Building a Gaming Group. Network externalities in wargaming.

[EccentricCircle]

This has come up a lot in the discussion surrounding the Old World announcement, and its something i've been thinking about a lot recently in general. So lets see where the discussion takes us. Clearly barriers to being able to play the games you love can be a touchy subject, so lets keep this as a productive discussion of how to build bigger groups, and expand ones gaming network, rather than complaints about how one can't.

What am I even talking about?

I'm glad you asked!

Put simply: The value of a game is greater the more people play it.

All wargames are by definition social games, in order to play them one generally needs at least one other player, and the bigger the group the better in many ways. This concept is basically at the heart of social media and communications technology, but is very relevant to gaming. I first came across the concept of "Network Externalities" when reading about D&D groups, and some of the decisions that led to D&D being made open source. However its a much larger issue for wargames in my experience.

Many factors affect how pleasant it is to play a game, including quality of the experience, the availability of the materials and the accessibility of the ruleset. But possibly the most important is how many people there are to play it against. This is one reason that Games Workshop are so powerful as the market leader. They have the ability to push their games further than anyone else, and because they are the household name, a very large community exists to play warhammer.

However this also means that a large factor in controlling the quality of the player experience is out of the publishers control. The community around a game is very fragile to shocks such as edition changes, and competitors. If lots of people stop playing it, then it can be tricky to keep the game going.

Retrogaming is definitely a thing. Its often pointed out that GW can't come into your house and burn your old rulebooks, and you are still free to play any edition of the game you can lay your hands on. However that isn't quite true, since you still need to be able to get enough friends together to actually do it, and building that sort of retrogaming community takes time and effort, which not everyone will be willing to put in. The success of the Oldhammer movement shows that its certainly possible. The internet makes it easier than ever before to find and talk to people with minority tastes, but unlike some games you do need to physically meet in order to play warhammer (mostly).

I feel like Retrogaming is much easier in RPG communities, you just need the GM to be fluent in whatever game you're going to play, and generally that is the GMs decision to make, so they can pick their favourite, even if its not the standard. For wargaming playing anything which isn't the current version of the game always seems much more challenging.

Then there is competition from other systems. I have trouble getting Age of Sigmar games together at all. I know quite a few wargamers, and have fun gaming with them. However each is a fan of a different system for the most part. I know one guy who only really plays frostgrave and its related games, another who is massively in to Star Wars Legion. I have a few friends who play 40K, but some prefer the main game, others Killteam, or Blackstone Fortress, and theres one chap who only plays 30K. This means that while we, in theory have a fairly solid gaming group, we can't really agree on what to play. Everyone has their favourite system, most and are willing to compromise to one or more adjacent ones. However that generally means playing 40K. I sometimes feel like I'm the only one who will compromise, but that means that we never play my favourite, since AoS isn't on anyone else's radar.

Part of the problem is minis. Everyone wants to use their own lovingly painted armies, and that means that they have a preference for the game they painted them for, and are willing to compromise to compatible play styles that use the same figures. No one has an Age of Sigmar army in my group, and few want to borrow one of mine when they could instead be playing a game they've invested in. (A few have WFB armies, but no interest in figuring out how to play them in Age of Sigmar, despite my assurances that bases etc really aren't a big deal, and if they are worried about a dispossessed army not having rulebook suppor then I can just use my tomb kings etc.)

Frostgrave actually works better than anything by GW in this respect since it doesn't require specific models. You can play it with anything, so long as its vaguely fantasy looking. By making Age of Sigmar very specific, they've arguably shot themselves in the foot a bit, because you need the exact models to play it (in theory). Games workshop can do this, while frostgrave can't, because being the market leader they have enough network externality that their games don't need to be universal.

So what is the solution? How can we keep growing our gaming networks, and make sure that we actually get to play the games we want?

I think the willingness to compromise, communicate and learn are unsurprisingly big ones, but there must be other strategies as well, and they are only going to get more and more important as the variety of games on the market grow, and the hobby becomes ever more popular.

