The comment made by John Treadaway as an aside to the review of the Fourth Portable Wargame Compendium that was published in the August issue of MINIATURE WARGAMES really got under my skin ... and what follows are some thoughts about what I think of as the cult of prettiness' in wargaming.
First, some personal history …
I bought my first metal wargame figures (20mm Crimean War infantry and cavalry) from Hinton Hunt in 1968. I painted them with the only model paints that were available to me back then ... Humbrol gloss enamel paint! To be honest, they were pretty awful ... but I still have them although they now live in storage.
My next figures were Miniature Figurine Prussian Napoleonic infantry, and these were painted with Humbrol matt enamel paint ... and were far more presentable (I had developed some skill with a paintbrush by then!). In fact, I am still using them although they have now been given a coat of gloss varnish to protect them from damage.
All these figures had bases that were painted green and the Hinton Hunt figures were glued to balsa wood unit bases. My rules were based on those written by Donald Featherstone (WAR GAMES) and Brigadier Peter Young and Colonel James Lawford (CHARGE!) although over time I did buy other rule books … which were almost universally produced in small batches and sold with simple card covers. If they had illustrations, these card-covered rule books had line drawings – possibly including one on the cover – and diagrams.
The first wargame magazine I bought was MINIATURE WARFARE … and after the first few issues, that had some colour printed on the cover but only ever included monochrome photographs.
The cover of the third issue of MINIATURE WARFARE (April 1968).
It was not until the late Duncan MacFarlane edited and published the first issue of MINIATURE WARGAMES in 1983 that colour photographs became the norm in wargame magazines … and from that day onward, I feel that the invidious 'cult of prettiness' began to creep into the hobby.
The cover of the first issue of MINIATURE WARGAMES (March 1983).
Some people in the hobby seemed very keen to get photographs of their figures and terrain – often on display at shows around the country – published in magazines … and I in no way condemn this as I enjoy seeing other people’s wargame stuff in use. However, over time this appeared to have a deleterious effect on some of the wargames one saw at shows, with more and more seemingly becoming dioramas on which figures occasionally moved. Alongside them were other games that were played on simpler terrain and simple rules, and these often attracted participants rather than spectators.
I well remember attending a major wargame show in London twenty years ago (It was SALUTE!) and overhearing members of the ‘best in show’ judging team say – as they passed the participation game I was running – that my game was all right for a club night, but really wasn’t what they wanted to see at such a prestigious wargame show. The game attracted over thirty players during the course of the day; the ‘best in show’ had no participants as it was classed as a demonstration wargame (i.e. members of the club staging the game were the only people allowed to take part)
I therefore pose the following question … which of these two games generated more fun and enjoyment? I leave the answer up to you, the reader of this blog post.
Now, regular blog readers will know that I follow the BUDGET MODEL RAILWAYS channel on YouTube. Its creator is an ex-wargamer who now builds model railways as cheaply as he can, and several times he has said something about railway modelling that is equally applicable to our hobby. He has identified a trend among some railway modellers to collect locomotives, rolling stock, buildings etc., for a grand project that they plan to undertake when they retire … and that they never manage to achieve. He advocates building and using small layouts – some of which are capable of expansion at a later date – rather than waiting until you’ve got time to build your grand project.
Isn’t there a similar phenomenon in wargaming? How many wargamers plan for years to fight some massive battles using beautifully painted figures on sculpted terrain in their dedicated wargame room … and never actually manage it? It’s a wonderful dream … but that dream can easily become a nightmare that absorbs large amounts of time and money. Wouldn’t it be better for them to spend that time and money fighting smaller wargames and having fun?
There are some wargamers who do achieve their ambition to build up large collections of beautifully painted figures that they can use on wonderful terrain in their wargame room … but I wonder if the 'cult of prettiness' has rather given the impression to many wargamers that this is THE ideal they should be aiming for? If so, is that actually putting some of them off the hobby?
Again, I leave the answers up to you, dear blog reader.
When I look at the list of wargame blogs that I follow, I am struck by several thoughts. Firstly, that the hobby is a wide church and has room for a wide spectrum of wargamers, ranging from people who wargame with superb figures on magnificent terrain to those who use homemade cardboard counters or wooden blocks on a hand-drawn terrain map. Secondly, that a fun but scruffy-looking wargame that uses simple rules will always be preferable to a pretty-looking wargame that is tedious and/or boring to take part in. Thirdly, that some wargamers need to be a bit more realistic in their aspirations and fight wargames that they have the time and finances to achieve and not to aim for the unattainable.
Interestingly, there is one sector of the hobby where I've seen players having lots of fun using small numbers of well-painted figures on excellent terrain ... and in this instance, I'm not referring to those wargamers who are using THE PORTABLE WARGAME, ONE-HOUR WARGAME, or DOMINION OF ... , DE BELLIS ANTIQUITATIS, or HORDES OF THE THINGS rules!
The wargamers I am thinking about are those who are fighting skirmish-level battles and Fantasy/Science Fiction/Role-Play games. Until recently, I never seriously looked at these sorts of games, but joining a local games club made me reassess my attitude to them ... and I realised that I had – through my ignorance and some degree of historical wargaming snobbery – been misjudging this style of games.
So, has the 'cult of prettiness' gone some way toward creating an ideal within the hobby that is actually counter-productive to its long-term viability ... and is there a significant movement within the hobby that is moderating or ignoring its influence?
