"To be, or not to be,
that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows
of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea
of troubles, and by opposing end them?"
-- Hamlet, III

Originally, I had intended to write a column about the state of the industry and its potential for growth in the coming years. However, recent events in the hobby have prompted me to attend to affairs closer to home.

In every business, those in charge determine how the company is going to behave, both to consumers and to its creditors. These matters concern a range of issues from product quality, to timeliness, to customer support. Generally accepted practices in any industry determine what kind of behavior is ethical. To a great degree, those things that are deemed contrary to ethical practice become illegal.

Although wargame publishing certainly qualifies as a cottage industry, it is bound by the same legalities and ethical standards as any other business. For some reason, this in- dustry has drawn at least a few individuals who seem to think that they are an exception.

As William Shakespeare so eloquently stated in Hamlet, a column (such as this one) that sets out to fight questionable behavior is fraught with the inevitable difficulty of answering a single question: is it worth the effort?

I've never felt comfortable in publicly criticizing the actions of others, despite how strongly I may feel about the matter. Nevertheless, because I am directly involved or implicated in some of the most recent shenani- gans, I feel it is necessary to cast some light and, with it, no doubt, some heat.

Wargaming History: A Trivia Lesson

Once upon a time, in the middle of the 1970s, an organization was formed called GAMA, The Game Manufacturer's Association. Most of you know them as a trade assoclation of game publishers in our industry the people who sponsor the Origins game convention every year. They also host an annual trade show for the industry, complete with seminars to help your local retailer thrive by selling the kind of games we love.

However noble their purpose is today, GAMA was not originally formed around the lofty goals of bettering gaming for everyone. Instead, GAMA guru Rick Loomis has often recounted the tale that GAMA was originally formed to keep one member out -- a certain company of some disrepute, Attack Wargames. Their ads promised titles that wargamers dreamed of in the 70s, but delivered nothing after cashing people's checks for mail-ordered games (or so I remember the tale).

To exclude Attack Wargames from having a booth at Origins, the other manufacturers formed a trade association and specified that only association members could participate in the show. Naturally, Attack Wargames would not be given membership to GAMA and, hence, could be excluded from exhibiting at the convention. This is how our industry has dealt with disreputable vendors in the past.

As a post script, "Uncle" Lou Zocchi, the grand old man of wargaming, called Attack Wargames liars and cheats in public. Mr. Zocchi was sued for slander but won the case by - get this - using the truth for his defense and proving that his allegations toward Attack Wargames were all true. So pleased was GAMA that they awarded him a $1,000 stipend to help defray Mr. Zocchi's legal expenses.

Some Things Never Change

Many people have recently received a flier from 3W explaining all the recent difficulties that company has had with its "unfortunate experiment" in Sacramento. The flier also included some very interesting offers. One offer that is not on the flier is explained by Richard Berg in his recent comments on the GEnie network:

A gamer called me to say that he had just spoke [sic] to [3W] on the phone concerning the upcoming release of Barbarians, asking if it was available, etc., etc. The gamer informed me that [3Ws] reply - and he was paraphrasing, of course, but he was very careful about the words he used - was that [they have] (or will shortly) sent out his prepub[lication] orders. However, in that version, the rules were "Photostatted," as [3W] was hoping to get those gamers/consumer's "reaction" to the rules and "incorporate" their reactions "into the version to be sent to the Distributors."

Some on GEnie have responded to this practice with a positive attitude. Their intention is that it is an honest effort by 3W to improve the quality of its product and at the same time to offer some sort of proof that the game is actually going to be published. (To put this in context, some people have been waiting for the publication of this game for over two years under its original title Legions of Rome).

Are wargame customers now so accustomed to receiving shoddy and late products that they are willing to condone such behavior?

Fortunately, some are not. Again, Mr. Berg:

In essence, 3W is asking the pre-order people to [spend] $40 to do [3W's] final playtesting on the game. I find this, if not truly despicable, reprehensible. I, for one, do not intend on sitting back and allowing such practices to proliferate.... To knowingly sell an unfinished item under such circumstances is to commit a fraud, and sending such through the mail, and advertising such through the mail, is Mail Fraud....