 

[gjnoronh]

Great post. 

Don't forget Warhammer started as a rules set designed to be used with miniatures purchased by Dungeons and Dragons players.  Citadel/GW's start was supplying UK D and D players with miniatures.  Eventually someone said people have these huge collections lets throw in some rules they can use for massed battles in our catalog.     Early 40K and WFB had rules for build your own vehicles out of things like deoderant cannisters and paper models (in the boxed set!) for larger monsters as well as the assumption all terrain would be player built.    

A launching system often tries to boot strap with minimal impediments to new players  'you can use your existing toys' i.e. Kings of War and then hopes folks develop enough loyalty to the system they want to buy miniatures designed with the system in mind.    That's how Warhammer developed as a gaming system.

 I think the most important thing is indeed the value of knowing "I can find a game once I invest in these models"

GW I think was stronger in my region of the US in past editions then it is now.  AoS is better then 8th in those terms but it's still not as strong as it was in say 6th/7th in the areas I have lived in the last 20 years.

Best thing we can do is play publicly. Don't just play in our basements - play in our Friendly Local Gaming Stores and invite interested new gamers to join us.   Get a core group of 4-6  whom you know you can make it and run a one day tournament open to all comers in your local store.

 

 

[WeAreTheNEON]

Narrative events can be a great opportunity to attract players that might not otherwise jump into the game. Many miniature gamers know getting into another game involves learning a new meta in addition to new rules along with collecting models. But a casual narrative event can give players a chance to take the rules out for a spin and with models they already like to put on the table but counts-as AoS models/units.

And a narrative event can be as simple as just one round of games or a day of games. And players don't need to worry about knowing the game well enough to win, but it's more interesting than running "demo games" because you can provide a narrative hook that can grab attention of those who might know nothing about the setting or system.

It may not get everyone involved excited about starting AoS armies and joining you in a campaign, but it may get at least one player in your group to develop some interest in AoS.

Edited November 18, 2019 by WeAreTheNEON

[Moldek]

For now I have approached the problem from a different standpoint:

-I spend a lot of time painting, converting, making terrain. I want to be able to share that with people I already know and like, instead of investing the time to find and build a relationship with other players. So I have started converting my friends and family. Warcry has been a godsend for that, and I also find that « newbies » have much less preconceptions about the game compared to people already used to tournaments and such. I would like to eventually try to meet gaming groups near me but for now I get to build a narrative with those close to me, and I think that’s pretty cool.

-thanks to the internet I have also started connecting with other people that have the kind of vision of the hobby that I like (aos28 / narrative / hobby focused), and I am startibg to reach out and see if I get along with some of them. Just this weekend I flew to another country to meet a fellow hobbyist, and we played through a short and messy warcry mini-campaign. I had built a warband just for this occasion, and it was very rewarding! In the next couple of years I’d like to try to organize a bigger event and have a 1-2 day thing, with tailor made terrain, warbands and scenarios.

I know this is a bit off topic compared to your starting point @EccentricCircle , but for now it feels easier to me to start with a shared connexion and bring in the game, rather than start with the game and try to build the connexion, if that makes sense

Edited November 19, 2019 by Moldek

[EccentricCircle]

10 hours ago, Moldek said:

For now I have approached the problem from a different standpoint:

-I spend a lot of time painting, converting, making terrain. I want to be able to share that with people I already know and like, instead of investing the time to find and build a relationship with other players. So I have started converting my friends and family. Warcry has been a godsend for that, and I also find that « newbies » have much less preconceptions about the game compared to people already used to tournaments and such. I would like to eventually try to meet gaming groups near me but for now I get to build a narrative with those close to me, and I think that’s pretty cool.

