Completely beyond the Forum rules, but I just had to share this one (https://www.stonenest.org/events/fight-for-america?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0BMABhZGlkAasi9NeikrcBHjzbS966dNn-KGrNKBTCPv_LjOLAesnK9DHSfaChlwdMeeXgAerh3mmoneoT_aem_aafZ5XoaFaxQdywFNeWmqg&utm_medium=paid&utm_source=fb&utm_id=120226375826770551&utm_content=120228249246190551&utm_term=120228249246180551&utm_campaign=120226375826770551).
Fascinating. Art installation, political commentary and wargame all in one. Top tabletop wargame designer too. That Capitol building in 28mm is a terrain making masterpiece :)
Obviously political sensitivity restricts much discussion on the forum but I was reminded that the Society did a Roman political faction game at the Convention and "mob" games have certain potential in our period (Alexandria, Byzantium, Sicilian Vespers among many others).
Wow - but as a concept of scale this could be done for historical events, inspirational I would say - could something akin be done in a convention or Battleday? ::) Would need a lot of planning.
Oh good gracious ;D
"For players, we recommend it for mature audiences "
I suspect it rules out most wargamers ;)
Actually, I've noticed that with many wargamers, if their brief at the start of the game tells them their aim is the fall of the American republic (or whatever) then the American republic is going to fall. Because it's a game and those are the victory conditions.
Over the years I've seen players totally separate any ethical considerations they have from the purposes of the game. Because it's a game and ostentatiously not real. When the club nice guy sells the population of a conquered city into slavery as the only way to pay the legions, you realise that some people can tell the difference between reality and a game ;)
Quote from: Jim Webster on Jun 14, 2025, 11:31 AMOver the years I've seen players totally separate any ethical considerations they have from the purposes of the game.
I'd hope this was normal. I'd be more worried by people who can't. The way you play the game as competitor (sporting behaviour) probably has more impact on your fellow gamers than your willingness to command Waffen SS divisions.
Thank goodness that snacks are provided and a bar is available. No mob would be complete (nor replete) without them.
Missing presumed fed...?
Quote from: Erpingham on Jun 14, 2025, 11:44 AMQuote from: Jim Webster on Jun 14, 2025, 11:31 AMOver the years I've seen players totally separate any ethical considerations they have from the purposes of the game.
I'd hope this was normal. I'd be more worried by people who can't. The way you play the game as competitor (sporting behaviour) probably has more impact on your fellow gamers than your willingness to command Waffen SS divisions.
I have to admit that I'm one of those people who can't. I guess that there's an element of role-playing in gaming for me, and I hope that if in real life I would have turned down the chance to command the Waffen SS. They're just too linked with Nazi ideology for me.
I'm less concerned about ordering the slaughtering of barbarians in a game because that was the morality of the era.
(This isn't meant as the slightest criticism of anyone whose comfort level in gaming is different.)
I think there is no one answer - each will have a personal view. But I do think a lot of wargaming does involve a willingness to suspend moral judgements in order to represent the historical sides. Bit like actors playing villains in films.
If you ever want to see a whole room of people gleefully suspend moral judgement, just get out the Nuclear War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_War_(card_game)).
:P
Played this at PAWS aeons ago :)
Being careful not to be too political or even political, lest the thread be locked down, my knee-jerk response is "interesting" with a healthy dose of eye rolling and a sense of disappointment.
Anyway, focusing on the first assessment, I wonder, as with comedy (I believe the equation is 'comedy = tragedy plus time'; what, too soon?), if there is a general rule within the wargaming community as to when it is acceptable (understanding that this category will vary depending on the specific population) to stage or demonstrate wargames that reflect or seek to recreate recent history?
I recall attending, briefly, a convention where there was a very large participation game of the siege of Khartoum. Coincidentally and unfortunately, this was taking place at the same time that modern day Khartoum was witnessing tragic events.
