Why You Should Try Wargames and What You're Possibly Missing Out On (Part II)

[zhenxiao]

You know, the only reason I never got into the Wargames, like Avalon Hill stuff, was not for the lack of interest.  But its the fact that I didn't have anyone around who was interested in these types of games.  Every place I've lived, I've not known many people interested in these games.  But now I live here, there's a community of players.  Which leads me to my next problem, getting to go game with them.  *sigh*  I need to buy Ambush, so I can at least play a solo variation of the game. 

I think Ambush was my real first introduction to these games.  I had a high school math teacher who played it and knew I was into the rpgs, so he was always telling me (rather excitedly) about what happened to his "squad" over the weekend.  I was always interested in what he said.  He just seemed like he was having a grand ole time.

[Mark Humphries]

Board wargames do not necessarily reflect the prominent aspects of combat or of the historical period involved

The better ones attempt to, just like a book they express the designer's viewpoint on what he deems salient.

are not usually open-ended

They tend to be more open-ended than most other boardgame genres, but less so than RPGs for example.

and do not usually deal with randomness.

What do you mean by 'deal'? Randomness is prominent in almost all board wargames.

Rather, they have to deal with the limitations of the medium and of players, which doesn't matter because they are meant more to entertain than to inform.

All games are constrained by medium and players, nothing new there. Entertainment is in the eye of the beholder. Wargames are designed to be informative entertainment for those with an interest in the topic. Like most wargamers I am not entertained by a wargame that is not informative, yet I can be entertained by a Euro that is not informative. Do you perceive the contrast?

Is there a point I'm not seeing that you're trying to make?

[Mark Humphries]

You know, the only reason I never got into the Wargames, like Avalon Hill stuff, was not for the lack of interest.  But its the fact that I didn't have anyone around who was interested in these types of games.  Every place I've lived, I've not known many people interested in these games.  But now I live here, there's a community of players.  Which leads me to my next problem, getting to go game with them.  *sigh*  I need to buy Ambush, so I can at least play a solo variation of the game. 

I think Ambush was my real first introduction to these games.  I had a high school math teacher who played it and knew I was into the rpgs, so he was always telling me (rather excitedly) about what happened to his "squad" over the weekend.  I was always interested in what he said.  He just seemed like he was having a grand ole time.

Ambush is a great game, one of the best solo games. Unfortunately it's long out of print but there are plenty of good in-print solo games available.

If you're free this Saturday, you could attend our monthly Wargame Meet in Ortigas Center. Here's the link to the event thread: http://www.tabletopwars.com/bb/index.php/topic,5780.0.html

We will also have a table at the upcoming Gaming Library Free Gaming Day at Robinsons Galleria on July 30: http://www.tabletopwars.com/bb/index.php/topic,5814.0.html

If you're not free on Saturdays I'd be happy to schedule a session with you when you have some free time.

If you're on Facebook, please join the Philboardgamers FB Group http://www.facebook.com/groups/61374458515, we share a lot of introductory videos and wargame reviews.

[Gerald]

Board wargames do not necessarily reflect the prominent aspects of combat or of the historical period involved, are not usually open-ended, and do not usually deal with randomness. Rather, they have to deal with the limitations of the medium and of players, which doesn't matter because they are meant more to entertain than to inform.

Hmmm... I'm not sure what wargame(s) you're pertaining to, but the wargames I have played are usually very open ended and DO reflect the prominent aspects of the historical period involved (albeit sometimes in an abstract way).  I think it'd help if you could site examples of what games you're referring to, so that we have a solid starting point to further this discussion.

With regards to the limitations of the medium and of the players... well, aren't battles limited to the imagination and ingenuity of the generals/commanders as well?  And aren't wars limited to their "medium" in the sense that you can't have arctic warfare in the middle of the desert.  Hehehehe... I admit, I often miss "the point", and if so, would be happy if you would constructively correct me.

[paenggoy]

The better ones attempt to, just like a book they express the designer's viewpoint on what he deems salient.

"Attempt" is right.

They tend to be more open-ended than most other boardgame genres, but less so than RPGs for example.

"Tend" is right.

What do you mean by 'deal'? Randomness is prominent in almost all board wargames.

By "usually deal," I mean they "attempt" or "tend." There are still limitations to available options. Also, the point about randomness as "prominent" may also apply to non-board wargames.

All games are constrained by medium and players, nothing new there. Entertainment is in the eye of the beholder. Wargames are designed to be informative entertainment for those with an interest in the topic. Like most wargamers I am not entertained by a wargame that is not informative, yet I can be entertained by a Euro that is not informative. Do you perceive the contrast?

In my case, I can be entertained by a game that is not informative, and the entertainment that I receive from that type of game may be different from something that I find entertaining and informative. On top of that, the term "informative" can vary from game to game. Finally, these points also apply to non-board wargames.

Is there a point I'm not seeing that you're trying to make?

All of the points raised so far about board wargames also apply to non-board wargames.

[paenggoy]

Hmmm... I'm not sure what wargame(s) you're pertaining to, but the wargames I have played are usually very open ended and DO reflect the prominent aspects of the historical period involved (albeit sometimes in an abstract way).  I think it'd help if you could site examples of what games you're referring to, so that we have a solid starting point to further this discussion.

Probably fantasy wargames where the game ends with a win, loss, or draw.

With regards to the limitations of the medium and of the players... well, aren't battles limited to the imagination and ingenuity of the generals/commanders as well?  And aren't wars limited to their "medium" in the sense that you can't have arctic warfare in the middle of the desert.  Hehehehe... I admit, I often miss "the point", and if so, would be happy if you would constructively correct me.

Also, limited by rules in the game.

The medium limits war not only given that example, but also seen in "fog of war," etc.