-thanks to the internet I have also started connecting with other people that have the kind of vision of the hobby that I like (aos28 / narrative / hobby focused), and I am startibg to reach out and see if I get along with some of them. Just this weekend I flew to another country to meet a fellow hobbyist, and we played through a short and messy warcry mini-campaign. I had built a warband just for this occasion, and it was very rewarding! In the next couple of years I’d like to try to organize a bigger event and have a 1-2 day thing, with tailor made terrain, warbands and scenarios.

I know this is a bit off topic compared to your starting point @EccentricCircle , but for now it feels easier to me to start with a shared connexion and bring in the game, rather than start with the game and try to build the connexion, if that makes sense

That's and interesting take, and I definitely agree that building a group from people you already get along with can be less stressful than finding people who already play the game. I am partially sighted, so have never found "pick up games" at clubs of stores to be much fun. Even if the lighting is good enough for me to be able to play at all, I'll still have to start by explaining my disabilities to complete strangers, and hope that they accept that things are going to take longer, and that I'm not going to be able to read dice rolls from across the table, or necessarily recognise which units are which without going and looking. Its much more enjoyable to go into the game with people who know that to start with.

 

Gjnoronh: I've always found the cyclical nature of the Hobby's origins to be fascinating. D&D evolves out of historical wargaming via Chainmail, and then warhammer evolves out of Citadel Miniatures, many intended for D&D. Plus you have Fighting Fantasy books thrown into the mix as well, effectively three completely different genres of gaming all coming out of that early RP boom.

 

[gjnoronh]

3 hours ago, EccentricCircle said:

That's and interesting take, and I definitely agree that building a group from people you already get along with can be less stressful than finding people who already play the game. I am partially sighted, so have never found "pick up games" at clubs of stores to be much fun. Even if the lighting is good enough for me to be able to play at all, I'll still have to start by explaining my disabilities to complete strangers, and hope that they accept that things are going to take longer, and that I'm not going to be able to read dice rolls from across the table, or necessarily recognise which units are which without going and looking. Its much more enjoyable to go into the game with people who know that to start with.

 

Gjnoronh: I've always found the cyclical nature of the Hobby's origins to be fascinating. D&D evolves out of historical wargaming via Chainmail, and then warhammer evolves out of Citadel Miniatures, many intended for D&D. Plus you have Fighting Fantasy books thrown into the mix as well, effectively three completely different genres of gaming all coming out of that early RP boom.

 

Yeah it's pretty amazing tracking through the history and of course D and D (and Warhammer Fantasy) owe a great deal to Papa Tolkien.

It's a bit generational because I'm older but it amazes me when I meet an AoS gamer who hasn't read Tolkien as I think he's the underlying foundation of all modern Fantasy literature and gaming.  

[EccentricCircle]

19 minutes ago, gjnoronh said:

Yeah it's pretty amazing tracking through the history and of course D and D (and Warhammer Fantasy) owe a great deal to Papa Tolkien.

It's a bit generational because I'm older but it amazes me when I meet an AoS gamer who hasn't read Tolkien as I think he's the underlying foundation of all modern Fantasy literature and gaming.  

For sure, the lord of the rings casts a huge shadow over the entire fantasy genre. That said its interesting that a lot of Gygax's inspiration with D&D seems to have come from older pulp writers like Robert E. Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, and C.L. Moore. Some of the stuff I've read suggests that he put the Tolkien stuff in because he knew it was going to be popular, but that earlier generation of fantasy writers are the ones to look to as the foundation of fantasy gaming. Warhammer also draws a lot of inspiration from the sort of fantasy counterculture of writers like Michael Moorcock, so I think that if you really want to understand the literary foundation of warhammer, you both need to read Tolkien, and read beyond Tolkien! (This is all massively off topic, of course, maybe there should be some sort of Fantasy Book club thread to track where all our favourity high fantasy tropes come from!)

[Moldek]

Another thread on a similar subject, with a great writeup by @Overread :

 

 

[EccentricCircle]

I guess the main question for debate is: Do multiple competing game systems have to be a zero sum game?

