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.

Given the game has been around since at least the 16th century, the etymology is a little vague. From memory, I think it comes from an old word relating to the bat, but I'm not sure whether it was Old English or Dutch.

kungfujew wrote:
I resent all this comparison of table top war gaming to dungeons and dragons. As a longtime GM I can say in all honesty that my groups have consisted of the cool and uncool alike in roughly equal quantities, much like my war gaming groups. My reaction to negative comments about my hobbies is met with an big smile and a statement like "don't be bitter just because you don't like having fun/using you imagination/rolling dice. I mean, who doesn't like rolling dice!!!!????!!!

Both DnDers and wargammers should be proud of their hobbies. I mean, for crying out loud. It's not like we're LARPers.

Hey now...LARPers are people too...cosplayers however...

weeble1000 wrote:

kungfujew wrote:
I resent all this comparison of table top war gaming to dungeons and dragons. As a longtime GM I can say in all honesty that my groups have consisted of the cool and uncool alike in roughly equal quantities, much like my war gaming groups. My reaction to negative comments about my hobbies is met with an big smile and a statement like "don't be bitter just because you don't like having fun/using you imagination/rolling dice. I mean, who doesn't like rolling dice!!!!????!!!

Both DnDers and wargammers should be proud of their hobbies. I mean, for crying out loud. It's not like we're LARPers.

Hey now...LARPers are people too...cosplayers however...

Ah.... Nerd Hierarchy at its finest.....

 Dysartes wrote:

Toofast wrote:
In a couple short weeks I will be drinking beer and watching football (real football, not that pansy foot fairy crap you brits watch) while painting/playing.

I'm curious - given that the players seem to carry or throw the ball most of the time, why do Americans call their Armoured Rugby football? It just seems a very strange name for it. At least in the version the rest of the world calls football (and they have you Yanks somewhat outnumbered) the nomenclature makes sense.

BTW, this query is not from a football fan, but a cricket fan.

When Americans were introduced to the game, it was via rugby... Only with our isolationist policies and "American Spirit" we continually changed the rules and manner in which the game was played. The "death blow" for rugby (temporarily) was when President Teddy Roosevelt said that this game of football was too dangerous, and insisted that something be done to make is safer. This was about the time that we added pads or "armor"... In a rather ironic twist of fate, it's now Rugby Union that is being looked towards as a means of making American Football safer, after the monstrosity it has become has brought us to a point where player safety has become more of a concern again, and rugby is now the "safer" option

weeble1000 wrote:

kungfujew wrote:
I resent all this comparison of table top war gaming to dungeons and dragons. As a longtime GM I can say in all honesty that my groups have consisted of the cool and uncool alike in roughly equal quantities, much like my war gaming groups. My reaction to negative comments about my hobbies is met with an big smile and a statement like "don't be bitter just because you don't like having fun/using you imagination/rolling dice. I mean, who doesn't like rolling dice!!!!????!!!

Both DnDers and wargammers should be proud of their hobbies. I mean, for crying out loud. It's not like we're LARPers.

Hey now...LARPers are people too...cosplayers however...

I don't know i find some of those female cosplayers intriguing

I just say what my hobbies are and i don't really care about their reaction.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Toofast wrote:
In a couple short weeks I will be drinking beer and watching football (real football, not that pansy foot fairy crap you brits watch) while painting/playing.

I'm curious - given that the players seem to carry or throw the ball most of the time, why do Americans call their Armoured Rugby football? It just seems a very strange name for it. At least in the version the rest of the world calls football (and they have you Yanks somewhat outnumbered) the nomenclature makes sense.

BTW, this query is not from a football fan, but a cricket fan.

