I’m with you, Valerie, although my reaction to wargames is somewhat different.  I just find the theme to be totally boring.  I don’t mind conflict at all and games with battles are fine as long as there are other elements, like negotiation, economics, or technology advances.  But a straight wargame has no appeal to me.  I’m not sure why that is.  I do know that while I enjoy history, I the details of battles is of no interest; it’s the politics, leaders, and the way people live that’s interesting.  So at least I’m consistent.

"So if refusing to play a game is going to create drama, I will paste on a smile and play whatever game is put in front of me.”

I’m assuming you mean that the people you normally game with would never try to get you to play something truly offensive to your core beleifs. 

Though this rarely happens if you game with good friends, I think it’s perfectly fine to quietly pass on a game that would make you feel uncomfortable. It’s supposed to be fun, after all.

So how does Magic fit into your world view?

Valerie,

I can play games that send Roman Legions in to do mock battle and then pillage and plunder.  But pointing a pistol at someone else in the manner of Cash N’Guns, just doesn’t seem right to me for whatever reason.  I just don’t see it has an appropriate way to subtly glorify drugs & sex and then overtly glorify pointing a weapon at someone… the way that game does.

However, I have no problem pointing a paint ball gun at someone and blasting away, ... so maybe it it is just the specific “cocktail of corruption” that Cash N’Guns represents.  I think it sounds like a blast (no pun intended) to play by all accounts… by I would not buy it, own it or play it personally.

Bolide is an interesting beast. But...I almost prefer the Eggertspiel Tacara game. The big change in Tacara is the most brutal one. Turn order is randomized. That makes passing more likely--along with the likelihood of getting viciously cut off.

Interesting discussion.

Me, I’m not sure where I fall.  I grew up in western PA, where your hunting buddies were damn near family, and the first day of deer season was a school holiday.  I had no problem with that.  I’d come home from school, change clothes, grab the shotgun, and take the dogs out to get dinner for the evening.  That was our way of life when I was young.

Now?  I don’t hunt at all.  Haven’t even fired a gun in 16 years.  Not that I have any moral objection to it, I just live in Oklahoma.  The terrain is different.  The plants, trees, insects, and wildlife is different.  It’s all foreign to me, and it’s just not the same.  I have no desire at all to go out in the Oklahoma wilderness.  Take me back to PA, though, and I’ll be eager to spend hour upon hour just sitting out in the wilderness.

But that’s hunting.  Violence against other people, I’m totally not a fan of, at all.  No way, no how.

But fantasy...sure.  I’ll play Virtua Cop 1 and 2 on my Sega Saturn video game system all day long.  That doesn’t bother me.  I’ll sit in front of my PC and snipe terrorists all night in Counter Strike.  No problem.  However, I have never seen the appeal of video games that glorify the violence, like Mortal Kombat (although that may just be due to a lack of real gameplay in the game) or Time Killers.  Violence for the sake of violence doesn’t work for me.

When it comes to movies, again, it’s an interesting situation.  I’ll watch zombie flicks and other horror movies until the bulb on the projector burns out.  Action films are also usually just fine.  But Saw and Hostel, that seemingly exist simply to push the limits of decency?  No thanks.  (OTOH, Se7en is one of my favorite movies of all time....but there’s more to that story than just a celebration of violence and human suffering)

I’ll play Ca$h ‘n Gun$ with my crew until the wee hours of the morning.  Last night we played TI3, and I will occasional enjoy a game from the Commands and Colors series.  I’ll gladly play a game of Doom or Descent, too.  However, I draw the line at games like Kablamo.  Sure, they may be great gameplay there (given what I’ve read, there isn’t)...but the theme offends me so much that I’ll never even think about playing that game.  It’s just not funny, and it seems “humor” is what the designer/publisher was going for. 

Should I be offended by Ca$h ‘n Gun$?  Yeah, probably.  After all, that depicts handling of firearms that is just as irresponsible as Kablamo.  But for some reason, in my head, there’s a difference.  Maybe it’s the theme surrounding Ca$h ‘n GunS that makes everything OK.  After all, Ca$h ‘n Gun$ (I’m really getting sick of typing that) is a cartoon version of The Reservoir Dogs, with characters take multiple hits, having special powers, etc.  There’s also some decent gameplay, with bluffing, a “werewolf” aspect, and a little bit of strategy.  As far as I know, in Kablamo, everyone is just normal person, taking a chance at blowing their own head off, with so much randomness and chaos that it is incredibly difficult to predict if/when you’re going down.  And that’s a little too close to what is possible in the real world, anyplace there is a person and a gun.

