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.

For the last 6-8 years I have only used fully painted and based minitures in any game I play, completely for my own enjoyment, and during that time I reduced my number of games played as well, by limiting who I played against, for various criteria, (Painted armies or age (to young etc )or because I had seen said person play before I did not feel I would enjoy a game with that person due to personality etc. ). These decisions were not made maliciously, just my own preferences.

I enjoyed painting in a social setting , even building and scratchbuilding was enjoyable as a group activity, so I happilly sat in a provided area, and painted , built, and modified minis for hours on end.

After a while I noticed there were 3-4 others doing the same on a regular basis, and then as they completed armies we would get in a few games, then build and paint some more..supplementing it with periods of terrain building (for themed games), it became very relaxing and I actually got more painted and acomplished this way.

Sure there was many times I turned down a game against this or that opponent, I did it nicely , but I never really stated it was due to the above stated reasons, just that I would prefer at that time to paint or build, strangely enough many of these players would within a few weeks bring in stuff of their own to paint or build.

My guess is I have kinda gone beyond the need to play as much as the need to create, and the OP may have also come to the crossroad, it has also came with the urge to play larger games, and campaigns moreso then any little pickup ones with random people, I just want to ensure when I do play, I enjoy it.

Just be inclusive and helpful to people that are learning, always lead by example in your hobby endeavors, playing the game for me is only at beast 1/3rd of the enjoyment if that, maybe more like 10%

Goodluck sir, and let us know how things progress.

Soo'Vah'Cha wrote:Sure there was many times I turned down a game against this or that opponent, I did it nicely , but I never really stated it was due to the above stated reasons, just that I would prefer at that time to paint or build, strangely enough many of these players would within a few weeks bring in stuff of their own to paint or build.

That's cool. Though I am going to be upfront and consistent with my explanations. If I say I'd rather paint than play and then someone else walks in and I suddenly want to play rather than paint, that will certainly leave the first person wondering about my motivations when I just could have been clear from the beginning.

My guess is I have kinda gone beyond the need to play as much as the need to create, and the OP may have also come to the crossroad, it has also came with the urge to play larger games, and campaigns moreso then any little pickup ones with random people, I just want to ensure when I do play, I enjoy it.

That's a great way to put it. It's my hobby time and when I do play, I want to ensure I enjoy it.

Just be inclusive and helpful to people that are learning, always lead by example in your hobby endeavors, playing the game for me is only at beast 1/3rd of the enjoyment if that, maybe more like 10%

Goodluck sir, and let us know how things progress.

I will. I'm going to a gaming night tonight. I'm bringing extra painting supplies, an extra small army for people to borrow and we'll see what happens.

Herzlos wrote:I don't think it is an example of the geek social fallacy at all; you're presumably at a gaming venue to play a game of <whatever> against other people, and other people are at the same gaming venue to play games of <whatever> against other people too.

But even at an event like this, it's unfair to assume that everyone must always participate with everyone else. Or to assume that wanting to interact with only a subset of those who attend is wrong. Or to assume that everyone must be fully included in everything that goes on there. Or that it's wrong to reject someone's offer of a game because their bare metal collection doesn't look good enough. Or that because these people are fellow gamers/friends one must set aside one's own interest for the interests of others.

The ultimatum talk is indeed mired in broken social expectations.

Not that you have to play any game that is offered though; you're perfectly entitled to decline any game for any reason, even if you are there to game.

Exactly.

nkelsch wrote:I was told this long ago by a store owner and have talked to other owners since and had similar things said.

"On days where an event that requires painting happens in the store they sell way more product than open play with unpainted models. If using the gaming space doesn't sell models, then war gamers will lose out to mtg and yogioh cards."

Unpainted models increased, weekend open play decreased and was banished to weeknights where there is no street traffic to influence.

That's very interesting. I think we're getting into off topic land in terms of merits of painted miniatures, but it does tell me that I need to have a chat with the owner of the store where I game about this.

Maybe you should talk to the store owner how he feels? If he has an opinion or views trends in his sales in relation to the quality of games visually on his tables, then a case can be made about being good Stewards of the store and not be the gaming equivalent of wearing sweatpants in public?

Good idea. I know she has lamented vaguely about how miniatures look better painted every now and again. Maybe she's been waiting for someone from the customer base to start some momentum towards stepping up the aesthetics. It's a fine balance for a store owner, both not wanting to tell potential customers things they don't want to hear and wanting to have something a bit nicer looking going on in their location. I've already taken over the terrain side a bit, with repairing and sorting it and the like. Maybe when the current league ends, I'll talk to her about a grow league with painted models only on the table and we'll see what sort of interest there is for that.