When Americans were introduced to the game, it was via rugby... Only with our isolationist policies and "American Spirit" we continually changed the rules and manner in which the game was played. The "death blow" for rugby (temporarily) was when President Teddy Roosevelt said that this game of football was too dangerous, and insisted that something be done to make is safer. This was about the time that we added pads or "armor"... In a rather ironic twist of fate, it's now Rugby Union that is being looked towards as a means of making American Football safer, after the monstrosity it has become has brought us to a point where player safety has become more of a concern again, and rugby is now the "safer" option

I think part of that has to do with hitting vs. tackling. In football, players just run into each other with their helmets leading to injuries. Rugby tackling is more dragging the player down which has less of an impact on the head.

kb305 wrote:


this

its down there at the very bottom with dungeons and dragons. playing video games or even watching wwe wrestling are better hobbies in a woman's eyes.

Have you met any women to know that?

Cant say its been an issue to me in the last 30 years... though we did have a Tiger I on our wedding cake.

Never encounterd any negativity towards the hobby, always been very positive, especially from the opposite sex. But then im out and proud about playing toy soldiers.

 Dysartes wrote:

Toofast wrote:
In a couple short weeks I will be drinking beer and watching football (real football, not that pansy foot fairy crap you brits watch) while painting/playing.

I'm curious - given that the players seem to carry or throw the ball most of the time, why do Americans call their Armoured Rugby football? It just seems a very strange name for it. At least in the version the rest of the world calls football (and they have you Yanks somewhat outnumbered) the nomenclature makes sense.

BTW, this query is not from a football fan, but a cricket fan.

From Wikipedia:

Etymology and names

In the United States, American football is referred to as "football." The term "football" was officially established in the rulebook for the 1876 college football season, when the sport first shifted from soccer-style rules to rugby-style rules; although it could easily have been called "rugby" at this point, Harvard, one of the primary proponents of the rugby-style game, compromised and did not request the name of the sport be changed to "rugby". In countries where other codes of football are popular, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, the terms "gridiron" or "American football" are favored.

Going a little off topic here aren't we?

 Random Dude wrote:


I think part of that has to do with hitting vs. tackling. In football, players just run into each other with their helmets leading to injuries. Rugby tackling is more dragging the player down which has less of an impact on the head.

When Roosevelt called the game too unsafe, it was a far cry from what it is today (for either sport)... But really this is another topic




I remember how when I was in Germany, I was in a unit where I was a minority "nerd"... Quite literally 60-70% of my company played World Of Warcraft (and about half of THEM were playing together... as if they hadn't gotten enough of each other for the past 5 days at work). In an argument with one of those WoW gamers (I was being very sarcastic/joking, while the other guy was getting red to the face and serious), I proposed a bet. I told him, "this weekend, we'll both sit down to our hobbies, then, on Monday I'll bring in what I've painted, and you can bring in what you've done, and Top (who was standing with us, enjoying this argument) can be the judge of who has more to show of their weekend" Of course, it was funny that Top played WoW as well, but was on my side of the argument as he was older and was fully aware that he was "wasting" time, but he didnt care, because it was kinda fun.

What's wrong with cosplayers? Google "Jessica Nigri" before you answer

Toofast wrote:
What's wrong with cosplayers? Google "Jessica Nigri" before you answer

Hardly fair when she can make anything look good.
We could get into the topic of furries as well... <edit not "got">I have a cousin into it, still trying to figure out if there is some multi-step exit program from it.
Yes, geek/nerd/otaku has a hierarchy, just like any other stream of "competitive" fandom (getting into the "I know more weird facts of the hobby than you!" can be fun).
I try to cover the bases of computer/war-gaming/martial-arts/anime/Star-Trek freak and if I can combine them all: I am not seen for days at a time.

Toofast wrote:
What's wrong with cosplayers? Google "Jessica Nigri" before you answer

It's not so much a problem of the cosplayers but of the weird slobbering creepozoid fanboys that follow them around trying to cop a feel (although this is as much a failure of society to remove the douchebag genes from the pool) and generally just leering at them.

I'd never be a cosplayer - I just don't have the rack for it.

When you explain that it has nothing to do with video games most people are intrigued. Like i asked a day off from work cause of a tourney i was playing in. She asked if it was computer and i said "No its a game where you build, paint, and battle other players on a battlefield of your own construction."

