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.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Why is this thread even open? It's stuff like this that gives Dakka a bad name.

Its open as it allows user to discuss their veiws on the hobby, as they should be allowed to, I guess

 Colpicklejar wrote:
I look at it the way I look at participation in Dungeons and Dragons. In my group, everyone takes turns as Dungeon Master. If you're new we allow you a few sessions to get the hang of things before you're expected to participate in that aspect.

If someone in our group said "you know what guys, I just really don't feel like being Dungeon Master, ever. You guys just cover that, aight?" we would probably still let them play, but it'd be disappointing; a clear sign that they don't value our games (or our company) as much as the rest of us. Not everyone likes DM'ing- we have a few players who groan when it's their turn. But they all put forth the effort, and that's appreciated.

How does that work? So you guys do a different campaign every session or just take turns doing the same campaign? Seems like it would be kind of odd to both play in the campaign and have a hand in running it at the same time. Doesn't seem like there'd be much that would stay hidden.

Dashofpepper wrote:How you enjoy your hobby is only as right or wrong as you deem it. But your personal worldview should never be imposed on other people.

This.

Elemental wrote:Why on earth would I insist someone must do a part of the hobby they don't enjoy?

And This.

Las wrote:Did anyone read Eilif's excellent blog article? I suggest you do in order to have a much better explained example of my point of view on the subject. I'd like to know what some of you think.

http://chicagoskirmish.blogspot.ca/2014/08/painting-matters-in-defense-of-hobby.html

Yep, I read it, it reads like a fluff piece for people who like to be obnoxious to people who want to enjoy the hobby in different ways. I find that article more obnoxious than unpainted miniatures, because it actively tells people they suck (not directly, but obviously it is implied). Let's pull out some quotes from that article:

"Those who don't choose to paint their models have a different approach to the hobby and it's just as valid as yours."

Balderdash, I say! Pish posh and poppycock!

So, you're imposing your own view of the hobby on others.

*a bunch of pointless analogies*

I was going to discuss each of those analogies in turn, but after doing 1 realised I was wasting my time. I'll just say the analogies aren't analogous and thus aren't useful.

But I don't ever expect to get the same kind of props or respect as someone who paints their miniatures to a higher standard any more than I would expect a best-painted award at a convention.

Except no one is asking for "props" for not painting models. They are asking not to be attacked, called lazy, told they aren't wargamers, told they're "doing it wrong".

and does no one any favors.

Balderdash, I say! Pish posh and poppycock!

It does a lot of people favours, it opens up wargaming to a far larger set of people. Yes, obviously having unpainted models in games has its bad points. So does telling a bunch of people "no, you aren't allowed to join my hobby unless you spend 50 hours doing something you don't want to do first".

And frankly I can make the same argument for crappily painted models. Yes, I'd prefer to play against painted models than unpainted models... but I'd just as equally (if not more) prefer to play against WELL painted models than crappily painted models. It benefits the hobby if everyone spends time on their models to make them look good instead of just roughly painting 3 colours on. We could just as equally say allowing poorly painted models do no one any favours because well painted models look better, make for a more overall entertaining game and the aesthetic is more appealing to onlookers. To me, the level of standards looks something like this....

1. Well Painted models
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2. Extremely poorly painted models
- <-------------------------------------------Where you are placing your "hobby standard to be considered wargaming"
3. Unpainted models
-
-
-
4. Well painted/printed 2D standing cut outs
-
-
5. Flat tokens with a nice image on them
-
-
6. Flat tokens with names on them


Obviously I prefer to play against #1, but frankly I consider all of it "wargaming" and unpainted vs poorly painted is rather close in my personal opinion because I find poorly painted models as aesthetically jarring as unpainted ones (the only reason it's higher on the list is because I'm willing to give people an A for effort Otherwise they'd probably be on the same level).

Frankly, the only reason it would slightly grate me playing against #4 is admittedly I would find it annoying that someone spent almost no money to play the game when most people are suckered in to it by GW Realistically I'd be fine with it, I think aesthetically it would look fine and I know there's groups who play like that.

 Las wrote:

@your edit: because that's just called modeling, it's a similar but distinct hobby from miniature wargaming.

So....painting in itself is a complete hobby, and I'm not going to be accused of not being "into painting" if I don't game with the miniatures. But painting is an integral part of wargaming, and I am going to be accused of not being "into wargaming" if I don't paint. Seems a bit circular, but I'm sure you'll "clarify" it.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Colpicklejar wrote:
I look at it the way I look at participation in Dungeons and Dragons. In my group, everyone takes turns as Dungeon Master. If you're new we allow you a few sessions to get the hang of things before you're expected to participate in that aspect.