I think I may also call a store from a city I used to live in that has always had a painted only policy for miniature gaming. From what I understand, the store did just fine over the last 4 years while others struggled.

Some useful ideas here, what a great topic frozen. I started collecting 40k again after a 10+ year break (2nd - halfway through 5th) and was shocked at the change of attitude. Back when I was a kid if you wanted to play at a store it had to be painted.

I am slowly working towards a 1000 point Ork army. I haven't played yet because I really do work slow but I so want to play against and with 100% painted armies. The local GW is out of the question, the only standard there is GW only figures. The independent in town isn't painted only but at least the tournaments they run are painted only. I don't really get the competitive war game scene so I don't think I will take part in that, but I do hope it will result in some all painted armies on game nights, even if it means my opponent has to run a smaller force.

I am worried though as none of my friends are into this hobby. I'm going to be trying to connect with a new and fairly small social group for the first time and I might come across as that a-hole who thinks he's better then everyone else.

I know in the end I'm just going to have to see how the local scene reacts, but in general would most people be happy to play a smaller game if it meant everything was painted?

I got to say that, even though I paint all my minis before using them in games, only playing against painted armies as a principle seems a bit snobby to me. I'd love to only play against painted armies, but I can appreciate that not everyone takes this hobby as seriously as I do, and even if they do, they might not necessarily have the time it takes to fully paint their armies.

I'd like to know the reasoning behind actively "transitioning" to only playing against painted armies. I know it's much cooler, and it seems more worthwhile to paint your own army when you know you'll play against other people who has gone the extra mile, but still. I'd rather play regular games against people who haven't painted their army (while mocking them in a friendly manner about not painting their army), than not play at all.

Bangbangboom wrote:Some useful ideas here, what a great topic frozen.

Thanks. I wanted something different than the usual painting vs not painting that pops up every now and again on forums like this.

I don't really get the competitive war game scene so I don't think I will take part in that, but I do hope it will result in some all painted armies on game nights, even if it means my opponent has to run a smaller force.

I sometimes play in tournaments even though I have no use for competitive play just because I know it'll be all painted. I'll purposely go in with the desire to not compete but to enjoy my games. If there's a rules issue, I'll give in on it unless the person is really pushing things, then I'll call a judge. It actually works alright to be a casual player in a competitive tournament if you approach it as a non serious thing.

I am worried though as none of my friends are into this hobby. I'm going to be trying to connect with a new and fairly small social group for the first time and I might come across as that a-hole who thinks he's better then everyone else.

That's certainly a danger. If you're alright with playing against non painted some of the time, you might be able to engage with them enough to start asking to play all painted games in the future. After the game you could say something like "Hey, I noticed you have about half your army painted. What do you think next time if we brough 750 points each and played just with our painted stuff? Just to see what the all painted experience is like?" Sort of a "let's explore this together" approach.

I know in the end I'm just going to have to see how the local scene reacts, but in general would most people be happy to play a smaller game if it meant everything was painted?

Peregrine's posts tell me that every community is different. Some apparently might mean that painted only is 100% a non-starter. I think you'll still even be able to find like minded individuals in such an environment though.

Can't know until you try.

SgtSixkilla wrote:I got to say that, even though I paint all my minis before using them in games, only playing against painted armies as a principle seems a bit snobby to me.

I can see why people think so, but I think it's based on the false idea that other people are entitled to my hobby time and that I'm somehow doing something wrong if I don't play on these grounds.

I'd love to only play against painted armies, but I can appreciate that not everyone takes this hobby as seriously as I do, and even if they do, they might not necessarily have the time it takes to fully paint their armies.

I appreciate that as well. I've said so from the beginning. And I'm more than willing to either play a smaller game with what they do have painted or step aside and let someone else share the table with them.

I'd like to know the reasoning behind actively "transitioning" to only playing against painted armies.

It's about aesthetics and enjoyment. If I were to rank the activities in order of preference related to the hobby, it would be:

1 - Playing a game with all painted miniatures on nice terrain.
2 - Painting
3 - Building and converting
4 - Reading and chatting about the hobby
5 - Playing a game with unpainted miniatures on the table.

Just in terms of my personal enjoyment, I enjoy playing a game with unpainted models less than painting, less than building and converting and even less than just hanging out with friends and talking shop. Basically it's a matter of choosing to spend my hobby time on what I enjoy more.

