|
Why There Will Never
Be An Official "Wargaming League"
This is a mirror of
an article original appearing at this link:
http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/blog.php?b=458
Comments may still be active by
clicking that link and registering at the gamesquad site.
From time to
time, people of various persuasions wonder aloud about that
millenial day when there'll be an organization that regularizes
wargaming in the same way that the Chess Federation oversees
chess and the PGA organizes golf, etc. My response is usually a
loud snort and a "not bloody likely." When pressed for more
rational comment, I answer as follows:
1. All the leagues, unions, federations and whatever that have
professionalized and regularized other sports and games are
dealing with only one game with one set of
rules...In wargaming, one is faced with hundreds of
games...
2. Wargaming is even less a spectator sport than chess (its
closest professionalized analog). Chess only penetrated the
public consciousness when Bobby Fischer managed to up the ante
into the hundred-grand class. Incidentally, the buzz over chess
(in the U.S.) died out pretty quickly once Fischer went back
into the woodwork. Relatively few people are really interested
in chess; even fewer are interested in wargaming. And
chess has been around a lot longer than conventional civilian
wargaming.
3. Much of what motivates people to play wargames has nothing to
do with games and competition, per se. Many people play simply
for information or as an exercise. I play for competition
(I'll play almost any game with a grim determination to win),
but that doesn't mean that I'm the archetypical wargamer; a
sizeable number of people don't much care who wins - they
just play.
The preceding, by
Redmond A. Simonsen, was printed in Moves in the
February/March 1976 issue. (Moves was a house magazine of
Simulations Publications Inc., at that time the leading commercial
board wargame producer in the world.)
Given that no overseeing regulatory body has even been set up for
either wargaming, or as far as I know for any single wargame title,
one can conclude Simonsen was quite correct in his conclusion.
As for the "whys", they may be irrelevant, but he thought them
worthy of discussion, and so do I. For what it is worth, I feel he
makes a good case.
Point 1 - too many titles
His first point is obviously apt; there are far too many titles in
existence to imagine any kind of "regularized" oversight of the
entire wargaming hobby would be possible. His "hundreds" of titles
have grown into "thousands" as a look at boardgamegeek.com will
prove.
Point 2 - spectators
Simonsen may be underestimating wargaming's appeal here. At least
one commercial television program pitted amateurs against each other
in military strategy games. Arguably, reality television like
Survivor or The Amazing Race could be easily transitioned
into a military theme (and Combat Missions attempted to do
exactly that). The popularity of celebrity Poker on television
suggests that while Chess may no longer be a large draw, games of
skill and chance can still be successfully marketed to an audience,
even if the participants are doing nothing more than sitting at a
felt table. To date, however, a literal translation of board
wargaming - or PC gaming - to a television series has not occurred.
I wouldn't invest my own money into such a thing, but I would not be
surprised to hear of someone making a go of it, either.
Point 3 - people don't play to win
I think Simonsen makes an incredibly important point here, but
again, it doesn't necessarily preclude the formation of an
over-arching organization. Not everyone plays golf or chess to win,
either, and that didn't stop the PGA from being formed, or from a
professional organization forming.
There are many wargamers who play solely to exercise the imagination
- especially now that battlefields can be experienced in simulated
3-D worlds. I've caught myself in the mission editor for
Operation Flashpoint or even Combat Mission simply
"walking" or flying through one of the stunning maps, or playing
through a scenario against the AI just to experience it, without
giving thought to the competitive aspects of the game.
But there is no reason to believe that wouldn't be possible if there
was a "wargamer's league" either.
The real issue
Simonsen missed the main point entirely - what need is there
for such a league? Avalon Hill did do an admirable job with setting
up the AREA rating system, and individual games have grown their own
communities with competition circuits and now "gaming ladders" for
PC titles. These all operate well on their own, aided by the level
of interaction afforded by the internet. One has a hard time
understanding what possible benefit a "league" would have. The idea
of anyone professionally playing wargames - that is to say, making
money doing so - is too absurd to contemplate. But I suppose people
said the same thing about football players once upon a time, and
they now make more money than doctors, lawyers, policemen, mayors,
firemen, paramedics, CEOs, prime ministers and presidents.
Simonsen does dismiss the perceived need for legitimacy that he felt
was the root cause of talk about a national PGA-like organization,
saying that any desire for public/media recognition (and one would
presume acceptance) would matter little given that "there'll always
be some ignorant fool standing around to cheap-shot your hobby." If
credibility as a hobby is the only reason to form such a league, I'd
argue that insecurity simply isn't reason enough.
My final word
Simonsen theorized in his editorial that magazines like Moves,
of which he was the Editor, were already a form of international
organization that knitted the hobby together. One can conclude that
sites like gamesquad now serve the same function. I can
understand the desire for greater public acceptance/awareness, but I
don't think an international federation could achieve that goal. The
involvement of more celebrities like Curt Schilling in the hobby,
however, might be a way to draw favourable attention to the hobby
and its devotees.
|