If someone in our group said "you know what guys, I just really don't feel like being Dungeon Master, ever. You guys just cover that, aight?" we would probably still let them play, but it'd be disappointing; a clear sign that they don't value our games (or our company) as much as the rest of us. Not everyone likes DM'ing- we have a few players who groan when it's their turn. But they all put forth the effort, and that's appreciated.

How does that work? So you guys do a different campaign every session or just take turns doing the same campaign? Seems like it would be kind of odd to both play in the campaign and have a hand in running it at the same time. Doesn't seem like there'd be much that would stay hidden.

The same campaign. We've done it in a variety of ways. In the past our campaigns were pretty episodic- there were over-arching narratives, but for the most part each session contained its own adventure, set within the world we created. It kind of helped that we would play 6-8 hours at a time...

More recently we've taken to "handing off" the story to the next DM. We leave off on cliffhangers all the time, and the next DM resolves them in a way that they like and continues the existing narrative. In a way there's no reason to keep things "hidden" because it's a surprise to everyone.

I think it helps a lot. More of a collaboration than one person trying to herd cats.

Las = Ignore
DoP = Well said.
Don Mondo = Ignore Las
This thread = complete fail and I can't believe the mods have left it the way it is. Other topics get shredded so fast and sleeper cell non-sense like this lingers on...

Well if this thread is about WHY people dont necessarily embrace painting but still play I'd say we have been given many answers.

If the thread is about someone not liking that you dont embrace painting, okay fine.

But no amount of brow beating is going to make someone love painting nor will it make them better at it. Just pointing it out.

Im not sure the thread can offer much more.

 Elemental wrote:


Or maybe they just don't see painting as of much of an important part of the hobby? But even if you're right....so what? Okay, you're....more "dedicated" at toy soldiers? Well done you!

I always find this discussion literally incomprehensible. I like painting, but I can accept some people don't like painting. Why on earth would I insist someone must do a part of the hobby they don't enjoy?

(edit) You know, I've never seen a thread where someone insists that someone who collects miniatures solely to paint is somehow lesser for not gaming with them. Has anyone else?

The first sentence of my post is:

 RunicFIN wrote:
It's obvious though that some individuals are more dedicated to their hobbies ( be it whatever )

...and you still managed to somehow think that I´m talking about myself, or painting. Well, I wasn't, and no amount of possible twisting of my words after this post will change that fact. I'm clearly talking in general. I currently spend 6 hours a week to paint max, mostly around 4. I believe I'm in the lower end of the spectrum.

Just painting more than the next guy makes someone a more dedicated painter, not much else. The only way I could see someone being a more "dedicated wargamer" is that guy A spends more time on everything that "wargaming" encompasses ( fluff, gaming, painting, modeling, terrain building, what else ) than guy B. If guy C spends 12 hours gaming and guy D spends 12 hours painting weekly, then I see them as equally dedicated, just to different areas of "wargaming."

Painting is probably my favorite part of the hobby and I love to face beautifully painted armies and groan inside when I face the Gray enemies.

However, I'll never tell them they're doing it wrong. The hobby is for fun and if they don't find painting to be fun, then why on earth should they have to do it?

For me, being a wargammer is more a mindest. A guy can have only two unpainted squads of marines but if he's got the passion and drive and thinks about it when he should be working, then he's a wargammer to me.

It depends on how long the persons been playing. If hes been playing for years and still hasnt even put 3 colors on his models then I dont usually game with them. So far all the people Ive ran into that are like that only play a few games a year and arent very fun to play against since they might as well be constantly brand new to the game. No one likes every game to be a teaching game.

 Las wrote:
For real, though. Why are you so worked up about this? Methinks there's a nerve being struck.

Yeah, that'll happen when you suggest that you're more important than someone else due to some artificial limit that you've applied yourself.

All of this 'You're not a 'real' wargamer unless you do the things that I consider an important part of the hobby' is ridiculous and elitist.

 Eilif wrote:
...Sure they're wargaming of a sort, but to call it "miniature wargaming" seems like the awarding of a term to an activity that doesn't match the definition.

Are miniatures not miniatures until they are painted?

Perhaps (only half kidding here) wargaming without the expectation of painting needs a new term.

Or maybe people could stop trying to impose labels on folk who participate in the hobby differently to themselves, and just accept that different people like doing different things?