I know it's much cooler, and it seems more worthwhile to paint your own army when you know you'll play against other people who has gone the extra mile, but still. I'd rather play regular games against people who haven't painted their army (while mocking them in a friendly manner about not painting their army), than not play at all.

You have a different order of enjoyment than me. Which is fine.

Anyway, status report:

First game tonight at a local store's gaming night. 35 points of Menoth vs 35 points of Cryx. His stuff was all painted and happily pronounced that he had finally finished the new Asphyxious 3 and Vociferon. I remarked how awesome it was that everything on both sides was painted. He generally agreed. I mentioned that I was planning on making that my new normal for my games. He said any time you want to play, send him an email about when and where. He's coming to our new club meeting near the last days of the month. He even paid the guy renting the space for the club right then and there for his club ticket. EDIT: Now that I think of it, I've played this guy only 4 times and every time everything he played has been painted.

Second opponent - My 35 of Menoth. He had 35 of Circle but only 20ish was painted. I asked if he would be alright if we played a smaller game but just with painted stuff. He shrugged and said alright. He stomped me pretty badly for the second loss of the night. During the game I mentioned how in the future I want to play more games like this where everything is painted. He's only started miniature wargaming within the last six months (though I've known him for 15 years and he's a member of the small club we started earlier in the year) and was super self conscious about his paint jobs and whether or not they looked "finished enough." They were really good and I told him so. He told me it'd probably take him another six months to finish the second half of his army, but was fine with playing smaller games if I was as he felt it was unfair for me because of how nasty Kromac and eKaya and Kruegar can all be in small games whereas I tend to prefer support casters that are benefited by larger armies. We have a 25 point game scheduled for the club day at the end of the month as long as he doesn't get called in to work (he's on call). I told him it'd be fine if we played another 20 point game if he doesn't get his 5 points done by then.

Third opponent - New player who was a spectator of my last game. I pulled out my Cryx battle box and gave him a half an hour demo with my stuff. Went fine. He said he's going to go online and see which faction looked the coolest to him. Maybe he'll be back.

So no issues so far.

I don't think you'll have any issues later too. In person, people who are opposed to your preference would normally just politely avoid you (totally different from the internets). So you get to play the ones who are okay with that. Which is fine, as long as there's enough of them. And that depends on your personality more than on anything else.

Also helps if you have some regular opponents and actually play regularly. Painted games tend to wow people. So even if they don't think it's for them, they at least give some thought to it, and surprisingly often find an easy way to produce a minimal painted force even if just to try it.

He's only started miniature wargaming within the last six months (though I've known him for 15 years and he's a member of the small club we started earlier in the year) and was super self conscious about his paint jobs and whether or not they looked "finished enough."

That's one of the regular cases, "super quality painting guy". He usually paints very well, but never has a finished army. I haven't found a key to them, except constant pestering about how complete army looks much better than unfinished army, and how it's important to see the army as a whole, not as a collection of separate miniatures. This article is imho the best on the subject:
http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=84431

 frozenwastes wrote:
But even at an event like this, it's unfair to assume that everyone must always participate with everyone else. Or to assume that wanting to interact with only a subset of those who attend is wrong. Or to assume that everyone must be fully included in everything that goes on there. Or that it's wrong to reject someone's offer of a game because their bare metal collection doesn't look good enough. Or that because these people are fellow gamers/friends one must set aside one's own interest for the interests of others.

The ultimatum talk is indeed mired in broken social expectations.

Except that's not the case at all. You didn't just decide not to participate with everyone, you made a big deal about how you want to change how everyone else plays, encourage them to paint more, etc. That's entirely different than just quietly walking away from the games you don't want to participate in.

The only reply I will make is to quote from the original post, because it looks like it was missed.

I, in the original post, wrote:This thread is about is how to go about expressing to other hobbyists that I've decided to transition to only playing with all the miniatures on the table (as well as all the terrain) being fully painted, based and complete. I hope to keep at least some as opponents, but I am willing to accept a smaller quantity of both opponents and games played.

i, in the original post, wrote:I was also planning on telling anyone who expresses that fully painted armies aren't in the cards for them (real life commitments causing a lack of time, painting speed too slow, not liking painting, etc.,) that I'm okay with that and that I'm sure we'll get to play a board game or something together some time.

Can we just drop this now?

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Do you have a decent amount of painted armies in the system(s) you play ?

