Why does the word "fun" - especially in wargaming make my heart sink?
the reason I ask is the following quote from Mike Siggins- quoting from Henry Hydes blog- which for some reason I can't access directly-
Henry says on his blog,
"If you actually look at the articles published in the last 33 issues of Battlegames, the number of ‘old school’ articles is actually very few – but I refuse to apologise for publishing them, as ‘old school’ has seen a resurgence in popularity in recent years and is a perfectly valid aspect of the hobby. I launched Battlegames because the hobby magazines at the time were ignoring this type of gaming completely, and I’m proud to have given it a voice.
Every month, I shall be putting together the magazine that I want to read – and my tastes are very wide indeed. It’s a HUGE mistake to think I only play Grantian/Featherstonian games; I don’t, as will be shown by my book coming out later this year; and it’s also erroneous to think that 18th century = ‘old school’. Is Black Powder ‘old school’? Or Maurice? Or General de Brigade/Kriegskunst? If, by ‘old school’, you mean “fun”, then sure, I’m guilty as charged. My only criterion is quality – if an article is of the right quality, regardless of the subject matter, it goes in. Didn’t you notice that I even wrote a fantasy article myself for BG33? Or that Ashley Pollard has started reviewing sci-fi for the mag?
What I will be insisting on is that the primary focus is on the game and the hobby, in all its many and varied forms, and I shall be communicating this to contributors."
Now for me a couple of points emerge here
1/. Surely the magazine should be what the readership want not the editor- this was Andrew Hubbacks strength I always felt. - After all I wouldn't expect a magazine just to cater for me or even merely my tastes- which are at least as wide as Mr Hydes- to which my blog bears witness.
I can see his point in trying to make that clear though however much I found the emphasis on "I" a bit disconcerting for a mainstream magazine. but what really makes my heart sink is the use of the word "fun" that and his listing of rulesets- somehow as if those two go together- though that is probably not his point and I'll own to just being picky here..
The implication that "fun" is only to be had by OFW is obviously false but not to the point . Now previously almost everytime some chap mentions "fun" in this context the net result is lightweight gamsey crap with the intellectual content of a primary school singalong- indeed the wheels on the bus are at least going round and round !!
What I will be insisting on is that the primary focus is on the game and the hobby, in all its many and varied forms, and I shall be communicating this to contributors."
That statement is also - for me -a bit worrying -0 these days "the Game" tends to Mean -"another scenario for a ruleset I don't own or one that will cost me 30 quid to buy "
Finding many possibly most rulesets to be in some form or another twaddle to a greater or lesser extentany mag that has a heavy emphasis on rules is going to bore me witless. Mind you there are those I know who view rules as things to read in bed... or even those who will discuss rules ad nauseam- Whatever blows your skirt up chaps- I'm aware that I can do that with certain historical subjects but equally that I'm not primarily - a "gamer"
So despite my continued trepidation we'll wait and see.
Afterall I mainly deal with the advertising chaps personally anyhow and I don't HAVE to read ther bits I don't like. I simply hope that the new MW will cater for as wide a potential readership as its previous incarnation
Andy - I do enjoy your style of writing, and the lively manner in which you engage the topic you wish to discuss. But I'm not getting a clear picture of what you're looking for. Maybe I'm being obtuse.
ReplyDeleteBut here's a thing. I recall a zillion years ago a magazine editor talking about what his magazine's readership wanted to see, and the regular polls run by the magazine through returnable inserts.
A couple of things emerged. First of all, the responses were pretty low. Second, whenever the magazine tried to implement what the polls seemed to be indicating, they would find subscription rates falling. After several goes, the pattern was inescapable.
So what was the solution? There wasn't one. The magazine bought a few years further life by a merger that gradually led to its absorption by the larger and longer established periodical.
Personally, I don't do SF or Fantasy, so I'd find such articles having limited appeal. Others would turn to these straight away, I imagine. I like history, but, in a wargames magazine, would prefer that historical or military articles tie in to wargames in some way - e.g by indicating how events might be reproduced as a war game.
Possibly the thing I find most lacking are real discussions on campaign strategy and battle-tactics, grand to minor, and how they might be implemented on the table, say. Much of this sort of thing is susceptible to interpretation, which implies a need to justify the inferences drawn from history and the methods used to recreate those inferred events and practices.
What I ask for is a very tall order, and I daresay entails a huge risk by an author bold enough to attempt it. Charles Grant used to give it a crack ('On Matters Military') and I recall came in often enough for some unnecessarily vituperative criticism. That probably explains the lack of such articles in wargames magazines.
Cheers,
Ion
Ion- You have more or less hit the nail on the head. I also realise that in that very cogent phrase- I'm "kicking against the pricks" . I've seen the mainstream wargaming hobby steadly dumbed down since the late eighties early nineties and whilst there is still valiant resistance and even the occaisonal victory the tide is seemingly inexorable. I sometimes feel that the absolute nadir is just around the corner- the complete infantilisation of the hobby for the sake of games manufactureres wallets. Thuis isn't a toy soldeir or mil;itary history hobby any more in some areas it's simply "the gamin' innit"
DeleteIf there is one thing that will turn me off magazines its endless scenarios for rules I don't own- advertising is one thing but...
However there is always hope perhaps Tolkien like Hope against Hope
There will be more on this in a "proer " post - possibly even with pictures.... OOOH!!
Andy, your heart seems to be sinking a lot these days, I'm sorry to hear. I reserve such feelings for important issues such as the Great Recession that never seems to end, sovereign debt crises
ReplyDelete, endless wars against terrorists and things of that ilk. I Wargame to escape from all of those worries, hoping that the hobby will give me a brief period of comfort and fun -- some respite from the everyday head banging of life. Let not your heart trouble you. :)
Having done my time on the front lines of wargame magazine publishing, unless the editor is superhuman and can write 8 to 10 articles himself for each issue, he HAS TO rely on the slim offerings provided by other authors. There comes a point where one day you have 72 pages to fill and only 50 pages of articles, so at that moment, you are grateful for whatever articles drop through the mail Shute So I wouldn't worry too much about the direction that you think Henry Hyde is going to take MW and at least have the patience to wait 3-4 issues and see what he can do with the magazine.
On an unrelated note, "writing scenarios for rules that I don't own" does not compute in Fritz Land. Who says that scenarios have to be rules specific? A good Wargame scenario ought to work for any number of different rules sets.