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.

Paradox of Modern Wargaming

The paradox?  Speed vs. Journey in the Digital Age.  

As the Palouse Wargaming Journal passes its thirteenth anniversary, these anniversaries often bring up a time of reflection on the past.  Reflections this year saw a return to one particular post I wrote more than two years ago on how battle reports are read (see Reporting from the Front: How are Battle Reports Read).  Besides a perceived change in writing and reading battle reports, has the underlying wargaming landscape, likewise, undergone change in how we participate?  For these reflections, I refer to these perceived changes as "modern" wargaming.

The modern wargaming landscape presents an interesting paradox that hits at the core of wargaming's identity.  We dedicate months, sometimes years, to painting armies, researching historical uniforms, and crafting detailed terrain.  All of these time-consuming preparatory activities result in bringing the efforts to the gaming table in a game that frequently can be completed in under an hour.  This contradiction raises fundamental questions about whether we've lost sight of the journey in favor of quick results, and whether the very tools meant to enhance our hobby experience have inadvertently diminished it.

Rise of the Quick-Play Culture
The trend toward quick-play wargames and rules has become undeniably to the fore in recent years.  This reflects a broader shift in gaming preferences, with players increasingly gravitating toward games that can be completed in two to three hours or less.  The Great Wargaming Survey supports this notion with only 17% of respondents saying that a game longer than three hours is preferred. 

The market has responded accordingly.  Wargames designated as "small footprint" and games designed to be "quick play" have proliferated.  Systems like One-Hour Wargames or the many One-Page rules promise battles that only take about one hour to fight to conclusion. This compression is not only limited to casual, pick-up games.  Even complex historical scenarios are being redesigned for rapid consumption.

The Commands & Colors Revolution
Perhaps no single system better exemplifies this shift than Richard Borg's Commands & Colors series.  I have introduced a number of gamers to historical miniatures gaming through Commands & Colors.  The appeal is clear.  These games provide the feeling of playing a mass battle game while allowing players to refight the entire historical battle in relatively short time.  Often, we can complete four or five games in a single three-hour gaming session.

The genius of Commands & Colors lies in its ability to deliver satisfying tactical decision-making within a streamlined framework.  Players experience interesting tactical decisions despite rules' simplicity.  This combination creates a perfect melding of boardgame and wargame.  Rarely are two games played the same.  With the success of this system, countless other designs have followed a similar path.  Adding miniatures into the mix makes a solid system even better.

The Attention Span Crisis
This shift toward game length brevity may reflect broader changes in human attention patterns.  Research suggests a significant decrease in focused attention.  Decreased attention span is not confined to gaming but surfaces across all digital platforms.  The digital age creates environments where stimuli constantly compete for our attention.  This competition leads to frequent task-switching and cognitive overload.

The push toward shorter duration games leads game designers to create experiences that captivate players without overwhelming them.  Designers must create a balance between engaging gameplay and the brain's need for managing cognitive loads.  This reality suggests that the trend toward shorter games isn't merely preference but an adaptation to fundamental changes in how our brains process extended engagement.

The Painting Paradox
The most striking contradiction in modern wargaming lies in the seeming disconnect between our dedication to army preparation and actual gameplay.  While game size has decreased with an increased tendency toward skirmish games, wargamers continue to invest enormous amounts of time to painting.  Some paint hundreds or even thousands of figures per year.  As supported by the Great Wargaming Survey, for many, painting is the hobby and represents their primary source of satisfaction.

Yet this same community increasingly seeks games that can be completed in a fraction of the time spent preparing armies for battle.  Have the visual and creative aspects of painting and building armies become more important than the gaming experience itself?

The Tournament Mindset
With a move to decreased game length and simplified rules, have we all become tournament players without realizing it?  The emphasis on quick resolution, standardized rules, and efficient gameplay mirrors competitive tournament formats.  Traditional narrative gaming, with its emphasis on story development and immersive experience, requires time and patience.  These attributes seem increasingly scarce.

