Comments?
My name is Mike Joslyn. I started boardwargaming in 1970 with a copy of Avalon-Hill's 1914. From there I went on to have four games published and edit a gaming magazine. Thirty-six years later, I'm still wargaming, which makes me part of a vanishing breed.
I have a high regard for my hobby; I want it to be saved. I just didn't know how. Then I met Gary Gonzalez at Avaloncon '96. We started by discussing Pacific War-- he customarily ran the tournament there-- and somehow moved on to his attempts to breathe new life into the hobby. Through him, I discovered that well-known designer Kevin Zucker was-- independently of Gonzalez-- trying to do the same. Their efforts were unsung, and, so far, unsuccessful, but I thought the fact that somebody was trying do something for the good of the hobby deserved mention. More importantly, I thought the gaming population at-large should know that not everyone has given up on wargaming.
For most of the month of February I interviewed both Gary and Kevin by e-mail. The result is the article below. In addition, veteran designers Greg Costykian and Jon Southard kindly shared their thoughts on some salient points. I encourage further comment.
Comments?
Once upon a time, on a hexgrid far away, there were about ten times as many board wargamers as there are now. Over the last twenty years their numbers fell dramatically, and the (remaining) wargamers put that decline in the same class as bad weather-- something to lament, but not something you could do a whole lot about. But not all of them . At least two have been working behind the scenes to revive the hobby, and I interviewed them to see what medicine they're trying when so many others are saying last rites over the patient.
We all have our reasons for wanting to see wargaming continue, ranging from the light-weight to the pontifical. Gary covers most of the better ones that we cite to ourselves; Kevin's comments, while they express a good reason for people to wargame, are disturbing, and not just for wargamers, but for everyone. So gentlemen, why should wargaming be saved?
Each board wargame that is produced, not matter how simple or complex, is a work of art. I hope those that play the games appreciate the work that is involved in creating a historical simulation boardgame. Anyone can research a board wargame, but to translate that research into a working, accurate board simulation is a difficult effort of interpretation.
Now, I'm not foolish enough to say that saving wargaming should have the same importance as the Pyramids, Michaelangelo's David or the Mona Lisa, but to say that they don't hold an important place in assisting the written word of history is, I believe, a big mistake. Avalon Hill's "We the People," for instance, did more to teach me about the American Revolution then any history book, and by that I mean the how's, where's and why's of historical events.
If they serve no other purpose than to assist in preserving and understanding our planet's military history then they serve an invaluable purpose. For as the historian George Santayana said,"those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it."
Television short-circuits all that exercise, that play, by providing the image, because it delivers the image directly to the midbrain: "The average child in the United States sees six thousand hours of television by their fifth year ... Television floods the infant-child brain with images at the very time his or her brain is supposed to learn to make images from within. ... Failing to develop imagery means having no imagination." [Robert Bly, The Sibling Society, Addison-Wesley, 1996, p. 186.]
Wargames require great imagination. When you stare down on a sheet of paper, your mind begins to see actual trees and meandering streams in place of blue lines and green scratches. Where you push cardboard up against the enemy line, in your imagination thousands of men stumble and fall and pick themselves back up, as they close with the enemy. It may be that the next generation can't enjoy this experience.
Like I said, a scary thought for everybody.
So now that we've established that wargaming falls somewhere between a cure for cancer and professional wrestling as a worthy goal, what's the problem? Well, most agree that the main problem is not enough gamers. So, how do we get an infusion of "new blood?":
Secondly, the marketing is not there; when was the last time you saw a wargame in a store that sells anything but wargames? If you're not already a wargamer, you don't go in there. A few show up in general boardgaming outlets in malls, but they're segregated into a small corner in the back with no display context, background, or understanding on the part of the proprietor. In the seventies, there were two engines for bringing people into the hobby: Avalon Hill's retail reach, and SPI's aggressive print advertising of the magazine. Now, there's no marketing effort that I'm aware of. It seems to me that games could be marketed directly into the Computer Game stores. Why not? A game is a game, isn't it? At least try. No one is thinking like that.
What is popular with the kid's today? It's not Role Playing anymore. In fact, I've heard Role Players lamenting the "death" of their hobby as often as we do ours. Card, Computer and Video Games are immensely popular today. How do we link the popularity of fantasy/sci-fi card games to historical simulations? The Card Wargames that attempted to jump on the coat tails of the Magic craze have failed. However games such as Mark Herman's "We the People" which link the interactive use of cards with a wargame have proved very successful. At the recent conventions I've attended "We the People", "Hannibal", "Guerrilla" etc. have been played and enjoyed by more people then any of the Card Wargames.
That's another key word: "enjoyed." You're not going to hook a newbie and reel him/her into our hobby by setting up World in Flames and taking them through the lengthy learning process, but an experienced player can teach him "We the People" in thirty minutes, and that just might result in a new player joining the ranks. Then there's competition. Where is the greater thrill, playing a game solitaire or beating an opponent face to face? We have to show newbies that they can have competitive fun playing wargames.