Finally, I leave the answer to that question up to my regular blog readers.


Great read Bob.
ReplyDeleteMy experience with the cult of prettiness started at the only Wargame Club that I have been a member of, which was the School Club (this was a Boys School!). First I was berated for playing with unpainted Airfix figures; then, having painted some, I was berated for the poor quality of the painting. After that I played at home, mostly alone! Now I'm old I don't care what other people think.
I would always pick fun over prettiness.
Fantasy Gamers also have their fair share of Painting Snobs, Rivet Counters and Rules Lawyers.
I stopped buying any magazines when I got too fed up with looking at standards that I couldn't achieve, hence the Napoleonic Wars being fought with RISK figures in their natural colours!
Maudlin Jack Tar,
DeleteOur experience of wargame clubs sounds very similar, although mine occurred when I began teaching and joined a local club. It was one of those places that like to run ‘projects’ … which seemed to be an excuse for some people to Lord it over others. My painting style was criticised as was my choice of Minifigs rather than Hinchcliffe figures. I stuck it for a few months and then decided solo was best for me … and I’ve never looked back.
A few years ago I saw the Battle of Waterloo being refought using Warlord Epic Napoleonic figures spray-painted red (British-led Allies), mid-blue (French), and dark blue (Prussians) on a 6’ x 8’ table … and it looked very impressive. It did not need hundreds of exquisitely-painted figures … and the rules very very simple and designed so that players represent corps commanders.
Keep enjoying your wargaming!
All the best,
Bob
Yes, I've, also, encountered the cult of prettiness. I don't subscribe to it, myself, but each to their own.
ReplyDeleteI would also go so far as to say that some wargames forums and manufacturers add to the obsession of the visual over the gaming substance.
A number of years ago, I was talking with a blogger about a magazine article they'd written and that had featured in one of the big-three wargames magazines.
They told me that when they submitted the article, they'd sent along photos to accompany it, but the magazine editor refused to use the photos and that the magazine commissioned a 'name' figure painter to paint miniatures especially to accompany the article.
The article author's own miniatures and terrain were presumably not pretty enough for the wargames magazine, I presume?
The funny thing is, the most recent experience of wargames magazines being of use to my own hobby was by looking at an article in an issue from back in the 1990s, concerning riverine warfare in the Russian Civil War and the 'Back of Beyond' in the early C20th. There were no accompanying photographs, IIRC, but simple map illustrations. The factual text was the real gold mine that helped myself and the club I was gaming with. Not a pretty, glossy picture.
Roy Williamson,
DeleteI totally agree with the second paragraph of your comment. It sometimes feels as if there is a movement within the hobby that is really more about collecting beautifully painted and heavily detailed figures rather than actually fighting battles with them.
I had heard similar stories about articles being sent in to wargame magazines with a selection of photographs taken by the writer … and the latter never being used as they were not deemed to be good enough.
I am lucky enough to own the first three volumes of MINIATURE WARFARE … and even today, they are well worth rereading whenever one’s inspiration begins to lag. I wonder I anyone will say that same about the recent issue of the current crop of wargame magazines?
All the best,
Bob
I find I belong to the last group of gamers mentioned in your piece. I enjoy small games that are above all fun to play and can be finished in a reasonable amount of time. This is what attracted me to the Portable Wargame in the first place. I also enjoy collecting and painting, but only to a reasonable gaming standard. My figures look nice from arms length on the table and I strive to have the the quality of my terrain match them. This is good enough for me and although I enjoy looking at pretty pictures as much as anyone I have no real desire to emulate that style. (I also lack the space and resources). I think the most important thing about the hobby is to have fun, and people shouldn't have to feel they need to produce museum quality displays to do it.
ReplyDeleteMark Cordone,
DeleteI am not surprised by the comment you have written. If figures are recognisable as to what they represent on the tabletop, why would one need to use all sorts of time-consuming painting techniques to add unnecessary detail?
I knew one wargamer who always used to pick up the figures I was using and look at them in closeup … and then comment about the quality of my painting. (‘I see that you’ve not used any highlights again. You really ought to as it makes the details stand out so much better.’) needless to say, I do not wargame with him these days!
All the best,
Bob
I watched a video a couple months ago by an internet dungeon master where he had a similar issue with the cult of prettiness.
ReplyDeleteHis thesis was that a simple piece of terrain that serves many functions is better than a beautiful piece that can serve only one. His personal example being the little cave with a hidden opening he picked out at an aquarium shop. The first time his friends saw it they loved figuring out that there was a hidden entrance but after that any time the piece went on the table they knew exactly where to look. The cult of prettiness brings about sensory burnout along with eating up your gaming time.
These days I'm happier with a paper army that I can get on the table and push around than spending time and money building an army I'll rarely use.
Save the pretty soldiers for parade grounds and museum displays where they are best suited.
Mr. Pavone,
DeleteOne of the most impressive examples of terrain I’ve played a game on recently was a flat TV screen that had been placed screen uppermost with its working parts on the back protected by a wooden surround. It was connected to a laptop, and the terrain was ‘projected’ onto the screen by the game master. Simple, very cheap, and very effective!
Funnily enough, some of the figures we used were paper cutouts made for this particular game by the game master. Did they make the game less enjoyable? No, they didn’t… and we had loads of fun.
