The Loose Association of Wargamers

I don’t really see a major difference between wargames and RPGs, the principle differences are ones of scale and detail. After all, a gamer running a Prussian SYW army (just to pick a random example) can imagine himself in the role of Frederick and how it might be to campaign that way. At a 1,000 point wargame army it might be very free-form imaginings and at the RPG level it might be more formal experience progression with set rules.

Too Fat Lardies did this sort of thing very well for historicals and there are other companies that I’ll recall as soon as I’ve finished this coffee. Purps is right, the fashion at present is for smaller games and his reasoning strikes me as correct - we are more flighty and like dabbling in different periods (the wider availability of periods/figures compared to 40 years ago supports this) and life circumstances have changed (less time/space).

I like the idea of expanding periods from 1:1 skirmish through pure RPG rules to ‘platoon’ action via TFL up to Grand Armee scale (if I can be bothered with the last one) - it gets the most out of a collection of figures.

The co-operative historical game against an umpire is rare, but can be great fun. The ‘Too Much For the Mahdi’ rules were a cracking example of this, they insisted on running the game that way and provided some memorable entertainment for me (but then I like being an umpire )

i think there's a difference in outlook and approach as well - which doesnt have to be a difference but is the way the games players have evolved so far. So in RPGs you will often get the concept of maximum fun and narrative enjoyment - neither of which need winners and losers. Even non competitive, scenario based wargamers often (not always) think in terms of a winner and a loser. Neither approach is wrong but theres lots of scope for really interesting crossover and blurring of the lines.

Random thoughts, from in my brain-jelly:

‘Mortal Gods’ is hoping to succeed where ‘Tribes of Legend’ failed. Failed hard, indeed.
The two are quite remarkably similar, in detail as well as subject matter.
I think it was timing, to an extent.
ToL had the misfortune to come out at a time when Foundry’s core business was launching flop after flop.

If you do want to... (ahem)... try it Greek, as it were, the AA’s “Typhon” is a decent, small warband, swords & sandals romp.

Also, when it comes to the appeal of buying and painting smaller forces, I reckon we should bear in mind that back when the stirling chaps of the tweed jacket brigade were assembling vast hordes of old school figures, they were block-painting them and sticking them on green card.
It was when ‘Eavy Metal style wet-blended and inkwashed multi layering became - not the actual tabletop norm, but the aspirational norm - that larger armies started to look even more daunting.
Quality may have had as much to do with force shrinkage as quantity.

Norman D. Landings wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 3:40 pm Quality may have had as much to do with force shrinkage as quantity.

So to misquote Uncle Joe.....quality has a quantity all of its own?

Norman D. Landings wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 3:40 pm Also, when it comes to the appeal of buying and painting smaller forces, I reckon we should bear in mind that back when the stirling chaps of the tweed jacket brigade were assembling vast hordes of old school figures, they were block-painting them and sticking them on green card.
It was when ‘Eavy Metal style wet-blended and inkwashed multi layering became - not the actual tabletop norm, but the aspirational norm - that larger armies started to look even more daunting.
Quality may have had as much to do with force shrinkage as quantity.

That’s a good thought actually.

levied troop wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:45 pm a gamer running a Prussian SYW army (just to pick a random example) can imagine himself in the role of Frederick

Friedrich is always inside me.

Pah, we know Fred only liked them tall and muscular, you are short and purple....

Norman D. Landings wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 3:40 pm It was when ‘Eavy Metal style wet-blended and inkwashed multi layering became - not the actual tabletop norm, but the aspirational norm - that larger armies started to look even more daunting.
Quality may have had as much to do with force shrinkage as quantity.

Which is why the shiny revival feels so liberating. The problem is that once upon a time we has crackly vinyl, then came dolby laden tapes and finally pin sharp CDs and MP3s. At no point could one revert to an earlier format until enough time had passed for vinyl to become cool again. We just had to wait a bit longer for the closet hipsters to rediscover block painting and shiny varnish.

However I don't think that is the main problem. When I started playing there was a choice of Romans, Greeks, Egyptians in ancients, 100YW or WotR in medieval, ECW, Napoleonics or ACW in Horse & musket, WW2 or 1970s microtanks and that was pretty much it. You picked a game, chose a side and played it for years. These days we play a different period every time and that doesnt lend itself to thousand figure armies. Plus everyone I know lives in a smaller house than we did in the 70s, I don't actually have a room that fits an 8'x5' table anymore. 4' square or 4'x3' are becoming the norm locally as it is easy to book a table at a games cafe to play.

In my mind, which I know is a very strange place, Wargames and RPG’s are two separate games. I feel you can only reproduce the RPG aspect when you are limited to a game with one, or possibly two at max, figures. Whether I am playing Dux Brit with 50 figures aside, or a big Black Powder game with 1000 figures aside, I don’t feel like there is a RPG element to it. If my commander dies, it’s a bit inconvenient, but he’s soon replaced on table. RPG’s aren’t like that. When you’re dead, you’re dead. The closest I’ve come to a Wargame merging with a RPG is Frostgrave. There you have your wizard, and when he dies, it pretty much is game over. You can limp along with the assistant and henchmen, but there’s really no point.

As to the size of game, it’s horses for courses really. There are still many large battles played up and down the country so I really don’t think it’s a dying breed of game. My club put at least 5 or 6 such games on a year. I think the smaller games are experiencing more popularity because they are cheaper to buy, quicker to paint and often quicker to play. They’re also easier to take down to the club or wherever you game.

I honestly don’t think one is better than the other either. They both provide a different game with a different set of tactical requirements. A Sharp Practice game might see me having to raid a British wagon train with my French. A Black Powder game will see me having to drive the British out of a village. Two very different games requiring very different strategies. And I have to say, I think I enjoy both equally.