Sunday, December 14, 2025

Journey v. Destination: Commentary

Curious to see the Paradox of Modern Wargaming post return to the Top 10 posts widget after having fallen off the leaderboard, I returned to the post for a refresher.

As a corollary to the tortoise and hare fable, I argue that modern miniature wargaming is caught in a paradox.  That is, wargamers invest huge amounts of time in painting, research, and terrain building, yet increasingly favor fast-play rules and shorter games that can play to conclusion in an hour or two.  The contrast between the long “journey” of preparation with the brief “destination” of modern game duration prompts a question.  That is, does an emphasis on speed and efficiency at the gaming table undermine the depth, narrative, and sense of accomplishment that typically justified all that effort?  Of course, this is a simplification, and both have a place in the hobby.

With more than two score of readers weighing in on the topic, I try to distill this collective wisdom, experience, and insight into a handful of common themes from the many, generous responses.  Taking up a tally sheet, I scored the responses.  A synopsis follows: 

Painting v. Gaming
I’ve noticed a bifurcation in how wargamers approach the hobby. Some clearly see painting as a means to an end. These gamers paint so they can play. They describe themselves as warGAMERS, not painters. Others admit that painting figures and building terrain are satisfying in their own right.  Even if an army never hits the table, there is still get plenty of joy from this facet of the hobby.  I reckon blogging feeds into that too.  Being able to share progress, swap tips, and show off completed projects gives painting its own reward separate from gaming.

Game Length and Complexity
The comments about game length are interesting.  Many of us remember those day‑long (or even multi‑day) games of the old days.  I have had many.  Now, most gamers seem to prefer games that wrap up in two to four hours.  Long enough to tell a story but not so long that they feel like slogging through mud. The sweet spot seems to be rules that flow naturally and don’t bury players under numerous tables and exhausting detail.  A few people pointed out how older “proper” rule sets rarely reached a satisfying finish, while modern abstract systems often feel just as plausible and more fun.  I tend to agree.

Skirmish, Scale, and “Realism”
The boom in skirmish and “big skirmish” games has been fascinating to watch develop.  These results are backed by results from the Great Wargaming Survey.  Some historical periods (Western gunfights, pulp, sci‑fi, modern small‑unit actions) fit this format perfectly. Others, like pike‑and‑shot, maybe not so much. On this topic, there is debate. Personally, I like the idea that “realism” doesn’t have to mean a simulation.  I do enjoy simulations, though.  If the outcomes are believable and the game captures the right flavor of a period, that’s good enough for me.

Time, Focus, and the Modern Hobby
The whole “declining attention span” theory gets thrown around a lot, but some (like Stew, Norm, and JWH) don’t buy it.  As several commenters pointed out, it’s more about life and time than attention.  Most of us, having gamed for decades, simply don’t have the same long afternoons we once did.  Well, until retirement, that is!  Shorter games fit better with real life.  I suspect those players craving detailed simulations may now find that level of detail in computer wargames.  On the tabletop, people seem more interested in enjoying each other’s company and finishing games with a sense of closure.

Variety, Choice, and the Future
If the hobby suffers from anything these days, it’s too much choice.  Every month brings new rules, new scales, and new shiny projects to distract us.  Yet, no one seems particularly worried about the future.  A few long‑time gamers said it flat‑out.  If we are enjoying ourselves now, that is what matters.  Whether historical miniature wargaming thrives beyond our generation isn’t the main concern.  Playing with the right people and finding pleasure and satisfaction in the process, whatever form that takes, is key.

Perhaps there is no paradox in this context at all but a nuanced and individual approach to wargaming.

Thanks to all for contributing your insights to my little study.