If so you could always tell folk that you have decided to only play against painted armies, but you realise that may not be possible for some of your opponants (either because they don't paint, or are starting new projects)

so they could borrow painted figures from you to supplement their own

This would let them see how good playing a painted force is (it MIGHT encourage them to do thier own) and would mean you were not cutting out players who just don't enjoy painting

I knew a player who only played painted armies, and since he had decades of models built up he would offer his other armies for use if his opponent was still painting theirs. He also promoted painting by providing encouraging tips and it sounds like the OP is in the same boat.

Of course loaning an army all the time doesn't encourage those who just don't care about painting, but it will encourage those who could use some inspiration.

I don't have decades of models yet, but I do have fifteen years of models.

I'm also okay if I loan someone an army and they don't get inspired and never want to paint. People can do what they like with their time and if they don't want to paint, that's no different than me not wanting to play.

 Peregrine wrote:

Yeah, good luck with that, I have no idea why anyone would ever want to go paint in a store. I spend a huge amount of time painting, but all of it is done at home, and if all a store has to offer is painting space then I'm just not going to bother going there anymore.

Gotta agree with you here on painting in a shop vs at home. Though I'm really not a store-gaming guy either. Painting with someone else's paints or stuff would just feel "wrong" to me.

 frozenwastes wrote:

I'll only be playing with or against completed miniatures, completed including at least a little flock or texture on the bases as well.

FW - the main issue I have with your ultimatum (or would, if you were local and in my gaming group) is essentially - when is a miniature finished? I mean, I like to play a fully-painted game as much as the next guy, but I actually find playing games with a force or unit is the greatest motivator I have to get things finished. On this line, what's "finished" to you probably isn't to me. Now I might sound like a snob here, but I paint pretty well. If I saw your figures, and decided they weren't painted well enough for me to play against?

Are my otherwise-fully-painted marines who still lack final highlighting on the shoulderpads, varnish and a custom chapter symbol "finished" enough for you to play against? What if they already look better (and more painted) then most of your "completed" opponents? What if they look better than your "completed" figures?

 scipio.au wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Yeah, good luck with that, I have no idea why anyone would ever want to go paint in a store. I spend a huge amount of time painting, but all of it is done at home, and if all a store has to offer is painting space then I'm just not going to bother going there anymore.

Gotta agree with you here on painting in a shop vs at home. Though I'm really not a store-gaming guy either. Painting with someone else's paints or stuff would just feel "wrong" to me.

It isn't about using other people's paints, it is about the social aspect of painting and sharing techniques. I took some painting classes at NOVA and I learned more in an hour of hands-on demonstration and practice than months of reading blogs. I have learned a lot of things by watching others paint and having them teach me. I have also shared my techniques with others and helped people break down barriers simply by showing them how 5 minutes and they can do amazing things.

I also don't mind helping others paint. Helping someone assembly line boltgun metal on a gun or helping do all the eyes of some minis is fun in a social setting. It is also a good way to spend time if I don't have time for a full game but still have some time to hang out.

It is not an 'all the time' thing but it is fun to do sometimes.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Can we just drop this now?

Sure, just as soon as you drop all talk about persuading people to paint, offering to paint with them instead of playing, etc. In fact, why even bother with this thread at all? If it's really just about your decision to quietly decline to participate with everyone then why do you need to write long posts about it? If you aren't going to ever try to change anyone's mind just decline the games and don't make a big show of it.

If I approached someone for a game with my half-painted army and they told me "I only play with painted models", I'd shrug, commend them on their purity of purpose, and move on.

If you followed that up with "can you get this done by next week?" or "let's reschedule to when you get it painted" or "lets to sit in the corner and paint together", I would probably end up telling you to go feth yourself.

Somehow a categorical refusal to play against my grey horde is far more palatable than such remarks, which I can't help but interpret as preening and snide.

I'm not a fan of ultimatums, but I do agree with the original poster.

I think that in the last three years I have not played with in painted models, and since heavily doing FoW my terrain is now all painted etc.

The difficulty I always see is with new players, where it is about 'playing' learning the rules etc. to even get a small force painted when you don't know if you'll enjoy the game as no one will play you until you do, is a big ask!

On the other hand there are ways to encourage others, painted only events, tale of gamers, and others mentioned.

In the end I would take each situation on it's own merits, than dealing in absolutes. If you want to play against only painted armies, is it better to encourage a new player by letting them see how good it is to have a painted army and encourage by example, or make them drop away as no one will play them?

nkelsch wrote:

It isn't about using other people's paints, it is about the social aspect of painting and sharing techniques. I took some painting classes at NOVA and I learned more in an hour of hands-on demonstration and practice than months of reading blogs. I have learned a lot of things by watching others paint and having them teach me. I have also shared my techniques with others and helped people break down barriers simply by showing them how 5 minutes and they can do amazing things.

