Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just wondering what you'd consider to be the "aspects" of tabletop wargames.

Just a thought I'm trying to develop.

There's a social aspect, which is kind of ironic consider the stereotype that wargaming can't shake re: antisocial misfits with Asperger's Syndrome.

There's a competitive aspect. Which once again drops an irony bomb re: perpetual losers that will do anything to win.

there's an artistic aspect. Irony? You betcha, the guys that pay someone else to paint there stuff and enter it for painting score.

So I guess that's makes the main aspect of tabletop wargames, ummm, irony?

-Gaming
-Artistic
-Hobby and Craft
-Collection
-Social
-Work?

For me, painting miniatures is cheaper than seeing a therapist, and getting together to play with a whole room full of like-minded people reassures me that I do indeed have a peer group where I fit in. You don't want me to go back to being the angry paranoid guy I was before, constantly full of caffeine and alcohol with no thought of the future. Trust me on this!

I'm glad Luna mentioned Collection. How much of it is that, do you think?

Collection is definitely part of it. Most of us probably have more armies than we realistically have time to play with, and plans to add more.

There's an aesthetic aspect to the painting of models and making of terrain pieces.

Competition, recreation of history, simulation of tactical and command problems, socialising, are all factors.

There's also fun in researching and planning.

TFG aspect : Some people are just TFG whether its poor sportsmanship or endless rules lawyering. Hopefully this is a small part of the population but doesn't seem that way since there's enough of 'em to warrant its own acronym.

Painting, Competing, Travelling, Escaping, Socializing, Collecting, Gaming, Fluffing, and making a living are other aspects people get into and like a convoluted venn diagram people can fit into all sorts of those categories.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh yea and having fun. Thats usually a part isn't it?

There are many aspects of 'tabletop wargames' - from modelling, rules, terrain, painting, social interaction, the challenge of beating someone, competitive aspects and so on, and people enjoy different areas of it for different reasons. None is greater than any other.

Howlingmoon wrote:So I guess that's makes the main aspect of tabletop wargames, ummm, irony?

Or in your case - cynicism.

malfred wrote:I'm glad Luna mentioned Collection. How much of it is that, do you think?

I cant speak for others because im not psychic.

But personally i see it as collection ( sort of , since i dont really play nor do i feel like painting )
its a good *outlet for those obsessive compulsive buys

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Howlingmoon wrote:So I guess that's makes the main aspect of tabletop wargames, ummm, irony?

Or in your case - cynicism.

The truth is a terrible, terrible weapon.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Or in your case - cynicism.

Pot, have you met kettle?

I've thought about this a bit while reading over the "people should/n't have to paint" threads and my take is that the perceived divide (where the argument seems to re-occur) is between "game" and "hobby."

"Game" is further split into "tournament" and "casual," where "tournament" and "casual" (all negative stereotypes aside for the moment) are labels for the extremes of wargaming's social aspect. The category also includes rule discussion/critique and army building.

"Hobby" is not just painting (a point too often overlooked) as it obviously also entails assembly. Less essential although certainly definitive is conversion. (I would not lump assembly and conversion together under "modelling," which makes it too broad of a category amid already overly-broad categories.) Hobby also includes the fluff and collection aspects.

As for a tentative general spectrum:

<---Game----Tournament Gamers----Casual Gamers----Converters/Painters----Hobby--->

Manchu, I see what you mean, but it would be possible to inhabit both ends of your spectrum simultaneously.

Example: I've never been to a warhammer tournament in my life. I play to win amongst a small group of like-minded friends, but we all put effort into converting and painting models. We don't have any rule saying you have to paint something before you play with it, but we all work towards painting all our models. So we're both casual gamers and painters/converters.
Every once in a while someone on this site post pictures of armies brought to tournaments by the contestants. Lots of those armies are far better converted and painted than anything I've ever done. The owners are obviously at the tournament end of your spectrum, and also further down the painting/converting end than I am.

Sorry for the wall'o'text, I mean that people can enjoy different aspects simultaneously, and indeed a majority of people probably play in different social environments as well as enjoying converting and painting to different extents.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:Manchu, I see what you mean, but it would be possible to inhabit both ends of your spectrum simultaneously.

The spectrum he makes is the one you see most often...on Dakka.

The spectrum of tabletop gamers is probably more like a chart or some weird geodesic dome.

@old folk hunter: I think you and your friends would fit pretty handily on my spectrum. As for your other example: yes, there are those rare few who will murder your with their Slayer Sword if you touch their GD-winning Primarch conversion. Such gods among men transcend mere (remember how it was labeled) "tentative general" spectra.

@Malfred: To be fair, I did say my comments were inspired by the conflicts on Dakka. Even so, I think it's a good overall picture because Dakka is a place where the painters-who-never-play rub digital elbows with the gamers-who-never-paint and all the rest of us need-to-paint-and-would-like-to-game-more folk.

Manchu wrote:Pot, have you met kettle?

