors that this type of player blatantly ignores are:

1) you know how the battle is going to turn out - it's written in the
history books. Along with that, you know what factors influenced the outcome.
If you alter those factors (the uncertainty of reinforcements, not knowing a
river was fordable, mistaking enemy for friendlies etc) then you have deviated
from the "historical" version, it then starts to become "fantasy" or
"alternative".

2) Modern players are more educated, have greater access to knowledge,
analyses, treaties than any other "generals" from any other time period. Does
anyone ever factor the fact that the player's inherent knowledge compared to
historical generals is vastly superior and obviously
"non-historical"?

3) Most games are not double-blind referee moderated.  The "Fog of War"
has decided many a battle, and yet most "historical" games do not have this
factor. Usually both sides know exactly the force composition, position,
strength (morale, ammo etc) of the opposing force. There is no "surprise". In
a real battle, when your skirmishers encounter the enemy, it could be a
screen, a skirmish or the beginning of a massive assault. Until you gather
enough intel, there is a huge range of possibilities. In most historical
games, you know the opposing force is going to be roughly
equal in force or position (defensive) to your own - as few people enjoy
getting run over by 10 to 1 odds.

It's interesting to note that when playing against "die-hard" historical
gamers in computer moderated or online RTS "historical" games, their abilities
and enthusiasm suddenly drop, as their omniscient abilities disappear. They
are constantly getting flanked, over powered or under
supplied, especially in real-time or time-limited turn conditions.

You could also factor in real generals are tired, hungry, cold, stressed and
have a fear of getting blown up that most armchair generals never have to
face. (ok, maybe hungry and tired)

--Binhan

> -----Original Message-----

Having been flamed for pointing out problems with historical gaming
'attitudes' and the effects on potential gamers, I strongly want to take the
other side this time. I have great admiration for folks able to watch a WWII
film, and twitch when a tank 'just doesn't look right'. Mind you, I
twitch when a Sherman is run as a Tiger. ;->=

People who are able to know the envelope made of politics, society, climate,
geography, etc., that surrounds a game situation add to the game experience.
This can enoble the activity. The only problem I have is with an air of
distain of a few that may accompany such love. When a grognard waxes lyric,
eyes glowing, about the actual shortage of ammo for Germans
following D-Day, I listen entranced. He just needs to respect my wanting
to learn without demeaning my ignorance.

The main problem I have with the attitude turned on SF is that I've seen
plenty of lackluster, flatly portrayed micro armor battles, while the whole
Rot Hofen story and associated battles show that a compelling 'story' can be
presented with SF gaming.

The_Beast

> People talk about historical players being elitist. I will calmly point

> _have_

> They

HMGS -- the Historical Miniatures Gaming Society -- *used* to be really
bad with this kind of attitude. SF were really looked down upon, and if you
ran one? Snide comments would abound.

(We ran a modern skirmish game one year, got lots of great comments, and

then used the same board for a 15mm SF game. Pictures appeared in the next
newletter, complete with really condescending comments.)

That said, lots of the dealers did -- and do -- bring SF and fantasy
minis to sell. And they sell LOTS of 'em, too. And when SF games are being
run? No problem getting players...even though the games were only allowed to
be run on Sundays.

Most of the bad attitudes were coming from above, and had little or nothing to
do with the opinions of the general membership. And things have cnaged a great
deal; I understand that the showcase game at Historicon this year is going to
be a series of battles from Tolkien's War of the Ring.

> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:15:55 +0000, "John C" <john1x@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Most of the bad attitudes were coming from above, and had little or

There seems to be a bit of noise coming from the more vocal "historicals
only!" people on rec.games.miniatures.historical about this, but it's
interesting to see just how many "die hard historical" players have popped up
and defended the game. It doesn't hurt that the person putting it on is well
known for doing elaborate, excellent looking games where everyone involved
greatly enjoys themselves. I think he goes by "Duke Sauron" but he's one of
those people where folks line up to get tickets to his events. It should be
awesome. I wish I could go...

> I think he goes by "Duke Sauron" but he's one of

My mistake. I think he normally goes by "Duke Sigfried". He's "Duke Sauron"
this year for obvious reasons. *L*

> Allan Goodall wrote:
wrote:
> >Most of the bad attitudes were coming from above, and had little or

AFAIK he goes by Duke Seigfreid (sp).

From: "Allan Goodall" <agoodall@hyperbear.com>

> There seems to be a bit of noise coming from the more vocal

I'm a historical gamer - but also have been known to indulge in Fantasy,
and even Full Thrust <g>

Back in the 1970s, when I first started "Modern" gaming, we researched what
was still in the Labs, and tried to simulate what we thought would be
happening in or around the year 2000.

We were heavy on the smart bombs and ATGWs, but didn't predict either Chobham
Armour or Long-Rode penetrators.

We got roundly castigated by the "historical fanatics" for doing such SF
stuff -
lasers and suchlike - but they were quite comfy with WARPAC vs NATO
confrontations, which were and still are now thankfully in the realm of
Fantasy.

To me, a well-researched Orc army list, or a list for the forces
employed during the siege of Gondor, is at least as valid as a clash between
1799 Neapolitans
and 1814 Swedes - yet the latter was called "historical" then.

The attitude towards historical gaming has changed a lot since then, with the
WRG not only providing army lists for "Ancients", but also providing data
about historical opponents, or opponents they *could* have fought. For
example, the 1000 AD Welsh Army List's opponents include Native Americans from
the Louisiana region IIRC, based upon the apocryphal stories about Madoc's
voyage west. But No

I play both myself and I tend to try to put the snobs in there places. I would
also argue that it goes both ways. There are plenty of
sci-fi/fantasy
gamers that will give yo uthe same level of crud for proposing historical
games (I know I tried to get my buddies into historical games). I think the
thing I liked about SG2 is that it felt like history even though it's in a
sci-fi setting.  It was hard-egdged and seemed to stick to "realistic"
weapons technology.

I think it really comes down to the same thing you find with any
fan-based
passtime. Football vs Baseball, Ford vs Chevy, import vs domestic. We all like
to pick and choose and tend to defend what we think is best.

Eli
[quoted original message omitted]