I guess I would not be surprised to find out - through some channel or other - that wargamers were fighting battles featuring Russians and Ukrainians. (Would drone attacks be a +3 modifier?) I suppose a wargame pitting Israelis against Iranians has already been done.
Well, I was playing Nuclear War in the 1980s, but I was surprised to discover that it was first published in 1965, shortly after Dr. Strangelove. Evidently, it captured the zeitgeist.
Regarding games in bad taste, I remember attending the Conference of Wargamers during a year that featured a game called Führerbunker based upon guess what? GMT Games has something similar (https://www.gmtgames.com/p-1135-downfall-conquest-of-the-third-reich-1942-1945-2nd-printing.aspx) now on its second printing. Pick your own reasons for its popularity.
:-X
Quote from: Chris on Jun 15, 2025, 01:29 PMwhen it is acceptable (understanding that this category will vary depending on the specific population) to stage or demonstrate wargames that reflect or seek to recreate recent history?
I'm sure I saw demo games, figure ranges, terrain etc. for Afghan games while the conflict was in progress. And yes, there are people fighting Russo-Ukrainian battles and probably Russian v. NATO what-ifs. So, I think no general convention exists, just what people feel comfortable with.
It seems to me that matters of dubious taste (in games as in life) are most often subjective rather than absolute, with protestations often raised without making an objective assessment (which, of course, is itself subjective). I'm reminded of a board game that apparently raised the hackles of some. I don't wish to use the 'H' word, knowing that by doing so I lose the moral high ground and with it the argument, but the game was called "Secret Hitler".
The premise was that the players, between 5 and 10 in number, play politicians in pre-fascist Germany; some trying to achieve a fascist ascendancy (the secret 'Hitlerites') whilst the majority attempt to prevent it (the Liberals). Whether one finds this premise objectionable or not, I was amused by the section of the publisher's website entitled "I don't think there's anything funny or cool about fascism. Who can I complain to?"
The webpage then helpfully provides an extensive list of politicians and their contact details, apparently to facilitate one's complaint to be made. It may not just be for the sake of irony that the representatives concerned all appear to be of the same political leaning. For the purposes of objective enquiry you can find it here:
https://www.secrethitler.com/#objectors
My contribution to bad taste wargaming? Many years ago I did a Sci Fi scenario for miniwargs.
It was about a Gelf (genetically engineered life form) and was actually based on the track 'I don't like Mondays'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kobdb37Cwc
"The silicon chip inside her head
Gets switched to overload
And nobody's gonna go to school today
She's gonna make them stay at home"
So this genetically engineered fighting machine (aged 16 and therefore still at school) has flipped. She's gone into school with a heavy duty energy rifle which she's chipped into.
The players are the police (lightly armed), the ambulance service (not really armed at all) and the fire brigade. (Who in one game did knock her down with a jet of water)
From outside the school they are aware of two or three bodies/casualties to recover.
They can hack into the school's IT system and cameras to see what is going on in real time.
Unfortunately so can the Gelf.
Also it can fire are targets it cannot see using the IT, and the a weapon that can fire through at least two internal walls and/or floors and can also link into the school IT.
The players aren't allowed to just kill the Gelf (after all she's only sixteen and has rights.)
We played it twice, and it worked really well with Hell by Starlight.
In both games the players managed to avoid further casualties, selectively closing down parts of the IT system so the Gelf couldn't see them and finally hitting the Gelf with tranquilising darts and enough dope to put an elephant down.
It was a really cool scenario and I sent it to Iain Dickie at Miniwargs. He loved it and went to a lot of trouble getting suitable photos to go with it.
And it appeared in the Magazine.
The day the Magazine 'hit the news stands' was 13 March 1996, when 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton killed 16 pupils and one teacher and injured 15 others before killing himself at Dunblane primary school.
I was very taken by Chris's comment, 'comedy = tragedy plus time'.
I was at school with a lad (younger than me), Philip Geddes who was killed in the Harrods bombing in 1983. He was a journalist, he ran towards the incident when everybody else ran away.
