Can War be a Game?

An article in Monday's Providence (Rhode Island) Journal describes the anger felt by members of the Nipmuc and Mashpee Wampanoag tribes regarding the forthcoming Multiman Publishing game, King Philip's War. King Philip's War (also known as Metacom's War) was a series of battles between English colonists and a group of Native American tribes during 1675-1676. "King Philip" was the nickname given to the leader of the Native American tribes.

I know that I'm not alone among wargamers in that (more than once) I've been a little embarrassed describing my hobby to non-gamers. Most non-wargamers are used to games being about making money, searching for treasure, building cities or traveling across the globe. In short, any violence (such as that found in Clue or Risk) is very abstract and/or cartoonish.

For most folks, games are either tests of abstract thinking skills with little or no theme (such as in chess) or a thematic means of escape (such as in Monopoly). Wargames are not abstract -- they clearly have a theme. But it's hard for most people to understand how a theme based upon death and destruction might provide escape for anyone other than a psychopath. I don't think that I'm a psychopath, but I do understand the confusion they have.

So, what is the appeal of wargaming? I've met a few wargamers over the years who don't notice the theme -- and view wargames as very complex versions of chess. But 99% of the wargamers I've met (in person and online) have two things in common: (1) they enjoy history, and (2) they enjoy thinking about how different decisions might have caused events to unfold differently. Thus, most wargamers enjoy wargames (such as GMT's Here I Stand) and other games ( such as Fantasy Flight's Twilight Imperium) that combine the battles with diplomacy, research and resource management.

Wars and battles have always made for fascinating turning points in history. So it's natural that history buffs often become wargamers (and visa versa). A good historical boardgame (as some wargamers prefer to call them, in large part, I suppose, because it sounds less violent) can take you back -- or even better, put you in the role of Lincoln, Grant or Lee during the American Civil War; Henry VIII, Charles V or Martin Luther during the Reformation; or Ike, Patton or (yes, even) Hitler during World War II. Facing the decisions they faced doesn't force you to share their beliefs. (I find it amusing that my son Andrew loves his Jesuit high school, yet enjoys playing the Protestants in Here I Stand.)

So what do I think of the unhappy Native American tribes? I think much of their confusion sits in the convential use of the word "game." In normal usage, a "game" is trivial. A game depicting King Philip's War might be understood to trivialize an important time in their histories. My guess is, however, that the "game" will introduce several hundred people to that important time, and (far from trivilizing their tribes) it will generate new-found respect. But I understand their confusion -- I sometimes feel it myself.