I also don't mind helping others paint. Helping someone assembly line boltgun metal on a gun or helping do all the eyes of some minis is fun in a social setting. It is also a good way to spend time if I don't have time for a full game but still have some time to hang out.

It is not an 'all the time' thing but it is fun to do sometimes.

I understand that it's not all about using other people's painting stuff - that bit was a response to FW's friendly "you can use my stuff". I don't mind showing others how to use techniques or modelling techniques (I occasionally did so before the local GW moved) but I just don't feel comfortable using other people's gear. Even when showing other people how to do a painting technique in a store, it's not something that "feels" comfortable to me, and I prefer to have access to all of my paints. Even when painting something a bit simple (like the Castle Ravenloft figures) I like to have access to all of my colours and brushes and so forth. If some of my mates want to bring their painting gear and some of their figures around to my place and do some painting as a social activity - and use some of my paints, then sure. I could probably run a FLGS painting clinic (using their stuff) without a major problem, but not actually paint my own stuff in there. Might sound odd, but it's how it works for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Reaver83 wrote:

The difficulty I always see is with new players, where it is about 'playing' learning the rules etc. to even get a small force painted when you don't know if you'll enjoy the game as no one will play you until you do, is a big ask!

You've made some pretty good points here. As I said earlier, I find playing with a force to be the best motivator for getting that very same force painted up. (It can sometimes be a "reward" for a particularly effective figure or unit to be bumped up to the front of the paint queue!)
I'm just getting back into FoW after many years off. I've got an almost-painted DAK army, as well as LW Germans and British/Americans (thanks, Open Fire & PSC!) which I'm yet to open and assemble. As I'm also in the position of learning the rules again after 10-odd years, I'll want to be using my own models, and learn what they can actually do, while painting them. Now it doesn't mean I won't bother to at least assemble and spray them, but they won't ever get finished if I don't use them, learn how to use them, and learn to like them while doing so.

This thread once again shows that it's fine to play with painted models, and it's fine to play with unpainted models, but it isn't fine for people who want to play with painted models not to want to play with unpainted models.

If you want to play with people you need to make it a positive experience for both.

scipio.au wrote:
FW - the main issue I have with your ultimatum

I'm done dealing with that socially dysfunctional interpretation of my position. See here; http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/487871.page#4961906

I mean, I like to play a fully-painted game as much as the next guy, but I actually find playing games with a force or unit is the greatest motivator I have to get things finished. On this line, what's "finished" to you probably isn't to me. Now I might sound like a snob here, but I paint pretty well. If I saw your figures, and decided they weren't painted well enough for me to play against?

If someone thought my painting was too crappy to play against, I'd be fine with that. There are lots of people who do way better than I do in painting and if they decide they don't want to spend time playing against something they find ugly, that's their choice. I have no intrinsic claim on their hobby time.

My own painting is to base coat each area in a base colour. Than I glaze in shading, and highlight twice. Then I finish the base with some sort of sand texture and some flock. The base rings are painted black or brown and then it gets matte sealer. People can evaluate what they see and if they say it's not good enough and don't want to play, I'll shrug and get back to painting or playing someone else. I don't do my hobby for other people, I do it for me and if my stuff's not good enough for them, then that's no different than me refusing someone else. No one is obligated to play anyone.

Are my otherwise-fully-painted marines who still lack final highlighting on the shoulderpads, varnish and a custom chapter symbol "finished" enough for you to play against? What if they already look better (and more painted) then most of your "completed" opponents? What if they look better than your "completed" figures?

As a start, Is every surface covered in paint that is the final colour of that particular part of the model? Is there some sort of texture on the base of the model? How about for the sake of discussion, we simply agree that my definition of completed is very expansive and accommodating and move on? Let's also say that it's a definition that would not fall prey to gotchas you might propose like "what if a person says that primer grey *is* their final colour scheme?" or other such nonsense.

Omegus wrote:If I approached someone for a game with my half-painted army and they told me "I only play with painted models", I'd shrug, commend them on their purity of purpose, and move on.

If you followed that up with "can you get this done by next week?" or "let's reschedule to when you get it painted" or "lets to sit in the corner and paint together", I would probably end up telling you to go feth yourself.

Somehow a categorical refusal to play against my grey horde is far more palatable than such remarks, which I can't help but interpret as preening and snide.

Can you recommend an alternative way for me to communicate both that I'm not willing to play with unpainted armies and that I am still interested in playing you in the future when your get stuff done?