I feel like they really shouldn't. The more people playing in total, the more chance there should be for any given game to get more players. However people are rightly fearing that everyone only has so much time, money and energy to spend on a given game, and the more games their attention is split between, the less they are going to be able to play any one of them.

This is clearly an issue that is causing a lot of concern, but there must be ways to ensure that everyone gets to play the games they want to, even if it is as simple as taking note of what the favourite games of your gaming friends are, and being willing to compromise, and play them from time to time, even if they are not your favourite. If one person is always the one compromising, then that's less fun for them, and they are more likely to drop out of the club. If everyone plays their favourite game some of the time, and is willing to try everyone else's favourites, then that has to be healthier in the long run!

[Overread]

10 minutes ago, EccentricCircle said:

I guess the main question for debate is: Do multiple competing game systems have to be a zero sum game?

I feel like they really shouldn't. The more people playing in total, the more chance there should be for any given game to get more players. However people are rightly fearing that everyone only has so much time, money and energy to spend on a given game, and the more games their attention is split between, the less they are going to be able to play any one of them.

The problem is limited population. 

If people view their local club as X number of members only and see little to now growth and don't put efforts in (or don't know how too) then any game or thing that might cause that number to reduce is a bad thing. Even if that's a brand new really good game it can appear to be bad because its taking away from X. 

In my thread linked above I wanted to focus away from that and focus on growth of the club. If the group can get into a position where its recruiting members and getting results then new games appearing isn't as much of a threat because the new game is just another game being played at the club. It matters less if 10 people go off to play Old World for a few weeks when you're getting 2 or three new people into AoS every week.

Plus if you can grow the group to a large functional number then you eventually reach a point where you're over a threshold to keep a game active. If you've got 50 members and 20 play AoS then it doesn't matter if some leave to play Old World and others leave to "real life" because you've still got a viable pool of players left to keep it going. The key is active members and growth; everything else is just a symptom of small populations. 

[EccentricCircle]

24 minutes ago, Overread said:

The problem is limited population. 

If people view their local club as X number of members only and see little to now growth and don't put efforts in (or don't know how too) then any game or thing that might cause that number to reduce is a bad thing. Even if that's a brand new really good game it can appear to be bad because its taking away from X. 

In my thread linked above I wanted to focus away from that and focus on growth of the club. If the group can get into a position where its recruiting members and getting results then new games appearing isn't as much of a threat because the new game is just another game being played at the club. It matters less if 10 people go off to play Old World for a few weeks when you're getting 2 or three new people into AoS every week.

Plus if you can grow the group to a large functional number then you eventually reach a point where you're over a threshold to keep a game active. If you've got 50 members and 20 play AoS then it doesn't matter if some leave to play Old World and others leave to "real life" because you've still got a viable pool of players left to keep it going. The key is active members and growth; everything else is just a symptom of small populations. 

I entirely agree. If a new system increases the numebr of people participating in the hobby as a whole, then that has major advantages for everyone, regardless of what system they are playing. The problem can be when a group wants to brand itself as an Age of Sigmar group (or a 40K group or whatever).

[Overread]

Just now, EccentricCircle said:

I entirely agree. If a new system increases the numebr of people participating in the hobby as a whole, then that has major advantages for everyone, regardless of what system they are playing. The problem can be when a group wants to brand itself as an Age of Sigmar group (or a 40K group or whatever).

Exactly and whilst many groups might start out like that it can break things down. I'm equally not always happy that historical and fantasy/scifi are often separate club wise (not always of course). If your club only plays one game then its at a much higher risk even from casual passing interests. It can also end up getting complicated if youv'e too many small groups like that in an area because game nights will start to clash. This can mean that people end up leaving for the "more popular game" which as it becomes "the popular game" then acts like a self perpetuating cycle - the other clubs get smaller so they don't take on as many people and the popular club gets bigger and because its bigger it gets more people. 