All the best,
Bob
I have come full circle. I started with Airfix figures and then 1/300 WW2 tanks from the long gone Kirk Miniatures and Peter Laing 15mm. In my late teens and with money I "progressed" to 25mm metal and having realised that my painting was not up to scratch would buy them already painted. Now in my old age I have reverted back to more simple rules and figures that mirror my childhood games and bring back happy memories!
ReplyDeleteSteve,
DeleteYour path through wargaming sounds similar to my own … and isn’t it interesting that as we age, we look back to those fun wargames of our youth for inspiration. I suspect that we are not unique in that respect … and I note with interest that Airfix has just reissued several iconic boxes of 20mm figures.
All the best,
Bob
Bob, while I could feel paranoid about the description of someone who paints and paints aiming for retirement and a wargames shed, but who never plays, as that describes me!
ReplyDeleteI determined however to try and play some games; my problem is lack of time, which doesn't seem to be improving!
I think this speaks to the broad church of wargaming; many get as much enjoyment from the planning and painting....
I used to paint to game; I then painted some figures quickly but very poorly. After that I started improving my painting and I think I paint very well now - or at least to the standard I'm happy with, and the only person you have to please is yourself....
I do have simply painted SSM on balsa plain green bases as well!
Many years ago I got into a lot of online arguments around "demonstration games" because I dared to suggest that as far as I could see they were demonstrating skills, such as painting, but this meant it was about seeking approbation so was a form of "ego trip"! I was told by one person they didn't spend considerable money and time putting on games around the country simply for their ego! They never did tell me what it was they got out of it!
I make it a point to never criticise others painting or choice of rules (even those that I consider rubbish).
At the end of the day we are all different and if you get pleasure from YOUR approach, where's the harm?
Neil
Neil Patterson (Neil),
DeleteI do hope that I haven’t offended you in any way. I did rather paint my image of the ‘cult of prettiness’ with almost as broad a brush as I paint my figures … but my ‘target’ was the seeming obsession some people in the hobby have with everything having to look aesthetically just so … and that wargamers who don’t match their high standards are somehow failing the hobby, In some ways, it’s an artistic parallel with the attitude we saw during the era of ‘complicated rules are intrinsically more accurate’ … and if you didn’t use complicated rules, you were somehow a lesser wargamer.
I think that we share a similar attitude to demonstration games … and I certainly agree that they are definitely an ego trip for some people.
I also totally agree with the sentiments in the last paragraph of your comment. I just wish that all wargamers felt that way.
All the best,
Bob
Bob,
DeleteNot offended in the slightest; I did just think your description on the VWC of painting and painting for a grand wargame that never happened, was a rather apt description of what I've been doing for the last few years! ☺☺☺
Substitute " grand campaign " that's all....!
I have been trying to focus on painting for an immediate game, hence the Caesar in Gaul. I probably could have started with what I have, but it is a great incentive to get stuff done that's been lying around for years...
Back to your main point. I think the "prettiness" thing goes hand in hand with the idea of wargame glitterati or personalities in the hobby - the "names" if you will. A lot of very good painters and terrain makers have been elevated to a status of almost celebrity, something we are supposed to aspire to - hence Partizan as the "showcase of the hobby" label and the huge static dioramas - I'm sure some do play on such terrain with such figures, but most of us never will....
It's a bit like the current trend of influencer via social media offering an aspirational lifestyle...
Neil
Neil,
DeleteAs ever, a great comment that raises some interesting points, especially about the wargaming 'glitterati' and 'personalities'.
When I look at the other VWC attendees, I see a range of people who have all contributed in different and positive ways to the development of the hobby, and whose contributions are probably unrecognised by the majority of wargamers.
All the best ... and keep working on those Gauls!
Bob
At the risk of offending every wargames magazine editor - the prevalence of 'pretty pictures' of wargames figures, combined with a general lack of useful content about battles, campaigns, uniforms, etc, is exactly why I stopped buying wargames magazines many years ago! I have never found any that match the old Battle or Practical Wargamer magazines, or even the original format of Military Modelling from back in the 1970s.... Personally I think it is a real shame that someone like John Treadaway couldn't even be bothered to read a book that he was claiming to 'review'. Suffice to say that I for one won't even bother to look at anything that he chooses to write in future....
ReplyDeleteIan Dury,
DeleteI don’t think that any wargame magazine editors read my blog, so they won’t be offended by what you’ve written … and with which I totally agree.
I’ve met John Treadaway a few times and the way he edits MINIATURE WARGAMES seems to reflect his personal attitude to the hobby, I did try submitting an article about the PW concept to him some years ago … but never heard from him and it was never published.
All the best,
Bob
Ian, PWC4 was actually reviewed - very fairly - by Martin Pike; John Treadaway was just adding his personal - totally unnecessary IMHO - comment on the cover, not the contents. Perhaps, being charitable, he thought he was giving helpful advice that would boost Bob's future sales? If he had bothered to read the book, he would have realised that the content was far superior to much of what he publishes in MW. In fairness to JT, I believe he has to confirm to the publisher's idea of what MW should be, in a way that Henry Hyde refused to do.
DeleteArthur, I think the reviewer somewhat missed the point. He said something along the lines of I would have to massively change stuff to make it work to my satisfaction. Of course PWG is essentially a tool kit, And the reviewer does not seem to have grasped that until almost the end of his review. .
DeleteArthur1815,
DeleteYou make a good couple of points in your comment.
Firstly, the actual review was very fair and balanced, and I have nothing but respect for the views expressed therein.