The tournament approach prioritizes clear winners, efficient mechanics, and reproducible results.  While these aren't inherently negative qualities, they represent a significant departure from the storytelling and narrative-building traditions that historically defined miniature wargaming.  The question becomes whether we're losing something essential in this transition.

Historical Perspective and the Path Forward
Looking at this trend historically, it's worth questioning whether our time constraints are genuinely different from those of previous generations. Wargamers of the 1970s and 1980s faced similar challenges of limited time and competing priorities, yet they typically maintained longer, more involved games. The difference may lie not in available time, but in our expectations and attention patterns.

The solution isn't necessarily to reject quick-play systems.  Many of these innovations represent genuine improvements in accessibility and enjoyment. Rather, we need to consciously preserve space for deeper, more involved gaming experiences that justify the enormous investment we make in army preparation.

Perhaps the answer lies in recognizing that different types of games serve different purposes.  As mentioned about Commands & Colors earlier, quick-play systems excel at introducing new players, providing weeknight entertainment, and exploring new periods or rules.  Quick-play systems, however, should not completely replace the longer, more involved games that allow armies to truly shine and narratives to develop naturally.

The wargaming hobby is broad enough to accommodate both approaches.  What we must guard against is the unconscious drift toward speed and simplicity at the expense of depth and immersion.  The months we spend painting and preparing should lead to gaming experiences worthy of that investment.  We should foster experiences that prioritize the journey as much as the destination, and that create lasting memories rather than merely efficient outcomes.

In the end, the choice between quick results and meaningful journeys isn't binary. Diverse gaming communities will likely embrace both, often in harmony.  I enjoy both types of games and each has its place.  The purpose of the game and available resources should determine the choice of gaming system.  Our beautifully painted armies deserve nothing less than this thoughtful balance.

Reporting from the Front: How Are Battle Reports Read?

Among the many cogitations I have on wargaming in general and blogging in particular, battle reporting comes up as a frequent subject in my ponderings.  I know, many more important topics to consider but I wander where my thoughts take me.

Having written many a battle report (the Labels section in the right sidebar shows nearly 300 Battle Reports to date) and read even more, I have plenty of data from which to work. 

Since blogging and the subset of battle reporting is an individually creative venture, I reckon there are as many forms and styles to writing battle reports as bloggers.  Given the frequency of my wargaming and the sheer number of battles chronicled, I have settled on a form and style that works for me.  I enjoy the process and the satisfaction that creating these little battle summaries offers.  As in most undertakings, there are costs and trade-offs.   Almost always, the chronicling of the battle report takes longer than actually playing the game.  Is this time well-spent?  Are battle reports interesting primarily to the players involved in the game?

The writing style that I most often fall into mirrors the writing of history as a prose narrative of events.  A broad-brush prose narrative, that is.  The focus emphasizes retelling a story, briefly, punctuated by supporting game photos.  Rules' mechanics are not often covered nor are specific details on dice rolled, probabilities needed, etc..  Again, this is personal choice since not all readers will be familiar with the rules in play.

So, what is the point?

Well, curiosity prompts me to ask how are battle reports read.  Now, I am interested in how a reader generally consumes and interacts with a battle report but I am specifically curious how my battle reports are read.  As a reader, is each battle report read completely, ignored, or does it fall somewhere in between?  Does this engagement depend upon the topic?  The big question is, are battle reports worth continuing?

To make submitting and collecting data easier, the following scale is provided from which to choose.  I appreciate any feedback received.  Please select the response that best matches your tendency in reading battle reports found on this blog.  Besides your selection, please add in any commentary and observations on the topic.

Here we go (and let's be honest)...

1. Each battle report is read completely.  I hang on every word and photo to get a grasp of the game and its result.
2. I read through the report but skim through the photos.
3. I look at the photos but skim the battle account.
4. I skim through both battle account and photos.
5. I scroll through the battle report and read the wrap-up.  If it sounds interesting, I return for another pass through the report.
6. I scroll through the battle report but stop to read the wrap-up.  
7. I scroll through the battle report and move on.
8. Battle reports?  There are battle reports?  
9. Other.

Whatever your choice, do you read readers' commentaries?

Thank you.