More On Wargame Categories

What They Do for Hobbies
and Why Should We Care?

by Bill Haggart

In issue #125, I suggested that our hobby could benefit from a common practice among the existing hobbies: categorizing what it is they do. I suggested it because it would be beneficial on a number of levels. The notion received a wide variety of responses, from highly favorable to not so favorable. A number responded to what they thought I meant. So, I feel addressing some of the questions and comments might be helpful. Here they are:

1. I can't see how any handful of categories, arrived at by you, me, or anybody else, would do much to help garners decide what they do or don't like, or do or don't want to play.

I don't think gamers need any help in deciding what they do or don't like-any more than folks who go to a restaurant need help deciding what they like. Even so, there are menus that divide the food up into categories like salad, sandwiches, entrees and desert. Why? Because it's useful for understanding the choices and making satisfying decisions. The categories in other hobbies simply do the same. They describe the variety of choices and opportunities for fun available within the hobby, which in turn does the following:

Sam Mustafa observed in MWAN #125: "But games are very personal and preferential by nature. Defining or differentiating games according to "likes" or whether or not something "feels right" is about all that we can seriously do. Yesterday I attended the meeting of my local boardgame club. For whatever reason, the guys were in the mood to play a Battle of the Bulge game. Out came the choices. There must have been twelve different Bulge games that were trotted out and suggested."

I can imagine the discussion. This would seem like a great argument forcategories.

Categories provide a map for new comers in what is available, what different kinds of designs offer gamers in general, and most importantly, an entry point for the uninitiated and some idea of where they might what to go from simple to complex.

How often do those interested in wargaming never really get any idea of the range in the "kinds" of gaming experiences possible because they only know what this particular group is playing-or they get a choice of twelve Bulge games? I have heard gamers comment to those playing BattleCry that it is not a "real wargame." Or that certain wargames shouldn't be at hobby conventions.

Do you start a new gamer out with TSTF or Empire? Wander any convention and you get a sense of the bewildering variety of approaches to gaming. The whys, hows and whats are not self-explanatory. Is bringing new folks into the hobby easy or difficult? Do we have lots of new folks currently joining in? If not, this vagueness in what's being played and what's available might be part of the problem.

  • Categories Offer a place for every preference, where each has a legitimate place in the hobby.

Sam Mustafa wrote a great article in MWAN #124 called "The Confessions of a Not-so-Mild Mannered Game Designer. In it, he described what David Waxel calls the "churches" of "true believers" that grow up around various rules sets. Sam relates how they feel it is necessary to defend the faith, their favorite rules-against what? Well, competition: Sam mentions the Johnny Reb enthusiasts who are mad that Fire & Fury even exists. I guess it draws away potential ACW players, even though the two games have different scales and mechanics. But then there are those true believers that see Empire as the final word, regardless. And of course, there are the sputtering brew-hahas over such things as Picquetversus every other rule set in existence. Regardless of how prevalent this actually is in our hobby, it is a Balkanized, thundering ground swell compared to other hobbies.

I've enjoyed a number of hobbies and endeavors and you just don't see RC Modelers who are in love with a particular True Scale kit of a P-51 Mustang incensed that there is a popular Semi-Scale version of the P-51. Even if there are two competing True Scale model kits, there is no such fuss. If one kit is obviously superior to another, the marketplace will take care of it-if both are valuable, so much the better. More choices.

RC Modelers don't see the various types or models of planes as being 'in competition'. Why? It's because the categories of models offer different kinds of fun. The Modelers view the RC hobby as big enough for all tastes, and believes it benefits from the inclusion. The closest analogy I can come up with in our hobby is figure scale. Many garners have real preferences for 25mm or 15mm or 6mm, and may feel strongly about never wanting to do 10's or 54's. There are even jokes about "The One True Scale" shared between garners. However, no one forms "churches" around such preferences or feels other scales are "wrong."