10 comments:

  1. An interesting topic you raise which has got me thinking. I have a permanent though modest table [6x4] that I can leave up all the time and mainly play solo. In theory there is no reason why I can't play long and complex games but I tend to go for the shorter games you describe and a number of them that only require the smaller table size. I also give more time to painting figures than anything else and probably to reading next.
    Wondering why, my first response is that it let's me get a variety of collections [and rules, I've used 14 different set this year with just over 30 games] crossing the table and so motivating painting units for different periods. [That sounds better than laziness or lack of attention span!]
    Keep up your reflections and questions - they stimulate the grey matter.
    Stephen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Thanks, Stephen! Playing 14 different rulesets in a solo setting is impressive. How often do you mix up rules given that 14 rules across 30 games is quite a variety? This does not suggest laziness or lack of attention span at all. Variety is the spice of life after all.

      Delete
  2. I am going to have a pretty quiet weekend with Friday being the main game , using Silver Bayonet, a three hour game fro set up to pick up. Down in my basement is the tactical situation for the WW2 game that I am lucky enough to keep on the table. .
    The future plans that are being painted in are several Napoleonic period units.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting distillation of themes. Intrigued, I asked perplexity.ai to do the same. Compare & contrast.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting, indeed. Did AI reach into this post as well?

      Delete
    2. No. Just the one source (as it says a the top of the page ;-) ).

      Delete
  4. Excellent post, as was the original article. It’s an interesting paradox, as you say. I love the long, slow process of building and painting armies in miniature, but I also really enjoy games that can be brought to a satisfying conclusion within a few hours. Personally, I don’t see these very different timescales as incompatible, because each activity gives me something quite different.

    Painting is relaxing and meditative, and it scratches that itch for detail and craftsmanship. Playing a wargame, on the other hand, is a very different experience. While I do enjoy solo games, wargaming is primarily a social activity for me. Because of that, a game that can reach a clear and enjoyable conclusion in four to five hours fits the bill perfectly.

    That said, I’m lucky enough to have a dedicated hobby space at home, a great group of friends, and access to a venue that can accommodate longer games. I completely understand the appeal—and the necessity—of shorter games lasting one to two hours. Club venues, busy lives, and competing commitments can make longer games difficult to manage. I’d much rather people get some gaming in, even a short one, than none at all.

    So is there really a paradox between the slow, methodical pace of building and painting an army and the desire for quicker games? In my humble opinion, I’m not sure there is. It may simply reflect the practical realities of wargaming today. Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing, however, is an entirely different discussion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent comment, Lee! Painting is a relaxing, meditative endeavor for me as well. If not for remote gaming, the number of games played would be much fewer and the average game length much longer.

      Delete
  5. Excellent summary of the previous post Jonathan.
    Two additional points I'd add.
    Rules. Is the move to less complex, faster play related to age? While I'm not ready for the dementia ward yet, I find in my early 60s I cannot be bothered adding up factors and looking at two tables before rolling a dice, yet alone retaining all those rules in my head!
    It may be however, that as we get older, we can discard the necessity to accept the status quo and have become more selective in what we play? I played games in my youth that could take an hour to resolve a single turn and involved multiple calculations. Now? Could not be bothered!
    I guess, there's also the realisation we don't have many years left.......tempis fugit and all that!
    Secondly, motivation. Why do we embark on this hobby and what motivates us to continue?
    For some, as you suggest, it's about the game, others the painting and scenery, some the history.
    Myself, I came to it via two strands; military modelling and the history. I discovered not only could you create models, but also use them to recreate historical battles.
    I have been in my time someone who simply played the game and painted figures simply to field them. I had a road to Damascus moment, when the game I played bore no resemblance to history or even reality and my hasty painted figures looked appalling. I was playing someone who while they apparently shared the same aesthetics and historical knowledge, simply wanted to win.
    From then on, I have marched to my own beat. I am driven by an interest in periods, sometimes obscure, and seek to recreate them in miniature to the best of my ability. When recreating the battles and campaigns, I want historically accurate yet simple and elegant mechanisms in a well designed and clever set of rules.
    I have found myself, increasingly looking at higher levels of representation as well as imaginary conflicts based on historical prototypes.
    As I always say, it's not the what, but the WHO you play that's important. Unless you have a common aim, your games will not be satisfying or lead to external or internal discord.
    Neil

    ReplyDelete