In the Forum of ancient Rome, next to the Rostrum, stood, a cone, I believe made of bronze, on a pedestal with its point towards the sky. With typical Roman modesty, this cone was named the Umbilicus Urbis - the navel of the world. For the Roman this marked the center of Rome and, by direct extension, of the Roman world, and one would presume, the universe (Romans thought big if nothing else). Today the concept is so preposterous as to be quaint. Yet wargamers, even if not ancients players seem very prone to raising, and defending with great vigor their own Umbilicus Urbis - and not just one, but multitudes!

I speak of course of rule sets. The animators of our leaden armies. The statements of our true faith, gospels of our historical beliefs. The codification of our passions. Or so it would appear.

It's interesting that wargamers seem to complain endless about the expense of rule sets and quality of rule sets and yet will seemingly defend to the death their chosen tome. We do not see the same emotions vented with regards to figure lines or scales, paints, scenics, or dice; not even favorite periods of history engender such loyalty. The only topic I know of that can come close to raising the same amount of smoke and flames is allowing fantasy games into a historical convention (but that is a topic for another issue - maybe!).

This is perhaps most clearly visible on the Internet. If you are a frequenter of the news group rec.games.miniatures.historical then you know what I mean (for those of you that have not yet been electrified, a news group is like an electronic bulletin board on which individuals can post thoughts, ads, questions, and opinions - especially opinions). An innocent question from someone, frequently new to the hobby, on what are the advantages and disadvantages of various rule sets will almost inevitably result in a bursting forth of emphatic rhetoric - what is known as a "flame war" in Internet-speak. These postings range from the succinct, "This game sucks" is an example that springs to mind, to virtual encyclopedias of shortcomings. And as day follows night, the arguments turn from the rules to the person, "If you don't think the Old Guard should be rated a +4 then you are obviously a child pornographer - at best!"

On the one hand these debates are suggestive of a states' rights versus federal rights type of argument. Is your first allegiance to Virginia or the Union; to Empire or to wargaming? On the other hand, it seems a demonstration of either acute crumudgeonness ("I don't like change"), xenophobia ("I don't like strange things"), religious fervor ("I know the true faith and I am a believer"), or all three ("Don't mess with me, I AM a fanatic").

As a long time rule designer and author I have always found this fascinating and perplexing. Wargaming rule sets at the best are incomplete, limited, inconsistent, fuzzy statements of opinion about a historical event that even the actual participants probably did not well understand. The number of absolute, rock solid facts that the designer has at hand when developing a particular game probably approaches zero as a limit, especially as you travel back in time. As a consequence there is really nothing to discuss or disagree about with most seriously designed games other than personal taste and opinion.

Now if the world was such that only topics that were absolutely grounded in fact were eligible to be discussed, it would be a quiet world indeed. No discussions on politics, religion, love, sex, the weather, or last weekend's football games, let alone the comparative advantages of different wargaming rule sets. But what I don't understand is why is it always so negative??

We are engaged, passionately I might say in many cases, in a hobby that provides us with satisfaction and enjoyment. Why else would we be doing it? So why must we so often attack the new, the different, the other view, the old, the established, the same old view? Why can we not celebrate wargaming in all its diversity, in its simplicity, in its complexity, its radical newness, its stoic conservatism? To defame someone else's concept of a good wargame is to slander your own.

Fortunately, most Piquet players seem to be deferential to the tastes of others. In all honesty we do frequently tend to become enthusiastic in singing the praises of our game, but let us be careful that we do not spill over to attacking the differences rather than just describing them. If we do not, we may find our Umbilicus Urbis placed in a most uncomfortable location...