The "church" phenomenon strikes me as an example of what happens when there are no categories to differentiate the kinds of games we play. A sense develops that all the "kinds" of likes in the hobby are in competition for the hobby itself, and lead to a number of game rules/players being labeled as not quite 'legitimate.' It is also indicative of a hobby with a fragile economy, at least in the minds of the garners. They don't see the hobby as "big" enough to support two popular ACW games, for instance.

Many times it isn't the game design, but some supposed philosophy or 'historical truth' behind the design that is the point of contention. This kind of thing is very prevalent in our hobby, but fairly rare in most hobbies. Model railroaders don't generate ideas like "0" scale modelers got it wrong and only "HO" scale is real Railroading. "N" scale isn't socially regulated to the social fringe of the hobby because fewer folks run "N" scale or have a different philosophy of Railroading.

RC Modelers don't waste time claiming that True Scale models are better than Free Flight or that Semi-Scale is what the hobby is really about. You find these kinds of discussions on any gaming list-they are not helping the hobby. What is "fun" about such antics? What kind of newcomers will find such behavior attractive?

Our wargame 'churches' may be as rabid as they are because they have to substitute for workable categories. (I don't see anything wrong with folks really enjoying one rules set to the exclusion of others-it's the belief that other rules sets "got it wrong"--or are 'competing' for a limited number of players,--or are just bad for the hobby that is detrimental.)

  • Game categories offer the beginning of a common technical language for game design. All hobbies--and serious endeavors--create terms to serve as organizing umbrellas over the many things that happen within that hobby. These categories or descriptive generalizations are just tools to support critical thinking.

What kinds of games do you enjoy playing? To say anything meaningful, you'll have to start making generalizations and using categories. If the meanings or categories aren't shared your listeners, the effort is that much more difficult.

Categories are tools our hobby doesn't use much at the moment, and our game discussions suffer for it. There seems to be a suspicion that such categories will somehow take away the fun. They are not THE solution to anything. They are simply tools to help us talk about what we do for fun and profit.

This isn't to say that there aren't disagreements and controversy in all hobbies. Hey, we're all human, even stamp collectors, as hard as that is to believe. It has been my experience that there are far fewer divisive disagreements in other hobbies, and they are often far more constructive.

2. In the examples of categories that you do give (for instance, the "Scale" vs. "Representation" categories), many games straddle both categories, and thus don't fit neatly into either. You'll suffer this problem no matter what criteria you choose.

Well, I would disagree with the claim that "many games" straddle the example categories I offered, but it is true, inevitably some games will. And it is true--a// categories have this "problem": There will be exceptions that don't fit. There are foods that don't fit the menu categories, (Is that sandwich an entree?) animals that don't fit the Zoologists' categories of phyla and species, etc. (What's a platypus? -a furry, egglaying mammal with no jaw bone?) The Periodic table doesn't cover all the elements either. (Darn that ozone.) And of course, there are model planes that straddle the RC Model categories. This is true of all categories, even basic ones like male and female. So what? If categories are so imperfect, why does every science, restaurant, and most hobbies continue to use them?

Because categories are very useful tools that help make the complex simpler and assist coherent thinking. They describe things in meaningful ways which are beneficial even when, or especially when, something doesn't neatly fit them. Now, is that a "problem?"

3. You're blurring the lines between hobbies, wanting wargaming to be like some other hobby. Hobbies are organic and evolve on their own.

Or don't as the case may be. That they evolve on their own doesn't mean they don't some share common traits (or 'biology' to use the analogy) or don't evolve along similar lines for similar reasons. They're ALL hobbies, after all.

I'm trying to point out that hobbies share some issues and characteristics. Certainly, no one sees wargaming as so different, so totally unique as a hobby that it will never behave like or be unable to benefit from any other hobby. What, only wargamers want to have fun or love researching the details, etc., etc., etc.?

In some ways, the hobby is suffering from arrested development and isolation, rather than evolving like the other hobbies do. Obviously, there are many unique things about wargaming compared to other hobbies, but some challenges, needs, and answers are shared. There are some things we can learn from other hobbies.