Above all, those already involved in the hobby have to take it upon themselves to make an effort to get newbies involved. A TV. in a store front showing a demo of a video game is going to attract attention and sales without human effort. In our hobby we don't have that luxury.
Considering their differing experience and positions within the "wargaming world," it's not surprising that Kevin focuses on what the publishing side might do to resurrect interest in wargaming, while Gary focuses on what the individual player can do. While the dividing line between publishers and players/consumers may be a natural one, both Kevin and Gary obviously believe that the gap is now too exaggerated. As a player, Gary's perception of this was neatly summed up when he said "Enough with the 'We are the designers/publishers -- you are the gamers: we outrank you' attitude." Kevin was less visceral in his feelings, but as he said "Our games are like the tax code -- they're so complex you can't see where you're being taken."
Frankly, a complete novice wouldn't even know where he was starting, let alone where he was being taken. We're leaving the very people we need to attract out in the cold, and that may be the most damaging division of all. On the above point, both agree: there's just no place to start, anymore. Back in the good old days when Avalon Hill was selling a quarter of million copies every year and S&T's circulation was close to 40,000, we could afford to teach and then give away our free copy of Napoleon at Waterloo. Even later, there was the even less intimidating Across Suez and Battle for Moscow, once again, both free and therefore easy to teach and give away as a starter. Perhaps, to paraphrase Thomas Marshall; "What this country needs is a good 5 cent wargame." That said, what should it look like?
I play Magic on occasion ("heretic", I can hear you saying) with my friend's 13 year old who takes great joy in beating the crap out of me. (I don't play Magic well, have I redeemed myself at all?). The last time I went over there, I brought my copy of AH's "Gladiator". After a close game of Magic-- where he still beat me-- I pulled out Gladiator and told him we were going to give it a try. I did all the CRT work, but I had him playing the game in under a half hour. We maneuvered, threw dice, and sliced each other up for nearly two hours. I added some grand theatrics to help him enjoy himself even more (nothing like an adult making an ass out of himself to get a laugh out of a kid), but the bottom line is that the next day Stephen called me and asked if I could bring Gladiator with me the next time I came. I took the time to teach and play a game with Stephen that involved hand-to-hand combat-- something he could relate to from his many bouts with video games-- and that was easy for him to learn. Maybe if a designer could give us individual infantry or tank combat in a board wargame format we can use this as an effective means of introducing newbies into the hobby. And I think that all this applies to adults, as well. The next time we have several friends over, out will come my copy of Circus Maximus.
Mike is 100% right in his comment that for the newcomer, "there's just no place to start, anymore." Even the simplest games produced today are far more complicated then the old AH classics many of us got started on. This is very shortsighted on the part of game companies, about on a par with a lumber company cutting trees without planting any more for the future. And I think Kevin explained why when he noted -- quite correctly -- that designing a good simple game is a lot harder than designing a good complicated one. I suggest, however, that the solution is not to bring back Napoleon at Waterloo or Strike Force One. Instead, the solution is for each of us to act as ambassadors for our hobby and mentors for new players. This demands games that a mentor can teach to a beginner and which will be fun for both.
In this regard, historical miniatures is a hobby we should emulate. It is a hobby that grows by mentorship. Hardly anyone just gets excited about miniatures on his own and runs out to invest the time and money to create his own army. No, he plays with someone else's figures, commanding a small number of troops at first and gradually growing into the hobby until he decides to embrace it fully.
Mentoring demands good judgement and creativity. There are lots of ways to go about it. You can use a complicated game and strip away lots of the rules or handle the more complicated procedures yourself. You can have the newcomer participate as part of a team, handling very limited responsibilities under the helpful wing of a 'superior officer' who is part advisor and part cheerleader. You can use a solitaire game in which you and the newcomer play against the system. The key -- and it seems to be so hard for too many gamers -- is to stifle your competitive urges and remember that the point is to give the newcomer feelings of enjoyment, participation, and success.
Just about any activity that counts itself as competitive has a Mecca where the best, and just about anybody else who's seriously interested, goes to earn glory and broaden their experience. Athletes have their Olympics, dog breeders have their Westminster show, wargamers have....well, that's another problem, isn't it? Wargamers really don't have anything where they take center stage and which covers all that wargaming has to offer. Origins may have done that once, but boardwargaming has long since faded into the background. Avaloncon is good, as far as it goes, but it lacks depth in being simply a competitive meet, and breadth in that Avalon Hill is the only company represented. Something bigger is needed to generate press attention, not to mention positive momentum in the hobby. Both Kevin and Gary have, independently, been working to convince the industry to recreate the forum that Origins used to be. I asked them to comment on those efforts:
- Board wargamer attendance at Origins had fallen off dramatically
- Judging from the increase in small, locally run conventions, there had to be a considerable number of board wargamers disenchanted with Origins,
- the assumption that WoTC was going to push board wargaming (companies and players) further onto the back burner as they made Origins an exercise in Magic promotion, and
- the success of a convention dedicated, on a large scale, to board wargaming-- Avaloncon.