Anyway, interesting topic.  Thanks for bringing it up, Val.

My own moral ambiguity lies in refusing to play or endorse video games with gun-centric themes, but I’m perfectly happy to play a light wargame (Risk/Nexus Ops, etc...)

While I haven’t yet played Cash ‘n Guns, if it is anything like I’m the Boss but with a dash of big foam guns in it, I’m probably just fine.  Theres something cathartic about playing a more structured version of childhood cops and robbers…

"However, I have never seen the appeal of video games that glorify the violence, like Mortal Kombat (although that may just be due to a lack of real gameplay in the game) or Time Killers.”

Time Killers had appeal?  When did that happen?

Valerie,

I’m curious - how do you feel about Tigris and Euphrates? I love conflict in games, light wargames, and take-that type elements, but I would want to be sensitive to someone who would be offended by violence in a boardgame.

>>>I won’t play Cash and Guns because I have no interest in pointing a gun at another human being--fake or not.

Even during a Tikal final ? :-)

Wow!  Thanks everyone for the comments!  I’ll start with a quick update--this afternoon I had a kill free game of Dungeon Twister, but not for lack of trying! 

Jeff A. I get teased (with love, of course) for my stance on war games--especially since my husband has drifted ever farther to the dark side.  No one who knows me expects me to play something that I find truly offensive (like...Nuclear War), but they also don’t want to exclude me when they are getting together for a day of gaming that will include blood shed.  I have decided that I’d rather play Descent than stay at home alone while my friends get together to play without me, and they know that.

Jeff W.  I was a Magic the Gathering junkie.  I have to admit that my position on killing games has solidified in the years since I played M:tG habitually.  I also find that a fantasy theme (such as BattleLore) seems to soften the edge for me, just as cubes instead of army men seems acceptable.  I fully accept that my preferences are not entirely rational.

Jon.  For the record, while I don’t personally choose to try hunting, I have absolutely no issue with hunting guns when they are used to obtain food.  I find that hunters often have an enormous respect for wildlife and they are more considerate of nature than most people.  I also recognize the right that people have (in the US, anyway) to own guns for protection, but I am saddened by the number of those guns that are accidentally fired or misused to commit violence.  As for violence in movies, I also enjoy action flicks, but I can’t stomach torture scenes.  I’m a huge kung fu movie fan and I am dazzled by a well choreographed fight scene.  I just don’t find anything elegant about a gun battle.

Scott, I looooooooove T & E.  I have no problem with take that elements and conflict and any “attacking” in Tigris is so abstracted that I don’t think of it as a war game.  To be clear, I don’t dislike conflict in games.  I don’t worry about another player picking on me or targeting me or being out to get me.  I can take care of myself and hold my own!  The issue I have is with a theme that really focuses on the taking of human lives.  Of course I think that it’s important to understand history and I know that historical simulations can be a great way to explore that.  But I’d rather do that with solace and respect.  I don’t ever want to get so caught up in a game that I shout with glee over a conquest that actually mimics lives lost--lives that could have been my grandparents or your great-grandparents or his ancestors or her relatives.  Do I think that I’m being disrespectful of anything real when I destroy a lava leaper in Nexus Ops?  Of course not.  But many little boys in our country have considered it “no big deal” when they tortured the cat in the alley--later growing up (or at least more likely to according to research and statistics) to abuse their wives and children.  In general, I think it’s important to remember that making light of violence can have serious consequences.  I’d rather lead a gentle life.

Peter, with one exception.  I have been in a Tikal final at some tournament somewhere (cough...WBC) where I might have resorted to violence if someone had handed me an object of deadly force.  I’m only human! :)

Please know that I don’t begrudge anyone else their game preferences.  Tyler plays my kind of games a lot for my sake and I am happy to spend a weekend playing his favorites with him.  Thanks again to Dale for having us down--we had a really great time.  Just as some people don’t like conflict games because they can’t separate the game from the real interpersonal relationships, I don’t like games with killing because I can’t turn off the discomfort that I get from the make-believe violence.  And I don’t want to.  One of the things that drew me to the German boardgame market is their wealth of themes other than war.