Catch- all clubs are far more resilient to that because if people leave one game to go to another they are still coming on club night to the same place and the same social group. It becomes far more possible to play two or three different games without having to go any where different and if one game gets popular for a while those people who leave one to go to the other are still right there to get easily drawn back. 

 

It's much easier to spark a revivale with a tournament or such one weekend than it is if everyone has run off to separate clubs. 

[EccentricCircle]

7 minutes ago, Overread said:

Exactly and whilst many groups might start out like that it can break things down. I'm equally not always happy that historical and fantasy/scifi are often separate club wise (not always of course). If your club only plays one game then its at a much higher risk even from casual passing interests. It can also end up getting complicated if youv'e too many small groups like that in an area because game nights will start to clash. This can mean that people end up leaving for the "more popular game" which as it becomes "the popular game" then acts like a self perpetuating cycle - the other clubs get smaller so they don't take on as many people and the popular club gets bigger and because its bigger it gets more people. 

Catch- all clubs are far more resilient to that because if people leave one game to go to another they are still coming on club night to the same place and the same social group. It becomes far more possible to play two or three different games without having to go any where different and if one game gets popular for a while those people who leave one to go to the other are still right there to get easily drawn back. 

 

It's much easier to spark a revivale with a tournament or such one weekend than it is if everyone has run off to separate clubs. 

Definitely. If you have people sharing a space, and watching each other's games it makes it easier to cross promote one system to players who might otherwise want to stick to the one they play.

One major challenge in my mind is that people always want to use their own minis. I know a lot of gamers who only, or mainly have 40K figures, so for them the idea of playing AoS isn't worth the effort. In theory all of GW's fantasy based games interact, but unless you are a Daemon player the rift between fantasy of whichever stripe, and 40K seems to be the gulf that's hardest to cross.

[Overread]

True, but that's a lot easier to break today than in the past. With Warcry, Killteam, Underworlds etc.. you can far more easily tempt people in with a smaller side game. GW has really focused on this aspect of their games and it was a big weakness of the Old World system that you needed big armies to get to the part where the game was fun and worked (500 point games would work but were often far less exciting with less going on and less to do - a box of models in Warcry though is fast and dynamic and far more engaging and balanced pretty well) 

[gjnoronh]

2 hours ago, Overread said:

True, but that's a lot easier to break today than in the past. With Warcry, Killteam, Underworlds etc.. you can far more easily tempt people in with a smaller side game. GW has really focused on this aspect of their games and it was a big weakness of the Old World system that you needed big armies to get to the part where the game was fun and worked (500 point games would work but were often far less exciting with less going on and less to do - a box of models in Warcry though is fast and dynamic and far more engaging and balanced pretty well) 

Agree with this and something I think gamers who are into AoS heavily should keep in mind - play the small skirmish type games as well when you come to the stores- particularly underworlds where a fast game might take 15-30 minutes.   Low barrier for entry for new gamers and acts as the gateway game to the larger world.

 

 

[Moldek]

I think there’s often a problem of expectations. Like people that are heavily invested in competitive play mostly want that, they don’t want to play « broken » skirmish or « lopsided » games to get people interested. 

I guess in a way I’m kind of the same. Like recently I took a trip to another country to play with a guy who I knew liked the same type of narrative gaming that I do, and who’s painting and modelling I admired. I did try a pick up game at my local store but I didn’t fully enjoy it, because my opponent didn’t really engage in the game the same way I did. I wasn’t that interested in trying to convert him to aos28 or whatever.

there’s probably a personality type of « ambassadors » who enjoy recruiting new people and such. I’d like to get a bit better at that, but that’s a lot of time and effort I’d rather spend on converting models or building terrain, in the same way that competitive types would rather be fine tuning their lists and tactics. And that’s ok as long as you don’t turn around and complain that you have no one to play with 😅

[AGPO]

The flip side of this is that toxic behaviours and gatekeeping can quickly ruin the hobby community in an area. I've seen a handful of "That Guys" quickly devestate a community because when busy people have to make a choice what to do with their free time, not having to deal with anti-social behaviour can be a deciding factor. This in turn means the remaining players are more likely to have to deal with the problem player on any given night rather than a well adjusted person with diverse interests. The negative network externalities quickly lead to downward multipliers which drive people out of hobbies.