Maybe they are starting out and cannot obtain paints or hell maybe they can't paint that well


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've found most 40k gamers are fething critics.

 insaniak wrote:

 Las wrote:
For real, though. Why are you so worked up about this? Methinks there's a nerve being struck.

Yeah, that'll happen when you suggest that you're more important than someone else due to some artificial limit that you've applied yourself.

All of this 'You're not a 'real' wargamer unless you do the things that I consider an important part of the hobby' is ridiculous and elitist.

Or he could not resort to name calling over a differing opinion on the definition of wargaming. For folks constantly insisting that people's opinions on the hobby should be absolutely respected you guys sure get worked the feth up when someone dares to disagree with you.

 Las wrote:
For folks constantly insisting that people's opinions on the hobby should be absolutely respected you guys sure get worked the feth up when someone dares to disagree with you.

Someone having a different opinion is not the issue. How that opinion is presented is where the problem comes from.

It's perfectly acceptable for you to prefer to play with painted models exclusively. Pointing out that you prefer to play with painted models exclusively is likewise perfectly acceptable,

Telling someone that they're not a 'real' gamer unless they do the things you like to do? That's just going to get people riled, and if you honestly can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. This isn't just a gaming thing... Any time you tell people they're not doing something 'properly' because they're not doing it your way, you're going to annoy people.

 Las wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Las wrote:
For real, though. Why are you so worked up about this? Methinks there's a nerve being struck.

Yeah, that'll happen when you suggest that you're more important than someone else due to some artificial limit that you've applied yourself.

All of this 'You're not a 'real' wargamer unless you do the things that I consider an important part of the hobby' is ridiculous and elitist.

Or he could not resort to name calling over a differing opinion on the definition of wargaming. For folks constantly insisting that people's opinions on the hobby should be absolutely respected you guys sure get worked the feth up when someone dares to disagree with you.

They don't get mad when you disagree with them. They get mad when you insinuate that they will never be 'complete wargamers' due to some standard that you set. Do you understand the difference?

EDIT:insaniak, you never told me you were a ninja!

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 Las wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Las wrote:
For real, though. Why are you so worked up about this? Methinks there's a nerve being struck.

Yeah, that'll happen when you suggest that you're more important than someone else due to some artificial limit that you've applied yourself.

All of this 'You're not a 'real' wargamer unless you do the things that I consider an important part of the hobby' is ridiculous and elitist.

Or he could not resort to name calling over a differing opinion on the definition of wargaming. For folks constantly insisting that people's opinions on the hobby should be absolutely respected you guys sure get worked the feth up when someone dares to disagree with you.

They don't get mad when you disagree with them. They get mad when you insinuate that they will never be 'complete wargamers' due to some standard that you set. Do you understand the difference?

EDIT:insaniak, you never told me you were a ninja!

Yeah, I understand. That's still just my opinion based on what wargaming is and I don't think that's worth calling someone an 'ass-hat' over. One may think that about me, I honestly couldn't care less. It is however pretty strange to get that riled up in the first place over the issue at hand.

For the record whether people paint their models or not doesn't make me mad in the slightest. Theyre yours do what you like with them. The definition of what wargaming and is considered to be by the majority of hobbyists (those outside of 40k) doesn't change just because of you only like what you like.

Yeah, my position is elitist but I don't remember ever pushing any of your moms down the stairs. Get over it.

 Las wrote:

Yeah, I understand. That's still just my opinion based on what wargaming is and I don't think that's worth calling someone an 'ass-hat' over. One may think that about me, I honestly couldn't care less. It is however pretty strange to get that riled up in the first place over the issue at hand.

For the record whether people paint their models or not doesn't make me mad in the slightest. Theyre yours do what you like with them. The definition of what wargaming and is considered to be by the majority of hobbyists (those outside of 40k) doesn't change just because of you only like what you like.

Yeah, my position is elitist but I don't remember ever pushing any of your moms down the stairs. Get over it.

So you insulted folks (unknowingly or unknowingly) by insinuating that they will never be 'complete wargamers', then wonder why they get riled up about it?

Do I understand your position properly?

In general, best not to imply folks are inferior to you by some metric of your own defining. Tends not endear people to you. Nor does being flippant about any insult you may have caused, for that matter.

Is being a complete participant in wargaming important enough to this guy to call people names like a teenager? If playing with grey dudez is fine for them why would it matter?

 Las wrote:
Is being a complete participant in wargaming important enough to this guy to call people names like a teenager? If playing with grey dudez is fine for them why would it matter?

The topic under discussion here was why people play without painting, not explaining why making offensive comments annoys people.

But I think we've about run the course here. Moving on.