I agree that a little bit of abstraction can go a long way.  And not just where violence is concerned.  Do people have the same sort of stance on slavery?  In other words, if Martin Wallace hadn’t been smart enough to avoid specifying a pre-Civil War range of dates for Age of Steam, would we just say that those railroad tracks are being built by “colonists” and leave it at that?  (Hell, I would...I’m not trying to upset the apple cart, here.)

Valerie, I respect your stance and appreciate that you don’t push it on others.  I guess I would consider myself very liberal, however, I also have enormous respect for our military, past and present.  I just happen to think we should use them as a last resort, but I’m not so liberal to think we don’t need them at all. 

However, when I read opinions such as yours (and it’s not an unusual one) I can’t get past a few things (I have no intention of changing your mind, I’m just explaining why I have a hard time understanding this point of view):

1) They are just cardboard counters on a table.  No one is really being hurt.  I know you’re an intelligent person and you know this full well but there it is.

2) If the game retained the same rules and mechanics, yet swapped out the rule book and art to be about growing a flower garden, it would be the same game with different labels, yet more acceptable for some reason.  You’d say “I sprayed your weed” instead of “I took out your tank”.  Do you think you’d be more interested in Cash and Guns if it had no theme and just involved pointing fingers at each other, or writing down another players’ name?  (I haven’t played the game; I have heard it’s fun).  I guess I can’t get past “It’s a piece of cardboard with a label on it - why is it upsetting?”

3) For wargames based on historical battles, these events really happened, a very long time ago.  Re-creating them on a tabletop doesn’t change the outcome and can even help one better understand what happened.  From a historical standpoint, it can be interesting to try a different tactic to try and correct mistakes that cost lives.  Or by winning your fictional battle, the entire war might be shortened, saving many lives.  Such is the crazy logic of warfare.  Battles and wars shouldn’t be the only focus of history, but I kind of find ignoring them to be a little disrespectful.  Just as I don’t much care for religion, yet I understand that religion is an integral part of our history and needs to be examined.  I wouldn’t refuse a game because I have to build a church. 

Again, I don’t mean to attack (it’s difficult to get tone across in a forum and I promise you’re my favorite columnist!) but even as a liberal who would love to see fewer real-life guns and real-life wars, I suppose I just have a hard time understanding this particular viewpoint.  I appreciate the opportunity to exchange opinions!

Valerie: “I’m a huge kung fu movie fan and I am dazzled by a well choreographed fight scene.  I just don’t find anything elegant about a gun battle.”

Ahhh...you may need to watch Equilibrium, then.  You may very well change your mind.  It’s a dystopian future/1984/Fahrenheit 451 style setting, feature some pretty awesome gun battles.  Christian Bale plays the lead character, an expert in “gun kata"…

Experts from Wikipedia entry-

“The concept was conceived by Equilibrium writer/director Kurt Wimmer and developed by fight choreographer Jim Vickers. It involves the use of firearms (generally pistols) against nearby opponents, resulting in an athletic and visually engaging form of combat....

Gun Kata, as a martial art, places emphasis on two tenets: shooting the enemy as efficiently as possible, and avoiding return fire. Hitting targets is a matter of knowing where enemy fighters are likely to be located in relation to the user, which removes the problem of aiming (especially at close ranges), not to mention allowing the user to defeat foes with pre-emptive fire before they can present a true threat. Avoiding return fire is also a matter of statistical probability, as Gun Kata users do not rely on bullet time-style evasions, but rather on avoiding the enemy’s most likely lines of fire. In short, Gun Kata is the art of shooting where the enemy should be, while not being where the enemy should shoot. It is effective enough that the protagonist of Equilibrium, Grammaton Cleric First Class John Preston, is able to defeat more than 30 enemy stormtroopers in under a minute....

Yet another technique involves using a pistol as a normal mêlée weapon to hit the close range opponents without wasting ammunition. Since the technique is frequently used against multiple enemies equipped with firearms, the basic rules of avoiding their most likely shooting trajectories also apply, as well as hitting each enemy in a way to prevent them from shooting at all.”