Happily as the TTRPG community has shown in recent times, the reverse can also be true. Positive examples of diverse, well adjusted groups of players have led to people being more confident and open with their hobby and shown it's fun and accessible for everyone. Perhaps because of the more competitive nature of a lot of clubs and the fact that many people tend to start at public clubs rather than home games, wargaming still lags behind on this front.

[Overread]

Actually I think one way wargaming might have lagged is because GW was terrified of the internet. They tried forums and, whilst I wasn't there, I heard it basically ended in a massive flaming mess. It seemed that after that GW washed their hands of the "community" at least from head office level. They actually reined in a lot of their community out reach from the top; so whilst they had stores on the streets they weren't marketing very well at all. Heck back in the dark days rumours were the only hints we'd get of anything getting released and you watched the GW website like a hawk to see if anything changed. The only heads up was in White Dwarf. 

 

At the same time Magic the gathering, RPG games and such were all starting to boom. Esports, TV shows featuring Geeks, social media etc... A lot of the other companies were jumping on various band wagons - Privateer Press was well on their way on the competitive scene etc.... Then we had a bit of change. GW shifted gears fully in marketing and are now outreaching at an insane rate; they've got back into a lot of the areas they'd dropped though they still seem to want to avoid the competitive "sports" side of things. At the same time Privateer Press hit an iceburg and has been floundering for a while - its not dead but the loss of the PG system and the shift to 3rd edition has sort of left them with a highly competitive population that isn't growing. For all the work they've put into their game system they've managed to sap some of the creative fun out of it I think and the competitive focus and fact that many remaining groups are the competitive end means that newbies have a harder time- harder still now that the PG system fell apart. 

I think the other aspect is that whilst wargaming is very social when you play, it also features a lot of building and painting which is quite solo focused. Even though most GW stores have a building and painting station; many still prefer to build and paint at home and many clubs don't do any build/paint at all save on specifically organised nights. 

 

In contrast many RPG and card games pretty much everything happens person to person - though there is some prep for both outside. However I'd say the "overt" side of it is very social whilst for wargaming the overt side (the side people see and think of) is still quite single person. 

[EccentricCircle]

For a lot of RPGs, the DM's job involves many of the same stuff that wargaming does. You often source, build and paint miniatures, read stats in the books, and prepare battles and scenery, often in far more detail than either player would need to for a game of warhammer. However its true that for a player, once you have built your character there is less to do away from the gaming table.

One big difference for RPGs, as has been discussed earlier, is that they often take the form of a toolbox, that presents lots of ideas and options for the players to use however they like. Even games that are very much tied to a setting can quite easily be adapted to different worlds and ideas, and you are actively encouraged to create your own character, world and story, rather than using preexisting stuff. This is almost completely contrary to the way GW games work, with a very tight focus on using GW rules and GW models, to play a game in GW's world, which adheres to their lore. It is certainly possible to "file the serial numbers off" and use AoS as an engine for a different setting, but you very rarely see people actually do so, and you would get a very odd look if you turned up to a store or club and said that you wanted to do a battle set in the forgotten realms rather than the mortal realms for example.

To some extent I think this comes from the way wargames are set up, but it really doesn't have to, and there are games which are far less coupled to their lore and model line than GWs are. I think that some of the appeal of the Oldhammer movement is going back to a time when you could more easily do things your own way.

[Overread]

You can do loads of stuff in wargames however you want, in creative terms you can build an army however you want the only limit is that GW stores won't let you play with a 3rd party army. AoS is even more free than the Old World in terms of the narrative and background - the thing is these things really don't come through in the game side of things for a typical game. The lore of your army is basically your own story and doesn't really affect the table unless you set out to play a narrative game. 