The legalities of the issue are unknown to this author and are for lawyers to decide. The ethics of it, on the other hand, are indisputable. Imagine, if you will, sending money to any other company, waiting two years to get the product, and then having to finish making it yourself Other manufacturers would be sued out of existence for such a practice. It Is a sad statement indeed that any consumer in the wargaming industry would tolerate it.

That, however, is not the end of it. Contamed on that flier was a blatant piece of ethical disregard. Once more, Richard Berg:

... some of you may have noticed the 3W Flyer quote from "R.Berg." That is not me; that is someone named R.Berg that [3W] dug up and had say something "quotable." That such a practice is illegal (cf. David Merrick) and considered fraud was ignored by [3W] (one hopes they simply were ignorant rather than purposely ignored it). [3W], I'm sure, will insist it was a joke. Well, without my permission it certainly was not; it was an unwarranted and illegal use of my name to promote a product that I did not endorse.

The "R.Berg" in the quote is actually a gentleman from Texas who genuinely likes 3W games. That 3W used the man's name in such a fashion, while failing to note that he was "R. Berg from Texas," rather than the well known and marketable "Richard Berg of New York," is ethically repugnant.

Another example of ethical disregard and one in which I am more personally involved - can be found in Strategy & Tactics #169, published by Decision Games. In the game rules and on the masthead I am credited with the counter art for the Civil War game found inside.

Unfortunately, the counters published in the magazine were not the counters I created. The font has been altered and subtle changes to the colors have been made. In the larger scheme of things, these alterations may seem like small breaches. However, I take what I do very seriously; and when I sign my name to something, I expect it to be published as I submitted it. The fact that they altered my work - making it inferior to boot - and left my name on it is a thing I do not take lightly.

This matter is not the only thing Decision Games has done. They also took the infantry icons I drew for the counters and enlarged them as graphics on the rules' title page. Many who own this edition of S&T have probably laughed aloud at these ridiculous looking figures. The two rectangles that served as eyes the size of a pinhead on a quarter-inch icon, look like some sort of mod sunglasses purchased at a generation "X" paraphernalia shop. Decision Games did not have my permission to do that with the icons, which were drawn specifically for use only on the game's counters. Had they asked for permission, I would not have given it.

As a graphic artist, the only marketable thing I have is my name, backed by my talent. When a company alters my work, or uses it for things it was not intended for, and then publishes it with my name still attached, it damages me professionally. If someone takes your wallet, you're only out the money; if they take your good name, you're left poor indeed.

Ethical breaches are always damaging. Imagine if someone had purchased a 3W game based upon the R. Berg quote, hated the game, and believed it was "the" Richard Berg to blame. The damage extends not only to 3W for producing a poor product, but also to Richard Berg who appears to have endorsed it. It is the same for someone who looks at the figures in the rules in S&T and thinks I am to blame for the shoddiness of that graphic.

You may ask, at this point, so what if Jon Compton and Richard Berg are damaged by the ethical improprieties of others? What does this mean to me as a consumer? The answer is "a lot!"

A lack of ethics in the producers of wargames is not only bad for those, specifically, who are wronged, it is bad for the industry as a whole. Those who paid $40.00 for the privilege of being a blind playtest group will remember and tell their friends (remember Fresno Games and their write-your-own rules books? Remember their "Historical Smart-aleckism Department?" Remember their refusal to print the names of playtesters under the subterfuge that only Terry Shrum and Mike Crane were to blame?).

These practices contribute to a more broad distrust of our hobby as a whole; consumers beg questions like: are they complete? are they tested? will I be ripped off. As another individual comes up with "no," "no," and "yes" as firm answers, the consumer base for the hobby shrinks by another gamer and we all suffer for it. What's more, he'll probably tell everyone he knows.

Even as I write this editorial and reflect upon the words of Shakespeare, I am forced to conclude that this editorial, too, is in some way damaging to our industry. However, the slings and arrows have become too difficult for the hobby to endure; and though it may indeed be nobler in the mind to suffer them, I can no longer remain so noble.

I hope that those who read this column realize that my intent is to cause those who have committed these reprehensible acts to cease and desist. I hope that they will commit themselves to a course of ethical business practices that will inevitably strengthen this hobby for all of us. Here at Game Publications Group, publishers of this magazine, we will happily announce in a future editorial any such improvements that come to our attention and sincerely hope they do with all speed.