Re: What's wrong with SF?

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:09:08 +0000, "Richard Kirke"
<richardkirke@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I have to say that I come across this a lot. I just don't get it...
what do 
>people see as the problem with SF?

Several reasons.

One is Games Workshop. While it's really science fantasy, it's seen as
the
worst of the science fiction influenced games. We all know how
unrealistic it
is. To those who prefer realistic games, it's seen as a fine example of
all
that's wrong with the sci-fi version of the hobby. If you look at the
other
big sci-fi games: Vor, Warzone, etc. they are trying to hit the same
market as
GW and often have those ridiculous looking armoured suits (the big
shoulder
pad problem). Even when it's supposedly "serious", sci-fi games can be
rather
silly. There are plenty of folk here that like giant robot/mech games,
but is
it _really_ likely that warfare in the future is going to require
vehicles
that skylight themselves and have visual signatures the size of small
buildings?

Another is that it's pretty much all made up. Some people just have a
problem
playing a game where the tactics -- based on the weaponry -- are
completely
fictional. What's the proper formation to deploy your steampunk tanks to
defend against a Martian tripod? Note that even GZG products suffer from
this.
SG2 isn't so much a representation of far future warfare as it is a
representation of far future warfare as seen through 1970s technology.
Artillery, just to name one, is far more effective today than it is in
SG2. If
you are a simulationist and want to use realistic tactics, these realism
failings can be a real problem.

People talk about historical players being elitist. I will calmly point
out
that most of the people I know will play both historicals and sci-fi. I
_have_
come across a lot of rabid fanboy types who will _only_ play sci-fi, and
who
most often will _only_ play the single game they have learned. The
elitist
"historical player" is often just a backlash to the sci-fi player who
won't
look at anything beyond "The Games Workshop Hobby (TM)". Kids don't
learn a
lot of history in school, or at least not in such a manner as to make it
interesting. They often see history, and historical games, as "boring".
They
don't bother even _trying_ a historical game. This has led to a backlash
(though there were some people who didn't like sci-fi games in the first
place
because of a feeling that they were "made up").

Oh, and there are people who just don't like sci-fi. They are out there,
just
as there are people who don't like mysteries, or fantasy, or romances.
It's
not for everyone. 

There are some folks with strong religious beliefs that won't play
fantasy
games. I've seen _that_ a lot. They believe that "magic" (even fictional
magic) is the tool of the devil. I've met these people a couple of times
online.

I was born in 1962. I grew up watching movies and TV shows about World
War II.
That was my first introduction to miniatures gaming, and it led me first
to
historicals and then to sci-fi gaming. Kids today just don't see
anything
historical on TV or in movies. Instead, the big movies for kids are
almost
always sci-fi. Kids who wouldn't _think_ of reading about WW2 pour over
GW
Codex books. Meanwhile, those of us who grew up with a real interest in
history just can't see the reason for getting all worked up about
fictional
background universes. (This is one of the reasons that I don't usually
participate in the hot debates over the GZG background; it's just fluff
for
giving games a context, not something of any real interest to me.) This
has
resulted in a generation gap, with both camps looking at the other with
disdain.

Finally, sci-fi games have a habit of taking over game stores and
conventions.
I'm thinking GW again. Miniatures stores end up having to bring in GW
just to
pay the bills. This means that table space in the store often has to be
shared
between historical players and GW players. GW is more popular, so the
miniatures players are shunted to fewer tables, or fewer days in a month
that
they can play. This happens at conventions, too. As a result, historical
players have to have their own specific historical game conventions just
to
have their own games played. In the end, an "us against them" mentality
sets
in.

I will repeat something: most of the people I know will play historical
_and_
sci-fi. A recent thread on rec.games.miniatures.historical suggests that
this
is quite common. The elitist historical player exists, but I suspect
he's not
as common as people who play historicals and sci-fi and/or fantasy. I
also
suspect that _both_ camps are dwarfed by people who _only_ play sci-fi
or only
play fantasy. We have all heard the stories here about GZG players
trying to
pry people out of the pockets of GW.

Allan Goodall		       agoodall@hyperbear.com
http://www.hyperbear.com

"The only normal people are the ones you don't know 
well!" - Joe Ancis