 

I think that the toolbox approach of RPG games works because basically you've a neutral party, the DM. The game is thus able to mould to the players and can adapt each time if need be. If everyone turns up to the game session and wants a fight with a dragon; the DM can provide that. If they want a highly competitive game or a loose rpg with less combat and more story then a good DM can provide that. Furthermore if they are up against a powerful foe and its clear that the party might lose the DM can either go with that or if the players don't really like perma-death, the DM can adapt it. Perhaps the dragon slips and falls down a pit or flies off etc... 

Wargames can't really do that because they don't have a DM and the game, even at its most casual, is built around the concept of two competing forces. There are some newer systems where there's an enemy with an "AI card system" in place which can be quite interesting; however its not something GW has really gone for at this stage and might never try (at least for their core product). 

[EccentricCircle]

Indeed. While you can actually play wargames with a GM, it isn't often the done thing. However the way the game operates is quite distinct as well. In effect a Wargame starts with basic parameters, which interact to produce unexpected results, but ultimately that complexity is temporary and after a certain point the game should become  less complex until one side wins and the other loses.  An RPG has the opposite approach, every interaction spins out a lot more possibilities and opens up the potential for more complexity down the way. The result is a far more emergent experience than anything you get in other games.

To bring this back to the topic at hand, I think that this makes it easier to pitch a "schismatic" RPG, because only one player, the GM, actually needs to have a clear idea of where things are going to go and what it is going to be about. If the players bring that sort of stuff to the table too then that is great, but they can in theory turn up with nothing but trust in the GM to deliver an engaging experience. This means that games can be very open to new players joining. There is no real buy in besides a basic willingness to learn and engage with the scenario. If you don't like the published lore then that isn't a problem, because the GM will inevitably be putting their own spin on it, and you can steer clear of the bits you aren't engaged with. As GM you have total creative freedom to run the kind of game you want, so long as your players are up for it, and continue to have fun.

For wargames there has to be much more parity of purpose. Both players have to come to the table with the same idea, and a strong setting and background helps to make it easier for them to adopt a narrative, without having to do much of the work that the GM of an RPG would do to prepare their game, or Narrative play enthusiasts pour into a custom campaign. In short the narrative is supposed to arise emergently from the interactions on the table, rather than being directed by a controlling player. Thus there cannot be as much creative freedom for players to put their own spin on things, except as you say in painting and background writing, which has minimal effect on the plot of the resulting game. I think that this is unavoidable, but it does, strictly speaking make narrative games less accessible than "kill them all" type competitive games. If you want that more narrative experience then every player has to put in that extra work, and very much buy in to the concept.

Conversely in an RPG that happens more or less by itself (so long as the GM is doing their job well, and no players are actively forcing a more hack and slash approach). There is a lot more work for the GM, but a lot less for everyone else involved.

I'm not sure precisely what we can learn from this for making wargames more accessible. Certainly a GM could be useful to teach new people to play, and being able to provide a ready army for a new gamer to use on their first go can help get them hooked without having to tell them to go off and paint a hundred soldiers first. I'd love to do a GM driven narrative campaign, but finding a group for that sort of thing is easier said than done in my experience.

[Overread]

Most introduction games are often structured rather than purely random. The opponent likely puts down models and doesn't play to their best and might well be choosing what to do based on what they can teach. They might leave out special rules at first to reinforce basic rules etc... Introduction games are often very different, depending on the experience of the person being introduced to the game. 

 

I would say that wargames have a bonus in that there is no 3rd party who has to read the intent of the game. Just as a good DM is adaptable and able to work things for the players; there are many people who are DM's who are not as skilled. They might only run games close to the book written scripts and lack the ability to diversify or adapt things on the fly to the players desires. 

[michu]

I actually think that in next GHB there should be an article "wargaming with GM". It really fits the "narrative" part of the game.