Err, maybe you won’t enjoy it after all.  It is a highly violent movie, but the integration of pistols into the martial arts in that movie results in some strikingly impressive fight scenes.

Erin, I appreciate your reasoning about a game only being cardboard counters on a table, particularly since themes are often interchangeable.  However…

Would you feel the same way if the game was about the Holocaust?  Or 9/11?  What if someone in these imaginary games had to play the Germans or the terrorists, respectively?

I’m not saying you should or shouldn’t mind playing these games.  My only point is that just about all of us have a line we won’t cross when it comes to themes.  I, personally, have no problem with games that deal with slavery in an historical context (it did happen and understanding the reasons for it are important), and yet I won’t play a game like Lunch Money.  Themes do matter, even when they’re pasted on.

Erin, there was nothing confrontational about your post!  I very much enjoy a discussion of important issues and I think it’s very important to hear differing view points.  Thank you for your comments.  For me, I think that the most important line that I am trying not to cross is the gleefulness at successfully killing an opponent that represents real lives lost.  Since I don’t intend to pause for a moment of silence after each conquest in a game, I’d really rather just play a game with a different theme.  Actually, you joke about changing the theme and in fact when I do play war games I prefer to joke that we’re doing a simulation with paintball guns.  Or that the pilot in your plane that I just blew up safely parachuted to the ground.  I’m just trying not to become desensitized to the realities of warfare.

Jon, one of Tyler’s favorite films is Hard Boiled with one of my favorite actors of all time, Chow Yun Fat.  Tyler wanted to watch it again the other day in preparation for the sequel (which is coming in videogame format).  I just couldn’t get past all the guns--especially the number of innocent bystanders that were shot in the fight scenes.  Ah well--I’m sure I’m missing some excellent cinema as a result of my choices.

Just curious, but how is Nuclear War offensive?  It’s anti-nuke satire.

Valerie,

I’m not sure you knew this, but the original thematic design of Risk was that the soldiers would conquer each other’s countries based on the outcome of disco dance-offs.  So you can play Risk with impunity knowing that they aren’t actually shooting each other.

True story.  ;)

- Schaef

Some very good comments on this thread so far - this subject clearly resonates with many.  My own personal standpoint is that wargames involving conflict between two or more armed entities are fine - it’s a historical simulation, not a glorified killing spree.

But asking me, as someone whose family suffered through the Hamburg bombing and subsequent firestorm, to sit down and play an enjoyable game of Duel in the Dark is a nonstarter.  I can’t get past the concept of deliberately targetting noncombatants; the fact that I have a personal connection to the events in question just makes it that much harder to take.

I don’t think it’s possible to get away from the fact that everyone, regardless of their political and moral standpoints, will have some themes that they find objectionable - usually strongly coloured by their own personal / family experiences.  For some, war may be over the line.  For others, slavery or genocide might make the cut.  For another, misogyny or racism might be the bridge too far.  I think this is a good thing - if anything and everything goes, then we’re in a pretty sad place ethically and morally.

I guess the bottom line for me is that I’m pleased to no end that there’s such a wealth of great gaming out there - it makes finding a consensus choice that all can enjoy that much easier.

pk

I commend everyone for their sensitivity and intelligent comments on a subject that could easily get too emotionally-charged.

After all, our emotional connectedness to each other and to our experiences is one of the things that makes us human. 

I concur with Patrick in that it would be difficult for me to play a game about bombing German cities, especially after a recent trip to see friends in Dresden, people who still bear the scars of that horrific and unnecessary fire-bombing at the end of the war, while the city was overcrowded with civilian refugees.

And even though I have heard good things about Memoir ‘44, I have never felt comfortable playing it after seeing films like “Saving Private Ryan” and visiting the vast Normandy cemetery myself. 

For me, reading about the events, visiting these places, meeting the people and hearing their stories is the best way to honor them.  I am just not able to reduce these people and experiences down to cardboard chits on a hex board.  And I cannot ignore the intended theme of a game.

If theme didn’t matter, we would only be playing abstracts. 

P.S. For some good cinema, Valerie, try “Merry Christmas,” the true story of a Christmas cease-fire on the western front of World War II, in which the soldiers from both sides celebrated Christmas together, and, after seeing their “enemy’s” faces, refused to fight each other the next day. It’s beautiful filmed with German, French and British actors in multiple languages.