[zhenxiao]

Mark,

Thanks for the invite!  Much appreciated.  However, as several people here at TW can attest, my travelling is severely "hindered".  I usually get one day a week, and that's a Sunday.  Which is always at odds with the times that most meets gather. And then, I generally can't travel too far from home. 

*sigh*  Anyone got a hacksaw so I can cut the chain off this ball attached to my ankle???

[Mark Humphries]

The better ones attempt to, just like a book they express the designer's viewpoint on what he deems salient.

"Attempt" is right.

Ok, so we agree.

They tend to be more open-ended than most other boardgame genres, but less so than RPGs for example.

"Tend" is right.

Ok, so we agree.

What do you mean by 'deal'? Randomness is prominent in almost all board wargames.

By "usually deal," I mean they "attempt" or "tend." There are still limitations to available options. Also, the point about randomness as "prominent" may also apply to non-board wargames.

Of course there are limitations, how could it be otherwise?
The point about randomness being prominent was a rebuttal to you saying wargames 'do not usually deal with randomness'.

All games are constrained by medium and players, nothing new there. Entertainment is in the eye of the beholder. Wargames are designed to be informative entertainment for those with an interest in the topic. Like most wargamers I am not entertained by a wargame that is not informative, yet I can be entertained by a Euro that is not informative. Do you perceive the contrast?

In my case, I can be entertained by a game that is not informative, and the entertainment that I receive from that type of game may be different from something that I find entertaining and informative. On top of that, the term "informative" can vary from game to game. Finally, these points also apply to non-board wargames.

You were the one that claimed 'doesn't matter because they are meant more to entertain than to inform'. What is the basis of this claim? Do you know many boardwargame designers and are you privy to their intentions?

Is there a point I'm not seeing that you're trying to make?

All of the points raised so far about board wargames also apply to non-board wargames.

We have been attempting to highlight the most obvious contrasts between a typical board wargame and what most local hobby boardgamers (e.g. OGM, or Red Ribbon attendies) are used to playing. If you do not believe the contrasts we raised are relevant or valid ones, what would you propose as the most salient differences?
Surely you must perceive how radically different a typical board wargame (e.g. such as Tide at Sunrise, or Bataan, or Across the Pacific), is from the games they typically play such as Agricola, 7 Wonders, and Race for the Galaxy. I await any useful contributions you might make.

[Mark Humphries]

Hmmm... I'm not sure what wargame(s) you're pertaining to, but the wargames I have played are usually very open ended and DO reflect the prominent aspects of the historical period involved (albeit sometimes in an abstract way).  I think it'd help if you could site examples of what games you're referring to, so that we have a solid starting point to further this discussion.

Probably fantasy wargames where the game ends with a win, loss, or draw.

I don't think you're understanding what we mean by open-ended. It has nothing to do with how a game ends.

With regards to the limitations of the medium and of the players... well, aren't battles limited to the imagination and ingenuity of the generals/commanders as well?  And aren't wars limited to their "medium" in the sense that you can't have arctic warfare in the middle of the desert.  Hehehehe... I admit, I often miss "the point", and if so, would be happy if you would constructively correct me.

Also, limited by rules in the game.

The medium limits war not only given that example, but also seen in "fog of war," etc.

Of course the game is limited by the rules, without rules there would be no game. I think we can all take this for granted, no one is questioning that.

[Mark Humphries]

Mark,

Thanks for the invite!  Much appreciated.  However, as several people here at TW can attest, my travelling is severely "hindered".  I usually get one day a week, and that's a Sunday.  Which is always at odds with the times that most meets gather. And then, I generally can't travel too far from home. 

*sigh*  Anyone got a hacksaw so I can cut the chain off this ball attached to my ankle???

That's too bad. Let me know the next time you have a reprieve from your ball and chain and I will try to work around your schedule and limitations so we can get together and game.

[paenggoy]

Ok, so we agree.

Well, that was my point.

Ok, so we agree.

That was also my point.

Of course there are limitations, how could it be otherwise?
The point about randomness being prominent was a rebuttal to you saying wargames 'do not usually deal with randomness'.

I am responding to the statement, "Many boardgamers cannot countenance chaos or randomness, wargames are not for them either."

But wargames are usually restricted by certain rules, such that "chaos" or "randomness" cannot take place.

You were the one that claimed 'doesn't matter because they are meant more to entertain than to inform'. What is the basis of this claim? Do you know many boardwargame designers and are you privy to their intentions?

Well, as you put it, "informative entertainment." If the game is not informative, then you may be still be entertained because it's informative. If it's not informative but entertaining, then you're still entertained.

We have been attempting to highlight the most obvious contrasts between a typical board wargame and what most local hobby boardgamers (e.g. OGM, or Red Ribbon attendies) are used to playing. If you do not believe the contrasts we raised are relevant or valid ones, what would you propose as the most salient differences?
Surely you must perceive how radically different a typical board wargame (e.g. such as Tide at Sunrise, or Bataan, or Across the Pacific), is from the games they typically play such as Agricola, 7 Wonders, and Race for the Galaxy. I await any useful contributions you might make.

I think historical-based RPGs, economic simulations, etc., can also have the same advantages: randomness, open-endedness, information, and entertainment.

[Mark Humphries]

paenggoy,

I think what we have here is a failure of communication. I still have no idea what points, if any, you're trying to make, and what relevance, if any,  they might have to the topic at hand, which is to help people gain a better appreciation for board wargaming. We don't even seem to have compatible understandings of basic terms such as 'randomness'. How you can persist in claiming that randomness cannot take place in a wargame, when wargames commonly resolve combat through die rolls and probability tables, just boggles my mind since this is a textbook example of a random variable. I think we would have a much better chance of understanding each other if we continue this conversation as a face-to-face exchange, at a future OGM for example.