4. The categories will be bad for business. It won't help sell games, but instead, by grouping the games by `type', garners will be divided up between the categories. Fewer garners will be drawn to any one particular rules set.

This was an unexpected assertion, but a couple game designers made it. However, it is easy to put to the test. Here is one way we can learn from other hobbies. Below are some of the hobbies that have fairly rigid and detailed categories of both types and levels of hobby activities:

    1. RC Modeling, planes, boats, and cars
    2. Model Railroading
    3. Stamping (As in making greeting Cards)
    4. Sewing and Knitting
    5. Square Dancing
    6. Stamp Collecting
    7. Antique Collecting

Now, I ask you, compared to wargaming, which of the hobbies above have smaller, less vital economies, support fewer businesses, and draw fewer people? The answer is: none of them. Wargaming, both board and miniatures combined is at the bottom, even if you *gasp* include Warhammer and GW. Now the question is: why the differences? I would suggest that one reason is the lack of categories. It would seem that categories haven't hurt business in other hobbies.

And of course, garners do and will enjoy games in several categories, regardless of what they actually turn out to be. So, I doubt that there's any danger that garners will divide up into category 'churches.' Are the existing rules "churches" good for business?

5. Your categories propose that a game is either based on objective historical evidence and therefore a simulation, or it's just a game based on the caprice of designer's individual likes.

Well, there are several points in this short description that don't match what I said, or at least meant to say:

    1. I never mentioned "objective historical evidence" at all. That is a whole discussion by itself. I simply said that if a designer claims to have simulated a portion of history, he should state where he got his ideas about history. Almost all the history we know is written down by someone or antiques. The designer must have seen or read something that gave him the idea that fire combat was decisive or that it took the Allied staff at Austerlitz two hours to deliver orders. One thing [among several things] the designer should do in claiming to simulate history is to state where he got his ideas about the history. Whether that is actually "Objective Evidence" or not is really beside the point. If there exists contradictory evidence for a designer's conclusions, it is all the more reason to state what evidence is being used.

    2. There is more to creating a bona fide simulation than stating what historical sources it is based on.

    3. The "caprice of the designer's individual likes" is all that games appear to be based on now, often by the designer's own admission. Almost ail game designers' notes provide little or no idea where the designer got their game concepts or what is specifically is being simulated-let alone how. All I did was give the result of current practices a category called "wargames" with four subcategories.

    4. Implied in the statement above is that a judgment is being made about which are better, wargames or simulations. The categories were not meant to make any value judgments, anymore than the True Scale category in the RC is a comment on how it is somehow 'better' than Semi-Scale.

6. Sam challenged me with the following: "Assign a category to Volley and Bayonet, and see if you can get more than 10% of V&B players to agree with that categorization.

It doesn't matter whether the gamers agree or not. It is the designer who decides what design elements he is going to use and therefore decides which category it would fit. It is the same in other hobbies. The designer determines whether he is designing a scale model or free flight. The game designer knows which game components he is or is not using.

Sam also asks "Who gets to decide If the designer is "right" in the way he has categorized his game, and what good does that do the rest of us who disagree with that categorization?"

Same question and the same answer. This may mean that I will disagree, but it is the designer who decides. For instance, Piquet has figure scale, ground scale and time scale listed in the rules book. The designer, however, states that the actual units are representational and any scale/mounting can be used, with the stands taking three hits regardless. There are several instances where the designer of Piquet says the units are "representational", showing the location of the unit, but that strength, actual formation etc. are variable during the game, that variability being generated by other game mechanics. The game turn is highly representational. If I categorize the game as representational, it is only because of the designer's comments. In the end, the designer has the final say, not me.

7. Hey, this is just a hobby. It's supposed to be fun. Why get excited about all this category stuff?

Well, from what I've seen, categories enhance the fun all around. I can't imagine any other reason why so many hobbies would have them. Hey, does a menu help or hinder the enjoyment of a good restaurant?

Wargame Design

Back to MWAN # 126 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 2004 Hal Thinglum
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com