Now my boss wants to play

My point is your co-worker is a close minded fool.

 chromedog wrote:

Toofast wrote:
What's wrong with cosplayers? Google "Jessica Nigri" before you answer

It's not so much a problem of the cosplayers but of the weird slobbering creepozoid fanboys that follow them around trying to cop a feel (although this is as much a failure of society to remove the douchebag genes from the pool) and generally just leering at them.

I'd never be a cosplayer - I just don't have the rack for it.

Where did you get that misinformation?

The biggest amount of rage I ever encountered as a gamer was when a gaming group I was in took part in a local 'hobbies' day a local school was running, in the mid/late 90's where we tried to get young kids (about 11-13 year olds) involved in playing a game, I was about 16 at the time, but it wasn't my school. It was a historical club and we took along a load of 15mm Napoleonics. We set up a display with a small participation game and simple set of rules. We talked to parents and tried to emphasis the creative aspects of it as well as the learning about history.

Most of the more 'conservative' looking parents where very positive about the whole thing, they loved the history and the spectacle and many of the Dads took and interest and often told us tales of all the Airfix kits they assembled and painted as youngsters and they loved how we had taken it to the next level.

However we got a massive earful from one of the younger female mothers who wandered over, she looked quite hippyish. She loudly accused us 'war glorification', 'brainwashing kids into joining the army' being 'war obsessed men' and made allot of references to the Bosnian war which was going on at the time. In the end a member of the schools staff had to ask her to leave.

She did have a point, but she didn't really present it well.

War glorification was an aspect of wargaming for a long time and it's right to be concerned about it.

However, I'm a grown adult that can see past it. But I'm also able to see that the constant barrage of war related media, whether that's from a miniature game, or from video games, does add up.

Just on number 2 of the OP
I reckon it comes from the D&D days. People who played D&D were usually associated with having no lives and being overgrown boys who never leave their mothers basement. This is entirely untrue, but it has spread a popular prejudice, especially to some video games such as Civ5 and AoE and League of Legends etc.
The problem is, people just dont get past this Prejudice and view them as little plastic toys and nothing more when they are so much more. Most of my mates who shared this actually changed their minds once I showed them what wargaming is actually about.

 Vertrucio wrote:
She did have a point, but she didn't really present it well.

War glorification was an aspect of wargaming for a long time and it's right to be concerned about it.

I'd say that despite the fact it's easy to accuse historical gaming of war glorification I'd say it far more prevalent in fantasy gaming. The background to 40K containing quite allot of what could be described as war fetishisation, wheras most historical gaming is mostly rather respectful in tone.

People like to make that distinction, but the reality of it is that all wargaming is a fantasy. Doesn't matter if it's a dragon, or a huey helicopter. You're still pushing little plastic or metal figures around on a tabletop.

It is perhaps worse that historicals fantasize real wars that happened as this abstract and clean thing, when in reality all war is hell. There is no true respect in wargaming, it's still just fantasizing about wars.

The more fantastical games to take things to an extreme, but it also takes it to a comical level, it's not trying to be serious in the first place.

So no, playing a historical game is no better or worse than fantastical gaming. People fetishize many aspects of historical gaming too and try to pass off that as a study of history, but the fact is, history is more than just wars. And this fetishistic drive to reenact such times of real cruelty and horror is as much a fantasy and disrespectful as the fantastical games that make a mockery of all of it.

Which is not to say it's all evil and should all be destroyed. Rather, one should not try to pass the buck on the whole glorification thing.

Yeah, the "war glorification" argument sums up to being the same one about violence in video games. Is it an issue? Meh. Only for people who can't make a distinction between fantasy and reality. However, violent video games are much more vivid and probably offer a lot less in terms of strategic thinking than your average wargame, plus take a lot less effort.

I must admit, the "war glorification" is something I do have some trouble wrestling with.
Some of the most interesting technologies have stemmed from military need/applications (or easily converted to that application).

Applying tactics to a life and death situation seems terribly exciting in contrast to how many of us lead our lives (possible exception to our military members!).