That's a 100% serious question. I really do want to hear your recommendation on how I can communicate both of those things without coming across as "preening and snide."

.

 frozenwastes wrote:
I'm done dealing with that socially dysfunctional interpretation of my position. See here; http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/487871.page#4961906

Simply repeating "SOCIAL FALLACY" doesn't mean that it's an accurate statement about the situation. What you're doing goes way beyond just quietly choosing which people to participate with.

Can you recommend an alternative way for me to communicate both that I'm not willing to play with unpainted armies and that I am still interested in playing you in the future when your get stuff done?

"Sorry, but I only play against fully painted armies."

It's really not that complicated. You don't need an endless discussion of every detail of social situations to say "sorry I'd rather play someone else", and you don't need to worry about adding subtle messages about future games. If the person is going to paint their stuff they'll ask to play you later. If they aren't they don't care about your "generous" offer to play someday in the future. All you need to do is state your conditions and let them decide whether it's worth paying attention to you again.

Kilkrazy wrote:This thread once again shows that it's fine to play with painted models, and it's fine to play with unpainted models, but it isn't fine for people who want to play with painted models not to want to play with unpainted models.

It's always fine for me to spend my hobby time however I want to. And it's always okay for anyone to say no to an offer to do anything together. For any reason they deem to have merit for them.

Also, this thread is not about whether or not it is okay. It's about communicating the decision after it has been made. Do you have anything to add on that topic?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
crap I'm not talking about anymore

I'm sorry, but I'm done talking about your interpretation of my position. I've heard what you have to say, I disagree and we'll not be discussing it further. And if other people bring it up, my response will be the same.

"Sorry, but I only play against fully painted armies."

It's really not that complicated. You don't need an endless discussion of every detail of social situations to say "sorry I'd rather play someone else", and you don't need to worry about adding subtle messages about future games. If the person is going to paint their stuff they'll ask to play you later. If they aren't they don't care about your "generous" offer to play someday in the future. All you need to do is state your conditions and let them decide whether it's worth paying attention to you again.

Thank you for the on topic post! I do appreciate it.

I think there is something to leaving things implied rather than being explicit about it. I will give it further thought.

That said, it's starting to seem that the type of people who react negatively to further invitations to either painting or gaming in the future once things are painted are the type that are taking an honest friendly invitation to do hobby stuff together as either an insult or an attempt to control them. So perhaps I will keep the further invitations to both paint together or game in the future in my communication just to help screen people like that out. Just as I don't want to spend my time playing with unpainted miniatures, I also don't want to spend my hobby time with people prone to always interpreting everything negatively.

I worked for GW for two years, between 2004 and 2006, and official policy was that to constitute as a painted figure it had to have a minimum of three colours (base coat) and a painted and/or flocked base. I've been gaming since I was very young brought up by my father on historicals before spending eighteen years involved in the GW universe and then in the last ten years I've moved away from GW and back to historical mainly WW2 (FOW/Rapid Fire/BA).

I dislike painting as can be seen by my half completed chaos marauder horde and the large amounts of Soviets and Germans. I often get home from my wage slave job and sit on the PC planning the next purchase or on the Xbox handing out virtual death online. I will pontificate and put off painting projects - in fact sitting here now I can see my paint table loaded up with Mid War Grenadiers screaming for paint.

However it might be how I was brought up in the wargaming community but I couldn't imagine playing a game with unpainted figures... It is anathema, I remember playing games with hundreds of minifigs/hinchcliffe napoleonics with my father and his gaming group in the 1980's the painting was poor by todays standards but they were painted with love (base coats with correct facings and straps/belts picked out) Unpainted figures on the table would have never gotten on the table.

Back in the 80's with the exception of one or two club members who were university students, my fathers club members were all police officers, firemen or other jobs which required long hours. I think the difference between then and now is the ease in which we can be distracted from our painting schedules - four TV channels and a Spectrum doesn't eat into your painting time. I also think the fact that wargames figures in the more plush magazines (White Dwarf and WI to name two) with there professionally painted figures and professional photoshoots makes our standard paint jobs feel inadequate - I look at my figures and then at the same models in the magazine and lose enthusiasm.

I agree with the OP that painted figures (to the convention I mentioned in my opening paragraph) on painted or even pre painted terrain makes gaming the experience I enjoy...

 frozenwastes wrote:
That said, it's starting to seem that the type of people who react negatively to further invitations to either painting or gaming in the future once things are painted are the type that are taking an honest friendly invitation to do hobby stuff together as either an insult or an attempt to control them.