So at the time I'd be wary of running a terrorist scenario set in the UK but school shootings weren't even on the radar. (Even though the song was based on the Cleveland Elementary School shooting in 1979). To somebody in the UK, what I had written was pure Science Fiction.
So I tend to be wary of getting judgemental in this area.
Timing is everything...
Quote from: Imperial Dave on Jun 15, 2025, 05:50 PMTiming is everything...
Perhaps helps answer Chris' question about what is too recent history to game. There may not be a real ethical issue in gaming recent conflicts or events but there is a danger that some new event or report will make the issue suddenly controversial. Unlike to happen with more distantly historical events.
Exactly
Interesting points all. (Though I should exclude my own contribution lest I be accused of self-promotion.)
Too early (for me anyhow) to figure out how to 'quote selected text' from various posts - especially if on a different electronic page, so I have copied and pasted for reference.
Anthony is quite right (as always), with regard to there being no established convention. I doubt that any bylaws or articles of any large and major group or club will have a section about 'limits' to what they will wargame either at the club or as part of a show. With respect to "what people are comfortable with," well, as is evident by the original post (sorry OP), it appears that this presentation was well received. I wonder what the assaulted and injured officers would have to say, or their families? What about the protesters or patriots (according to some reports)?
Shifting to Jim's comment and story (thanks for sharing and good grief . . .), the equation is not mine. I have simply heard it employed quite a few times by people in the comedy sphere. It might be interesting to try and trace where and when this concept or 'equation' was first introduced.
Returning to Anthony and his comments re 'ethical issue' and 'controversy' - As I am not very much interested in modern gaming, I very much doubt that I would ever participate in a tabletop game featuring Russians and Ukrainians. Neither would I take a side in a scenario featuring Iran and Israel of Israel and Hammas. I take his earlier point about the modeling of the US Capitol building and surrounding grounds, etc., but the 'carnival barker-like figure dressed as Uncle Sam struck me as rather 'bad form' and in bad taste, generally. So, I suppose these timely or recent events are controversial for me.
It might be interesting to review this question and these related events 5, 10, or 15 years from now.
One of the nice things about wargaming being a hobby is you can choose what games to participate in. You don't have to play any games of conflicts within recent memory if you don't want to.
As to the Capitol game, we can't discuss it in the round because it obviously isn't just a wargame and would breach our rules but I do think we can note the "performance art" element, which would set it apart from the average convention participation game. What will those who participated think of it? Don't know. Plenty of ex-soldiers are wargamers, whereas, no doubt, some would not touch it with a barge pole. The same may apply here.
especially being ancients wargamer.... :)
I think Jim (and others) have made an important point - what we are comfortable with depends on our personal experiences.
So personally I'd have no issue with a nuclear war based game, because it isn't something that has impacted me, but I can imagine that someone with relatives that died at Hiroshima or Nagasaki might feel different. My level of discomfort with playing an SS commander may have been influenced by the fact that I have Jewish relatives.
I'd be less uncomfortable by a game where the SS units were less distinguished from other units. A hex and counter game where they were just another 5-8 unit with no distinguishing marks would be much less of a problem, though whether it would be enough to make me want to play the game is a different question.
I think we probably all have thresholds - I doubt there would be many of us who wanted to play a game themed on running a WWII concentration camp, where you got victory points depending on how many people you managed to murder.
I think another key factor is how divorced from reality the game appears to be - what you might call the 'Allo 'Allo criteria. I'd have no problem playing Sauron in a Middle Earth based game. (Though it strikes me that LOTR doesn't actually have a lot of examples of genuinely evil behaviour by Sauron - maybe he just got a bad press.)
Out of curiosity is Colditz still played...
Re released last year, I think. So yes, colditz is still played and not just by old folks
Apropos of nothing, but 'Fight for America' appeared at the top of the list of sponsored ads on my facebook page.
Has anybody else involved in this discussion seen a similar phenomena. ;)
pesky AI