Hey! I never claimed I wasn't...

The continuum isn't bipolar. Take your

<--- Game ... ... Hobby ---> axis

and add a vertical axis and you've got a good basic tool for describing how people engage with wargaming.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
I might argue with the exact placement of the qualities, for example, Competition may not sit next to Game, and perhaps there should be a quality of Simulation rather than Game, but let's not make it too complicated.

Next you need a basic test to get some numerical values onto aspects like Tournament. Let people self-test with a simple questionnaire and they can plot themselves into the chart.

Well, there's the paying someone to assemble your stuff for you aspect.
The paying someone to paint your stuff for you aspect.
The taking this to a tournament and winning "best painted" aspect.
Even better is the loaning it to someone else and letting THEM win best painted with it.
Then there's the selling of it complete aspect.

Or am I just an old cynic, too?

I think aspects of the game system itself are:

Gameyness: How smooth and 'fun' the rules are, directly related to how competitive the game can be. For example, can you plop down with a stranger and get a game going that is balanced, or do you need to plan scenarios ahead of time? Also related is the time taken to play. Many “classic” type historic games take 5-8 hours to complete, whereas say WHFB or 40k take 1.5-3 hours usually. Further, a more Gamey game requires only that units/weapons react in a certain way relative to each other, as opposed to requiring specific tweaks as a more realistic game. (Think about bolters vs storm bolters vs bolt pistols. Both the SB and Bolter can “shoot” two dice worth in a turn, but the pistol can’t. Is it reasonable that a marine going full auto with the bolter is shooting at exactly the same rate as one with a storm bolter, but the pistol for some reason can’t? Maybe, maybe not; in 40k the point is the difference in stats with fluff to match, not matching stats to fluff.)

Realism (there is a better word, but I can't pull it now): How much like a simulation is the game? Are there lots of charts and tables of modifiers to get a very granular experience where lots of little things add up to big advantages, or is it more of a 40k type game where there are very few modifiers? Do units run out of ammo, or are they assumed to have enough for the battle? This is often opposed to Gameyness as unelegant tables and modifiers can take away from the flow of the game, but at the same time good rules writing can include both.

What If vs Recreation: Mostly relevant in historic games, and related to Realism, but sometimes bleeding into fantasy and scifi. Questions like "Are 100 Space Marines really worth 1000+ guardsmen? " really matter if you are going for recreation, because you need to make certain that your rules set allows for the actual historic outcome of battles. What If focused rule sets allow for more variation, but also require a lot more balancing to allow people to make scenarios that are not insanely in favor of player or the other. Note that nearly all rules sets allow for What If anymore; only a few really limit you to only playing certain battles with set armies.

Scale: Scale plays a huge role in the feel of the game, from small group skirmishes where a “unit” is 1 model to huge battles where units are 20 bases with 5 models each, and each model represents 10 men. This is further broken up into Model Scale and Battle Scale.
Model Scale: How big are the figures? Small models, say <=15mm lend themselves well to larger scale battles, but less to skirmishes where the figures become tough to tell apart. 25mm+ models are conversely suited to medium to small scale battles, as getting 100+ of them on the table leaves little room for maneuver, but they are easily recognizable. The scale of the model thus informs on the scale of the battle.
Battle Scale: Does the game address large battles, where what each man or even each unit does on its own is largely irrelevant, or does it address very small battles where each individual’s status is important? This affects questions such as “are casualties and fleeing individuals worth considering as separate?” as well as issues like “How big should the game board be?” along with scale of models. A 15mm game played on a 10x5 table involves a great deal more maneuvering and strategic thought, where as a 25mm game played on a 6x4 generally focuses more on tactical set up.
This is also related to the role of the player relative to the troops. Are you trying to create the feel of a gang leader fighting in Necromunda? Large Model Scale/Small Battle Scale makes you feel right in the action. Are you trying to create the feel of Napoleon and Wellington at Waterloo? Then Small Model Scale/Large Battle Scale is needed. Are you trying to create the feel of Sharpe at Waterloo? Then maybe somewhere in between.

Time Scale: This is also related to Battle/Model Scale, but is worth mentioning on its own. How long is a game turn? This can make a lot of difference depending on the Game/Realism/Scale of your battle. You need to break down the turn into some sort of time bucket to determine relative rates for movement, firing and melee. In a very large scale battle, it might not matter as closely as tactical considerations of how fast a unit can reload a musket and fire compared to another over the course of a minute might more easily be wrapped into a modifier or statistic, instead of trying to fine tune how far a unit moved before it shot, etc. leaving you with a time scale of 1-10 minutes per turn. After all, large scale battles might last all day, so even at 10 minutes of game time per turn might require 40+ turns, so practical considerations might require a game turn that represents 30-60 minutes of “real time” and thus a much more abstract level of detail.
At the other end of the spectrum, a gang shoot out might be over in 30 minutes total, and since each individual’s skills might differ, it becomes more important to track closely. A time bucket of 30 seconds might even be too large, considering that a fairly skilled shooter can fire off 5-10 rather well aimed shots in that much time, and a fairly quick runner can cover ~200-300 yards. At 25mm, that’s 180”, or 15 feet! A five second time bucket might be appropriate.
In the middle, a line up, smash into each other sort of fight like in WHFB or historical War of the Roses type battles might be over in a half hour to two hours once things get rolling. There a 1 minute bucket might be perfect, as large blocks of troops move up then crash into each other.

