tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post5104303476879687524..comments2024-03-24T04:20:44.650-07:00Comments on Polemarch: Wargame CommunitiesThe Polemarchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-79702516199484645962013-12-02T00:49:14.781-08:002013-12-02T00:49:14.781-08:00Slightly odd, I guess. What SF people rarely like ...Slightly odd, I guess. What SF people rarely like to notice (not gamers, I don't know any, but fans of SF in general) is that their literature is grounded in the present. Some of the best SF is 'about' the writer's present. <br /><br />A Canticle for Leibowitz was written from the experience of bombing Monte Cassino, for example. The Forever War was written from experiences in Vietnam. And so on. SF is rarely completely ungrounded. <br /><br />We do have to be open to other ideas, though, and this tends to be rather difficult. If i can achieve nothing else but suggest that we can think a little harder, and be a little more open to new ideas here, than the blog will have achieved a purpose.The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-18869561355805876892013-12-02T00:43:39.659-08:002013-12-02T00:43:39.659-08:00I think we are probably looking at a set of commun...I think we are probably looking at a set of communities lying within an overall 'wargaming' community. As with most of these things, the boundaries would be fuzzy and, as Chris suggests, determined by the individual.<br /><br />On the other hand, you could belong to a 'painting miniature soldiers' community, as would your SF gamer colleague, while you belong to a NB one and he doesn't; while the computer gamer might belong to a computer gamer community, while you both could belong to a Napoleonic Wargaming one.<br /><br />It gets complex and a lot, I suspect, is driven by context. but there is a community of 'Polemarch blog' readers, and one of 'blog commenters', and they would certainly over lap, so we're not looking at exclusivity.<br /><br />Although the human mind often wants to impose a 'them and us' mentality, this is rarely helpful.The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-46537135637105016842013-12-01T02:28:16.636-08:002013-12-01T02:28:16.636-08:00To what extent are our communities defined by the ...To what extent are our communities defined by the boundaries we set ourselves as individuals, do you think?<br />I had a slightly surreal conversation recently with the chap at the local boardgames shop. I said I was a miniatures wargamer, rather than a boardgamer; he said he did both. However, he didn't do historical games, as he didn't see the point - we know what happened, so why recreate it? (No, I didn't question that assumption - that was a different argument, I thought.) I don't do science fiction wargaming as - you've guessed it - what is the point?<br />We discussed rules ideas, which was fairly common ground, but the pro- and anti-history stance was a huge barrier, so while we had things in common there wasn't a feeling of community with each other. Personally I think there should be more meeting across boundaries - we can learn from each other to everyone's benefit - but there were definitely boundaries that had to be crossed.<br />I sort of get the impression of a cluster of communities, if you like, but individuals set their own boundaries of which ones interest them, which they consider themselves to be part of, and which they absolutely avoid. These boundaries can change and can be easily crossed but sometimes the language can be a barrier.Chris Gricenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-9667807775875681392013-11-30T05:51:47.258-08:002013-11-30T05:51:47.258-08:00I think it is rather dodgy to assume that wargamin...I think it is rather dodgy to assume that wargaming is "a" community. To take a relatively extreme example (stop me if I've told this one) near the end of the last century I was part of a Volley & Bayonet discussion group which got off topic and onto whether or not sci-fi wargames ought to be allowed at HMGS cons (for those not familiar: Historical Miniatures Games Society - a US association that stages conventions amongst other things). <br />One chap declared that people playing a battle with minature starship troops were in a completely different hobby despite the superficial resemblance ( as in painting miniatures and playing tabletop battles) and he would have nothing in common with them if he met one but that someone playing board or computer wargames were in the same hobby despite the different methods used and formed a community of interest because of the military history. I on the other hand, based on personal experience had found that even not including those many sci-fi gamers who are also interested in historical games, I would almost always find something to talk about with a miniature gamer of any kind, if only painting techniques, I often found I was unable to carry a conversation with board or comoutergaers unless we happened to share an interest in a particular historical event or had outside interests. The inescapable conclusion was that I and this other fellow could have sat down opposite each other to play a game of V&B and yet we would each be indulging in completely hobbies as we played the game.<br /><br />But yes there are some facts and there is even more evidence of the existence of more facts but which requires interpretation and this is done by societies and the interpretation varies to suit our views and beliefs and thus shifts and changes. Ross Mac rmacfa@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04053555991679802013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-49468219012407236122013-11-30T02:31:21.386-08:002013-11-30T02:31:21.386-08:00I suppose the question comes down to 'do I bel...I suppose the question comes down to 'do I believe this story'. Of course, we can doubt radically, but then we have nothing left - we have sawn off the branch we were sitting on. In the case of Wellington's lunch, we can say that, when he stopped, significant things happened. What we cannot say is when that was or what, precisely, was said.<br /><br />Unless sometime we find a precise chronology, we are going to have to put up with this uncertainty and, perhaps, try to design models which would give us some ideas about the relationship between the events.<br /><br />Bags I'm the one eating lunch, by the way.<br /><br />This sort of thing can only suggest a particular chronology, not make a decisive decision in favour of one. But I guess that is the problem with history. It only has one time line, but we can usually only guess at it.The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-68330802414959277192013-11-30T02:22:27.058-08:002013-11-30T02:22:27.058-08:00Good stuff. It occurs to me that even the record o...Good stuff. It occurs to me that even the record of historical events is itself the product of social constructs, not to mention vested interests. There are quite a few eyewitness accounts of Wellington's lunch - or at least the end of it, and no two of them agree on the time or what he said, as far as i know. The record comes from the memoirs of ageing men who have polished the story for decades at dinner, and may even have (unconsciously?) adopted a regimental legend as their own. In the Napoleonic world, Marbot and Coignet and a bunch of others are to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. How do our manipulative communities handle source material which is distorted at the outset?MSFoyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14470241067504971068noreply@blogger.com