Except that's exactly what you're doing. You're offering to paint with them as part of your goal of getting more painted armies. You've already admitted that it's at least partly about persuading and inspiring, not just sharing painting time for the sake of painting, just like you've admitted that the offer of future gaming is an attempt to bribe them into getting something done asap. Your whole attitude here comes across as manipulative and condescending.

Plus, as Omegus said, offering to help paint or whatever can easily sound patronizing to some people, and show a lack of respect for their preferences about how to play the game.

I think you have to look to establish a base level of painting in which you're happy to play against. The Minimum for me is Three Colours Base Coat plus painted/flocked bases.

Rather than offer painting time it'd be better to perhaps start playing smaller games (i.e 40K in Forty Minutes which if i recall correctly was 400 points) then slowly increase the size of games as they start painting the models. In this way you're not refusing to play, you are showing you are willing to come half way. If they won't meet you at that half way point then thats their decision and they are aware of your clearly defined stance.

Corso Vitt wrote:I worked for GW for two years, between 2004 and 2006, and official policy was that to constitute as a painted figure it had to have a minimum of three colours (base coat) and a painted and/or flocked base. I've been gaming since I was very young brought up by my father on historicals before spending eighteen years involved in the GW universe and then in the last ten years I've moved away from GW and back to historical mainly WW2 (FOW/Rapid Fire/BA).

...

I agree with the OP that painted figures (to the convention I mentioned in my opening paragraph) on painted or even pre painted terrain makes gaming the experience I enjoy...

So how do you go about communicating that with the other people in your hobby world? EDIT: Oh, I see now you followed up already. Thanks!

Peregrine wrote:Your whole attitude here comes across as manipulative and condescending.

Perhaps by now you may have noticed that you're not going to convince me that your interpretation of my approach is accurate. You've given me your best arguments and I haven't been convinced.

I can't control how people react. I have a hobby that I enjoy and I want to invite anyone interested to participate with me. I'm not going to stop inviting people to group painting sessions just because they might be insulted by it. And I'm not going to stop telling people I'd be more than happy to play in the future after they paint their models just because it might make someone think I'm condescending.

That said, I am open to any pointers on how to communicate and extend invitations without alienating people. I would rather be able to extend those invitations in a way that people won't see in a negative light. If you think it's impossible, then fine, you have nothing more to add to the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Corso Vitt wrote:
I think you have to look to establish a base level of painting in which you're happy to play against. The Minimum for me is Three Colours Base Coat plus painted/flocked bases.

Rather than offer painting time it'd be better to perhaps start playing smaller games (i.e 40K in Forty Minutes which if i recall correctly was 400 points) then slowly increase the size of games as they start painting the models. In this way you're not refusing to play, you are showing you are willing to come half way. If they won't meet you at that half way point then thats their decision and they are aware of your clearly defined stance.

I think that's a great idea. Thanks! I think that GW might have had it right back in the day with the three colour minimum and something other than bare sand on the base (be it flock or painted sand). I'll try to be consistent.

Have you considered starting to write Battle Reports on Dakka?

Our games have evolved over the years to be very tidy affairs, with good, themed, painted terrain and only using themed, painted models. We make time to paint our new models so that we can use them in games. The Battle Reports we post here are one of the main motivations behind all of this.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/488180.page

It's also a great excuse to get other people to paint their stuff. You could express a desire to the group to write and post reports, and that you'd like to make them look really good.

Your opponents then come to view the report here, are impressed, and hopefully also adopt the "I want to paint my models so I can show them to the community" way of thinking you see here..

There's a lot of things I'd like to say about this topic, Frozenwastes, but it all boils down to the fact that even though you may have the best intentions, there's no way you're going to be able to tell people "I won't play you unless you meet my standards" without sounding like a tool.

Not saying you are one, but the proposition is undeniably toolish any way you look at it.

Wow this sounds so serious. You'd think the OP is coming oit of the closet or something.

If you don't like the fact that your friends don't have the time/money/drive/etc, fine. Don't forget that excluding your friends because their "level of devotion' doesn't match yours can start to exclude yourself from friendship based on a paint job.

Which is more important?

There used to be a time when it just wasn't on to field unpainted armies, especially among historical players. This is particularly due to the lead content in figures that made it unsafe to handle them bare for long periods. When I started this is how I understood things to be, and while unpainted stuff did get fielded it was a genuine work in progress. Now it seems that it's perfectly normal to field masses of figures without the intention to do any of the modelling and painting work, and be quite belligerent or proud about the fact that you don't have to do it, which seems a bit of a change in attitude.