Turn Sequence: I think this is worth breaking out, as it is related to Battle and Time scale. Is the game “I Go, You Go” or an interspersed turn with phases where players do things. Are there “reactions” where a player can act out of turn? Largely this relates to the interactions between players, and the uncertainty of processes in a turn. I find in 40k, for example, when my opponent is moving, I tend to go to the bathroom and get some drinks from the fridge. In Necromunda, however, things like Overwatch make my presence more interesting. Likewise, a game with I Go, You Go turn sequences allow for more certainty such as “I will move over with the rhino, disembark, and shoot that squad to death before they react” knowing full well that the squad will not get to shoot you back first, leading to a more chess like exchange, where as an interspersed turn more accurately represents that any engagement is dangerous for both sides, and there is a possibility your opponent will be able to act before you. This sort of knowledge problem can affect the way a game plays out a good bit.

Number of Players: Is the game pretty strictly 1 vs 1, or can it be 2+ v 2+ or 1v1v1? This ties to Turn Sequence and Gameyness. Large scale games, or games that scale up well, allow for much more socialization. I am frequently seen at my FLGS only for tournaments and APOC games. Most Historical War Games can utilize teams of 2-5 people per side. However, games with fewer players are easier to get going, and often shorter. This is one reason I like 40k: I can have a friend over and play anywhere from a 500 point game to a 10,000 point game in the basement, or take the same models to the store for 30,000 point a side games.

As to the aspects surrounding the game, organized by what human need they stroke:

Collection: This is a big part for me, enough so that I have to wonder if my mother didn’t date a magpie at some point. This is affected by the nature of the gaming pieces. Mediocre models are less interesting to collect than really nice models with a great back story.

Painting/Converting: I include these together as the more artistic aspects. Some games lend themselves more to pouring effort into painting lovely models or making interesting conversions. 15mm Civil war does not lend itself well to either, while 54mm Inquisitor type games practically require it. Prepainted figures or games that do not allow for conversion tend to appeal to those who dislike these aspects, while driving away those who do.

Social: This is the biggest difference between Table Top and Online games, the face to face interactions. This also relies largely on the other non-game aspects like Collection and Painting/Converting, as groups tend to congeal around such “hobby” aspects of the game beyond merely liking to play. This is also closely tied to the rules systems. Playing new people, with new strategies and armies at the drop of the hat is the mark of a system with strong Gameyness, as the system is built around easily created fair matchups. More Realistic games with a weak Gameyness nature tend to require existing groups. One might say that a Gamey system allows for playing groups to form, while a non-Gamey system requires existing groups to play.

Competition: Tied to Social as well as Gamey/Realistic concerns, whether a game can be played competitively in a tournament form or only as agreed upon scenarios is important. Humans are naturally competitive to greater or lesser extents, and for some people this is an important social aspect, and for others it is irrelevant.



Well, that’s just it off the top of my head. Sorry for the wall of text

Maybe we need a litmus test.

If you eliminate X from tabletop wargaming, would you lose a good portion of people?

X = Aspect of Wargaming

So the obvious ones apply.

If you eliminate painting, you would lose a good portion of the population.

I didn't see it listed, but did anyone mention the storytelling aspect? I don't just mean the social/conversational piece ("I was playing this one game of DBM back in '87, man...") but also the 'fluff' aspect to the army creating and combat (e.g. army fluff, scenarios, battle/after action reports, etc.)?

malfred wrote:

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:Manchu, I see what you mean, but it would be possible to inhabit both ends of your spectrum simultaneously.

The spectrum he makes is the one you see most often...on Dakka.

The spectrum of tabletop gamers is probably more like a chart or some weird geodesic dome.

Maybe something like...





Except an image with more time, effort, etc..

The gaming G-spot, as it were.

Probably the only mythical G spot gamers will ever find.

I found the G spot once, but I can't remember where I put it.

We have fun.

Hi all.
The 'best case senario ' a table top wargame can;-

Inspire creativity.
Devising force composition, strategy and tactics, building-converting and painting etc .

Encourage social interaction.
Like minded people shareing enjoyable experainces.(Swaping hints and tips,playing games organising tounaments etc.)

Develop useful life skill in the participants.
Through constant use in an enjoyable environment ,all manner of craft and communication skillls can be developed!

The actual parts of a wargame .
Game mechanics -rules-playing pieces-playing area.

Therfore the effect a wargame has on its players, can be far greater than the sum of its parts!

Happy gaming .
Lanrak.