Secondly, I had forgotten that the editor is beholden to his publisher … and they will see advertising revenue - which is probably their main income generator - as being something that they must nurture; hence the official (and probably unofficial) guidelines they will set down for editorial policy.
All the best,
Bob
Gary S,
DeleteThe comment made by John Treadaway was an editorial aside to the actual review, which was actually very balanced and fair.
All the best,
Bob
That's very noble of you to say so Bob, because I think he missed an important point!
DeleteGary S,
DeleteI agree that he missed the point ... and p*ssed me off in the process!
All the best,
Bob
I take a different tack on this issue. I think (I stress this is my opinion) trying to achieve an aesthetically pleasing game is important. We use miniatures as opposed to chits for a reason. Seeing those pictures of Gilder's collection in the publications of the 1980s defined what I aspired to and I achieved that in short order, granted not immediately "in the grand manner" and using approaches to painting and modelling I liked. Gilder was actually quite pragmatic in his modelling and knew how to efficiently make figures and terrain "pop" without slavishly painting every button -- he famously didn't always paint the underside of horses because no one would see them. Of course, what constitutes a pleasing aesthetic varies considerably...or so it should. My concern with today's vast array of products is that the definition of what is good or not has become homogenized losing the character of the modeller's hand. Does anyone paint shields on their ancient or medieval figures anymore? I am delighted when I see even a rough attempt at a hoplite's blazon on his aspis. I would much rather see individual creativity at a lesser (?) quality than the same shield stickers used over and over again. Same with terrain. Hand made buildings are increasingly rare but when presented are a delight to see as something unique.
ReplyDeleteNow, the concern over "prettiness" robbing us of time to play is evaporating. Pre-painted terrain has long been with us. Colour 3d printing will allow us to print figures and terrain that will objectively be "pretty" and we can get on with playing. But one game will look like the rest just like those stickered shields.
If the aesthetic of the hobby is important (which it is for me) I also think that the personality of that aesthetic is crucial. Give me a table of imaginative, perhaps a little rough, handmade terrain any day. And it doesn't have to take long. Surely this is part of the fun of the hobby? It is for me.
Just another way of thinking about this.
Chris,
DeleteThank you for your very thoughtful comments. They were interesting to read and I can fully understand why Peter Gilder’s figures inspired you. I have very fond memories of reading his articles about wargaming Waterloo and the Sudan … and seeing his figures and terrain in the film CALLAN.
I take your point about pre-made terrain (I use Hexon II myself) and the possibilities that pre-coloured 3D printed figures present … and I agree that an aesthetically pleasing wargame that is fun as well can be a joy to take part in.
All the best,
Bob
Chris wrote: 'what constitutes a pleasing aesthetic varies considerably...or so it should.' and that, I believe, lies at the heart of the issue Bob has raised, that the commercial wargame magazines generally show one particular aesthetic in most of their illustrations - figures painted in great detail, with highlights and shading, on diorama-style terrain such as might be seen on some model railways. That has become the standard to which it seems we are being told we should aspire, promoted by the wargame magazines and demonstration games at shows such as 'Salute'. It appears the simple, 'old-school' painting without shading or highlighting, and plain green or brown bases, without landscaping and tufts of grass, is no longer acceptable, yet it can produce a pleasant-looking, visually appealing spectacle, and has the merit of not requiring numerous shades of paint, inks and much time to produce a body of troops fit to fight on the tabletop.
DeleteI have recently read discussion on TMP suggesting that there should be a variety of poses and figure sizes within a unit because human beings vary in size (how true! compare me to Bob...) and - despite the best efforts of drill sergeants - are never absolutely synchronised in their movements. But when one looks at a group of people in uniform, whether soldiers or schoolchildren, from any distance such differences are not noticeable.
Personally, I'm happy for all my rank and file to be in identical poses, including the horses.
Some people enjoy painting; if they want to lavish such care and effort on their troops, they are welcome to do so. But for some of us, the toy soldiers are simply visually pleasing tokens that represent bodies of men; all we require from them is to show historical period, arm of service, nationality and, perhaps, unit strength (by removing figures or bases) and quality (by having conventions such as troops in greatcoats being conscripts, Landwehr or militia, agreed for a particular game). We don't need a unit to be an historically accurate representation of the XLV Foot at 15:30 on the afternoon of Busaco, though it appears some wargamers are doing intensive research for such a purpose - odd, if they are then going to use those troops in wargames of other battles.
Arthur1815,
DeleteI see that we seem to share many of the same ideas … which is of no great surprise to me! In fact, I could have written something very similar if someone else had posed the questions I included in my blog post.
Your comment about the XLV Foot made me smile, and reminded me of a comment about a model railway made by BUDGET MODEL RAILWAYS. His layouts are always generic so that he can run what locos and rolling stock he wants to use. As he has said himself ‘I don’t want to have a model railway that represents the GWR on a wet Tuesday in 1936.’
All the best,
Bob
Bob, I'll quote you (if I may) in something I am writing about wargaming. I agree with you 100%.
ReplyDeleteI have used wooden blocks and paper figures, but prefer toy soldiers. I work on the. 3 feet rule - what do figures look like from 3 feet way? So really all you need to do is give an impression of the uniforms (not that stops me painting on detail that is strictly unnecessary).
Gary S,
DeletePlease feel free to quote me.