For the person that freaked out about kids getting involved in the tabletop wargame: I bet she does not monitor what video games they play.
The painted miniatures on a nice terrain piece seems to evoke an emotional response: it is epic / cool / amazing looking compared to some graphics on a screen.
I think like any piece of "art" it can be impactful, even that overreacting mom can acknowledge that she found the display attractive or she would not have protested so much, or "glorification" would not have been used.

The way I look at it, even to try to get into the headspace of a person who commanded troops can at least give a glimmer of understanding and respect for what they did and what they faced.
I think that a bit like remembrance day you want to respect the sacrifices that were made and can exorcise those demons of "what if" scenarios and find out things could have gone a lot worse.

Any other "excuses" aside, fine, I could acknowledge it as a guilty pleasure.
It is like listening to angry music and practicing kendo: the limited/controlled violence seems therapeutic to me and I can afford to be more serene in my day to day.

Heh, the rage against wargamers could be the same thing as with bullying: people think that those who play war-games are those too weak or unwilling to perform actual physical violence so are a "safe" target for ridicule. I figure it is a way of blowing off steam in a "constructive" way and in no-way an indication of the emotional stability of the person.

 chromedog wrote:

I'd never be a cosplayer - I just don't have the rack for it.

If you wanna be a cosplayer be a cosplayer, dont let anyone stop you from rocking whatever cosplay you rock, but cosplay as someone who uses a weapon (Dokuro-chan from Bludgeoning Angel Dokuro-Chan perhaps) so if someone complains about your rack, bludgeon them in true form to the character

And on topic, I've never seen rage of anything from anyone whose opinion I value, just confusion as to the whole appeal of the hobby, which I get in a way, the feelings mutual about his hobby so its all cool xD

 Vertrucio wrote:


War glorification was an aspect of wargaming for a long time and it's right to be concerned about it.

What's funny is that I've seen numerous psychological studies done within the last decade or so that "proves" that boys who play at war and the like end up healthier adults than those who are forbidden/kept from playing at war.

In most of those the reasoning is that playing things like War, Cops/Robbers, etc. teaches young boys many of the social skills needed in adulthood (social hierarchy, or the Boss/Supervisor, some morality, etc) I would say of course, that there is a fine line between a healthy pastime of playing at war which leads to a well balanced adult, and something more that results in an unhealthy balance.

You could say that playing at anything social would give the same social skills. I think they key is any social activity that involves conflict resolution and real problem solving.

Not only that, it would give them such skills, and many more skills that you couldn't get while playing just war. Skills applicable in normal life, skills that would be useful for say, having a career during normal life and being happy.

War is simplistic, war is brutal. You follow orders, or you give them. Going military, despite its social aspects and politics, is still in many ways simplistic. You have your rank and that's it. People above and below you, orders given or taken.

Instead, what if they played a sport? What if they played at being engineers and designed robots? What if they played at being scientists conducting cool science experiments? What if you taught them how to sculpt and cast miniatures or program video games?

Being a part of any endeavor is the key, and you'll encounter conflicts and have to resolve them. They key is that these conflicts get resolved peacefully.

It's a typical excuse for allowing boys to play war was that it gave them those skills. Reality is, there's no reason to promote war over anything else.

Let's be honest here, do you really think that playing war early on wouldn't predispose them to actually joining the military over some less violent careers?

I'm no hippy. I firmly believe that deadly conflict is a reality of life, but it's not the only thing out there. We as a society do have to be careful about how we push such things on our children such that it is not propagated too much. Such that our children aren't growing up with the military mindset of bashing things, or yelling at things to surrender or die.

 Vertrucio wrote:

Let's be honest here, do you really think that playing war early on wouldn't predispose them to actually joining the military over some less violent careers?

Actually I dont. Given that, as of last survey that I'd seen (so around 2010) the vast majority of the US military's membership came from middle and upper-middle class families... These are the same types of families that are now somewhat famously bubblewrapping their kids, acting like they "need" to be allergic to gluten so that they have something special wrong with them, etc.


And at least one of the studies that I had read (I really wish I remembered where I found them, because I'd definitely link the articles), actually used a control group that was "only" allowed nonviolent toys, like legos/engineering toys, non-violent video games, etc. and they found that the "control group" ended up with more problems in early adulthood than those who were allowed to play wargames.

