Playing the game

Some cowboys ready for a skirmish

When I was first getting into wargaming I would make regular excursions to my local GW store and take part in any and all competitive games I could. Every Saturday I would join in the giant anything goes game, shouting a giant "Waagh!" through the wall at the bakery next door before we started, stopping for lunch and all traipsing into said bakery to fill up on starchy goodness (meat and potato pie for me every time, twenty years later I can still remember how good those pies tasted.) and any game I played, I played to win. I have always believed in good sportsmanship and tried to be a good loser, but if I did lose, I would beat myself up about it afterwards. I would overanalyse my game and try and work out where I went wrong. It was always about trying to win the game, I treated each time I played a wargame like chess, the one and only objective was to win and each time I played it was about learning mistakes for next time.

Now, I'm not a great tactician, I'm not very good at chess either if I'm honest. I didn't have a great track record of winning, so over the years as much as I loved my hobby the actual gaming side of things began to be less enjoyable. I became increasingly frustrated with losing game after game of 40K or Warhammer. Where I did have fun however was in skirmish games, Mordheim and Warhammer historical Old West in particular. I also began playing Advanced Heroquest again, and over the years also branched out into some none GW products. (I'm not blaming GW products mind, I also spent a lot of time badly losing at Magic the Gathering too.) What I did realise though, was I enjoyed playing a game where there was a story being told. My interest in WW2 gaming started as well thanks to the encouragement of the Illustrious Opponent (He is a walking WW2 encyclopedia) as well as some other historical periods. What I did notice about the games I enjoyed was that we were basically telling a story rather than trying to win the game.

I have noticed that when I am playing any type of board game with my sons I obviously act as the defacto Games Master, a simpler version of the Dungeon Master in a roleplay game like Dungeons and Dragons. Because they are younger I tweak the rules slightly, giving them a slight advantage, possibly even changing the rules as we play to ensure they feel like they are being challenged but ensuring they don't get bored or lose all the time. I'm sure I'm not the only parent that does this, as they get older obviously I also allow them to get away with less, learning to lose is a lesson too. I try to teach them not to gloat when winning and not to get upset when losing. What I've realised I am doing with them is the same as a good Dungeon Master  in a roleplaying game, giving the players enough of a challenge to make them work for it, but if they constantly lose it's never fun and they will soon lose interest. One of the advantages I have found for having a privacy screen when DMing is that the players never see how well you actually roll your dice, sometimes you have to make up the odd fumble for an NPC. (If you are cheating the other way though, shame on you!)

The idea of the group participation in story telling isn't just restricted to roleplaying games. If you go down to your local church hall on a Saturday night to watch an evening of Wrastling (spelling on purpose) you as the audience all know to cheer the Face and boo the Heel. You know the Hero will win in the end and generally as a rule the audience participate in the story, even though you know the eventual outcome. This group tale telling goes right back through history, I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of group story telling. Casting my mind back to my A level theatre studies I remember there being something about "eyes on the course, not the finish." Sometimes there is a joy in a story on how you get to the end, we all know the Hero will defeat the villain in the end. In fact there also other parts of the story that we expect too, there is the expectation that the Hero needs to have a fail first, then fight back and win in the end.

All of this probably isn't news to you dear reader though. But what I have found is why not transfer this same attitude to wargaming. Recently the Illustrious Opponent and I tried out Blood Red Skies with a friend. Yes we were playing as a opponents, but we were also discussing what we thought the story of the engagement was, how we felt the rules were reflecting what the planes would have been doing in the sky. By the end of the second game all three of us were just willing the Spitfires to shoot down the last of the German bombers. The IO has just moved to a new place and not all hobby supplies have moved in yet, but a few clouds dotted on his dining table were enough for us.

Clouds were just for show on this occasion, but there are rules as well

The Spitfires take on the last Bomber

We did have to constantly have to keep remembering to place chits next to the planes to indicate they had been activated

The most fun wargames I have had recently have been where there have been three participants. Two players and basically a Games Master. I have had great fun in a days wargaming not actually rolling a single dice, but being the chap with the rulebook. If you have the luxury of getting three of you together it really does help as well having one person reading the rules while two others make the tactical decisions. Why not give that third person some extra things to do as well, coming up with random events, NPCs, ensuring the tale is told as well as just the right dice are rolled, responsibility for picking the background music? I propose that we no longer play wargames, rather we tell war stories.