I’ve also used counters, wooden blocks, paper soldiers, plastic soldiers, and metal figures … and also work on the ‘if it looks alright on the tabletop, it’s good enough for me’ rule … and then try not to add unnecessary detail!
All the best,
Bob
Of course it comes down to individual enjoyment. And for me, I've always enjoyed painting miniatures, Not massed armies, though. I like to paint lots of different figures. I am not an award-winning painter and don't aspire to be. I'm happy with what I'd call table-top gaming quality - looks decent enough without being held under magnification.
ReplyDeleteAnd when I do get around to any gaming, which isn't often, I do like fantasy and sci-fi skirmish games. Basically, my game-play is rooted more in Hollywood and fiction in general than in history and fact. Give me some heroics and swashbuckling, in any era or genre any day and may the good guys prevail! I'm here for escapism. :D
I do like to look at well-painted minis, well-made terrain, and all of the fantastic and even professional stuff people do, but that's more for entertainment, not as an unattainable goal.
Fitz-Badger,
DeleteReading your description of your approach to wargaming, I found myself nodding in agreement with what you had written. I particularly liked your description of your game-play … which echoes much of what I have learned taking part in games at my local club.
All the best,
Bob
You mentioned simple rules, and that's another thing. I remember how much fun I had as a kid playing with more imagination than rules. I do like some structure these days, but still like to keep it on the simpler side. I can always add in one or two extra bits for specific scenarios or do some ruling on the fly, especially as a solo gamer.
DeleteIf I were to do any larger battles I'd go for small numbers of figures per unit, and probably look into things like your Portable Wargames, One Hour Wargames, and other rules systems that work well that way. Fewer figures, but more variety, both in terms of different armies and different types of units.
But these days I think I'm sticking mostly to skirmish games. That's where my joy is for now anyway. :D
Fitz-Badger,
DeleteI totally agree! Simple rules = more fun … and using your imagination!
One thing that turned me off Napoleonics was the rule complexities that were introduced in the1970s. The worst - in my opinion - were related to ‘national characteristics’. Different national armies marched across our tabletops at different speeds and fired their weapons with different effect because of their nationality … but in real life, marching across country is determined by the terrain and not the drill manual. I know, because I’ve tried it!
The speed you can march at across a lawn is much faster than it is through tall grass. I once saw someone try to run through tall grass … and they fell flat on their face before they gone more than four paces because the grass wound round their feet and tripped them up! So much for ‘national characteristics’!
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob, An interesting post and discussion.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I have a lot of sympathy for your views. At the same time, I do find exquisitely painted figures and well made terrain impressive and inspiring...to an extent. I don't have the skills to achieve that level easily myself but I'm happy with my 'tabletop quality'. Having said that, I'm always happy to nudge the quality on in increments. After all, what Chris said above is right for me. It is why I play with figures in the first place. But it's the challenge and the fun playing that kept me involved.
I stopped buying wargames magazines when they placed more emphasis on 'pretty pictures' than on inspiring or informative articles. There's much more inspiration AND pretty pictures on the net, and for free.
I find the painting and modelling process more satisfying than I used to - it used to feel like a chore, something that HAD to be done to get figures on the table. But the best times as a youngster were playing with massed armies of mostly unpainted Minifigs with schoolfriends and not the games at the local club where the house rule was no unpainted figures. Some of the other members' painting skills were great (some were acolytes and aquaintances of Peter Gilder). And some had a similar disparaging attitude to the one you mentioned.
At the end of the day, it's all about personal choice. It is a hobby after all. As long as someone doesn't look down their noses at others, it's all fine.
Nundanket,
DeleteThanks for sharing your thoughts in your comment.
I agree that we all get different things out of the hobby … and long may that remain true! My problem is with what I think is a small section in the hobby that seems to think that it has the right to arbitrate as to what is and is not ‘acceptable’. Regrettably, it seems to be the section that dominates the content of the mainstream wargame magazines.
All the best,
Bob
There is a balance somewhere. For me 'the look of the thing' is at least as important as the game. That is why I wargame with 54mm figures and never play board games or tabletop games with figures less than 28mm.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is a range of prettiness. Neatly painted gloss figures with basic detail can look very pretty too,
Quantrilltoy,
DeleteVery true … and having seen your figures on your blog, I agree that they are great to look at because they are nicely painted and with the necessary level of detail that makes it easy to identify what is what.
All the best,
Bob
This was a very interesting blogpost Bob. As a railway modeller I recognise the same thing within model railways. Many collects nice models for a large layout they will build some day, but ends up as 'armchair modellers' as they usually get nothing modelled at all. They ends up as collectors. I think it's better to aim lower and build smaller layouts, and actually manage to get something to run your trains on. Besides a smaller layout don't need a hughe collection to be operated.
ReplyDeleteRegarding 'prettiness' in the hobby you can see the same in model railway magazines; earlier it was often black/white photos showing easy layouts the reader actually could build, as today these layouts aren't up to the standard anymore. Today magazines are filled with color photos on glossy paper showing large layouts built to a very high standard. Usually not the results a newcomer achieves, and perhaps therefore gets less motivated for the hobby and sinks in that 'armchair' while the collection is growing.
Roger,
DeleteAs you would have gathered, I see many parallels between the two hobbies … and in fact, try my best to combine both wherever possible!