IMO, I think it could be a stress release kind of thing... Those who were allowed to fight/be violent as kids know how/where to direct that energy (more often than not, I mean, there are some bad apples out there) whereas kids who grow up not being "allowed" to release that violent/negative energy are sort of forced to bottle it up, and they have no real place to direct it which leaves them unable to successfully cope with life's stress.

Raising a couple boys I can say with no reservations that you can try to hide all the violent aspects of life you want and they still pick up some stick and say "bang-bang".
Boggles my mind.

The tactic of coupling respect for a given subject and not cherry picking aspects of it I feel is important.
We have gone to war museums, discussed the heavy cost, the atrocities, the actual causes of war and how they end.
The difficulties people faced and the people employed to try to end the carnage become an interesting topic.
I would rather get into the real world, demonstrable cost of violence and the various ways it was applied before I have to explain Wolverine from X-men.

“To capture the enemy’s entire army is better than to destroy it; to take intact a regiment, a company, or a squad is better than to destroy them. For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the supreme of excellence. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence.”
- Sun Tzu

Focus on the tactics prior to war, to win needed objectives without the need of force has to be shown as the more glorious achievement that shows true capability.

You keep that focus in life, the war-games can be viewed as something to dabble in you plan to never see.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:


War glorification was an aspect of wargaming for a long time and it's right to be concerned about it.

What's funny is that I've seen numerous psychological studies done within the last decade or so that "proves" that boys who play at war and the like end up healthier adults than those who are forbidden/kept from playing at war.

In most of those the reasoning is that playing things like War, Cops/Robbers, etc. teaches young boys many of the social skills needed in adulthood (social hierarchy, or the Boss/Supervisor, some morality, etc) I would say of course, that there is a fine line between a healthy pastime of playing at war which leads to a well balanced adult, and something more that results in an unhealthy balance.

On the note of glorifying war, a point could be made that there is a difference between glorifying conflicts and struggles and glorifying the act of inflicting ruination upon others. Though the line is sometimes thin, there is an important difference.

Take, for example Wh40k's Imperial Guard. What many see in them is the average man, heroically standing up to the horrors of an uncaring universe, and boldly telling it to go blow itself.
That would be closer to glorifying heroism, bravery, and possibly a spoonful of stupidity, as that man is five seconds from being shot by a commissar.

While on the surface is seems to be the glorification of war, the tabletop "kill me, kill you" aspect is an exercise in tactical thought, statistical and resource management, and is full of chances to use your imagination. All of which can be extremely useful to a person.

Remember a group protesting outside GW in Derby about 20 years ago, apparently a religious group objecting to the daemonic elements in the game.

When questioned about what daemonic elements they didn't know, it was just an organised protest and they had been told how this was all a bad influence.

Had similar reactions from my then wife (now ex-wifes) friends, again they didn't know why it was bad, they just very much knew it was.

You may have run up against something similar, people object because they feel they should object but don't really know why. Think the reactions to rock music, comic books etc over the years. Not to mention the troubles D&D have had over the years.

Personally not had an issue at work, but then I work in the rail industry, train spotters doesn't cover the half of it (never been a spotter but do have a bunch of models somewhere, and you think warhammer is expensive...) Most who have seen the models are reasonably impressed even if they know nothing about the games.

Mockery tends to be at the level of good natured banter.

My now ex was not happy when youngest offspring discovered 40k, but since then shes actually discovered its a hobby that involves interacting with other people not just sitting in front of a box, teaches patience and can be pretty artistic as well as fostering an interest in history in a yoof who had little direction.

People see what they want to see.

Never heard of a religious protest outside of a GW before.

I always assumed that Warhammer avoided the sorts of 'satan worship' accusations that D&D suffered because of they where mainly confined to Britain in the 80's and so didn't attract the attention of American evangelical churches. The CofE doesn't tend to go in for that sort of thing.

Had GW started in the States I'm willing to be there would have been a similar moral panic about miniature gaming as well.