After AvalonCon '96 I put together a heart-felt plea and E-Mailed it to the companies, some of the designers, and some gamers that I thought may feel as I do. Along with outlining the above, I speculated that-- based on a questionnaire enclosed in the AvalonCon '96 Program--Avalon Hill might have been willing to expand AvalonCon and open it to the other game companies. This resulted in my first disappointment; apparently Avalon Hill is not about to take a REAL leadership role in the industry by opening the doors to all the companies.
Now I had also mentioned in my post that an industry-wide convention dedicated to tournament play and open gaming first and foremost might give the game companies a greater exposure that may help to save the hobby. This yielded disappointment number two. I found out that it is not the place of a simple player of the product to suggest to those who manufacture the product what may (or may not) help them.
Disappointment number three came from companies that told me that their post Origins conversations with WoTC indicated that WoTC was going to pay more attention to them and their needs. Yea (chuckle, chuckle), right. As attendance by board wargamers continues to decline at Origins, WoTC is going to expand the areas where we can open game, seminars and tournaments. I offer this in response, what would serve a company better, attending what is (in name only) the premier hobby convention that is attended by about 400 hobbyists who buy your product and thousands who won't even look at it or attending a convention that is attended by one to three thousand hobbyists who understand and buy your product. I don't think you have to posses a Ph.D. in Economics to see that the numbers work out to support the latter.
My most recent appeal was sent out on the CONSIM newsgroup. I joined this service in mid January and was interested by the number of "threads" that dealt with the health, or lack of, of the hobby. It was from the gamers that the most encouraging responses came. Granted, not all supported my ideas, but there were enough responses (a substantial majority) supporting a convention dedicated to, among other things:
- Tournaments to crown national champions in the game played
- Open gaming
- Seminars allowing the gamers to "rub elbows" with the game co. execs and designers
- Booths for the companies to sell their product
- Auction
As a matter of fact, the best model already exists: a convention, held annually at the same time, at the same location and run by an independent non-profit association of wargamers has been going on for years-- it's called Historicon. The non-profit association responsible is the Historical Miniatures Gaming Society. It is my understanding that the annual dues they charge their members are used to partially fund their two conventions. Also, at Historicon, HMGS members are given discount admission, ($10, while non members pay $15),which gets you in, not for the day, but for the entire convention!
Historicon is quite a success, drawing 2-3,000 people. Now that's exposure. Does this exposure save their hobby from going the way of the Dodo? I can't answer that, but it can't hurt.
I would like to see a similar Historical Simulation Board Gamers Society (HSBGS) organized for board wargamers.. Toward this end I will be attending Historicon in July in order to pick the minds of the HMGS board members. The type of convention that I would like to see HSBGS run would have:
- Tournaments for any game from any company that a volunteer GM. would like to organize and run. These tournaments would be used to "crown" National Champions, and HSBGS would accept rated results (probably using the A.R.E.A. system) from local conventions and tournaments to "seed" semi-finalists in these National Championships.
- Large areas within the convention locale for boardgamers to participate in open gaming while not involved in tournaments.
- Seminars run by designers, company execs, learned individuals etc. on subjects that pertain to historical, industry or hobby related topics.
- Sales booths for each and every game company that wishes to attend and sell their games. However, unlike some of the large company booths seen at Origins, each company would be limited to three 4'x8' rectangular tables. (We did more than well at Origins working the GMT booth under these exact same constraints.)The convention site would devote the majority of it's space to the gamers, not the game companies.
- An auction can also be held, if the members of HSBGS so desire it be included in the convention.
Now, this sounds a lot like what Origins used to be. Origins, however, is an industry trade show that allows gaming. This convention would be a gamers convention that allows game companies.
So, let's say we do all this: step up our effort to recruit gamers, give them entry level games to cut their teeth on, and a national convention to aspire to. What can we expect from all that effort? Kevin speculates on what's possible, while Greg Costykian muses on new ways to attract new gamers:
"It would have to be a coordinated effort...," Kevin says, and let's face it, this is not an industry rife with examples of coordinated efforts. Considering that, it makes Kevin's next suggestion pretty brave, or as he admits himself, pretty foolish. We were talking about the topic rut that everybody gets into-- they find a subject that interests them, and then they stick to buying games from that topic and never stray, while a lot of good work ends up languishing because it looks at a different topic. I asked him how he proposed to "shake me up" enough to look at games on subjects outside my usual field of interest. Well, "shake me up, " he did:
Board wargaming has always been a haven for bright people-- problem-solvers, if you will. It would be ironic if the one problem it couldn't handle was the question of its own survival. Both Kevin and Gary have looked at wargaming's difficulties as problems to be solved, but their efforts so far have been, in wargamer's parlance, "a 1-2 up a slope." Even in that, however, there's a note of hope; at least two people care enough to try. And where there are two, perhaps there are two more, and two more after that, and so on, until something is actually achieved. If that's the case, then maybe the hobby that many of us have enjoyed for almost four decades has a chance. It is up to the wargamers, themselves, to decide.