Irecently posed a question during an online discussion about wargaming as to why railways didn’t feature that often in wargames. The replies were very interesting and mainly concerned problems with scale. In other words, an 00-scale train might be the correct size to use with 20mm figures … but if your units were scaled down using a 1:33 ratio, it was far too big to use alongside them.
I think that we all have some sort of ‘grand project’ in the back of our mind. However, one must be realistic, and surely it’s better to have something that we have created and that works for us than to remain a collector and armchair planner who never achieves their ultimate goal.
By the way, the recent rise in modular model railways strikes me as something that may help to alleviate this problem. By breaking a ‘grand project’ down into a series of smaller projects that can come together, railway modellers can achieve short-term working layouts that can develop and expand as time, money, and space allow.
All the best,
Bob
I was a modeller before I was a wargamer and I enjoy making kits, painting etc. I've got so much stuff now that Im trying to ensure that everything I've painted get used in a game at least once! That is quite an entertaining challenge, and so far I'm failing miserably. I'm afraid I gave up on wargaming magazines a very long time ago,but I'm fortunate in having a large group of people I can game with regularly for my wargaming fix.
ReplyDeleteMartin Rapier,
DeleteI know from reading your blog that you produce some excellent models … but that your intention is to use them on a tabletop. (By the way, you don’t seem to be failing to do this in my opinion.) As a result, you combine the best aspects of ‘prettiness’ with those of fun wargaming … and I wish that a majority of wargamers had a similar attitude.
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob
ReplyDeleteA very intreresting, and thought provoking, blog post.
We have a shared history of wargaming. I started with Airfix and only realised there were metal figures available when I discovered Charge in the army library. This was also in 1968.
It was a good time to start wargaming. There was no internet to show just how poor my painting was, and nothing to compare my kitchen table with books for hills with. I remember my only inspiration was the black and white photos in Don Featherstones books and Wargamers Newsletter.
However I suspect we were all attracted to the hobby by the colour and spectacle. I have a dim memory of a window display in a shop window in Dublin in the early 1950s showing lines of brightly coloured figures, most likely Britains 54mm. That almost forgotten memory was probably the forgotten inspiration for my life long interest in wargaming.
My first Hinton Hunt figures were Polish Lancers, Scots Greys and Imperial Guard infantry. All prompted by the uniform prints displayed in the shop.
It was many years later that I was really inspired by colour photographs of Peter Gilders Wargames Centre in the first edition of (I think) Miniature Wargames. Strangely I was disappointed to see the actual figures on my first visit to the Wargames Centre.
I firmly believe that most wargamers are actually collectors of military miniatures, and not "real wargamers" at all. I remember puting this in print in TMP some year ago, and getting a lot of abuse for my efforts!
Personally I went through very long period of simply enjoying painting model soldiers. I started with Airfix, then Hinton Hunt and Minifigs, the made my own, then Front Rank. Each large collection sold off to be replaced by a larger one with better figures. For about 40 years I spent a few hours every day painting, but hardly ever wargaming.
When I retired I gave up buying and painting new figures and concentrated on actual wargaming. I was lucky to have a dedicated wargames room and created a long running campaign to provide endless battles to wargame.
So I have experience of both sides of the subject. However I do not know how many long time painters become regular wargamers. However I do believe that it is very misleading to describe someone who only paints model soldiers as a wargamer.
regards
Paul
Thistlebarrow (Paul),
DeleteAs ever, a very thoughtful and interesting comment! We do seem to have had parallel wargaming lives, certainly at the beginning!
I was 'sold' on 20mm figures thanks to Airfix, and I loved the Hinton Hunt figures I bought, although I understand that the quality fell off over the years. I then moved on to early Minifigs and preferred them to the larger and more detailed Hinchcliffes. The later Minifigs were a bit too chunky for my liking, but I still bought and painted loads if them.
I agree with your comment that many wargamers are actually collectors rather than 'real wargamers' ... and I am not surprised that you got a lot of abuse when you wrote that on TMP! It seems to be a place that attracts trolls!
I used to find painting figures therapeutic, especially when I was stressed by work. This was especially true when I had a breakdown in the mid 1980s ... and it is the figures that I painted then that have formed the backbone of my Belle Epoque Burgundian and Schwarzenberg armies! I also rediscovered painting during COVID, but once the pandemic was over, other things began absorb my time and it sort of petered out .
I envy your situation. I would love to have a properly dedicated wargame room like yours (my toy/wargame room has far too much stuff in it to be comfortable) and have the ability to dedicate my time and efforts to a single historical period.
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob
DeleteI like your use of therapeutic in relation to painting model soldiers. I would have said restful or relaxing, but would have actually meant theapeutic!
For about 40 years I painted almost every day for an hour or so. I can remember taking some figures and paint on exercise in West Germany back in 1970s and always did the same when I was on orderly sergeant or officer. At that stage I would have a small room of my own whilst on duty, and would pass many boring hours happily painting. Mind that was when my eyesight was up to it, I could not manage it now.
Great to read all of the interesting replies to your post, particularly the wide range of views and opinions and the complete lack of judgement on opinions which differ with their own. It says a lot for the calibre of reader of your blog.
regards
Paul
Thistlebarrow (Paul),
DeleteThe level of discussion and comment I've seen in response to this blog post has been very good ... and so far, it's not attracted any trolls!
I know for a fact that when I was stressed, painting would reduce my blood pressure and induce the sort of inner calm that meditation and controlled breathing also produced . Furthermore, at the end of a painting session I had something to show for my efforts.
