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:
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.
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.
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.
ReplyDeleteWondering 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
DeleteThanks, 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.
And without an opponent to countercheck, is your confidence high that the rules are always being played correctly? I know that I may slip on rules' interpretations when learning a new ruleset solely from solo play.
DeleteI 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. .
ReplyDeleteThe future plans that are being painted in are several Napoleonic period units.
Sounds good, Joe!
DeleteInteresting distillation of themes. Intrigued, I asked perplexity.ai to do the same. Compare & contrast.
ReplyDeleteInteresting, indeed. Did AI reach into this post as well?
DeleteNo. Just the one source (as it says a the top of the page ;-) ).
DeleteExcellent 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.
ReplyDeletePainting 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.
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.
DeleteExcellent summary of the previous post Jonathan.
ReplyDeleteTwo 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
And an excellent response, Neil! Stating that many of us may not have many years left is like a cold slap to the face. Ouch!
DeleteOn rules, I wonder if the progression from slow/complex to faster/less complex has at least as much to do about advances in game design as it does an aging population? We used to design for process, but now the tendency is toward abstraction and design for effect.
Like you, I tend to march to the beat of my own drum. Most often, I can be found playing my own or friends' rules rather than straight RAW commercial designs. The "who you play and not what you play" was lifted directly from your earlier response.
I fit into much of the summary. On the point of skirmish games, I think there are a significant group of people who take the benefits of a skirmish system, but stretch it to give the sense of the bigger battle, resulting in a sort of middle ground between old school grandeur and modern fast play and its smaller collecting footprint. I think Matt and your good self practice this with your AWI games, which are often ‘representing’ the bigger picture …. Well at least bigger than the term ‘skirmish game’ might suggest.
ReplyDeleteYes, you do fit into much of the summary! Of course, your responses helped drive this narrative. Matt and I have definitively been stretching R&P beyond its intended scope, to enjoy results too. Me, I still prefer Big Battles and rules that are tailored to resolving them.
DeleteA very interesting read, I find the whole "thing" is important, I love the research, I enjoy painting when I get the chance, very relaxing and it is always fun to try and find the "perfect ruleset" I don't really do skirmish games so can't really comment on them, with retirement looming I will be able to indulge in leaving the table set up and play longer games or campaigns, well that's the plan anyway!
ReplyDeleteI am with you, Donnie! The whole thing is important to me as well. Hopefully, your approaching retirement plan survives contact with reality!
DeleteAn interesting refresher there Jon and plenty of good comments too:). Looking afresh at this, some thoughts from my perspective:
ReplyDeletePainting vs Gaming
I suppose when I played Mordheim, 28mm WWII skirmish etc, then painting was a lot more important to me, as gaming was less frequent. Also having just a few forces meant you tended to really focus on these as you had little other distractions. A complete reversal with the move to 10mm though!
Game Length & Complexity
If we play an all-dayer, we spend so much time chatting these days, that the actual game time is probably around the 3-4 hour mark anyway! I think this was the same back in the day when the club would put on a days gaming, which invariably consisted of several games, rather than on elong one. Certainly rules you are au fait with allow you to hit that sweet sport of depth in the game, but within a reasonable time frame. For myself, I can normally get a satisfying BKCII game played to a finish in 2 hours, maximun 3. If more units were involved, then the time would increase, but not nescessarily the enjoyment, as I would have too many units under my command!
Skirmish & Realism
Certainly 28mm skirmish games are massively popular for many reasons, which we probably all can surmise. How realistic you want them to be is open to debate. I remember a set of rules from the 1970's, probably Chivalry & Sorcery, that were sooooo detailed, that it took us an hour to play a turn of combat when at school! Compare this to Dany Mersey's rules, that tick all the boxes for me, as with age, the fun and the story are the main enjoyment.
Time, Focus and Attention Span
I find I can easily concentrate on a game to the same level as say 20 years ago, the problem is the sheer amount of distraction one has in the digital age with social media etc. Everytime my 'phone pings, I need to check it in case it's something urgent for our son, but it never is! Recently I stopped accessing social media, other than Blogs, as it was taking too much of my time, as well as my attention of more important things.
Variety, Choice & The Future
When I do see a wargames magazine, or even read my old ones, I'm constantly surprised at how many rulesets there are out there or are being released, and wonder how many are still played or will be in a year or so's time? Sticking with a few core rulesets means I can get a rich gaming experience in with ease, within the constraints outlined above. They work for me, and frankly that's all that matters!
Steve! This is a most interesting summary of your Wargaming Life! You bring up a number of interesting points that likely resonate with many. Funny that an all-day game ends up boiling down to 3-4 hours no matter what. I agree that there are many more distractions in today's world than in year's gone past. Still, this is a patient hobby that forces a state of concentration to accomplish anything. Perhaps skirmish games and rules allow for reduced focus? I bet many rules we see published have a short shelf life. Notice how many commercial rules are published with great expectation and fanfare only to slip away when the next new thing comes along. I am sure we all can name a few of these. I know I can!
DeleteGreat comment! Thanks!
I'm in the painter first category - love the look of finished figures and nice terrain, but not willing to use "complex" playtime-consuming rules.
ReplyDeleteWell, you are a great painter, so your choice is no surprise!
DeleteInteresting commentary Jon, the slower part of our hobby is clearly important for me, spending time creating and planning, narrative engagements. It is nearly always about the story for me. This means the historical accuracy and complexity/detail of the rules is not important. They just need to feel right for the period. What I don’t have time for is spending hours and hours reading and play testing rules just to enable me to get my figures on the table. A good/bad example for me would be whether we really needed a third edition of Bolt Action ? I understand that some people like to be competitive in which case the rules need to be very tight to avoid people finding that loop hole which gives them some massive advantage, for those people, finding that advantage is what it’s all about, that is fine by me just not for me š
ReplyDelete