Big Game Gaming - is it dead ?

 Edited 31/10/20 see additional information at end of post 

One thing I've taken up during lockdown is listening to Podcasts. It's nothing new but I just never got into them before. I was getting fed up with talk news stations endlessly moaning about things so I was looking round for some new food for the ears.

I took part in a Podcast style interview for a fellow Utubes channel,

Whilst listening back to it, to see if I'd made a reet tit of myself I found I was quite enjoying listening to the format, a couple of chaps chuntering on about gaming, now that's what I want to listen to ! So I started to delve into the world of The Pod and started with The Veteran Wargamer (Jay Arnold). The Wargames Soldiers and Strategy, and the Toofatlardies.

I really enjoy listening to them but one common thread seems to run through the episodes, a negativity towards big style games. All are very keen on the Skirmish or Big Scale Skirmish and don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with that scale of gaming. It's a great way to get into a period but there seems to be no drive to go bigger.

Nearly all modern rule sets are designed for Skirmishers or small battles, 20 to 30 figures (I've got more 28mm farm animals !) to maybe 100 to 120 figures top, and maybe a couple of vehicles seems to be the drive. Bolt Action, Lion Rampant and other Osprey rules. It's all about getting a "force" on a table with no drive to go bigger. Where are the new "let's do Jutland" at 1 to 1 or Leipzig at 1:20 people ?

There are of course exceptions , the refight of Waterloo in Glasgow "The Great Game" being the obvious one. I'm sure there are lots of people out their with big collections they have had for years but are new big collections being built ?

Growing up I saw those huge games at shows and that inspired me to build bigger and more impressive armies. The drive, echoed by the podcasts I've been listening to is for small games at shows 4 x 4, a dozen nicely painted figures, rules that a box of wood could understand, is this the future of gaming ?

I get that people want to get started quickly and many Sci Fi, Fanatsy games have this draw, but when I get involved with a game like that it disappears up its own backside in a couple of years.

Babylon 5 Acta (Mongoose stopped supporting)

Star Trek Acta (guess what, Mongoose stopped supporting)

Malifaux, great game changes versions quicker than a Camelion 

Empire of the Dead - still around but doesnt seem to be played.

The advantage to having say a 28mm Napoleonic collection is that although rules may change people will always game that period with whatever rule set is in vogue.

Hopefully big gaming will keep going and podcasts will start to cover it more, it also got me thinking about how many figures I actually have, it's a lot, I've estimated 20,000 in the past, I'm up to 13,500 in #greatwargamesfigurecount with a long way to go !

The discussion on the Big Game has been quite active on various forums so below is a summary of my response to the main points raised.

Some have questioned what a big game is ? It's an interesting point and historically (in wargames terms) I think it's a very different beast in the 80s when I started to what it is today. The whole premise of the argument is that there is a prevalence of "skirmish" games and those to me range from squad level game with a handful of figures say Gangs of Rome to the large skirmish games like say Bolt Action. 

 So for the purposes of this argument, today a large game is anything bigger than that. But when I started gaming a big game was thousands of figures on a huge table either at a show or a group of friends hiring a village hall for a weekend. I often played and organised these games and have great memories of them, Leipzig at 33:1 on a huge table, 1st Day at Gettysburg etc. I definitely remember those games and not the DBA games I tried in the mid 90s with 10 stands on a 3 ft table. 

Arguments have been made about how boring big games are or how it's just a group of mates playing a game when big games are seen at a (UK) show. I would say they are just badly run or badly organised games. Having run games at shows over the years we always had designated "chatters" on hand to speak to the public about the game and talk about the battle, terrain, figs etc. 

But you cannot deny the joy of seeing a huge game of well painted figures on some beautiful terrain, that is a marvel in itself. A lot of hard work has gone into that. I'd rather see a huge game badly run than 2 people hunched over an exquisite table 3ft sq that I can't see properly unless it's through the lens of my camera. The argument comes up a lot "you need too many figs", I will just paint these 20 figs for this game or that game. Large numbers of figures shouldn't put people off games it should inspire them ! 

I know these big games go on still, the old guard keep them going and it's great to here from you but this isn't a how big is my big game contest, it's an evangelical call for the return of the big game. 

So back to the original question of this additional piece, What is a "Big Game". Honestly it's what you want it to be, it should be about aspiration, aim to play a platoon game if you play squad games now, Divisional games if you play Battalion Games. 

 

Most people have or have had restrictions of time, space, money or opponents, mostly they don't last forever, dream big before you know it you could be running your own big game. 

Thanks for a positive discussion (so far !) Regards Ken The Yarkshire Gamer

The post even made it onto the Toofatlardies Oddcast as the Big Issue Debate