Nowadays my eyesight isn't as good as it was, and although my varifocals can help when I'm doing detailed work, I've got to hold the figure in the right place in front of my face to be able to see it clearly.
All the best,
Bob
Spot on, Bob. I actually paint for enjoyment and have the intention of gaming as a way of collecting, rather than with any intent. But my first thought on anything now is ‘can I modify Neil Thomas’ rules for this?’. I never do, but it gives me something to aim for. As far as painting is concerned, I use a black undercoat and slap it on so it is passable at arm’s length. What other people think of what I do and what I produce is no matter.
ReplyDeleteWhile I am more than happy to have pretty pictures for inspiration, if that all it is then I give it a miss. I would prefer a decent article to go with it, or a home grown set of postcard rules.
Strange you mention the participation game at Salute. I was part of the Staines gang (a minor player then) that took the 55 Minutes in Peking game to Salute back in the mid 80s. One of our key players was fuming after putting up with Mr T’s judging comments, even though we won best participation. I suppose that’s his way, but was very thin-skinned when I said there was too much fantasy content in MW and it was like watching the slow death of an old friend.
Jeffers,
DeleteCheers! From what you write in your comment, you sound like a typical wargamer to me. You enjoy painting miniatures and plan to use them in wargames ... even if you don't actually manage it all the time! The intention is there ... and that's what counts in my book!
Your story about Salute rang several bells with me ... and I can quite believe that comments made by a member or members of the judging team might annoy someone what had spent a lot of time and money to put on a game.
You comment about the growth in the number of fantasy articles in MW also chimed with my own opinion ... and you are absolutely right that after JT took over, it began to significantly go in a direction that no longer matched my requirements in a wargame magazine.
All the best,
Bob
I am writing a book with the provisional title of 'Simple and Solo Wargames'. I have set up a Facebook group under the same title.
ReplyDeleteGary S,
DeleteI will certainly be buying a copy!
All the best,
Bob
I look forward to seeing that, Gary 👍🏼
DeleteMartin S.,
DeleteI think that quite a few people will be interested in buying a copy.
All the best,
Bob
Depends on what you are trying to achieve. Pretty is just one criteria. As you know, I tend to do a lot of conversions, plus I like reviews where I put lots of figures on the table. The conversions may not be individually very good but en masse can produce spectacular displays - the overall effect is pretty even if individual figures aren't. In the past I would have preferred accurate over pretty, today I feel they both have a place - but neither should dominate. It just depends on your own needs and belief in what's important.
ReplyDeleteRob Young,
DeleteAs I have come to expect from you, your comments are measured and considered ... and I think that almost everyone can agree with them, especially the last sentence. As long as we can keep the hobby open enough to embrace all the aspects that are important to individuals, it will continue to thrive and hopefully grow.
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob, I'm sorry that you've felt the need to write this post, but glad that you did. For myself I try to paint as well as I can, but am realistic about my abilities.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there can be a sort of paralysis that sets in when you see beautifully painted figures on superb terrrain brilliantly photographed - it can leave you feeling that it is impossible to match those standards and not worth trying. I made a decision to paint to a level I am happy with and to collect both sides, which allows me to be completely autonomous and self-sufficient. I can then invite people to play with me (or just play solo) and there are no issues.
My policy in hobby matters is to not let anyone dictate how something 'should be done'.
Keep on keeping on Bob, and don't let anyone's comments affect how you do what you do :)
Cheers,
Aaron
Prufrock (Aaron),
DeleteI wholeheartedly agree with your attitude to the hobby, and especially what you write in your third paragraph.
Keep on painting to standard that satisfies you and continue to enjoy your wargaming.
All the best,
Bob
Well, Bob, this post has certainly sparked a few comments!!
DeleteAs others have said, everyone to their own…wargaming is a very broad church. Tolerance of all painting abilities/‘standards’ is key.
The ‘glossies’ sell their copy by pretty pictures, but as you posted this can suggest we ALL need to meet their ‘standards’..,potentially very demoralising and disincentivising. Who needs that? (Very bad for morale…)
I long ago decided that what I do is ‘fine by me’.., and as I got older I find I totally agree with Aaron’s comment “My policy in hobby matters is to not let anyone dictate how something 'should be done'.”. 👍🏼
Your publications, with enjoyable games as the main aim, hit the spot for me, and I really appreciate the way you help us to ‘keep it real’, by not bowing to the perceived pressure,
More plain covers containing interesting and usable gaming thoughts, please 😁.
Martin S.,
DeleteThe range and depth of opinions expressed in the comments on this blog post have been amazing ... and indicate that there are still a lot of thoughtful people in the hobby who are ploughing their own road and not being influenced by commercial pressure to conform to some mostly unattainable ideal.
I doubt that John Treadaway ever intended his comment to generate such a debate, but it has, and the comments show that the broad church approach to the hobby will ensure its continued health and vigour for years to come.
Thanks for being part of this debate.
All the best,
Bob
i Bob,
ReplyDeleteExcellent piece. The comparison with budget model railroading is spot-on—how many massive "dream projects" end up stuck in boxes forever because the barrier to entry was set too high? Giving people the confidence to get simple, functional games onto the table without feeling judged by magazine-level standards is vital for the long-term health of the hobby.
Cheers, Andy
Andrew Bruce (Andy),
DeleteI could not have summarised it better myself!