But the shift seems to have changed especially with GW players. I think the reason for this is that GW have relaxed on it a lot more in their shops and at sponsored events. Games like 40K and Fantasy have changed to require a lot more figures, and the business model is made too focus more on younger age groups. To demand that figures are painted before being played is counter productive to sales when all their sales promotional stuff (White Dwarf mainly) says 'buy this NOW' and lots of it. You're expecting a younger audience to have more patience and dedication, telling them they'll have to put in weeks or months of work before getting these bloated armies to the tabletop just won't work. It's much easier to let them get them to the table in as long as it takes to stick the figure together. Lets be honest, even the 'three colour minimum' is a pretty low ask, you can achieve a decent amount with minimal skill; a few base colours, a wash, a few touches to minor details and then basing.

Expecting people aged 20-30 to produce small painted armies in the late 80s and early 90s comes from a different era, it's a different prospect to expecting kids to produce painted armies with hundreds of figures in. GW are aware of this and relaxed their own rules and a whole culture has grown up with people entering a hobby where there is no expectation of actually painting figures as the norm. It's now seen as a chore or an unusual burden rather than just the normal expectation of participating. To put your foot down about fielding unpainted miniatures and expecting the community to just change, rather than react with hostility, is swimming against the tide of at least the last 10 years.

I've decided that I'm not going to paint/build/play with anyone unless they paint/build/play against me first (and regularly).

Nothing says 'hobby' like ultimatums and asking people to participate in aspects of a hobby they may not enjoy and/or be any good at!

Great job!

Darth Bob wrote:There's a lot of things I'd like to say about this topic, Frozenwastes, but it all boils down to the fact that even though you may have the best intentions, there's no way you're going to be able to tell people "I won't play you unless you meet my standards" without sounding like a tool.

Not saying you are one, but the proposition is undeniably toolish any way you look at it.

I've come to grips with the fact that some people won't like it. I'm willing to sound like a tool to some people if it means I get to enjoy my hobby time more. I was hoping perhaps that there might be a way to avoid sounding like a tool to those who will take it that way, but I'll live if that's not possible. Those who will be offended will be offended.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:If you don't like the fact that your friends don't have the time/money/drive/etc, fine. Don't forget that excluding your friends because their "level of devotion' doesn't match yours can start to exclude yourself from friendship based on a paint job.

Which is more important?

It's okay for friends not to do everything together and it's okay to have priorities that trump friendship in some ways. I think my friends will be okay with us not doing everything together because I decided I want my hobby time to spent a certain way.

Howard A Treesong wrote:It's now seen as a chore or an unusual burden rather than just the normal expectation of participating. To put your foot down about fielding unpainted miniatures and expecting the community to just change, rather than react with hostility, is swimming against the tide of at least the last 10 years.

If all that happens is that like minded people find out there's someone with similar preferences to them and we get some games in, I'm okay if the tide has turned towards seeing painting as a chore. I've noticed that the audience of the games I play seem to not be kids, but people in their twenties through sixties. I think I'll be alright.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Nothing says 'hobby' like ultimatums and asking people to participate in aspects of a hobby they may not enjoy and/or be any good at!

Great job!

Meh.

Perhaps you too missed the first post:

In the first post I wrote:I was also planning on telling anyone who expresses that fully painted armies aren't in the cards for them (life commitments causing a lack of time, painting speed too slow, not liking painting, etc.,) that I'm okay with that and that I'm sure we'll get to play a board game or something together some time.

Guess what? Not everyone has to do everything together. The expectation that they do is socially dysfunctional. It's okay if the people who don't want to paint don't paint and it's okay if we don't play a game together because we want different things from our hobby.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
Have you considered starting to write Battle Reports on Dakka?

Our games have evolved over the years to be very tidy affairs, with good, themed, painted terrain and only using themed, painted models. We make time to paint our new models so that we can use them in games. The Battle Reports we post here are one of the main motivations behind all of this.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/488180.page

It's also a great excuse to get other people to paint their stuff. You could express a desire to the group to write and post reports, and that you'd like to make them look really good.

Your opponents then come to view the report here, are impressed, and hopefully also adopt the "I want to paint my models so I can show them to the community" way of thinking you see here..

Now this is a great idea. One local gaming group runs a 'zine that they hand out at local cons with stuff like that in it, both to show off their models and to advertise what they are up to. An electronic format like a DakkaDakka batrep or a blog would be even easier.

Thank you so much for the link and the idea. I can see why it's so motivating!