All the best,
Bob
I managed to chisel some time to read your post. I am in two minds on this. I think that in many ways the cult of prettiness comes from the aesthetics and detail of the figures. Superb sculpts invite a paint job to match. Sometimes I indulge. Most of the time I try to “cheat” my way to an acceptable table top standard. Contrast paints, inks and shades are my chosen path these days. I don’t have time for 24+ painting steps per figure when 3 or 4 are good enough (to misquote The Brigadier) Scenics are simple and functional, robust enough to transport in my car boot and set up at club nights and on rented tables in game equivalents of the snooker halls of yore. Increasingly my older collections are coming to the fore. Mainly Minifig 15s reinforced by whichever manufacturer did the odd figure I wanted. Nostalgic and fun, block painted and functional.
ReplyDeleteWhere The Cult gets to me are those internet posts that end ‘Hope you like them! ‘ I like to see pictures of games, preferably with a commentary, my FB interests for wargaming are rules and gaming historical periods. When the pages get cluttered with just pictures of figures I tend to go elsewhere.
I now face the problem of armies purchased that I know I will never paint in my remaining years. I am now the chooser of the slain. Workable collections are being selected so that itches can be scratched without having to buy yet more figures.The rest will be handed on, preferably to friends and club members so that I might get to play with the figures in the future.
Graham,
DeleteThanks for your interesting comments.
I must admit that some figures do scream out for exceptional paint jobs ... but as my first 15mm figures were Peter Laing Miniatures, the level of detail I tended to paint was - to be honest - very basic. Nowadays, I'm happy if the basic colours are blocked in, any lines I paint are reasonably straight, and that any ink wash that I use covers up the worst of my mistakes!
Interestingly, I enjoy looking at the simply painted PW armies produced by Mark Cordone (one of my regular blog readers) but that some of the highly detailed painted 28mm figures where I can see individual teeth in someone's mouth leave me cold. Mind you, how long has it taken the painter to achieve that level of detail?
I have been culling my collections over the past few years but still have a significant unpainted lead pile that I need to deal with. I am considering passing them on to younger wargamers ... if I can find any who might want them>
All the best,
Bob
Very interesting topic, Bob. We all have limited time, and it would be a shame if a dream of creating something spectacular (and even prize-winning) keeps us from actually playing .an enjoyable game at a lower standard
ReplyDeletePompey Dave,
DeleteVery true on all counts!
If only we had more time …
All the best,
Bob
Firstly, congratulations on 'outing' yourself as a solo wargamer. I, also, am solo wargamer, by choice.
ReplyDeleteA lot of what you wrote above resonated with me.
Khusru,
DeleteThanks for you kind comment.
There's a lot of solo wargamers out there ... and I am beginning to think that we are an untapped resource within the hobby!
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob,
ReplyDeleteI'm a bit late, but here now to pontificate on what has been said.
Yes, but no, and maybe. I'd categorize my answer to a lot of the comments, as other people's opinions are not your concern. I understand that criticism hurts, but it says more about the person who is criticizing you than your work.
I understand the historical wargamer's position from the opposite side. I'm a life-long fan of SF, and remember all too clearly the opprobrium poured onto myself and friends for playing ahistorical games. , with fantasy and SF figures.
I do understand that it looks like two different games, but if you take a step back, look at the games from the perspective of an outsider, it's just people playing with toy soldiers.
Anyway, I've said enough. I still remember with great fondness our game together, when I upturned expectations by delivering a French victory from an untenable position through ignorance and luck.
Yours truly
Ashley,
DeleteIt’s great to hear from you!
The criticism that was made about the cover of the compendium was annoying because it was about something as trifling as the lack of a pretty picture on it … and nothing about the contents! The actual review was very fair and I could in no way fault it.
As someone who now espouses imagi-nation wargaming set during the Belle Epoque, it is only a short step to steam-punk SciFi, and - if one embraces the growth of spiritualism during the era - it isn't that far away from some forms of fantasy. As you write in your comment, whatever its form and setting, it’s just people playing toy soldiers!
All the best,
Bob
PS. The disaster I suffered at your hands is still spoken about in hushed tones by those of us who were there!
That's John for you. He has particular tastes when it comes to wargame rules.
DeleteAshley,
DeleteVery true!
All the best,
Bob
An interesting and thought provoking topic Bob, this hobby is a broad church. To name a few Historical, fantasy, scifi, competition covering lots of periods. They all have their good and bad points. I don't buy wargame magazines often these days, beautiful pictures of pretty things but not a lot to help newcomers into the hobby. The earlier magazines showed you how to do things and the projects were achievable, today beautiful wargame eye candy without a seam out of place. That's an instant failure for the newcomer, trying to learn how to model and paint. These are the ramblings of an ancient mariner and wargamer, in my day a "handful of hot gravel for breakfast" and the sweet smell of Humbrol paints was all we needed.
ReplyDeleteAn excellent blog, keep up the good work.
Happy gaming,
Willz.
Tiberian General (Willz),
DeleteI totally agree with you. The modern wargame magazines make so many assumptions about the knowledge and abilities of their readers … and that can be very off putting for novices. Interestingly, I am told that a figure painter’s course for fans of Warhammer has opened in Woolwich … and that irs been aimed at newbies as well as more experienced painters. Perhaps something could be done for young/new historical wargamers? All it would need would be to get a figure and/or paint manufacturer to sponsor it.
All the best,
Bob